The Red Line of the T recently had a derailment which is causing all kinds of problems. The accident caused damage to the signaling for that line and is going to cause slower service for the rest of the summer. But this isn't the start of the decline of service, no, that has been happening for years.
WBUR conducted a poll that shows a majority of those polled disapprove of the way the MBTA has been managed by the Baker administration (https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/06/27/wbur-poll-mbta-transportation-baker). I hate to say I told you so, but, yeah, I'm pretty sure I did.
There are now calls for the T to not increase fares until service issues are resolved. But you can't resolve the issues the T has without increasing the funding. Yet I agree that fare increases are not the way to go. But what can we do?
How about this... how about we identify that public transportation needs to be publicly supported and needs to be considered one of the major lifebloods of our society... how about we not just identify it but we show it in how we pay for it. Instead of having the riders pay 40% of the operating costs, let's decrease that significantly and increase the general burden to those living and working in Massachusetts. This change in how we sustain the program will help shift the mentality around public transportation from something that's a luxury to something that is essential to the very fabric of our state. Instead of saying "it's a partnership between the tax payer and those other people that make use of it" we're saying "this is something we want a majority of the people who work and travel in the metropolitan area to use." The change in where we get the funding would change then change the philosophy within the administration and make it more important to improve service and reliability rather than seeing this part of our government as being a burden to reduce. Yes, we should be efficient but we should be efficient while providing this desperately needed service to our people. We should also go a step above just shifting where the money comes from and put a lot of money, not just some, into repairing and upgrading what we have.
But here's the question I pose to you now: Baker has announced that we will spend some extra money over the next few months to pay for repairs that are needed... it's far less expensive if you space these over years rather than months due to overtime and ramp-up inefficiencies. So... why didn't we start making these repairs and upgrades after the terrible winter breakdowns early in Baker's administration? Why didn't we follow through with what Baker claimed he would do, which was to fix the MBTA? Simple, he doesn't see the value of it. It all goes back to it being a partnership between us, the taxpaying drivers, and them, the commuters.
It's time to shift this understanding of what the service is that the MBTA provides. Instead of us vs them, it should be simply us. We, the residents and workers in Massachusetts, need this transportation to exist and function well. I may not need to take the T to work (right now), but that doesn't mean that it's not hugely beneficial to me to have the Greater Boston area thrive from a functioning transportation system.
It's time to start funding the MBTA and push the improvements we need, not just the extension of the Green Line but the repairs and improvements to all branches, and not just in ways that are visible to the riders but those that are felt by them as well. We need the infrastructure supporting the trains to be worked on and we need that work to be sustained. Let's do what Baker said he was going to do after his first year in office, let's finally fix the MBTA.
Dark Wind Rising
Friday, June 28, 2019
Thursday, January 17, 2019
The case for and against "not all men"
Alright, let's start off by my acknowledging that I am indeed the enemy, the evil, the oppressor, in the form of a white, cis, heterosexual, middle-class male who works for a corporation, but not just any corporation, one that works for pharmaceuticals, yes, those evil-doers that are only outclassed by companies that make weapons and cigarette companies.
Now that we've got that out of the way (and what god-awful writing that was, but what do you expect from a college dropout... yes, we're starting up by pulling out all the stops in reminding myself why I'm the Dark Wind), let's get down to business. There was a commercial that came out this week that shows men doing the right thing by standing up to other men who are behaving poorly or by stopping a fight. In response, as you can easily imagine, a small segment of the population has cried foul and, at least based on my social news feed (and the expectation of the company in question, otherwise they wouldn't have made the ad), a much larger segment of the population has cheered and told the smaller population that they can take their complaints and stick up... well, you get the idea. Some of these responses to the response to the ad (responses to the response to the... yeah, that's it) have been so keen as to avoid saying anything about how many men are responding negatively or even if it's only men that are responding negatively and instead focusing on the ridiculousness of that negativity in the face of an ad suggesting people should behave kindly and courteously and do the right thing. There are some others, however, that run something along the lines of the following:
Ads for Women: Be thin, be thick, love your body, your boobs look better in this, dye your hair, embrace your grays, these pants are slimming, be feminine, wear makeup, look natural, hide your age....
Women: K.
Gillette: Men should be less shitty.
Men: Don't tell us what to do!
My immediate reaction is to feel attacked by this and respond with "not all men" but I know that I can't respond publicly this way. That is not my place, I would be doing evil by doing so and called out as such.
A much later reaction is to point out that men also are told by ads to be thin, have no gray hairs, have some gray hair, be rugged, enjoy trucks and the outdoor, and love power tools.... but this is even easier for me to put aside because I know that this is like a puddle saying it's also wet when talking to a lake.... sure it's true but....
So, back to the "not all men" reaction... is it reasonable to not be permitted socially to have this reaction without repercussions? Most other situations "not all ..." is not only accepted but warranted and right. Examples easily come to mind: "not all Muslims are terrorists (and really almost none are)", "not all illegal immigrants are murderous thieves (and really almost none are)", "not all recipients of welfare are cheating the system (and really almost none are)." But then why is "not all men" inappropriate to say? It's actually quite simple. Men are privileged in the US. A privileged group is does not get to defend themselves in this way for it suggests they do not understand that it's understood that not all are being implicated (and yet there are those who would respond to someone saying "not all" with "yes all") and because ... well... they are the privileged group in the pairing.
There is another argument in favor of "not all men": by attacking all men and not providing the opportunity for men to say "not all" it causes us to move further into our corners. Men who feel attacked by these memes and statements will often back down from the fight to make the bad actors among us behave better. Ok, but there's a counter to this one, and it's something that we have been learning lately from a variety of political studies. People don't get convinced by logical arguments, or really any arguments. It turns out it's nearly impossible to convince people that their beliefs are wrong and to change political sides. So these memes are not meant to convince anyone, they are meant to give voice to frustration and anger and they are meant to rally those who agree. So to respond with "not all men" in these instances, similar to the memes themselves, would not be helpful to the conversation and would only antagonize those that are oppressed and expressing their frustration and anger at the situation... which seems not only useless and unnecessary but indeed hurtful and wrong.
So, yes, I believe not all men, but it is more than reasonable that I should refrain from responding this way.... oh, and as many would point out, yes, all men.
Now that we've got that out of the way (and what god-awful writing that was, but what do you expect from a college dropout... yes, we're starting up by pulling out all the stops in reminding myself why I'm the Dark Wind), let's get down to business. There was a commercial that came out this week that shows men doing the right thing by standing up to other men who are behaving poorly or by stopping a fight. In response, as you can easily imagine, a small segment of the population has cried foul and, at least based on my social news feed (and the expectation of the company in question, otherwise they wouldn't have made the ad), a much larger segment of the population has cheered and told the smaller population that they can take their complaints and stick up... well, you get the idea. Some of these responses to the response to the ad (responses to the response to the... yeah, that's it) have been so keen as to avoid saying anything about how many men are responding negatively or even if it's only men that are responding negatively and instead focusing on the ridiculousness of that negativity in the face of an ad suggesting people should behave kindly and courteously and do the right thing. There are some others, however, that run something along the lines of the following:
Ads for Women: Be thin, be thick, love your body, your boobs look better in this, dye your hair, embrace your grays, these pants are slimming, be feminine, wear makeup, look natural, hide your age....
Women: K.
Gillette: Men should be less shitty.
Men: Don't tell us what to do!
My immediate reaction is to feel attacked by this and respond with "not all men" but I know that I can't respond publicly this way. That is not my place, I would be doing evil by doing so and called out as such.
A much later reaction is to point out that men also are told by ads to be thin, have no gray hairs, have some gray hair, be rugged, enjoy trucks and the outdoor, and love power tools.... but this is even easier for me to put aside because I know that this is like a puddle saying it's also wet when talking to a lake.... sure it's true but....
So, back to the "not all men" reaction... is it reasonable to not be permitted socially to have this reaction without repercussions? Most other situations "not all ..." is not only accepted but warranted and right. Examples easily come to mind: "not all Muslims are terrorists (and really almost none are)", "not all illegal immigrants are murderous thieves (and really almost none are)", "not all recipients of welfare are cheating the system (and really almost none are)." But then why is "not all men" inappropriate to say? It's actually quite simple. Men are privileged in the US. A privileged group is does not get to defend themselves in this way for it suggests they do not understand that it's understood that not all are being implicated (and yet there are those who would respond to someone saying "not all" with "yes all") and because ... well... they are the privileged group in the pairing.
There is another argument in favor of "not all men": by attacking all men and not providing the opportunity for men to say "not all" it causes us to move further into our corners. Men who feel attacked by these memes and statements will often back down from the fight to make the bad actors among us behave better. Ok, but there's a counter to this one, and it's something that we have been learning lately from a variety of political studies. People don't get convinced by logical arguments, or really any arguments. It turns out it's nearly impossible to convince people that their beliefs are wrong and to change political sides. So these memes are not meant to convince anyone, they are meant to give voice to frustration and anger and they are meant to rally those who agree. So to respond with "not all men" in these instances, similar to the memes themselves, would not be helpful to the conversation and would only antagonize those that are oppressed and expressing their frustration and anger at the situation... which seems not only useless and unnecessary but indeed hurtful and wrong.
So, yes, I believe not all men, but it is more than reasonable that I should refrain from responding this way.... oh, and as many would point out, yes, all men.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
Offices and pod coffee
I've noticed that various offices have taken to having pod coffee... my office recently switching to keurig.... this is very wasteful (both financially because individually wrapped coffee pods are more expensive and environmentally because they're individually wrapped).
But what's the alternative? The main ones offered currently are coffee shops, pot coffee, and other non-conventional (in the US) forms of single brew (french press, cold brew...). All of these have negative elements to an office's needs.
But what's the alternative? The main ones offered currently are coffee shops, pot coffee, and other non-conventional (in the US) forms of single brew (french press, cold brew...). All of these have negative elements to an office's needs.
- If you don't provide coffee, your employees now are missing out on a perk that competitors have. Worse still, if they decide to go to a coffee shop, you're essentially promoting a transition out of the office which is costly in efficiency.
- If you go with only having pot coffee available, while this is at least a little bit closer to the common scenario, it's not going to be quite the perk that is expected by your employees because they can't pick and choose and personalize their coffee selection.
So, I get it... there are certainly reasons why companies are all converting to pod coffee of one fashion or another. Taking that as a given, maybe there's an option that would allow for something more economical, environmental, AND providing the same perks we've come to expect in the office? I know it sounds ridiculously inefficient, but, I've been thinking about the reusable pods available for keurig. I don't think people would accept filling their own reusable pods, but, what if someone at the office were to be responsible for filling the pods, in similar fashion to someone currently being in charge of stocking them?
- I can imagine having a small device for holding several pods at a time while their filled, making it slightly more efficient than when a person fills one pod.
- You could get different flavors and mark different reusable pods as each flavor, thus allowing the same diversity as is available today.
- For the most environmentally concerned companies, the remains of the coffee grounds could be composted instead of just tossed in the trash.
The main problems I foresee with this plan are that you need someone to take a bit more time with stocking the coffee and that you would want some way to keep the freshness of the grounds in place once placed in the reusable pod. For the former, I'm not really sure what can be done aside from using tools to make the process of resetting the pods quicker, such as the aforementioned holder for holding the pods while refilling or a funnel for the same part of the process. For maintaining freshness, I wonder if you could get a rubber cap to put over the pod.
Looking just at my office, I expect there would be a decent start-up cost but that it would pay for itself relatively quickly. Let's say you expect to need 24 cups of each of 12 varieties per day.
- You would need around 288 reusable pods; $10 for 4 pods; $720
- 12 bags of coffee; let's say $8/bag; $96
- Miscellaneous equipment such as funnel... let's say $50?
Total: ~$870 (assuming you already have a keurig, given that we're replacing the current offering...if that Keurig machine already in place is based on a service provider, then we're adding a Keurig to bring us to about $925-$975)
So, yes, that's a large starting point but consider the financial savings of such an arrangement. That 12 bags of coffee covers roughly 360 cups of coffee, or around $225 worth of Keurig cups.... so you can see how a savings of $130 nearly every day would cover that initial investment into the reusable pods real quick.... the initial investment would be covered within 2 weeks.
What are your thoughts? Do you work in an office where lots of pods are used? Do you think the office could make the switch?
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Senator McConnell Targets Social Safety Nets
Senator McConnell recently said that he feels we need to tackle "entitlements" and that there's a bipartisan attempt not to because they're too popular....
Ok, I promise this will be quick, there's not much to dig into but let's get started.
1) The GOP Congress last year reduced taxes, especially on corporations and, not surprisingly, the rich. At the same time, they gave a big boost to military spending... spending the military didn't ask for. That's why we are so deep in the red this year. Let's not pretend this is anything but what they planned: reduce the money coming into the Federal Government (and increase non-social spending) so you can claim to e forced to reduce spending on the non-military. It's a manufactured crisis. Don't think of it in any other terms.
2) If a program is popular, and it works, both of which are true for these social nets, why are you so hung up on tearing into them? And boy are they hung up on it... I can't remember a time when the leadership of the GOP wasn't trying to break the contract with the American people. Oh, it's because you feel it has something to do with the deficit spending that Conservatives like to rail against in times of Democrat leadership of the government and love to indulge in when the Republicans are in power.
3) Ok, so, let's talk about their impact on the deficit... there is none. Ok, it's even better than that, these programs are funded by a separate revenue stream to the general tax system and they bring in more money than they spend... so far. That's right, the Social Security and Medicare elements you see in your paycheck more than cover these programs. They never have caused a deficit. They, in fact, have been used to offset the deficit spending from time to time. "But Peter, you said 'so far'... won't they eventually go bankrupt?" Well, sure, if we don't do anything, eventually the money the Government takes in for Social Security won't cover the costs of the program. There are a number of different ways that we can resolve this however, and one of those is to change it from a regressive program to ... less of a regressive program. See, your income is taxed for Social Security but only up to a certain cap... and that's currently $127.200. We could simply remove the cap and those of us fortunate enough to make more than $127,000 would pay an equal percentage into Social Security as everyone else. And the benefits aren't capped in the same way, so a person making $127,200 and a person making $1,270,000 pay the same into Social Security but the former gets back significantly less when they retire. So just remove the cap on the taxable income and you're pretty much covered.
So really, what the fuck are GOP leaders talking about when they say that we don't have the resources to support these programs and need to find ways to cut costs?
Ok, I promise this will be quick, there's not much to dig into but let's get started.
1) The GOP Congress last year reduced taxes, especially on corporations and, not surprisingly, the rich. At the same time, they gave a big boost to military spending... spending the military didn't ask for. That's why we are so deep in the red this year. Let's not pretend this is anything but what they planned: reduce the money coming into the Federal Government (and increase non-social spending) so you can claim to e forced to reduce spending on the non-military. It's a manufactured crisis. Don't think of it in any other terms.
2) If a program is popular, and it works, both of which are true for these social nets, why are you so hung up on tearing into them? And boy are they hung up on it... I can't remember a time when the leadership of the GOP wasn't trying to break the contract with the American people. Oh, it's because you feel it has something to do with the deficit spending that Conservatives like to rail against in times of Democrat leadership of the government and love to indulge in when the Republicans are in power.
3) Ok, so, let's talk about their impact on the deficit... there is none. Ok, it's even better than that, these programs are funded by a separate revenue stream to the general tax system and they bring in more money than they spend... so far. That's right, the Social Security and Medicare elements you see in your paycheck more than cover these programs. They never have caused a deficit. They, in fact, have been used to offset the deficit spending from time to time. "But Peter, you said 'so far'... won't they eventually go bankrupt?" Well, sure, if we don't do anything, eventually the money the Government takes in for Social Security won't cover the costs of the program. There are a number of different ways that we can resolve this however, and one of those is to change it from a regressive program to ... less of a regressive program. See, your income is taxed for Social Security but only up to a certain cap... and that's currently $127.200. We could simply remove the cap and those of us fortunate enough to make more than $127,000 would pay an equal percentage into Social Security as everyone else. And the benefits aren't capped in the same way, so a person making $127,200 and a person making $1,270,000 pay the same into Social Security but the former gets back significantly less when they retire. So just remove the cap on the taxable income and you're pretty much covered.
So really, what the fuck are GOP leaders talking about when they say that we don't have the resources to support these programs and need to find ways to cut costs?
Saturday, September 8, 2018
The Bias Against Conservatives is Real.... even Facts are Against Them
I almost feel badly for conservatives in this country... the main stream news have a bias against them, hollywood has a bias against them, teachers and universities have a bias against them, unions have a bias against them, the courts (until now) have/had a bias against them, and now big tech has a bias against them... hell... even reportedly unbiased news/internet searching has a bias against the President they elected.... I would suggest that history, the last 1,000 years of cultural progression, and general facts have a bias against them, even sci-fi tends to have a bias against them.... must be really hard.... harder still for those that are even further on the Right that are villainized by the generally accepted culture, such as white nationalists who are the villains of many a movie, tv show, comic book, history book, and you know, common sense... just imagine if you believe in the ideals of the Nazis today and have to live your days being told you're evil by... you know.... everything around you except for the right wing media and your family / white-supremecist friends. Almost makes me feel badly for them.... almost.... ok, not really ... except for maybe those that don't realize that's who they are.
(in case you're reading this and need a quick explanation of why it's come up now... various big tech companies have recently banned various far right personalities such as Alex Jones, who is a well known and widely followed somewhat extreme right-wing talk-piece who has claimed such things as that the shooting at Sandy Hook was faked and other ridiculous conspiracy theories that present the left as fakes or villains... and the Right is proclaiming that tech is presenting a bias against them and infringing upon their free speech.... as opposed to what is happening which is that private companies are halting extremist, hateful, and dangerous speech from being spread on their platforms)
(in case you're reading this and need a quick explanation of why it's come up now... various big tech companies have recently banned various far right personalities such as Alex Jones, who is a well known and widely followed somewhat extreme right-wing talk-piece who has claimed such things as that the shooting at Sandy Hook was faked and other ridiculous conspiracy theories that present the left as fakes or villains... and the Right is proclaiming that tech is presenting a bias against them and infringing upon their free speech.... as opposed to what is happening which is that private companies are halting extremist, hateful, and dangerous speech from being spread on their platforms)
Monday, July 30, 2018
OPENAIR Circus gripe 2018
Ok, I don't often quite so publicly complain but I need to get something off my chest. Please don't take this as a general complaint or something that is truly out of the ordinary for a given year. I have had similar scenarios play out in the past and I will have them play out again in the future. It is not likely to change the course of my life or the OPENAIR Circus.... it is, indeed, just a rant... a pure and personal rant.
I run the OPENAIR Circus. From the end of June through the beginning of August, I essentially have the backseat and back end (trunk?... no, that's not the right term for a hatchback, right?) of my car taken over by equipment for the Circus and spend somewhere between 12 and 26 hours on the program, between being at the field for 3 hours a day 3 days a week, not counting setup and take-down (which each takes around 20-30 minutes on a good day) and stilting workshops or stilt making workshops or some other activity on the weekend, as well as the administrative work of sending out emails, coordinating with teachers and other volunteers, and just odds and ends (such as switching what equipment is in my car between one day and the next).
I do all this as a volunteer, giving back to the community that has given me so much in my life. I do it because of the joy it brings others.
So, to the parent that complains that a particular class isn't going to perform because they haven't learned the most elemental of the skill they were set to learn because the children "only getting three classes instead of five - through no fault of [their] own" and is disgruntled enough to complain about how she has to tell her son he doesn't get to perform... I want to say this:
"I can certainly appreciate your frustration. It certainly is never optimal to have 2 of 5 classes rained out. The report I got from the teacher is that just about none of the students had learned the basic element of completing a yo-down plus yo-up. If [the child in question] can yo-down and yo-up, we would welcome him to be part of a filler in between acts if he's interested. If so, just let me know.
Understanding that this has not been what you were hoping for from our program, I've removed you from the email list.
Sincerely,
Peter"
ok, end rant, moving on with my day
I run the OPENAIR Circus. From the end of June through the beginning of August, I essentially have the backseat and back end (trunk?... no, that's not the right term for a hatchback, right?) of my car taken over by equipment for the Circus and spend somewhere between 12 and 26 hours on the program, between being at the field for 3 hours a day 3 days a week, not counting setup and take-down (which each takes around 20-30 minutes on a good day) and stilting workshops or stilt making workshops or some other activity on the weekend, as well as the administrative work of sending out emails, coordinating with teachers and other volunteers, and just odds and ends (such as switching what equipment is in my car between one day and the next).
I do all this as a volunteer, giving back to the community that has given me so much in my life. I do it because of the joy it brings others.
So, to the parent that complains that a particular class isn't going to perform because they haven't learned the most elemental of the skill they were set to learn because the children "only getting three classes instead of five - through no fault of [their] own" and is disgruntled enough to complain about how she has to tell her son he doesn't get to perform... I want to say this:
- I know we often joke at the OPENAIR Circus about my having control over the weather... I don't actually make it rain though... and as evidence from the first Thursday where I was at the field making the decision to call of classes rather than having listened to everybody earlier in the day and calling them off sooner, I really do try to ensure that we only cancel when we absolutely must.
- I work a full-time job and do this on top of that job. I know it may seem like I work part-time or full time for the OPENAIR Circus or that we have any paid staff beyond the teachers, who themselves are only paid for the time they're actually at the field and even then are not paid a rate I would expect to pay them for gigs outside the summer program.
- Not only do I volunteer my time, but I expend 6 days of work-vacation for what is really just about 1, maybe 2 days, overall, of actual relaxation. My colleagues who don't pay close attention expect that my week off is similar to their vacations and so expect it to be rejuvenating instead of what it truly is which is physically, mentally, and emotionally taxing.
- I'm sorry you feel like 3 hours of instruction wasn't worth the $20 you spent.
- I'm sorry that you feel that your son should be in a performance that is open to the public even if he didn't learn a skill to perform.
- You are one of the reasons that I, year after year, question my sanity for doing this volunteering.
"I can certainly appreciate your frustration. It certainly is never optimal to have 2 of 5 classes rained out. The report I got from the teacher is that just about none of the students had learned the basic element of completing a yo-down plus yo-up. If [the child in question] can yo-down and yo-up, we would welcome him to be part of a filler in between acts if he's interested. If so, just let me know.
Understanding that this has not been what you were hoping for from our program, I've removed you from the email list.
Sincerely,
Peter"
ok, end rant, moving on with my day
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Democrats, Republicans, What's the Difference? Part 2
O.k., so Democrats and Republicans are different, but surely they can compromise and make progress. Ok., how about we review some of the things people think compromise should be found on:
Social Security:
Democrats want Social Security to be strengthened.
Republicans want it gone.
How exactly do you compromise in this instance? If you're Republicans, you claim that you're trying to strengthen the program by reducing the benefits (to maintain the program in the long run even though it hurts the underlying point of the program) or by privatizing the program (essentially, hand all that money over to investment bankers to play with). If you're Democrats, you see through both options for what they really are since you've been hearing Republicans rail against the program for decades. So... how do you compromise on something so black and white?
Environment:
Democrats want to make the air quality better by moving to electric cars or other alternatives
Republicans like oil...
So we compromise and instead of slowly improving regulations on cars so that they are more efficient and less polluting while maintaining gas cars rather than rapidly building up our electric-car infrastructure and enhancing our public transportation, we keep everything exactly the same (or let them deteriorate).... except California... cause they're concerned with such things as air quality.
Guns:
Democrats don't like guns in the hands of the public because they are concerned about public safety.
Republicans want guns in the hands of the public because it's all about freedom to them. Freedom to have a gun is as important to them as freedom of speech and significantly more important than freedom of religion.
Ok, so in this case, let's start with the starting volleys for compromise:
Democrats compromise by saying that we only ban new sales on guns, not take any away by force
Democrats compromise further by saying, let's not even ban new sales on all guns, let's just ban sales on semi-automatic rifles... we've already banned automatics so this isn't something that's totally outrageous to consider.
Democrats propose that we ban the sale of high-capacity magazines... we did this in the 1990's, the world didn't fall apart.
Republicans counter these compromise options by saying we don't do anything about guns or any gun parts.
Remind me who's unwilling to compromise?
Social Security:
Democrats want Social Security to be strengthened.
Republicans want it gone.
How exactly do you compromise in this instance? If you're Republicans, you claim that you're trying to strengthen the program by reducing the benefits (to maintain the program in the long run even though it hurts the underlying point of the program) or by privatizing the program (essentially, hand all that money over to investment bankers to play with). If you're Democrats, you see through both options for what they really are since you've been hearing Republicans rail against the program for decades. So... how do you compromise on something so black and white?
Environment:
Democrats want to make the air quality better by moving to electric cars or other alternatives
Republicans like oil...
So we compromise and instead of slowly improving regulations on cars so that they are more efficient and less polluting while maintaining gas cars rather than rapidly building up our electric-car infrastructure and enhancing our public transportation, we keep everything exactly the same (or let them deteriorate).... except California... cause they're concerned with such things as air quality.
Guns:
Democrats don't like guns in the hands of the public because they are concerned about public safety.
Republicans want guns in the hands of the public because it's all about freedom to them. Freedom to have a gun is as important to them as freedom of speech and significantly more important than freedom of religion.
Ok, so in this case, let's start with the starting volleys for compromise:
Democrats compromise by saying that we only ban new sales on guns, not take any away by force
Democrats compromise further by saying, let's not even ban new sales on all guns, let's just ban sales on semi-automatic rifles... we've already banned automatics so this isn't something that's totally outrageous to consider.
Democrats propose that we ban the sale of high-capacity magazines... we did this in the 1990's, the world didn't fall apart.
Republicans counter these compromise options by saying we don't do anything about guns or any gun parts.
Remind me who's unwilling to compromise?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)