Today's Pet Peeve

An article's headline caught my eye today, and the way it is phrased always irritates me. The headline reads: Video racing games may spur risky driving: study. Once and for all, inanimate objects can't do anything on their own. Without human interaction, they just sit there. The video game does not make you drive recklessly; poor decision-making on your part is to blame. The game doesn't hop into the passenger seat of your car and "spur" you on saying, "Faster, faster!"

This is the exact same misleading headline we see when it comes to gun violence. The typical headline reads, Man killed by assault rifle. So we're suppose to believe the gun sprung from the table and started shooting wildly into the room? I don't think so. Someone killed the man... and he used a gun to do it. Blame the man for his actions, not his tools.

So, what are we to make of this article? What's the purpose of it being printed? I quote Joerg Kubitzki of the Allianz Center for Technology, who conducted the study along with researchers at Munich's Ludwig-Maximilians University:

The question of age restrictions, legally or voluntary, should be discussed not only for "shooter" games but also for this kind of games, which have an impact on traffic safety.

Nice. More regulation. Just what we need: to be saved from ourselves.

Unplugged

This is just a quick note that I'm migrating to a new computer. I've finally made the switch to XP (who says I don't like change?). Anyway, the process will take awhile so I might not post for a day or two... or three. We'll see.

Two quick notes:

1. Did you see the article where wealthy Venezualians are moving to Florida to escape Hugo Chavez's new socialist government? I wonder why? Mabey because socialism means taking from the "haves" and giving to the "have-nots". Didn't see that one coming, did ya?!? Chavez is going to end up with a country where the only people left will be wanting to feed off the government. It can only end badly.
2. Did you see the article about the two Kuwaiti men who were finally released from Gitmo after the U.S. determined these guys were in Afganistan doing charity work, only to have to stand trial in Kuwait on charges of basically embarrassing the Kuwaiti government? They were eventually found not guilty. They were held at Gitmo for about five years. Their crime: being at the wrong place at the wrong time. This, my friends, is exactly why Habeas Corpus is so important. Innocent people need to have an avenue to contest their imprisonment. Who'll give them back five years of their life? I know I can't.

Welcome to the Welfare State

According to an Associated Press article, Welfare state growing despite overhauls, there are now more people on the government dole than when restriction were put in place to cut the welfare ranks. Like any good mismanaged government program, those who were booted off welfare landed in other taxpayer-funded social aid programs--such as Medicaid, food stamp programs, and/or disability programs. (Talk about rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic!)

Quoting from the above AP article:

The result, according to an Associated Press analysis: Nearly one in six people rely on some form of public assistance, a larger share than at any time since the government started measuring two decades ago.

The article goes on to explain that approximately 44,000,000 Americans receive some form of financial public assistance. That, my friends, is a big number. How big? Let's look at this number by State population:

STATE*	POPULATION
Wyoming	515,004
Vermont	623,908
North Dakota	635,867
Alaska	670,053
South Dakota	781,919
Delaware	853,476
Montana	944,632
Rhode Island	1,067,610
Hawaii	1,285,498
New Hampshire	1,314,895
Maine	1,321,574
Idaho	1,466,465
Nebraska	1,768,331
West Virginia	1,818,470
New Mexico	1,954,599
Nevada	2,495,529
Utah	2,550,063
Kansas	2,764,075
Arkansas	2,810,872
Mississippi	2,910,540
Iowa	2,982,085
Connecticut	3,504,809
Oklahoma	3,579,212
Oregon	3,700,758
TOTAL:	44,320,244

*Figures taken from U.S. Census Estimates

If we add up the populations of the states from lowest to highest, it would take 24 states before we exceeded 44,000,000 people. Almost half the states in the nation would have every person in their boundaries receiving some form of public assistance... ALMOST HALF!

How long do you suppose this country will survive with that many people living off the rest? Furthermore, how good is our economy if one in six Americans requires assistance just to get by? Looking back to the article, here's a quote I especially liked:

"I don't have any problems with [social welfare] programs growing, and indeed, they were intended to grow," said Ron Haskins, a former adviser to President Bush on welfare policy.

"We've taken the step of getting way more people into the labor force and they have taken a huge step toward self-sufficiency. What is the other choice?" he asked.

Imagine: a government worker who sees no problem with taxpayer-funded programs growing in size. That's like an investor being happy that his portfolio is growing in value. To do otherwise would mean ruin to both. But, Mr. Haskins asked us a question. Indeed, what is the other choice? Could it be to stop giving taxpayer funds away? Let's be perfectly clear on this... Government is NOT a charity! Government is NOT a safety net.

The choice is simple: We either defund these programs or go bankrupt!

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

~ Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler

We're well on our way...