From Inside Climate News:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard mitigation plans that address climate change.
This may put several Republican governors who maintain the earth isn’t warming due to human activities, or prefer to do nothing about it, into a political bind. Their position may block their states’ access to hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds. Over the past five years, the agency has awarded an average $1 billion a year in grants to states and territories for taking steps to mitigate the effects of disasters.
“If a state has a climate denier governor that doesn’t want to accept a plan, that would risk mitigation work not getting done because of politics,” said Becky Hammer, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council’s water program. “The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state” because of his climate beliefs.
The policy doesn’t affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood or other disaster. Specifically, beginning in March 2016, states seeking preparedness money will have to assess how climate change threatens their communities. Governors will have to sign off on hazard mitigation plans. While some states, including New York, have already started incorporating climate risks in their plans, most haven’t because FEMA’s old 2008 guidelines didn’t require it.
Full story: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18032015/fema-states-no-climate-planning-no-money
h/t to WUWT reader Susan Olsen
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
While some states, including New York, have already started incorporating climate risks in their plans, most haven’t because FEMA’s old 2008 guidelines didn’t require it.
And the only reason to do it is if the guidelines require it. There isn’t any valid proof climate change is increasing disasters.
If the “only reason to do it” is because its in the guidelines, then no states would have done it before it was required; something you pointed out has already happened…
This is a red herring, analogous to “don’t use drugs/rape/molest/etc because its again the law”…
The states that have “already started incorporating climate risks,” are mostly writing plans incorporating weather risks. Once all this climate change infrastructure is in place, it will never go away. And to top it off, it is being paid for by imaginary money added to what is already about a 20 Trillion dollar debt. The whole thing is quite frustrating.
What exactly is it that you think climate change is the harbinger of? Thats it! Weather! event that would otherwise not be prepared for!
Are you really this dim?
Only if your really this ignorant
Somebody else:
FYI —
Glass house and a pile of rocks to throw there?
Thank you for pedantically pointing out my grammatical error. I am abashed. You have truly brought great wisdom and insight into this discussion. Please tell me how it is you refrain from such errors yourself, surely you have never made one.
You’ve got it backwards SomeoneElse. A change in weather is a possible harbinger of climate change. The WMO definition of climate is 30 years of weather.
As far a collecting tax money for planning, no governor should have a problem. Plan for weather hazards, label it climate change, and collect.
Which is exactly what States already do. Some better then others, some worse, all states plan for droughts fires earthquakes, etc Insisting it be called a plan for CAGW is simply stupid. California is the most pro active CAGW state in the Union, and they did piss poor planning for droughts, despite a history of droughts far worse then the current one.
The $18T – $20T explicit on-book debt is just a tiny portion of the total unfunded liabilities of ~ $100T. See http://www.usdebtclock.org.
I don’t see what’s the big deal. The state’s plan can state the climate is changing and make plans for sea level rising 3 mm per year. If they are inland they can say maybe it’ll rain more, on the other hand maybe it’ll rain less. I’m pretty sure they can write some bs. If the bureaucrats don’t like the contents they can go to court and spend the money debating the scientific merit of the FEMA requirement. By the time the case gets to the Supreme Court the science will be refined, each side can deliver their case, witnesses, etc. That’s going to be a really interesting decision.
It’s principle.
Most Republicans don’t want to lie, or commit scarce resources to propagating a lie.
The problem is they might have threats that aren’t “climate change”. They might be the normal climate and local conditions (existing development) that pose threats to them and they are forced to label it climate change so the federal government can repackage that for political gain and throw it back them- you can close down your power stations because you said climate change affects you. Its also bureaucratically burdensome- they are forced to actually put in activists into the structures to produce this necessary but false document. Good competent experts will either have to corrupt themselves or refuse to be involved.
Incorporating climate risks in the plans is easy. the requirements are explained thus: “Specifically, beginning in March 2016, states seeking preparedness money will have to assess how climate change threatens their communities. Governors will have to sign off on hazard mitigation plans.“.
So the plan needs to say: 1. The climate change threat to our community is nil. 2. Our hazard mitigation plan is to do nothing.
That’s a comprehensive and valid plan, and it’s in line with all such plans that have been implemented since at least 1776, so it has a wealth of historical precedent.
[NB. Please note that the requirements concern climate change, not weather or weather cycles.]
Good response. I know the governors don’t want to be squeezed into agreeing with something they believe to be wrong. Especially since the next line of administration chatter will be “..and all 50 Governors agree with me that climate change is real and must be dealt with now…” That’s how we got onto the 97% consensus in the first place. The 97% of climate scientists that are funded by the Gigantic Scare-the-hell-out-of-people fund agree that man-made climate change is real and scary; the 3% that are otherwise funded don’t agree, and should be burned at the stake.
Temperature in Canada for the day 03/23/2015.
http://oi60.tinypic.com/a48sy9.jpg
Please post in Deg C
If it’s less than 32, it’s below freezing
No, not a good idea. This way you get to USE your mind, just like I do when it IS posted in centigrade! Do the math, it’s good for you! Really!
why ?
I (and I suspect the OP) use F here so why would I use C?
I do try to annotate its F or C when I post stuff.
due to medical issues I am very temp sensitive and a 2 deg (F for you) is extremely noticeable to me, using C would not work for well as me as F does.
my reply should have said 2 degree change, if a mod sees this could they please edit my post to reflect that?
thanks.
ie:
2 deg (F for you) CHANGE is
There were no units of measurement. When I saw that Edmonton was 27, I thought that they may be getting a Chinook. Then I saw Victoria at 44 and put it in context. Units are important whether F or C.
In Deg C.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/ca/canada-weather
http://oi59.tinypic.com/2n9yixx.jpg
F that.
Yes , evidence of the hottest_____ ever
You could always post in absolute temperature using Kelvin or Rankine for C and F respectively…
Edmonton was 27, ….Victoria at 44
==============
If the US would simply switch for C instead of F, that would drop their average temperatures 30 degrees or more and solve global warming without spending a cent.
Because Canada uses °C, that’s why.
No Canadian under 60 thinks in F
I am an American and thinks in F the funny part of C is every degree of C is 1.6 in F, leaving C less accurate unless you are willing to use decimals, top that off F was calibrated to how a human feel about temperature C was how water reacts to temperature, since I am not water, I know that 100 F is hot 80F is getting there, 70 is comfortable 60 might need a jacket and 32 is coat and gloves and 0 requires a parka, -40 is the same in C and F and that is dame cold, have felt ambient temperature from -50 F 118 F yes one damn cold and the other is damn hot. the same range in C would be -45 to 47 only a puny 92 degree temperature swing not the impressive 168 degree temperature swing. The worst part was C was invent by a french man, the french the country full of invention yet they all have to be exported to make money out of since the French tax the hell out of anyone who make any kind of money. But at least withe the French revolution all know they don’t kid around when they say off with your head!
Mark, I’m Australian. Above 13 is hot so every single day is hot. Easy.
Great, take fedral money to get jobs in your state “preparing” for climate disaster.
Prepare just in case. Take the money and run but don’t sign anything that involves a religious commitment.
Surely there are a host of stupid things that have to be submitted to get free money? Look at all the things New Scientist authors have to put in their articles to get published. Ditto Scientific American.
Goodness
Getting a US Visa – even for a Brit – means negotiating questions like [IIRC]
Do you seek the overthrow of the US Government by:
– force of arms
or
– weaselling away about[whatever]?
My wording is – I am certain – not spot on.
But – hey – Do I have to pick one? Looked that way last time I looked . . . .
IIRC – I went for ‘force of arms’ – with an explanation!
Never mind – have visited ships – and had excellent vacations – in the US.
[And lots of elsewhere, too . . .]
Auto
Just off subject for a minute – @SteveSGoddard has had his Twitter account suspended it will be interesting to find out why………lets hope it wasn’t just for having a point of view which doesn’t support AGW
Change the wording to “adaptation” instead of “mitigation” and I would suspect that there would be no problems from any governors.
Considering twitter lets ISIS utilize Twitter essentially unmolested I’d be extremely surprised if it had anything to do with his Climate Change views.
It would be better if young Syrian/Iraqi girls were the ones who remained unmolested.
This type of action greatly undermines the Warmists argument when they say Deniers are conspiracy theory nuts…As it would be impossible to get 97% of scientists to agree in AGW unless it were true.
All bought and paid for as the AGW con is the only game in town. Happens at every level of Government.
Sounds like the “conspiracy nuts” claims are starting to come true…….
It isn’t paranoia…. if they really are out to ‘get you’.
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you.
“I’m paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?”
Orwell was so right. GROUPTHINK! and “Big Brother” (watching you, NSA, etc.)
Sounds like if they can’t get in through the front door, get in through the back door instead! This is possibly dangerous as it could prevent certain candidates from standing. What about the FEMA’s “climate beliefs”? I think Jim Berry has the probable solution here!
“An end to the mild surge will come as Thursday’s rain and the accompanying cold front clear the area, opening the door for more winter chill to be in place for next weekend.”
http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/newsstory/2015/650x366_03231440_hd28.jpg
The whole framing of this “article” suggests that the states will be losing funding. This will not stop federal funds (which are only possible because of government/taxes) from helping when disaster strikes, that would be contrary to the point of FEMA. This creates an opportunity for states to bring in more funding, create more jobs, and protect its citizens from possible extreme weather events. Increased preparedness means we can mitigate the potential loss of life following a disaster. We don’t “adapt” to the loss of life.
Remember the difference between Climate and Weather. The FEMA plan allows for long term planning that will help when short term events occur.
Think about it like this:
Barry Bonds holds the baseball record for most home runs in a season.
He was a good player, thats how he knew that he could even make the claim he was going to try to break the record (i.e. it didn’t happen by accident).
After the record had been broken, it came out that he had been using Performance Enhancing Drugs.
While this obviously increased his chances of breaking the record, can you attribute any single home run (that flew higher or further) to the use of those drugs? While there was clearly a quantitative increase in his home runs, it was a cumulative total that broke the record. (Conversely, if he had injured himself, because of his increased strength the injury would have been more severe, creating a “record low” number of home runs.)
“can you attribute any single home run (that flew higher or further) to the use of those drugs?”
It’s very likely that many of the home runs that just made it over the fence would have been long fly outs. The long home runs still would have been home runs…just not as long.
Right, so his performance was improved by the drugs… An overall increase of his hits resulted in home runs… raising the mean… (its an analogy; an approximation based on something that most people know better than climate science…)
You think people are too stupid to understand your brilliance, so you bore us with a feeble baseball analogy? You need to spend more time at the sks bs propaganda website, as you might be the lamest member of the laughably named “crusher crew.”
It would have been better if you hadn’t used a sport that mostly depends on subsidies & tax breaks (reminds me of the AGW /Federal combine):
http://www.aei.org/publication/a-closer-look-at-stadium-subsidies/
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/01/624471/royals-taxes-subsidies/
good job, miss the point AND derail the subject
Whoa! Disregarding the baseball analogy stretch, the article suggests that state governments must adopt the CAGW meme in order to get funding for preparatory mitigation actions which may be Federally-directed towards CO2 sequestration or coal-plant closing. There is no suggestion that preparing to better survive natural extreme weather events would satisfy the FEMA father-knows-best.
Bravo, you may be the only one here who read the article
u r truly stupid
Thank you for that very informative contribution to this discussion.
Somebody else says: “This creates an opportunity for states to bring in more funding, create more jobs, and protect its citizens from possible extreme weather events.”
+++++
This is bribery to get people to toe the line.
You over look the fact that if the money is spent this way there may have been other more beneficial ways for it to be used. As to creating more jobs the Keystone Pipe line would have done that but it did not happen.
“This is bribery to get people to toe the line.”
It’s how Common Core got accepted. States were offered federal money to change the education system with the agreement that any state taking the money would have to teach the Common Core curriculum. The curriculum wasn’t even written yet and 46 states took the money.
You have to pass it to find out what’s in it.
Which extreme weather events are we discussing? The snow storms caused by global warming?
Every State all ready has plans for floods, droughts, earthquakes, tornadoes. Calif is perhaps the most pro active CAGW state in the Union. Yet they have totally failed to plan for expected and normal droughts.
Government transfers of cash don’t create jobs, they destroy them, either now or later. Money “granted” by the government must have been confiscated from someone who either would have invested that money, thus lowering the cost of capital and enabling more permanent employment or would have purchased something they value thus increasing demand and consequently contributing to the demand for labor. Government confiscation therefore must always be job-destroying. To waste the confiscated money on temporary bogus bureaucratic work that nobody would otherwise buy means that capital has been destroyed.
But then that’s the goal, isn’t it?
Eco-Fascism.
It’s tainted money. Nothing good comes from an unearned income. A truly upstanding governor would give FEMA the middle finger.
Unearned income? You realize that there would be no infrastructure without taxes right? If you want to cut those ties, say “we don’t want what you are offering” and give back everything that was built with this “unearned income”… you would have no roads, no utilities, no education system (but judging from the general intelligence on this blog, its not helping anyways), the list goes on and on. Once you remove something as basic as roads (think interstate systems) you lose the ability to engage in commerce. the local economy would tank. Then you either need to come together and create your own infrastucture (which takes time and money and skill; basic collaboration that would amount to communism) or for someone (government, corporation; it doesn’t matter, the ends are the same) to come in and benevolently bring that stuff to you. If its the government its socialism; they ask for taxes and create the infrastructure. If its a corporation, its capitalism; they seek to increase profits, not create a better quality of life for the populace and when your usefulness is gone, so are they.
you sound like an obama supporter; spouting useless nonsense. The article is about FEMA pushing their political agenda. How does the federal government get their money? So they’re not going to give some of that money back to the states, unless they sign on to the global warming scam. Sounds like a little bit of fascism to me. Maybe the governors should just make a speech saying “I don’t believe this nonsense, but for the sake of the residents of this state, I will “approve hazard mitigation plans that address climate change.” Since “climate change” looks amazingly like weather (hot, cold, wet, dry), those funds can be utilized for something useful, and not wasted on some green boondoggle
i don’t have a problem with taxes (mostly) well spent. But unfortunately we have devolved to a system of socialism for the wealthy and with few complaints from the general populace to boot.
“He shows exactly who has been getting free lunches from the government?from $100 million to Warren Buffett, to $1.3 billion to the owners of the Yankees and Mets. But of course there’s really no such thing as a free lunch. The taxpayer always picks up the bill.”
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591842484
@Glenn999 In our current political system, EVERYTHING is politicized and incentivized. All parties are guilty of it, but it comes back to using the FEMA funds to help people. Compared to the military, FEMA is a drop in the bucket, and if the republicans were in charge, instead of offering the states an opportunity to receive that funding it would just go into the military machine and disappear; its not enough money to make a dent in their budget.
And you are confusing weather and climate (still).
“..but judging from the general intelligence on this blog.”
I’m especially insulted when you say something stupid like you have on taxes. Infrastructure is fine and has happily been paid for since day 1 by citizens of a state. What is being offered here is a bribe and coercion -we won’t fund your expensive works for fighting climate change if you don’t sign a pledge that you believe in disastrous climate change. Yeah, I would want That money back. Can you imagine the kind of works that would have been built to counteract the warming winters in the northeast, only to find that we are breaking cold records (imagine air conditioned shelters for Xmas shoppers)? You know, you can be a good soc&list without accepting EVERY stupid policy that comes out of your government. Bureaucrats are not smarter than you are they?
No money comes from the Federal Government without first being taken out of the states.
This is a Climate Bribe, plain and simple. Declare yourself one of the faithful and you’ll be given a large amount of money to spend on whatever ‘green’ scam you can come up with. Deniers of the faith will not only get nothing from the trough but will also be publicly shamed.
And of course, once there’s enough snouts in the trough it will be declared a consensus.
Really!? Is that what you are claiming?
Further:
“Give back” to whom exactly? And can you elaborate on the reasoning behind this requirement? Particularly since you follow up with:
one gets the impression that you fancied yourself somehow superior …
Finally, re: your
Because I always thought it was exactly the other way around. They can only offer me stuff (to improve my quality of life), never coerce me. The day I don’t value their products/service more than what they’re charging, they aren’t useful to me any longer. I (as a customer) am gone!
Trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure built has been in this country in the last ten years without a cent of tax money – tens of thousands of miles of gas and oil pipelines built, hundreds of natural gas compressor stations, thousands of miles of fiber optic cable, $10 billion dollars per year spent on upgrading railroads, thousands of oil wells drilled, thousands of cell phone towers erected, dozens of GPS and communications satellites. Private capital infrastructure investment is 4 times that of federal, state and local infrastructure spending.
Gary, the world you live in, with McDonalds and Walmart on every corner is possible because of infrastructure build with tax money. There are absolutely communities out there that have found ways of self sustenance and living local; and they greatly resemble communism.
You too are confusing weather with climate change, and no one said to the northeast “you need to prepare for heat! its coming!”. preparing for climate change does not mean installing AC units in every house… You all love to point out how cold the east coast has been the last few years. Look at the west coast and how hot and dry its been. Neither is the typical weather for the area.
And our government is NOT socialist…
@jim are you suggesting there were no subsidies or incentives provided to create that?
@Jonas, there is so many things to say, but i will keep it brief.
“Give back” is a rhetorical device, meant to cause you to consider how you would be living without so many of the things you have today. Like it or not, tax dollars are in play in your life from the beginning. In some way, (public hospitals, education, transportation) you depend on things that are a direct result of tax dollars. So much technological advance is made possible by research funded by taxes. For example, the internet. The soapbox you stand on was developed by taxes, and you chose to be a consumer of a private company that now provides that to you. did you consider that just not using the internet is an option?
‘Somebody else’ is a troll. Fallacies abound. Catchy screen name, though. Reminds me of ‘Noman’ in the Odyssey.
A troll among trolls… can’t we all just get along?
Look, with FIAT currency, there is no need for real accounting.
Trillions of dollars have been spent in the last few decades without any need for the actual revenue to pay for those expenditures.
Yet.
“Somebody else” promotes the CAGW meme and romanticizes communism. I am shocked.
Somebody else
March 23, 2015 at 9:44 am
Unearned income? You realize that there would be no infrastructure without taxes right?
Idjut. If you knew any history, you’d realize almost all the infrastructure before goobermint-funded roads was built privately by railroads and private industries — the remnants that were still obvious when I was a kid in the 60s. Goobermint wasn’t involved w/building the US transcontinental railroad and all the associated industries & towns along starting 160 yrs ago. In fact, the reason it was possible was BECAUSE it was privately funded.
Problem is, in case you didn’t know, is that creeping government-dependency since has rotted away the culture of private enterprises making these former, ground-breaking achievements.
@max Photon: I agree. States have turned their backs before on government money, and they should do it again if Ms. Hammer’s conditions actually prevail. Department of Ed did the same thing with Obama’s Headless Race (to the “Top”), “rewarding” those states which competed to win by submitting plans favorable to his administration. Government funding creates bloated bureaucracies and corruption, as otherwise honest people suddenly discover a way to make a buck. Note the administrators who were caught cheating on standardized tests across the U.S. to reap rewards for their districts, and for themselves. Local governments need to identify their own problems, and craft their own solutions, and carefully oversee the results with their own dollars. Having (their own) skin in the game is the only people can be trusted to act honestly and responsibly.
what you are suggesting is communism. hope you realize that.
just to clarify (I don’t disagree) – States were not eligible for those Race grants until after they had adopted the Common Core standards – blackmail and coercion
bubba, you realize that No Child Left Behind did the same (but worse), and it was from the republicans right? First of all you had to accept the program to get grants.
While i agree that success should be incentivized, the schools that needed the funding (for materials, training, teachers, etc) the most are the ones that were completely cut off from the grants for failing to meet the standards?
I see this –
Somebody else
March 23, 2015 at 10:45 am
what you are suggesting is communism. hope you realize that.
I say, no Somebody else, it’s not communism, it is called local rule. Communism takes everyone’s money and does what it wants with it. There IS a difference, I do hope you realize that.
States should submit plans for mitigating “local catastrophe threats” long before such issues evolve. Competing plans for achieving what they need (including the taxes) should be debated publicly, and the bidding for plans completely transparent. Penalties for graft and “overruns” should be spelled out as well. The point is, Oklahomans can pay for their own tornado-proof gymnasiums in public schools. They don’t have to wait till kids are dead for “relief”. New Yorkers can finance their own coast-rebuilding and housing relocation projects before an anomalous storm hits, and if their subway system is vulnerable, engineer smart measures today that will fix it. Federal Emergency funding should be reserved for emergencies. The “pro-active” part should be devised and executed locally.
@Tom – you are confusing yourself. Communism is not just about the money, its about a fully functioning community where everyone does their part (simplified). what you have described is totalitarianism: where someone takes all the money and makes all the decisions. That is not socialism.
I hope you realize.
What I understand from a read of his description is a “republic”.
Somebody else says:
March 23, 2015 at 11:48 am
“@Tom – you are confusing yourself. Communism is not just about the money, its about a fully functioning community where everyone does their part (simplified). what you have described is totalitarianism: where someone takes all the money and makes all the decisions.”
You are the one confused or misleading: by Karl Marx’s never fully practiced definition, communism is total PUBLIC ownership:
“a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.”
However the actuality is that THE communism as practiced in the old USSR and China were ruthless oligarchies (dictatorship by a few) with heads rolling or imprisoned whenever dissent was detected.
Max –
ought to be a cartoon in that for you
If all it takes is to prepare a hazard mitigation plan that has “addresses climate change” written all over it, then I see no particular problems for any state to prepare one, regardless of beliefs.
Which would then be advertised as “a consensus of governors who agree that climate change is cause by man”
Yay, the beginning of the end of FEMA has begun!
You would have thought they would have learned the lessons set forth by agencies like the IRS, VA, ATF, etc… but nope, they decided to step right into the fing squad for no real practical reason. Brilliant.
Nothing positive (for them) will come of these actions other than possibly symbolic nonsense. But boy oh boy will they be attacked in the public arena as yet another agency trying to strong-arm the population.
Obama, the guy who promised to bring back trust in government, has completely destroyed just that!
There could be more truth in that statement that you think. All the Congress has to do is defund in the next FEMA budget any disaster preparedness funds related to climate change mitigation. Sure, Obama would veto it, but you can bet that FEMA will get the message. The overriding question for everyone in Washington is always: “Where do you plan to be next year?”
PLEASE AKS THEM to take some TOLCAPONE pills, that cure egoism! https://screen.yahoo.com/kindness-drug-could-more-understanding-114743676.html
I think they prefer the ALCAPONE pills.
And here I thought that the first amendment would have made compelled belief in a cargo cult escathological religion unconstitutional.
I can hardly wait for the 2016 elections. The Democrats only thought they took a licking in 2014.
like all true Liberals, they demand ideological purity or death by fiscal starvation. Yet we conservatives are the ones accused of intolerance and small mindedness. What a truly disgusting, despicable, sad political era we live in.
@alex,
What we are witnessing is the desperate attempt to hold off the collapse of the Democrat party.
Unions in this country are all but dead. Membership is microscopic already, and being proped up by Government unions which stand the chance of going away completely bassicly overnight. Dems CAN NOT survive without that money and support.
Look what is happening in the mid-west though. Like the South in the 80s-90s, that Dem stronghold is collapsing before their eyes.
They are quickly seeing their territory become solely the two coasts, and have little money to spread their influence with the death of unions. Their only option is to frantically seize as much power for Government to control on its own regardless of party, and brainwash as many as possible to blindly vote Dem out of fear. Republicans “hate Blacks/Hispanics/Women/Muslims/Gays/etc” … strong armed Government and population brainwashing thru fear is all they have left at this point.
Having politicized the IRS, the EPA, the FTC, and NASA, now they’re doing it to FEMA. This is just another excuse to funnel money to blue states under the name of “preparedness” funding.
Is there any congressional oversight of FEMA etc?
This is the best solution for a problem I’ve seen come from a government agency in forever. Implicit in that promise of withdrawal is the removal of all attached strings they bring to the table. It is truly win-win. Thank you, FEMA for giving back to us our ownership of our problems.
If congress is listening they should be aware that when tax payers are unrepresented they will make a mess of your harbor. For every state that FEMA fails to support, 1/50th of their budget shall be slashed and the funds directed to local authorities in the disenfranchised states who have rightly assumed ownership of the recovery.
This is the way government should work.
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” — Thomas Jefferson
I would argue the state has a right to make a mitigation plan that contradicts the Bogus Climate Change Nonsense. So do it, and Sue the Government for your money.
Barry – I don’t see why the State couldn’t right a plan reducing their budget for natural disasters in the face of climate change in light of the reduction in the number and severity of natural disaster.
This is illegal on its face. Most likely, a 14th amendment violation for failure of “due process” and it is inequitable. Second, on the merits, a suit by the states would force FEMA to demonstrate the proven causality between Global Pausing and historical damages.
In my opinion, this is electioneering and fund raising, and nothing more, nothing less.
How is it illegal to offer more funding for your state if its in the name of preparedness (and FEMA’s job is to be prepared for and react to the worst scenarios)? They aren’t preventing anyone from receiving aid that is needed, they are offering an opportunity to plan for a worst case scenario. Its illegal to help create jobs?
High Gun ownership in an area dramatically lowers crime rate in that area. One could say gun ownership is a logical prepare measurement.
Would you be open to the Federal Gov holding back millions of dollars in funds if a state doesn’t increase the number of armed citizens in the name of longterm saftey?
THESE jobs are not necessary. FEMA can not prepare against all odds that the future will hold, especially when they are unlikely, as the past 19 years of non-CAGW have shown. The magic bullet instead is ADAPTATION!
DS, this is the classic deterrence vs prevention debate you are trying to draw me into. deterrence moves the problem somewhere else, prevention stops it at its source.
Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a world where guns are not necessary to prevent crime?
And we have not lived in such a world since the Neanderthals were killed by Cro-Magnon mem and women with better spears, arrows, clothes, and the ability to teach others how to use them.
SO, if you believe in evolution, YES – better weapons = a better, safer, more productive life. IF you allow morality to be taught. But today’s “progressive (er, socialist) democrats” despise, hate and fear religion and its morality; thus – they propagate hatred, fear, despair, death, and misery. And the wanton use of weapons.
Nobody has anything to fear from a moral person with a weapon.
it is only an immoral person and an immoral, (progressive) despotic government that desires power and control above all who we should fear.
TO: Somebody Else
My reading of the full article is: there would be denial of funds for non-compliance. Only a Tax law can punish for non-criminal action. That is why I wrote the FEMA “proposed” statute would fail at court.
Also, I do not believe, as I wrote: this is not intended to move forward to action. It placates the environmental NGOs and gets money by putting Republican candidates noted in the article in a box.
Regards,
Even with lipstick on it its still a pig. Preparedness was invented before global warming was invented by high school drop out Maurice Strong of the UN. I worked on the construction of the Greater Winnipeg Floodway in the early 60s as a prep for frequent flooding of the Red River in Manitoba – the river is well known by North Dakota to the south. This is not preparedness for what we know happens, this is preparedness for what we haven’t had happen and likely will not happen if you are tying it to global warming.
@Someone else
Incorrect. It only “pushes it elsewhere” when all states fail to comply. If all states did comply then all states would have a decrease in violence. This would ease the tensions on the Fed just the same as preparing for unproven global warming fears would. And this is all about just that; FEMA hoping to push off possible future burden (or at least that is the claimed pretense of their move)
So answer the question; should the Feds fund states around increasing gun sales?
@raecook – its just the opposite: teaching morality, compassion, caring (etc) is how we continue to evolve. Unless you are suggesting we are all still cavemen and are need to continue to through stones in our glass house. Wanton use of weapons? Sounds like what the republicans are doing with the military. Oh wait, there’s your neanderthal moment (my stick is bigger! GRRR!)
@Gary Young – preparedness is a good thing, and they are not suggesting giving the same weight (metaphorically speaking) to building a flood causeway and incentives for climate change mitigation. Will an asteroid ever hit the earth again? Probably. When that time comes is it a bad to have a few ideas how to deal with it? What if its already on its way?
@ds – incorrect. Then the criminals figure out how to make better bullet proof armor.
RACookPE1978
March 23, 2015 at 11:22 am
RA,
Well said!
Mac
@somebody else,
So you’re saying the 13yo inner city kid who breaks into his neighbors house to steal his tv would go out and get bullet proof armor if his neighbor had a gun? Seriously?
Here in the real world, people confronted with a threat will generally do everything possible to avoid said threat. That is why you can read reports daily of perps running away when having a gun pulled on them. If every person in legal standing had a gun, (contrary to what you somehow believe) you would not see an arms race amoung the uneducated, unemployed inner city youth which makes up the vast majority of these crimes – instead you would see these youths taking the risk-reward decision to stay away from the threat. It is their only option for guaranteed survival in a heavily armed population.
So again, should Fed funding be tied to gun ownership?
DS, you have a very narrow view of what constitutes “crime”. What i am suggesting is that if you attempt to deter one method, other methods arise.
More directly to your explicit example visa-vi violent crime; children pick up guns all the time in heavily armed areas. Yes, they fight, yes, they die. To the Israelis a Palestinian child who throws a stone at an IDF soldier is no more than a criminal and will most likely be shot.
We have armies and STILL we fight, knowing full well that death and destruction are the result.
Im not saying there is no such thing as a Just Cause, simply the method we achieve it.
What we area talking about is the vast majority of violent crime that takes place in the US – that which is generally committed inner city minority youth.
That crime is usually committed in areas that have very strong gun laws/low ownership rates not because highshool kids have relocated there, but because the environment there are in breeds such behavior.
So, increasing gun ownership will decrease the violence which is created by this path. Even if you disagree with that, doesnt matter, there is much, much, much more evidence for that then climate change. And because of that we are right back at the question you are desperately trying not to have to answer…
Should Gov funding be tied to increasing gun ownership rates? Are you in favor by such a move if a Repub wanted to do it, or would you scream bloody murder?
I know we all kniw the answer to the question you are pitifully avoiding – and we all know why its so hard for yoy to answer in this conversation about Fed funding.
You are still trying to use strongarm tactics. Lets take another example of an area with strict gun laws: Washington DC. Is the violent crime rate as high as Detroit or Chicago?
Rather than arming the public, and letting people die until “they get the point”, educate and create opportunities so that the inner city youth don’t feel disenfranchised and want to commit violent crimes. A strong (fair) police force is also important. This is why we have police forces, tasked with upholding the law and order of our cities, states, and country. Which brings me to your question:
The government already does incentivize and disperse grants to states for people who pick up guns: the military (and all the associated branches), and police forces. In our constitution our right is granted to arm and maintain a well regulated militia. So there is no need to answer your question, it is already happening.
To the point of climate change; the data is there and it supports AGW. The effects are complicated to say the least, that is why we defer to CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. you can take the data and statistics and manipulate it any way you want, it doesn’t make it correct. Places like WUWT that help perpetuate disinformation are unfortunate…. but they have the right to exist (barring of course the impeding of the freedoms of others, and spreading libelous information which is against the law).
What are you talking about, DC and its surrounding areas have some of the highest crime rates in the country – that despite the fact that the Fed has security ramped up in many sections of it. Without those secured areas, DC would likely be the top spot for crime.
And sure, it would be fantastic if we could get unicorns and rainbows to end all crime, but decades of trying your solutions hasn’t made a difference – if anything, the population we are talking about has seen an increase of issues (see Ferguson and the 50% of young black males missing from society because of death, incarceration and drug dependency/homelessness)
As far as your non answer to the question – we are not talking about the military here, we are talking about citizens. Actual facts are what we are talking adressing (not theories that are constantly being disproved, as is the case with global warming – see some of the least extreme weather in US history in 2014) and actual facts would be behind such a move (your opinion on if it would work is of no importance here)
So we must repeat once again; if a Republican Pres tied security funding to states with a mandate to increase gun ownership numbers, would you be okay with it or scream bloody murder?
Its such a simple question you are going to great lengths to avoid. And while we all know you will try to change the subject once again, rest assured the question will again be here waiting for you until you actually answer.
I don’t like the idea of the government promoting arming individuals any more than i like the idea of government forcing religion or any other ideology on individuals. Hope that satisfactorily answers the questions you think i am avoiding. Yes i would protest. It wouldn’t matter who did it, i would protest.
FEMA is not forcing the ideology on individuals. Its job is to prepare and react to disasters. Enough people think that climatology is a factor in disaster preparation that it logically follows that FEMA would incorporate it into its recommendations/guidelines. Im sure there are people within FEMA that explicitly disagree with AGW. But to ignore the possibility is reckless.
As for crime, no we haven’t been trying the “rainbows and unicorns” approach. We’ve gone off half cocked with deterrence and prevention, which causes both to fail. example of this is when we “almost started trying” to convert to the metric system. If we had just done it, Gen X,Y,Zers wouldn’t have a problem with it. Well, at the least the baby boomers are still comfy.
really? again with the moderation? We’re just having fun discussing opposing viewpoints.
I don’t like the idea of the government promoting arming individuals any more than i like the idea of government forcing religion or any other ideology on individuals. Hope that satisfactorily answers the questions you think i am avoiding. Yes i would protest. It wouldn’t matter who did it, i would protest.
FEMA is not forcing the ideology on individuals. Its job is to prepare and react to disasters. Enough people think that climatology is a factor in disaster preparation that it logically follows that FEMA would incorporate it into its recommendations/guidelines. Im sure there are people within FEMA that explicitly disagree with AGW. But to ignore the possibility is reckless.
As for crime, no we haven’t been trying the “rainbows and unicorns” approach. We’ve gone off half c0cked with deterrence and prevention, which causes both to fail. example of this is when we “almost started trying” to convert to the metric system. If we had just done it, Gen X,Y,Zers wouldn’t have a problem with it. Well, at the least the baby boomers are still comfy.
(second attempt to post this, first time it got c*ckblocked
Okay, so you feel the Fed forcing compliance based off their current* opinion of what would help would be an incorrect action…
…unless it goes along with your personal beliefs, and then it isn’t – brilliant stance!
*Yes, we do have to say “current” because of your side of the argument. See, it wasn’t that long ago (1950s-1970s) that the science and science-led-Fed was insisting we were headed for an Ice Age based off the currently available science. That led to such articles as:
“To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”
“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”
Yep, circa 1975 they were seriously thinking about melting the Arctic to save the planet from Global Cooling. Good thing the Fed didn’t act on that “almost unanimous” consensus in the science, huh?
…So anyway, addressing what you feel is somehow a real threat today…
2012 – “According to the Storm Prediction Center, there was a record low in the number of tornado and severe weather watches issued for 2012. Since moving into their Norman, OK office in 1997, there has never been as few watches as this year’s 697. 2012 will also finish with nearly 400 less tornado reports than the 7 year average. According to NOAA’s NCDC, 2012 will finish nearly 140 less than the 1991-2010 average.”
2013 – “Whether you’re talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels. Tornadoes: ‘lowest total in several decades Number of wildfires: ‘On pace to be the lowest it has been in the past ten years Extreme Heat: The number of 100 degree days may ‘turn out to be the lowest in about 100 years of records Hurricanes: ‘We are currently in the longest period (8 years) since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5) ( last major hurricane to strike the US was Hurricane Wilma in 2005)”
Still waiting for 2014 data to be finalized, but you should expect similar based off the number of high profile events.
So, FEMA should force states to prepare for something because the Feds currently have some guys (who are paid by the government to report what the government wants to hear, it should be noted) telling us what “should be happening” in the face of what is actually happening? This is just a case of believe what we tell you, not what you see with your own two eyes then?
Blind belief in the face of reality… that sure sounds like ideology to me – and considering the warnings are coming almost exclusively from people who depend on Government Funding for their livelihood…
And to the other topic, yes, we have been trying the Unicorns and rainbows approach to youth crime and violence. That is why teachers get in trouble if they raise their voices towards a student. Holding a student accountable for their actions is apparently one of the worst offenses to a Liberal too, which is why so many Liberal cities/school-boards are now going even further and looking into actions which would stop suspending students for things like beating people up or using drugs on campus. Nope, instead we are teaching “diversity” and “compassion” to address the massive issues that plague youth. And I mean, come on, we are many years into the “anti-bullying” campaigns which were supposed to fix all these problems that seem more out of control now then ever.
Or, going back to the Washington DC example you tried to interject earlier – want to know how they ever so slightly lowered their crime rate from about 6th-7th down to about 15th-16th? It might provide the true solution you are looking for! Problem is, they increased the upper-classes wealth and forced out the minorities…
“The reasons Washington has gotten less violent: Gentrification, tax breaks, and urban reforms, according to John Roman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute who also teaches criminology at the University of Pennsylvania.
“If you want to change crime at a place you have to change the nature of the place,” he said.
The relentless expansion of the federal government — and Gucci-clad supplicants at lobbying and consulting firms — helped drive up incomes in Washington, Roman said, while the city handed out generous tax breaks to move businesses within its borders.
The city also tore down high-rise public housing towers and replaced them with garden-style apartments. Gentrification, meanwhile, drove many of the city’s poorer residents out to suburbs like Prince George’s County”
Segregation and increased income inequality – the solution you are apparently looking for! (based off you using that city as your example) …absolutely shocking that would be the Democrat solution too, isn’t it! (see 100 years of Democrat control in the South if you don’t understand the sarcasm here)
Somebody else says:
…teaching morality, compassion, caring (etc) is how we continue to evolve.
Since gov’t schools no longer teach those things, that could explain the need for guns.
Somebody else:
You do not understand the Constitution, its intent or its unique (then) way of defining the relationship between a people and their government.
The U.S. Constitution does not “grant rights.” It assumes that the people and the States already processes all rights already, and then limits certain rights and restricts certain rights to the Federal government, and explicitly states that any rights not so limited are the property of the states and the people.
Then, done to calm the fears of some members of the convention, the first 10 amendments were added to MAKE CERTAIN that certain rights could never be taken away by any future congress or president without 3/4 of the states agreeing via a new amendment.
The amendments were added in roughly what the founders considered their order of importance. That there would be NO RESTRICTIONS on the freedom of press and religion were most important, thus they’re first. Freedom of self defense was considered second only to the first amendment.
Thus the much argued over comma in second amendment: clearly intended to state that the freedom to own and bear arms was VITAL to the preservation of a free society but suggesting to the states that they should draw upon this armed population to establish well regulated militias. It was NEVER INTENDED to suggest keeping the populace disarmed and only arming a militia, and CERTAINLY not only a federalized National Guard, which is really just a part-time regular force, not a militia in the 18th century sense.
If you question the efficacy of an armed population in maintaining a free society, I suggest asking some members of the Peshmerga.
dbstealey says
“Since gov’t schools no longer teach those things, that could explain the need for guns.”
I actually take issue with this statement though. They do… sort of
The problem is what they personally feel those things are. That is, their “morality” lessons seem to revolve more around the supposedly lack of morality in Police who enforce the law, the obsessive teaching of “privilege” and such which is supposedly keeping their students down regardless of what they do (telling your students there is no hope because everything is aligned against you; brilliant strategy to keep people from going off the deep end) and such. Their “compassion” is that you MUST accept whatever anyone else wants to call themselves this day regardless of the problems it forces upon you (if a male wants to use the female bathroom, you better not object! That wouldn’t be compassionate, so who cares if you feel uncomfortable) Their “caring” is generally directed towards things like extremists who were trying to “radically transform the country” (generally through violence – which is why you have cop killers being nominated to have their names on the side of buildings) or to people who made a ‘difference’ for people (like their worshiping of possibly the most racist woman in the countries history, Margaret Sanger*, who literately believed minority women should be force sterilized so the “undesirables” wouldn’t plague the country like the “weeds” they are – modern day Planned Parenthood, with most of its offices in heavy minority areas, would almost certainly bring a huge smile to her face even if the forced sterilization desire did fall short; not for trying though if you read history!)
*on Margaret Sanger, seriously, if anyone even slightly questions how horrible a woman she actually was – just read her books and articles! In her own words, which she was very proud of apparently, she says some of the more disgusting things you could ever imagine. Seriously, she openly wrote stuff like:
“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
“Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.”
“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
and
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
…yet despite that, Liberals everywhere hold her name up as if she is somehow some kind of an icon! Like Hillary Clinton saying:
” I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision. I am really in awe of her, there are a lot of lessons we can learn from her life”
Just a disgusting corruption of “morality, compassion, caring (etc)” there by Liberals.
Oh, and they also teach our youngsters that evil man has already killed the planet, and that the moral, compassionate and caring thing to do is to demand an immediate stop of CO2 use. This, of course, would kill millions in the Middle East and Africa who already have almost no access to energy for clean food, water, heat, etc – but who really cares if it is only Arabs and Africans on the other side of the planet away from daily news coverage that are suffering; they can still feel good about themselves for forcing their backwards and shortsighted ideology upon others!
Somebody else, this one’s for you…
NUMBER ONE WITH A BULLET
… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
From global warming to Margaret Sanger by way of gun control in less than 20 moves. I’m dizzy. Is there anything about rational people which doesn’t piss you guys off?
@Somebody else:
Each side in this debate uses statistics to its advantage. The U.S. is continually cited as a country with the most guns, and the highest murder rate:
Murder rate per 100,000
U.S. 5.22
U.K. 1.19
Germany 0.8
Italy 1.16
Denmark 1.4
Canada 1.16
Austria 0.58
France 1.35
Iceland 0.0
The Netherlands 1.0
New Zealand 1.25
But let’s break that down [I am sorry, I’ve lost the chart so I can’t link it here]. Recently a chart was posted that subtracted the murder rate of the four highest murder-rate cities in America [including Washington DC]. When those four metropolitan areas were subtracted, the U.S. murder rate per 100,000 residents fell below that of Austria. But you would never know it from the media’s statistics, which adds every location together.
Ever since the Bellesiles fraud, statistics on gun violence have been scrutinized, and it turns out that most of them give a false picture. It is safer walking through any medium to small town in America than in almost any European city, where Islamist immigrants have become a major scourge [plenty of YouTube documentaries show what happens when a beardless Englishman, for example, drives through an inner city, or worse, when someone wearing a yarmulke walks the streets].
The best solution would be to support a strict reading of the 2nd Amendment, along with some reasonable requirements: all gun owners should be required take basic legal instruction on the permissable use of firearms, including continuing education; they must put in a reasonable amount of practice time every year, for example, firing at least 100 rounds annually at a range, and every gun owner must carry liability insurance of at least $1 million, with a firearms rider.
Depending on location, such insurance would be quite inexpensive [I carry a $5 million umbrella policy on my homeowner’s policy, which costs only a few hundred dollars a year]. Background checks are worthless, since obtaining a gun is easy if you have the money. So many guns are left when a parent passes away that the checks do nothing to control them.
It is a cliche, but it’s the truth that almost all gun owners are completely law abiding. The law needs to come down hard on those who don’t follow the rules. If that were done, those cities with excessive gun vilolence would fast become similar to the rest of America. It is the criminal-coddling fault of the political establishment that gives a mild pass to those who use guns in crimes. If they were taken out, our cities would be much safer.
Finally, it is the federal government that wants to disarm American citizens. What does that tell you?
Gates says:
Is there anything about
rational peoplestupid libs which doesn’t piss you guys off?There. Fixed it for you.
I’ll take that as a “no”. Shocker.
dbstealey,
I really wanted to stay out of this because it’s OT for the blog, but I’m something of an oxymoronic liberal on this issue and just can’t let it go.
I buy that. Last time I dug into it, I specifically went after all drug and gang-related homicides (regardless of method) compared to the overall homicide rate. The stats were dicey, but I came away with the impression that one could make a pretty cogent argument for the street-drug trade being the overwhelmingly hefty murder motive. On that basis, my conclusion was — and still is for other reasons — that the best way to reduce the homicide rate is to end the drug war and legalize cocaine, heroin, meth and pot. Everyone keeps their guns if their criminal record is clean, including the assault rifles and large caliber handguns … because let’s face it, you really haven’t lived until you can empty the mag of a DE .50 without soiling yourself — sort of gives one an appreciation that no, the 1911 does NOT jump around too much when killing paper plates on BLM land in the Middle of Nowhere, Idaho.
That was a good summer. But I digress.
A gun license instead of just a permit. A fantastic idea, but I’m thinking the NRA would kill it. I reserve the right to some prejudices here.
Anyway, my thoughts on what happens is recreational drug users buy professionally manufactured, and quality controlled, smack at or just slightly above present street prices. Tax on the product is somewhere north of 25% which monies are earmarked for education and rehab. What law enforcement efforts had been thrown at interdiction and incarceration are redirected to other areas of the community according to local concerns — one less Federal mandate to deal with, hey? The guns of the ghetto will still find themselves used for other beefs, but less money to fuel their purchase … although, dangit, there might be an uptick in armed robbery/burglary.
There would be other unintended consequences. The upside of reduced incarceration rates is less crowded jails, prisons, and the legal overhead administering it. But what to do with parolees who aren’t being (increasingly) replaced with newly convicted offenders? Hell, what to do with all the criminal defense lawyers who will lose their bread and butter client list?
Gates,
I have little argument with your point of view on this issue. Maybe one quibble: why shoukd citizens be required to be licensed of get a permit to possess what the Constitution states that we have a right to possess? Do we need a license to have a life? Or liberty?
New Mexico is debating a proposal to do away with concealed carry permits. Good for them. A citizen must be law abiding. But as I [and they] see it, we do not have to prove to some bureaucrat that we possess something that we have a right to own. It is the use, not the posession, that matters.
… I came away with the impression that one could make a pretty cogent argument for the street-drug trade being the overwhelmingly hefty murder motive. On that basis, my conclusion was that the best way to reduce the homicide rate is to end the drug war and legalize cocaine, heroin, meth and pot. …
Unfortunately, while you are absolutely correct in your opinion on where the death numbers get the vast majority of their inflation, your solution sadly would almost certainly make the problem much, much worse. (legalization will across the board increase use, increased use will result in more destroyed lives and deaths because of said use – and the targeted gangs will either find another way of bringing in the money they will be losing, or become much more violent in their turf battles to hold onto what little opportunity they would still have. As you later indicated, armed robbery of innocent citizens is a very likely funnel area. And lets be honest, like taxes were used previously to remove mobsters, drug offenses are currently about the easiest way to remove violent gang members from the streets.)
The only real solution to the problem is either a drastic rethinking of the way young minorities are being raised and taught in the inner cities that are breading the problems, or going with Margaret Sanger’s solution of segregation and sterilization to ultimately eliminate the young minorities which make up the vast majority of the issue. (setting up Planned Parrenthoods almost exclusively in those target neighborhoods is at least a start, I guess…)
The problem is, none of these issues are likely to ever be addressed as things stand today because you are instantly called racist if you do something as innocent as copy/paste from Wiki things such as
“According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery.”
“According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites (which includes Hispanics) 45.3% and “Other” 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites (per 100,000), and the victim rate 6 times higher (per 100,000)”
If you want to know just how crazy it truly is though, think about this. In 2011, again according to the FBI, Blacks accounted for 4,149 instances of Murder and non-negligent manslaughter despite making up only about 13% of the population. The other 87% committed merely 4,192; and a large percentage of that 87% are part of the same gang and drug culture as the Black offenders.
Instead of addressing THAT issue though, we are forced to watch months worth of riots because of how horrible it supposedly is when a heavily intoxicated man the size of a refrigerator is killed while physically assaulting a police officer. And even now, after all the facts are are known and documented, Teachers will be slandered, suspended and sued if they dare tell the truth about said issue ( http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/24/teacher-sued-after-allegedly-calling-michael-brown-a-thug/ ) …apparently informing your students that acting like a violent thug and assaulting an officer will likely result in your death is one of those off-limit topics for our students to hear.
So we all know the problem; including the very people who are the most vocal in trying to ban guns (see Bloomberg’s “Cities need to get guns out of the hands of persons who are male, minority, and between the ages of 15 and 25.” dust-up for evidence even he at least recognizes reality on the gun issue) … but the problem is, no one is allowed to even begin to address it because if anyone even begins to talk about the chaos that is plaguing Black communities at this point they are instantly demonized by Democrats.
It’s almost as if one side doesn’t really want the real issue to be addressed, and hopefully solved, and instead wants to use it as a way to try and take everyone’s gun rights away – but nah, no way a certain political party would endorse the destruction of life, including violent deaths, of countless humans in an effort to achieve their political goals, right? (See the Democrat parties creation of the White League, Red Shirts and KKK to target both Blacks and Republicans in an effort to gain political power)
dbstealey,
The short answer, which is all I have energy for at the moment, trades on my personal definition of liberty, which is “bounded freedom”. So … a firearm gives one the ability to take away someone else’s life, and as you say …
… exactly. And I have no issue with the government vetting a given citizen’s ability to responsibly posess an implement of deadly force. The right to bear arms was granted by law to begin with, it follows that the government not only has the “right” to administer it, but the responsibility to do so. Overall I think it does a good job of it, arbitrary definitions of “assault” weapons aside.
As a few others have said — and what I have said for some time — is that banning weapons doesn’t address root causes. Trying to do it expends political capital that might be better used elsewhere … [looks around innocently] … and on that note: now back to our regularly scheduled programming. Cheers.
It’s Obamley’s Believe It Or Else!
March Madness, i.e. Spring Fever Federal Style. ;-D
Ha ha