More email to "representatives"...

Sent this recently to a local assemblyman:

From: Chuck Kuecker

Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 11:24 AM
To: Rep.Spreitzer
Subject: [Possible SPAM] Take action to prevent gun violence
Importance: Low

 

Rep. Mark Spreitzer,

The proposal to require background checks on all gun sales (AB65 / SB34) is worthless and an infringement on the law-abiding people of Wisconsin.

Background checks do not affect criminals who steal guns or obtain them out of the trunk of a criminal gun seller.

We already have far too many "gun control" laws that do nothing to prevent criminals from causing violence. AB65 / SB34 is just more of the same, a "feel good" law that will do nothing to prevent violence.

Chuck Kuecker 
Rep. Spreitzer

To Chuck Kuecker

Today at 1:54 PM

Dear Chuck,

 

Thank you for writing about legislation to prevent gun violence. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of AB 65/SB 34 which requires comprehensive background checks for gun purchases.  I have also co-sponsored AB 74 which would restore the 48-hour waiting period for handgun purchases. We must do everything we can to prevent gun violence and keep guns out of the hands of people who would use them to do harm.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mark Spreitzer

State Representative

45th Assembly District

Assembly Democratic Caucus Chair

113 North State Capitol

PO Box 8953

Madison, WI 53708

(608) 266-1192 or (888) 534-0045

Rep.Spreitzer@legis.wisconsin.gov

My reply:

Obviously, you don't bother to read these emails.

Bad law is bad law. No more "gun control" - let's have "criminal control" - if they are not safe let out in society with a gun, keep 'em locked up. Easy.

Chuck Kuecker

These politicians can't even make an effort to get their staffers to make up something approaching a logical response...

Climate change

Just saw Bill Nye and some female Congresscritter on "Meet the Press - my wife had the idiot box on. The subject was "climate change".

The words "consensus" and "debate" were used.

I know others have said this, probably better than I will - but -

1. There is no debate in science. Things are either fact or false, proven or theory.
2. There is no consensus in science. You can either prove your theory or you can't.

Both of these concepts are political. "Consensus" comes from a majority agreeing upon some issue. Right or wrong, the majority opinion controls. This is the basis of "democracy", and the big reason that democracy is such a dangerous thing.

"Debate" is a means to come to "consensus".

"Climate change" is a given, in that we have very compelling evidence from written histories and from evidence collected by scientists that the climate of Earth has changed in the past, and is changing now. No reputable scientist will argue otherwise, since the evidence is out there for all to see.

Human involvement in "climate change" is another matter altogether. There is no compelling evidence that anything Man has done in the past or is likely to do in the future can have an effect on the Earth's climate.

What does exist is a collection of theories and computer models. Each taken separately will show that there is reason to think that certain gases can cause a planet's atmosphere to retain more of the heat the planet receives from its' star, or that if you make certain assumptions and run them through a computer model, you can show certain outcomes.

If you take the theory that some percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global temperatures to rise, and couple that with a computer model designed to show what happens when CO2 concentrations rise, you will get results that show that the Earth's climate will warm with increasing CO2. This is the expected result.

If you take real temperature and CO2 concentration measurements over a significantly long period, you can start to form patterns and correlations between the two variables.

"Correlation does not imply causation" is a truism. Before you can state that increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere directly cause the planet to warm, you have to perform experiments designed to prove this theory. Since it is impossible to perform experiments on the Earth, we do simulations. No reputable scientist will do a simulation and announce he has "proven" his theory. He publishes his results and methods - including the intimate details of how his simulation works - and lets other scientists examine his work. When the results are matched to real data over a long enough time, and successfully predict actual present data given historic data, the simulation is deemed to be a good one.

In the "climate change" community, computer models are kept secret, data is not shared, data is altered and massaged, and people make statements of proven fact based on the results of those simulations. "Scientists" conspire to "hide the decline" and prevent peer review of the subject because "the debate is settled".

These people are not scientists, if they ever were. They are people promoting a cause for whatever reason - "protecting the environment", creating a "new world order", or simply gaining more power and wealth for themselves and their friends.

I'm tired of typing now - have to go out in the cold and buy some milk produced by a significant source of the greenhouse gas methane.

Politicians try to fix stuff

Usually, they make things worse.

"The War on Poverty"
"The War on (some) Drugs"
"OsamaCare"
"Cash for Clunkers"
Glowbull worming - oops - "Climate Change"
"The New Deal" "Quantitative Easing"
"Affirmative Action "
Minimum wages
etc...

Now comes a Demonrat from New Jersey, Sen. Robert Menendez, angry that Target could screw up and expose millions of credit-card purchasers to fraud. He's got a sure-fire plan to fix things.

Let the SEC "fine" companies that lose customer's credit card or other personal information to hackers.

Great. The customers lose to the hackers, the stores get a federal fine - that goes right into the federal black hole, and the stores in turn raise prices to recoup their fine.

Everyone is happy, except the cheated customers, who still must deal with their deflicted credit card, and anyone who shops, as the prices go up to cover the new legal expenses.

I've got a real simple law that they could pass - make any retailer or credit-card company that loses customer information liable for every fraudulent charge and credit score loss suffered by any customer, along with a punitive fine payable directly - and tax-free - to the cheated customers. The stores might still raise their prices, but I'll bet they will be real careful with private information, knowing that they will have to pay for all the purchases a hacker might make, as well as paying the cheated for their time and trouble.

And, the federal government will never see a penny of that money.

Now - how could we make that idea work with outfits like the FDA and the EPA?

Interview with Herman Cain

+++++++++++++++++++
Seen at Domestic Divapalooza.

I agree with Angela - we don't need a politician in the White House - or in any position in our government!

Another video she posted:

 

I'm beginning to wonder...

About Governor Walker and his dedication to smaller government. Just saw a news scroll at the bottom of the digital weather channel my wife was watching - "as Wisconsin's smoking ban nears it's first anniversary ... Walker says he would not support a repeal".

OK, so we have a governor who campaigned on getting Wisconsin's government out of the hair of her residents, and reducing costs - and he's not in favor of letting people decide certain issues themselves.

It's looking to me like he's first and foremost a politician, and secondly, very secondly, a reformer and freedom advocate.