Five Real(?) Impacts of a Government Shutdown

You want to prove that a government "shutdown" is really a misnomer and that hardly anything that really matters gets affected?  Perhaps you should look around at the major media reports of what is going to happen.

For example, you might want to take a look at this story form Elizabeth Hartfield of ABC News.  She penned this article Saturday, and it seems that she wants to convince you that a government shutdown is a horrible thing to endure. Her tone implies that she believes a shutdown should be avoided at all costs.

But why does she believe that?  Why does she have such a concern about a government shutdown that she would write an article for a major news source titled "Five Real Impacts of a Government Shutdown,"  an article whose title alone seems to imply fear about even considering the idea?  Well, of course, we're lucky enough to have her spell those reasons out to us.  I think you'll find, though, that those reasons might surprise you.

You see, Hartfield goes back to the last real government shutdown, in late 1995 and early 1996, and examined what REALLY happens when the government is shut down.  She points out that she fears the current lawmakers that are considering a shutdown may not really remember the impact of the shutdown that occurred back then.  And, as you might imagine, in order to prove her point, she picks out some of the biggest things that were impacted.

And that's where I find the point that a government "shutdown" isn't really all that bad at all.  Let's take a look at the five things she mentions.

Suspension of Approval of Applications for Small Business Loans

Don't get me wrong here...I love small business.  I believe that small businesses are truly the driving force of America.  But I am not convinced that suspending approval for small business loans for some indefinite, but probably short, time is necessarily all that bad.  In fact, I'm not even sure that it's the government's job at all.  I'm not completely against the idea of these loans, but there's no way you can convince me that a temporary suspension of these loans is going to have have some horrible impact on our country as a whole.

Museums, Monuments and Parks Would Shut Down

So what?  Again, don't get me wrong, museums, monuments, and parks are all great.  I do believe that there is some benefit in our government archiving our history and our arts.  I do believe that there is benefit to having some areas of land set aside for us to be able to enjoy the beauties of nature.  But I also think that if the government is in dire straits, these should be the first things to go.  And considering the reality that any government shutdown is going to be short-lived, no harm done.

Medical Research Interrupted

So this one sounds pretty bad.  But that's just it....it SOUNDS bad.  Truth is, it sounds worse than it is.  It makes it sound like all medical research in the world would come to a screeching halt, and that simply isn't the case.  Plenty of private organizations are doing medical research and plenty of government funded research has already received its money.  You're going to hear plenty of people try to spin this like the cure for cancer will somehow now be lost forever, but that simply isn't the case.

Passport Services Suspended

Well, except in case of emergency.  A passport is good for ten years.  Unless you're a traveler that has procrastinated, then no worries.  This will impact like 0.001% of people.

D.C. Residents, Start Composting

So apparently residents of the District have trash pickup as a government service.  Since Congress must pass the D.C. budget, things like trash service would probably be suspended.  But I'm sure there will probably not

be any shortage of private companies coming to save the day by offering trash pickup to the city.  As a resident of a city that takes care of trash pickup, I wouldn't mind the option to shop for the best service myself.

So Does That Sound So Bad?

Take a second and just look back over that list of five things above.  Try not to chuckle when you do so.  Go ahead...I'll wait.

Now ask yourself, was there anything on that list that really concerns you at all?  I mean, even if you would like to keep the above things going, don't you think it's not going to hurt anything if they are all put on pause for a bit?

And don't forget that this list came from an article that was written to scare you.  It was written to convince you that a government shutdown is unbearable  She says she's afraid you don't remember or weren't around for the last shutdown and went back and did research to remind us of all the bad things that will happen.

But mostly don't forget that, after all that trouble, the above list was all she could come up with when it was time for her to write down the top five reasons a shutdown should scare us.  Yep...that's the five worst things she could find.

I think I can live with that.  How about you?



Click "Subscribe" in the upper right corner of the page, then check out my other recent posts:

Why the Starbucks Gun Carrying Statement Doesn't Bother Me at All, and Why Gun Advocates May be to Blame

Army's "Information Dominance Center" Designed to Look Like the Bridge of The Enterprise

IMPD Officer Killed in the Line of Duty

We are saddened this morning to hear of the death of IMPD Officer Rod Bradway.  Officer Bradway was killed in the line of duty while responding to a domestic disturbance call in the area of 46th St. and I-465.

Our thoughts and prayers are extended to Officer Bradway's family and friends, as well as to the entire IMPD community.

Please stay tuned to your favorite local news source for updates on this story.

WTHR
WISH
WRTV
WXIN
IndyStar

Why the Starbucks Gun Carrying Statement Doesn't Bother Me at All, and Why Gun Advocates May be to Blame

Well here we go.  Again.

If you follow anything resembling politics at all, you have undoubtedly heard by now...Starbucks says no guns.

You know how it all started...a few months ago some patrons at a Starbucks felt uncomfortable in the presence of another Starbucks customer that was legally open carrying their firearm.  (For those that may be unaware, open carrying refers to carrying a firearm in plain view of others around you, similar to the way a police officer carries a firearm.)  Those patrons complained to Starbucks, and Starbucks issued a statement that said that they would not interfere with patrons operating lawfully within their establishments.  Basically, if it's legal where you are at then you can open carry, and if it's illegal then you can not.

Gun advocates celebrated the statement.  Especially since so many conservatives were very anti-Starbucks due to some false stories floating around the internet about Starbucks not supporting our troops, this was an especially interesting turnaround regarding public perception of the Starbucks brand.

The gun rights supporters took it too far, though.  They organized "Starbucks Appreciation Days" in which lawful gun owners would flood the stores with groups of open carrying gun owners to thank Starbucks for their position.  They would often go above and beyond traditional open carry, and bring shotguns and rifles with them and pose for pictures.

In return, the anti-gun lobby responded equally loudly.  They would also stage events at Starbucks locations to show that they disagreed with the positions that Starbucks had put forth. They despised the fact that Starbucks wouldn't make a strong stand in their favor, and just tell gun owners to take their business and their firearms elsewhere.

Well, that all came to an end yesterday, when Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz issued a new statement on guns via a blog posted on the coffee giant's website.

"...today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas - even in states where "open carry" is permitted - unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel."

Aaaaannnnndddd cue the outrage.

As you might imagine, the immediate response from people on both sides of the issue was overwhelming.  Those that were celebrating the original Starbucks statement were suddenly irate that the company would ever go down this path.  Protesters of the original Starbucks statement were suddenly strong Starbucks supporters again.

But what did Starbucks REALLY say with each statement???

Basically...they just said to leave them alone and leave them out of the discussion.

The reality is that everything would be better for gun advocates if, after Starbucks' first statement was released, they would have just left Starbucks alone.  Instead, gun advocates stomped on Starbucks' original statement as some broad statement of support that it was not.  Starbucks basically said they don't want to get involved, and gun advocates paraded the statement as if Starbucks had said they were on their side.

But the simple reality was that neither side was properly embracing what Starbucks wanted.  Starbucks had, for all intents and purposes, only said one thing: "listen...as long as your legal we don't care...but, PLEASE, leave us out of this.  We don't want to be involved."

And, of course, the anti-gun advocates leaped out in response.  The gun owners were having their open carry events, and the anti-gun crowd was bound and determined to have their rallies at the same places and at the same times.  Suddenly, Starbucks' locations everywhere were being turned into political battle grounds.

So, now, Starbucks has done what was left for them to do.  And that is where we truly are with them today.  They just want left out of this.  They said, "if you're legal it's ok, just leave us alone."  But they weren't left alone...they were turned into a 2nd amendment warzone.

So, now, they've come out and said, "Eff you.  We asked to be left alone, and you instead turned us into a political pawn.  We're not going to ban bringing guns in, but, please, just leave them outside.  Please, just leave us alone."


And, really, that's all I think that Starbucks is saying.  And I think it is all they have been saying from the beginning.  Their original statement simply said they don't want involved.  But instead they were made a focal point of the gun rights war, so they replied.

"we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers."

Really, I don't think that I can blame Starbucks for their recent position.  And truthfully, I think Schultz handled it rather well.  He even said that they weren't banning guns, they were just asking nicely for you not to bring them inside.  He stated that they wouldn't be asking you to leave if you carried, just that you please respect their wishes to not do so.

 Of course, no matter what side of the gun debate you are on, you are free to respond how you wish.  If you are a gun owner, maybe you stop going to Starbucks.  Or try to find somewhere else first.   And if you hate guns, then maybe you pop into Starbucks a little more often to show support.  I rarely open carry, but I am a gun owner and I do carry concealed.  Nonetheless, I will still go to Starbucks once or twice a week, just as I did before now.

In the end,  other than a possible little hiccup for the first few days, I don't think Starbucks business will be too drastically affected by this statement. Nor do I think it should be.




Check out my recent posts:
Army's "Information Dominance Center" Designed to Look Like the Bridge of The Enterprise

Army's "Information Dominance Center" Designed to Look Like the Bridge of The Enterprise

Well, specifically the Enterprise-D.

Daily Mail Online is reporting that when NSA Director Keith Alexander was the head of Army's Intelligence and Security Command, he had the "Information Dominance Center" he ran the show from designed to look like the bridge of the Starship Enterprise from Star Trek: The Next Generation.  That's right, folks...that's the kind of trust we can give for people that are the stewards of our tax dollars.

Pic from Daily Mail article

The room is decked out in chrome and stainless steel.  It is divided into control stations you could just see Commander Data sitting at.  It has a huge monitor on the room's forward wall.  And, perhaps most importantly, it has a very obvious Captain's chair that is the center and focal point of the entire room.

Now, don't get me wrong...I'm not saying that the design couldn't have merits, and that the similarities between that design and the bridge of the Enterprise could possibly be coincidental.

Oh, wait...

Designed by a Hollywood set designer to mimic the famous ship's bridge...

Okay.  Wow.  That seems a bit much.  But, just because you're hiring a Hollywood set designer to design

Pic from Daily Mail article

the Army Intelligence and Security Command's "Information Dominance Center" doesn't mean it was a total waste, right?  I mean, the design and some designer couldn't have real-world advantages, couldn't it?  I mean, it's not like you went COMPLETELY over the top.

Oh, wait...

Just like in the Star Trek series, the doors to the so-called Information Dominance Center made a 'whoosh' noise as they opened.

You mean they added sound effects?  Now that's just being silly.  Thankfully the irresponsibility ended there.  It's not like they played Star Trek with other government officials or anything.

Oh, wait...

Lawmakers and other important officials took turns sitting in the leather 'captain's chair' in the center of the room...
Everybody wanted to sit in the chair at least once to pretend he was Jean-Luc Picard.

This is just disgraceful.  Don't forget, folks, this is something that YOU paid for.  Things like this should be reserved for movie studios, or theme parks, or super rich people that want to add a bridge or a Bat Cave or a secret passage in their house.  This kind of thing has no business being a part of our government's expenditures.

But, alas, they are something our government spends money on.  Why?  Because our government has become so ridiculously huge that what oversight there is has no chance to really look over everything.  And that equates to government agencies getting blank checks written to them and saying, "now spend it wisely."

It's so huge and so sad that when I saw this article, I wasn't really all that surprised.  And even worse, voters will keep electing the same people that make this happen.

FDA to Investigate "Any and All" Caffeine Added Products

Mayor Bloomberg is probably skipping around his office throwing confetti and thanking whatever god(s) he thinks are on his side.  The federal government is stepping in and taking the first step towards another NYC style banning.  This time....caffeine.

Reason Magazine and others are reporting that the FDA has announced they will begin investigating caffeinated products.  Not energy drinks.  Not caffeine gum.  But EVERY caffeine added product.

That's right.  The FDA will, in fact, be investigating energy drinks and caffeine gum.  But they will also be investigating Diet Coke and Mountain Dew.  They will investigate the coffee drinks that have an "extra boost" in them.  They will investigate products that you didn't even realize had a little caffeine added to them.

And, let's be real about what the outcome will be here.  This is the government.  Even worse, this is the FDA, one of the most sold out areas of the government.  A government agency that makes decisions based on many, many things other than what's acceptable for our people.

This will end badly.  I fully anticipate that the FDA will step in and put severe limits on how much, if any,

caffeine can be added to a product.  You know, because we are fully incapable of deciding what we want to consume.

And if this happens, you need to be ready for the price of coffee to jump up drastically.  This will happen for two reasons.  First, if caffeine limitations will be in place for products that artificially add them, them consumers will be forced to turn to coffee for their caffeine.  Supply and demand will dictate that the price of coffee will go up.

Second, coffee is the major source of caffeine for caffeine added products.  When coffee producers remove caffeine from coffee to make decaffeinated coffee, they sell that caffeine to other companies to add to their sodas and energy drinks, etc.  Without the revenue generated from selling as much of that caffeine off, then the price of coffee will have to be raised to compensate.

Pay attention to this as it develops, folks.  There's a whole lot more freedom of choice that's about to be limited...again.  Yay.  Go government.

Use the Social Media buttons below to share this story, and make sure you check out my last couple of blogs!

Indiana Sheriff Vows to Not Enforce Future Gun Laws

FOP Ends Support of Bisard...Why Were They Financing Him in the First Place?

FOP Ends Support of Bisard...Why Were They Financing Him in the First Place?

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard that David Bisard got another DUI.  Not uncommon for a person with one DUI to get a second one, really.  Many do.

But the Bisard case is a little different.  Bisard was a cop.  Bisard killed someone (allegedly).  Bisard was drunk (allegedly).  There was very suspicious mishandling of blood testing.  There was very suspicious mishandling of blood evidence. The whole thing was just...well...suspicious.

And his defense costs?  Yeah, they were being picked up by the Fraternal Order of Police.

What the hell?  I understand the being a police officer is a brotherhood.  They love to protect their own.  Okay, fine.  I can understand brotherhoods.

I can also understand the FOP wanting to pick up the tab for the defense of many police officers that are facing crazy litigation from over-zealous criminals that are just looking to screw over a cop.

But this wasn't that kind of case.  The evidence against Bisard appears to be overwhelming.  Even though much of the evidence might have proven inadmissible due to the horrendous "oversights" by other members of the department, there is little doubt among the masses that Bisard did this.

So if the evidence against Bisard is so damning, why would the FOP want to defend him?  Again, I understand brotherhood, but brotherhood is for the benefit of all the brethren.  If a member of a brotherhood fails to uphold their end of the bargain, if they do something that could do serious damage to the brotherhood as a whole, then it is acceptable for the brotherhood to expel him.  And even if expulsion is not the right step, it is also acceptable for the brotherhood to remain neutral.

But that didn't happen in this case.  For Bisard, despite all the damning evidence, the FOP chose to step up and pay for his defense.  Why?  Who knows.  But you can bet your paycheck they are regretting it now.

Hilariously, FOP president William Owensby is quoted in today's Indy Star article about the FOP's recent decision as saying Bisard's arrest, "reflected discredit upon the lodge."

Guess what, Mr. Owensby, the discredit upon the lodge was caused by it's decision to pay for his counsel in the first place.

Indiana Sheriff Vows to Not Enforce Future Gun Laws

Sheriff Bradley Rogers

Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers is no stranger to media attention.  Since his campaign, he has not been scared to speak out loud about his position on laws and their constitutionality.  

That attention is surrounding him again.  On Sunday, Sheriff Rogers told a crowd in South Bend that he refuses to enforce any further gun legislation handed down by the federal government.   This position is not new for Sheriff Rogers, nor is it new for him to discuss it (he's been on CNN talking with Anderson Cooper about his views).  Nonetheless, the media, including this Indy Star article, has grabbed the story and pounced on it.

It's an interesting question....where does a sheriff's loyalties lie?  Is he to blindly enforce any laws that are passed?  Is that his duty?  Can a sheriff prioritize the laws he enforces based on the resources he has available?  Or, as Sheriff Rogers indicates, does his oath of office to uphold the constitution mean that if he finds a law unconstitutional that he is not obligated to enforce it?

Surely a sheriff can not be required to blindly pursue each and every law that is passed.  The reason is resources.  No sheriff has unlimited resources.  Every sheriff is forced to create a budget based on the resources available to them, and thus be forced to prioritize what areas they will focus their enforcement on.  That makes perfect sense.

But where does prioritizing enforcement potentially turn into abandonment of enforcing a law at all?  And is a sheriff that believes a law to be unconstitutional required to not enforce it based upon their oath to defend the constitution?

Myself, Miah Akston, and Sheriff Rogers

These are not easy questions to answer.  Especially as nullification becomes a more common part of society, with states readily nullifying federal laws right now, it becomes harder to answer, and also more controversial.

Personally, I applaud Sheriff Rogers.  He is still confined by a system of checks and balances.  If his community does not support the actions of this first term sheriff, they will guarantee that he never has a second term of office.  As long as those checks and balances are in place, then the sheriff's oath to uphold the constitution comes first and foremost.

Sheriff Rogers recently spoke at the Libertarian Party of Indiana's State Convention.  Although I do not have audio of the excellent speech he gave, Miah Akston and I were lucky enough to have the opportunity to interview him for our show on, The Uncontrollables.  Here's that interview.  It runs about 21 minutes.