Michael Burns's blog

"They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin

We have seen the government slowly usurp our rights over the last several decades. I'm sure we can find incidents that would show such usurpation's for every right enumerated in the first 9 Amendments to the Constitution. And, we have been complacent all along, agreeing that those usurpation's are acceptable in exchange for some "benefit" the government has promised.

Now, we have proof that the government is monitoring the activities of ordinary, law-abiding citizens under the premise that "it helps us stop terrorism." And, again, we have many people agreeing that it is an acceptable "trade."

I, for one, do not agree that it is an acceptable trade!

The issue of sacrificing liberty for safety is not a new discussion as the above quote from Benjamin Franklin clearly demonstrates. Yet, here we are, willingly giving up "essential liberty" for a little temporary safety. How soon we forget the events of Boston.

No amount of "sacrificing" our liberties will result in complete safety. Terrorist acts will happen because terrorists will find a way. Just as there will always be crazy people who want to kill a bunch of innocents, there will always be terrorists intent on destroying our way of life. The more we "sacrifice" our liberties, the more those terrorists win.

Let's take the words of Benjamin Franklin to heart and say, "NO MORE."

No more will you ignore my rights as an American citizen.
No more will I stand idly by.

I will say, "NO MORE!"

Why does it seem so many people today do not know how to handle situations that make them feel uncomfortable or upset?

Matthew 18:15-17 instructs us how to handle a situation where a "brother or sister sins." This same prescription can be applied even when "sin" isn't the issue. First, we talk with the individual directly, face to face. If that doesn't work, then we bring one or two others with us and talk with the individual again. If that still doesn't work, then we go to those who are in a position of authority, such as a supervisor at work or event organizers if at an event or the Church. If they still don't listen then, as 17b suggests, we ignore them, they aren't worth our time.

A recent event that occurred at PyCon, a conference for Python developers, is a prime example of what happens when someone does not handle the situation properly. The person who was offended expressed their feelings in public via Twitter without ever speaking to those who offended them. The organizers of the conference became aware of the Twitter post and pulled the poster and those who offended them aside. Apologies were given and all was well. Unfortunately, that was not the end of the story. Since they aired their feelings publicly, others got involved in the situation. In the end, one of the individuals who had offended the poster had been fired, the hacker group Anonymous had taken down the poster's website and the website of the company they worked for and, ultimately, they were fired as well.

We need to do a better job of handling these types of situations. We can not rush to air our grievances in public. In our overly politically correct society, airing these types of incidents will have far worse consequences than what we had ever intended.

God has given us the prescription for handling these types of situations. Please, let's remember to follow that prescription!

References:

Matthew 18:15-17 --
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:15-17&version=NIV

PyCon incident --
http://news.msn.com/science-technology/techie-fired-after-complaining-on-twitter-about-sexual-jokes

There are 11 propositions on the ballot for November (2012). Here is how I will be voting along with a short comment as to why.

• Proposition 30 -- No
  Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

  We do not need to be taxed any more!!! As one of the arguments against this proposition states, "We already have the 2nd highest state income tax rate, as well as THE highest state sales tax rate." Businesses are already failing or moving out of state. We don't need to push them even harder.

• Proposition 31 -- No
  State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

  There are a lot of things that sound good in this proposition. However, I am very concerned about the reach of this proposition. It not only changes the rules at the state level, but also at the local level as well.

• Proposition 32 -- Yes
  Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.

  I am supporting this for one reason. No one should have the right to take money out of my paycheck for political purposes unless I say it is okay. It is that simple!

• Proposition 33 -- Yes
  Auto Insurance Companies. Prices based on Driver's History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

  Competition in business is always a good thing for the consumer.

• Proposition 34 -- No
  Death Penalty. Initiative Statute

  I support the death penalty. However, in California, those who oppose the death penalty have already ensured that it will rarely, if ever, happen. The fact that there has only been 13 executions in the last 46 years is proof of that.

• Proposition 35 -- Yes
  Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

  We need to get tougher on those who commit these types of crimes.

• Proposition 36 -- No
  Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

  We do not need to weaken the Three Strikes Law. It is serving us well!!!

• Proposition 37 -- No
  Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute.

  I am opposing this primarily due to Section 110809.4. Enforcement which opens the door to numerous lawsuits because of incorrect labeling especially when the benefit from that labeling requirement is minimal.

• Proposition 38 -- No
  Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.

  We do not need to be taxed any more!!!

• Proposition 39 -- No
  Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

  This is a transfer of wealth from successful businesses to fund clean energy. The loss to the successful businesses will result in people losing their jobs. We need to focus on creating jobs, not becoming number 1 in the nation in terms of unemployment!

• Proposition 40 -- Yes
  Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

  As Julie Vandermost, the official sponsor of the proposition, states, "This measure is not needed and we are no longer asking for a NO vote." I'm curious to see how many still vote No.

There is a battle waging here in California for political control of this State. And, the results of Proposition 32 will determine that control for years to come.

There are many who believe that the political actions within this State are heavily influenced by the unions, especially the CTA (California Teachers Association), and have been for many years. Proposition 32 addresses this by making all contributions for political activity to unions or corporations voluntary.

And, there are others who believe it is large corporations who have the strongest influence. Proposition 32 addresses that as well as contributions to state and local candidates are prohibited with the passage of this proposition. Both unions and corporations will be allowed to fund PACs (Political Action Committees), but direct support of state and local candidates will be prohibited.

There have been a couple attempts within the last 15 years attempting to accomplish the goals in Proposition 32. However, each meet their demise at the hands of the unions who spent millions in ensuring their defeat. And, once again, the unions are spending millions (approximately $40 million to date, $16 million from the CTA alone) to defeat Proposition 32.

I will be voting yes on Proposition 32 for one reason and one reason only. I believe no one has the right to take money directly from a person's paycheck without their consent. In this case, it is not uncommon for unions to take funds from their members paychecks specifically for political purposes. If a member voluntarily provides those funds, so be it. And, that is exactly what this measure does. It requires all political contributions to be voluntary.

It is time we level the political landscape here in California. It is time the citizens of this state to have a louder voice than the unions and corporations funding the campaigns of state and local politicians.

Vote Yes on Proposition 32.

Reference Links:

• California Proposition 32, the "Paycheck Protection" Initiative (2012) -- BallotPedia
• Text of California Proposition 32 (November 2012) -- BallotPedia
• Yes on 32 -- campaign site
• No on 32 -- campaign site

Note: Please read the text of the proposition. The No on 32 campaign is suggesting there are exemptions for corporations. If you read the text of the proposition or even just the summary at BallotPedia, you will see there are no exemptions!

Another sign of the times ...

I was waiting to pick up my daughter from her part time job. I noticed that the music instruction business had some signs on the door and window. And, I noticed that the furniture that was in the front area was gone as well. So, I got out and took a look at the sign.

The sign said, "We've moved. We now offer in-home instruction. Call ### or go online to xxx to schedule an appointment."

What does that really mean?
There was no forwarding address, so why would it say they've moved?

They are trying to make it clear that they aren't out of business. However, they can no longer afford to pay the expenses of having an office. The lease payments, the utilities and the other costs associated with maintaining a place of business (not cheap with the various California and Federal regulations one must meet) were just too much. So, they will now provide the instruction in your home.

This is a sign of the times. I continue to see businesses closing around where we live. No matter what the economists or the media reports, the truth is, the economy is not recovering. Small businesses are dying and the majority of the workers in this country are employed by these small businesses.

My daughter is one of those workers employed by a small business. And, I know her company is struggling. I worry that she too will soon become one of the unemployed.

We need a change, "real" change!

The following article proposing that voting should be mandatory was forwarded to me in an e-mail last week. I didn't read it right away because I have already dismissed that proposition. However, I finally did read it and realized it was necessary to point out the flaw in the premise behind the whole article.

Making Voting Mandatory

The very first sentence is misleading. It is clearly an attempt to persuade readers who rely on individuals such as the writer of this article to provide them with factual information. Yet, the writer here is intentionally vague.

The assertion made is that "it's very likely NO U.S. president has ever been elected by a majority of American adults." The premise being that ALL Americans are not represented in the makeup of the government because ALL Americans don't vote.

That premise is wrong!

The fact that many in this nation choose to forgo their duty as a citizen and vote does not diminish the results of an election. Those citizens who choose not to vote have abdicated the election, and thereby their representation, to others. And, in America, they have the freedom to make that choice!

Let's not take away yet another freedom!

Note: The majority of elected presidents have been elected by a majority of those who have chosen to vote. You can view the results here.

Update 6/27/2012:

Here's a good response to the article referenced above. The writer echoes my sentiments exactly!

Voter Apathy Isn’t a Crime

I was working on a project recently within Visual Studio 2010. I added something similar to the following:

header.h
#include "someh.h"
someho * value;


implement.cpp
#include "header.h"
#include "someh.h"

value = new someho();

The editor then showed the following error:

Error: A value of type 'someho *' cannot be assigned to an entity of type 'someho *'


A search of the internet brought up various articles. None directly applied to nor resolved my problem.

However, there was one article (here) that did give me a hint. The article stated that this error often occurs when a class has been redefined. So, a quick inspection of the header someh.h revealed that it did not contain an include guard. Since "some.h" was included in both header.h and implement.cpp, the object someho was technically being redefined. So, I put an include guard in "someh.h" and the error was resolved.

It sure would be nice if the compiler error was a little bit clearer.