Good News Everywhere

22 Nov

The Ford Stamping plant is adding 350 jobs and a 3rd shift to help feed parts to nearby Canadian Ford factories that are being crushed by demand for Ford’s excellent new lineup of cars. (Now imagine if Ford didn’t have to be in the business of providing health insurance for their employees and could just concentrate on hiring the best people to produce its cars, and if people had the freedom to apply for those jobs without regard to health benefits. That’s how it is in Canada, and that’s why Canada is attractive to manufacturers like Ford, Toyota, Honda, and GM. A 2002 analysis found that the labor cost to automakers in the US came out to $45.00/hour; in Canada, with its socialized medicine and all, the rate was closer to $30.00/hour). 

Governor Cuomo has been in WNY practically every two weeks ever since the locals decided that the NY SAFE Act was a horrible affront to 2nd Amendment rights because every American has the right to have an arsenal powerful enough to defeat the most expensive and powerful military in the world. Or something. 

Yesterday, he came to town to announce $225 million project to create a green energy campus at the site of a barren brownfield in Buffalo. Two companies are being attracted from California to develop and produce energy-efficient LED lighting and solar panels. The state is developing the property and buying the companies some machinery, and the companies will be hiring hundreds of locals for well-paying jobs and investing $1.5 billion in the move. Tax breaks are expected to attract even more businesses and jobs to the new green campus. 

Jim Heaney’s Investigative Post analyzes the deal, and declares it to be “progress”, although not a “game changer”. However, one selling point is that it may lead to 5,000 new, well-paying jobs over the next decade. Not a bad day, even if it’s only half as successful as that. 


71 Responses to “Good News Everywhere”

  1. Black Rock Lifer November 22, 2013 at 10:47 am #

    The Safe Act has had a huge impact on my family . Since I can no longer rely on 50 round clips to protect my home against minorities and government thugs I had to double down and arm my entire family. The wife can’t get the hang of the AR-15 and my 6 year old grand-daughter keeps whining that the 12 gauge is too heavy and loud. I mean what has happened to this country when a man can’t spray bullets at any perceived enemy at will? A lot of people just don’t know how sinister the Safe Act is, there are provisions that increase the penalty for shooting first responders and this crazy part where crazy people are restricted from owning guns. We all know gun control doesn’t work, just look at the countries where guns are limited for proof, wait, never mind, those countries probably doctored the stats just to appear safer than the US, damn foreigners.

    • rhmaccallum November 22, 2013 at 11:57 am #

      Maybe the granddaughter would be more comfortable with a .410. I know I am.

      • Black Rock Lifer November 22, 2013 at 12:09 pm #

        Is the .410 available in pink? (my granddaughter is a girly girl)

      • Hank Kaczmarek November 22, 2013 at 1:06 pm #

        If you really knew anything about guns, you’d know they are now.

      • Black Rock Lifer November 22, 2013 at 1:14 pm #

        Hank- I was being sarcastic, I am well aware of the marketing of colored guns to children. You might also recall the 5 year boy in Kentucky that shot his 2 year old sister with a small scaled rifle marketed as “my first gun”.

      • Hank Kaczmarek November 22, 2013 at 2:14 pm #

        Gun Safety is not achieved by legislation. Considering all the laws on the books, it hasn’t happened yet. Children can be taught to safely use a firearm, but at all times must be done UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF AN ADULT. Not just ANY adult, mind you, but one who understands the rules of gun safety. I’ll give you this much. If an adult allows a child to use a firearm without supervising him, whether anyone is harmed or not, that’s someone who needs to be locked up a lot more than someone who gets busted with some pot seeds in his pocket. Which in NY, is a felony too.

    • Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 1:34 pm #

      I don’t disagree that there are good provisions within NY SAFE ACT, but it went way too far with no analysis done on how those provisions will prove effective.

  2. Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

    The articles dismissive nature on the rights of legal gun owners in this article is kind of appalling and demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge of what the actual law is and the provisions therein. It’s so easy to poke fun when it’s not your rights being infringed.

    I do not support the NY SAFE ACT. I find the majority of the provisions in the law unconstitutional and am certain they will have no positive impact on gun violence. The provisions within this act are simply a knee jerk reaction with no empirical evidence to back up any assertion that lives will be saved. In fact, only evidence to the contrary exists.

    I find the fact that I cannot hand my rifles down to my own children unacceptable. The fact that I have to register rifles I already lawfully own like some sex offender is an infringement on my rights as an individual. The fact that NYS is further limiting the number of rounds in a rifle or pistol is proof that the gun control agenda is progressively escalating infringements upon our second amendment rights. Standard capacity in many of the now banned rifles is 30 rounds. NYS had already limited the rounds to ten and is now further limiting them down to seven. There were already limits on cosmetic features which are also being further limited down to one. What’s next, background checks for ammo purchases? Oh wait, that was included as well.

    I and many like me will fight this new law with all of the resources at our disposal. The manner in which this law was enacted and it’s over zealous provisions has polarized opposition to this law. This of course is going to hamper any real attempts at making life saving changes. This law was a mistake, and it needs to be repealed. Let’s focus on the real problems like our revolving door justice system and our mental health

    • Black Rock Lifer November 22, 2013 at 1:00 pm #

      It is truly amazing how many armchair constitutional lawyers have found the Safe Act to be unconstitutional. I would think the real lawyers and judges in real courts might be more convincing and provide an actual valid opinion as opposed to old white guys dressed in camo. As for your handing down your rifles to your own children, the Safe Act is clear “requires background checks for all sales EXCEPT FOR SALES OR GIFTS TO MEMBERS OF THE SELLERS IMMEDIATE FAMILY. You guys need to get a grip and stop the hysteria and exaggeration, the vast majority of Americans support reasonable gun control. A small minority of angry extremists should not be able to set the agenda and continue enabling criminals and violence.

      • Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

        Hmm, 52 out of 62 Counties within NYS have issued resolutions against the NY Safe Act

        The NYS Sherriff’s Association has issued a joint statement against the NY SAFE ACT

        The Albany Police Officers Union has issued a statement against the NY SAFE ACT

        More and more Towns (I lost count) within NYS are issuing resolutions against the NY SAFE ACT

        The only municipalities that are for the NY SAFE ACT are the counties immediately surrounding NYC which already have stricter gun control laws. Meaning, they have nothing to lose.

        Seems there more than a small amount of angry extremists out there no?

        Get your facts straight. Any rifle that has been labeled an “assault rifle” cannot be transferred to anyone in NYS. That means that my little .22 rifle with a thumb-hole stock cannot be given to my child, even with a background check. Look it up, get back to me and apologize for your unwarranted insults. Call the NY Safe Hotline if you must, I did.

        The problem with “common sense” gun laws is there there will always be a new one waiting in the wings. Saturday night specials, assault rifle, high
        capacity magazines, microstamping, smart gun technology, gun show loophole,
        sniper rifles, military grade weapons, and the list goes on and on. There is no
        shortage of evil sounding phrases used to tarnish the right to keep and bear
        arms. The gun controls folks always have a new “sanity” law that will save us from
        the guns on the street. Where does it end?

        Why is it that people who learned everything they know about guns and the gun culture from MSNBC get to decide what reasonable gun control is?

      • Hank Kaczmarek November 22, 2013 at 2:10 pm #

        About 20 years ago I was watching C-Span. Rep Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) was in the well of the House talking about how we needed more gun laws. Rep. Robert Walker (R-PA) asked to engage in a colloquy. A Paper bag was brought into the well by a police officer. Rep Walker showed Rep. DeLauro the weapons in the bag—9mm’s Mac-10’s, sawed off shotgun. ALL PURCHASED WITHIN 10 BLOCKS OF REP. DeLauro’s HOME IN HARTFORD, CT. So we need new gun laws, for what?

    • Hank Kaczmarek November 22, 2013 at 1:07 pm #

      The 4 power scope of the “I’m petrified of guns, and also nutless” gang now has you in it’s crosshairs—watch your back.

      • Mike_Chmiel November 22, 2013 at 2:00 pm #

        It always amazes me that the people who are petrified to be without guns are the ones calling us “nutless”.

        I guess I have just always been able to handle myself without one.

      • Hank Kaczmarek November 22, 2013 at 2:06 pm #

        Perhaps you just obey the law. And hope for the cops to be there if your ass is in a jam. The average response time for a 911 call is 11 minutes. The velocity of a slug from my .357 is 1100 feet per second. I’ll stick with the quicker response time. BTW, If you check other replies on Alan’s gun control posts, the Gun owners are usually referred to as Nutless. I just checked my package. Still there, still functions. I can handle myself without a gun, so long as the person I’m up against isn’t holding one on me. Ever consider that?

      • Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 2:53 pm #

        They always rely on insults. Wonder if I can count the number of times I have been insulted in this thread alone.
        However, we have to remember we are fighting for their rights as well. Don’t be surprised by their mentality when there’s so much social conditioning behind the the gun control agenda. It’s not entirely their fault. Stick with the facts, and always take the high road.

      • Alan Bedenko November 22, 2013 at 2:56 pm #

        In what way did @Mike_Chmiel:disqus insult anyone?

      • Mike_Chmiel November 22, 2013 at 3:16 pm #

        I was actually replying to the slur that asserted that all citizens who desire reasonable gun regulations are automatically “nutless”.

        But thanks for fighting my rights.

      • Mike_Chmiel November 22, 2013 at 3:14 pm #

        Where the hell do you hang out? I swear some of you gun enthusiasts talk like you reside in the Wild West, or Beirut circa 1982.

        There is no way that your world is as dangerous as you imagine. If it is, you need to move.

      • Hank Kaczmarek November 22, 2013 at 9:26 pm #

        I hang out in NC. I am not a member of a militia. I WAS in Beirut in 1982. My world isn’t dangerous. Down here you think twice before you do something cause you never know who’s got a gun. Meanwhile in NYS, the “Knockout” game continues. Some of these punks caught a cap, the game would be over. It’s not played here.

      • Russ Andolina November 22, 2013 at 2:40 pm #

        Speaking of poorly endowed overcompensators, see these gun freaks try to intimidate women at a restaurant?

      • Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 2:50 pm #

        This was proven to be a hoax. They were posing for a picture, not standing anyone off.

      • Alan Bedenko November 22, 2013 at 2:54 pm #

        Why were they posing for a picture at that time and place?

      • Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 3:07 pm #

        They were counter protesting peacefully. I’m sure you’re aware that counter protests are quite common regardless of the cause.
        The hoax is that the original image was trying to invoke an emotional response in those that see it. That the gun group was anxiously lying in wait outside of the restaurant. Like you, what I saw when I looked at the first image was a bunch of grim faced men with their itchy fingers on the triggers of their guns staring down the Moms, just waiting for an excuse to cause trouble.

        Then when you see the next image from the front it changes the story entirely. People posing and smiling for the camera. Other images simply shows the group mingling around randomly. Not positioned like a damn firing squad.

      • Alan Bedenko November 22, 2013 at 3:09 pm #

        I understand that they were posing for a picture. I don’t care about the picture. What I do care about is that a group of unarmed people are apparently unable to hold a meeting in a public place without being menaced by a small band of armed cowards. Picture notwithstanding.

        Maybe next time your wife is at a PTO meeting, some lunatic will show up with an AR-15, and you’ll tell me all about how unprovocative it is.

      • Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 3:13 pm #

        The fact that the women were alarmed or intimidated by men holding guns is actually their own fault, not the fault of the men engaging in a perfectly legal activity.

        Below is the mission statement of Open Carry Texas.

        Our purpose is to 1) educate all Texans about their right to openly carry rifles and shotguns in a safe manner; 2) to condition Texans to feel safe around law-abiding citizens that choose to carry them; 3) encourage our elected officials to pass less restrictive open carry legislation; and (4) foster a cooperative relationship with local law enforcement in the furtherance of these goals with an eye towards preventing negative encounters.

      • Alan Bedenko November 22, 2013 at 3:14 pm #

        Yes, it was their own fault. Go fuck yourself.

      • Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 3:18 pm #

        And we have more insults. As expected.

      • Alan Bedenko November 22, 2013 at 3:32 pm #

        No, I didn’t insult you. I told you to go fuck yourself.

        If you don’t understand the difference, how can I trust you to own and safely keep a firearm?

      • Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 4:06 pm #

        And you’ve proven I no longer need to debate with you as you’ve proven you can’t maintain civility. I’m actually pretty thankful you don’t have a gun.

      • Alan Bedenko November 22, 2013 at 4:10 pm #

        I’ll make it easy for you.

      • Pat Riot November 22, 2013 at 4:29 pm #

        I’ve read through a few of these posts trying to see both sides. Alan, you lose this one. No need for insults.

      • David Staba November 23, 2013 at 12:42 am #

        Come on, Alan. What good is having a gun if you can’t wave it around, especially at people who disagree with you?

      • Alan Bedenko November 23, 2013 at 7:56 am #

        FYI: “Pat Riot” is an “Eduardo Blanco” sock puppet.

        Pat Riot:
        Eduardo Blanco:

      • Hank Kaczmarek November 22, 2013 at 9:28 pm #

        Eduardo—You’ve been awarded the “Go Fuck Yourself” medal from Alan. It is a badge of honor. I’m a multiple recipient myself, but I’ve known him a long time.

    • Alan Bedenko November 22, 2013 at 2:09 pm #

      Might I interest you in “Fuck your Gun”?

      • Hank Kaczmarek November 22, 2013 at 2:17 pm #

        Why are you so afraid of guns? As much as I’d like to understand that, I just don’t get it. The only aim I see of the gun control nuts is they see it as a means to an end. when all the guns are gone, those who desire the Government to control every aspect of everyone’s lives (like most liberals) will have no opposition. Why do you think the amendment was written? The Founders were afraid of a large, over-controlling government. Folks can’t rise up when all they have is a dick in their hands.

      • Alan Bedenko November 22, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

        Wrong. The amendment was written so that our citizen militias, which existed because our Founders were fundamentally distrustful of a standing army.

        So, no, Hank. The 2nd Amendment was drafted to help citizens protect the government – not to overthrow it.

        As for guns, I’m not “afraid” of them. I hate them with an unbridled passion. Fuck your gun and fuck everyone’s gun.

      • UncleBluck November 22, 2013 at 2:55 pm #

        Jeez Alan…65 minutes till I’m out of work and off the computer…why couldn’t you have started this this morning?

      • Black Rock Lifer November 22, 2013 at 2:50 pm #

        Rising up against our democratically elected government is called treason, what part of that don’t you guys understand?

      • UncleBluck November 22, 2013 at 2:53 pm #

        Hank “Come on Man”….rise up? And then when they fly the drone over your and your militia buddies club house…what are you gonna rise up to then?

  3. Hank Kaczmarek November 22, 2013 at 1:10 pm #

    the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    What part of this do you not understand? Limiting the type of guns than can be purchased, how much ammunition they hold, how many you can own….HOW ARE THESE THINGS NOT INFRINGEMENTS? Sorry, I forgot. Under Dear Leader Barry, the Constitution is to be ignored. It has no force of law. Have a great weekend, I have guns that are calling to be clinged to.

    • Russ Andolina November 22, 2013 at 1:45 pm #

      I love how the “Shall not be infringed” is always tossed out there but the “well regulated” isn’t.

      • Hank Kaczmarek November 22, 2013 at 2:03 pm #

        Russ—Re-Take Constitutional Law. The “Well Regulated” refers to Militias. Nice try–thanks for playing.

      • Russ Andolina November 22, 2013 at 2:35 pm #

        Sure I mean we pick and choose what parts of the bible we want to follow so why not the Constitution as well.

      • Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

        Hank is right, please look it up yourself. Well Regulated did not mean in colonial times what it means today. In this context, it is referring to a well trained and disciplined militia. Not government regulation. Again, don’t take my word for it, look it up.

      • Rob Patterson November 22, 2013 at 2:47 pm #

        “For want of proper Laws in the Southern Governments, their Militia were never well regulated” — George Washington. Of course, what did HE know?

      • Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 2:49 pm #

        Again, look it up. I can post links if you like but it’s best you take this journey alone.

      • Rob Patterson November 22, 2013 at 2:52 pm #

        Thanks, but I’ll take George’s word for it that “regulated” means — or at minimum includes — “subjected to government regulations”. Just as it does in the Commerce Clause.

      • Alan Bedenko November 23, 2013 at 7:55 am #

        “Pat Riot” is an “Eduardo Blanco” sock puppet.

        Pat Riot:
        Eduardo Blanco:

    • Alan Bedenko November 22, 2013 at 2:04 pm #

      Gun-huggers love to pretend that the 2nd Amendment was created to combat the government. It was really created to enable armed civilian militias to defend it. That’s the fundamental bit you guys ignore or don’t get.

      • Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 2:26 pm #

        I don’t ignore that one bit, if called upon to do so I would gladly defend my country rifle in hand. I already served, I wouldn’t mind doing so again. In fact, I find that civilians would be far more likely to have to use their guns to defend our country rather than rise up against it. But that is exactly the point of a well trained, equip and disciplined militia.
        This “gun-hugger” agrees with you in this regard.

      • Alan Bedenko November 22, 2013 at 2:30 pm #

        Except the militias have been folded into what we now call the national guard and are well-regulated as such.

      • Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 2:45 pm #

        If you were correct ( you are partially correct, but in a very small, over simplified way which I cannot get into in such a short space), that would be great for me because the National Guard is except from all federal regulation on firearms.

        However, it’s all a moot point. The SCOTUS has already determined that the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on service in a militia.

      • Alan Bedenko November 22, 2013 at 2:53 pm #

        Correct, and it also held that you have a personal right to own arms. But of course in NY that right is already among the most restrictive, pre-SAFE act, so the hyperventilation over an incremental tightening of already tight restrictions is literally ridiculous.

      • Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm #

        Explain to me why I should not fight for what little rights I have left? Not sure I follow you logic. My problem with gun control is not that I do not believe there shouldn’t be any control, I simply feel it has to have an end and end goal. I do not want to see gun rights progressively legislated into oblivion. Does that sound like I am asking too much?

      • Alan Bedenko November 22, 2013 at 3:07 pm #

        You can “fight” for whatever you’d like. I don’t care. I don’t care why you think what you think, or how you arrived at your opinion.

        However, by way of example, a magazine with a max of 7 is not any more or less a constitutional infringement than a max of 10. It is a numerical decrease with no constitutional implication. You just don’t like it and you’re trying to turn it into a constitutional question. So, on that example, cite for me the SCOTUS case where a regulation of >10 bullets in a clip is unconstitutional.

      • JOE November 24, 2013 at 1:10 pm #

        Against All enemies foreign or “DOMESTIC “.

  4. Eduardo Blanco November 22, 2013 at 1:41 pm #

    Read this quick comic strip. You don’t have to agree but at least it’ll help you see the side of those you oppose a bit better.

  5. sconnors13 November 22, 2013 at 2:10 pm #

    If you start your comment with ‘Hmmm’ it losses credibility.

  6. jimd54 November 22, 2013 at 2:45 pm #

    Man nothing sets peoples hair on fire like the SAFE ACT! I heard another theory about what a “well regulated militia” really means. If you think back to the days of slavery you might wonder why the slaves just didn’t run away. Well apparently they did and militias were used in the south to round them up. In an effort to appease southern colonies, and get them on board, the founding fathers threw them a bone by putting their right to gather up slaves in the Bill of Rights.

    Kind of makes sense if you try to envision what life was like in the day.

  7. Alan Bedenko November 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm #

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar – Sigmund Freud

    • JOE November 24, 2013 at 1:06 pm #

      Unless your Monnica Lewinski !

  8. Mike_Chmiel November 22, 2013 at 3:19 pm #

    I think liberals should offer conservatives complete and unfettered access to guns of all types in exchange for full legalization of all drugs. Just to see what happens.

    • Rob Patterson November 22, 2013 at 3:26 pm #

      Rob Ford?

      • Mike_Chmiel November 22, 2013 at 3:35 pm #

        Ha! Utter chaos and excellent entertainment value!

  9. Mike_Chmiel November 22, 2013 at 3:29 pm #

    53 comments to reply to one offhand remark about guns and not one person has anything to say about the JOBS? I will say then – yay jobs!

    • Pauldub November 22, 2013 at 3:58 pm #

      You opened the door by mentioning the 2nd amendment. Nice job. It’ll take hours to clean up this mess.

      • Mike_Chmiel November 22, 2013 at 4:06 pm #

        Wasn’t me. And the cure for this vitriol can be found in the last article about stuffing waffles. Everyone is pretty much on the same page over there.

      • Alan Bedenko November 22, 2013 at 4:09 pm #


  10. Mike_Chmiel November 22, 2013 at 3:33 pm #

    On this date, maybe it is appropriate to consider whether a nation that has shot and killed nearly 10 percent of its presidents even deserves a 2nd Amendment to begin with.

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: