I can almost here the mouth foam oozing out of the mouth of the gun rights folks after this little ditty.
A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.
Of course, that's not even the best part.
To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.
One potential strategy would be to win support for specific measures from interest groups that are normally aligned with the NRA, according to one person who works closely with the administration on gun-related issues and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity.
For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.
Now, when we say Michael Bloomberg, we really mean Lord Voldemort. Let's just get that out of the way first:)
What I find very interesting about this particular idea is how the support for this could be shored up through places like Wal Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods. As I have said previously, the best way to solve the gun side of this is the money. Already we've seen some gun shows and retail outlets not carrying guns like the Bushmaster. If that loophole is closed and it results in more sales at retail operations, then you get the buy in from the business community.
But, really, the best part of all these ideas is that they actually have them as opposed to the gun lobby. Moreover, they are looking at this from a variety of angles and are going to pursue many different avenues that don't have anything to do with guns. The mental health aspect of this issue is one such example. Had Adam Lanza (along with all of these other spree shooters) had better access to mental health care, things may have turned out differently.
I get the real sense the gun lobby better come up with something better than what they have now or risk being shut out of the process and clearly seen as part of the problem...which, for now, they are. They've been the "Big Daddies" for quite some time now and I think they are a little too comfortable. They won't be after this...
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
A Gift That Will Keep On Giving
I can't think of a better example of the gun lobby's position than Alex Jones. Heck, I can't think of a better example of some of my commenters and how they talk to me than Alex Jones. Man oh man, he hit all the points (verbatim!:)) that I hear all the time on here. It's almost as if they are reading from some sort of script...
It's people like this make me ashamed of my country. Here's person #1 that should not own guns under any new gun laws and he has 50. For what, exactly?
Man, did he do the gun control folks a favor with this interview. Who's sensible now, asshole?
It's people like this make me ashamed of my country. Here's person #1 that should not own guns under any new gun laws and he has 50. For what, exactly?
Man, did he do the gun control folks a favor with this interview. Who's sensible now, asshole?
Planet Earth
For all of my crabbing on here, the world is actually getting to be a much better place in which to live. There's a lot of good news out there and if are diligent, you can find it. The best place to start is The Christian Science Monitor as they are usually very unbiased and shy away from sensation. The last issue, for example, had a plethora of good news and I'm going to be highlighting some of their stories over the next week or so. This, by the way, keeps my promise to put up more world news content as well:)
The first one that caught my eye was this story on poverty. I had to read it twice before I believed that it was real. Extreme poverty in the world has been...cut by half?!?
In fact, the rate of decline in extreme poverty everywhere in the world has more than doubled in the past decade, Ravallion says. That's after adjusting for China, whose sheer size makes it an outlier.
Simply amazing.
Now, the article does go on to say that there is still a great deal of poverty in the world but we are heading in the right direction. With the changes seen in China (as noted in the article), the direction we are heading as a world is very, very positive. In fact, I think the prediction that Bono made a year or two ago is going to come true: within 50 years, there will be no more hunger on this planet. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe, there will be no going back to "Live Aid" days. (Note: this includes climate change, incidentally, which is actually quite "foreseen" and will be eventually dealt with in an appropriate fashion).
So, why has this happened? Well, mainly, it's because of us. Our country has spread prosperity around the world in the form of liberal economic theory. Communism is gone and capitalism and free markets are spreading everywhere. If countries don't want to be a part of this (and there aren't many left out there), they will find themselves on the outside. Our new world certainly is not perfect and we have had some growing pains but the increased prosperity has no other explanation. Everyone on the planet wants an iPhone.
And, as the countries of the world begin to need less aid, we are going to see greater wealth in the Global North countries. In fact, my children will likely live in a time where there will be no delineation between the Global North and the Global South.
It's simply going to be Planet Earth.
The first one that caught my eye was this story on poverty. I had to read it twice before I believed that it was real. Extreme poverty in the world has been...cut by half?!?
In fact, the rate of decline in extreme poverty everywhere in the world has more than doubled in the past decade, Ravallion says. That's after adjusting for China, whose sheer size makes it an outlier.
Simply amazing.
Now, the article does go on to say that there is still a great deal of poverty in the world but we are heading in the right direction. With the changes seen in China (as noted in the article), the direction we are heading as a world is very, very positive. In fact, I think the prediction that Bono made a year or two ago is going to come true: within 50 years, there will be no more hunger on this planet. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe, there will be no going back to "Live Aid" days. (Note: this includes climate change, incidentally, which is actually quite "foreseen" and will be eventually dealt with in an appropriate fashion).
So, why has this happened? Well, mainly, it's because of us. Our country has spread prosperity around the world in the form of liberal economic theory. Communism is gone and capitalism and free markets are spreading everywhere. If countries don't want to be a part of this (and there aren't many left out there), they will find themselves on the outside. Our new world certainly is not perfect and we have had some growing pains but the increased prosperity has no other explanation. Everyone on the planet wants an iPhone.
And, as the countries of the world begin to need less aid, we are going to see greater wealth in the Global North countries. In fact, my children will likely live in a time where there will be no delineation between the Global North and the Global South.
It's simply going to be Planet Earth.
Monday, January 07, 2013
Another Greek Lesson
Conservatives like to point to Greece as an example of what will happen to us unless we follow their strong medicine and drastically reduce spending. But so far their predictions have failed. We haven't slashed, and our economy is doing better than countries that have.
Many economists, Paul Krugman among them, believe that the U.S. economy would be doing much better now if Obama had been able to implement the stronger stimulus he originally proposed. Instead the GOP blocked much of Obama's plan, apparently to sabotage the recovery to make him a one-term president.
But there are other lessons we can learn from Greece: tax evasion is rampant, and they have a tax collection shortfall that runs into tens of billions of euros. The major scandal in Greece now is the Lagarde List, a list of wealthy Greeks who have hidden their wealth in Swiss bank accounts. Additional tax collections are half what they were expected to be and investigations of off-shore tax evaders was derailed by George Papaconstantinou, who took the list with him when he resigned, and then removed his friends from the list before handing it over to his successor, Evangelos Venizelos, who also appears to be shielding his pals.
A magazine publisher, Kostas Vaxevanis, published the list and was prosecuted by the Greek government for "invasion of privacy." His article about his persecution by the Greek government was recently published in The New York Times. After the publication of the list two men suspected to be on it were found dead, apparently suicides.
Conservatives in the United States keep saying we have a spending problem, and we do to some extent. But the United States has a huge tax collection problem that dwarfs Greece's. Many people and corporations are still not paying their fair share. People like Mitt Romney pay less than 15% in taxes, using off-shore accounts and other tricks only the wealth can use to hide their wealth. Corporations like GE pay less than zero in taxes, and companies like Apple and Reebok squirrel away all their profits overseas using gimmicky licensing payments.
I say it's time Paul Ryan to keep the promise he made during the election. For every dollar of spending cuts to non-military programs they should eliminate a dollar of tax loopholes that only giant corporations and guys like Mitt Romney can take advantage of.
Many economists, Paul Krugman among them, believe that the U.S. economy would be doing much better now if Obama had been able to implement the stronger stimulus he originally proposed. Instead the GOP blocked much of Obama's plan, apparently to sabotage the recovery to make him a one-term president.
But there are other lessons we can learn from Greece: tax evasion is rampant, and they have a tax collection shortfall that runs into tens of billions of euros. The major scandal in Greece now is the Lagarde List, a list of wealthy Greeks who have hidden their wealth in Swiss bank accounts. Additional tax collections are half what they were expected to be and investigations of off-shore tax evaders was derailed by George Papaconstantinou, who took the list with him when he resigned, and then removed his friends from the list before handing it over to his successor, Evangelos Venizelos, who also appears to be shielding his pals.
A magazine publisher, Kostas Vaxevanis, published the list and was prosecuted by the Greek government for "invasion of privacy." His article about his persecution by the Greek government was recently published in The New York Times. After the publication of the list two men suspected to be on it were found dead, apparently suicides.
Conservatives in the United States keep saying we have a spending problem, and we do to some extent. But the United States has a huge tax collection problem that dwarfs Greece's. Many people and corporations are still not paying their fair share. People like Mitt Romney pay less than 15% in taxes, using off-shore accounts and other tricks only the wealth can use to hide their wealth. Corporations like GE pay less than zero in taxes, and companies like Apple and Reebok squirrel away all their profits overseas using gimmicky licensing payments.
I say it's time Paul Ryan to keep the promise he made during the election. For every dollar of spending cuts to non-military programs they should eliminate a dollar of tax loopholes that only giant corporations and guys like Mitt Romney can take advantage of.
Uh Oh
Looks like the rats are leaving the sinking ship. I guess they got tired of all the wrong information put out there on a daily basis.
What amazes me most about this is how the Right really hates losers. Everything is about winning for them and, if you don't, they have no time for you at all.
Sour, sour grapes...
What amazes me most about this is how the Right really hates losers. Everything is about winning for them and, if you don't, they have no time for you at all.
Sour, sour grapes...
Sunday, January 06, 2013
Why, Again?
Suppose you are in a darkened room with 20 armed people and you. You are the only one not armed.
Who gets shot first?
Who survives?
Think about it for a minute.
Have it yet?
The 20 armed men likely get shot first.
You survive.
Why?
The 20 armed men aren't worried about the unarmed man because he doesn't have a gun. They are more worried about the men with guns because they represent a threat. So, they go after each other.
But you...you are trying to get out of the way of the 20 armed men and survive. So, your first reaction is to hide, move, dodge and stay out of the way of the gunfire. You might get shot by accident but not intentionally because they are shooting at each other to eliminate the higher threat.
In short, your goal is to survive.
They all shoot each other until there are 2 or 3 left and then they really aren't worried about you but the last couple armed people. You escape. You live. You survive.
And you aren't armed.
So, how does arming everyone make people safer?
Who gets shot first?
Who survives?
Think about it for a minute.
Have it yet?
The 20 armed men likely get shot first.
You survive.
Why?
The 20 armed men aren't worried about the unarmed man because he doesn't have a gun. They are more worried about the men with guns because they represent a threat. So, they go after each other.
But you...you are trying to get out of the way of the 20 armed men and survive. So, your first reaction is to hide, move, dodge and stay out of the way of the gunfire. You might get shot by accident but not intentionally because they are shooting at each other to eliminate the higher threat.
In short, your goal is to survive.
They all shoot each other until there are 2 or 3 left and then they really aren't worried about you but the last couple armed people. You escape. You live. You survive.
And you aren't armed.
So, how does arming everyone make people safer?
Saturday, January 05, 2013
Business As Usual?
Remember back after the Columbine shooting when the NRA showed up in Denver and thumped their chests?
Yeah, not gonna happen this time....
Some gun shows canceling after Conn. mass shooting.
Further...
Some of the most popular guns will be missing from next weekend's gun show in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., after show organizers agreed to bar the display and sale of AR-15 military-style semiautomatic weapons and their large-clip magazines.
Huh. I thought it was going to be business as usual if not more so after Sandy Hook.
Yeah, not gonna happen this time....
Some gun shows canceling after Conn. mass shooting.
Further...
Some of the most popular guns will be missing from next weekend's gun show in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., after show organizers agreed to bar the display and sale of AR-15 military-style semiautomatic weapons and their large-clip magazines.
Huh. I thought it was going to be business as usual if not more so after Sandy Hook.
A Collection of Voices In My Head
I've heard so many "voices in my head" of late. What are they saying these days?
“The numbers — at some point it’s got to catch up or else we’re all going to die,” said Chris Chocola, head of the anti-tax Club for Growth.
Cue the boiling pit of sewage!
Obama you stupid sand nigger get off my tv. Your just making the families hurt and miss their kids more and I want to watch football
The above is one tweet of many. Make sure you read all of the comments from the non-Republican, non-racists.
And what happens when you hug the president and you are a registered Republican?
But the attention wasn't all positive. Van Duzer, a registered Republican, had voted for Obama in the last election and said he did again in November. That brought out the worst in anti-Obama zealots, who called in bomb threats, sent him hate mail with death threats, and brought out a level of vitriol Van Duzer said he had never witnessed. Some tried to organize a boycott of his restaurant and bombarded Yelp!, the restaurant review website, with thousands of one-star reviews from first-time visitors to the site.
It must be the left wing media's fault! Where's Katie Couric?!??
“The numbers — at some point it’s got to catch up or else we’re all going to die,” said Chris Chocola, head of the anti-tax Club for Growth.
Cue the boiling pit of sewage!
Obama you stupid sand nigger get off my tv. Your just making the families hurt and miss their kids more and I want to watch football
The above is one tweet of many. Make sure you read all of the comments from the non-Republican, non-racists.
And what happens when you hug the president and you are a registered Republican?
But the attention wasn't all positive. Van Duzer, a registered Republican, had voted for Obama in the last election and said he did again in November. That brought out the worst in anti-Obama zealots, who called in bomb threats, sent him hate mail with death threats, and brought out a level of vitriol Van Duzer said he had never witnessed. Some tried to organize a boycott of his restaurant and bombarded Yelp!, the restaurant review website, with thousands of one-star reviews from first-time visitors to the site.
It must be the left wing media's fault! Where's Katie Couric?!??
Friday, January 04, 2013
Low Capacity
A few weeks back, I had a very long discussion with the folks over at TSM about the Sandy Hook tragedy and what is likely going to be a sea change in the way guns are viewed in this country. Mixed in with the chest thumping, mouth foaming, jingoism and adolescent bullying was this comment.
I think there needs to be a sound philosophical reasoning for establishing a clear, rational category of weapons that are off limits. Maybe it's the wide area destructiveness and indiscriminate standard I mentioned earlier. Or maybe it could something to the effect that if it's something which not even most governments can control, then no individual can own it. Another possibility could be the category of weapons you would not use when fighting a defensive war on your own soil.
I couldn't possibly agree more. Of course, the gun rights folks don't even want to have that discussion as they hit over boil in about a second and begin to descend into paranoid rants about the 2nd amendment. What are they really afraid of?
It's not losing the right to bear arms. People are always going to have that right with a variety of guns and other weapons from which to choose. And it can't be that they think that our government is suddenly going to become fascist and/or communist and they will then need those arms to defend themselves against tyranny....well, maybe that is it a little bit:) Perhaps it's simply that they like their toys and they don't want to give them up.
Honestly, though, I think the real reason why they don't want to have the discussion about what weapons are OK and which ones aren't is that it leads to the necessity of coming up with a solution to gun violence in this country. To begin with, they don't want a solution because the violence enables them to continue to justify themselves and their ideology. This is why you rarely hear them talk about violence going down across the nation. If they ain't a comin', then why do they require so many armaments? (Note: this is similar to why they don't want to talk about good economic news or the realities of climate change...they would no longer be able to justify their imperial edicts and bloviating ideology).
There is a bigger and more obvious reason why they don't want have the solution discussion: they don't have one. That's exactly what was on display when Wayne LaPierre did his broken record of a press conference two weeks ago. For a group that champions high capacity guns, they are decidedly low capacity on real world solutions. It's more guns and fuck you, don't take away my gun. That's it. That's all they have.
The singular most amazing point about this is the colossal level of impotence of which Nikto spoke recently. One would think that with such a tenacity for defense that they could come up with something better than the same ol' same ol' but alas, this is not the case. Press them on the issue and that's when the personal attacks, bullying and Spanish Inquisition begin which all further illustrate their total failure at addressing this problem (this is similar to how they approach other issues as well so it's really no surprise).
The sad news for them is that, after Sandy Hook, we are now going to have this discussion. Even though violence in the country is going down overall, this tragedy has changed the landscape due to the nature of the crime. One simply can't look at numbers and say, "Well, less people died from school shootings so let's not worry about it." The quality of the crime matters and we know in all these cases how it happens.
Guns are only a part of this. After we reason which weapons are off limits and which aren't, then we need to look at the safety issue. The profile for these shooters are essentially the same...young, male, mental and emotional issues, taking medications, lack of parental cohesion...so is there a way to screen for this in future gun purchases? Perhaps not on a government level but, similar to car insurance where there are higher risk groups for accidents, there could be higher risk groups for owning guns. If you are in this group and want to own a gun, requiring a certain type of insurance might be a solution. This is the type of conversation that needs to happen.
Much to the apoplectic chagrin of the gun rights folks, they are going to have to come up with something more than what they have now. Significantly more. Or they will take themselves out of the debate and risk losing more than just their Bushmasters. So, let's start with this quote above. What are the categories? How should they be divided? Why would some people perceive some weapons as defensive and not others?
I think there needs to be a sound philosophical reasoning for establishing a clear, rational category of weapons that are off limits. Maybe it's the wide area destructiveness and indiscriminate standard I mentioned earlier. Or maybe it could something to the effect that if it's something which not even most governments can control, then no individual can own it. Another possibility could be the category of weapons you would not use when fighting a defensive war on your own soil.
I couldn't possibly agree more. Of course, the gun rights folks don't even want to have that discussion as they hit over boil in about a second and begin to descend into paranoid rants about the 2nd amendment. What are they really afraid of?
It's not losing the right to bear arms. People are always going to have that right with a variety of guns and other weapons from which to choose. And it can't be that they think that our government is suddenly going to become fascist and/or communist and they will then need those arms to defend themselves against tyranny....well, maybe that is it a little bit:) Perhaps it's simply that they like their toys and they don't want to give them up.
Honestly, though, I think the real reason why they don't want to have the discussion about what weapons are OK and which ones aren't is that it leads to the necessity of coming up with a solution to gun violence in this country. To begin with, they don't want a solution because the violence enables them to continue to justify themselves and their ideology. This is why you rarely hear them talk about violence going down across the nation. If they ain't a comin', then why do they require so many armaments? (Note: this is similar to why they don't want to talk about good economic news or the realities of climate change...they would no longer be able to justify their imperial edicts and bloviating ideology).
There is a bigger and more obvious reason why they don't want have the solution discussion: they don't have one. That's exactly what was on display when Wayne LaPierre did his broken record of a press conference two weeks ago. For a group that champions high capacity guns, they are decidedly low capacity on real world solutions. It's more guns and fuck you, don't take away my gun. That's it. That's all they have.
The singular most amazing point about this is the colossal level of impotence of which Nikto spoke recently. One would think that with such a tenacity for defense that they could come up with something better than the same ol' same ol' but alas, this is not the case. Press them on the issue and that's when the personal attacks, bullying and Spanish Inquisition begin which all further illustrate their total failure at addressing this problem (this is similar to how they approach other issues as well so it's really no surprise).
The sad news for them is that, after Sandy Hook, we are now going to have this discussion. Even though violence in the country is going down overall, this tragedy has changed the landscape due to the nature of the crime. One simply can't look at numbers and say, "Well, less people died from school shootings so let's not worry about it." The quality of the crime matters and we know in all these cases how it happens.
Guns are only a part of this. After we reason which weapons are off limits and which aren't, then we need to look at the safety issue. The profile for these shooters are essentially the same...young, male, mental and emotional issues, taking medications, lack of parental cohesion...so is there a way to screen for this in future gun purchases? Perhaps not on a government level but, similar to car insurance where there are higher risk groups for accidents, there could be higher risk groups for owning guns. If you are in this group and want to own a gun, requiring a certain type of insurance might be a solution. This is the type of conversation that needs to happen.
Much to the apoplectic chagrin of the gun rights folks, they are going to have to come up with something more than what they have now. Significantly more. Or they will take themselves out of the debate and risk losing more than just their Bushmasters. So, let's start with this quote above. What are the categories? How should they be divided? Why would some people perceive some weapons as defensive and not others?
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Since Ike
President Barack Obama is the first president since Dwight David Eisenhower to win 51 percent of the popular vote...twice!
Final tally?
65.9 million votes -51.1% of the vote for the president
60.9 million votes-47.2% of the vote for Mitt Romney
The response from the Right?
He bribed them with gifts!
He stole votes!
The polls were skewed!
He's a socialist!
He's a gun grabber!
He wasn't born here!
He was trained in a madrassa!
(all of which really worked out well for them didn't it?)
Final tally?
65.9 million votes -51.1% of the vote for the president
60.9 million votes-47.2% of the vote for Mitt Romney
The response from the Right?
He bribed them with gifts!
He stole votes!
The polls were skewed!
He's a socialist!
He's a gun grabber!
He wasn't born here!
He was trained in a madrassa!
(all of which really worked out well for them didn't it?)
Seeing the End?
I've been trying to figure out exactly WTF the House Republicans have been thinking these last few days and I got nothing. I like John Boehner and, in many ways, actually feel sorry for him. He has to deal with around 75 adolescent males every day (enough to make any parent or teacher cry!) in his caucus so cutting him some slack seems like the right thing to do.
But this latest game with the aid for Hurricane Sandy victims shows just how fucked up the Right is these days. They are run by a group of people who see any sort of government spending (except defense) as the equivalent of raping children. I guess the general welfare clause also does not apply to people whose homes were lost to natural disaster. Why should we have to pay for their loss? They just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, stop spooning off the government, and get to work, by gum!
Boehner finally gave in after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie unleashed holy hell and a vote in the House will now be scheduled on Friday. Honestly, though, this is a larger issue that we are going to see play out in the coming months and it really only has one conclusion: more Democratic victories and a likely retaking of the House in 2014.
In what has to be the finest example of "Doing it again, only harder," GOP leaders have already indicated that they are going to play chicken with the debt ceiling again. It worked so well last time so why not try it again? With all the good economic news (more on that tomorrow), it makes perfect sense to try to ruin any chances of improvement. After all, they have been rooting for America to fail since the president took office in their never ending quest to not be proven wrong and win the argument. Who gives a shit if the economy continues to sputter?
The Right has also indicated that, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy, that: a) more people being armed is the answer (see: 1984, George Orwell) and b) we can't really do anything anyway because we are free and freedom means impotence. So, a far right stance on guns will be taken with no possibility for even a reasonable discussion or alternative solutions, We are talking about a choice between our freedom or burning in hell under a totalitarian regime. The stakes have never been higher, folks!!
Even with immigration, the Right remains steadfast. They don't have time for the details. It's "Fuck you, get out!" They don't seem to mind that, if they continue down this path, possibly in 2016 (2020 is more likely), Texas will turn blue and the Republican Party as we know it will have gone the way of the Whigs.
I think the head of the conservative organization Club For Growth, Chris Chocola, summed up the thinking on the Right (and the "voices in my head") when he said, of the debt, "The numbers-at some point it's got to catch up or else we are all going to die." Look out, folks! We have to stop government before they inflict any more evil on the world!!! AHHHH!!!!
I guess the Right didn't learn anything from the election last November and their possible end is becoming more and more clearer every day. Politically, that's great for me but my concern is how many Americans they are going to drag down with them in their teenage male stomp down the hallway.
But this latest game with the aid for Hurricane Sandy victims shows just how fucked up the Right is these days. They are run by a group of people who see any sort of government spending (except defense) as the equivalent of raping children. I guess the general welfare clause also does not apply to people whose homes were lost to natural disaster. Why should we have to pay for their loss? They just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, stop spooning off the government, and get to work, by gum!
Boehner finally gave in after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie unleashed holy hell and a vote in the House will now be scheduled on Friday. Honestly, though, this is a larger issue that we are going to see play out in the coming months and it really only has one conclusion: more Democratic victories and a likely retaking of the House in 2014.
In what has to be the finest example of "Doing it again, only harder," GOP leaders have already indicated that they are going to play chicken with the debt ceiling again. It worked so well last time so why not try it again? With all the good economic news (more on that tomorrow), it makes perfect sense to try to ruin any chances of improvement. After all, they have been rooting for America to fail since the president took office in their never ending quest to not be proven wrong and win the argument. Who gives a shit if the economy continues to sputter?
The Right has also indicated that, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy, that: a) more people being armed is the answer (see: 1984, George Orwell) and b) we can't really do anything anyway because we are free and freedom means impotence. So, a far right stance on guns will be taken with no possibility for even a reasonable discussion or alternative solutions, We are talking about a choice between our freedom or burning in hell under a totalitarian regime. The stakes have never been higher, folks!!
Even with immigration, the Right remains steadfast. They don't have time for the details. It's "Fuck you, get out!" They don't seem to mind that, if they continue down this path, possibly in 2016 (2020 is more likely), Texas will turn blue and the Republican Party as we know it will have gone the way of the Whigs.
I think the head of the conservative organization Club For Growth, Chris Chocola, summed up the thinking on the Right (and the "voices in my head") when he said, of the debt, "The numbers-at some point it's got to catch up or else we are all going to die." Look out, folks! We have to stop government before they inflict any more evil on the world!!! AHHHH!!!!
I guess the Right didn't learn anything from the election last November and their possible end is becoming more and more clearer every day. Politically, that's great for me but my concern is how many Americans they are going to drag down with them in their teenage male stomp down the hallway.
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
In Less Than Seven Minutes
It only took Rhode Island teacher Steven Round less than seven minutes to sum up perfectly many of the things that are wrong with our education system today. Sadly, there are far too many school districts that are like this. Thankfully, both mine and my children's district are not.
His points below illustrate several things. First, trying to have a one size fits all approach to teaching children is an epic fail. If districts are going to chuck Carol Ann Tomlinson by the roadside these days, children are going to lose. Second, we are creating a nation of test takers, not learners and students with enduring understandings. As Mr. Round says in this video, they have no clue what the real world is like. Third, this lack of real world experience is compounded further by budget cuts which means no field trips. Far too many districts suffer these consequences.
This, of course leads to a larger problem which is a decided lack of socialization time for many schoolchildren of all ages. Having a conversation with fellow students on a regular basis is a very key element to development. Without it, another avenue of real world experience is lost.
Given how so many school districts operate like this one (see: mini-fiefdoms) I fear that Mr. Round is only the first of many abrupt departures.
His points below illustrate several things. First, trying to have a one size fits all approach to teaching children is an epic fail. If districts are going to chuck Carol Ann Tomlinson by the roadside these days, children are going to lose. Second, we are creating a nation of test takers, not learners and students with enduring understandings. As Mr. Round says in this video, they have no clue what the real world is like. Third, this lack of real world experience is compounded further by budget cuts which means no field trips. Far too many districts suffer these consequences.
This, of course leads to a larger problem which is a decided lack of socialization time for many schoolchildren of all ages. Having a conversation with fellow students on a regular basis is a very key element to development. Without it, another avenue of real world experience is lost.
Given how so many school districts operate like this one (see: mini-fiefdoms) I fear that Mr. Round is only the first of many abrupt departures.
All Calories are Not Created Equal
A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that the brain reacts differently to fructose than it does to glucose (via USA Today):
For the study, scientists used magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, scans to track blood flow in the brain in 20 young, normal-weight people before and after they had drinks containing glucose or fructose in two sessions several weeks apart.That means the two sugars have different biological effects on the body. Even though they may contain the same number of calories, someone consuming products made with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) instead of glucose (regular sugar) may wind up eating more and gaining more weight.
Scans showed that drinking glucose "turns off or suppresses the activity of areas of the brain that are critical for reward and desire for food," said one study leader, Yale University endocrinologist Robert Sherwin. With fructose, "we don't see those changes," he said. "As a result, the desire to eat continues — it isn't turned off."
This is not the first such finding. Many studies have found that artificial sweeteners also fail to trip the satiety switch. That means nearly all soft drinks, even diet sodas that contain zero calories, may contribute to weight gain by failing to trip the mechanisms that tell us to stop feeding our faces.
But fructose is the sugar that's in fruit. Does that mean fruit's bad for you? No.
An apple has 116 calories, 31 grams of carbohydrates, 5 grams of fiber (20% of your daily recommended value), vitamin C and trace amounts of vitamin A, iron and calcium. A 12-ounce Coke has 140 calories, 39 grams of carbohydrates, 50 mg sodium and phosphoric acid, which is linked to bone loss. The apple provides nutritional value, which Coke does not, as well as fiber that provides a satiety mechanism.
According to a Gallup poll from last year, the average person who drinks soda consumes 2.6 glasses a day (48% of Americans said they consumed soda, and 7% said they drank four or more glasses per day). It's hard to find anyone who eats 2.6 apples a day, even though doctors tell us we should eat five to thirteen servings of fruits and vegetables daily. The average American eats just three total servings of fruits and vegetables.
Last year everyone went ballistic when New York banned sugared soft drink sizes greater than 16 ounces. I've always been baffled that anyone could down 16 ounces of soda at a sitting, much less 20 or 32. But these scientific findings, if duplicated, may indicate a tangible reason: people don't feel sated when they drink HFCS- and aspartame-sweetened beverages, so they drink and eat more.
Maybe we haven't become gluttons because we're weak-willed: maybe it's the biochemistry of the highly-engineered stuff coming out of food industry labs. HFCS is in everything, from chips to cereal to soda to ice cream to Sarah Lee cakes. Which makes you wonder: is the food and beverage industry aware of this effect? Are they engineering products to make us eat more, the way cigarette companies intentionally engineered their products to make them more addictive? HFCS was originally used because it was cheaper due to sugar import restrictions, but is there a darker reason for using it?
The food industry has been trying to rehabilitate HFCS's image for years. They lobbied the FDA to call it "corn sugar" to get away from its bad rep, an initiative that was ultimately denied. The industry's attempt at subterfuge, reminiscent of the tobacco industry, calls into question their motives.
This debate recalls the revolt against New Coke when it came out in 1985: everyone hated it. Some people went to Mexico to get Old Coke, which was still made with cane sugar. After three months Coke relented and introduced Classic Coke. But it wasn't quite the same: it was made with HFCS instead of cane sugar. Was Classic Coke just a Trojan horse for HFCS?
On the plus side, the study's findings suggest an alternative that we may actually enjoy. Instead of drinking gallons of "diet" or high-fructose soda, perhaps we would eat fewer calories overall if we indulged in one glass of truly classic Coke made with cane sugar, or one rich, dark chocolate bar made with real sugar, or one ice cream cone made with real cream and real sugar. And who can eat anything more after two bites of real cheesecake?
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
Resolutions
In many ways, 2012 was a great year for this site. Blogger has made it very simple to bring in widgets and links to allow for more connectivity to outside resources and related sites. We saw more page views and comments than ever before in our seven year history. We also have a core following of about 200 readers and that suits me just fine. I've always wanted to be the digital equivalent of a small town newspaper and now it is safe to say that we fit that description perfectly. And it's been great to have a fellow contributor to take the daily load of posts off...thanks Nikto!
This does not mean, however, that we should rest on our laurels here at Markadelphia. I've been thinking that this site needs some changes, content wise, and so I've come up with a few resolutions for 2013.
1. More World News.
Last in line has quietly chided me over the past few months about how this site used to be more focused on international events. Well, he's right. Those topics have fallen by the wayside and it's time to bring them back (especially now that the election is over). At least once a week (and likely more than that), there will be a post commenting on world news. Will it be the latest on the strife in the Central African Republic? Or how about China's PMI forecast? Who knows? Whatever strikes my fancy, I guess, but it's going to be regular occurrence that will likely be a welcome break from political talk. Speaking of which...
2. Pop Culture.
Most of the readers of this site don't know that I am a massive fan of pop culture...music and film, in particular. In addition to the weekly world news post, there will be one that comments on pop culture. I do one at the end of the year but there just has to be more. My passion for this is simply too great to ignore it further and, again, talking about politics all the time can get rather tedious. I will probably throw in some sports posts here and there as well.
3. Education.
I have far too few posts about education which is odd considering that I am teacher. Part of the reason for this was to keep a degree of privacy in my life. Yet, I find that there are some experiences in my classrooms that I should write about and as long as they are done in the broader context of the issues facing education, I think I can maintain that public/private balance. So, expect more posts about the state of education in our country and the world (starting tomorrow with a video sent to me by last in line...him again!). These will likely have a more personal tone as well.
4. Science
Many of you may not know this but Nikto is a classically trained scientist. He's thrown out a few posts here and there with different scientific themes which have given me the idea to make this a more regular occurrence. Expect more posts that focus on innovation and science in the world today. Yes, that's right, Nikto, I'm volunteering you:)
These four resolutions can be summed up simply by noting that there is going to be more of a mix of content with less politics. That doesn't mean that my quest to destroy the right wing bubble is at an end. Far from it! I just feel the need to stretch myself out more with some different content which makes me look forward to 2013 with a large amount of gusto and zeal!
This does not mean, however, that we should rest on our laurels here at Markadelphia. I've been thinking that this site needs some changes, content wise, and so I've come up with a few resolutions for 2013.
1. More World News.
Last in line has quietly chided me over the past few months about how this site used to be more focused on international events. Well, he's right. Those topics have fallen by the wayside and it's time to bring them back (especially now that the election is over). At least once a week (and likely more than that), there will be a post commenting on world news. Will it be the latest on the strife in the Central African Republic? Or how about China's PMI forecast? Who knows? Whatever strikes my fancy, I guess, but it's going to be regular occurrence that will likely be a welcome break from political talk. Speaking of which...
2. Pop Culture.
Most of the readers of this site don't know that I am a massive fan of pop culture...music and film, in particular. In addition to the weekly world news post, there will be one that comments on pop culture. I do one at the end of the year but there just has to be more. My passion for this is simply too great to ignore it further and, again, talking about politics all the time can get rather tedious. I will probably throw in some sports posts here and there as well.
3. Education.
I have far too few posts about education which is odd considering that I am teacher. Part of the reason for this was to keep a degree of privacy in my life. Yet, I find that there are some experiences in my classrooms that I should write about and as long as they are done in the broader context of the issues facing education, I think I can maintain that public/private balance. So, expect more posts about the state of education in our country and the world (starting tomorrow with a video sent to me by last in line...him again!). These will likely have a more personal tone as well.
4. Science
Many of you may not know this but Nikto is a classically trained scientist. He's thrown out a few posts here and there with different scientific themes which have given me the idea to make this a more regular occurrence. Expect more posts that focus on innovation and science in the world today. Yes, that's right, Nikto, I'm volunteering you:)
These four resolutions can be summed up simply by noting that there is going to be more of a mix of content with less politics. That doesn't mean that my quest to destroy the right wing bubble is at an end. Far from it! I just feel the need to stretch myself out more with some different content which makes me look forward to 2013 with a large amount of gusto and zeal!
Monday, December 31, 2012
Best Album, Best Track of 2012
The Best Album of 2012 is Paul Weller's Sonik Kicks. I make no bones about being a Brit Rock obsessive but this record goes far beyond that. With his latest release, Weller continues to explore a multitude of musical styles ranging from Kraut Rock to Chill Out Trance Dubs. There are several nods to his old, Mod days in the Jam as well as acoustic pastorals that would go along wonderfully with a Monet painting.
The track of the year is from this album. "A Study In Blue," featuring his wife, Hannah, is a beautiful, haunting and trippy piece of music that has pretty much been the soundtrack to my year. Check it out and play it loud as you head this evening for NYE festivities!
The track of the year is from this album. "A Study In Blue," featuring his wife, Hannah, is a beautiful, haunting and trippy piece of music that has pretty much been the soundtrack to my year. Check it out and play it loud as you head this evening for NYE festivities!
Best TV Show of 2012
The best TV show of 2012 is HBO's Boardwalk Empire. Season 3 was absolutely wonderful and hit on all cylinders with 100 percent power. The acting, the writing, and directing were all impeccable this year and each week was like watching a mini film to be quite honest.
Steve Buscemi continues to be one of the most underrated actors of our time. Bobby Cannavale's Gyp Rosetti was truly one of the most frightening characters to every grace the small screen. And, like the previous two seasons, the historical context stayed true to the times. Prohibition was a horribly violent time and showed the folly of trying to outlaw alcohol.
Here's one of the trailers for Season 3.
Steve Buscemi continues to be one of the most underrated actors of our time. Bobby Cannavale's Gyp Rosetti was truly one of the most frightening characters to every grace the small screen. And, like the previous two seasons, the historical context stayed true to the times. Prohibition was a horribly violent time and showed the folly of trying to outlaw alcohol.
Here's one of the trailers for Season 3.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Best Film of 2012
It's that time of year again for Best Ofs and first up is Best Film. This year, it wasn't even contest.
Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom is the best coming of age story put on celluloid since Rob Reiner's Stand By Me. It tells the story of two young teenagers in the mid 1960s who decide to run away and have an adventure. Their parents, his scout troop, social services, and the law (in the form of the completely hilarious Bruce Willis) pursue them.
Anderson's perception of life has always resonated with me. All of his films are gems, in my opinion, but this one seems a level above that. If you've never seen any of his films, I recommend picking them all up and checking them out. Start with this one.
Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom is the best coming of age story put on celluloid since Rob Reiner's Stand By Me. It tells the story of two young teenagers in the mid 1960s who decide to run away and have an adventure. Their parents, his scout troop, social services, and the law (in the form of the completely hilarious Bruce Willis) pursue them.
Anderson's perception of life has always resonated with me. All of his films are gems, in my opinion, but this one seems a level above that. If you've never seen any of his films, I recommend picking them all up and checking them out. Start with this one.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Happily Going Over The Cliff
It's been amusing in a sort of horrifying way to watch Congress try to come up with some sort of plan to avert the tax rate rise and spending cuts that are going to occur on January 1, 2013. I don't think I've ever seen a Republican leader admit that he was powerless as Speaker Boehner did last week. "It's now up to the president and Harry Reid," he said. Unbelievable.
But that's what happens when you have a caucus that is comprised of juveniles who are eternally stomping down the hallway and slamming their doors at what they perceive to be their dad. They're perfectly happy to crash the car in order to sate their adolescent power fantasies. They'd rather cut of their nose despite their faces.
And that's just what is going to happen. If no deal is reached by Tuesday (and it looks doubtful), January 2nd is going to be a barn burner at the New York Stock Exchange. At that point, the GOP will be fucked. If they deal now, they are going to get something for those upper income folks. If they wait, however, the only bill they are going to see is one that makes the tax cuts permanent for those making under 250K and they will have no choice but to sign it as the market drops 500-1000 points.
They're also going to get bloody ears (and possibly more) in terms of the spending cuts and will likely have to give in on those as well. Much of their constituency is old people who love Medicare and Social Security. Any sort of cuts will be viewed with much animosity. This doesn't even take into account the defense cuts which, in my view, if they happen, will basically mean the end of the Tea Party. Democrats learned a long time ago that you don't fuck with defense contractors.
So, this begs the question, do the Republicans want to be the Whigs of the 21st century? Given their intransigent stance on immigration (along with the rest of all of this), I think they do. Bottom line: they need to change. If they don't, Texas will turn blue in 2016 or 2020 and that will be it for them.
But that's what happens when you have a caucus that is comprised of juveniles who are eternally stomping down the hallway and slamming their doors at what they perceive to be their dad. They're perfectly happy to crash the car in order to sate their adolescent power fantasies. They'd rather cut of their nose despite their faces.
And that's just what is going to happen. If no deal is reached by Tuesday (and it looks doubtful), January 2nd is going to be a barn burner at the New York Stock Exchange. At that point, the GOP will be fucked. If they deal now, they are going to get something for those upper income folks. If they wait, however, the only bill they are going to see is one that makes the tax cuts permanent for those making under 250K and they will have no choice but to sign it as the market drops 500-1000 points.
They're also going to get bloody ears (and possibly more) in terms of the spending cuts and will likely have to give in on those as well. Much of their constituency is old people who love Medicare and Social Security. Any sort of cuts will be viewed with much animosity. This doesn't even take into account the defense cuts which, in my view, if they happen, will basically mean the end of the Tea Party. Democrats learned a long time ago that you don't fuck with defense contractors.
So, this begs the question, do the Republicans want to be the Whigs of the 21st century? Given their intransigent stance on immigration (along with the rest of all of this), I think they do. Bottom line: they need to change. If they don't, Texas will turn blue in 2016 or 2020 and that will be it for them.
Friday, December 28, 2012
A Real-Life Test of the NRA School Proposal
Three police officers were shot in a New Jersey police station by a domestic abuse suspect who somehow got a gun. The suspect was killed. One officer suffered abdominal wounds below his bullet proof vest, while the other two were grazed. All are expected to recover.
Yes, another senseless tragedy caused by a nutjob combined with a tragic screw-up.
But this incident shows how flawed the NRA's "more guns" idea is. A police station is the best-case scenario for the "protective" nature of guns. Everyone there is a trained professional. They know exactly who the bad guy is. Yet somehow he got a gun and shot three cops.
This is not the first time this has happened: it happened in Michigan in 2011, again in Michigan this November, in Virginia in 2006, and so on. Then there are the accidental shootings at police stations (Huntington Beach this July). And then there are the "freak accidents," like the woman was accidentally killed in Detroit when she hugged an off-duty cop.
We know with certainty that more guns in schools will result in some number of additional deaths each year due to accidental shootings and guns being wrested away from guards. The question is: will the deaths caused by the presence of armed guards outnumber the deaths that might be saved from mass shootings?
The NRA would like us to just write those accidental deaths and injuries off as collateral damage, the same way we write off Afghan children killed by drones. Considering how rare school shootings actually are, starting a big program of volunteer armed guards would likely increase the number of deaths in schools.
But the fact is, even in the best-case scenario, an armed guard can't prevent anyone from ever being shot: the hope is that the guard will cut the carnage short by taking the shooter out after he's opened fire. It's the same rationale for banning large-capacity magazines and "assault" rifles: you can't completely stop the killing, but you can minimize it. The problem with the armed guard solution is the bad guys always get a preemptive first strike on the guard, and if it's successful you've just provided the shooter with additional firepower.
Putting real cops in schools isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it's very expensive and it's not a foolproof deterrent, as we saw in Columbine. If even a station full of armed cops can't protect themselves with guns, how can one retired NRA volunteer with a gun protect a whole school filled with kids? Especially if the shooter takes a first-grader hostage and uses her as a human shield while blasting away at the armed guard with a Bushmaster and a 100-round magazine?
The problem is not stopping crazy guys from shooting up schools. It's stopping crazy guys from getting guns in the first place.
Yes, another senseless tragedy caused by a nutjob combined with a tragic screw-up.
But this incident shows how flawed the NRA's "more guns" idea is. A police station is the best-case scenario for the "protective" nature of guns. Everyone there is a trained professional. They know exactly who the bad guy is. Yet somehow he got a gun and shot three cops.
This is not the first time this has happened: it happened in Michigan in 2011, again in Michigan this November, in Virginia in 2006, and so on. Then there are the accidental shootings at police stations (Huntington Beach this July). And then there are the "freak accidents," like the woman was accidentally killed in Detroit when she hugged an off-duty cop.
We know with certainty that more guns in schools will result in some number of additional deaths each year due to accidental shootings and guns being wrested away from guards. The question is: will the deaths caused by the presence of armed guards outnumber the deaths that might be saved from mass shootings?
The NRA would like us to just write those accidental deaths and injuries off as collateral damage, the same way we write off Afghan children killed by drones. Considering how rare school shootings actually are, starting a big program of volunteer armed guards would likely increase the number of deaths in schools.
But the fact is, even in the best-case scenario, an armed guard can't prevent anyone from ever being shot: the hope is that the guard will cut the carnage short by taking the shooter out after he's opened fire. It's the same rationale for banning large-capacity magazines and "assault" rifles: you can't completely stop the killing, but you can minimize it. The problem with the armed guard solution is the bad guys always get a preemptive first strike on the guard, and if it's successful you've just provided the shooter with additional firepower.
Putting real cops in schools isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it's very expensive and it's not a foolproof deterrent, as we saw in Columbine. If even a station full of armed cops can't protect themselves with guns, how can one retired NRA volunteer with a gun protect a whole school filled with kids? Especially if the shooter takes a first-grader hostage and uses her as a human shield while blasting away at the armed guard with a Bushmaster and a 100-round magazine?
The problem is not stopping crazy guys from shooting up schools. It's stopping crazy guys from getting guns in the first place.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Still With The Deafness of Tone
It's been almost two week since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut and the Right is continuing merrily along with their complete deafness of tone. They just don't get it. This one is different and, like the last election, they're are going to learn yet another hard lesson. Even Frank Luntz thinks so.
“The public wants guns out of the schools, not in the schools,” Luntz said on CBS’s “This Morning.” “And they are not asking for a security official or someone else. I don’t think the NRA is listening. I don’t think they understand most Americans would protect the Second Amendment rights and yet agree with the idea that not every human being should own a gun, not every gun should be available at anytime, anywhere, for anyone. At gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there without any kind of check whatsoever.”
That's right. There are plenty of people that should not own guns. I think this incident (as well as the rest of them this year) illustrate that if you increase the number of people carrying weapons, you are going to increase the chances of irresponsible gun ownership. It shouldn't simply be that people who have criminal records should not own guns. Many people with mental illness or people who live folks who have mental disabilities should not own guns either.
I don't think the gun rights folks (and many others on the Right) realize how Orwellian they sound. The irony is hilarious when you consider how much they rip the left for doublespeak. The answer to gun violence is...MORE GUNS, damnit!!
War is Peace...
What the Right really wants is to (ahem) do it again only harder. They are using this as an opportunity to see if they can gain any ground on what they view as "Slaughter Zones" (AKA Gun Free Zones). They want to be able to carry their guns wherever they want, including schools. It's a chest thumping, juvenile maneuver which serves to further their "fuck you, dad/stomp down the hallway/bedroom door slam" agenda of being pissed off at rules they don't like. Never mind the rest of us.
The only guns I want in schools are the ones carried by police officers (yet another group the Right sneer at as not "having any real training" which is basically code for insecurity and envy). Schools are public property which means that the public gets to decide what goes on in our schools. With private property, gun owners can kindly go fuck themselves if they want to beef about gun free zones. The health club I go to, for example, has a few malcontents who bitch about not being able to bring their guns in when they lift weights (how would that work, exactly?). Perhaps they should choose another place to go rather than gripe.
Doubling down is what they do lately, though, and it continues to cost them elections. This won't be any different. They underestimate the president and worse, the public, who has a growing distaste for some guns, as Mr. Luntz notices above. He's a right wing pollster so if he's saying it, they are in big fucking trouble. And it won't be because (cue high pitched shrieking) Barack Obama is going to be a "gun grabber." Actually, they're not really in "trouble" either...only the way they see it...the world (gasp!) changing and that simply won't do.
In fact, I pretty much guarantee that three things are going to come out of all of this. First, people will get to keep the guns they own (if they choose not to sell them back to the federal government, that is, for a very good price:)). Second, plenty of guns will be available for people to use to defend themselves.
And third, the Right is going to be a mouth foaming pile of apoplexis.
“The public wants guns out of the schools, not in the schools,” Luntz said on CBS’s “This Morning.” “And they are not asking for a security official or someone else. I don’t think the NRA is listening. I don’t think they understand most Americans would protect the Second Amendment rights and yet agree with the idea that not every human being should own a gun, not every gun should be available at anytime, anywhere, for anyone. At gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there without any kind of check whatsoever.”
That's right. There are plenty of people that should not own guns. I think this incident (as well as the rest of them this year) illustrate that if you increase the number of people carrying weapons, you are going to increase the chances of irresponsible gun ownership. It shouldn't simply be that people who have criminal records should not own guns. Many people with mental illness or people who live folks who have mental disabilities should not own guns either.
I don't think the gun rights folks (and many others on the Right) realize how Orwellian they sound. The irony is hilarious when you consider how much they rip the left for doublespeak. The answer to gun violence is...MORE GUNS, damnit!!
War is Peace...
What the Right really wants is to (ahem) do it again only harder. They are using this as an opportunity to see if they can gain any ground on what they view as "Slaughter Zones" (AKA Gun Free Zones). They want to be able to carry their guns wherever they want, including schools. It's a chest thumping, juvenile maneuver which serves to further their "fuck you, dad/stomp down the hallway/bedroom door slam" agenda of being pissed off at rules they don't like. Never mind the rest of us.
The only guns I want in schools are the ones carried by police officers (yet another group the Right sneer at as not "having any real training" which is basically code for insecurity and envy). Schools are public property which means that the public gets to decide what goes on in our schools. With private property, gun owners can kindly go fuck themselves if they want to beef about gun free zones. The health club I go to, for example, has a few malcontents who bitch about not being able to bring their guns in when they lift weights (how would that work, exactly?). Perhaps they should choose another place to go rather than gripe.
Doubling down is what they do lately, though, and it continues to cost them elections. This won't be any different. They underestimate the president and worse, the public, who has a growing distaste for some guns, as Mr. Luntz notices above. He's a right wing pollster so if he's saying it, they are in big fucking trouble. And it won't be because (cue high pitched shrieking) Barack Obama is going to be a "gun grabber." Actually, they're not really in "trouble" either...only the way they see it...the world (gasp!) changing and that simply won't do.
In fact, I pretty much guarantee that three things are going to come out of all of this. First, people will get to keep the guns they own (if they choose not to sell them back to the federal government, that is, for a very good price:)). Second, plenty of guns will be available for people to use to defend themselves.
And third, the Right is going to be a mouth foaming pile of apoplexis.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Gun Privacy vs. Neighbor's Right to Know
The Journal News, a newspaper in White Plains, New York, published a map of people licensed to own guns in surrounding counties. This has raised a firestorm of protest from conservatives, claiming variously that these people's privacy had been violated (these licenses are a matter of public record), that it would encourage criminals to target gun owners, or alternately to encourage thieves to target homes that are "unprotected" by guns.
The article accompanying the map begins:
In May, Richard V. Wilson approached a female neighbor on the street and shot her in the back of the head, a crime that stunned their quiet Katonah neighborhood.On Christmas Eve William Spengler set fire to his house, killed his sister, set fire to the rest of the neighborhood, then ambushed the firemen who came to douse the blaze, killing two and wounding two others. Spengler was an ex-con who killed his grandmother in 1980. He used a Bushmaster rifle to kill the firemen, like the one Adam Lanza used. It's not yet known how he got the weapon: did he get it at a gun show? From a friend? Through a straw buyer? Or by breaking into a nearby house?
What was equally shocking for some was the revelation that the mentally disturbed 77-year-old man had amassed a cache of weapons — including two unregistered handguns and a large amount of ammunition — without any neighbors knowing.
I understand why gun owners don't want their names published in the paper. Neither do pedophiles. But guns in the home represent a real risk to society, both from the gun owners themselves or as a form of attractive nuisance for thieves and children
It's not unreasonable for parents to want to know if their children are playing with kids who might have guns at home, or if neighbors like Richard Wilson represent a potential risk to their children.
Hundreds of kids die each year from accidental shootings. Hundreds of kids also die in swimming pool and trampoline accidents. Parents should know if their kids' friends have pools and trampolines. Why not guns?
That newspaper didn't tell potential burglars anything they didn't already know. Thieves casing a neighborhood can read the "gang signs" that mark gun owners: American flags, large dogs of breeds used for hunting, No Trespassing and No Solicitation signs, political bumper stickers and signs for Tea Party and conservative causes, "Protected by Smith & Wesson" bumper stickers and signs (yeah, some people are that dumb), four-door pickup trucks and Hummers, gun racks in the pickups, etc.
Some gun owners envision themselves as defending the Alamo, and think they will be able to fend off the criminals storming their house in a blaze of gunfire. This is misguided: burglars want to break in while you're gone and your cash, jewelry and guns are just waiting there to be stolen.
Therefore, most burglaries are committed when victims are at work, and nearly all occur when the burglars think you're away. Most thieves are unarmed and avoid conflict. More than 50% of burglaries occur within two miles of the burglar's home. Most are smash and grabs, in and out in 12 minutes or less. Many burglars have already been in your house for some other purpose (that may be why Nancy Lanza didn't let people in).
The NRA recommends people use concealed lock boxes or gun safes, as well as trigger locks or cable locks and that guns be stored unloaded. They should demand these recommendations be given the force of law.
Just as importantly, gun owners should have home security systems or a dog. These are better deterrents than a gun. Burglars are much less likely to rob houses without security systems and barking dogs. And even if you do have a gun for "protection," you still need the dog or the alarm to wake you up. The gun is worse than useless if you're asleep when the intruder takes it from your nightstand.
Gun rights advocates should want to be seen as the people who stop crazy old coots from shooting their neighbors in the head, not the wackos who make it possible.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Happy Christmas!!
I've always looked at the celebration of Christmas Day with inquisitive fascination. Why do we honor the birth of Jesus Christ when it's likely he was born in March? In fact, the reason why we celebrate the nativity on December 25th stems from an effort by 4th Century Christians to make their religion more prominent.
These early believers saw the pagan festivities associated with Mithraism as a threat to their fledgling movement and so they switched the birthday of Christ to be on the same day as the birthday of the Invincible Sun God, Natalis Solis Invincti. The Christians of this time were already emboldened by the Roman Emperor Constantine's edict of 313 CE which allowed them to practice their faith so plans were made to supplant Mithraism with Christianity.
They did this by focusing on the festive nature of the sun god cult worship and essentially making it their own. A Christian mass was developed complete with prayers and ceremony-all in the hopes of luring Mithraists away from their religion to Christianity. In short, it was a PR campaign and it worked.
The irony here (for all your scriptural literalists out there) is that the celebration of Jesus' birthday isn't "pure." It's based on pagan ritual and, in the centuries since that time, is a day that has gone through many other twists and turns. Puritans here in America had outlawed any celebration of Christmas until finally losing out on June 26, 1870 when Christmas became a national holiday. Christmas trees were considered pagan and also forbidden until the late 17th century. Santa himself began as an amalgamation (partially pagan) of St. Nicholas, the Bishop of Myra (modern-day Turkey), the Norse god, Woden, and the Celtic Holly King and ended up being the creation of a modern day cartoonist (Thomas Nash) for Harper's Weekly in 1860.
So, as we begin to drift off today from an overdose of tryptophan, let's remember that this is not a rigid holiday and is, as it has always been, free loose, and open to interpretation:)
These early believers saw the pagan festivities associated with Mithraism as a threat to their fledgling movement and so they switched the birthday of Christ to be on the same day as the birthday of the Invincible Sun God, Natalis Solis Invincti. The Christians of this time were already emboldened by the Roman Emperor Constantine's edict of 313 CE which allowed them to practice their faith so plans were made to supplant Mithraism with Christianity.
They did this by focusing on the festive nature of the sun god cult worship and essentially making it their own. A Christian mass was developed complete with prayers and ceremony-all in the hopes of luring Mithraists away from their religion to Christianity. In short, it was a PR campaign and it worked.
The irony here (for all your scriptural literalists out there) is that the celebration of Jesus' birthday isn't "pure." It's based on pagan ritual and, in the centuries since that time, is a day that has gone through many other twists and turns. Puritans here in America had outlawed any celebration of Christmas until finally losing out on June 26, 1870 when Christmas became a national holiday. Christmas trees were considered pagan and also forbidden until the late 17th century. Santa himself began as an amalgamation (partially pagan) of St. Nicholas, the Bishop of Myra (modern-day Turkey), the Norse god, Woden, and the Celtic Holly King and ended up being the creation of a modern day cartoonist (Thomas Nash) for Harper's Weekly in 1860.
So, as we begin to drift off today from an overdose of tryptophan, let's remember that this is not a rigid holiday and is, as it has always been, free loose, and open to interpretation:)
Monday, December 24, 2012
One Christmas was so much like another, in those years around the sea-town corner now and out of all sound except the distant speaking of the voices I sometimes hear a moment before sleep, that I can never remember whether it snowed for six days and six nights when I was twelve or whether it snowed for twelve days and twelve nights when I was six....
(from "A Child's Christmas in Wales by Dylan Thomas)
(from "A Child's Christmas in Wales by Dylan Thomas)
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Did You Survive the Most Recent Apocalypse?
Did you get your "I Survived the Apocalypse!" T-shirt yet? December 21st was supposed to be the end of the world, according to a dim-witted interpretation of the Mayan calendar. The reality is that the end of the previous baktun of the Mayan calender was no different from the end of December on our calendar, or the end of the fiscal year, or the end of the 20th century, or the end of the second millennium.
We saw plenty of crazies predicting doom on December 31, 1999 (though, technically, the third millennium didn't start until Jan. 1, 2001). There were the typical fire-and-brimstone second-coming loonies, but there were also plenty of technological Y2K doomsayers. And more recently there was Harold Camping, who took two swings at the Apocalypse piñata in 2011, spending more than $100 million promoting his end-of-the-world predictions. And we're all still here.
What is it about a calendar rolling over like an odometer that turns out the crazies?
Historically prophets have cast catastrophic events like hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, wars, plagues and droughts as presentiments of the end times, or punishments for our wickedness. Pat Robertson predicted a Gay Days weekend at Disney World would bring a hurricane down on Orlando. Instead Hurricane Bonnie hit Virginia Beach, where Robertson's 700 club originates. James Dobson blamed the Newtown shooting on gay marriage. Did I miss the story about Adam Lanza's girlfriend dumping him and marrying a lesbian?
Climate scientists have long predicted that stronger hurricanes, prolonged drought punctuated by huge deluges, the spread of tropical diseases like West Nile virus and dengue fever — events that we're experiencing right now — would be the result of global warming caused by human-generated carbon dioxide emissions. Many on the Christian Right reject these data-driven observations and computer-modeled predictions out of hand. Yet at exactly the same time they cite these events as evidence of our moral failings, portraying them as God's retribution for our disobedience.
Climate scientists are missing the boat. To gain broader acceptance they need to recast their climate forecasts as apocalyptic prophecies of doom caused by God's ire over the seven deadly sins we are committing:
In the case of Sandy there's an obvious cause and effect, and in Newtown there's an "I told you so." God might move in mysterious ways, but if he wants us to get the message, he should be a little more direct, rather than relying on preachers in expensive suits asking for handouts on TV. What's even more incredible is that there are people who would willingly worship a god who wrought a terrifying bloody death upon innocent children who had absolutely nothing to do with the perceived violation of his laws. I just don't remember hearing that any of those kids were gay or married.
Climate change deniers insist scientists are just saying this stuff to get grant money. Just as skeptics insist Harold Camping predicted the end of the world just to get donations from frightened old ladies. Maybe the religious right doesn't believe climate scientists' predictions because they're suffering from a nasty case of psychological projection.
Hmm. What is that odd, rodent-like odor?
We saw plenty of crazies predicting doom on December 31, 1999 (though, technically, the third millennium didn't start until Jan. 1, 2001). There were the typical fire-and-brimstone second-coming loonies, but there were also plenty of technological Y2K doomsayers. And more recently there was Harold Camping, who took two swings at the Apocalypse piñata in 2011, spending more than $100 million promoting his end-of-the-world predictions. And we're all still here.
What is it about a calendar rolling over like an odometer that turns out the crazies?
Historically prophets have cast catastrophic events like hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, wars, plagues and droughts as presentiments of the end times, or punishments for our wickedness. Pat Robertson predicted a Gay Days weekend at Disney World would bring a hurricane down on Orlando. Instead Hurricane Bonnie hit Virginia Beach, where Robertson's 700 club originates. James Dobson blamed the Newtown shooting on gay marriage. Did I miss the story about Adam Lanza's girlfriend dumping him and marrying a lesbian?
Climate scientists have long predicted that stronger hurricanes, prolonged drought punctuated by huge deluges, the spread of tropical diseases like West Nile virus and dengue fever — events that we're experiencing right now — would be the result of global warming caused by human-generated carbon dioxide emissions. Many on the Christian Right reject these data-driven observations and computer-modeled predictions out of hand. Yet at exactly the same time they cite these events as evidence of our moral failings, portraying them as God's retribution for our disobedience.
Climate scientists are missing the boat. To gain broader acceptance they need to recast their climate forecasts as apocalyptic prophecies of doom caused by God's ire over the seven deadly sins we are committing:
- Greed: skyrocketing oil-company profits
- Pride: Americans who proudly drive gas-wasting Hummers to flaunt their wealth
- Sloth: people who are too lazy to walk to the corner store contribute to global warming
- Wrath: the refusal of irate Republican members of the House to renew wind power tax credits
- Lust: the rape of the earth by oil wells and coal mines
- Envy: the consumer culture that causes us to compete with the Joneses by buying ever-greater quantities of immediately disposable things that require oil, gas and coal to produce and transport
- Gluttony: the epidemic of diabetes and other obesity-related diseases resulting from our consumption of high-fructose corn syrup produced on gigantic monoculture corporate farms that use billions of gallons of oil for fuel and fertilizer, as well as damage the environment and our own genetic code with pesticides and herbicides
In the case of Sandy there's an obvious cause and effect, and in Newtown there's an "I told you so." God might move in mysterious ways, but if he wants us to get the message, he should be a little more direct, rather than relying on preachers in expensive suits asking for handouts on TV. What's even more incredible is that there are people who would willingly worship a god who wrought a terrifying bloody death upon innocent children who had absolutely nothing to do with the perceived violation of his laws. I just don't remember hearing that any of those kids were gay or married.
Climate change deniers insist scientists are just saying this stuff to get grant money. Just as skeptics insist Harold Camping predicted the end of the world just to get donations from frightened old ladies. Maybe the religious right doesn't believe climate scientists' predictions because they're suffering from a nasty case of psychological projection.
Hmm. What is that odd, rodent-like odor?
Son of the Gun
The New Yorker ran a story in April of this year about guns in America (Maureen Dowd sent me that way). It contained the following revelation about David Michael Keene, the son of NRA president David Keene:
It seems the people closest to David Keene lack a certain self control.
Did David Keene commit these crimes? No. Is he guilty by association? No. But fathers have to wonder if they bear some responsibility for their sons' actions. Was Keene a bad parent, as many think Nancy Lanza was? Might he have imparted to his son a self-entitled attitude about not taking crap from anyone, backed up by a belligerent arrogance that comes from packing heat?
The NRA president is a Daily Show punchline. If there had been no gun in the younger Keene's BMW his life would not have been ruined. Keene's own son was sent to jail for exactly the kind of senseless crime gun control advocates say easy access to guns promotes. The NRA's president's son is Exhibit A against everything they stand for.
What's astounding is that Keene can experience this and so utterly miss the point. It's not just his kid who would have paid the price had his aim been truer: the guy he almost shot would have paid a much higher price.
Twenty-six victims paid the ultimate price for Adam Lanza's crimes, and hundreds of parents, relatives and friends who paid a price in grief that David Keene seems incapable of feeling.
In 2002, Keene’s son David Michael Keene was driving on the George Washington Memorial Parkway when, in a road-rage incident, he fired a handgun at another motorist. He was sentenced to ten years in prison for “using, brandishing, and discharging a firearm in a crime of violence.” I asked Keene if this private tragedy had left him uncertain about what the N.R.A. had wrought. He said no: “You break the law, you pay the price.”Keene used to run the American Conservative Union (which organizes CPAC), where his 21-year-old son worked as the online communications director at the time of the shooting. Keene was featured in another news story two years ago when $400,000 was embezzled from the ACU. The culprit? His ex-wife, Diana Hubbard Carr. She pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 2011.
It seems the people closest to David Keene lack a certain self control.
Did David Keene commit these crimes? No. Is he guilty by association? No. But fathers have to wonder if they bear some responsibility for their sons' actions. Was Keene a bad parent, as many think Nancy Lanza was? Might he have imparted to his son a self-entitled attitude about not taking crap from anyone, backed up by a belligerent arrogance that comes from packing heat?
The NRA president is a Daily Show punchline. If there had been no gun in the younger Keene's BMW his life would not have been ruined. Keene's own son was sent to jail for exactly the kind of senseless crime gun control advocates say easy access to guns promotes. The NRA's president's son is Exhibit A against everything they stand for.
What's astounding is that Keene can experience this and so utterly miss the point. It's not just his kid who would have paid the price had his aim been truer: the guy he almost shot would have paid a much higher price.
Twenty-six victims paid the ultimate price for Adam Lanza's crimes, and hundreds of parents, relatives and friends who paid a price in grief that David Keene seems incapable of feeling.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
The Police State
The NRA press conference yesterday was a perfect example of how out of touch the Right is these days. "Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun."
Really?
I'll set the aside the Jack Bauer fantasy here that the gun rights folks seem to think can be replicated in reality and focus on the word mentioned twice in this quote: gun. Why does it have to be a gun? There are plenty of other ways to disable intruders that school, mall and movie theater staff could use. Using a taser is one option although that could prove difficult. A more obvious solution is to stash some tear gas or something similar and simply throw it down the hallway and knockout the intruder. You might end up knocking out some staff or students but the intruder would be disabled.
Think of that would have worked in this situation. The principal would hear the commotion and grab the gas canister that they have stored in the room they were in. She throws it out in the hallway and Lanza passes out. At least then, we would have known why he was going on a rampage.
Honestly, this is a more realistic solution. I don't think the Right realizes how juvenile they sound when they start talking about arming everyone. More importantly, it strikes me as odd that they want armed security personnel everywhere. Isn't that the same thing as a police state (something they are vehemently opposed to)?
But this is what I mean when I say they are closet fascists. In so many ways, that's what the NRA and their supporters are all about. Do they even realize it?
Really?
I'll set the aside the Jack Bauer fantasy here that the gun rights folks seem to think can be replicated in reality and focus on the word mentioned twice in this quote: gun. Why does it have to be a gun? There are plenty of other ways to disable intruders that school, mall and movie theater staff could use. Using a taser is one option although that could prove difficult. A more obvious solution is to stash some tear gas or something similar and simply throw it down the hallway and knockout the intruder. You might end up knocking out some staff or students but the intruder would be disabled.
Think of that would have worked in this situation. The principal would hear the commotion and grab the gas canister that they have stored in the room they were in. She throws it out in the hallway and Lanza passes out. At least then, we would have known why he was going on a rampage.
Honestly, this is a more realistic solution. I don't think the Right realizes how juvenile they sound when they start talking about arming everyone. More importantly, it strikes me as odd that they want armed security personnel everywhere. Isn't that the same thing as a police state (something they are vehemently opposed to)?
But this is what I mean when I say they are closet fascists. In so many ways, that's what the NRA and their supporters are all about. Do they even realize it?
Friday, December 21, 2012
Boehner's Boner
John Boehner thought he would pull a fast one on President Obama and proposed a bill that would raise taxes only on people who make more than a million bucks a year. He thought its passage in the House would ensure that he would get his way, by forcing the president and the Senate to take it or leave it.
Unfortunately, the Brutuses in the Republican House caucus stabbed Boehner in the back. They refused to back his play and Boehner was forced to withdraw his own bill.
One interesting aspect of this is the reaction of certain pundits. I don't read a lot of conservatives because they generally spend all their time ignoring reality, circling the wagons, repeating talking points cooked up at the Wednesday meeting, and finding lame excuses for whatever nonsense the Republican Party spews out.
But recently some conservatives have started to wake up. Joe Scarborough did so by calling for gun control in the wake of Newtown. And Jennifer Rubin called Republicans in the House to account in the Washington Post. She ended her most recent piece with these paragraphs:
Thus the Republican Party continues to hack itself to pieces, alienating everyone who has an ounce of integrity and honesty. At this rate it will only be a few years until it joins the Whigs and the Federalist Party, and consists solely of Jim DeMint, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Grover Norquist, the Koch Brothers and Wayne LaPierre. And their piles and piles of money.
Unfortunately, the Brutuses in the Republican House caucus stabbed Boehner in the back. They refused to back his play and Boehner was forced to withdraw his own bill.
One interesting aspect of this is the reaction of certain pundits. I don't read a lot of conservatives because they generally spend all their time ignoring reality, circling the wagons, repeating talking points cooked up at the Wednesday meeting, and finding lame excuses for whatever nonsense the Republican Party spews out.
But recently some conservatives have started to wake up. Joe Scarborough did so by calling for gun control in the wake of Newtown. And Jennifer Rubin called Republicans in the House to account in the Washington Post. She ended her most recent piece with these paragraphs:
The world of Heritage Action Network, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and the other all-or-nothing hard-liners in the conservative media have encouraged and will delight in this sort of fiasco. That said, the fault lies with the spineless members who think they’ll escape blame if they don’t vote for any measure. That is folly, not to mention political cowardice. To govern is to choose, and they apparently can do neither.The reaction from right-wingers in the reader comments was immediate and irate. Once an ever-reliable pillar of Republican dogma, Rubin had now been branded as a RINO. She is a heretic, a leper, an outcast unclean. The conservative tribe must eject her and anyone who dares break with the orthodoxy dictated by the moneyed overlords.
This sort of display suggests Republicans are not capable of governing. What was an argument by Democrats (They are unreasonable! They only care for the rich!) is now a political reality.
When I posed the question “What next?” to several senior Republicans, the answer came back, ” I really don’t know” or “Good question.” What we do know is that House Republicans may have confirmed the good judgment of the American people in keeping divided government. Goodness knows none of these people can be trusted.
Thus the Republican Party continues to hack itself to pieces, alienating everyone who has an ounce of integrity and honesty. At this rate it will only be a few years until it joins the Whigs and the Federalist Party, and consists solely of Jim DeMint, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Grover Norquist, the Koch Brothers and Wayne LaPierre. And their piles and piles of money.
The NRA's Cynical Ploy
Wayne LaPierre, the president of the NRA, made his long-awaited proposal to reduce gun violence in schools: more guns and more guards. It's a cynical ploy the NRA knows will never happen, simply because it would cost schools hundreds of billions of dollars they don't have.
But even though it's a non-starter, it's useful to point out the practical flaws.
First off, a guard will just be the first victim. If you've ever watched Star Trek or Alias or any other TV show where the heroes infiltrate a secure facility, the first one to die is the red-shirt at the front door.
Second, how many guards are enough? If there's just one, the shooter will pretty much take him out automatically by surprise. So you need at least two guards on each door. But since someone with an AR-15 could easily take out two guards in a couple of seconds, you really need a third guard in a bullet-proof control booth just down the hall. And since guards can't always be on duty, you're going to need at least one more guy who can relieve the guards when they're on break. In a big school with three or four entrances, you'll need a ten-man security team.
Third, who are these guards going to be? Your typical mall security guard is not going to hack it. These people need to be highly competent since they're going to armed around little kids. They're going to require ongoing training to ensure accuracy and quick reflexes. But highly competent, highly aware and highly perceptive individuals are not going to want this job, because it will involve sitting around doing absolutely nothing all the time. Because, while dozens of kids die in school shootings every year, the probability of a shooting at any particular school is basically zero. These guard jobs are therefore going to be difficult to staff. There's going to be a lot of bored, inattentive guards who will make mistakes. And, by the way, like prison guards and cops they're going to want to be unionized.
Unless you use a dedicated guard, they'll constantly be distracted by other duties. The bad guy will only have to wait a minute or two until the guard is occupied with something else, and then shoot him in the back.
Fourth, what kind of equipment are these glorified babysitters going to have? Will they have Glock 17s, or will they carry AR-15s? And what if the crazed shooter has Kevlar body armor and a ballistic helmet? (Which is apparently what the Aurora shooter had.) So should the guards be armed with M16s with armor piercing rounds? And will the guards wear Kevlar body armor, or full ballistic SWAT gear?
Fifth, most schools are open 16 to 18 hours a day. Sports teams practice after school, there are PTA meetings, detention, etc. Schools have plays and host sports events against other schools, which the general public attends. Schools are used by adults for community events like precinct caucuses, open gyms, etc. Guards would have to be on duty all the time and would have to search every person to make sure they aren't bringing weapons in after-hours to cache for an attack planned the next day.
Sixth, because there will be hundreds of thousands of guns knocking around schools, there will be dozens of accidental shooting each year when guards drop or clean their guns. Guards will make mistakes and shoot kids who bring gun-shaped cigarette lighters to school. Kids will get hold of the guard's guns and shoot each other accidentally, as well as on purpose. Mistakes and accidents are a simple fact of life, and the more guns there are the more such incidents will occur. It's an intractable fact of life.
Seventh, many suburban schools are sprawling single-story buildings with windows in every classroom. Could Adam Lanza have come through a window, or simply shot those 20 kids from outside the building? I guess we need to brick up all the windows, or put bullet-proof class and bars on them all.
Finally, and this is the big question: what's this all going to cost? These guards need to be as competent as your average cop, and must be paid accordingly. They're going to need health insurance, vacation time, a supervisor and all the other overhead employees entail. Then they're going to need all that equipment and ongoing training. Then there's the cost of construction for modifying school entrances to accommodate a new security regime.
The NRA did propose that volunteers could be used to ameliorate costs. This is unrealistic: who besides retired old men, little old ladies and stay-at-home moms would be available to guard a school during the day? And then there's the quality of volunteers. Nancy Lanza apparently did volunteer work at the school. I imagine she would have encouraged her son Adam to volunteer for the security detail.
The NRA also suggested we use cops to guard schools. But that'll mean they aren't doing the things they're normally doing. Which means that cities and counties have to hire more cops with money they don't have, or other crimes go undeterred, uninvestigated and unsolved.
These costs could easily add up to hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year per school, and schools are already laying teachers off. Unless the NRA is proposing to pay for school security with new taxes on guns and ammo and steep licensing fees for gun owners, their proposals are utterly worthless.
And all this security won't be foolproof. Someone inside the building could open a window and hoist guns up from a confederate outside. Someone wearing the right uniform will inspire trust and could easily infiltrate close enough to take out the guards. Guards will go mad from boredom and the incessant whining of over-privileged brats and open fire on them.
Under the NRA plan, schools will cease to be schools and will become prisons or concentration camps, replete with armed guards, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, security checkpoints, and so on.
And the crazy thing is, all this security still wouldn't stop a determined madman. The worst school massacre occurred in Bath Township, Michigan, in 1927, when a man, crazed by the death of his wife, property taxes and the threatened foreclosure of his farm, blew up a school and killed dozens of kids, school officials, his wife and himself. These days it would be a truck loaded with AMFO instead of dynamite and pyrotol.
The NRA proposal is a completely cynical ploy. They offer this as a distraction they know it will never happen, because of the expense and the fact that it would solve absolutely nothing.
Instead of blowing hot air, the NRA should get in front of this problem by demanding improved gun safety technology and requiring all gun owners be competent: fully trained, certified and licensed. In other words, a well-regulated militia. They should be the first to demand that people with questionable backgrounds be banned from their ranks. They should want to be seen as dedicated conservationist-hunters, ranchers who need weapons for their everyday work, and serious target shooters who value skill and accuracy, and not phallically challenged twits who think guns are toys and just like to shoot stuff and blow shit up.
One or two more Sandy Hooks will convince the American public that the only way to reduce the number of gun deaths is to drastically reduce the number of guns, Australian style. That will doom the NRA to oblivion by eliminating the stranglehold they have on legislators, and they will have no say in what sorts of regulations will be imposed on gun ownership.
But even though it's a non-starter, it's useful to point out the practical flaws.
First off, a guard will just be the first victim. If you've ever watched Star Trek or Alias or any other TV show where the heroes infiltrate a secure facility, the first one to die is the red-shirt at the front door.
Second, how many guards are enough? If there's just one, the shooter will pretty much take him out automatically by surprise. So you need at least two guards on each door. But since someone with an AR-15 could easily take out two guards in a couple of seconds, you really need a third guard in a bullet-proof control booth just down the hall. And since guards can't always be on duty, you're going to need at least one more guy who can relieve the guards when they're on break. In a big school with three or four entrances, you'll need a ten-man security team.
Third, who are these guards going to be? Your typical mall security guard is not going to hack it. These people need to be highly competent since they're going to armed around little kids. They're going to require ongoing training to ensure accuracy and quick reflexes. But highly competent, highly aware and highly perceptive individuals are not going to want this job, because it will involve sitting around doing absolutely nothing all the time. Because, while dozens of kids die in school shootings every year, the probability of a shooting at any particular school is basically zero. These guard jobs are therefore going to be difficult to staff. There's going to be a lot of bored, inattentive guards who will make mistakes. And, by the way, like prison guards and cops they're going to want to be unionized.
Unless you use a dedicated guard, they'll constantly be distracted by other duties. The bad guy will only have to wait a minute or two until the guard is occupied with something else, and then shoot him in the back.
Fourth, what kind of equipment are these glorified babysitters going to have? Will they have Glock 17s, or will they carry AR-15s? And what if the crazed shooter has Kevlar body armor and a ballistic helmet? (Which is apparently what the Aurora shooter had.) So should the guards be armed with M16s with armor piercing rounds? And will the guards wear Kevlar body armor, or full ballistic SWAT gear?
Fifth, most schools are open 16 to 18 hours a day. Sports teams practice after school, there are PTA meetings, detention, etc. Schools have plays and host sports events against other schools, which the general public attends. Schools are used by adults for community events like precinct caucuses, open gyms, etc. Guards would have to be on duty all the time and would have to search every person to make sure they aren't bringing weapons in after-hours to cache for an attack planned the next day.
Sixth, because there will be hundreds of thousands of guns knocking around schools, there will be dozens of accidental shooting each year when guards drop or clean their guns. Guards will make mistakes and shoot kids who bring gun-shaped cigarette lighters to school. Kids will get hold of the guard's guns and shoot each other accidentally, as well as on purpose. Mistakes and accidents are a simple fact of life, and the more guns there are the more such incidents will occur. It's an intractable fact of life.
Seventh, many suburban schools are sprawling single-story buildings with windows in every classroom. Could Adam Lanza have come through a window, or simply shot those 20 kids from outside the building? I guess we need to brick up all the windows, or put bullet-proof class and bars on them all.
Finally, and this is the big question: what's this all going to cost? These guards need to be as competent as your average cop, and must be paid accordingly. They're going to need health insurance, vacation time, a supervisor and all the other overhead employees entail. Then they're going to need all that equipment and ongoing training. Then there's the cost of construction for modifying school entrances to accommodate a new security regime.
The NRA did propose that volunteers could be used to ameliorate costs. This is unrealistic: who besides retired old men, little old ladies and stay-at-home moms would be available to guard a school during the day? And then there's the quality of volunteers. Nancy Lanza apparently did volunteer work at the school. I imagine she would have encouraged her son Adam to volunteer for the security detail.
The NRA also suggested we use cops to guard schools. But that'll mean they aren't doing the things they're normally doing. Which means that cities and counties have to hire more cops with money they don't have, or other crimes go undeterred, uninvestigated and unsolved.
These costs could easily add up to hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars a year per school, and schools are already laying teachers off. Unless the NRA is proposing to pay for school security with new taxes on guns and ammo and steep licensing fees for gun owners, their proposals are utterly worthless.
And all this security won't be foolproof. Someone inside the building could open a window and hoist guns up from a confederate outside. Someone wearing the right uniform will inspire trust and could easily infiltrate close enough to take out the guards. Guards will go mad from boredom and the incessant whining of over-privileged brats and open fire on them.
Under the NRA plan, schools will cease to be schools and will become prisons or concentration camps, replete with armed guards, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, security checkpoints, and so on.
And the crazy thing is, all this security still wouldn't stop a determined madman. The worst school massacre occurred in Bath Township, Michigan, in 1927, when a man, crazed by the death of his wife, property taxes and the threatened foreclosure of his farm, blew up a school and killed dozens of kids, school officials, his wife and himself. These days it would be a truck loaded with AMFO instead of dynamite and pyrotol.
The NRA proposal is a completely cynical ploy. They offer this as a distraction they know it will never happen, because of the expense and the fact that it would solve absolutely nothing.
Instead of blowing hot air, the NRA should get in front of this problem by demanding improved gun safety technology and requiring all gun owners be competent: fully trained, certified and licensed. In other words, a well-regulated militia. They should be the first to demand that people with questionable backgrounds be banned from their ranks. They should want to be seen as dedicated conservationist-hunters, ranchers who need weapons for their everyday work, and serious target shooters who value skill and accuracy, and not phallically challenged twits who think guns are toys and just like to shoot stuff and blow shit up.
One or two more Sandy Hooks will convince the American public that the only way to reduce the number of gun deaths is to drastically reduce the number of guns, Australian style. That will doom the NRA to oblivion by eliminating the stranglehold they have on legislators, and they will have no say in what sorts of regulations will be imposed on gun ownership.
Did He Go There?
Police are working on reconstructing Adam Lanza's hard drive after he smashed it with a hammer just prior to going on his killing spree. Thus far, they are publicly saying that they aren't having much success. I have to wonder...why did he smash it? What was on it? What sites did he visit and why?
One possible answer comes from this post over at CNN.
Bushmaster took down this section of their site but you can still see what it looked like here. This is only speculation at this point but did Nancy Lanza think that getting her son into guns would make him less awkward and more of a man? Did he visit this site or others like it?
This is especially disturbing when you consider that he likely had various mental and emotional issues. Being that way naturally coupled with the nurturing of a sub culture that isn't known for empathy and sensitivity anyway is a recipe for disaster. In fact, if you put together some of the words used to describe the Lanza's...doomsday prepper, economic collapse, home schooling, gun collector...the image becomes clearer as to what precipitated this shooting spree.
Of course, it could just be as simple as bad parenting. I've certainly seen my share of moonbat parents and Ms. Lanza seems like one of them. Even though there was a horrible end to her life, we still have to question her wisdom. How could she allow her son access to these guns given what he was like? I can't help but think that this horrible event stands as a testament to why people don't actually know what's in their best interests and, sometimes, make very, very poor choices that affect other people's lives. Or, in this case, take them away.
We don't live on islands, folks. The things we do affect other people. That's why we have laws. The nature of man is not good. Often, it is confused or downright despicable.
One possible answer comes from this post over at CNN.
And if you're anxious about your masculinity, if you aren't quite sure whether those around you find you sufficiently strong and potent, the Bushmaster corporation has an answer for you. If you buy one of their semi-automatic rifles -- like the kind Adam Lanza used to murder 20 children and six adults last week -- you may "Consider your Man Card reissued."
Bushmaster took down this section of their site but you can still see what it looked like here. This is only speculation at this point but did Nancy Lanza think that getting her son into guns would make him less awkward and more of a man? Did he visit this site or others like it?
This is especially disturbing when you consider that he likely had various mental and emotional issues. Being that way naturally coupled with the nurturing of a sub culture that isn't known for empathy and sensitivity anyway is a recipe for disaster. In fact, if you put together some of the words used to describe the Lanza's...doomsday prepper, economic collapse, home schooling, gun collector...the image becomes clearer as to what precipitated this shooting spree.
Of course, it could just be as simple as bad parenting. I've certainly seen my share of moonbat parents and Ms. Lanza seems like one of them. Even though there was a horrible end to her life, we still have to question her wisdom. How could she allow her son access to these guns given what he was like? I can't help but think that this horrible event stands as a testament to why people don't actually know what's in their best interests and, sometimes, make very, very poor choices that affect other people's lives. Or, in this case, take them away.
We don't live on islands, folks. The things we do affect other people. That's why we have laws. The nature of man is not good. Often, it is confused or downright despicable.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
More Government Waste Courtesy of Mitt Romney
Talk about government waste. Mitt Romney spent almost $9 million of taxpayer money on the presidential transition. "What transition?" you ask. "He lost!"
Romney took advantage of an act passed in 2010 to make presidential transitions easier. He spent $2.5 million on office space. Three quarters of a million on office furniture that would be used for a few months. And $5.6 million on computers and communications equipment (some of this will be "recycled" to other government departments).
I eagerly anticipate the passage of a bill from the Republican-controlled House to repeal the act and recover this money from Romney's campaign committee during the lame duck session, right after they get done cutting Social Security benefits for the elderly and making sure millionaires keep their tax cuts.
Romney took advantage of an act passed in 2010 to make presidential transitions easier. He spent $2.5 million on office space. Three quarters of a million on office furniture that would be used for a few months. And $5.6 million on computers and communications equipment (some of this will be "recycled" to other government departments).
I eagerly anticipate the passage of a bill from the Republican-controlled House to repeal the act and recover this money from Romney's campaign committee during the lame duck session, right after they get done cutting Social Security benefits for the elderly and making sure millionaires keep their tax cuts.
A Lighter Topic
When I was a delegate to the Minnesota Fourth District Republican convention in 1980, delegates discussed resolutions submitted by precinct caucuses. I've forgotten all but one of these resolutions, though I'm sure the majority of them were about taxes and abortion. The only one I remember advocated the government take steps to prevent the helium that occurred in natural gas deposits from simply being wasted.
"This is a joke, right?" everyone said, laughing. Well, 32 years later, it's not a joke. We're now experiencing a helium shortage.
Helium might be the second most common element in the universe, but it's the second lightest, and that's the problem. Earth's original supply long ago left for space: as a noble gas it doesn't form compounds. When it hits the atmosphere it goes straight up, and the heat of the sun imparts enough velocity to helium atoms to make them escape earth's grasp. Hydrogen and heavier gases such as nitrogen and oxygen escape much more slowly, as they generally form heavy compounds like water, O2, O3, CO2, and NO2. UV dissociates water vapor high in the atmosphere and sizable quantities of hydrogen also escape — but we've got lots of it. Atmospheric escape is why earth and Venus have thick atmospheres and Mars has a very thin one.
The problem is, helium isn't just for recreational purposes such party balloons, talking like Donald Duck and the Goodyear blimp. It has many uses that save lives, most of which involve cooling. Liquid helium is used in the giant magnets found in MRI machines. It's used in physics research. It's used in processes for making semiconductors for smart phones. It's used in submarine detectors employed by the Navy. Gaseous helium is used for weather sounding balloons, critical for hurricane tracking and climate research.
Helium is found with natural gas, and that's partly responsible for the helium shortage. With fracking the price of methane has dropped through the floor, and that means there's less natural gas production in helium rich deposits, which depresses helium production. New helium is "made" deep underground by the radioactive decay of elements like uranium, thorium, actinium and radium. The decay releases an alpha particle, which is a helium ion (an atom with no electrons). The helium eventually makes its way into natural gas reserves which we extract. That's a very slow and indirect process.
The other reason there's a helium shortage is a Republican privatization effort launched in 1996. The Helium Privatization Act was basically a give-away of America's helium reserves to private industry. Instead of being auctioned, the Republican bill required that all helium in the reserve be sold by 2015, priced with a formula set "in consultation" with the helium industry. That caused artificially low prices, which encouraged over-consumption of helium and discouraged new production.
Republicans will be sure to blame government for the problem in the first place, but the reason Calvin Coolidge approved the National Helium Reserve in 1925 was for national defense, to ensure we had enough for airships (used for aerial observation). Helium was also important for cooling during the Cold War and the Space Race, as liquid-fueled ballistic missiles use helium as a pressurant because it's inert.
The Republican Party of Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and even Calvin Coolidge believed that we should protect and conserve our natural resources. Somewhere in the 1980s the Republicans lost their way and began to equate wastefulness and ostentatious displays of profligacy to freedom and prosperity.
The attitude became "someone could be getting rich today, we shouldn't save this oil — this forest — this helium — for a rainy day." The so-called conservatives decided that conserving things was for suckers and sold out to wastrels and get-rich-quick con men.
Unbridled consumption may enrich the few, but it beggars the nation's future.
"This is a joke, right?" everyone said, laughing. Well, 32 years later, it's not a joke. We're now experiencing a helium shortage.
Helium might be the second most common element in the universe, but it's the second lightest, and that's the problem. Earth's original supply long ago left for space: as a noble gas it doesn't form compounds. When it hits the atmosphere it goes straight up, and the heat of the sun imparts enough velocity to helium atoms to make them escape earth's grasp. Hydrogen and heavier gases such as nitrogen and oxygen escape much more slowly, as they generally form heavy compounds like water, O2, O3, CO2, and NO2. UV dissociates water vapor high in the atmosphere and sizable quantities of hydrogen also escape — but we've got lots of it. Atmospheric escape is why earth and Venus have thick atmospheres and Mars has a very thin one.
The problem is, helium isn't just for recreational purposes such party balloons, talking like Donald Duck and the Goodyear blimp. It has many uses that save lives, most of which involve cooling. Liquid helium is used in the giant magnets found in MRI machines. It's used in physics research. It's used in processes for making semiconductors for smart phones. It's used in submarine detectors employed by the Navy. Gaseous helium is used for weather sounding balloons, critical for hurricane tracking and climate research.
Helium is found with natural gas, and that's partly responsible for the helium shortage. With fracking the price of methane has dropped through the floor, and that means there's less natural gas production in helium rich deposits, which depresses helium production. New helium is "made" deep underground by the radioactive decay of elements like uranium, thorium, actinium and radium. The decay releases an alpha particle, which is a helium ion (an atom with no electrons). The helium eventually makes its way into natural gas reserves which we extract. That's a very slow and indirect process.
The other reason there's a helium shortage is a Republican privatization effort launched in 1996. The Helium Privatization Act was basically a give-away of America's helium reserves to private industry. Instead of being auctioned, the Republican bill required that all helium in the reserve be sold by 2015, priced with a formula set "in consultation" with the helium industry. That caused artificially low prices, which encouraged over-consumption of helium and discouraged new production.
Republicans will be sure to blame government for the problem in the first place, but the reason Calvin Coolidge approved the National Helium Reserve in 1925 was for national defense, to ensure we had enough for airships (used for aerial observation). Helium was also important for cooling during the Cold War and the Space Race, as liquid-fueled ballistic missiles use helium as a pressurant because it's inert.
The Republican Party of Theodore Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and even Calvin Coolidge believed that we should protect and conserve our natural resources. Somewhere in the 1980s the Republicans lost their way and began to equate wastefulness and ostentatious displays of profligacy to freedom and prosperity.
The attitude became "someone could be getting rich today, we shouldn't save this oil — this forest — this helium — for a rainy day." The so-called conservatives decided that conserving things was for suckers and sold out to wastrels and get-rich-quick con men.
Unbridled consumption may enrich the few, but it beggars the nation's future.
Crisis Mode?
Politico has an interesting story up about how the NRA is basically in crisis mode. They weren't prepared for this at all and so far all they have released, statement wise, is an announcement stating that on Friday they are going to issue a plan that "to make sure this never happens again." It will be interesting to see what they present.
It will have to be something very substantive otherwise they risk souring an already steadily eroding view of the gun industry. I think they see the economic writing on the wall and if they do their usual dance this Friday, they're going to lose money. It's just that simple.
People have had it and it really won't matter what the government does or doesn't do.
It will have to be something very substantive otherwise they risk souring an already steadily eroding view of the gun industry. I think they see the economic writing on the wall and if they do their usual dance this Friday, they're going to lose money. It's just that simple.
People have had it and it really won't matter what the government does or doesn't do.
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Lessons from Cars Applied to Guns
According to a study from the Violence Prevention Center ten states had more deaths from guns than from vehicle accidents in 2009 (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Washington). Nationwide, there were 31,236 gun deaths for a rate of 10.19 per 100,000 and 36,361 motor vehicle deaths (both occupant and pedestrian) for a rate of 11.87.
Cars and guns make for an interesting comparison. Both are useful tools and recreational equipment that can be deadly in the wrong hands. Both evoke a sense of nostalgia, freedom and power in America. But while per-capita gun death rates have remained steady, motor vehicle death rates have been declining.
Total annual deaths due to motor vehicles dropped by about 10,000 from 2005 to 2010, even though the population increased by millions. Why? Cars are getting safer all the time, mostly through regulations imposed by the government for safety equipment like air bags and seat belts. Another factor are laws in more and more states that require seat belt use. And younger people are driving less: between 2001 and 2009 the number of miles driven by 16- to 34-year-old drivers declined by 23%. Younger drivers have more accidents, and if they drive less there are fewer accidents.
The parallels between cars and guns are simply too strong to keep denying the obvious. In fact, in terms of destructive potential, guns are more similar to aircraft than they are to cars, so one could argue that a better model would be much more restrictive pilot licensing, but we'll restrain ourselves to the lessons we've learned from motor vehicles.
The first lesson from cars is technology. Cars have keys and alarms to deter unauthorized people from stealing and using them. Car stereos frequently have mechanisms that prevent them from working if they're removed.
Cops get shot by criminals using the cops' own guns all the time. Many criminals get their guns from burglars who've stolen them from homes. Every year hundreds of kids pick up their dads' guns and shoot themselves or their brothers. People are constantly shooting themselves or others while cleaning their guns, or when they drop an "unloaded" gun whose clip has been removed.
We have the technology to prevent completely pointless accidents like these, as well as unauthorized use of guns by thieves and family members. Smart gun technology can render a gun useless in the hands of a criminal or a child. It would even be in the interests of American gun manufacturers to advocate legislation requiring this technology, because it would mean millions of new gun sales.
The second lesson from cars is training and testing. Most American drivers go through drivers training programs. All drivers are tested and licensed. Drivers take a vision test every time they renew their licenses. The Second Amendment is couched in terms of a "well regulated militia," so the obvious intent is that gun owners be proficient in the use of their weapons. Every right detailed in the Constitution has a whole host of legislation controlling the conditions under which it is exercised. The Second Amendment is no different.
Just as it makes no sense to let 12-year-olds and the blind people drive cars, it is senseless to put a gun in the hands of an untrained woman who can't handle the recoil of the Desert Eagle she thinks she needs, or an old man who can't see what he's shooting at, or an abusive drunk with an anger management problem.
Therefore all gun owners should be trained, licensed and tested, just like drivers. The testing should be technical (a written exam), practical (testing hands-on cleaning and safety techniques), ensure accuracy (performed on a firing range), and situational (some kind of simulation of a live-fire emergency, the way cops do). Additionally, gun buyers should undergo background checks that not only assess criminal background, but psychological state as well. Background checks should extend to anyone who lives with or has access to the purchaser's home.
Too intrusive? There's ample precedent for psych evals and extensive testing: pilots must undergo physicals, and many states require women to undergo counseling (a thinly veiled psych eval) and invasive ultrasound testing before having an abortion. Since the whole point of guns is to kill people (potentially lots of people), they should be regulated at least as rigorously as one-shot abortions.
Finally, there must be appeals to make sure people aren't denied their rights unfairly or whose circumstances change.
Note that I haven't mentioned assault weapon bans and magazine limits. Because, as the right's mantra of "guns don't kill, people do" implies, the most important thing is to keep guns out of the wrong hands in the first place. Weapons bans and magazine limits would certainly reduce the carnage, but don't get to the root of the problem.
This also addresses the idea that more guns make more people safe. That might be true if the people who wielded those guns were well-trained SWAT team arriving on the scene well-prepped. But even cops suddenly immersed in a live-fire situation make tragic mistakes. A hundred guns in the hands of clueless, untrained civilians in that darkened theater in Aurora would have left many more dead, and in the confusion the guy who started it all might have walked out alive and unscathed in his body armor.
Applying the same kinds of commonsense safety features and rules to guns that already apply to motor vehicles could save a lot of lives, including those of people who own guns. No, we can't save everyone. But if it would have saved the 26 people at Newtown and the 12 people in Aurora, their family and friends would have gladly accepted some extra inconvenience and expense in getting a gun.
Cars and guns make for an interesting comparison. Both are useful tools and recreational equipment that can be deadly in the wrong hands. Both evoke a sense of nostalgia, freedom and power in America. But while per-capita gun death rates have remained steady, motor vehicle death rates have been declining.
Total annual deaths due to motor vehicles dropped by about 10,000 from 2005 to 2010, even though the population increased by millions. Why? Cars are getting safer all the time, mostly through regulations imposed by the government for safety equipment like air bags and seat belts. Another factor are laws in more and more states that require seat belt use. And younger people are driving less: between 2001 and 2009 the number of miles driven by 16- to 34-year-old drivers declined by 23%. Younger drivers have more accidents, and if they drive less there are fewer accidents.
The parallels between cars and guns are simply too strong to keep denying the obvious. In fact, in terms of destructive potential, guns are more similar to aircraft than they are to cars, so one could argue that a better model would be much more restrictive pilot licensing, but we'll restrain ourselves to the lessons we've learned from motor vehicles.
The first lesson from cars is technology. Cars have keys and alarms to deter unauthorized people from stealing and using them. Car stereos frequently have mechanisms that prevent them from working if they're removed.
Cops get shot by criminals using the cops' own guns all the time. Many criminals get their guns from burglars who've stolen them from homes. Every year hundreds of kids pick up their dads' guns and shoot themselves or their brothers. People are constantly shooting themselves or others while cleaning their guns, or when they drop an "unloaded" gun whose clip has been removed.
We have the technology to prevent completely pointless accidents like these, as well as unauthorized use of guns by thieves and family members. Smart gun technology can render a gun useless in the hands of a criminal or a child. It would even be in the interests of American gun manufacturers to advocate legislation requiring this technology, because it would mean millions of new gun sales.
The second lesson from cars is training and testing. Most American drivers go through drivers training programs. All drivers are tested and licensed. Drivers take a vision test every time they renew their licenses. The Second Amendment is couched in terms of a "well regulated militia," so the obvious intent is that gun owners be proficient in the use of their weapons. Every right detailed in the Constitution has a whole host of legislation controlling the conditions under which it is exercised. The Second Amendment is no different.
Just as it makes no sense to let 12-year-olds and the blind people drive cars, it is senseless to put a gun in the hands of an untrained woman who can't handle the recoil of the Desert Eagle she thinks she needs, or an old man who can't see what he's shooting at, or an abusive drunk with an anger management problem.
Therefore all gun owners should be trained, licensed and tested, just like drivers. The testing should be technical (a written exam), practical (testing hands-on cleaning and safety techniques), ensure accuracy (performed on a firing range), and situational (some kind of simulation of a live-fire emergency, the way cops do). Additionally, gun buyers should undergo background checks that not only assess criminal background, but psychological state as well. Background checks should extend to anyone who lives with or has access to the purchaser's home.
Too intrusive? There's ample precedent for psych evals and extensive testing: pilots must undergo physicals, and many states require women to undergo counseling (a thinly veiled psych eval) and invasive ultrasound testing before having an abortion. Since the whole point of guns is to kill people (potentially lots of people), they should be regulated at least as rigorously as one-shot abortions.
Finally, there must be appeals to make sure people aren't denied their rights unfairly or whose circumstances change.
Note that I haven't mentioned assault weapon bans and magazine limits. Because, as the right's mantra of "guns don't kill, people do" implies, the most important thing is to keep guns out of the wrong hands in the first place. Weapons bans and magazine limits would certainly reduce the carnage, but don't get to the root of the problem.
This also addresses the idea that more guns make more people safe. That might be true if the people who wielded those guns were well-trained SWAT team arriving on the scene well-prepped. But even cops suddenly immersed in a live-fire situation make tragic mistakes. A hundred guns in the hands of clueless, untrained civilians in that darkened theater in Aurora would have left many more dead, and in the confusion the guy who started it all might have walked out alive and unscathed in his body armor.
Applying the same kinds of commonsense safety features and rules to guns that already apply to motor vehicles could save a lot of lives, including those of people who own guns. No, we can't save everyone. But if it would have saved the 26 people at Newtown and the 12 people in Aurora, their family and friends would have gladly accepted some extra inconvenience and expense in getting a gun.
The Crazy Uncle and the Cassette Tape
Since the tragedy last Friday in Newton, I've had something percolating in the back of my head. David Frums's recent post on what they president should not do was the catalyst. The president can't fight an ideology so intransigent that even the Lord our God couldn't move them. But I'll tell you who can.
People like our own Nikto.
I don't necessarily agree with everything that Nikto has been saying on gun control but I also haven't heard any adequate defense of why ordinary citizens need to be able to protect themselves with military grade weaponry. Thus far, it's the usual meme of "You're stupid" with a dash of genetic fallacy. They can say why they are against it but not why they are for it. To do so would mean being honest. What is that truth?
They think that these types of weapons are cool and they like to blow shit up. And they have a pathological hatred of the US government and believe think that the NBC television program, Revolution, is likely to happen. The problem with trying to engage these people is that our culture is generally fair minded and the fallout from this puts sanity at a disadvantage. I liken it to what I call The Crazy Uncle.
The Crazy Uncle is the guy in your family that you see at the holidays who doesn't get out much. He spends his days in the bubble of the Drudge Report and other right wing hotspots believing that this is what the world is really like. He is most definitely armed with an array of these types of weapons and, at the holiday meal, will inevitably say something so far off in moonbat land that you question his sanity.
But then a funny thing happens. The rest of the people at the table are polite and start to accept the "logic" of some of his arguments. It's not too long before the moderate conversation gets pulled to the right and now the "middle" is somewhere around the 10 yard line on the right side of the field. This is what happens when we embrace the Cult of Both Sides. This is what is happening on a macro level on our culture. The Crazy Uncles of the world know this and that's why they do it, saying crazier and crazier shit to see how much they can get away with (Hitler's big lie scenario). Never was this more true than with the gun debate.
So, to unfuck this kind of thinking, the government has to stay out of it. I know they are going to try do something anyway but given the power of the gun lobby (and despite the NRA saying that this Friday they are going to unveil plans to make sure this never happens again), it's going to be nearly impossible for them to accomplish this paradigm shift.
But that's shouldn't stop ordinary citizens from forming a private organization that rivals or even surpasses the gun lobby. Frum's example of MADD is a good one. There are plenty of people right now that have lost loved ones in school shootings and they could form the nucleus of such an organization. And the time has sadly never been better. All they need to do is start talking about the 20 children who had as many as 11 bullets in the bodies.
The Right is quite fond of talking about how the free market should do its thing without interference from the government. They point to letting people's behavior and tastes dictate supply and demand. Well, stocks in gun manufacturers are plummeting after Friday's shooting. Cerberus is selling Bushmaster. Dick's will no longer carry certain types of guns. A general distaste for guns is starting to grow in our culture. This one was different, folks and things are going to change. This change and increasing distaste will be hastened if a new, private organization like MADD gets to work now.
It may end being that many of these military style guns go the way of the cassette tape. A few people still have that moldy old soundtrack to 9 1/2 weeks laying in their old Geo Prizm (likely that same crazy uncle) but no one really plays them anymore. Why?
Because they just aren't cool anymore.
People like our own Nikto.
I don't necessarily agree with everything that Nikto has been saying on gun control but I also haven't heard any adequate defense of why ordinary citizens need to be able to protect themselves with military grade weaponry. Thus far, it's the usual meme of "You're stupid" with a dash of genetic fallacy. They can say why they are against it but not why they are for it. To do so would mean being honest. What is that truth?
They think that these types of weapons are cool and they like to blow shit up. And they have a pathological hatred of the US government and believe think that the NBC television program, Revolution, is likely to happen. The problem with trying to engage these people is that our culture is generally fair minded and the fallout from this puts sanity at a disadvantage. I liken it to what I call The Crazy Uncle.
The Crazy Uncle is the guy in your family that you see at the holidays who doesn't get out much. He spends his days in the bubble of the Drudge Report and other right wing hotspots believing that this is what the world is really like. He is most definitely armed with an array of these types of weapons and, at the holiday meal, will inevitably say something so far off in moonbat land that you question his sanity.
But then a funny thing happens. The rest of the people at the table are polite and start to accept the "logic" of some of his arguments. It's not too long before the moderate conversation gets pulled to the right and now the "middle" is somewhere around the 10 yard line on the right side of the field. This is what happens when we embrace the Cult of Both Sides. This is what is happening on a macro level on our culture. The Crazy Uncles of the world know this and that's why they do it, saying crazier and crazier shit to see how much they can get away with (Hitler's big lie scenario). Never was this more true than with the gun debate.
So, to unfuck this kind of thinking, the government has to stay out of it. I know they are going to try do something anyway but given the power of the gun lobby (and despite the NRA saying that this Friday they are going to unveil plans to make sure this never happens again), it's going to be nearly impossible for them to accomplish this paradigm shift.
But that's shouldn't stop ordinary citizens from forming a private organization that rivals or even surpasses the gun lobby. Frum's example of MADD is a good one. There are plenty of people right now that have lost loved ones in school shootings and they could form the nucleus of such an organization. And the time has sadly never been better. All they need to do is start talking about the 20 children who had as many as 11 bullets in the bodies.
The Right is quite fond of talking about how the free market should do its thing without interference from the government. They point to letting people's behavior and tastes dictate supply and demand. Well, stocks in gun manufacturers are plummeting after Friday's shooting. Cerberus is selling Bushmaster. Dick's will no longer carry certain types of guns. A general distaste for guns is starting to grow in our culture. This one was different, folks and things are going to change. This change and increasing distaste will be hastened if a new, private organization like MADD gets to work now.
It may end being that many of these military style guns go the way of the cassette tape. A few people still have that moldy old soundtrack to 9 1/2 weeks laying in their old Geo Prizm (likely that same crazy uncle) but no one really plays them anymore. Why?
Because they just aren't cool anymore.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Our Culture of Fear
I hate the media. They suck. And here's why.
No one was nervous at my school or either of my children's schools. No one was afraid and no one was worried for their safety. People were just sad. But this speaks to a very large problem with our culture that was first identified in Barry Glassner's fantastic book, "The Culture of Fear" and later in Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine." The media needs fear to in order to peddle their corporate owned shit. If people are afraid, they buy more crap.
In so many ways, this is tremendously irresponsible. They are creating a perception here that doesn't match reality. Yesterday, most of America simply went on with their lives and they did so without any trepidation. They didn't spend their mornings panicking and surveying suspicious mini-vans. Where are the stories about that?
All this kind of garbage does is make everything worse.
No one was nervous at my school or either of my children's schools. No one was afraid and no one was worried for their safety. People were just sad. But this speaks to a very large problem with our culture that was first identified in Barry Glassner's fantastic book, "The Culture of Fear" and later in Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine." The media needs fear to in order to peddle their corporate owned shit. If people are afraid, they buy more crap.
In so many ways, this is tremendously irresponsible. They are creating a perception here that doesn't match reality. Yesterday, most of America simply went on with their lives and they did so without any trepidation. They didn't spend their mornings panicking and surveying suspicious mini-vans. Where are the stories about that?
All this kind of garbage does is make everything worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)