NRA out of touch

Yeah, this is also going to be tangentially related to gun-control because yesterday the NRA finally showed its face and held a press conference.  It probably would be better for them if they hadn't, but hey, why keep silent when you can say something stupid.

The NRA, as I'm sure you've heard by now, called for armed guards in every school in America because this is going to somehow prevent horrific tragedies from occurring.  Yes folks, the answer to solving violence committed by legal guns is to give more people legal guns.  Amazing isn't it?

Let's begin by looking at the latest shooting.  A young man, fully committed to murder, planned an assault on a school.  His mother worked at the school, so he knew it fairly well.  We're to believe that an armed guard was going to be anything but the first victim?  Ok, so lets assume the armed guard isn't the first victim, the gunman goes in a different door and possibly only kills maybe 6 or 8 people before....what?

A gunfight with the officer ensues with him having a pistol and something to live for versus someone who cares nothing for their own life or the lives of others armed with a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine?  Ideally the guard takes out the shooter and the tragedy is "only" 6 or 8 dead instead of 28.  Better?  I suppose, but it still did nothing to PREVENT the tragedy from happening.  It merely mitigated the damage and while in my hypothetical scenario 8 dead is better than 28 its a far cry from NO dead.  Which is what we want!

So, outside of the problem that merely having armed guards does nothing to prevent disturbed individuals from getting their hands on powerful weapons, let's go to the second issue.  Who's going to pay for this?  Now, if the NRA wants to step up and do so, that's fine by me.  But, otherwise, many schools can't afford enough staff as is.  Where are they going to get the money to pay for armed guards?  Even if the local police department provides the guard, the money still has to come from somewhere to pay their salary.

And, schools aren't just in use from 7:30 to 3:30 M-F.  Is there going to be an armed guard on premises any time the school is in use?  It seems like such a simple thing, but simply from a logistical standpoint its not.

The NRA is out of touch with the average American gun owner.  They portray themselves as staunch defenders of gun owners rights, when in reality its basically a lobby for gun manufacturers.  The NRA wants its members to buy as many guns as possible, hence the constant scare tactics and fear-mongering, because this brings in hefty amounts of cash from the companies benefiting from the gun purchases.

The government isn't going to come into your house to take all your guns away.  But maybe, just maybe, its time to put some logical safeguards in place that might help prevent the next Sandy Hook or Aurora.  In a country that has almost 1 gun for every person you can't realistically do away with guns.  But if you can start to minimize the opportunity for disturbed people to get their hands on guns in legal methods, its a start.

So please, gun owners.  If you are NRA members, it might be time to rethink that.  The NRA don't care about you or about the best interests of gun owners.  They care about your money and the best interests of the gun sellers.  There are organizations out there that can support your right to own firearms that do it in a sensible and humane manner.

We also need some radical reform of our mental health services in this country, though while it appears the Sandy Hook killer possibly had some mental illness, his actions were completely pre-meditated.  He just didn't care what he did in his final act, he just wanted to cause as much pain and suffering to as many as possible on his way out because mommy wasn't giving him what he wanted anymore and was scared of him.

Apparently not scared enough to get the freaking guns out of the house, but hey, we can't speak ill of the dead right?

Rambling on Gun Control.

So, I've held off on this for a few days, but the statistics being bandied about are just making me crazy.  For the record, I do not support banning guns.  However, I do support tighter gun control, making it harder to get guns, and limiting or banning certain types of guns and accessories.

But on to some thoughts on statistics.  The hilarious thing about using statistics to say how we don't need tighter gun controls is how it also utterly disproves the point of needing a gun for protection.

Yes, statistically the number of murders committed by legally owned guns is fairly low (though they make up a surprising number of the guns used in mass murders).  And the number of murders and violent crimes in general in the US are still fairly low compared to most points in the last 50 years.

But, if those things are the case, why do so many people need guns for protection?  Statistically your chances of being in a situation where you NEED a gun to defend yourself is almost 0, maybe, MAYBE 1 time in your life.  (And the chances of being in a situation where you need a high capacity magazine or an AR-15 to defend yourself IS zero  Unless you want bullets punching through a home invader, through the walls of your house and ending up god knows where.)  Fear is good for gun sales though, which merely creates the potential for MORE gun violence as there are more guns out there to have accidents with, to get stolen, etc.

The interesting thing about guns for protection as well (outside of that being the EXACT SAME REASON gang members and drug dealers need guns, funny how that mentality is shared isn't it) is that with the chance of needing it being SO LOW that its mostly going to escalate non-violent or non-lethal situations into violent or lethal ones.

Florida currently has at least 2 cases, the Travon Martin case, and a second case where, because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, legal concealed carry folks killed unarmed citizens after confrontations escalated.  Would those confrontations have happened if the antagonist hadn't been armed?  I don't know.  Maybe, but for SOME (not all) knowing they are carrying gives a false sense of security or invincibility.

I am not saying all gun owners are trigger happy fools, most aren't, very few are.  BUT, again, guns are a force multiplier beyond knives, baseball bats, and pretty much anything outside of explosives.  Why do we need anyone besides highly trained professionals carrying them on a daily basis? (I believe a citizen can be a highly trained professional, they just need to prove they are before they are allowed to concealed carry and they must go through tests yearly to keep their card.)

Since overall violence is down, why do those guns (semi-auto military styled rifles and high capacity magazines) need to be out there?

Sure, they are fun.  I'm even for people being able to own them, they just must be kept at gun clubs where you go to shoot them.  You don't get to have them at home.  You can still have hunting rifles, even semi-auto hunting rifles, but nothing with a clip holding more than 10 rounds.  (I'd say 6, but would settle for 10.)

One more piece of false logic the pro-"all guns all the time" folks trot out there.  "Oh, there's too many of these guns out there, we can't put the genie back in the bottle."  This type of broken thinking is how we are in the debt mess we're in as a nation.  Sure, there is no instant fix, but that means we shouldn't do anything?  Maybe we should apply this logic to cancer!  "We can't cure ALL cancer and it costs a lot of money to fight cancer, so we should just stop trying."  Hmmm, doesn't make much sense there does it?

I think its pretty simple.  Ban sales of high capacity magazines NOW.  No more sales of them, at ALL.  (To you screaming BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COMPANIES THAT SELL THEM! JOBS!! I would say 1) stop being merchants of death 2) after legislation is passed, the magazines can be sold to the gun clubs, who can then sell them to members for use ONLY at the gun club.)

Then, work out the details of how to get them out of people's homes.  Don't make it a ridiculous offense. If someone has a FOID card, but still has now illegal weapons in their home, they can 1) register the weapons with whatever local agency will be registering weapons now (I have to register a car, why do I not have to register every single gun I own by serial number?) and then take the weapon to the local gun club or 2) turn the weapon over to the local agency and get paid fair market value for it (paid for by registration fees).  There would be a five year window where you could do these things for free (only new guns would require registration fees).  After that five year period, if you could show your FOID card, you'd pay a small fine and then be allowed to register your weapons. and pay a fee.

See, people can own guns, it will just be more costly.   You can still shoot your guns, just certain types have to be shot at certain places.  This is NOT rocket science.

Will this stop gun violence or the next massacre?  Of course not, evil people or ill people can still find a way, but it will make it harder to do so and that DOES help prevent crime.  (There are actual statistics to back that up too.)

If you think this is the gov't taking away your rights, I don't care.  You can still own guns, you just have to do it in a way that makes sense.  The way we currently do it MAKES NO SENSE and needs to change.

4 more years....

Well, President Obama won.   This doesn't come as a surprise to me, I was going to be shocked if Romney won. (More on that in a few paragraphs)

Mr. President, while I'm not thrilled with your first term, you have been given a second chance.  A chance to finish what you started, to start the things you talked about, and generally work as best you can to help right the course for America.

You have a big job in front of you and I don't know if you can actually do it.  You're too beholden to the monied interests.  I'll be interested who you replace on your cabinet.  You don't seem to be dynamic enough in your leadership.

BUT, you don't have to worry about reelection now.  You have a slightly more accommodating Congress, one who might actually be willing to work with you now.  But you still must put forward some actual ideas, and ways to implement them.

I wish you luck in your second term, hopefully it will be the start of a new era for America.

Now, to those of you surprised by Romney's loss...why?  What made you believe he was going to win?

Was it his staunch beliefs?  Wait, I have no idea what he believes in because it changes, every single election.

Was it his proven governing power?  Oh, wait, he's had to disavow his biggest accomplishment as governor because it smacked of socialism to the far right.

Was it his likeable personality?  Not really, he's random rich old white dude.  You could insert about 50 other guys in his stead and they'd all be the same.

Maybe his proven record as a leader of a company?  Well, sort of.  His company made lots of money, but lots of that was made by buying and gutting companies and outsourcing jobs.  I understand that happens, and sometimes it should, but its not gonna win you votes.

Was it his appeal to others besides whites?  I can't even come up with something snarky to respond here.  Its just hilarious.

America, while still run by whites (look at congress), is slowly starting to show in their vote that "Hey, there are people of other cultures here, other backgrounds besides WASP or white catholic."  The Republican leadership, the Republican "base," and Republican news outlets like Fox News are scared to admit that and delude themselves into thinking that the changing face of America isn't happening or that it can be reversed.  No, it can't!

I've already read 3 or 4 blogs and articles just today from tea party people saying the reason Romney lost was that he wasn't far right enough!!!  Wait a second, you honestly believe that a Rick Santorum, or Mike Huckabee, would have fared better?  If so, good luck to you in 4 years because you're going to be sorely disappointed yet again.

Hopefully, the Republicans will embrace the changing face of America and revise their platform to be more inclusive and in doing so actually put candidates up for consideration that bring something to the table besides isolationism, xenophobia, and broken jokes of economic plans.

Romney, you are pathetic

Disclaimer:  99.9% of political ads are lies, distortions and half truths.  From both parties, from all groups.

With that said, the Romney campaign has taken things to a level almost of the Swift Boat myths of the Bush days.

The claim made in Romney's ads in Ohio, a state Romney is losing in and that has been pummeled by the loss of manufacturing jobs over the past 30 years, are 100% lies.  Lies, not distortions, but flat out lies, refuted by the very companies Romney was lying about.

Jeep is NOT moving jobs from Ohio to China, nor is GM cutting American jobs to move to China.  Both companies are expanding in China, operations COMPLETELY SEPARATE from their North American operations.

Both Fiat, speaking about their Jeep division, and GM have refuted the Romney camp's ads, and beyond ads, things Romney has hinted at in speeches.

Romney, someone who made millions gutting companies and laying off workers, is amazing in his gall.  The man will literally say anything to get elected.  When you are the most accomplished political waffler, that is saying something and what it's saying isn't good.

Now, I'm not saying the Obama campaign is 100% truthful.   I'm sick of political ads and political lies.  But the extreme's Romney is going to is pathetic.  The man is not fit to run the country because as far as I can tell he has no actual beliefs of his own, merely what it takes to get elected to the next office.  

Seriously, look at how his views have changed from his days as governor of Massachusetts.  Its not slight wavering to gain politcal wiggle room, its wholesale changes in a desperate attempt to get elected and its pathetic.

I could handle the old Romney, Governor Romney as President.  This man he's decided to become, its sickening.  Its honestly sad when Obama, someone who accomplished little of his established goals and showed little of his stated beliefs in his first term, comes across as the more honest, principled option.

Ugh.

Layoffs

So now the Koch brothers are warning of layoffs if Obama is reelected joining other rich plutocrats threatening the peasants if the peasants don't act according to their wishes.

Really.  This is where we are in America?  THESE are our leaders of industry?   Men who (like the Koch brothers) have run successful businesses, made themselves PILES of money, and now, somehow, if Obama is reelected they are going to have to lay off everyday workers to stay profitable?

Hmm.  I think this is a load of crap.

Why?

Oh, because of the tens, if not hundreds of millions these men have spent on political campaigns.  Instead of reinvesting it in their businesses, or keeping it for tougher times, no, its their money, they can do what they want, so they try and get friendly politicians elected.

But then, if things don't go their way, they cry, take their ball and go home, and make their workers suffer so that they can keep their huge incomes and replenish the spending cash for the next election cycle in four years.

Look, I understand that its hard to run a business in the US.  We need to overhaul our corporate tax system and we need to streamline and improve our regulating processes.  I am NOT anti-businessman especially since, as much as I despise their politics the Koch brothers at least own businesses that PRODUCE things unlike the Wall Street boys that just shift data in computers.

That said, the whole "I made mine if you don't like it go make your own" mentality of too many of the wealthy in this country is nauseating.  Its selfish and its destructive.  And if they somehow believe that threatening their employees is going to solve America's problems, well, good luck to them on that.

The blind, selfish, willful ignorance and hubris of so many wealthy people sickens me.  Thanks Supreme Court for allowing these guys to try and buy election after election.  That's certainly what the Founding Fathers you hold so dear envisioned that First Amendment being used for.  Nice work.

This probably makes even less sense than most of my posts but I am sick and tired of the rich feeling every bit as entitled (to a far larger piece of the pie, in fact almost ALL the pie) as the poor they like to blame for all our problems.

Bullying

So, a chubby local newsperson gets an email from a buff lawyer ripping her about her weight.

 Instead of doing what most people would do, ignoring the moron, she, in best local newsperson manner, decides to take it on air.

 In a highly misguided statement she claims she is standing up for all the bullied people in the world. The kids who have to deal with being called fat, or short, or gay or whatever.

 Ok, fine, except, no, you're not.

 You were not bullied Ms. Livingston and you apparently don't have any idea what the word means.

To be bullied would mean you would be singled out, repeatedly, by one person, or a group, and humiliated, threatened, and/or mocked by those you are often in contact with.

 Instead, you got one email from an idiot, some guy you don't know and never have to interact with.

 Really, you're going to compare THAT to the kid getting mocked on the bus every day. To having his books pushed on the floor. To being picked on constantly by people he has to face, EVERY SINGLE DAY.

 You don't even see how you trivialized bullying do you?

 You honestly believe you were bullied and you were standing up for what's right.

 You were wrong.

 If it was a co-worker who everyday was making comments, then yes, that could easily be bullying.

 But it wasn't, it was a random email from some schmuck.

 So please, delete the email, suck it up and just go about your life.

 Don't demean those who deal with bullying on a daily basis by comparing what they go through to an email from an idiot.

 This is one more reason why local news should be banned. If there was no local news, there would be no local newspeople. Do you know what a boon this would be for not having crap TV?

Racism

"Racism is not merely a simplistic hatred. It is, more often, broad sympathy toward some and broader skepticism toward others." -Ta-Nehisi Coates

 Sorry America, that specter Racism is alive and well.

 I know, I know, you don't want to admit it, but sorry, its true.

 Its true in the little things you say, the little assumptions you make, the stereotypes you hold. Its there. You don't have to join the KKK, you don't have to call them N******, you don't have to do a lot of things, many racist attitudes are totally passive. Its about what you say, what you think, what you at heart believe. 

Its funny how often I hear "well blacks can be racist too."

 Ok, I agree, there is a certain percentage of the black population that is racist. They, like the vast majority of racist whites, veer towards the 2nd sentence of the quote.

 There are racist black people, some of them as bad as any racist white.

 BUT, before white folk get all justified in their own little prejudices, let me point something out, the blacks aren't the people in power.

 WAIT you cry! White america is under attack! Look at all the benefits afforded minorities and women! Its so hard to be a white man!

 No, its not.

 White men still run this country. Pardon me, RICH white men run this country.

 If you aren't one of them it isn't affirmative actions fault. It isn't NOW's fault. Its the oligarchy of good ol' boys and new money men who control most economic goings on in the US.

 Here's the thing: People of all races suck. Basically humanity sucks. We're imperfect, we're flawed, we're damaged. BUT, when the group that holds power, and I'm sorry white america, you hold the power no matter how badly you want to believe you don't, holds ideas, prejudices (it can be proven, look at prison sentencing black v. white for the same crimes), hold beliefs, its far more damaging to the country than when the minority holds similar views.

 This is NOT excusing minorities for any general "racist" beliefs they might hold. But, isn't it more understandable they would hold them when they are much more likely to be stopped and questioned by police (most often white), go to a lesser school than their white peers, and generally have the odds stacked against them?

 Blacks in this country have had the deck stacked against them since the late 19th century. The gains made immediately after the Civil War, well, many of them died with Lincoln and others have been destroyed since, whether maliciously by blatantly racist laws or inadvertently by misguided social policy (see the Great Society, though, I sometimes wonder how inadvertent LBJ was really...).

 We are generations deep, in all honestly we are almost 10 generations deep of black families being destroyed, first by slavery, then by economic factors, then by social engineering factors. Its unfortunate that so many black Americans have no idea how to live "normal," healthy lives.

 I'm not even saying that they have to live like middle class Americans because frankly, I'm not sure that's healthy. But the violence that pervades so much of their culture, the lack of a father in too many young black men's lives (and anymore, that's certainly a white problem too), its tragic.

 And while it does not excuse the eventual behavior, it helps to explain it. Instead of fearing, instead of holding prejudice, instead of viewing them as parasites (which so many people do, listen to how people talk, facts don't matter, there are millions on welfare doing nothing to support themselves....right..) maybe view them as fellow human beings. View them as fellow Americans, who just want to live their lives. Maybe you could support them, even third party, through groups trying to help the less fortunate.

 White America, I'm sorry, but you're still horrifically racist. You need to start accepting that, because if you don't, if you, the majority race, don't, why on earth would any of the minority races attempt to do the same?

"[C]areer ambition was not to go to Washington"

Really Mitt?  Really?  You're saying a guy, who has worked essentially his WHOLE CAREER (except for a brief marketing consultant job at the family business to pad his resume for office)  in Washington never had a career ambition there?

When exactly did he not have this ambition?  When he was 8 and wanting to be a fireman or astronaut?  Because by the time he was in college he was happily, even enthusiastically taking staffing jobs.  His first job out of college was as a speechwriter for Jack Kemp.   Yes, certainly seems like he didn't intend to work in Washington.

There are so many lies being thrown around by both sides its not even funny, but this one is pretty good.  Mitt, admit it, you put Ryan on the ticket because you've never consistently stood for anything in your political career.  Ryan was put there to give the conservatives peace of mind that you are a true believer, even when you're not in anything except Mitt.

Its interesting how Obama is called a socialist and communist (ignoring the fact the two are highly dissimilar) and its a bad thing.  But Ryan, an avowed Objectivist, is somehow praised as a champion.  Does the average person know anything about Objectivism?  I'm thinking not.

Especially Christians because Objectivism is essentially anathema to the gospel of Christ though it is very much an American philosophy.  (I have no idea of Mr. Paul's religious beliefs, but when the person who's philosophy you hold dear is summed up in this quote "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute [2]." that doesn't leave a lot of leeway for Christ's message.)

This not saying that Marx's writings were kind to religion.  "Religion is the opiate of the masses" doesn't leave much room for it either, but some of the basic ideals of socialism are not that far from some of Christ's teachings either.  (I am not saying Christ was a socialist, merely pointing out that his life and the life of the early church has far more in common with socialist and even, gasp, communal, ideals than anything Rand ever imagined.)

It boggles the mind that while bi-partisan and non-partisan groups publish report after report that Ryan's budget and Romney's tax plan would shift even MORE of the tax burden to the middle class (since its simply impossible to cut the amount needed) middle class and even lower class whites flock to the idea.  

I guess the obvious solution to any problem is to burn down and start over right?  Oh, and make sure the rich don't have too pay too much in taxes because keeping their taxes low does an excellent job of creating jobs for people in this country.  

Good job guys!

(President Obama, I can't even begin to describe how angry I am at your administration for putting forth essentially no good ideas over the last few years to combat the lunacy of the far-right economic folks.  Its pathetic really.)    

Ah politics.

Representative Boehner, while talking on a Fox Radio show today made the statement concerning Obama that "He's never even had a real job for God's sake."

Now, I suppose Mr Boehner might not consider such things as being a community organizer, a civil rights lawyer, or a law professional real jobs, that's fine.

But what is absolutely hilarious about his statement is that Rep. Paul Ryan, the "mastermind" of the GOP's budget, actually NEVER has held a job outside of politics.  He worked as a congressional staffer until he was approached about entering politics so he left being a staffer to work as a "marketing consultant" to his family's construction business briefly before running for office.

So, what would Mr. Boehner say about his fellow Congressman, who by Boehner's measuring stick must have actually held NEGATIVE jobs if Obama's jobs didn't count.

Its idiocy.  The people in charge of both parties are idiots but I really really don't understand the Republican view of keeping the rich as rich as possible and somehow that will trickle down.  

Oh well.  Only a few more months until another 3 years of stagnant idiocy.   *sigh*

Time is an interesting thing...

I shared a post on my G+ about some really cool poster art that's up for sale.  Its about modern things, video games and such, but done in a very 30s sci-fi or 40s propaganda style.  They are gorgeous.

My first thought was "That would totally fit on the cover of a Buck Rogers story or a Harry Harrison collection!"

My dad's comment was "Looks like a Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Airmen cover!!" which it TOTALLY does.  


Its a strange age we live in when a son's first thought jumps 30-40 years before the father's first thought!  


Thanks to the internet, I've been exposed to early science fiction which often had fantastic covers.  My dad, through his eclectic and wonderful taste in music, was exposed to this style of artwork through Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Airmen covers.  The artists and probably band were obviously influenced by the Pulp & Golden Ages of Science fiction.  


What does this mean?  Nothing, except that we live in interesting times and that I really need to listen to more Commander Cody.  My only experience with them is from the terrible/awesome movie Hollywood Boulevard and they were great!

The GOP amazes me.

The Republican party is a joke. Now, before I delve into that, let me say, I'm not thrilled with the Democrats either. Obama's had a very mixed presidency for me and I'm very frustrated with him. However, the Republican opposition is laughable.

Mitt Romney- What does this man stand for? He'll say anything to get elected. He's been running for office ever since he stopped working on Wall Street. I think he did some good things when he was a governor, but his "beliefs" are constantly changing by what he thinks the people want to hear. Now, every politican does this to a degree, but he takes it to an amazing level.

Rick Santorum-When everyone in the Senate hates you, and you can't get a single word of support from any of them, even those in your own party, well, it could be taken as a positive. Its not. Santorum is everything that terrifies me in a religious right-wing candidate. However, if he wins the nomination, the Republicans should just forfeit as they will be handing it to Obama.

Newt Gingrich- What a sleazeball. Newt has been a professional politican his entire adult life pretty much. And when he wasn't a politican, he was a lobbyist. Except he wasn't a lobbyist, he was a consultant so he didn't have to declare what he was getting. He's an expert at working the laws to get his organizations money without having to declare income from it. Oh, can we just say how ADD his policies are? Let's claim the moon? (Though, that'd be illegal.) We need better defenses against EMP attacks. He's a wackjob. To say nothing about his personal life. The guy is straight up slime and again would probably insure an Obama victory.

There are a few others, but they have little to no chance. The Republicans don't seem to understand they can't win on their "base" alone. Pandering to the extreme ends will only kill them in a national election.

I live in Illinois. We'll support Obama no matter what. But it amazes me that they can't put a candidate up there that has the slightest bit of credibility or electibility. Of course, its the same party that allows Grover Norquist to dictate their tax policy...