It's Exactly The Same, Except It's Different

Saw this one on facebook today:

Those horrible, horrible Republicans! How could they do this?! I mean, it's not like the House leadership passed their own version of the VAWA, that was closer to the previous version than the one the Senate passed, which added some new provisions, right? Wait..they did?! Well, what the fuck, then, pink sign?!

Look, we all know that violence against women is awful. Domestic violence particularly so. That's why I find this graphic so vile--it uses this tragic topic for purely political purposes. It clearly implies that House republicans don't care about violence against women, and as a result, have decided not to renew this important piece of legislation. Well, here's the truth--the Senate added three new provisions for the new VAWA:

1. It gives Native-American tribal authorities expanded authority to prosecute cases of violence that occur on reservations.
2. It specifically bans discrimination against gays, lesbians, and transgender victims by domestic violence organizations that receive federal funds.
3. It would raise the number of visas given to illegal aliens who are victims of domestic violence above the current cap of 10,000.

These are the sticking points for the House, at least as I understand them. I'll be honest--I don't really have any problem with any of them. I understand the apparent arguments being made against them. That they give undue authority to N.A. tribal police, that the law as written previously covers G/L/TG victims, so there's no need to single them out, and that the cap is there for a reason. I just don't see them as being as big of a concern as the House does. But here's the thing: if you want to have an argument on the merits of these additions, then HAVE THAT ARGUMENT! But to make people think that the House leadership just doesn't want to pass a VAWA, when in fact they've already passed their own version, is just disingenuous, overly partisan, and frankly, really disgusting. It's amazing to what depths people will sink when they feel the end (voting out republicans) justifies the means (creating some bullshit graphic that unfairly (and untruthfully) paints a picture of political opponents).

I've Got Rocks In My Head

Or on my brain, rather. I'm not surprised that this graphic came from The Rachel Maddow Fan Page.

This one is pretty easily dispensed with, I think.

Why wouldn't it be a solution? Think about it for a second. If all those other responsible, law-abiding children on the playground had rocks to begin with, would the child in question still throw the rock? I think not. It's actually a pretty good solution. Sure we could threaten the naughty child with detention if he/she goes through with it, but then that poor other student still gets a rock upside the head. If we ban all rocks on the playground, then only children who don't obey the rules will have rocks...and not be afraid to use them. This seems much more preventative.

The Graphic That Broke The Camel's Back

Assuming I'm the camel, that is. I've been seeing a lot of friends and colleagues posting graphics on facebook lately that try to make some political point. I'm always disappointed because they are always posted by people I respect, and who are--most of the time--fairly intelligent people...and the posts are always horrible. They're often illogical, biased, and usually fall apart under the slightest scrutiny.

I've decided to cover some of them here. I don't usually respond to them on facebook, primarily because I work in a place where most people are on one side of the political aisle, and I'm usually on the other. Therefore, I don't advertise my politics most of the time. That said, while most of the ones I choose to cover will likely be from the left, because most of my graphic-posting facebook friends seem to be from that side, if I see an egregious one from the right, I have no problem covering it here.

I thought I'd start with this one, for no other reason than it was the one that finally made me say "enough!" It's in response to the NRA's suggestion that schools employ armed security in the wake of the incident at the Sandy Hook School in Connecticut.

My initial thought was "wait...didn't President Clinton provide funding for placing police officers in schools in the wake of Columbine?" (Hint: he did.) I only bring that up because the two friends who posted it were both Clinton supporters. But apart from noting the hypocrisy, I thought I'd examine it closer, to see if maybe there was a valid argument there.

Clearly, the insinuation is that an armed presence in a school would not prevent a mass killing there, since it was unable to prevent these. And that's pretty much the only point it's making.

All three of these statements are true. There is no arguing that. The problem arises when you look further into the circumstances behind each statement.

Columbine had an armed guard:
Deputy Neil Gardner was the deputy in question here, and most days he would eat his lunch in the cafeteria with the children, but on that day, in a stroke of bad luck, he was eating his lunch in his patrol car when the custodian radioed him to go to the back lot, where a female student had been shot. By the time he got there, the shooting was well underway, but even so, he engaged one of the killers for a few minutes, which may have given a few more students time to escape. Regardless, though, he was not inside the school, which really negates the implication made in the posting.

Virginia Tech had their own police dept.:
Again, true, but hardly comparable given the size of the campus (over 30,000 students on 2,600 acres) in relation to the size of a typical elementary, middle, or high school. Of course they'd have their own police dept. It's only slightly less populous than Virginia's most populous town, Blackburn. That's not the only context that makes the statement deceptive, though. The VA Tech shooting was odd in that two students were killed initially in one building, and then the shooter cleaned up, and two and a half hours later, chained himself inside another dorm across campus, where he killed 30 other people. The police were having a meeting about the first shootings, which they thought were a "domestic dispute," when the second set happened. "By the time officers arrived, the shooting had stopped and the gunman had killed himself, the chief said." This situation is really more akin to the problem of police response time in cities and towns, which would seem to me to be more supportive of the push to allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns to protect themselves. Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone, as were all three places referenced here, as well as the Aurora Theater in Colorado.

Ft. Hood was a military base:
One might forgive this one, because any normal person might assume that "hey, it's a military base! There are guns everywhere!" I won't bother making the tired joke about what happens when you "assume" something. As it turns out, Ft. Hood was--as I mentioned--a gun-free zone. Yes, they have weapons on the base, but "soldiers at Fort Hood don't carry weapons unless they are doing training exercises." Even the shooter's own weapons were not military issue. So for the third time, it turns out an armed presence was not in the actual building(s) where these horrific events took place, which completely belies the one and only point being made in the graphic.

I'm not above having a debate about how to make our schools safer, and whether or not we should have an armed presence in our schools*, but if we're going to have that debate, let's make sure it's not one based on intellectually dishonest information.

*I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue. I find it a little sad that we would even have to consider placing armed guards in our schools, but on the other hand, there are two pieces of information that I keep thinking about. The first is that almost without exception, these kinds of killing take place in gun-free zones, where the killers are certain they won't be confronted with any opposing firepower until the police eventually show up, which can--literally--be a matter of life or death for some. The second is that anytime we have something of value, or something that we want to protect, what do we do? How do we protect banks? Armored cars (besides the armor, of course)? Even our government buildings, including the White House? We protect them with an armed presence. How can we not even consider protecting one of our most valuable resources--our children--that way? 

An Honest Question

In Lansing, Michigan, union members gathered to protest that state's adoption of "right-to-work" laws, which essentially means workers do not have to join a union and pay union dues to work. Unsurprisingly, violence erupted. Steven Crowder, a conservative blogger/comedian/etc. was questioning some of the workers about their views, as you can see in the video below. Some time later, union members began tearing down a tent belong to the group Americans for Prosperity. Crowder confronted them and asked them to stop, and at some point (the video is a little unclear) was attacked.


You see the union member in the video asked why he's against "right-to-work." He responds:

"...it's the freedom to freeload. They can suck all of the parasitical(?) benefits and our wages that unions have negotiated and they get it for free!"

So here's my question, to my left-leaning, union-supporting friends like that fellow:

How on earth is it that you can condemn those who don't want to join a union as "freeloaders," and support a president who reinforces freeloading by nearly half of the country when it comes to, say, Obamacare or any number of other entitlement programs?

Try this: "They can suck all of the health insurance benefits that our taxes have paid for and they get it for free!" Is the reasoning any different here?

Even liberal Mother Jones points out the dangers of "free riders":

 "Right-to-work allows those nonmembers to receive union representation without paying for it—unions deride those folks 'free-riders.' The result of right-to-work laws is that unions see their treasuries diminish and membership take a hit."

But "free riders" in national entitlement programs, who get representation without paying taxes?  Apparently that won't diminish our national treasury or lower the membership in the working class. Or so the left keeps saying.
 
I also noted that several liberal commentators used the word "fair," as in "if workers don't join a union, they should still have to pay equivalent fees, so that it's fair for all workers." It's funny how that word "fair" takes on a completely different meaning when those same commentators talk about taxation

I wish they would make up their minds.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I myself belong to a union. I think they've done some good for the workers, but in the main I resent them because I think they spent far too much time (and far too many resources) as an arm of the Democratic Party. Honestly, the workers have taken a back seat in terms of importance.

He LOOKS The Same, But...

Watching Obama talk about the last four years during this last debate, I find myself thinking: "it's too bad that guy wasn't president." It's almost like I was in an alternate universe.

This, of course, also made it knee-slappingly hysterical when Obama accused Romney of revising history. Ultimately, I thought both of them scored some points, but Obama occasionally seemed petulant and too focused on attacking Romney. Romney, for his part passed up--I thought--a number of opportunities to score a knockdown.

It was pretty close to a draw, which means Romney wins. The incumbent should always have a foreign-policy advantage. Here, Obama didn't seem to. The challenger needs to seem "presidential" enough to warrant the vote. I think Romney accomplished that.

Also, the way Obama was occasionally staring at Romney? It seemed like he was trying to make Romney's head explode with just the power of his mind. That kinda creeped me out.

This Is What Makes Me Weep

What's wrong with this picture?

"Hey, did you see that one of our ambassadors, along with three other diplomats, was murdered in Libya?"
"Huh....nope. Didn't see that. That's a shame."

"Hey, did you see that last play of the Packers-Seahawks game?"
"JESUS CHRIST, WHAT A TRAVESTY THAT WAS!! SOMEBODY OUGHT TO FIRE THOSE GODDAMN REFS AND THEN DRIVE OVER TO THAT ASSHAT GOODELL'S HOUSE AND BURN THE THING TO THE GROUND!! THAT WAS FUCKIN' BULLSHIT!!"

"Well, I Didnt WANT To Say That."

I wish that some of the writers out there would learn the difference between the terms "said" and "meant." For example, Greg Sargent, over at The Washington Post, who just posted an op-ed titled "Why Romney Keeps Attacking Things Obama Didn't Say." It's one thing to argue that Obama's "you didn't build that" quote means this or that, in which case you'd have to admit that if it means anything other than what the Romney camp is implying it means, then the Great Orator...well, screwed up. He could have said, for example, "you didn't build that on your own." Three simple words. Problem solved. What you can't do, however, is argue that's not what he said. He did. Period.

This is also not a situation in which the words have somehow changed. For example, Romney's quote "I like being able to fire people," an endorsement of accountability in private enterprise over lack of accountability in government, somehow (gee, I wonder how) became "I like firing people," as though he took glee in the actual deed. (Go ahead, Google "Romney I like firing people" and see how many people changed the wording.)Here, the words are actually changed, thereby distorting the meaning.

In Obama's case, as I said, you'd have an argument if he had said "you didn't build that on your own," and they cut out the last three words. But he didn't, and they didn't. And can we dispense with the bullshit idea that his "that" somehow referred to the "bridges and roads"? That doesn't even make grammatical sense. You'd have to say "those" because of the plural antecedent.

 So go ahead and argue what the words mean if you want, but what team Obama still hasn't addressed is who else deserves the credit for that business. I've pointed out before that he "borrowed" this idea from Elizabeth Warren, who was much more artful (and specific):

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did. 

The thing she doesn't define, though, is "the rest of us," just as Obama doesn't say who the "someone else" is. The truth is that if you're going to talk about things built by the government, "the rest of us" must be "taxpayers," which means she's ultimately implying that about half the country is not really responsible for the country. It also--ironically--means that the people she's proposing raising the taxes on because they weren't responsible for building roads, etc., are the very same people whose taxes are responsible for...building roads, etc.

Just take government out of the equation altogether. If instead of having those business owners pay taxes to the government, which then used that money for various programs, the businesspeople used their own money directly for those same programs, would anybody question if they were dependent on someone else? It's like arguing that people who donate to charities should acknowledge that they're not solely responsible for those donations--the charity and the charity recipients also deserve some credit. The former because they collected and dispersed the money, and the latter because...well, because they're also people, I guess. The problem is, you could still have charitable donations without charities or recipients, but without the donors, the other two are sunk. And I think, ultimately, that's what's so disappointing (and revealing) to so many people about what Obama said/meant: he gets it backwards. What he ought to be doing instead of reminding taxpayers that they wouldn't succeed without government, is acknowledging that government wouldn't exist without taxpayers.

UPDATE: It's an interesting illustration of bias, I think when you look at the fact that over at Politicfact, Team Romney's claim that Obama said "You didn't build that" (which he did)? "False!" The claim that Romney likes firing people (which is not what he said)? Ehhhh..."mostly false."

Fourth Time Gutsy!

Hey, remember when President Obama suggested that Mitt Romney wouldn't have made that "gutsy call" to kill Osama Bin Laden? Of course you do--he even put out an ad about it

It starts out by saying "The Commander-in-Chief gets one chance to make the right decision." As it turns out, according to The Daily Caller, that's not always true. In a book by Richard Miniter, it's claimed that

At the urging of Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission.

Apparently, this Commander-in-Chief gets four chances to make the right decision.

Makeup!!

Thanks to Milton Berle for the title.


I've been thinking about changing the look a little, so bear with me as I try out a few different templates. Let me know what you think!

Reason vs Force

There are few things in this world more deadly than a marine and his weapon. (Except maybe botulism...look at the blog title, people!) This particular marine makes a succinct, matter-of-fact argument about why private ownership of guns is important. I'm reprinting it here in its entirety, just in case the original page ever goes down, but here's the original link.

"The Gun Is Civilization"

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes
lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation. And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced !!


Remember freedom is not free.
Semper Fi

It's All Greek To Me

So one of the Greek athletes, a triple jumper by the name of Voula Papachristou, was kicked of her country's olympic team for a tweet that many found offensive.

Her offending message – which was referring to reports of mosquitoes carrying the West Nile virus in her home country – read: ‘With so many Africans in Greece, at least the West Nile mosquitoes will eat home made food!’

Here's the thing--it's not really funny, and it does deal with racial issues (I guess, anyway. She doesn't really specify Black Africans, and I don't know the racial makeup of Greece, but maybe there's some other racial thing here that I'm not getting. Anybody know?), but I'm not sure it rises to the level of sending her home.

I'm a believer in free speech, and while what she said was stupid, if countries start sending home Olympians for stupid, assholish behavior, it's going to be a really short competition.

One last point--there won't be a moment of silence to mark the murder of the '72 Israeli athletes on this anniversary. This, in my view, is a much more offensive act that a young athlete's mindless tweet.