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).

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? 

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

Also, Stay Out Of My Yard

So some communities (in this specific case, Middleborough, MA) are talking about fining people for swearing. To those communities, I say "go fuck yourself."

Seriously, though. This worries me. First of all, you have the question of what constitutes "profanity." You must have a list of forbidden words, otherwise, you're leaving it in the hands of law enforcement to decide, which I think is a dangerous precedent. In other words, if an officer doesn't like what you're saying, even if it's not creating a danger, you could be ticketed. If you do create a list of profane words, that seems to be in direct violation of the First Amendment, does it not? Not to mention that you then run into the problem of worrying about determining intent. Is a dog walker yelling "cut that shit out" to his dog the same as him saying "excuse me while I pick this shit up"?

There is no right to not be offended. In fact, in any truly free society, you are almost guaranteed to be offended at some point. That's just how it works. It is unfortunate that some people can't control their mouths, and curse publicly. But that's all it is--unfortunate. It's not illegal, nor should it be. I will say, though, that I would get behind this law if the "quality of life" aspect was applied universally. For example, go ahead and ticket those who swear in public and detract from my quality of life. But you know who else you have to ticket? The parents of those brats who scream at the top of their lungs in public. Now, I'm not talking about infants. They can't help it. I'm talking about the 5-11 year-olds who scream like they're being murdered when a) they can't have something they want, b) they're playing, or c) any other time. That's affecting MY "quality of life." I'd much rather listen to (and be less offended by, frankly) someone working up a good cussing, especially if he knows what he's doing, than some snot-nose who is just creating noise pollution. These parents ought to be held responsible. Yeah, fine, you've learned to tune your kids out. But why should I have to?

And if the kids who live in your neighborhood are anything like the kids who live in mine, the revenue generated could possibly single-handedly save the economy.

N.B.

Actually, the more I've thought about it, the more violators I've come up with:

1. People who keep the bass in their cars so loud you can hear it through the walls in your house as they drive by,  because, apparently, they like their music so much they just can't help but share.
2. Motorcycle drivers who feel the need to rev their engines, even though they're not actually in a race of any kind. Dude, you've got 50 feet to the stop sign on a 30 mph, residential street. This is not the time to be compensating for your small penis.
3. People who use their outdoor voice for...well, for pretty much everything. This seems to happen most often in places like Wal-Mart, and it's always the most idiotic people. You never see some nuclear physicist doing this. "THE HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE STATES THAT A SUBATOMIC PARTICLE'S POSITION AND MOMENTUM CANNOT BE MEASURED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF ACCURACY!" Then, at least, I might learn something.

Feel free to add more to the list..

Just To Be Fair...

I don't want to sound like I'm slamming actors in general (see post below). To be fair, I want to point to George Clooney. Now, I first have to say that I disagree with him, politically, on just about everything. But I do respect him. By all accounts, he is polite and respectful to those with whom he disagrees, and he seems--to me, at least--to be a fairly nice guy. But what really impresses me about him is that he puts his Clooney where his mouth is. If you haven't heard by now, Clooney was arrested today outside the Sudanese embassy while protesting the atrocities perpetrated by the Sudanese government upon its own people (something Mr. Clooney and I agree on). It's one thing to narrate a video, or donate a portion of your wealth to a political candidate or SuperPAC, but it's another to sit yourself down, get arrested and booked to draw attention to the problem. That's not to say that he (or any of us) couldn't get even more involved, but it's more than most do.

UPDATE: According to the article linked to above, Clooney has himself traveled to the region. Good for him. I should have read all the way through before writing the post. Oops.

I'd Fly A Mile (High) For A Camel

I'm sure you've all heard about the Qatari diplomat who was caught smoking on a commercial flight and then joked that he was trying to light his shoes, a reference to Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber."

It seems there was a rumor that the diplomat had (or said he had) a particularly pungent bowel movement and was just lighting a match to get rid of the smell. I find this really hard to believe, as every diplomat I've ever met firmly believes his shit don't stink.

Just The Facts, Ma'am

Ugh...so much disappointment for me. It's like finding out there's no Easter Bunny.

Just a Warning...

If I happen to run into you somewhere, and you attempt to defend Roman Polanski, I will punch you square in the face.

It's All In The Way You Tell It

President Obama awarded Ted Kennedy (among others) the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor available. During the ceremony...

...the president recounted a story he said Kennedy sometimes tells about a little boy who sees an old man collecting stranded starfish on the beach and throwing them back into the sea.

"'There are so many', asks the boy. 'What difference can your efforts possibly make?'" Obama said, recounting the story. "The old man studies the starfish in his hand and tosses it to safety, saying, 'It makes a difference to that one.'

I have my own little story to tell. Maybe it'll catch on.

A young boy sees the President of the United States adding Ted Kennedy to his list of candidates to receive the highest of civilian honors. "Why would you add him?" asks the the boy. "While drunk, he drove his car off a bridge and left his young date in the car to drown."
"But in his career he has done so much for so many others," the president responds. "What difference is one life in comparison to the many he has helped?"
The young boy turns in disgust and walks away, muttering "It makes a difference to that one."

At Least He's Getting Older

So the question arises: just how old is the Somali pirate? Here's an idea--cut the bastard in half and count the rings. Fifteen, sixteen, twenty-five...here's what's important--he was old enough to hold an AK-47 to a man's head and stood ready to pull the trigger. That's how old he is.

Apparently he cried in court. I wonder how much he would have cried had he succeeded in his plans and made off with the ransom? I wonder if he would have been even slightly nagged by a guilty conscience had his hostage...sorry, his victim, been killed?

I have no sympathy. None.

He Ain't Heavy...

Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, and now...
George Obama.

Seems as if the president's half-brother was just arrested in Nairobi for possession of marijuana. Maybe he could market this, kind of like "Billy Beer." How about "Obama Ganja"?

Why is it that the Democrats always seem to have these embarrassing brothers? I guess maybe the Republicans just elect theirs.*

*Someone was going to say it...why not me?