A Chicken Is Not Pillage

GOD, GUNS and FUN!

I've made it no mystery that I adore the so-called "gun-control" debate.  That's not because it's a debate.  It's hardly anything of the sort.  I adore it because it exposes deep feelings, harsh realities of life and lunacies  To myself, it's the 'debate' that is of interest.  Both camps, armed as they are with pseudo-facts and pride and bullets and hubris, claim the moral high ground and wail almost incessantly about the lack of respect that they so obviously deserve, when very few on either side have earned any sympathy or empathy at all.  Both sides, because there seem to be only two, call for Reason while offering every dodge, hustle, intimidating threat and stupid factoid available.  There is little reason to be had, and I adore that for the simple amusement of it all.

I work with a man whom I respect a great deal who believes very simply that we should only be allowed manual action rifles and shotguns for hunting and defense of stock.  There is no debate with him, no defense of holy rights or talk of 'efficiency' in putting holes in crap, or any political action to defend his view.  Simply put, if he were dictator for a day, he would establish law that we not have the best means to kill ourselves and others.  I respect his view because it's reasonable, if unrealistic.  He doesn't have to defend his view because it makes perfect sense, even in the modern world.  That it won't happen is beside the point.  He is reasonable about what would work to protect humans from themselves and others.

I haven't a doubt that some gun advocates reading this will be all butt-puckered about what I just wrote.  "You can't have that, and you don't have the right and TYRANNY!" they would scream.  ~sigh~  That doesn't make their side of the debate any more reasonable, just more shrill.  It isn't reasonable at all.  We aren't having a 'reasonable discussion', and likely won't.  Both sides want what they want, and will engage in any amount of intimidation, manipulation and silliness to get it.

Trust a self-described "comedy website" to be reasonable about this shouting match. 

5 Mind-Blowing Facts Nobody Told You About Guns

The points are simple:

1)  People who profit manipulate your sorry ass.

2)  No one really knows why nuts let loose with firearm destruction, and some have an interest in keeping it that way.

3)  Gun control would help solve a whole big bunch of gun deaths.

4)  Too many people on both sides talk shit about what they don't understand, and

5)  Guns are toys, not tools.  Outragasms don't address anything other than fear.  Stop that bullshit.

 

This isn't rocket surgery.  It's a cultural problem, not a gun problem.  There are things we could do, like background checks.  But the arguments against those are always handy ... TYRANNY!!!!  As long as this 'debate' exists, I will continue to enjoy the silliness.  Hey, it's what I do.  But I sincerely hope that we come out of it a better country, and a better species.

Things I Have Learned This Week

This is what the Internets have taught me this week:

One cannot trust anything on TV or pointless YouTube videos, but don't dare question anyone else's lying eyes.

Don't dare question anyone else's lying eyes with such paltry falsehoods like math.

Newtonian physics works the way we want it to work, because using math would be a lie.

Distrust of evidence is more 'truthy' than examining it.  Skepticism has been turned on it's head.

Photoshop can do ANYTHING!  Go Adobe!

Playing one's harmonica can bring joy (that's actually true.)

Requiring the acquisition of information is more nutty than letting people choose to get publicly beaten.

The Constitution is the best defense against what will never happen, unless it's the Constitutional mandate for a US postal service.

The Constitution is only "worth defending" to be followed if it makes the US money.

People died to give us the Second Amendment, but apparently not because of it.

Video Games are violent, evil and inflame our youth.  There is no point in consulting the Constitution on that question ...

I could go on for hours.  I won't.  You can thank me later.

Common Ground

In response to my last post, Craig Moore attempted, poorly, to catch me up in some kind of hypocrisy and he missed my point completely.   That's not very surprising.  He has an agenda and I was being deliberately obscure, though using terrific music in the effort.  So, for those few who might want to know what I was thinking, I just figured I'd explain it.

Back in 2004, the 'Brady Bill' assault weapons ban on sale was set to expire.  Both Presidential candidates in debate waffled about their support for such a thing, politically blaming Congress for what at the time, amounted to inaction concerning a 'hot button' issue in the great culture war between right and left.  A few things have happened since then.  An asshole with two handguns and a lot of loaded clips became the most prolific mass shooter in American history at Virginia Tech.  An asshole who looks like Sideshow Bob dressed in combat gear shot 70 people in a theater, killing 12.  And an asshole walked into a school and killed 20 six and seven year old children, as well as 6 adults trying to save those lives.  As Craig pointed out, in 2004 I called the gun control debate trivial.  It isn't trivial anymore.  Things do change.  For one, the NRA has convinced a remarkable amount of America that gun control means gun confiscation.  For two, we've elected a black President, a President that many including the NRA have worked to convince people wants to take your guns to spur racial fear.  (It should be noted that Obama is the first President elected twice by a majority of the popular vote since Dwight Eisenhower.)  And three, oh yes, assholes are mass killing our children.

Here we are in 2013 having the gun control debate again.  The political will has shifted, but it seems the arguments never do.  That fascinates me more than any policy change.  Policy follows the wind of culture, but culture follows the desires of those who make it.  Since the St. Reagan endorsed 'Brady Bill' passed, FAUX News has become the dominant source of TV misinformation.  The Tea Peeps have risen.  The NRA has shifted focus from promoting gun safety and responsible ownership to lobby support for gun manufacturers and universal ownership of their product, regardless of qualification.  The SCOTUS has decreed a right to keep arms, though still refuses to address the qualifying clause.  We have the Bush doctrine of foreign policy which says 'get them before they get you'.  And our culture, politics and policy has become increasingly divided, antagonistic and extreme.   Yet the arguments concerning gun control really haven't changed that much, save in decibels.

Since the Newtown shootings, I've had several arguments with my brother concerning efforts of gun control.  These haven't been policy arguments.  On policy, we probably are fairly much in agreement, though I think he would favor a more extreme interpretation of such.  No, our arguments have been about 'the opposition'.  He recently posted a Facebook update about the ill-use of his good reason at the hands of "liberals".  His reasoning was okay, for what it was, but he is doing the same as those awful "liberals" are doing.  He is striving in all righteous victim-hood against those most extreme who influence policy the very least.  He paints all gun control advocates with the very same brush.  They are going 'take his guns'.  Of course, they are arguing against gun-nuts, gun addicts,  redneck shooters, holding my brother to a standard of wacko that isn't even remotely applicable, which is exactly the same mistake as he makes with them.  That's the part of the argument that fascinates me.

The progression of the argument is lamentably historic:  You can't talk about this tragedy because it's still raw and people are emotional.  But people do and they should.  Of course, removed from the tragedy, people are still emotional, both sides attempting the high moral ground.  Both sides hold that the very worst of the other is the norm.  Gun Grabbers!  Gun Addicts!  Shortly after the Newtown shootings, I posted on Twitter that anyone who brings up 'penis' isn't really interested in discussing gun control.  They are interested in demeaning gun owners.   I attempted, gently, to point out to others that those who are concerned about gun crime will never, ever, come to take your guns away.  EVER.  But that is where the argument has gone and will continue to go, nonetheless.   ~sigh~

Which brings me back to the previous post and my point in posting it.  Common ground.  This should be the point of discussion but I have no confidence it will be.  'Gungrabbers' want to protect their children, their families, their property and their society.  'Gun-nuts' want to protect their children, their families, their property and their society.  It doesn't matter if you use a Broadsword or an AR-15 or legislation.  You want the same things, people.  Get a fricking grip.

Pop Quiz

What is the difference between a 9/11 truther and an anthropogenic climate change denier?

It Ain't That Damned Hard, People

It's just Arithmetic:

Things That Make You Go Hmmm (part 3647)

The list of Greatest Hits for my very favorite Really Awful Political Candidate keeps growing.  In a discussion about the GOP war on women, a political gadfly once again tried to derail the discussion by calling President Bill Clinton a rapist.  ~yawn~  What perked up my interest, however, was a comment from candidate Norma Duffy (slogan: Fuck off and get a life!)  It was typically reactionary, and full of her trademark mangling of the written word.  She wrote:

Ah Ingy, let’s just say there were no victims in the Clinton /Lewinsky thing. She was an immature sleaze( yes a woman can call another a sleaze, but a man shouldn’t) who had done this sort of thing before and President Clinton was an Testosterone accident looking to happen.

Let's just disregard, for a moment, that men have "Testosterone accidents" (I think I've only really had those while sleeping, and it's kind of embarrassing), and the implication that women's sexual desire is simply an 'estrogen accident' .?.   The part that stands out is the claim that women can call each other "a sleaze", but a "testosterone accident" prone man shouldn't.  Hmmm.

Now, it could be the case she was alluding to the idea that the term can rightly be used ironically or as a bridge of conspiratorial comradery, the way that some folks use "nigga" or how girlfriends might call each other a 'slut' or 'bitch' in fun.  But that's not the manner in which Norma Duffy used it.  She referred to Monica Lewinski in purely judgmental terms as a "sleaze", a mark of shame for desiring sex with a man who is attractive, powerful and receptive.  By extension, it was okay that Ann Coulter referred to Sandra Fluke as a slut, but not that Rush Limbaugh did so.  Hmmmm.

My response was inquisitive:

This is only tangentially related to the topic, but someday, just once, I’d love to read you posting a moral, or even rational, foundation for such idiocy, Norma.

It is my bad for calling her pronouncement "idiocy".  After all, it's possible that she did have a moral and/or rational reason for why women can judge other women's sexuality and men "shouldn't".  After all, we don't have 'estrogen accidents' the way women do.  Ms. Duffy's response was - disappointing.  Certainly not moral and absolutely not reasonable.

And then we Hear from the Righteous Man who continually believes he is better at knowing a woman’s definitions about others, then the woman herself.

So, apparently, I was wrong to even ask for a definition.  Two things:

This kind of bullshit is what makes it very very difficult for men to get involved in the ideal and cause of feminism, or be accepted if we already are.  There are apparently some unwritten rules which we aren't even allowed to ask about.  (that isn't typical of most women who espouse feminism, but very typical of RAPC Duffy.)

If I were Jeffrey Welborn, I would publicize this comment from Norma Duffy widely across Beaverhead County.  I'm certain every voter who believes in gender equality would love to know that, as a legislator, Norma would reserve to herself the right to decide what you are allowed to think and questioning what she thinks is merely 'sexism', if you are prone to testosterone accidents, of course.

Hmmmmm.

No Wonder She Supports Max

I honestly think I have encountered the funniest comment ever online.  Norma Duffy, famous for her electoral battle cry of "fuck off and get a life", thinks she has grant of right over online comments.  Her dictate:

"I can’t and won’t give you permission to add your addled Bull shit reasoning to my comments."

I don't remember the last time I've laughed that hard at an online comment.  Seriously.  Permission?  Online?  Really?

Programming Notes

1)  Left In The West lives.  No, I'm not the one posting, nor should that influence participation.  It might be at least polite to say hello to Carla Augustad.

2)  I have a fantasy football league that will be hella fun.  The general scoring is set to be prolific.  I've altered the scoring to punish bad play, and have included a whole lot of defensive aptitude.  We're lookng for about 3 more 'team owners'.  If you have an interest just for fun's sake, let me know.  My email addy is easy to find.

3)  The most viewed post I've exposed to the wild in the last 3 years is the post where Stoya has an orgasm.   It's funny to me how many lefty folk claim that ignoring me is wise, and yet their IP addresses seem to have viewed that post.  ~heh~.

Droning On

I felt compelled to create 2 new tags for this post.  It's been a while coming, nonetheless.  This will be mostly an opinion piece.  If you're expecting links or narcissistic mention then you will likely be disappointed.

One has not been able to read the blogs or the Twitters, or FaceofEvilBook for months now without encountering the dire stories of drone strikes, Kill Lists, the maniacal psychopath Obama and his blood lust or tales of innocence destroyed by the Skynet machines ... Drones!  The righteous wrath is coming from the right and the left, though I would be remiss in failing to point out that most of the outrage is coming from the left, and much of the 'America, FUCK YEAH!' is coming from the right.  To many on the left, unmanned drones are the horror that spies on us as we plot a new government, as well as the devices that kill entire wedding parties in WhoGivesAFuckistan.   To many on the right, drones are the crushing fist of Obama that will spy on our crops for the EPA, and force us into the FEMA camps.

~Yawn~

Where the hell have these people been for the last 20 years?  Or more to the point, where have they been for the last century?  For over a hundred years science fiction writers have been scribbling about unmanned war machines.  If one needs to go further than that, then the jewish tale of the Golem is about the good and evil of an inhuman killer controlled by those with agenda.  These dread devices are not a new outrage; they were fricking inevitable.   It was going to happen, people.  The only question was "when".  'Walky-talky' wristwatches?  Inevitable.  Social networks based on world-wide communication?  Yes, actually inevitable.  Unmanned machines that fly through the air?  Yep, you got it.  Inevitable.  These are machines, devices.  They have no moral will.  The question concerning those has never been whether we would have them, but how we would use them.  Based on that alone, I find most of the outrage silly.

Every new technology faces opposition based on moral value.  Some passed that test, like cel-phones.  Some fail that test,  like Nukes.  Consider how long it took us to get over that fear ... Oh wait, we haven''t yet.  Drones are no different than cel-phones.  We see the bad use they can be turned to, but fail to recognize that these technologies exist, and there isn't a damned thing we can do to stop their use.

But wait!  Obama has a kill list!  Obama wants to spy on farmers!  Obama, blah blah, blah.  Every President since Clinton has had this technology at his disposal.  I grew up in the Bitterroot valley, where the fly over of SR-71s was frequent.  Screw black helicopters.  Anything that needed to be seen could be from those.  It was the technology of the time.  Drones have replaced the SR-71.  Just as we needed to learn how to deal with ultimate spy plane, we need to learn how to deal with the next ultimate spy plane, which doesn't have a human on board.   And it really doesn't matter which man sits in the White House; the technology will be used.  I'm kinda thinken' that we have a job to make certain that the man (or woman) in the White House uses this technology for good.

Drones aren't going away, anymore than nuclear weapons did back when this same argument was being made about them.  They're not going anywhere.  The choice in every election going forward from this has nothing to do with whether this technological clock can be turned back.  It obviously can't.  It's time to buck up and admit.  Who do you want to use it?  Mitt Rmoney?  The future Mitt Rmoney?  It's time to adapt, people.

Labor and the Left

I've posted comments at least a dozen times that the left has abandoned labor to it's own detriment.  I've been vocal that that schism has affected communities in Montana harshly, most notably Missoula.  As Union labor found itself increasingly silenced, and unemployed,  workers have flocked to the false "your own bootstraps" philosophy of the right.  People who were raised to believe in gainful employment have found themselves cast aside in political will in favor of Reagan's treasured 'welfare queens', or the habitat of the lop-eared spotted jackalope.  And those people got pissed off.  Meanwhile, the Left, now deep believers in Gaia mysticism, social safety nets for those who agreed with 'the agenda', freedom and safety for the folks in Whogivesafuckistan and the evils of the rapacious corporations who used to employ union labor, have lost sight of the political will that actually scared their enemies.  They have no governor on self-desire, and then wonder why they find themselves alone amidst a sea of people who really don't like their agenda much.

Almost every time I've written such blasphemy (the Left can do no wrong, you know), I have been dismissed, poo-pooed, told I'm not worth responding to.  Of course I'm wrong.  The left loves them some labor ... except they don't.  They haven't for some time.  I've meant to write more on this but really haven't cared enough to do so.  The Left is welcome to it's fantasies, but will rarely understand political will.  My sympathies are with people who want better lives, not ideologues.  Fortunately, others write about what I haven't, like Mark Ames at naked capitalism:

Aryeh Neier, founder of Human Rights Watch and its executive director for 12 years, doesn’t hide his contempt for the idea of economic equality as one of the key human rights. Neier is so opposed to the idea of economic equality that he even equates the very idea of economic equality and justice with oppression—economic rights to him are a violation of human rights, rather than essential human rights, thereby completely inverting traditional left thinking.

...

And that brings me to the ACLU today—the most depressing part of this story. I had an inkling that the ACLU had abandoned labor before my simple exercise check of their website. Mike Elk has shared with me some of his research into this subject. And it’s well known that the ACLU vigorously supported the disastrous Citizens United decision; the ACLU also took $20 million dollars from the Koch brothers, whose libertarian outfits have played a major role in making Citizens United a reality. Supposedly that money was meant to “fight the Patriot Act”—which is odd, considering that the director of the Koch brothers’ Center for Constitutional Studies at Cato and Vice President for Legal Affairs at Cato, Roger Pilon, explicitly supported the Patriot Act from 2002 through 2008, and that the Kochs’ Cato Institute hired John Yoo to serve on their editorial advisory board for the Cato Supreme Court Review. One should be skeptical when it comes to Koch “donations” sold to the public as charity work in the service of human rights.

By all means, read the whole thing.

At no point whatsoever am I arguing or advocating for support of the right.  Yet many on the left are, because they don't understand what being 'the left' really means.  It doesn't mean wailing about climate change while helping those who profit from climate change get elected.  Being "Left" doesn't give one an insight into the secret life of trees that some brute will cut down for a paycheck.  The LEFT won't get anything if they don't have the will of those who work behind them.  The 'left' should be all about labor, but strangely thinks that Lynx habitat is more important than clean drinking water.  The left really should consider that the ACA might be a good thing, if one could support the good without insulting those who actually have the political will to make it happen.