A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Musing Class

I've spent so very long digging into the minds of Republicants.  It's only been recently, like maybe the last 12 years, that I've used greater synaptic effort to figure out the minds of the left.  Confession:  I'm no where near done with either effort.  But I do notice things.  For instance, in reading the words of many leftists online, I find traits that show particular class bias.  I'm not writing about party here; so get the word "Democrat" out of your head.  Most of the the folk I notice wouldn't be caught dead being seen as a "Democrat".  This isn't about party and it isn't about voting.  It's about people and the distinctions that define where they stand to judge others.

I've noticed this:  Many good leftists feel an immense sense of accomplishment when they perform menial but complex tasks like carpentry, or electrical or plumbing.  They have challenged and conquered the realm of the low brow and isn't that special.  I don't often see it as such.  It's an accomplishment, no doubt, and worthy of praise.  But that isn't what most of these folk are looking for, praise of accomplishment.  It's rather praise for their superiority over the lesser, those who do such things for a living.  Rather a bold statement:  'I know more, I can do more'.  No they can't, because it's not about what was done but the doer.  The focus should have been what needed to be done.

I know many people of resource, and most of the good ones feel a sense of accomplishment and gratitude when they can get someone of competence to fulfill their needs.  That is actually to be respected, in my view.  I know too many people who have competence and their sense of pride (what a dreadfully not sin) comes from being able to do for those in need.  They have the competence because they have done the necessary when they had to, for money or otherwise.  Yet, here in 'Merica, we have a discourse so unreal, about job creators and the working folk, the middle class.  What is missed is so very basic.  Who fulfills needs and what is the value of doing for ourselves?

This stuff is so obvious, and basic and in your face.  The right knows what they have to lose.  But the left lies to themselves constantly about who is worthy and who isn't.  I could go off on a screed right now about Baby-boomers and their delusions, but I haven't the time or interest.  It's just this, people are who they are and all value should be equal to effort.  You're not a stud because you once used a tape measure or watched a home improvement show.  And you certainly aren't more liberal fighting for minimum wage or against income inequality while looking down on the people who do the very things you're so fricking awesome for doing once.

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.

Death Comes In Many Ways

To those who think I have no sympathy for the anti-gun-control argument, you'd best revisit the rhythms I worship.

 

The Ideolgical Turing Test: A Weak First Attempt

Dave Budge has proposed a test/challenge/competition for Montana bloggers.  He calls it an ideological Turing test.  I'm going to state up front, just so that there is no illusion here, my participation in this effort will likely discourage some others from engaging.   And I don't really care.

Dave rather compassionately assumes that readers will know what a Turing test is.  I'm not so convinced.  A Turing test is one which challenges the individual based on how long it takes that one to realize that they are acting/reacting with an alien intelligence, one which does not share their sensibilities or sense of reason and logic.  Originally, it was meant to test how long one could converse with a machine before recognizing that that one was talking to a machine.  What Dave has proposed is this test:  how long before human argumentation across ideological divides breaks down.  My opinion, and it's only that, is not very long.  Still, I'm willing to give a go and what not ...

I recently wrote a post about unmanned drones.  My point was that despite the caterwaul from either side of ideological divide, drones are a technology removed from ideology that were logically foretold and here to stay.  They can be a good in that they eliminate enemies without the resultant loss of American lives.   They can be used to poison coca crops that would ultimately harm American citizens.  They can be used to patrol American borders against those who would infiltrate our country illegally.  They can be used to track illicit illegal activity in both cities and rural areas, as well as document for criminal evidence in legal issues.

They can also be used to spy on Americans going about their daily lives.  They can be used to track dissidents who feel the oppression of the government jackboot.  They can be used to track the sale of second amendment approved arms.  They can be used to destroy a legal gathering of American citizens just as they have been used to kill wedding parties in Whogivesafuckistan.  If the President has a kill list, those individuals will likely be trailed by a flying robot killer.  Drones can be used to perpetrate evil as well as good.  That the President controls their use, there can be no doubt.  We, the people, need to control the use of these devices, not the President.

Many arguments have been made from the 'rightward side' and the 'leftward side' that Obama should have no such power over drones.  I completely agree.  No President should have that kind of power.   We can take that power away, and it's really very simple.  We need a repeal of the Patriot Act (1 and 2) as well as the MCA. These are ideals that favor the public having control over the objects that can spy on or kill them.  One man from Montana has repeatedly voted to support the Patriot acts as well as voting to support the MCA.  His opponent, in this upcoming election, has repeatedly voted against continuing the Patriot act in any form.  So really, if you fear the Obama drones, shouldn't you be voting for Jon Tester, the one who would deny the President the right to bomb or spy on people from unmanned robots?