You mus' be shittin' me!

Folks:  If this picture



gets you all up in arms about nudity and family values, then you need to get out more.  It's a damn jungle out there and you are sitting at home on your frickin' computer, eating ho-hos whining about a 32 year-old mother of three who is proud of her fitness and thinks everyone should -= gasp - get up off the couch and try to be their best!  Well, that "you can be better than you are" shit won't fly in today's society girlfriend!  Folks got a right to be fat and out of shape if they want - its all for the children!

Take this long-winded pile of poo for instance:

"I think this picture and the presentation along with the caption was off putting and upsetting. There are thousands of other ways to show off a fit body without wearing a bra and underwear for the nation to see. Secondly, "excuses" come in every shape and size. I think for most women it's about priorities, not excuses! My kids are my first priority. If what you say is true you are a very busy working mom with no nanny. Where are your kids while your spending all your free time working on you? Finally, you don't have a daughter. I think if you did your message would surely be a different one. Would you want someone telling her she had no excuse for looking a certain way? What if she didn't look like you, and some woman made her feel bad about it? I'm sure you would change your tune. Your apology is a joke and as worthless to women as your initial post. Put some clothes on and spend some time with your children."

Wait - that's a bra and underwear?  No shit?  Again - you need to get out more - that is decidedly over-dressed these days.

But here's the message:

- Do for your kids, not for yourself and when you die young at least they will know how much you sacrificed for them in the short years you had together!
- Boys?  Who needs 'em?
- Take your shoes off and get your ass back in the kitchen, you Hussy!

Look Ms. Facebook commenter Shaunalee Brown-Chavez - more names makes you an expert - if you don't like the picture then don't look at it.  How do you know whether she cares for her children?  how do you know where they are when she is working out?  Do they have a father?  Do yours? 

Does it dawn on you, just a little bit, that she asked what your excuse was and you gave her a whole litany of tired reasons - the major message of which was "I can't do it or anything near it, so I choose not to try"?

Ah, people - always looking for a reason to get up in arms.

UPDATED: But he isn't wrong!

Why is it that any time someone makes a statement that is not "favorable" to African-Americans, it is considered racist?  Is it not true that the 14th Amendment applies to all citizens, all Americans, and not just African-Americans?

Yes, it is clear that people do not like to hear such things, but it is not wrong.  And it is clear that Scalia often seems either motivated to insult or simply to lack social intelligence.  Still, for all his blunt or careless language, the continued effort to create equality by creating inequality has been shown to be a failure, has such a long list of unintended negative consequences so as to be staggering in its failure.  It is not racist to note that well-intentioned efforts to create equal access and opportunity have morphed into "favored race" status and, among many, a sense of entitlement.  The notion that a government or a society can lift a minority within it up is foolish.  All it can do is provide opportunity for people to lift themselves up.  But efforts to lift people up have failed because they stifle such a process.

I know, I am now being called a racist by someone out there - after all, I am a white Caucasian and, thus, if I speak at all about African-Americans in less than glowing terms, I am a racist.  But that is simply cover and more evidence of the tyranny of low expectations.  As  male, white, Caucasian, I read or hear every day about the shortcomings of the group of which I am seemingly representative.  But, as an apparent majority, I am seemingly also fair game for such criticism.

If we cannot observe and converse openly and honestly, then I am not sure how we ever become one nation.

UPDATE:  There's your problem!

And this is why we can't talk about race - because websites like the Huffington Post and those who follow them think that is one mentions race or a race, they are racist.  Perhaps if people actually looked up the definition of racism they would know more about what it is and what it is not.

In its most simple form, racism is defined as "the belief that some races of people are better than others".  According to Huffington Post: "During oral arguments on an affirmative action case on Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said the 14th Amendment protects everyone, not 'only the blacks.'"

Now, it seems to me, that he said all races have a right to equal protection, that it is not just one race, in this case, the black race, that has the right.  That is not a racist sentiment; in fact, given the definition, it seems anti-racist.

Polling Nightmare? Petulant Children?

I think there is something that people miss if they think that polls are the only thing our representatives in congress should attend to:

1.  Polls at a national level do little to inform us about what a given representative's constituents think of his or her performance.  We have to remember who is likely to be sampled in such polls and where the concentration might reside.  This notion certainly emerges from discussions of gerrymandering - if a district has been constructed in such a way as to include only favorable constituents, then voting in a way that is inconsistent with their views is not only political suicide - it is not representative.  The idea that a representative from rural Kansas should vote in a manner that reflects 74% of the general US population seems a bit misplaced and far-fetched.  It suggests that their allegiance should be to the national party and not to their constituents.  To whom does the phrase "Will of the people" refer?

2.  Perhaps there are issues of ideology involved in addition to representation.  To point to polls and say "How can you vote this way, look what others think?" is akin to saying "A vast majority of the world is Islamic, so how can you possibly continue to be a Christian?"  People believe what they believe. If a representative thinks that Obamacare is wrong, his ideology is opposed to it (in addition to his own constituency) then is he supposed to ignore that?  Again this goes back to the (potentially mistaken) idea that the effects of such opposition at the national level are more important than local concerns and ideology.  So the Joe Scarborough's of the world will say such opposition will mean defeat at the national level for years to come.  Perhaps - but some would say that prostituting one's values or beliefs so as to win control of dysfunctional government is not a suitable trade-off.

Again, as an independent, I think there is more than enough blame to go around in this situation.  Clearly the GOP - the extent there IS a GOP any longer - is to blame for some of this - certainly one can say they are the reason things are shut down.  Others may say they are sticking to their ideology. 

On the other hand, as an independent who voted for Obama, one of the more discomforting things that has happened as a result of this shutdown has been the realization (via obvious demonstration) that the Obama administration is not more above politicizing government than was the Bush administration.  This attitude (along with attempts to limit my RKBA) was not what I voted for.

There has been absolutely no need - beyond politics - to shut down the various national parks, monuments and memorials that we have heard about.  This is especially true in cases where it is obvious that it has taken more resources to shut down areas than it usually takes to maintain them.

Such misbehavior smacks of several unsavory characteristics.  First, and most harmless, it is petulant - it is a whining crying child stomping his feet, a temper-tantrum, an attempt to find ways to enhance the pain of the shut down in areas that could foment discontent and then blame it on others.  Yes, others may well be "to blame"; but enhancing the pain to make that point is childish and manipulative.  Second, and much worse, it gives an impression of despotism, it fulfills images that many share (and many discount) of a government ready and willing to assert dictatorial and even armed control over citizens, to over-reach in it claims of control via use of force.  As the saying goes - "Is it paranoia if they really are after you?"  Closing monuments and memorials to the people whose suffering they are honoring, who pay for them, to those who have no role in the ongoing tantrums and shenanigans, is something imperial rulers do ("Let them eat cake!"). 

It is not the government's role to close our public lands to the public - we entrust its management to them, not its control. Sadly (or perhaps presciently) those who ask questions about stories of DHS hoarding ammunition (and are berated for it) get partial answers from stories of armed agents holding vacationers in a national park; "No, you are not allowed to see a natural geyser that has been doing its thing for hundreds or thousands of years, because your government says so".

In either case - temper tantrum or a show of imperial force - both are ways to assert control, either by the immature or the egotistical, the message is not a good one.  It speaks plainly of "This is not yours, it is mine and we control it".  The liberal media may not like that conservative politicians take advantage of this for their own purposes (see Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz and others); but the administration doing likewise is also problematic and concerning.

There are no cooler heads to prevail.

Pity the lesbian mothers

Absolutely shocking that a Florida State Representative would say something like this:

"It's easy to say parents need to get involved, but half these kids are raising themselves. They don't have any parents that are functional. ... I mean I sat an hour and a half with a teacher telling me: 'This child has got serial men coming through the house, this one has two mommies, this one has abusive father whose home, this has alcoholism, this one has drug abuse.' It was a casualty warfare event to hear -- just her classroom -- how many dysfunctional, atypical -- to me -- structures are in the way of a kid having a chance to learn."

Yes, he is likely a tool and that is almost as disparaging as the things that Rachel Maddow (being a lesbian) and other gun control advocates have said repeatedly about law-abiding gun owners.  Oh, it is so shocking, so terrible, that someone might say such a thing about lesbian mothers.  Might we call this selective outrage?

Thus Nadine Smith, CEO of Equality Florida, wrote in a release in response; "We hope Representative Baxley has the decency to apologize for his comments disparaging gay parents and our children. More than that, we invite Representative Baxley to educate himself, talk with us and actually meet our families". 

Yes Ma'am that makes sense so any time Rachel or you want to apologize for disparaging law-abiding Americans of all races, genders, and sexual preferences, you go right ahead and feel free to do so - and then you can come on over and you can meet a couple of us and find we are not really the animals you portray us to be.

Until then, keep your outrage to yourself.  As I have noted numerous times, your rights and dignity are no more important to me than mine are to you.  I have spent years defending the rights of others - rights I myself have no desire to share - and in return have been treated by those people as a pariah.

Yup, you're on your own.  Given a choice to vote for Baxley if he is pro-gun but anti-gay or his opponent, who was anti-gun and pro-gay - well - guess who gets my vote.  Equality Florida?  What a laugh.

Just shut up and feel safe

Other than acknowledging a general sense of ill-ease associated with a Sheriff working so hard to convince us that paramilitary police units are our only way to be safe, some specific comments related to this editorial are in order.

"It would, of course, be ideal if suspects engaged in dangerous activities simply surrendered. That’s not reality." Absolutely - but facing dangerous subjects is part and parcel of what LEOs do - at all levels.  That has not changed.  I like to think of it in the same terms as the NFL and concussions.  If the nature of the mission is such that potential danger is inherent to its accomplishment, then attempts to mitigate that risk will always fall short.  Football will not be football if we change the rules so as to eliminate large bodies running very quickly into each other.  The same kind of issue affects the emergence of paramilitary LE operators; changing the nature of the game has not solved the problems, simply created substitutes.  The increase in a siege mentality, the adoption of the "war" analogy, has lead to a widespread acceptance of non-combatant casualties. 

There are two competing contingencies here that must be resolved; there is a mission to protect and serve and then there is a mission to enforce. To protect and serve entails danger; it is inherent in such a mission and system.  The traditional role of LEOs puts them between "polite" society and those who would harm it (although we have to remember that the police have no legal responsibility to defend/protect any individual - that is our responsibility).  That is to "protect and serve" and there is no way to do the job without some potential for violence - when one tries to change that mission in a way that eliminates the danger, then it is no longer the same mission.

The core nature of that new mission - in this case to wage war - becomes defined by an us against the world mentality.  This becomes "preemptive enforcement" and the reality is that more and more "civilians" (a term that is used as a pejorative and further highlights the "us v. them" distinction that has evolved in LEO circles) are being killed by those who would use violence to mitigate the inherent risk in their profession.

"They hold the line between order and chaos, security and peril".  If this does not define certain LE units as paramilitary, then I do not know what would.  That sounds like a description of our military.  I would suggest that they do this to protect themselves, not those they traditionally served.  They do this because they come under fire, not because we do.  So this leads me to ponder how many errors have been made by these defenders of order, how many innocents have been killed so that their own risk is mitigated, and decide whether we want them thinking they take on this role. 

We also have to ask the Sheriff "Who defines that order, chaos, security and peril"?  Order, chaos, security and peril sound like Homeland Security concerns.  They sound like codewords for those who might see the role of LE differently, those who my not agree with certain directions and decisions, those who might not wish to lose fundamental rights, those who insist on the RKBA.  they sounds like things we might read about in the SPLC literature.  Whose order?  Whose security?  The sheriff sees himself and his minions as defenders of some faith to which they and some select others are privy, are defining.

Tell me Sheriff - does this not give you pause to reflect on the attitude of your LEOs?  Does this not suggest a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality? A callousness?

Eddie Vedder, further thoughts

I continued to ponder this Eddie Vedder foolishness and the hero treatment he has received for it from many anti-gun sources.  In the end, I think we have much to thank Vedder for - and those who support him might want to question - since what he has done is clearly demonstrate the underlying psychological issues that most who are anti-firearms are dealing with, why they are afraid of firearms. Damn - I hate to sound Freudian here and fulfill everyone's worst assumptions about psychologists - but Freudian or not, there is no escaping that this seems a case of projection and reaction formation. That is, the manifestation of ego defense mechanisms that Freud proposed.  One in which people project their own issues onto others as away of defending themselves against seeing their own faults; it is not me, it is them.  They will also adopt extreme position opposite of their true feelings.

Vedder clearly has issues with aggression and has a vulnerable self-image, feels persecuted and a need for some irrational revenge on those who have mistreated him.  No?  Listen to his music (Is Vedder Jeremy - speaking in class today - getting his revenge on those who have wronged him).  That is not a coincidence  Accept his own assessment of himself - "If I didn't have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn't want me having a gun either".   First, that makes it sound like he has a gun ("If I didn't have music, you wouldn't want me having a gun").  He has music, so...?  But he is clearly describing himself and and his use of the word "either" suggests that the image he sees of others are projections, reflections of himself.   He cannot or could not handle it, hence others (who don't have music?) cannot handle it either.

 

I am sure this is a position shared by most of those who are afraid of firearms.  Since they know that they would act out with a firearm given the opportunity, they have to believe that all others would do so as well.   In this way they can feel "normal" - because, after all, everyone else is like them; none of us can control those impulses.

We might also see this as a case of reaction formation.  That is, Vedder would love to be Jeremy, would love to have a firearm and hurt others so he has to adopt a strong opposite anti-gun view.  I would suggest that this, too, is not an unusual stance among many who wish to take away firearms (or other rights) from others.   Just as we often see those who are most anti-gay emerge as closet homosexuals (e.g., Ted Haggart, Larry Craig), I suspect we can see that many who are anti-gun are those who fear their own ability to control their own behavior and so much take on extreme opposite positions.

 

No Eddie - we are not all like you. We know that carrying a firearm is an awesome responsibility - we do not see it as a tool to act out on some revenge fantasy.  Responsibility is a component of all rights; without it, rights mean nothing; without it, people start clamoring for laws to limit those rights.   But because you are not capable of responsible firearm ownership does not mean others are not as well.

 

As I said before, Vedder has a right to freedom of speech, he would even have a right to keep and bear arms.  But given his comments, it seems clear he is too irresponsible for it, does not have the right temperament for it.  He seems, perhaps, to be a Jeremy - an Adam Lanza - a person whose mental health status suggests he is better off without a firearm - and that we are better of that he is not armed.

 

Thanks Eddie - bet you didn't know you said so much in so few words.

Eddie Vedder - violence prone and proud of it.

Quite frankly, I am really tired of reading hearing what celebrities or pseudo-celebrities think of my right to bear arms and my opposition to their and others' attempts to deny it.

You know, Eddie - used to like the music, but that was when both you and I looked better and were young enough to look the part.  Now, we are both old and tired and I don't give a rat's ass for your opinion - I doubt anyone except gun control advocates do.

A few low lights:

- Perpetuating the 90% myth - that 90% of people want new laws - as if that means 90% want gun control legislation.  This is the same statistic so many gun control advocates use without substantiation.
- Assuming because he is apparently an aggressive hostile prick (e.g., "If I didn't have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn't want me having a gun either"), that the rest of us must be, too.  The fact that you are either an arrogant or aggressive jerk who could not handle such responsibility, that you would not be a good candidate for gun ownership, has squat to do with me and my rights and temperament.
- As further proof of this, he follows that by saying "I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people." He's right - he does not need to be carrying or owning a firearm.  But what he does need to do is realize that we are not all jerks like him.

Interesting poster, BTW:

"Ex-soldier bleed a lot"?

For those who think stories like those reported in "White Girl Bleed a Lot" are made up, let's not forget this one.  this is not good clean fun, this is not "kids are bored" so we need to build more basketball courts with lights so they can shoot hoops all night.  This is not "rural folks need to know how to act in urban areas" shit. This happens all too frequently and is part of a larger pattern and if the effort that is put into making excuses for it were to be put into addressing it, a difference could be made.

It is not racist to notice patterns of behavior, no matter which group it is that is participating. If the opposite pattern were occurring at this rate then there would be no shortage of outrage.

Time for the idea of protected classes of people to fade into the past.