Kids have fun in lots of things...

...that can, on a rare basis, also lead to someone being killed.

OMG! Up in arms!  The NRA dared say that "Kids can have fun at the range"

But it's true.  Kids engage in a lot of different behaviors that can end up with some dying.  We all do.  If every time an accident happened it created one more thing we cannot do, then we wouldn't be doing much.

As I noted yesterday; yes, this was tragic.  Yes, this instructor lost control and paid with his life.  But this fantasy world (you know, the one where no crime would happen if we would all just get along) where nothing bad should ever happen does not exist.  There is risk in everything.

They'll feel that way until the shooting starts

So, as usual, HuffPost is up in arms: This time it is because a school district in Texas has allowed some teachers and staff to be armed - and put up a sign announcing it.

But what was interesting, as always was the quote from the obligatory gun-phobe:

"Exponentially more schools have said, 'Thanks but no thanks, we'd rather not have guns on school property,'" Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told WSJ. "If you talk to most teachers and educators, their response is, let teachers teach and let law-enforcement officers do their jobs."

What does that mean, anyway?  Most schools have not been given a choice on this issue.

And, yes, I am sure the teachers and educators will feel this way until the shooting starts.  Then there will be a great outcry over why we let this happen.  Well, there's your answer. Unless you basically have a LEO unit in every school, then who is going to be there to slow things down in those golden minutes, to hold the ground until the reinforcements come?  No one.

Oh - BTW, I am an educator (and as noted in another post, a certified firearms instructor) and would really prefer that I could be armed so I could protect my staff and students.

Actually...

...it has everything to do with this situation.

No, whether he was an angel or not, no one should revel in the death of Michael Brown.

But Huffpost notes:

***
"No angel" struck many as a very jarring descriptor to insert. The reaction was swift: of course Brown was "no angel," because he was a regular human being, but what did that have to do with his death?
***

This case, from the beginning and much like the Trayvon Martin case, has been billed as the poor "good boy" who was shot for no reason.  Of course, as the data became more clear, it also became obvious that Trayvon was the not little cherub that the media and his family had tried to depict him as.  So should we celebrate his death?  Of course not.  But we do need to recognize that a child's, a man's, any child or man's, demeanor will influence their ends.  And so, if Michael Brown was no angel, then perhaps he did "do something" that set in motion this tragic sequence of events. And if he did, if he was, as the video of him suggests, inclined toward crime, strong-arm tactics, toward dominating others with his size, then he is easily conceivable as playing a part in this tragedy.  And, then to insist that he should not have been shot is to suggest that the officer should have allowed himself to be beaten, perhaps disarmed, and even shot.

Not every youth, no matter his race, is an angel.  We can talk about killing a child, a teen, but then we need to realize we are talking about a teen in a grown man's body (much bigger than most grown men). That turns out in many cases to be a really bad combination.  The disinhibited behavior of a teen male combined with the body of an NFL defensive lineman.

And, quite frankly, those teens who get in altercations with the police are even less likely to be angels (or it is clear that the definition has changed).  Bad shoots by LEO happen.  But not every black man who is killed by a white man or a white cop is innocent and not every such shooting can be avoided by the person who shoots. At some point a event is set in motion, and in such events someone is going to die; the arguments now really boil down to whose life one thinks was more important.

Of course, no mother and father who lose a child will say their child was no angel, certainly not say he deserved to die. And those (e.g., Rev. Al) who are motivated to see Brown as a victim of LEO violence are not inclined to see him as having any role in his death.  Just as with the idea that women can behave in ways that can help them stay safe, the idea that one is responsible for his own behaviors is a foreign concept.

Its a shame, because an unwillingness to see that side of this man, whether reflected in his parents' denial or the anger of the larger culture, means nothing is learned from it.  That a parent says he was a good boy, when video and other evidence show he was involved in crime, is as much a factor in his ultimate death as were the bullets that killed him.  The fact that his violence was accepted as normative in his local culture was as much part of his death as was the action of a white LEO. Excusing his behavior post-mortem teaches a dangerous lesson to others his age - you are not going to be held to account for your actions, you are immune from the natural consequences of your behavior.

Two cultures failed Michael Brown. His own prefers not to see its role.

Sad, all around

Terrible story out of Arizona where a firearms instructor made a terrible mistake that cost him his life and is bound to create long-term psychological problems for his 9 year-old student. As terrible as his death is, the consequences for the child are more unsettling to me.

I won't recount the story since you can read it at the above link, but there are a number of cautions here.  I would hate to come away from this questioning the wisdom of having one's child learn firearms handling at the range.  But I question whether the novelty of having a 9 year-old handling an Uzi on full automatic is worth the potential risk to child or others on the range.  We do not know what experience this child had with firearms and, to be honest, that might be somewhat irrelevant.

I certainly question the instructor in this case for how this went.  More than one round on semi-automatic was called for.  Having her fire multiple shots on semi would have been a good middle step.  And the position he took while coaching the child - I am not an expert on Uzis but the video clearly suggest that knowing the direction of the twist in the rifling would have suggested a recoil up and to the left - right where he kept his head.  A lesson for all instructors (and, yes, I am a certified firearms instructor) - behind and low, supporting the shooter from behind, looking over their shoulder.  Correct fundamentals between shots.  Of course, one had to consider mitigating recoil for an burst of fire from an Uzi in the hands of a 9 year-old shooter, supporting her shoulders and,perhaps, even keeping a hand on the gun! A complete and fatal lack of situational awareness.  On the range, one can never let their guard down.

The other sad consequence - not to speak ill of the dead, but this is the kind of instruction that gives all firearms and firearms owners and instructors a bad name.  You can never be complacent.  Anti-gun groups are scared of firearms - there is a reason for that; they can be dangerous if misused.  Foolish and deadly events like this merely reinforce those beliefs, as well as the belief that even law-abiding and experienced people cannot control them. From that point on, those of us who are trained, have served in the military, and are certified as instructors see our claims to competence diminished.  It may not be logical or fair, but it is what it is. Especially when one has a child on the range.

In the end, mostly I feel sorry for this child who will have to live the rest of her life with the knowledge that she was holding the firearm that did this.  She will take more responsibility for it than she deserves because that is the way children are.  There will be the memory to haunt her and a  video to follow her through life.

But wait...

Wasn't it Huffington Post who thought showing the video of Michael Brown stealing in a local convenience store and assaulting a clerk minutes before his confrontation with an LEO and ultimate death was unfair?  Why then is it okay to discuss where that LEO started his career?

Is there no sense of shame that partisan outrage allows for such a blind double-standard?

Both are data and if they are relevant, they are relevant.  If not, then not.  Why must people persist not in helping to find facts, but manipulate feelings via distortion.

Then...

Get used to the staring and comments and someone saying "She chose poorly!"

From Huffington Post:  I'm a fat girl who wears revealing clothing - get used to it!"

FG listed 5 things we need to know and what we should do.  I'll tell her, in return, what I will do:

Here are five things you need to know about interacting with fat fatshionistas:

1. You Need to Get Over It.

Actually no I don't - sounds like you need to get over it.  You can certainly walk around dressed however you want - it is part of the new society and culture.  I, on the other hand, can walk around making comments about how you and anyone dress and take obvious pleasure in finding it more than a little bizarre.  You cannot escape accountability for your choices.

2. Don't Stare. I'm a Person, Not Eye Candy.

Oh, I don't think anyone is mistaking you for eye-candy.  Think of it this way:  People like to stare at unusual things - whether it is unusual beauty, like the Grand Canyon, or the unusually grotesque, like car wrecks.  How many millions have viewed the video of a recent beheading? (I have not).  But you do know why we all slow down to peer at car wrecks, don't you?  If you are dressed like you want and people stare - well I suggest you get over it.  Part of having a right is living with the consequences of our choices.

3. Keep (Most, But Especially Negative) Comments To Yourself

Nope - can't do it.  You like to dress like you do and I like to make comments about everyone I see - mostly out loud.  Again - get used to it!  Although you may have been born into or grown up in an era where the rule seems to be "I can do what I want and no one can say anything about it" you be wrong!  You have a right to dress as you wish and I have a right to be rude, if I wish.  In essence, your right to befuddle me with your bad choices does not trump my right to express my befuddlement.

4. Never, EVER, Fat Shame Me

Damn, you sure think you are in charge.  Is that where the phrase "Large and in charge" came from?  And if I decide to, what are you going to do?  Sit on me?  Probably get used to it, I imagine!  Maybe you will hold your breath until you are red in the face.  What the hell do you care what anyone else thinks?

5. Let Me Know I'm Doing Some Good

I am sorry that I do not know what good you are doing.  Is it good that you are standing up for people who want to do what they want and not have anyone else notice or comment on it?  Look like you want, but you not only sound like a study in victimhood but you are obnoxious about it.

And, wow - where the hell does Huffpost come up with this stuff?  Is this Arianna land in Mika world?

Pondering Ferguson

It’s really a symptom of a sad future – the fact that every event that has a white participant and black participant ends of being a “racially-charged incident”.  I know that I am not authorized to have an opinion on this because I am white and, therefore, do not understand.  But, I have an opinion and the right to express it.

It is possible that a black man can be shot for justifiable reasons.  Are there no black criminals?  I know there are plenty of white ones.  Does that mean racism no longer exists?  No.  Does that mean that any and all police shootings are justified?  No.  But there will be times that such a shooting is justified.  Does race justify crime? Should a white officer or civilian allow himself to be beat and potentially killed because his assailant is black any more than he would if her were white?

Still, we are now two weeks or more and counting on the assumption that a white police officer had no reason to shoot Michael Brown.  I do not know if he had a reason or not.  I know that depending on which set of evidence pans out he could have a good justification but also might not have.  Does suggesting that this officer in this case had justification mean that there has never been an unjustified shooting?  No.  But it means that evidence should be heard, presented and not dismissed out of hand if it does not agree with the popular explanation.

Would Michael Brown deserve to be shot for his actions in the neighborhood store before the incident? No.  Are those taped actions informative on his behavior and demeanor? Yes.  Just as was discovered in the Trayvon Martin shooting, a man just might shoot another in self-defense – even when that man is assaulted by someone who thinks he is defenseless.  I know that some will suggest that rather than shoot “this child” that man – Zimmerman or Wilson - should have been willing to die.  We do not yet know in this case whether this police officer’s life was in jeopardy when he fired.  If it was, then it was him or Brown and it is foolish to suggest he should not have defended himself.  

Do we wonder why anyone would want the job of an LEO?  How would any of us handle rolling up on a couple of kids walking in the middle of the street, one the size of an NFL lineman and probably outweighing the officer by over 100 pounds.  So you roll up, tell them to move, probably getting told to “F*** off” and then unexpectedly get assaulted.  That is one plausible scenario, consistent with the wound pattern, and I wonder how any of us would handle it any differently.  What should that officer do, regardless of his race? What do we think his job is and at what point can he defend himself in the fulfilling of his responsibilities?

Should the LEO just walk away?  Is the message - that young men should be left to behave as they wish and not challenged?  What message does that give, what kind of grown men do we get with that strategy?  Are we saying that police may not intervene in criminal or disorderly conduct, especially if they are white and the potential perpetrator is black?  Is that what we are saying – that a certain group of people have more leeway?  If you were an officer who was in this situation and a young man over 6 feet tall and 300 lbs. started assaulting you and reaching for your gun, what would you do – die or defend yourself?  What do we expect him to do?

Did it happen that way?  We do not know.  Could it have?  Yes. If it is found that this LEO shot a man who was not threatening his life, then he should be punished, just as would I if I did so.  However, until the data are available, all the rest, the conviction and sentencing prior to the trial, are no more than the people acting out the role of oppressor themselves.  But if you want to see the true goals of this affair, then watch what happens if it is shown that Brown was the assailant and was shot in self -defence.  We will find then that there is no justification for shooting a young black man, whether he is threatening your life or not.  And if that is the world we are living in, then there really is no dream of equality.

The sad part is that charges of racism and our sad history of it have come to be seen as get out of jail free cards.  It is becoming clear that there is no justifiable shoot if the target is a black man and the shooter is white,  that the default assumption is racism and murder, even with no evidence (other than Brown’s friend who was also clearly an accomplice in the larcenous actions. Are we really saying that there is no time that a black man will assault a white man and if he does, the white man deserves it?  How do we respond to cries for justice, when the absence of evidence means we do not know how justice can be served, when the goal is not justice but something else – revenge perhaps?

Note that none of this justifies rolling in the armor and pointing weapons at protesters.  There is a fairly clear line between doing one’s job, defending one’s self, and treating protesters as if they are insurgents.  But, folks – looting and burning will get a response, so don’t act like it is all one side.

There are clearly some issues here to discuss, but there are no adults in the room to discuss them.  How do we think this is going to go if all the evidence points in the direction of justifiable shooting?

And the idea that a grand jury should be black or the police force should be black - are we not then hearing arguments for back-door segregation?

UPDATE: But Al - did you blame Obama?

So - Al Sharpton "slams" Chris Christie for partying while Ferguson burns.

Did he blame President Obama for playing golf at the same time?  Did he blame Obama for playing golf instead of attending the burial of a Major General killed in Afghanistan?

So, basically, Al is a tool.

UPDATE:  Well, Al is certainly happy with the fact that White House representatives were at the funeral of Michael Brown.  Now some will call this race-baiting - and I can't say that it isn't.  My problem is that a Major General died in Afghanistan and his funeral did not merit White House representation.  Why?  And if it did not, why did Michael Brown's?

What is the message here?  well, you're smart enough to figure it out.  But it has something to do with how the current administration and president value the military v. their base.

Truly sad!

This is one reason we need a Second Amendment

This is why the right to Keep and Bear Arms is so important.

People, whether in anger or depravity, will sometimes seek to take what is not theirs, to attack indiscriminately.  Be in individual immorality or the madness of groups, when that time comes, good people need to be able to protect themselves.

As this story notes, "The group arrived to find a gang of thieves ransacking a Dollar General in the same strip mall that houses their businesses. Mr. Weinstein said the looters attempted moving toward the shop, but were scared off by the guns. Then the police arrived."

What would have happened if they were not armed?

Yes, but...

I am all against the militarization of the police force and the atrocities they commit with impunity.  I am also, on the other hand, all against people burning out each other, stealing shit that is not there, hurting the small business people who are willing to set up shop in their neighborhood, or punishing other people who have nothing to do with it.

There needs to be a clear line drawn between "protest" and "looting" - lawful protest and criminality.  I am not talking criminality as defined by an overzealous police force, the kind that is "follow my orders or get beat", but the kind that is clear criminality, as noted above (burning out your neighbors, looting private business.  That is not protest, and most hopefully is not going to garner support for one's cause.

You see, its like the events surrounding the Rodney King verdict and the experience of Reginald Denny.  The man was beaten because he was white.  The man was beaten for revenge. the man did nothing wrong except end up in the wrong place at the wrong time.  That was not protest. It was lawless and paints a picture that feeds stereotypes and stereotypical reactions from police.

I do not know the truth of the death of Michael Brown; chances are we will never know, because each side has a reason and a bias toward their own facts, their own truth.  But I do know that acting lawlessly, with disregard for others, fulfills the stereotype that some would suggest.  Indiscriminate anger is not righteous, it does not buy justice; It is child-like, immature.

Why shouldn't they?

Numerous insinuations (e.g, this) that it is wrong of the Ferguson PD to withhold the name of the officer who shot Michael Brown (circumstance still under dispute).  But lets be honest; given the way the populace has reacted, in rioting and looting, the fact that numerous twitter posts have been made suggesting that revenge be taken on white business, homes and families who have nothing to do with this event, why would anyone think it would be a good thing to identify this officer.

He may be guilty and, if so, needs to be held accountable, as should LEOs for a lot of recent events.  But given the "crowd" reaction, do we think his family will be safe if his identity is publicized.

Huffington also bemoaned the fact that Ferguson is being treated like a war zone.  But who made it a war zone and who seems intent on spreading that war?

Lots of people see the injustice in the system.  Grievances need to be redressed.  But attacking those - of whatever race - who have nothing to do with it - is not going to further the cause.  If anything it fulfills their prophecies and negative stereotypes.

Let's be clear; my sympathy has limits (as I noted in many previous posts).  Take that shit out on me and mine and things will get a whole lot worse for some folks. This ain't no game.

Congratulations Sheriff Clarke!

Good news today, as it has been announced that Sheriff David Clarke, of Milwaukee County Wisconsin, defeated his Bloomberg-backed primary challenger (a story here).

Of course, this story is even more important in light of my post yesterday about self-defense.  It is interesting how those who would disarm us are also those who would insist that reality not play a factor in our lives. wish it all away!

"Bloomberg spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Wall Street Journal on Monday that he decided to get involved in the sheriff’s race because it allowed him to shape policy on a local level."

Sheriff Clarke is an unabashed supporter of self-defense and it was good to see him win over the challenge of Bloomberg's money.  At some point one might think that the diminutive billionaire would realize that people do not appreciate his intrusions and cash-infusions into their local affairs.  All the money in the world does not mean we want him deciding what we can and cannot do. Whether in Colorado, where he could not protect the politicians he bought, or Wisconsin, where the voters decided that their sheriff knows better than New York's former mayor, it seems clear that the people are not impressed with Bloomberg's attempts to buy the world he wants; the one where he has well-paid armed security and the rest of us are left defenseless.

Let the local people shape local policy!

Rape happens! Does the moral high ground make it feel better?

This poster has apparently drawn a lot of flack:

The popular, if thoughtless, response on how it should have read is this:

Aw, shit - here I go as a male, having an opinion that the meat between my legs means I am not allowed to express.  But you would have to be clueless as a reader of this blog not to know how I feel about personal defense.  

So the problem here is one I've noted before; it begins with the fact that everyone, including "miss neverjessie" reads the top one as blaming the victim.  It is not blaming, it is identifying a means whereby risk is increased. It is like telling you that you have a greater chance of dying in a car crash if you are intoxicated. Murder, robbery, rape all happen when someone decides to commit the crime.  Are you really suggesting then that we should not try to teach people how to behave in safer ways? The natural conclusion (I guess it should not surprise me) is that we should not teach people to defend themselves, not teach them awareness and how to avoid danger; we should all pretend evil does not exist or that it is self-correcting. By this logic, we should not even look both ways at 4-way stops signs.

Hmm - no, no one should rape and, yes, rape happens when someone evil decides to commit it.  But evil people decide to and do commit evil acts all the time and it is up to each of us to do whatever we need to do for ourselves and to them to protect ourselves.  Be safe!  Be aware!  If that means, don't drink, then don't drink.  Is it somehow morally superior to make yourself an easy victim of an evil person who should not have done what they did?  I prefer not being a victim of evil to refusing to acknowledge that it exists and insisting it not. Until that magical day comes when evil people no longer thrive among us, I suspect we had better take care of ourselves.

So, what missjessie is demanding is her right to put herself at risk, to deny the real world of evil people and go blissfully along counting on the good will and morality of others while she is incapacitated or unconscious.  Good luck with that.  Shit, if I go to a party, get shitfaced drunk and pass out, chances are someone might rape me (well, not my ugly ass - probably just steal my shit). If I do that, then I have decided to put myself there. Does that excuse criminal behavior? No.  But, while I am not sure about missjessie, I do know that I will not feel somehow more righteous when I stand up later, say I did no wrong, but am missing my stuff.

You wait around, missjessie, insisting on your right to behave in risky fashion, to put yourself needlessly at risk, for the time to come when evil people stop doing evil shit all on their own.  You live in that fantasy land where you can demand that we not try to help people recognize and mitigate risk.  You enjoy the moral superiority of victimhood, when a bit of preparation and education might have avoided it. And, while you are at it, take responsibility for all the others who cheer on your message.

For those who prefer to avoid rape as opposed to expecting it to simply disappear when rapists get a conscience - get some training, learn to be vigilant, and don't get drunk or unconscious around groups of people, especially then they are drunk, too.

Take care, be safe.

Jerry Jones?

Doesn't this say at least as much about the women in the pictures as it does about Jones?



Yea, he's an asshole and in this age of cameras everywhere, also a moron. But, really; can you blame all of this on him.  He'd be cupping thin air if there weren't someone to put some breasts there for him.  He'd be grabbing his own crotch if some young'un hadn't put her head in the way. Men are beasts who think with their dick; women will do damn near anything with an old geezer if he's rich.

Says a lot for all of us.

So where are they?

Where are the anti-knife violence folks on this one?

"A Florida woman is accused of stabbing her 7-year-old grandson to death as he begged for his life.
Authorities said 63-year-old Martha White was babysitting the boy and his 8-year-old brother Tuesday at their Tallahassee home when she interrupted their video game to say she had a surprise for them.
White then took Mason Rhinehart into a bathroom, locked the door, and stabbed him to death, investigators said."

Where's the every town for knife safety? Where's the background checks for knife purchases (she probably would have passed it)?  Where are the screeching moms demanding action?  How come when someone does this with a knife it is just a crazy person committing a crime and on one is out there yelling about "the children"?

Because all of them use knives and know that they would not do such a thing.  Well, it is clear it is not about violence then - it is about guns that they do not own and do not use.  But let me tell you, as someone who owns and uses both knives and guns - only crazy people and criminals use them to kill others.

Say it ain't so Joe!

Talking about the recent issues with our southern border, Joe Biden was noted as saying"

"These are not somebody else's kids. These are our kids."

No, Joe, they are not my kids, they are not your kids, they are the children of others who may or may not care for them.  There are many like them around the world.  But we cannot become the caretakers of the world's children.  We cannot really take care of our own in this country.

To assuage his guilt...

So, the inventor of the holy grail of gun control, the smart gun, is really on a quest to assuage his own misguided guilt over the fact that people have used his products to kill others.

I know the arguments against this firearm are well beyond the comprehension of those who are simply against all firearms.  Those would like to see a smattering of them can go here among other places. the point is that the opinion of those who do not carry, do not want to carry and, in fact, hate firearms, about such a firearm is worthless.

I would ask you to simply consider that there are no law enforcement or military organizations who are clamoring to purchase this handgun.  Why?  Lack of reliability of the mechanism?  Lack of stopping power?  Lack of practicality?

Be honest; you do not know anything about firearms in general and even less about this one.  Yet, because we can attach the word "smart" to it and because the idea of it allows you to denigrate all others, you like it.

As I have done previously, I will allude to the analogy of this to the drug war.  This is your licit drug (for the moment, although it is really step one on your road to making all of them illegal). It is your marinol.  Yet, while you have made your licit analogs, our porous borders have been hit with an unstoppable flood of illicit drugs.  So, change your laws to where the only firearm law-abiding citizens can possess is a temperamental (Sometime sit works, sometimes it doesn't, won't work if the watch in on the other hand, you can be disarmed by being stripped of the watch), under-powered (.22 caliber), low capacity pistol, while criminals will continue to own the firearms they chose since the law will not affect them.

Yes, I know the rules make sense to you, but then you choose to be disarmed anyway.

And what's even funnier?

Ah, Huffington wants us to know how stupid it would look if tabloids treated men the way they treat women.

The real thing is, I suspect, that if they were to do so, men would not give a shit.

And let's be honest - the women who are on those covers - many of them - have made their living by being tokens and images.  You cannot profit from being a public image when you want to and then bemoan the fact that you are a public image.

A better answer is - it's all bullshit!  No real reason to blame men for this - I do not imagine that they are the major consumers of this garbage.

So - Target?

So - Target - all for gay folks getting married, but don't carry your weapons here?  I have to wonder - since the request for people to not carry in your stores had to do with family atmosphere; how will it go when little Johnny or Janie ask why those two boys are kissing and holding hands?

Outed for the anti-gun folks you are.

As opposed to...

Is this as compared to losing a child to say, knife, violence, bludgeoning violence, or even motor-vehicle violence.  Where's Huffington's coverage of the missing teen-aged girl here in Central Florida whose body was recently found by the side of the road and is a victim of sexual violence?

Yea, yea, yea, I know  - you have a thing against guns.  Too bad you don't have a thing against violence.

The Useful Idiot

Yes, I know - its comedy!  But it really cheapens the discourse.

Yes, Boehner is a fool for suing the president for executive actions while suggesting he should be taking executive action.

But what do we do about the border, Jon?  Do we simply drop the idea of a border and make it all one big continent?  Is it productive to make others' idiocy the butt of jokes while offering no good alternatives?

Yes, it's comedy, but just like any other form of entertainment it stirs emotions that often have little to nothing to do with finding meaningful solutions.

Trump IS an idiot, but let's talk

Yes, Donald Trump is the master of being an idiot, but we probably do need to talk about this and it would be a shame to let the messenger overshadow the message.

His tweet (I hate the word):

"The U.S. cannot allow EBOLA infected people back. People that go to far away places to help out are great-but must suffer the consequences!"

Clearly rings of the usual Trump lack of empathy, but shouldn't we consider the risk we are taking when we allow empathy and emotion to convince us to drop our guard against such a plague?  There is a risk assessment to be made here, whether it is made by those who take the risk of going into areas where such pathogens exist for humanitarian reasons or the risk our government takes for us when it allows brings those infected into our borders.

So we end up with quotes like this:

""I hope that our understandable fear of the unfamiliar does not trump our compassion when ill Americans return to the U.S. for care," said Dr. Tom Frieden, according to The Associated Press."
 

Let's be honest - the assured self-confidence of our government agencies has more than once lead to problems and there is some history of the control of such pathogens being less than stellar.

The fact the heartless Donald Trump is the messenger here only serves to make it difficult for us to ponder this question; he is such an asshole about most things that valid questions get lost because of the shit he usually talks.

It will be interesting to see how the emotion shifts if we should go from compassion for those who sacrificed to help others, to ebola is on your doorstep.