So, a Kroger store in Athens GA makes a fine point that both sides of the spectrum are likely to miss.
The Kroger has established a unisex restroom and is being lauded by HuffPost for it. I think it's great - and evidence that Kroger knows what it means to say things are rights. What I wonder is if HuffPost knows this, given that is almost a certainly would remember when Moms Demand Action tried in vane to get Kroger to change its policies on carrying firearms (e.g., here).
You see, Kroger apparently gets it - right are rights and caving to every group's idiosyncratic desire to limit the rights of others serves no purpose. Rights are rights - if you want your rights, you need to support the rights of others.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Honestly...
So, the Clinton campaign says that "“Based on his positions on a number of issues, there is good reason to believe a Trump nominee would seek to roll back our rights, further empower corporations, and undo so much of the progress we’ve achieved.”
As usual, I guess not all rights are rights, given that it is clear that an Obama (or Clinton) nominee to SCOTUS will serve to roll back at least one of our rights to our time as a British colony, prior to the Bill of Rights.
Good God - the balls on some people!
Thursday, March 24, 2016
I'm still confused...
You can't throw a rock at a website anywhere and not hit an article that claims that increasing monitoring of radical criminal behavior in majority Muslim neighborhoods is "hateful." Of course, my own fave place to go to raise my blood pressure is Huffington Post as can be seen by most of my posts, including the one I made yesterday.
So imagine the look of utter confusion on my face when I read today on HuffPost that "U.S. Frustration Simmers over Belgium's Struggle with Militant Threat".
Here we see Belgium, where the policy on immigration and diversity has been a model that liberal America wants to emulate and yet frustration and simmering abound at Belgian handling of the threat? But then, it all becomes clear that the issue for them is not that migration has lead to the importation of a small percentage of migrants who are criminal, radicalized, and just all around undesirable; it is that Belgium can't get its counter-terrorism act together. That, and as I noted yesterday, liberals' notion that the cause of such atrocities is not bad people, it is disenfranchisement.
The article suggests that the Belgians are:
- understaffed
- uncooperative
- speak too many languages
The clash in worldviews is startling: The first three of those issues are post-problem. They accept that there is a problem, but do not address the problem, only address the consequences. The problem is the situation that leads to the events themselves.
The problem is not one that is inherent to Belgium, it is a problem they have allowed to grow, to fester, and become untenable. It is only American liberal hubris that makes anyone believe that the same problem with the same consequences is not on the table here and that, in the end, America will also be understaffed, uncooperative, and unprepared for what comes next.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Disenfranchisement? Really?
It is no surprise that there is outrage at the idea that
predominately Muslim neighborhoods should be afforded increased police presence. After all, we’re in the middle of an election
cycle! We are in a time when diversity and tolerance are more important than saving
lives, when responding to terrorism with silly social media gestures (”Je Suis morons!”)
and expressions of love are more important then prevention, when people are
more inclined to blame “conditions” than “killers”. Given that, it is no surprise that the
response to such suggestions is to call them “hate-filled”.
What I don’t understand is how wanting to increase monitoring
of neighborhoods in which killers hide is hate-filled. Aren’t such killers threats to the peaceful
people living in the neighborhoods in which they hide? Isn’t it the isolation of such neighborhoods
that allows killers to operate without being caught or captured? In fact, given that it has been asserted that
at least one of the suicide bombers at the Airport in Brussels was a “criminal”
as opposed to “jihadi” (are they mutually exclusive?) doesn’t it make sense to
protect and serve the people of the neighborhoods in which such criminals are
operating? Is it a problem because they killers are not committing their crimes
of terror in the neighborhoods?
People, like NY Police Commissioner Bratton, call attention
to the large number of Muslim LEOs. Others
note the large number of Muslim veterans or active duty warriors. Indeed, and it is their families who are as
much at risk from murderers among us as anyone else. One need not condemn all Muslims for the
crimes of a few. But if those killers
find a safe place to hide and operate in certain neighborhoods, then to protect
the people in those neighborhoods one must go there to look for them.
Of course none of that makes sense when you have people in
positions at the State Department, like Evelyn Farkas, who believe that the
problem starts with lack of opportunity, from disenfranchisement of Muslims. Thus, it is clear that, to her, that it makes
no sense to address the immediate issues that threaten the safety of the larger
populace as well as the local citizenry of all religions. Even if there are institutional issues that
impact the problem, are we to wait years until they are solved, suffering
attacks in the meantime. Let’s just have a big hug and it will all go
away. Perhaps she doesn’t mean that, but
if liberals can take simple ideas like “we have to look for criminals in the places
they hide” as hateful, then I can take ideas like “There would be no terrorists,
no radicalization, if there were no disenfranchisement” as idiotic.
I feel like a broken record, but I have to come back to this
again because it is so clear to me:
Liberals have no problem demonizing those they hate. This is most often seen in their antipathy
toward the large mass of gun owners. They have no problem casting them as evil and
the NRA as a terrorist organization. An
infinitesimal number of legal law-abiding gun owners commit crimes and an even
smaller number commit murders. Still,
those few are seen as representative of the culture and all are condemned. Take the sentence above; “One need not condemn
all Muslims for the crimes of a few” and replace Muslims with gun owners. When those illegally possessing firearms
commit crimes, legal gun owners become the whipping-boys. When an autistic boy shoots up a school, a skinny
white by shoots up a black church, or a deranged black man shoots up a community
college or his former colleagues, all gun-owners are guilty. And in the case of the Charleston shooter,
Southerners and their symbols were indicted.
Then there is talk of sending LEOs, SEALs, and you name it to go
door-to-door take out their fellow citizens with whom they disagree. Somehow that is okay, but when the community,
the culture, in question is Islam, taking the radical actions of a few as
justification to attack a group is abhorrent.
Just read the comments here.
Just read the comments here.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
How do you define "phobia"?
The National Library of Medicine defines the central characteristics of a phobia as "...a strong, irrational fear of something that poses little or no real danger." Given this definition, one has to wonder whether the neologism "Islamophobia" really represents a phobia. In light of recent events, what is irrational? Does an ideology that incites even a small number to violence really pose little or no real danger?
My decision to consider this and write about it emerged from a combination of watching coverage of the terror attacks in Brussels and the to-be-expected, knee-jerk reaction of sites like Think Progress to concerns raised once more by Donald Trump this morning. First, let's admonish them for the notion that Trump's response to this is "frightening". That is nothing more than hyperbole and a gross misuse of such a term. What is frightening to any rational person is the fact that (at last count I saw) 26 people were killed in a terror attack while going about their daily activities. Innocent people, no more guilty than the large number of Muslims who did not commit this atrocity. But it is not surprising that liberal media, in the midst of a presidential season, would quickly switch out the fright associated with the terror of killing innocent civilians for the fright associated with the aforementioned Trump and "Islamophobia".
So, what frightening thing did Trump say this time? According to ThinkProgress, when "asked during a Tuesday morning Fox and Friends appearance about how he’d respond to the attacks as president, Trump said he’d “close up our borders… until we figure out what’s going on.”"
"Until we figure out what's going on".
What do we do when we find a defect in a product, say an aircraft. We ground it for investigation. How about a fatal flaw in any product? Withdraw from the market for investigation. We don't say that "Well, it was only one airplane out of the hundreds in the air." We try to find out why, which ones are a risk, and make the system safer.
I say again, for the record - I am not a Trump fan. I do not need Trump to tell me that there is something dangerous going on in the world today and if we do not prepare and plan for it, it will likely get worse. This scourge has only barely made it to our shores, but that time is coming. Then these people will learn what "frightening" means. I personally think the most frightening thing is that there are those who do not look at the situation in Europe, the attacks on innocent people, a situation that emerges most proximally from largely wide open borders that admit a small number of militants among larger groups of migrants, and do not consider a halt to such migration to allow for a serious consideration of how to vet newcomers to enhance security.
Well, if that is frightening then what IS the solution to these issues? We get a lot of hand-wringing, whining, and bloviating but no real ideas. Oh, there's the "given them all a hug" brigade, the "stop bombing them" ideas, and those who would substitute sad pictures of refugees for sad pictures of those killed in Paris or Brussels. It is salesmanship (is that sexist?) at its best. But what they willfully ignore with this misdirection is that there is a hardcore group of people who DO hate us, want to kill us, who see it as their pathway to a glorious afterlife to die while taking large numbers of us with them. Hugging, suspending bombing, being humanitarian might be great ideas - they are efforts to save the other victims of these barbarians. But they will not dissuade the barbarians themselves. And if those among whom they hide will not reveal them to us, then how do we protect them or ourselves? Apparently, in the eyes of some, we don't. Interestingly, even on MSNBC this morning there were those who remarked that the Muslim community needed to react to this by starting to identify the extremists among them. Can liberals really say that? We will see if that happens.
Of course, we know how liberal America responded to the small scale terror attacks here in our homeland (and even to some extent the Paris attacks), so it is not hard to imagine how they will react when it happens on a larger scale. As with San Bernardino, they will absolve religion, fanaticism, terror and hatred in favor of attacking their fellow citizens' rights. It was not the religion, the hatred, the fanaticism, it was the guns. Don't deal with the root cause, simply tinker with the means. That is the liberal approach.
A last observation this begs for - and I have made before and will reiterate: It is disheartening, while also revealing of the liberal mindset, that when a small group of Muslims commits act of terror, liberals all run to FB, MSNBC, or the nearest camera to say "But is it not all of them!". Yet, when a scrawny little POS shot up a church in Charleston, all gun-owners and Southerners were indicted in absentia.
That is the liberal mindset. If they like you, you are golden, if not, you're shit.
My decision to consider this and write about it emerged from a combination of watching coverage of the terror attacks in Brussels and the to-be-expected, knee-jerk reaction of sites like Think Progress to concerns raised once more by Donald Trump this morning. First, let's admonish them for the notion that Trump's response to this is "frightening". That is nothing more than hyperbole and a gross misuse of such a term. What is frightening to any rational person is the fact that (at last count I saw) 26 people were killed in a terror attack while going about their daily activities. Innocent people, no more guilty than the large number of Muslims who did not commit this atrocity. But it is not surprising that liberal media, in the midst of a presidential season, would quickly switch out the fright associated with the terror of killing innocent civilians for the fright associated with the aforementioned Trump and "Islamophobia".
So, what frightening thing did Trump say this time? According to ThinkProgress, when "asked during a Tuesday morning Fox and Friends appearance about how he’d respond to the attacks as president, Trump said he’d “close up our borders… until we figure out what’s going on.”"
"Until we figure out what's going on".
What do we do when we find a defect in a product, say an aircraft. We ground it for investigation. How about a fatal flaw in any product? Withdraw from the market for investigation. We don't say that "Well, it was only one airplane out of the hundreds in the air." We try to find out why, which ones are a risk, and make the system safer.
I say again, for the record - I am not a Trump fan. I do not need Trump to tell me that there is something dangerous going on in the world today and if we do not prepare and plan for it, it will likely get worse. This scourge has only barely made it to our shores, but that time is coming. Then these people will learn what "frightening" means. I personally think the most frightening thing is that there are those who do not look at the situation in Europe, the attacks on innocent people, a situation that emerges most proximally from largely wide open borders that admit a small number of militants among larger groups of migrants, and do not consider a halt to such migration to allow for a serious consideration of how to vet newcomers to enhance security.
Well, if that is frightening then what IS the solution to these issues? We get a lot of hand-wringing, whining, and bloviating but no real ideas. Oh, there's the "given them all a hug" brigade, the "stop bombing them" ideas, and those who would substitute sad pictures of refugees for sad pictures of those killed in Paris or Brussels. It is salesmanship (is that sexist?) at its best. But what they willfully ignore with this misdirection is that there is a hardcore group of people who DO hate us, want to kill us, who see it as their pathway to a glorious afterlife to die while taking large numbers of us with them. Hugging, suspending bombing, being humanitarian might be great ideas - they are efforts to save the other victims of these barbarians. But they will not dissuade the barbarians themselves. And if those among whom they hide will not reveal them to us, then how do we protect them or ourselves? Apparently, in the eyes of some, we don't. Interestingly, even on MSNBC this morning there were those who remarked that the Muslim community needed to react to this by starting to identify the extremists among them. Can liberals really say that? We will see if that happens.
Of course, we know how liberal America responded to the small scale terror attacks here in our homeland (and even to some extent the Paris attacks), so it is not hard to imagine how they will react when it happens on a larger scale. As with San Bernardino, they will absolve religion, fanaticism, terror and hatred in favor of attacking their fellow citizens' rights. It was not the religion, the hatred, the fanaticism, it was the guns. Don't deal with the root cause, simply tinker with the means. That is the liberal approach.
A last observation this begs for - and I have made before and will reiterate: It is disheartening, while also revealing of the liberal mindset, that when a small group of Muslims commits act of terror, liberals all run to FB, MSNBC, or the nearest camera to say "But is it not all of them!". Yet, when a scrawny little POS shot up a church in Charleston, all gun-owners and Southerners were indicted in absentia.
That is the liberal mindset. If they like you, you are golden, if not, you're shit.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Am I the only one?
I know, I know - I shouldn't torture myself reading Huffington Post and should just stop reading FB where almost all of my "friends" are flaming liberals. But still...
So, there I was, looking at Huffpost headlines when I see this "How The Trump Campaign Could Evolve Into Organized Violence, In 6 Steps".
The article immediately stood out to me for its selective attention. I know it is Huffington's and most media's go-to interpretation of last week's violence in Chicago - that it was Trump supporters who acted violently. But really, if one reads beyond those outlets, they can easily find that the protest and resulting violence was orchestrated by proud members of Black Lives Matter, MoveOn and affiliated groups, along with some Bernie fans. It was protesters that had firearms and fired shots. Because I have a cadre of liberal associates on FB, I even got to see some that thought the resulting memes about how "Obama's peeps" shut down Trump's right to speak were "LoL" funny. Of course, they are elites and have the illusion of comfort and security in their gated communities and penthouses.
So, alleged violence-incitement is likely to turn into organized violence - but on which side? Is anyone who is not half brain-dead, who is not a member of the above mentioned groups really unable to see that there has already been violence and threatened violence in this nation for the past several years. In fact, is it not stock-in-trade for BLM and others to routinely threaten or engage in violence as a means to affect social change? Haven't such groups repeatedly burned down their own neighborhood and killed their fellow residents just to show how violent and uncivilized they can become? Have they not do so with the willing and eager support of MSNBC, Huffington, Media matters, MoveON, Soros and others? Can anyone really say that those groups have directly and purposely engaged in or incited violence?
I am note sure how many times I can say this, but I am not a Trump fan. But fan or not, I repeatedly see others throwing stones at him while they live in glass houses. How are your wicked Uncle Bernie and Mrs. Drysdale (Clinton) not inciting people to violence when they tell them it is their time to take form those who have, their time to get free stuff at the expense of others who have robbed them of their rightful share. Have they condemned the fact that their "followers" want to shut down others' rights to speak? How would these people have reacted if a similar response and demonstration happened at a Clinton rally? The rhetoric of violence, retribution, rage, and hatred is not all on only one side of this equation.
For extra added fun - to truly see this mindset in action - look no further than the comments on the above article. I'll highlight a few:
1.
So, there I was, looking at Huffpost headlines when I see this "How The Trump Campaign Could Evolve Into Organized Violence, In 6 Steps".
The article immediately stood out to me for its selective attention. I know it is Huffington's and most media's go-to interpretation of last week's violence in Chicago - that it was Trump supporters who acted violently. But really, if one reads beyond those outlets, they can easily find that the protest and resulting violence was orchestrated by proud members of Black Lives Matter, MoveOn and affiliated groups, along with some Bernie fans. It was protesters that had firearms and fired shots. Because I have a cadre of liberal associates on FB, I even got to see some that thought the resulting memes about how "Obama's peeps" shut down Trump's right to speak were "LoL" funny. Of course, they are elites and have the illusion of comfort and security in their gated communities and penthouses.
So, alleged violence-incitement is likely to turn into organized violence - but on which side? Is anyone who is not half brain-dead, who is not a member of the above mentioned groups really unable to see that there has already been violence and threatened violence in this nation for the past several years. In fact, is it not stock-in-trade for BLM and others to routinely threaten or engage in violence as a means to affect social change? Haven't such groups repeatedly burned down their own neighborhood and killed their fellow residents just to show how violent and uncivilized they can become? Have they not do so with the willing and eager support of MSNBC, Huffington, Media matters, MoveON, Soros and others? Can anyone really say that those groups have directly and purposely engaged in or incited violence?
I am note sure how many times I can say this, but I am not a Trump fan. But fan or not, I repeatedly see others throwing stones at him while they live in glass houses. How are your wicked Uncle Bernie and Mrs. Drysdale (Clinton) not inciting people to violence when they tell them it is their time to take form those who have, their time to get free stuff at the expense of others who have robbed them of their rightful share. Have they condemned the fact that their "followers" want to shut down others' rights to speak? How would these people have reacted if a similar response and demonstration happened at a Clinton rally? The rhetoric of violence, retribution, rage, and hatred is not all on only one side of this equation.
For extra added fun - to truly see this mindset in action - look no further than the comments on the above article. I'll highlight a few:
1.
Ta'Keysha Brown ·
Works at US Postal Service
True, but what they don't realize is that we are not our grandparents. We fight back, we shoot back, and we stab back. Every one of those cowards are willing to throw a blow, but how many of them are ready to take two blows back?
So - here's your US Postal worker, paid by tax dollars, threatening to go postal on anyone who disagrees Yes, you fought back and will fight back apparently (at least she does not seem to be an anti-gun liberal). Will you shoot first? Is that how you think this will be fixed? I suspect many of them will be more than willing to take a few blows to land a good one. I suspect more than you realize. If you do not see the incitement inherent in such a comment, such a threat, then you are willfully ignorant. You see, the article also talks about how the election of Obama was followed by a spike in hate crimes against blacks (BTW, I think we need to consider how we define hate crimes). What I remember seeing was videos of blacks dancing in the streets saying that now the white folks were going to get what was coming to them. Always winners and losers it is.
Do you really want to start a shooting war?
2. Then there's 
Elizabeth Pengson
i could sense this,, why I suggest to have the SEALS.Marines.. snipers at the ready.. even tanks.. let's see how tough his supporters are.. I have no doubt, they are just bullies and cowards like him ..
give them a dose of their own meds, bet they'll run the Ozarks,never to be seen for decades.
give them a dose of their own meds, bet they'll run the Ozarks,never to be seen for decades.
Liz figures the way to deal with people you don't like is to have Marines and SEALS on call - and tanks - you know kind of like Red China and Tiananmen Square - or maybe Kent State with the hippies of those days. Apparently fine by Liz - American ingenuity in action.
I suspect you should be worried about how well this idea will go Liz - your side has not been very kind to law enforcement and military folks in recent years - blaming them for most of the ills of society (Attention Liberals: that's why giving veterans bigger checks does not buy you love). As I note below, you and Ta'Keysha have worked really hard to make enemies - in this case, enemies in the LEO and military communities.
You see, some folks like you have suggested that were Trump to be elected you would leave the country. I find this incredulous since as a veteran I served this nation even when I did not agree with or care for the policies of the man who held the office of commander-in-chief. Because I served a nation. I know many of today's warriors who are not fans of the current administration and how it has handled wars and changed the military. But they continue to serve something larger than themselves. Your loyalty is fleeting and self-serving.
But I do not think they will accede to orders to fire on their fellow citizens just because you don't like them.
Let's look further - at the stages the authors suggest:
1. Anger
2. Excusing Violence
3. Legal Impunity
4. The Opposition Fights Back
5. Going on Offense
6. Picking a Shirt or Hat Color
So, can someone tell me how this process does not just as clearly describe how the violence on the "other" side has developed and been nurtured. Anger - clear. Excusing violence - BLM riots are justifiable violence in today's liberal view - legal impunity goes along with this. Now, the opposition has begun to voice its own concerns, declining to be run over - it is going on more offense. And of course, BLM, with the "hand's up" t-shirt already has it colors.
This is all about defining an enemy and both sides of this equation have gone out of their way to define an enemy. How many cops must be ambushed before someone on one side speaks out? %The "non-Trump" side has been doing defining society's core institutions as its enemies for years, not addressing the specific issues that need to be addressed, but demonizing entire groups of people based on gender, race, occupation, socioeconomic status and so on. Some have decided that people from other countries should be more welcome here than our own citizenry - making enemies of large swaths of the country.
Wait - I need to share the comments of one more intellectual giant:
Lachelle Wolfe ·
Trumps supporters may or may not wear a certain color of support for trump, but they will be wearing guns, in the open carry style. That's the difference between republicans and liberals, republicans want to intimidate by open carry, but not smart enough to understand by doing that they've already showed their hand. We are already seeing how stupid they are by how many of them are getting shot by their toddlers, or their children are shooting their siblings or themselves.
Trump supporters might riot and get violent if he's not elected, but I don't think they are willing to lose their lives, and they will.
Trump supporters might riot and get violent if he's not elected, but I don't think they are willing to lose their lives, and they will.
Nah - I don't have anything to say about this one. Well - maybe a few of things: I am not a Republican. I don't open carry. Has Lachelle taken a look at the black community (and no, I am not assuming she is black) to see how many of them are shooting each other on a regular basis, be it gang violence, drive-by shootings with children being shot, or turf/drug related? I ask this because I assume she is considering Trump followers to be nothing more than white rednecks - yet the community that I suspect is near and dear to your heart suffers a much higher cost due to violent behavior.
Because of that I suspect that Trump haters in that community will riot if he wins - will probably riot if he loses, too. Do they want to lose their lives?
This is such immature egocentric crap.
Dark times ahead.
Frankly, Garland, I don't give a damn...
Ah, Huffpost (posting an article from a television station) - telling us that the best reason in the world to love the new SCOTUS nominee is that he "...has mentored and tutored students at J.O. Wilson for the last 18 years."
Okay - that's a great recommendation for humanitarian of the year but it really isn't part of my criteria for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS. I want to know where he stands on the protections provided in the Bill of Rights.
Thursday, March 10, 2016
There's your problem...
As one might expect, after a shooting that left 5 dead in a backyard in a dilapidated and dangerous suburb of Pittsburgh the culprits were discovered to be several guns based on the fact that multiple shell casings were found at the scene.
Well, perhaps that is not completely fair to Huffpost, since their headline does say "Gunmen" did it. Still, it might be more accurate and fair if it noted that men did it (well, perhaps it should say people since I am not sure we know the sex of those who committed to crime - yes, it was a crime). Oh, sure, it was men who used guns. But we know the guns did it - just read the comments and you will see that this was a plot masterminded by guns, aided by gun supporters and their lobbying organizations.
So what does that mean? Apparently it means that if we just eliminated guns there would be no more crime, since people seem to think we do not have a crime problem, we have a gun problem. It seems to mean that murder would not be a problem if it were not for guns - killings with other means are just not a big deal. It means that, in the fantasy world of liberalism, people are all really really good and no harm would ever befall us if only everyone gave up their guns.
Of course the response is "Well, if all they had was knives to do this, fewer would have died." So, crime, murder, is all right if it happens to smaller numbers. Society crumbles, people are lawless and think nothing of killing others - and you can all come up with your own reasons why. Some decide that all must give up rights because "Some people just cannot behave in accordance with the law if they have access to weapons."
How is that not prejudice?
We have a crime problem, a decay of social order problem, not a gun problem.
Well, perhaps that is not completely fair to Huffpost, since their headline does say "Gunmen" did it. Still, it might be more accurate and fair if it noted that men did it (well, perhaps it should say people since I am not sure we know the sex of those who committed to crime - yes, it was a crime). Oh, sure, it was men who used guns. But we know the guns did it - just read the comments and you will see that this was a plot masterminded by guns, aided by gun supporters and their lobbying organizations.
So what does that mean? Apparently it means that if we just eliminated guns there would be no more crime, since people seem to think we do not have a crime problem, we have a gun problem. It seems to mean that murder would not be a problem if it were not for guns - killings with other means are just not a big deal. It means that, in the fantasy world of liberalism, people are all really really good and no harm would ever befall us if only everyone gave up their guns.
Of course the response is "Well, if all they had was knives to do this, fewer would have died." So, crime, murder, is all right if it happens to smaller numbers. Society crumbles, people are lawless and think nothing of killing others - and you can all come up with your own reasons why. Some decide that all must give up rights because "Some people just cannot behave in accordance with the law if they have access to weapons."
How is that not prejudice?
We have a crime problem, a decay of social order problem, not a gun problem.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Well, if you don't want to be taken seriously...
Well, then, post some stupid shit like this:
Rachel Baker
It is nearly impossible not to draw this comparison #trump #GOPDebate #nazi #salute #USElections2016 pic.twitter.com/q4P13CZ225
Look, Trump is pretty much an idiot (so is Clinton), but taking a still shot of him asking supporters at a rally to pledge to vote for him and comparing it to that is - well, stupid. I guess it is nearly impossible not to be stupid.
Imagine if Clinton asked supporters at a rally "Who among you will pledge to vote for our first a woman president?" and then we snapped a picture of them with their hands raised. Or maybe Mr. Drucker (Bernie Sanders) asked his supporters "How many here will pledge to vote for free stuff paid for by other people?" and then we posted a still of it alongside the hands-raised picture of the Nazi youth group.
Look, all of these folks can do plenty of dumb shit to poke at without making stuff up. When you do that it only makes you look as stupid as they do.
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Pot, kettle, YEOW!
So - this girl "Miley Cyrus Calls Donald Trump A 'F**king Nightmare'" is calling someone else a nightmare?
"Drugs are bad, mmm'kay."
"Drugs are bad, mmm'kay."
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Well, it's like this Barbara..."They're coming to get you, Barbara"!
First, as a psychologist, be wary of people who call themselves a "psychotherapist". That can mean a lot of different things - the writer of this letter is a licensed clinical social worker. Scientific thinking and objectivity are not part of that curriculum. It is more an indoctrination into a given philosophy - and that is apparent by reading this letter.
She says she wants to ask those who "...own military weapons that can mow down large groups of schoolchildren or moviegoers" some questions. Well, there is no better way to start than by showing your ignorance, close-mindedness, bigotry, and bias. No civilian owns "military weapons". What she meant to say was "You are all murderers and nothing you can say to me will change my mind."
But, what the hell:
1. "It may be a constitutional right to bear arms, but the Constitution said we have the right to bear arms in a militia, those arms being muskets at the time, guns that you could shoot once, taking much time to reload. Not AK-47 weapons."
Actually, no: it does not say "in a militia". It mentions a "well-regulated militia" and goes on to assert that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say when in a militia, it does not say the right of the militia, it says right of the people, because in times of necessity, they comprise the militia. The founders were not as stupid as you think they were or you seem to be. They said what they meant - "the people" are the militia and their right "shall not be infringed".
And what the hell is an "AK-47 weapon"? A fantasy created by people who do not know anything about the subject. Are you sure you didn't mean "ray gun"?
2. "Why these weapons? Are you waiting for a once-rare-but-now-more-frequent mass shooting or another shooting so you can save the day, planning to kill the “bad" guys? How many times might you have that opportunity in life? One can always hope, I suppose"
At this point it becomes clear that you're really just being a sarcastic asshole, aren't you? Question one could be lack of knowledge - this one cries out "asshole"! Back to the point above - you do not want to understand so why even pretend - you believe you already understand and you want to demonize.
But I digress: I want one because I am allowed to have one. I served 10 years in the Army defending people like you while you hated me. I was an expert marksman with one (well, not an "AK-47 weapon") and enjoyed it, so I decided to buy the civilian version. I know it will be hard for a liberal, "psychotherapist" indoctrinated into a world where people in the military are bad people to understand, but just as you probably enjoy your crocheting or body-piercing or muff diving, I enjoy shooting my firearms, maintaining them and my skill with them. They are tools I wish to remain proficient with and can use to defend myself and my loved ones if need be - or even ones I do not know and don't much care for, like you.
Second thing you think you understand, but don't: No law-abiding citizen wants to kill someone else. But they know evil exists and don't want to die or watch others die either so they will kill, if they have to, to defend themselves and others - even people like you. Lots of military out there defending people like you, people who hate them, with violence as needed - paying the price for it. For this? For someone who is supposed to be a psychotherapist to make such assumptions about people is, well, unprofessional.
No one hopes for that day - but some are prepared for it if it comes.
3. "Have you listened to police chiefs who say that they don’t want their staff entering an active shooting scene where “bad” shooters and “good” shooters are battling around innocent families and children, unable to discern who is bad or good? Do you think you can shoot your AK-47 and hit only the bad people instead of innocents as well?"
Have you listened to those police chiefs and sheriffs who say how much they appreciate armed citizens' support and help - especially after armed citizens saved LEO lives. Have you listened to the many sheriffs (elected by the people) telling their constituents that now is the time to be carrying a gun if you are legally capable of doing so. It is clear that you know better than they do, too!
Your answer then is for anyone in such situations to simply wait for police response? Have you considered how that worked out in Newtown, how it worked out in Paris, how it worked out in Nairobi at the Westgate Shopping Mall, among many other scenarios? LEO cannot be everywhere all the time. You are making a wager with others' lives, you want to decide for them. I hope you will take responsibility for them when the time comes.
And here's more knowledge for free: No one is carrying an AK-47 around. No one is carrying an AR around in schools - unless they are there to kill innocent people, which by definition means they are not law-abiding gun owners. Do you even know what an AK-47 or an AR is, other than another name for the boogey man who lives under all liberals' beds? Please try to read some literature other than that published by anti-gun groups. You know, read some research by the FBI or academic sources on the "good guys" you mock stopping active shooting situations - learn enough to ask intelligent questions. Law-abiding concealed carriers are more law-abiding as a group than the general public and even law enforcement personnel. Can you identify one instance where a good guy with a gun ended up shooting a bunch of innocents? If you could, do you think they would outnumber the incidents in which being armed saved lives?
The whole premise of your question has no basis in existing fact, it is all supposition. Why? Because you already know all you want to know - and you think we are all stupid. You don't want to discuss, you want to lecture.
4."The police might mistake you for a “bad” shooter. They might shoot and kill you. The investigators will also need to determine if your bullets killed the innocent. Are you asking to be imprisoned?"
I am a certified instructor, a military veteran, and I train more at protecting myself than most LEOs - and apparently more seriously than you trained in psychotherapy, establishing rapport and showing empathy. I can hit what I am aiming at.
You create a false choice: I can watch others get slaughtered, capable of doing nothing but running, hiding, praying, dying. Or I can do what I have trained to do and likely save lives, even at risk of my own. I am not surprised that you are a sheep and want others to be sheep with you. I am not and do not. You would prefer I do nothing - I will not abide that. You find it shocking that some will risk their lives to protect others. I find it noble. When I am unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, I want as many armed law-abiding Americans there with me as possible.
5. "Maybe you just don’t feel very good about yourself or your life, and you need to boost your confidence and self-esteem by openly carrying a giant weapon, hiding your disappointing body parts and/or your psychological distress. Maybe you really are fearful, thinking that Muslims are taking over this country, and if not Muslims, that perhaps black and brown men and boys are wreaking havoc. Maybe you have been severely traumatized and need help."
And maybe, as a psychotherapist, you have such a superiority complex that it both blinds you and is embarrassing. This is the kind of psychobabble that gets trained in social work programs and makes people distrust and even ridicule mental health professionals. It is a mix of liberalism, feminism, and Freudian theory passed of as delivered wisdom. Are you saying you think my gun is really a penis? Why do you care about my penis anyway?
Maybe you need to boost your self-esteem by being a smart-ass and talking down to others about things you know nothing about. Perhaps you are suffering from "penis envy" and fear our "big guns" because you don't have one and feel that makes you inferior? Perhaps you simply suffer from hoplophobia. But perhaps you should read the data (like this from what is probably your favorite paper - the New York Times) that show that the fastest growing segment of new gun owners is females - so what are they compensating for?
I train psychologists for a living. The ethics of my profession mandate that I specifically train and supervise them on self-awareness and self-knowledge, knowing and controlling their own biases, accepting diversity, individuality, and cultural differences, avoiding prejudgments, and affording dignity to all. You apparently are more selective in who you value and were not so well-trained in your School of Social Work. Do you have to do continuing education?
6. "Who makes you God? Even if you were in a challenging shooting situation, are you the judge or jury? Can you sort out facts in the heat of the moment instead of using our justice system to work through an agreed-upon process for determining innocence, guilt and sentencing?"
No one made any one God and no one wants to be God. Well, that's not true - you appear to be pushing hard for the job; creating your own commandments, already thinking you are omniscient, wanting to exert absolute control over what others think, feel and do. You want everyone in lockstep with you, you judge and condemn. Sounds like you have your own God complex.
No one - besides you - wants to be judge and jury. What is your letter but a long ignorant, uninformed judgmental tirade? People do want to defend themselves should the need arise. If someone threatens lethal harm to me or someone I love and am with, then they have made the choice, not me.
Now you might think that, when someone assaults you, you can empanel a jury then and there - ask all the other victims what they think. Or whip out your talents of persuasion on them (not in evidence here), use your prodigious empathy (which is non-existent in this letter but I suspect you use it selectively), convince them they should be nice to you and that you love them and will nurture them unconditionally (again, not evident here) and that they should put down their illegally-gotten weapon. I am sure you remind them that their evil is not their fault - the gun made them do it (even though it did not make the 100 million legal owners do so). In short, you infantilize them and dazzle them with your charm. Some "psychotherapists" fulfill their own need for power in that way. Frankly and I suppose sadly - I suspect you are more likely to end up shot.
If you talk to them in the tone you wrote this letter, I would not hold out much hope of your surviving any conflict. You seriously lack interpersonal skills. You are shrill and condemning. You also confuse a desire to be prepared to defend one's self and loved ones with being a vigilante. Can you really be this ignorant and is it a motivated stupidity? We do not go looking for trouble and a good instructor teaches people how to avoid it - that personal defense starts with awareness and avoidance. For the law-abiding gun owner, a critical adage is "If you wouldn't go there without a gun, don't go there with one". But if trouble comes to us, we will not roll over to it, as you would. It would seem you lack awareness, both of your own biases and of the world around you.
7. "I, for one, am extremely frightened of you because you hold my and my family’s lives in your hands when you carry your weapons of mass destruction around our schools, parks and churches. Tiny children find your weapons, thinking they are toys, forever ruining or ending their own or others’ lives. Who gave you the right to endanger so many people?"
Well, there's your hoplophobia. The criminals walking the streets are the ones who hold your life in their hands and you seem convinced that it should stay that way, that no one should stand against them. People like you apparently revel in victimhood, seeing evil in anyone who is not like you (strangely the very same false accusations you make against gun owners). Others will not abide by that.
And everyone you spend your day around holds your life in their hands in myriad ways.
You SCARE me - the not-so-subtle mix of stupidity, ignorance, prejudice, hubris, and snobbery makes for something almost demonic. I am glad you are not armed and it is good that weapons scare you because you do not have the temperament for it. It is understandable why you find gun ownership scary: Like most liberals, who are childish and ruled by emotion, your level of anger, delusion, misinformation and apparent lack of self-awareness and control, makes it clear that you would kill someone if you carried a gun - and then blame the gun. Hence, since you like to think in Freudian terms - it is clear that you are projecting your own concerns onto others as a way of defending yourself against becoming fully aware of them.
8. "Please help us all understand your thinking, feelings or logic. And then, maybe we can have a safe and honest conversation about your fear, your anger and your obsession with power, control and violence."
Pot, kettle, black! Those sound like your obsessions. You don't want to understand, you want to condemn, prejudge/judge, attack, belittle, chastise, and all those other things that you would abhor were others to do them to certain races, religions or genders. I don't mind if you hate guns and wouldn't want yo to carry one. Your lack of self-awareness is particularly startling. It is fine for you to be biased when it serves your preconceived notions, which you are firmly convinced are righteous. You believe that you already know everything that you need to know.
What really sucks is that I really wanted this to be a rational response to you - that is, I decided to write this and started doing so thinking this could be a rational description of what those on this side of the issue think, a rational response to reasonable questions. A way to start the dialog you pretend that you want. I really started out wanting to help you understand the other side - not change your mind, just inform you.
But as I went "question by question" it immediately became apparent that there was no way to make a logical reply because you were not interested in enlightenment. This was a political diatribe in the guise of a question - each, in truth, bergan with "You are...". . As a psychotherapist you should know why we don't ask "why" questions - because they are "accusatory" in nature and engender defensiveness, not explanation. And that was your point - to accuse.
You should also be able to recognize how pointless and accusatory a question like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" is. It presumes guilt. That is not seeking knowledge. Yet this is what you have done. In this case, you start the conversation asking "Why do you want to kill people?" You clearly see all legal and law-abiding gun owners as criminals and murderers who merely have not yet committed the crime. Ask yourself - if you can step outside of your own world view for a minute - How is it that, when people make such disparaging statements about other groups, such as Muslims - suggesting at their core, all are terrorists - it is considered bigotry and people become incensed. Yet using that same smear tactic against ALL gun owners is considered righteous indignation. Your behavior suggests that bigotry and prejudice themselves are not the problem - apparently it is simply a matter of who one is bigoted against.
I am really both surprised that and embarrassed for The Tennessean - or any "newspaper" - that they would choose to publish this ill-informed diatribe.
Dark times indeed.
She says she wants to ask those who "...own military weapons that can mow down large groups of schoolchildren or moviegoers" some questions. Well, there is no better way to start than by showing your ignorance, close-mindedness, bigotry, and bias. No civilian owns "military weapons". What she meant to say was "You are all murderers and nothing you can say to me will change my mind."
But, what the hell:
1. "It may be a constitutional right to bear arms, but the Constitution said we have the right to bear arms in a militia, those arms being muskets at the time, guns that you could shoot once, taking much time to reload. Not AK-47 weapons."
Actually, no: it does not say "in a militia". It mentions a "well-regulated militia" and goes on to assert that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say when in a militia, it does not say the right of the militia, it says right of the people, because in times of necessity, they comprise the militia. The founders were not as stupid as you think they were or you seem to be. They said what they meant - "the people" are the militia and their right "shall not be infringed".
And what the hell is an "AK-47 weapon"? A fantasy created by people who do not know anything about the subject. Are you sure you didn't mean "ray gun"?
2. "Why these weapons? Are you waiting for a once-rare-but-now-more-frequent mass shooting or another shooting so you can save the day, planning to kill the “bad" guys? How many times might you have that opportunity in life? One can always hope, I suppose"
At this point it becomes clear that you're really just being a sarcastic asshole, aren't you? Question one could be lack of knowledge - this one cries out "asshole"! Back to the point above - you do not want to understand so why even pretend - you believe you already understand and you want to demonize.
But I digress: I want one because I am allowed to have one. I served 10 years in the Army defending people like you while you hated me. I was an expert marksman with one (well, not an "AK-47 weapon") and enjoyed it, so I decided to buy the civilian version. I know it will be hard for a liberal, "psychotherapist" indoctrinated into a world where people in the military are bad people to understand, but just as you probably enjoy your crocheting or body-piercing or muff diving, I enjoy shooting my firearms, maintaining them and my skill with them. They are tools I wish to remain proficient with and can use to defend myself and my loved ones if need be - or even ones I do not know and don't much care for, like you.
Second thing you think you understand, but don't: No law-abiding citizen wants to kill someone else. But they know evil exists and don't want to die or watch others die either so they will kill, if they have to, to defend themselves and others - even people like you. Lots of military out there defending people like you, people who hate them, with violence as needed - paying the price for it. For this? For someone who is supposed to be a psychotherapist to make such assumptions about people is, well, unprofessional.
No one hopes for that day - but some are prepared for it if it comes.
3. "Have you listened to police chiefs who say that they don’t want their staff entering an active shooting scene where “bad” shooters and “good” shooters are battling around innocent families and children, unable to discern who is bad or good? Do you think you can shoot your AK-47 and hit only the bad people instead of innocents as well?"
Have you listened to those police chiefs and sheriffs who say how much they appreciate armed citizens' support and help - especially after armed citizens saved LEO lives. Have you listened to the many sheriffs (elected by the people) telling their constituents that now is the time to be carrying a gun if you are legally capable of doing so. It is clear that you know better than they do, too!
Your answer then is for anyone in such situations to simply wait for police response? Have you considered how that worked out in Newtown, how it worked out in Paris, how it worked out in Nairobi at the Westgate Shopping Mall, among many other scenarios? LEO cannot be everywhere all the time. You are making a wager with others' lives, you want to decide for them. I hope you will take responsibility for them when the time comes.
And here's more knowledge for free: No one is carrying an AK-47 around. No one is carrying an AR around in schools - unless they are there to kill innocent people, which by definition means they are not law-abiding gun owners. Do you even know what an AK-47 or an AR is, other than another name for the boogey man who lives under all liberals' beds? Please try to read some literature other than that published by anti-gun groups. You know, read some research by the FBI or academic sources on the "good guys" you mock stopping active shooting situations - learn enough to ask intelligent questions. Law-abiding concealed carriers are more law-abiding as a group than the general public and even law enforcement personnel. Can you identify one instance where a good guy with a gun ended up shooting a bunch of innocents? If you could, do you think they would outnumber the incidents in which being armed saved lives?
The whole premise of your question has no basis in existing fact, it is all supposition. Why? Because you already know all you want to know - and you think we are all stupid. You don't want to discuss, you want to lecture.
4."The police might mistake you for a “bad” shooter. They might shoot and kill you. The investigators will also need to determine if your bullets killed the innocent. Are you asking to be imprisoned?"
I am a certified instructor, a military veteran, and I train more at protecting myself than most LEOs - and apparently more seriously than you trained in psychotherapy, establishing rapport and showing empathy. I can hit what I am aiming at.
You create a false choice: I can watch others get slaughtered, capable of doing nothing but running, hiding, praying, dying. Or I can do what I have trained to do and likely save lives, even at risk of my own. I am not surprised that you are a sheep and want others to be sheep with you. I am not and do not. You would prefer I do nothing - I will not abide that. You find it shocking that some will risk their lives to protect others. I find it noble. When I am unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, I want as many armed law-abiding Americans there with me as possible.
5. "Maybe you just don’t feel very good about yourself or your life, and you need to boost your confidence and self-esteem by openly carrying a giant weapon, hiding your disappointing body parts and/or your psychological distress. Maybe you really are fearful, thinking that Muslims are taking over this country, and if not Muslims, that perhaps black and brown men and boys are wreaking havoc. Maybe you have been severely traumatized and need help."
And maybe, as a psychotherapist, you have such a superiority complex that it both blinds you and is embarrassing. This is the kind of psychobabble that gets trained in social work programs and makes people distrust and even ridicule mental health professionals. It is a mix of liberalism, feminism, and Freudian theory passed of as delivered wisdom. Are you saying you think my gun is really a penis? Why do you care about my penis anyway?
Maybe you need to boost your self-esteem by being a smart-ass and talking down to others about things you know nothing about. Perhaps you are suffering from "penis envy" and fear our "big guns" because you don't have one and feel that makes you inferior? Perhaps you simply suffer from hoplophobia. But perhaps you should read the data (like this from what is probably your favorite paper - the New York Times) that show that the fastest growing segment of new gun owners is females - so what are they compensating for?
I train psychologists for a living. The ethics of my profession mandate that I specifically train and supervise them on self-awareness and self-knowledge, knowing and controlling their own biases, accepting diversity, individuality, and cultural differences, avoiding prejudgments, and affording dignity to all. You apparently are more selective in who you value and were not so well-trained in your School of Social Work. Do you have to do continuing education?
6. "Who makes you God? Even if you were in a challenging shooting situation, are you the judge or jury? Can you sort out facts in the heat of the moment instead of using our justice system to work through an agreed-upon process for determining innocence, guilt and sentencing?"
No one made any one God and no one wants to be God. Well, that's not true - you appear to be pushing hard for the job; creating your own commandments, already thinking you are omniscient, wanting to exert absolute control over what others think, feel and do. You want everyone in lockstep with you, you judge and condemn. Sounds like you have your own God complex.
No one - besides you - wants to be judge and jury. What is your letter but a long ignorant, uninformed judgmental tirade? People do want to defend themselves should the need arise. If someone threatens lethal harm to me or someone I love and am with, then they have made the choice, not me.
Now you might think that, when someone assaults you, you can empanel a jury then and there - ask all the other victims what they think. Or whip out your talents of persuasion on them (not in evidence here), use your prodigious empathy (which is non-existent in this letter but I suspect you use it selectively), convince them they should be nice to you and that you love them and will nurture them unconditionally (again, not evident here) and that they should put down their illegally-gotten weapon. I am sure you remind them that their evil is not their fault - the gun made them do it (even though it did not make the 100 million legal owners do so). In short, you infantilize them and dazzle them with your charm. Some "psychotherapists" fulfill their own need for power in that way. Frankly and I suppose sadly - I suspect you are more likely to end up shot.
If you talk to them in the tone you wrote this letter, I would not hold out much hope of your surviving any conflict. You seriously lack interpersonal skills. You are shrill and condemning. You also confuse a desire to be prepared to defend one's self and loved ones with being a vigilante. Can you really be this ignorant and is it a motivated stupidity? We do not go looking for trouble and a good instructor teaches people how to avoid it - that personal defense starts with awareness and avoidance. For the law-abiding gun owner, a critical adage is "If you wouldn't go there without a gun, don't go there with one". But if trouble comes to us, we will not roll over to it, as you would. It would seem you lack awareness, both of your own biases and of the world around you.
7. "I, for one, am extremely frightened of you because you hold my and my family’s lives in your hands when you carry your weapons of mass destruction around our schools, parks and churches. Tiny children find your weapons, thinking they are toys, forever ruining or ending their own or others’ lives. Who gave you the right to endanger so many people?"
Well, there's your hoplophobia. The criminals walking the streets are the ones who hold your life in their hands and you seem convinced that it should stay that way, that no one should stand against them. People like you apparently revel in victimhood, seeing evil in anyone who is not like you (strangely the very same false accusations you make against gun owners). Others will not abide by that.
And everyone you spend your day around holds your life in their hands in myriad ways.
You SCARE me - the not-so-subtle mix of stupidity, ignorance, prejudice, hubris, and snobbery makes for something almost demonic. I am glad you are not armed and it is good that weapons scare you because you do not have the temperament for it. It is understandable why you find gun ownership scary: Like most liberals, who are childish and ruled by emotion, your level of anger, delusion, misinformation and apparent lack of self-awareness and control, makes it clear that you would kill someone if you carried a gun - and then blame the gun. Hence, since you like to think in Freudian terms - it is clear that you are projecting your own concerns onto others as a way of defending yourself against becoming fully aware of them.
8. "Please help us all understand your thinking, feelings or logic. And then, maybe we can have a safe and honest conversation about your fear, your anger and your obsession with power, control and violence."
Pot, kettle, black! Those sound like your obsessions. You don't want to understand, you want to condemn, prejudge/judge, attack, belittle, chastise, and all those other things that you would abhor were others to do them to certain races, religions or genders. I don't mind if you hate guns and wouldn't want yo to carry one. Your lack of self-awareness is particularly startling. It is fine for you to be biased when it serves your preconceived notions, which you are firmly convinced are righteous. You believe that you already know everything that you need to know.
What really sucks is that I really wanted this to be a rational response to you - that is, I decided to write this and started doing so thinking this could be a rational description of what those on this side of the issue think, a rational response to reasonable questions. A way to start the dialog you pretend that you want. I really started out wanting to help you understand the other side - not change your mind, just inform you.
But as I went "question by question" it immediately became apparent that there was no way to make a logical reply because you were not interested in enlightenment. This was a political diatribe in the guise of a question - each, in truth, bergan with "You are...". . As a psychotherapist you should know why we don't ask "why" questions - because they are "accusatory" in nature and engender defensiveness, not explanation. And that was your point - to accuse.
You should also be able to recognize how pointless and accusatory a question like "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" is. It presumes guilt. That is not seeking knowledge. Yet this is what you have done. In this case, you start the conversation asking "Why do you want to kill people?" You clearly see all legal and law-abiding gun owners as criminals and murderers who merely have not yet committed the crime. Ask yourself - if you can step outside of your own world view for a minute - How is it that, when people make such disparaging statements about other groups, such as Muslims - suggesting at their core, all are terrorists - it is considered bigotry and people become incensed. Yet using that same smear tactic against ALL gun owners is considered righteous indignation. Your behavior suggests that bigotry and prejudice themselves are not the problem - apparently it is simply a matter of who one is bigoted against.
I am really both surprised that and embarrassed for The Tennessean - or any "newspaper" - that they would choose to publish this ill-informed diatribe.
Dark times indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)