1. Why is this called "gun violence"? The apparent fact that a large number of people who live in Chicago cannot go for any length of time without killing each other is not the fault of guns. It is sheer folly and foolishness to make this a gun issue, to essentially give up on the possible redemption of people from such depraved behavior and blame the tools they use.
Let's take a couple of examples:
1. "Selton Ellis, 30, was standing near the front counter of a gas station near 72nd Street and South Chicago Avenue at 4:27 a.m. when a male entered and shot him multiple times in the torso, authorities said. He was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, where he was pronounced dead at 5:18 a.m. He lived in the 7300 block of South Greenwood Avenue".
Two possibilities here; this was a random act by a depraved individual who was going to kill, no matter what or Mr. Ellis is involved in some shady business and this was someones way of solving a dispute. In either case, it is not the gun that made this happen; it is simply a convenient target.
2. "Saturday evening, a 20-year-old man was gunned down in the Southwest Side Gage Park neighborhood. Trayvon Wilson was washing his car about 7:15 p.m. in an alley near his home in the 5800 block of South Maplewood when someone walked up to him and fired shots, authorities said. Wilson, who lived on the same block as the shooting, suffered multiple gunshot wounds to the back and was taken to Stroger Hospital, where he died at 8:41 p.m".
Carbon copy of the above - this was either someone out to kill another person for the sheer experience of it or was a deliberate killing over some form of criminal commerce. In either case, to call this "gun violence" rather than simply violence is an agenda-driven interpretation.
I could go on, but all of the examples would say the same thing. Such killing is tragic. But what is worse is that those who blame it on guns are saying that some people are simply irredeemable and evil or too immature and uncivilized to live around firearms, to have rights. Rather than address the situation, they are, in essence, saying "We can't let these children have guns."
Monday, June 27, 2016
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Today's "Can you f'n believe this?"
Not sure this will go everyday- but periodically want to share some of the "WTF" moments I have. Misery loves company.
1. Loretta Lynch(a):
"Our common humanity transcends our differences, and our most effective response to terror is compassion, it’s unity and it’s love."
Where to begin?
- She really thinks that the way to combat people who want to kill you and have shown their willingness to do so in most gruesome ways is give them a group hug? You turn the other cheek, I'll cover you.
- Okay, maybe she means that those under siege should hug each other. If that's her idea, then I await the day when she and Wayne LaPierre have a big hug, when she hugs all the folks her boss and his sock puppets routinely call homophobes, islamophobes, racists, domestic terrorists, gun nuts, "clingers to God and guns" and the like. Can she just be honest this once: For her to talk this way is just absurd since she is part of an administration that has presided over and facilitated the great division of American society. From "Clinging to God and guns..." to "Police acted stupidly" to "If I had a son..." and so on, the idea solidarity beyond their own bases (or what they think is their own base) is truly the furthest thing from this administration's mind and this faux "love stuff" routine clearly refers only to its constituents.
So much for "common humanity".
Loretta Lynch(b): Yes, she's been on a roll today - Susan Rice better watch out.
"I'm not going to go into the detail of the process behind it. Our review was not to further spread the propaganda, but once it became a distraction, we released the whole transcript."
By now it is well known that earlier in the week DOJ released a transcript of the killer's calls during the Orlando killings - a transcript that was much censored and redacted. After a great deal of outrage that they could somehow take it upon themselves to decide what we should be allowed to see (especially given that the redaction was so ham-handed and it did not take a rocket scientists to fill in the blanks), a decision was made to release the full transcript. The quote above was her response when asked who had made the initial decision to redact the original.
It has been well-documented over several years that there has been a determined effort guided form the top to purge policy, intelligence, and training documents of any references to Islamic terrorism and its inherent vocabulary (e.g., jihad, sharia). It does not take much to recognize that same tactic in this inept attempt. The buck stops at the top. If the person who did it is not publicly admonished and fired then we know where it came from.
Goes back to the point above. Lots of love for some, lots of hate for others.
2. Charlie Rangel: The Clown Prince of Harlem. COuld likely get re-elected even if frozen body parts were found in his freezer.
“Well law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun,” Rangel responded. “You know that, so you’re not going to push me in that direction.”
“But you’re protected by guns all over the place here in the Capitol,” she pointed out.
Rangel laughed at that. “Well that’s a little different,” he chuckled. “I think we deserve–I think we need to be protected down here.”
- Not seeing much about this revelation in the major "news" outlets. News ;<)? Shocking - but I guess they don't want anyone to see that, yes, there are those who want to "come for your guns". Not good for Hillary's narrative or all those who think gun owners are paranoid.
- It is so refreshing for a liberal democrat to finally say this out loud and even more so for an interviewer to have finally asked one of these hypocrites this question. It always boils down to this. As one might expect from Rangel, given his limited intelligence and vast ego, he actually answered this honestly, reflecting what the democrat/liberal political class thinks of the rest of us.
- They are important enough to require protection, provided by the very people that they consider too menial to "deserve" it. We are left to call 911 and wait for the "response time" to pass.
Not likely Charlie.
3. Democrat sit-in:
Let them sit, stand, cry, whine, have their tantrum. That's how you deal with out-of-control children when they misbehave in public places. Don't argue or try to reason, don't give them the attention they desire, simply walk away and let them hold their breath and stomp their feet. When they realize no one is coming to save them, no one cares, they will catch up with you later.
Acting childish does not prove they are right, it proves they are immature. And given the issue over which they are having their tantrum, is simply takes us back to points 1 and 2.
4. More democrat sit-in or the end of it - such sacrifice. I hope none of them developed PTSD.
From the pardon my redundancy department, but some people never listen. These are the bills on which they are demanding votes:
- Bar those on a no-fly list from buying firearms: Now, let's just ponder this for a minute. Raise your hand if you were alive and listening during GWB's 8 years. Do you remember how aghast all of us - these people, too - were that the government might be surveying and keeping lists of people they considered threats - lists that were not open to the public. Now, fast-forward to today and her they all sit, whining for using secret government lists that no one has access to and no one can easily get off of to curtail basic rights. Take that in - really think about what they are saying. they have not values - the new America in which we live is lead by valueless people. Surveillance and black-lists are not bad unless it is your opponents who use them. If your party's president wants to create lists of undesirables without any due process, no big deal.
- Requiring background checks for gun purchases at gun shows and online: How many times do you people need to be told? I have bought many firearms at gun shows and have never bought one without a background check. There is no "gun show loophole". Private sellers can meet anywhere to conduct business. I have bought firearms from online vendors - and never without them being routed through FFLs for background checks. Again, making a deal through email and then meeting is a private sale, not an "internet loophole". You spend too much time sitting on your brains.
So - can you f/n believe this?
1. Loretta Lynch(a):
"Our common humanity transcends our differences, and our most effective response to terror is compassion, it’s unity and it’s love."
Where to begin?
- She really thinks that the way to combat people who want to kill you and have shown their willingness to do so in most gruesome ways is give them a group hug? You turn the other cheek, I'll cover you.
- Okay, maybe she means that those under siege should hug each other. If that's her idea, then I await the day when she and Wayne LaPierre have a big hug, when she hugs all the folks her boss and his sock puppets routinely call homophobes, islamophobes, racists, domestic terrorists, gun nuts, "clingers to God and guns" and the like. Can she just be honest this once: For her to talk this way is just absurd since she is part of an administration that has presided over and facilitated the great division of American society. From "Clinging to God and guns..." to "Police acted stupidly" to "If I had a son..." and so on, the idea solidarity beyond their own bases (or what they think is their own base) is truly the furthest thing from this administration's mind and this faux "love stuff" routine clearly refers only to its constituents.
So much for "common humanity".
Loretta Lynch(b): Yes, she's been on a roll today - Susan Rice better watch out.
"I'm not going to go into the detail of the process behind it. Our review was not to further spread the propaganda, but once it became a distraction, we released the whole transcript."
By now it is well known that earlier in the week DOJ released a transcript of the killer's calls during the Orlando killings - a transcript that was much censored and redacted. After a great deal of outrage that they could somehow take it upon themselves to decide what we should be allowed to see (especially given that the redaction was so ham-handed and it did not take a rocket scientists to fill in the blanks), a decision was made to release the full transcript. The quote above was her response when asked who had made the initial decision to redact the original.
It has been well-documented over several years that there has been a determined effort guided form the top to purge policy, intelligence, and training documents of any references to Islamic terrorism and its inherent vocabulary (e.g., jihad, sharia). It does not take much to recognize that same tactic in this inept attempt. The buck stops at the top. If the person who did it is not publicly admonished and fired then we know where it came from.
Goes back to the point above. Lots of love for some, lots of hate for others.
2. Charlie Rangel: The Clown Prince of Harlem. COuld likely get re-elected even if frozen body parts were found in his freezer.
“Well law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun,” Rangel responded. “You know that, so you’re not going to push me in that direction.”
“But you’re protected by guns all over the place here in the Capitol,” she pointed out.
Rangel laughed at that. “Well that’s a little different,” he chuckled. “I think we deserve–I think we need to be protected down here.”
- It is so refreshing for a liberal democrat to finally say this out loud and even more so for an interviewer to have finally asked one of these hypocrites this question. It always boils down to this. As one might expect from Rangel, given his limited intelligence and vast ego, he actually answered this honestly, reflecting what the democrat/liberal political class thinks of the rest of us.
- They are important enough to require protection, provided by the very people that they consider too menial to "deserve" it. We are left to call 911 and wait for the "response time" to pass.
Not likely Charlie.
3. Democrat sit-in:
Let them sit, stand, cry, whine, have their tantrum. That's how you deal with out-of-control children when they misbehave in public places. Don't argue or try to reason, don't give them the attention they desire, simply walk away and let them hold their breath and stomp their feet. When they realize no one is coming to save them, no one cares, they will catch up with you later.
Acting childish does not prove they are right, it proves they are immature. And given the issue over which they are having their tantrum, is simply takes us back to points 1 and 2.
4. More democrat sit-in or the end of it - such sacrifice. I hope none of them developed PTSD.
From the pardon my redundancy department, but some people never listen. These are the bills on which they are demanding votes:
- Bar those on a no-fly list from buying firearms: Now, let's just ponder this for a minute. Raise your hand if you were alive and listening during GWB's 8 years. Do you remember how aghast all of us - these people, too - were that the government might be surveying and keeping lists of people they considered threats - lists that were not open to the public. Now, fast-forward to today and her they all sit, whining for using secret government lists that no one has access to and no one can easily get off of to curtail basic rights. Take that in - really think about what they are saying. they have not values - the new America in which we live is lead by valueless people. Surveillance and black-lists are not bad unless it is your opponents who use them. If your party's president wants to create lists of undesirables without any due process, no big deal.
- Requiring background checks for gun purchases at gun shows and online: How many times do you people need to be told? I have bought many firearms at gun shows and have never bought one without a background check. There is no "gun show loophole". Private sellers can meet anywhere to conduct business. I have bought firearms from online vendors - and never without them being routed through FFLs for background checks. Again, making a deal through email and then meeting is a private sale, not an "internet loophole". You spend too much time sitting on your brains.
So - can you f/n believe this?
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Where did all that division come from?
I'd like to preface my remarks here by acknowledging that I voted for Obama twice. At this point, I am ashamed to admit that - it is a great embarrassment to me. I even remember, in 2008, convincing people that he was a good choice, that he was up to the job. I remember defending him to people in 2012. I am ashamed to say that it took me while to see the error of my ways. Perhaps it was that, after winning his second term, the full plan was set in motion.
Confession is good for the soul, I suppose, but this one hurts. I apologize.
We keep hearing more about division. We keep hearing about Black Lives Matter, Homophobia, Islamophobia, the Evil NRA - and so on and so on. We hear that we are a more divided people than ever - a situation that is decried by even our fearless leader - so he says. He says we can't use terms like "Radical Islam" because it is divisive and will offend. We are told that we need to be sensitive to the needs of large groups of [fill-in-the-blank]-Americans.
Yep - that's what they say. But where in the world did the divisions we are experiencing really come from? Who decided that progress would best be made in forwarding their agenda by creating enemies within our own society?
1. Perhaps one can trace it even further back, but I think in modern history, the tale of divide and conquer in America begins with our first black presidential candidate asserting that "...it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Thus, it is us and them, we are good, they are evil.
2. It becomes more modern with Clinton - fast forward to this election cycle and now we have the first female "presumptive" nominee for president: “I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,"
And that is what passes for thoughtful conversation. "Let's sit down and talk about how you're a terrorist." Thoughtful conversation always goes better when it is among those who already agree.
No - absolutely not - no one could ever disagree with you unless they were stupid, gullible enough that the NRA could dupe them into thinking you are as anti-gun as you truly are, or were a terrorist. Fundamental transformation.
Thus, even after an event like that in Orlando, it is not the shooter, not his religious belief, but guns and gun owners who are to blame. That's her idea of a thoughtful conversation.
3. Let's get more small town - don't leave the yocals out. Even the small town folks can get ignorant when they want to. Here we have Durham City NC Councilwoman Jillian Johnson: “I am all about keeping guns away from dangerous people, but I feel like more of us should be pointing out that the most dangerous people with guns are cops and soldiers, and that the no-fly list and FBI anti-terror efforts are seriously corrupted by entrapment, racial profiling and Islamophobia.”
Yep - all of these mechanisms are simply meant to thwart social justice (she does know that they are part of the Obama administration, doesn't she?). The folks whose service (and nope, not all soldiers or LEOs are angels) allow this SJW to feel safe and secure enough to "tweet" stupidity are also so evil that we shouldn't trust them.
What is is that a terrorist force wanting to take over a nation without firing a shot (or at least not too many) would do?
- Those Christian folks in small towns are the enemy (Obama).
- The millions (many millions) of gun owners in America who disagree with our thoughtful ideas to disarm them are terrorists (Clinton).
- The police and military are the most danger to us and should be disarmed (Johnson).
Now these folks and their kind will tell you that it is Trump who has set us all against each other, that his calls for "banning" (which is not really what he has described) Muslims divides us. But it is clear this all started before Trump was even an inkling of a political nightmare. Even GWB was not this divisive, perhaps because he was not as sophisticated and socially skilled as Obama.
We have, under this administration, become a nation where we cannot afford to offend protected groups, but are encouraged to demonize our fellow Americans. We need look no further than the countries in the EU, the canaries in the coal mine, to see where this will lead.
Well, Western civilization was fun while it lasted. I never would have expected it would be brought down so willingly, without a fight.
Confession is good for the soul, I suppose, but this one hurts. I apologize.
We keep hearing more about division. We keep hearing about Black Lives Matter, Homophobia, Islamophobia, the Evil NRA - and so on and so on. We hear that we are a more divided people than ever - a situation that is decried by even our fearless leader - so he says. He says we can't use terms like "Radical Islam" because it is divisive and will offend. We are told that we need to be sensitive to the needs of large groups of [fill-in-the-blank]-Americans.
Yep - that's what they say. But where in the world did the divisions we are experiencing really come from? Who decided that progress would best be made in forwarding their agenda by creating enemies within our own society?
1. Perhaps one can trace it even further back, but I think in modern history, the tale of divide and conquer in America begins with our first black presidential candidate asserting that "...it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Thus, it is us and them, we are good, they are evil.
2. It becomes more modern with Clinton - fast forward to this election cycle and now we have the first female "presumptive" nominee for president: “I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,"
And that is what passes for thoughtful conversation. "Let's sit down and talk about how you're a terrorist." Thoughtful conversation always goes better when it is among those who already agree.
No - absolutely not - no one could ever disagree with you unless they were stupid, gullible enough that the NRA could dupe them into thinking you are as anti-gun as you truly are, or were a terrorist. Fundamental transformation.
Thus, even after an event like that in Orlando, it is not the shooter, not his religious belief, but guns and gun owners who are to blame. That's her idea of a thoughtful conversation.
3. Let's get more small town - don't leave the yocals out. Even the small town folks can get ignorant when they want to. Here we have Durham City NC Councilwoman Jillian Johnson: “I am all about keeping guns away from dangerous people, but I feel like more of us should be pointing out that the most dangerous people with guns are cops and soldiers, and that the no-fly list and FBI anti-terror efforts are seriously corrupted by entrapment, racial profiling and Islamophobia.”
Yep - all of these mechanisms are simply meant to thwart social justice (she does know that they are part of the Obama administration, doesn't she?). The folks whose service (and nope, not all soldiers or LEOs are angels) allow this SJW to feel safe and secure enough to "tweet" stupidity are also so evil that we shouldn't trust them.
What is is that a terrorist force wanting to take over a nation without firing a shot (or at least not too many) would do?
- Those Christian folks in small towns are the enemy (Obama).
- The millions (many millions) of gun owners in America who disagree with our thoughtful ideas to disarm them are terrorists (Clinton).
- The police and military are the most danger to us and should be disarmed (Johnson).
Now these folks and their kind will tell you that it is Trump who has set us all against each other, that his calls for "banning" (which is not really what he has described) Muslims divides us. But it is clear this all started before Trump was even an inkling of a political nightmare. Even GWB was not this divisive, perhaps because he was not as sophisticated and socially skilled as Obama.
We have, under this administration, become a nation where we cannot afford to offend protected groups, but are encouraged to demonize our fellow Americans. We need look no further than the countries in the EU, the canaries in the coal mine, to see where this will lead.
Well, Western civilization was fun while it lasted. I never would have expected it would be brought down so willingly, without a fight.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Only in today's America...
...would anyone ever think that we can defeat terrorism and defend ourselves against terror at home by hacking into a terrorist organization's website and making them look gay, by embarrassing them. You know, if, as The Lecturer-in-Chief thinks, calling them Radical Islamic terrorists will offend your routine, everyday Muslim, what does he think these pictures will say to them, how do they react?
Laugh it up! Once we have incrementally been disarmed - first those nasty ARs, then, when that makes no difference, handguns and concealed carry, then when that doesn't work (because evil will get through), the Second Amendment itself - we can only hope that keyboard warriors can somehow reach out and disable terrorist killers.
Somehow I doubt it.
Laugh it up! Once we have incrementally been disarmed - first those nasty ARs, then, when that makes no difference, handguns and concealed carry, then when that doesn't work (because evil will get through), the Second Amendment itself - we can only hope that keyboard warriors can somehow reach out and disable terrorist killers.
Somehow I doubt it.
Friday, June 17, 2016
Never enough dumb shit to go around
Heard the other day that Sarasota County Commissioners were going to vote to ban "assault rifles". First thought was can't happen; Florida has strong preemption laws that outlaw such conduct.
Now it has become apparent that they are not trying to outlaw, simply to pass a "resolution" (BFD) that urges the Florida legislature and US Congress to do so. The linked article - and others it links to - makes great points.
Meet Mr. Barwin.
Sorry about that - I couldn't help it! It just seems abundantly clear to me that he is interested in forwarding terrorist objectives.
Now it has become apparent that they are not trying to outlaw, simply to pass a "resolution" (BFD) that urges the Florida legislature and US Congress to do so. The linked article - and others it links to - makes great points.
Meet Mr. Barwin.
Sorry about that - I couldn't help it! It just seems abundantly clear to me that he is interested in forwarding terrorist objectives.
Really?
As the gleeful blood-dancing of the left in pursuit of gun control continues (e.g., Clyburn - this is not about terror, it is about guns? Jesus H. Christmas! Sympathizer, appeaser, collaborator.) comes an article on Huffington Post announces proudly that "UK Gun Laws ‘Saved Tube Knife Attack From Turning Into Orlando Style Massacre".
Not one to want to mock tragedy, but always wiling to follow someone else's example, how did those strict gun laws work out in Paris?
OK - for the however millionth time: If this is true - that is, if Huffington Post really believe this and the UK actually thinks its policies prevent people getting firearms and using them, the notion that this can be applied to the US is foolish. Fortunately for the UK, at least so far, it is an island nation, it shares no border across which illegals, drugs and weapons can flow fairly freely. If Australia can claim any benefit from its gun restriction policy (questionable) it too must acknowledge that it does not share land borders that are porous to a wide range of illegal transgressions.
Geography lesson - the US is not so fortunate and shares a couple of long land borders (even more so than France). One of those, as we already know, is simply a line on a map, easily crossed on a regular basis. For years the US has tried (or at least said it wanted to) to stop illegals and drugs from coming into the US. Attempts to interdict drug flow into the country from numerous outside sources have failed. We also know, via Fast and Furious, that firearms can readily cross that border. The point of that operation was to prove it and it did - in lethal fashion for some people.
I would ask if you really believe that we could stop the flow of illegal weapons into criminal and terrorist hands, that somehow what has befallen other western nations who have restricted gun ownership, it will never happen here. Problem is, once the rights are lost, the nation is lost, and once the nation is lost, neither will return again.
Liberals and Huffington Post believe in unicorns, too.
Statim finis prope est.
Not one to want to mock tragedy, but always wiling to follow someone else's example, how did those strict gun laws work out in Paris?
OK - for the however millionth time: If this is true - that is, if Huffington Post really believe this and the UK actually thinks its policies prevent people getting firearms and using them, the notion that this can be applied to the US is foolish. Fortunately for the UK, at least so far, it is an island nation, it shares no border across which illegals, drugs and weapons can flow fairly freely. If Australia can claim any benefit from its gun restriction policy (questionable) it too must acknowledge that it does not share land borders that are porous to a wide range of illegal transgressions.
Geography lesson - the US is not so fortunate and shares a couple of long land borders (even more so than France). One of those, as we already know, is simply a line on a map, easily crossed on a regular basis. For years the US has tried (or at least said it wanted to) to stop illegals and drugs from coming into the US. Attempts to interdict drug flow into the country from numerous outside sources have failed. We also know, via Fast and Furious, that firearms can readily cross that border. The point of that operation was to prove it and it did - in lethal fashion for some people.
I would ask if you really believe that we could stop the flow of illegal weapons into criminal and terrorist hands, that somehow what has befallen other western nations who have restricted gun ownership, it will never happen here. Problem is, once the rights are lost, the nation is lost, and once the nation is lost, neither will return again.
Liberals and Huffington Post believe in unicorns, too.
Statim finis prope est.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
If Obama had a son he'd look like Omar Mateen
One of the "trending" (damn, I hate that word) things (is that what their called) recently has been this campaign of taking pictures of those sinners who are "anti-LGBT" and putting the words "I am Omar Mateen" over them. My disclaimer: I am not anti-LGBT. As I have said many times, I am "anti fuck with me". Leave me alone. Well, and "anti-dumb shit".
Anyway I could not find any of the identified demon spawn that I particularly liked - as close as I could get was Wayne LaPierre, given that he is not a politician and I am an NRA member. HE, like Trump, is often his own worst enemy, but he is defending a right I hold dear, so he is tolerable.
The sample is below.
Now some think this is about as clever as it can be; it makes them downright giddy.
Don't think I recall Imam Wayne calling for gays to be sent to meet Allah. Maybe to the restroom that reflects the sex of their birth, but not the noose.
To borrow a phrase liberals like to use a lot, whenever they want to criticize straight talk and calling things what they are - whenever their "Islamophobia" radar goes off - and say that I think this is "Playing right into the terrorists' hands" - much more so than using the dreaded term "Radical Islam" that seems to get liberal and democrat and presidential panties in such a wad (e.g., easy to find footage of the ProfessorOTUS getting all pissy about it).
I hate to think that some people are simply histrionic or opportunistic (I do, but I hate it), but are they really stupid or manipulative enough to miss the difference between vehement philosophical disagreement over gay rights, gay marriage and transgender bathrooms and homicide? Is it not clear yet what real serious "Anti-LGBT" looks like (hmmm...try here)? I would have hoped that this would be a wake-up call to at least the LGBT community - if not everyone - that while living in a free and democratic society where people will openly and strongly disagree and debate - and sometimes even discriminate - may often feel and even be oppressive, shit can get a while lot worse. Not getting your wedding cake and having to use a certain bathroom should seem like Christmas compared to Sunday morning at the Pulse. I don't want to belittle tragedy or anyones' struggles, but being alive to fight the good fight for equality beats being dead, don't it? Would to me.
Apparently, it is considered creative to equate that society - the one that allows for much individual freedom and expression from all sides, even if it is not enough - with one that that is theocratic and prescribes killing gays to save them. If all of the people listed presented this clever jab were really Omar Mateen, LGBT folk would have been done in long before he got to the club. We fight about race, sexuality, gender, and whatever, but we rarely kill each other in large numbers over such things. So please try to join reality before it is too late and the next Omar takes out the next 49 or more. Perhaps you really don't care if you can make political gains off of it? Stick and stones and all that shit - in the real world that crashed into the Pulse, this isn't just names, cakes, bathrooms, even discrimination - it is real, it is here, and you need allies, not enemies.
It is clear that most liberals are more comfortable condemning their own country-people (almost said men there - is that a microaggression? ;<)). Why? I have at least one idea; because for all the hilarious critique and condemnation of the Cruzs, Trumps, Gingrichs, Palins and others in this country, the clever critics know there are no repercussions, that no one will come and drag them out of their homes here, stone them, throw them from bridges or parking garages, that none of those people will storm their clubs. Even the Westboro folks haven't shot up a club yet.
If these critics were to butch-up and post a picture of Mohammed, even without the catchy caption or sex toys, they would need to have armed guards, if even that would help (you really can't stop someone who is willing to die in the act, you can just help them die sooner). So the conundrum is that they seemingly hate this country, at least a large proportion of the people in it, yet they know they are safe in it. I suspect they won't be moving to Saudi Arabia any time soon (speaking of stones) or going to Mateen's local mosque.
Now consider - think hard - what is the goal of terrorism? What outcomes facilitate the goals of terrorists? Well, let's deal with this idea of radical v. happy/happy Muslims first. It seems that, just as with Christian sects, Muslims vary in their proclivity toward forcing shariah law on others, to commit violence and slay the infidels. They may consider it appropriate, but are willing to wait and see it happen than work actively toward it. This is, of course, why Obama got so pissy the other day - tell them to stop pestering me about saying those words (kind of like the nights who say neh!). "We need to be nice so they will help us." But it seems that, even if the large mass of Muslims are not radical or jihadis, that they do see where their religion says the future should go, they are justmroe passive about it. And they are ineffective in controlling those who are violent (hence the massive migration to anywhere). Even though they are at greater risk worldwide than the rest of us (at least until recently), they are passive. They do not seem willing to resist or capable of it. There were clear indications that people knew of Mateen's intentions, as well as those of the San Bernandino terrorists, but no one came forward. It's not me, I'm not doing it. Are they condoning it? What are they waiting for? I do not think they care. Seems another case where to goal is to be nice and inclusive to everyone except the white, God-fearing, gun-toting folk.
But, anyway - this was one man - minimal investment - committing a religiously motivated evil act - consistent with the religious teaching as noted in the video above - in the name of an enemy who looks to see this nation and the non-Muslim world disintegrate, end in subjugation. So, what better outcome than for the citizens of this nation turn on each other? How better to play this game than to divide and conquer, watch as we do their work for them? How better to ensure potential victory and large body counts than to either convince a people to disarm themselves, to eschew personal protection or to facilitate an internal shooting war over it?
This is why people question the current administration. Because while they resist talking about terrorists in harsh terms, they have no qualms about calling their fellow Americans terrorists simply because they disagree. The NRA is terrorist - well, the NRA is 5 million Americans. Painting with a broad brush there - not something anyone is supposed to do if it is Muslims. Obama, from day one to a few days ago, has made his bones by dividing people, pointing to enemies at every term like a petulant child who is not getting his way or doesn't like how people are talking about him. Telling people who to blame for where they are. If he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon, a young hoodlum who was killed in self-defense by a white Hispanic male who he was trying to kill. No words about drugs or crime, just divisive rhetoric calculated to separate the country, to create a "fundamental transformation". Then there's "the police acted stupidly" incident. If there is division in this nation, Obama has nurtured it all along the way.
So here we are - in the midst of this transformation, a tragic social experiment that we may never recover from, and many contemplating reenlisting for the more of the same. The ideology-based terror we have seen come to Europe has now come to our shores, yet many here look to Europe as a model for our future. We had our Bataclan at, of all places, a gay nightclub in Orlando. People are fearful, people need something to fear and Obama, Clinton, and their ilk are eager to give them someone to blame. Our president and devotees see an opportunity to further the transformation, so they immediately come full circle and finds enemies in those who "cling to their God and their guns". It was not Omar Mateen or even his dedication to some form of Islam that did this, it was conservative politicians, Christians and gun owners who did it. It was not evil intent whether mainstream or radical Islam, it was the guns.
It'll get worse before it gets better, if it ever does. If this continues, I suspect violence is going to become a way of life for us, whether of foreign or domestic origin. Meanwhile, those who would destroy us will be laughing at our foolishness and how willing most Americans were to become prey.
Anyway I could not find any of the identified demon spawn that I particularly liked - as close as I could get was Wayne LaPierre, given that he is not a politician and I am an NRA member. HE, like Trump, is often his own worst enemy, but he is defending a right I hold dear, so he is tolerable.
The sample is below.
Now some think this is about as clever as it can be; it makes them downright giddy.
Don't think I recall Imam Wayne calling for gays to be sent to meet Allah. Maybe to the restroom that reflects the sex of their birth, but not the noose.
To borrow a phrase liberals like to use a lot, whenever they want to criticize straight talk and calling things what they are - whenever their "Islamophobia" radar goes off - and say that I think this is "Playing right into the terrorists' hands" - much more so than using the dreaded term "Radical Islam" that seems to get liberal and democrat and presidential panties in such a wad (e.g., easy to find footage of the ProfessorOTUS getting all pissy about it).
I hate to think that some people are simply histrionic or opportunistic (I do, but I hate it), but are they really stupid or manipulative enough to miss the difference between vehement philosophical disagreement over gay rights, gay marriage and transgender bathrooms and homicide? Is it not clear yet what real serious "Anti-LGBT" looks like (hmmm...try here)? I would have hoped that this would be a wake-up call to at least the LGBT community - if not everyone - that while living in a free and democratic society where people will openly and strongly disagree and debate - and sometimes even discriminate - may often feel and even be oppressive, shit can get a while lot worse. Not getting your wedding cake and having to use a certain bathroom should seem like Christmas compared to Sunday morning at the Pulse. I don't want to belittle tragedy or anyones' struggles, but being alive to fight the good fight for equality beats being dead, don't it? Would to me.
Apparently, it is considered creative to equate that society - the one that allows for much individual freedom and expression from all sides, even if it is not enough - with one that that is theocratic and prescribes killing gays to save them. If all of the people listed presented this clever jab were really Omar Mateen, LGBT folk would have been done in long before he got to the club. We fight about race, sexuality, gender, and whatever, but we rarely kill each other in large numbers over such things. So please try to join reality before it is too late and the next Omar takes out the next 49 or more. Perhaps you really don't care if you can make political gains off of it? Stick and stones and all that shit - in the real world that crashed into the Pulse, this isn't just names, cakes, bathrooms, even discrimination - it is real, it is here, and you need allies, not enemies.
It is clear that most liberals are more comfortable condemning their own country-people (almost said men there - is that a microaggression? ;<)). Why? I have at least one idea; because for all the hilarious critique and condemnation of the Cruzs, Trumps, Gingrichs, Palins and others in this country, the clever critics know there are no repercussions, that no one will come and drag them out of their homes here, stone them, throw them from bridges or parking garages, that none of those people will storm their clubs. Even the Westboro folks haven't shot up a club yet.
If these critics were to butch-up and post a picture of Mohammed, even without the catchy caption or sex toys, they would need to have armed guards, if even that would help (you really can't stop someone who is willing to die in the act, you can just help them die sooner). So the conundrum is that they seemingly hate this country, at least a large proportion of the people in it, yet they know they are safe in it. I suspect they won't be moving to Saudi Arabia any time soon (speaking of stones) or going to Mateen's local mosque.
Now consider - think hard - what is the goal of terrorism? What outcomes facilitate the goals of terrorists? Well, let's deal with this idea of radical v. happy/happy Muslims first. It seems that, just as with Christian sects, Muslims vary in their proclivity toward forcing shariah law on others, to commit violence and slay the infidels. They may consider it appropriate, but are willing to wait and see it happen than work actively toward it. This is, of course, why Obama got so pissy the other day - tell them to stop pestering me about saying those words (kind of like the nights who say neh!). "We need to be nice so they will help us." But it seems that, even if the large mass of Muslims are not radical or jihadis, that they do see where their religion says the future should go, they are justmroe passive about it. And they are ineffective in controlling those who are violent (hence the massive migration to anywhere). Even though they are at greater risk worldwide than the rest of us (at least until recently), they are passive. They do not seem willing to resist or capable of it. There were clear indications that people knew of Mateen's intentions, as well as those of the San Bernandino terrorists, but no one came forward. It's not me, I'm not doing it. Are they condoning it? What are they waiting for? I do not think they care. Seems another case where to goal is to be nice and inclusive to everyone except the white, God-fearing, gun-toting folk.
But, anyway - this was one man - minimal investment - committing a religiously motivated evil act - consistent with the religious teaching as noted in the video above - in the name of an enemy who looks to see this nation and the non-Muslim world disintegrate, end in subjugation. So, what better outcome than for the citizens of this nation turn on each other? How better to play this game than to divide and conquer, watch as we do their work for them? How better to ensure potential victory and large body counts than to either convince a people to disarm themselves, to eschew personal protection or to facilitate an internal shooting war over it?
This is why people question the current administration. Because while they resist talking about terrorists in harsh terms, they have no qualms about calling their fellow Americans terrorists simply because they disagree. The NRA is terrorist - well, the NRA is 5 million Americans. Painting with a broad brush there - not something anyone is supposed to do if it is Muslims. Obama, from day one to a few days ago, has made his bones by dividing people, pointing to enemies at every term like a petulant child who is not getting his way or doesn't like how people are talking about him. Telling people who to blame for where they are. If he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon, a young hoodlum who was killed in self-defense by a white Hispanic male who he was trying to kill. No words about drugs or crime, just divisive rhetoric calculated to separate the country, to create a "fundamental transformation". Then there's "the police acted stupidly" incident. If there is division in this nation, Obama has nurtured it all along the way.
So here we are - in the midst of this transformation, a tragic social experiment that we may never recover from, and many contemplating reenlisting for the more of the same. The ideology-based terror we have seen come to Europe has now come to our shores, yet many here look to Europe as a model for our future. We had our Bataclan at, of all places, a gay nightclub in Orlando. People are fearful, people need something to fear and Obama, Clinton, and their ilk are eager to give them someone to blame. Our president and devotees see an opportunity to further the transformation, so they immediately come full circle and finds enemies in those who "cling to their God and their guns". It was not Omar Mateen or even his dedication to some form of Islam that did this, it was conservative politicians, Christians and gun owners who did it. It was not evil intent whether mainstream or radical Islam, it was the guns.
It'll get worse before it gets better, if it ever does. If this continues, I suspect violence is going to become a way of life for us, whether of foreign or domestic origin. Meanwhile, those who would destroy us will be laughing at our foolishness and how willing most Americans were to become prey.
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Can we talk about this now?
No need to rehash the details of the slaughter in Orlando - most of the details are out there, at least the ones that the media thinks we need to know (e.g., number dead, number injured, the emotional consequences) with more to come as the days go by. Certainly we have enough to draw some lessons and conclusions.
Folks love them some phobias! Homophobia! Islamophobia!
On the homophobia side, what do we know? This attack was motivated by anti-LGBT sentiment (full story of seeing men kissing is available in numerous places). And let's be clear - as is evidenced by the shooter's own father in a follow-up video, this is an issue of religion. In this video, which I suppose was an apology, the father said that his son was wrong for killing the gays - that Allah would punish them. So - sorry junior did this, although the victims deserved punishment, it was not his place. Yep- its the religion! And now it is being suggested he regularly visited the club.
Conclusion to be drawn: A society and culture that are indiscriminately inclusive will, ultimately, open the doors and welcome those who are not, leading to their own demise.
On the Islamophobia side: If there is a word that spews forth from the mouths of liberals even more frequently than "Common sense gun laws" it must be "Islamophobia" and it is usually accompanied by hair on fire and a pointing finger. We could engage in a long discussion of the misuse of the word "phobia" and the fact that the concept exists at one end of a continuum and is misapplied as a binary judgement. Not liking, not supporting, being wary of, suspicious of, maintaining situational awareness around or criticizing is not phobia. But when people of certain ideologies commit mass murder, well, some concern is called for. But amazingly, liberals are more concerned with upsetting Muslims than they are non-Muslims, be they gun owners or gays who re, after all, expendable by Islam's standards. Even your lecturer in chief, in his comments today, spent time denigrating those in this country who believe in gun rights, then spend even more time telling us we cannot us bad words that might insult those of that other faith.
This double-standard is not new. Case in point: Dylann Roof and Confederate flag. One man (well, boy) motivated by hate for a group, commits mass murder. If Hillary Clinton had moved any faster to condemn a whole subculture of Americans she would have broken her cankles and lost a pound. But one man (well, madman) motivated by hate for a group, commits an even bigger mass murder and she can't run quickly enough to defend the culture from which he hails. It is okay to condemn by association when it fits an agenda and dividing the American public is part of the agenda of modern liberals.
Conclusion to be drawn: Islam is not a religion of peace, unless you are a Muslim and,even then, not necessarily. The ideology is coming here and bringing violence with it. Gays are just the first target, being a special case of non-believer. We are all dhimmi, but some have the chance to revert or die while others must simply die. Liberals think that working to secure our nation will hurt others' feelings, thinking that if they "buddy up" with people, we can all sing kumbayah and somehow this violent ancient religion will come around.
But in the aftermath of the Orlando massacre, can we please talk about Islam now? Can we talk about the fact that it is not just a religion, but a social system with its own laws? Other groups who have immigrated to this nation have not come here with another set of laws that their religions mandates they impose on others. Can we talk about the fact that it (okay, let's even say certain segments of it) condemns homosexuality? I am no fan of homosexuality, but gay people cna rest assured that I am not a threat to them. Like most Americans, don't mess with me or tell me what to do and we will get along. Can we talk about its inherent misogyny? If people want to talk about "rape culture" well there you go. Can we talk about the fact that our nation is founded on inclusiveness, both from a religious and a social standpoint, yet when that inclusiveness welcomes in those who do not believe in it, something has to give? Can we get past the "yes, but..." that one gets whenever they talk of such things?
Why are liberals so hesitant to piss off immigrant groups, yet so eager to piss off the fellow Americans, be they southerners, gun owners, Christians, conservatives, or whoever. Why are they so ready to risk a shooting war?
More later on the absurd briefing today from our dear leader.
Folks love them some phobias! Homophobia! Islamophobia!
Conclusion to be drawn: A society and culture that are indiscriminately inclusive will, ultimately, open the doors and welcome those who are not, leading to their own demise.
On the Islamophobia side: If there is a word that spews forth from the mouths of liberals even more frequently than "Common sense gun laws" it must be "Islamophobia" and it is usually accompanied by hair on fire and a pointing finger. We could engage in a long discussion of the misuse of the word "phobia" and the fact that the concept exists at one end of a continuum and is misapplied as a binary judgement. Not liking, not supporting, being wary of, suspicious of, maintaining situational awareness around or criticizing is not phobia. But when people of certain ideologies commit mass murder, well, some concern is called for. But amazingly, liberals are more concerned with upsetting Muslims than they are non-Muslims, be they gun owners or gays who re, after all, expendable by Islam's standards. Even your lecturer in chief, in his comments today, spent time denigrating those in this country who believe in gun rights, then spend even more time telling us we cannot us bad words that might insult those of that other faith.
This double-standard is not new. Case in point: Dylann Roof and Confederate flag. One man (well, boy) motivated by hate for a group, commits mass murder. If Hillary Clinton had moved any faster to condemn a whole subculture of Americans she would have broken her cankles and lost a pound. But one man (well, madman) motivated by hate for a group, commits an even bigger mass murder and she can't run quickly enough to defend the culture from which he hails. It is okay to condemn by association when it fits an agenda and dividing the American public is part of the agenda of modern liberals.
Conclusion to be drawn: Islam is not a religion of peace, unless you are a Muslim and,even then, not necessarily. The ideology is coming here and bringing violence with it. Gays are just the first target, being a special case of non-believer. We are all dhimmi, but some have the chance to revert or die while others must simply die. Liberals think that working to secure our nation will hurt others' feelings, thinking that if they "buddy up" with people, we can all sing kumbayah and somehow this violent ancient religion will come around.
But in the aftermath of the Orlando massacre, can we please talk about Islam now? Can we talk about the fact that it is not just a religion, but a social system with its own laws? Other groups who have immigrated to this nation have not come here with another set of laws that their religions mandates they impose on others. Can we talk about the fact that it (okay, let's even say certain segments of it) condemns homosexuality? I am no fan of homosexuality, but gay people cna rest assured that I am not a threat to them. Like most Americans, don't mess with me or tell me what to do and we will get along. Can we talk about its inherent misogyny? If people want to talk about "rape culture" well there you go. Can we talk about the fact that our nation is founded on inclusiveness, both from a religious and a social standpoint, yet when that inclusiveness welcomes in those who do not believe in it, something has to give? Can we get past the "yes, but..." that one gets whenever they talk of such things?
Why are liberals so hesitant to piss off immigrant groups, yet so eager to piss off the fellow Americans, be they southerners, gun owners, Christians, conservatives, or whoever. Why are they so ready to risk a shooting war?
More later on the absurd briefing today from our dear leader.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
A new cause
I will start by saying this is a tragic accident and story. A devastating mass killing.
Then I am compelled to discuss it in the same way that gun control advocates address mass shootings, how they deny the human element and individual responsibility in favor of their agenda.
- Apparently all of our common sense car control laws currently in effect are not effective.
- We should limit pick-up trucks to two wheels.
- How about background checks to buy gasoline?
- We need to sue General Motors, the company that manufactured this pick-up truck.
- Why can't we all go back to riding bicycles or horses?
I could go on, but the point is clear.
Look - in both cases, this approach is stupid. But to my own credit, I am being facetious while anti-gun rights folks are dead serious when they do this stuff.
Then I am compelled to discuss it in the same way that gun control advocates address mass shootings, how they deny the human element and individual responsibility in favor of their agenda.
- Apparently all of our common sense car control laws currently in effect are not effective.
- We should limit pick-up trucks to two wheels.
- How about background checks to buy gasoline?
- We need to sue General Motors, the company that manufactured this pick-up truck.
- Why can't we all go back to riding bicycles or horses?
I could go on, but the point is clear.
Look - in both cases, this approach is stupid. But to my own credit, I am being facetious while anti-gun rights folks are dead serious when they do this stuff.
Opinions differ!
I am not a republican, if that makes any difference. Not a democrat either.
But listening to the loud, obnoxious, overbearing, bloviating, "no one but me gets a chance to talk", "I so smart I'm a media celebrity with nothing on the line" Joe Scarborough rant about what is ruining the Republican party this morning, a thought occurred to me.
A common criticism of party politics these days, especially from the republicans, is that there is really little to any difference between the parties - that, as democrats have moved steadily left, republicans have followed so that they, at best, to their traditional base, are now centrists. They have small differences on some issues and no differences on others.
So, along comes Scarborough, telling everyone that Trump's comments are "ruining the party", thinking he can convince people (that is, party leaders, not rank and file) that a righteous and indignant social justice tirade will solve the issue.
I think the problem is - the one he is not facing - that the base that has supported Trump think that the party has already been ruined by republicans becoming democrat-light and adopting a social justice orientation.
There are at least two views from two different perspectives about what has ruined "the" party: Scarborough and many of his ilk think that Trump standing his ground, suggesting, in essence, that racism runs both ways, will ruin the party. The clear message from Trump's base is that the people who insist on that interpretation have already ruined the party.
I can't say either way. On one hand, in today's namby-pamby world of special little snowflakes, Trump will have a hard time winning a general election with the kind of brutal honesty, bull-headedness, and out of control mouth he has. But let's be clear - the sentiment he expressed was not a new one and the focus on the ethnicity of potential judges has often been identified as a positive for increasing representation in the system.
Indeed, as Pat Buchanan recently noted, "When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a woman of Puerto Rican descent who went through college on affirmative action scholarships, did Obama think this would not influence her decision when it came to whether or not to abolish affirmative action?"
PJB added that Sotomayor herself noted in numerous speeches “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life".
It is a clear indication of the double-standard applied by today's social justice movement that the idea of someone serving on the bench using their own experiences, including those that reflect their ethnic background, is a reason to place them on the bench, yet not a possible or legitimate reason to scrutinize their judgments. Yes, we want them to use their unique perspective to make decisions, but no you cannot notice that their uniqueness might influence their decisions.
On the other hand, anyone-but-Hillary - who is really just as likely to similarly denigrate those she finds unacceptable.
But listening to the loud, obnoxious, overbearing, bloviating, "no one but me gets a chance to talk", "I so smart I'm a media celebrity with nothing on the line" Joe Scarborough rant about what is ruining the Republican party this morning, a thought occurred to me.
A common criticism of party politics these days, especially from the republicans, is that there is really little to any difference between the parties - that, as democrats have moved steadily left, republicans have followed so that they, at best, to their traditional base, are now centrists. They have small differences on some issues and no differences on others.
So, along comes Scarborough, telling everyone that Trump's comments are "ruining the party", thinking he can convince people (that is, party leaders, not rank and file) that a righteous and indignant social justice tirade will solve the issue.
I think the problem is - the one he is not facing - that the base that has supported Trump think that the party has already been ruined by republicans becoming democrat-light and adopting a social justice orientation.
There are at least two views from two different perspectives about what has ruined "the" party: Scarborough and many of his ilk think that Trump standing his ground, suggesting, in essence, that racism runs both ways, will ruin the party. The clear message from Trump's base is that the people who insist on that interpretation have already ruined the party.
I can't say either way. On one hand, in today's namby-pamby world of special little snowflakes, Trump will have a hard time winning a general election with the kind of brutal honesty, bull-headedness, and out of control mouth he has. But let's be clear - the sentiment he expressed was not a new one and the focus on the ethnicity of potential judges has often been identified as a positive for increasing representation in the system.
Indeed, as Pat Buchanan recently noted, "When Obama named Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, a woman of Puerto Rican descent who went through college on affirmative action scholarships, did Obama think this would not influence her decision when it came to whether or not to abolish affirmative action?"
PJB added that Sotomayor herself noted in numerous speeches “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life".
It is a clear indication of the double-standard applied by today's social justice movement that the idea of someone serving on the bench using their own experiences, including those that reflect their ethnic background, is a reason to place them on the bench, yet not a possible or legitimate reason to scrutinize their judgments. Yes, we want them to use their unique perspective to make decisions, but no you cannot notice that their uniqueness might influence their decisions.
On the other hand, anyone-but-Hillary - who is really just as likely to similarly denigrate those she finds unacceptable.
Monday, June 6, 2016
Black Hermione and white Jesus
Oh, the uproar! And oh the hyperbolic response (J.K. Rowling calls those who wonder how Hermione turned black "racists").
All right - I'm white and I admit it - I saw the picture of Hermione from the stage play and wondered why she was black. Must it be my whiteness that does this? After all, I have watched all of the Harry Potter movies numerous times and have gotten used to seeing lilly-white Emma Watson playing the part. If you say "Hermione" that is the image that pops into my head. So my natural reaction to seeing the new casting - which apparently makes me a racist - was "What happened? Why make the change?"
Does it help if I say that, should Hermione have been cast as black all along I would not have had this reaction? (Have you ever heard of the "oddball paradigm" in ERP research? This is the "what?" reaction we have when a stimulus does not fit with our experience.) In that case, casting her as white would have garnered attention.
Honestly this is the same reaction I would have if James Bond were to "become" black - and I really like Idris Elba as an actor. But, right or wrong, I grew up with a given James Bond. I would have the same reaction if a new Shaft movie came out with him played by a white guy. It is not that Hermione can't be black, it is that she has never been black before when we have seen her, nor has Shaft (or the Jeffersons) been white to my knowledge. Many more people have likely seen her than read about about her.
So why the change? Marketing? To create a stir? To set the stage for all this "false outrage"? To rekindle the lost relevance now that the main series has ended and no one much cares or would care but for this change? Far a more diverse "wizarding world"?
Let's be honest - people are going to notice when a character they have been watching for almost 20 years changes color. Sorry - it can't really be helped. And when they notice, they are going to ask why? If that is an uncomfortable question, then so be it. It does not mean they are racists. It is funny - if someone says "I do not notice race" we would accuse them of committing what is now called a "micro-aggression" - denying the differences and someone's uniqueness. However, if someone does notice that the racial identity of a beloved character that has been portrayed in one way over 8 movies has changed, then they are a racist. Get used to it.
And if you really want to be entertained, skim the article and then read the comments. Have anthropologists discovered that whining is a universal trait? And, oh the machinations people go through to support their justified upset. Poor white Jesus has even been dragged into the melee.
I guess I'll pick this one as typical:
"Jk Rowling never specified Hermionie's race. The character could easily be imagined as belonging to several races. Of the three main characters only Ron is obviously white because of his red hair. We don't know the race of Harry's father so the main character could be cast as biracial. The author wanted it left to the imagination of the child reading the books and that is a good thing."
As others noted, Rowling was part of the team that made the movies and I am sure had at least some say on designs of book covers. In both of those instances, she apparently was in on the choice to portray Hermione as white, in spite of or to resolve any ambiguity she may have designed into her books. To say now that she never "specified" is to imply that she had no role in the process. It is hard to avoid the notion that, as a struggling artist, Rowling had no concerns with such details, but having met her basic needs has moved on to other "social justice" considerations.
That and the fact that she needs some way to remain relevant.
All right - I'm white and I admit it - I saw the picture of Hermione from the stage play and wondered why she was black. Must it be my whiteness that does this? After all, I have watched all of the Harry Potter movies numerous times and have gotten used to seeing lilly-white Emma Watson playing the part. If you say "Hermione" that is the image that pops into my head. So my natural reaction to seeing the new casting - which apparently makes me a racist - was "What happened? Why make the change?"
Does it help if I say that, should Hermione have been cast as black all along I would not have had this reaction? (Have you ever heard of the "oddball paradigm" in ERP research? This is the "what?" reaction we have when a stimulus does not fit with our experience.) In that case, casting her as white would have garnered attention.
Honestly this is the same reaction I would have if James Bond were to "become" black - and I really like Idris Elba as an actor. But, right or wrong, I grew up with a given James Bond. I would have the same reaction if a new Shaft movie came out with him played by a white guy. It is not that Hermione can't be black, it is that she has never been black before when we have seen her, nor has Shaft (or the Jeffersons) been white to my knowledge. Many more people have likely seen her than read about about her.
So why the change? Marketing? To create a stir? To set the stage for all this "false outrage"? To rekindle the lost relevance now that the main series has ended and no one much cares or would care but for this change? Far a more diverse "wizarding world"?
Let's be honest - people are going to notice when a character they have been watching for almost 20 years changes color. Sorry - it can't really be helped. And when they notice, they are going to ask why? If that is an uncomfortable question, then so be it. It does not mean they are racists. It is funny - if someone says "I do not notice race" we would accuse them of committing what is now called a "micro-aggression" - denying the differences and someone's uniqueness. However, if someone does notice that the racial identity of a beloved character that has been portrayed in one way over 8 movies has changed, then they are a racist. Get used to it.
And if you really want to be entertained, skim the article and then read the comments. Have anthropologists discovered that whining is a universal trait? And, oh the machinations people go through to support their justified upset. Poor white Jesus has even been dragged into the melee.
I guess I'll pick this one as typical:
"Jk Rowling never specified Hermionie's race. The character could easily be imagined as belonging to several races. Of the three main characters only Ron is obviously white because of his red hair. We don't know the race of Harry's father so the main character could be cast as biracial. The author wanted it left to the imagination of the child reading the books and that is a good thing."
As others noted, Rowling was part of the team that made the movies and I am sure had at least some say on designs of book covers. In both of those instances, she apparently was in on the choice to portray Hermione as white, in spite of or to resolve any ambiguity she may have designed into her books. To say now that she never "specified" is to imply that she had no role in the process. It is hard to avoid the notion that, as a struggling artist, Rowling had no concerns with such details, but having met her basic needs has moved on to other "social justice" considerations.
That and the fact that she needs some way to remain relevant.
Friday, June 3, 2016
And they're at it again
Recent blog on Huffington Post by someone who used to be the VP of the Brady Center, sitting around in his orange shirt, wistfully thinking of a time when only the government and outlaws (is that redundant?) will have guns. As with most such articles, he refuses to talk about the cultural decline of the last 20 - 30 years and the role that liberal policies have had in it, instead suggesting that the only way for us to deal with its violent consequences is to limit the right to keep and bear arms. It also refuses to acknowledge that while legal gun ownership has increased over the past decades, violent crime has consistently decreased. They always find something to whine about and clearly this piece wants nothing more than to blame law-abiding owners of legal guns for crimes committed by criminals.
It notes that: "The National Rifle Association and its allies will insist that no laws will prevent dangerous people from getting guns, invoking the bumper sticker slogan that “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Yet we know that every gun used in those multiple shootings started out in the legal gun market and that even modest regulation of the legal market can help to deny violent individuals access to guns."
Well, no better approach in an article like this than to immediately invoke baba yaga - the NRA. Unfortunately for the author, his point does not negate the truth of the idea that laws against guns (or any laws) only affect those who follow the law. Shooting people is already against the law. Well criminal steal things - and guns are a profitable commodity on the street. Now, we could deal with crime itself, be honest and forthright in our discussion of the decline of our culture, stop pussy-footing around the issues - or we can simply ban everything that a criminal might steal and misuse.
"For example, Brady background checks, now required only for sales by licensed gun dealers, should be extended to all gun sales." What criminal is going to do a NICS check?
The perpetuation of the myth that crime guns come largely via the "gun show loophole" or "internet sales" or other private sales by law-abiding legal owners is so tired. I have bought guns at gun shows = NICS check! I have bought guns over the internet - they must be shipped to an FFL and = NICS check!
To reiterate: Criminals commit crimes (figured that one out). Criminals steal guns - that's a crime.
One crime they commit is theft, the next would using the gun to commit crimes and another would be selling the stolen gun to another criminal without a background check. This polly-anna BS about if we make rules for legal owners it will affect criminals grows so tiresome. I used to respond to it ad nauseum, now I simply ridicule it.
As always, this piece is liberally peppered with the term "gun lobby". It is always some dreadnought out there, lingering with no intent other than to sell guns and make money - NOT. I recently had to explain this to someone else who thinks this is all about the NRA and gun lobby and that gun owners are being "duped" by some evil force.
The NRA is people - millions (~5) of people who are not all in the business of selling firearms. They are Americans, they are engineers, soldiers, business men, psychologists, children, parents, spouses. They share a common interest. The NRA was formed in 1871 - long before there was a Brady Center or a movement for "gun control". They (it is they) do not exist as a reaction to this - they exist as a confederation of people with shared interests. It is in reaction to threats, such as those posed by Obama, Clinton, Bloomberg, the author of this blog, and others, to that interest that NRA members stand in opposition. Stop blaming us for criminals' behavior.
This Huffpost blog does a good job of answering the question liberals are always asking (had to answer this one recently, too) when they try to accuse gun owners of paranoia or stupidity: Why do you think anyone is coming for your guns? Because they say they are and I take them at their word.
It notes that: "The National Rifle Association and its allies will insist that no laws will prevent dangerous people from getting guns, invoking the bumper sticker slogan that “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Yet we know that every gun used in those multiple shootings started out in the legal gun market and that even modest regulation of the legal market can help to deny violent individuals access to guns."
Well, no better approach in an article like this than to immediately invoke baba yaga - the NRA. Unfortunately for the author, his point does not negate the truth of the idea that laws against guns (or any laws) only affect those who follow the law. Shooting people is already against the law. Well criminal steal things - and guns are a profitable commodity on the street. Now, we could deal with crime itself, be honest and forthright in our discussion of the decline of our culture, stop pussy-footing around the issues - or we can simply ban everything that a criminal might steal and misuse.
"For example, Brady background checks, now required only for sales by licensed gun dealers, should be extended to all gun sales." What criminal is going to do a NICS check?
The perpetuation of the myth that crime guns come largely via the "gun show loophole" or "internet sales" or other private sales by law-abiding legal owners is so tired. I have bought guns at gun shows = NICS check! I have bought guns over the internet - they must be shipped to an FFL and = NICS check!
To reiterate: Criminals commit crimes (figured that one out). Criminals steal guns - that's a crime.
One crime they commit is theft, the next would using the gun to commit crimes and another would be selling the stolen gun to another criminal without a background check. This polly-anna BS about if we make rules for legal owners it will affect criminals grows so tiresome. I used to respond to it ad nauseum, now I simply ridicule it.
As always, this piece is liberally peppered with the term "gun lobby". It is always some dreadnought out there, lingering with no intent other than to sell guns and make money - NOT. I recently had to explain this to someone else who thinks this is all about the NRA and gun lobby and that gun owners are being "duped" by some evil force.
The NRA is people - millions (~5) of people who are not all in the business of selling firearms. They are Americans, they are engineers, soldiers, business men, psychologists, children, parents, spouses. They share a common interest. The NRA was formed in 1871 - long before there was a Brady Center or a movement for "gun control". They (it is they) do not exist as a reaction to this - they exist as a confederation of people with shared interests. It is in reaction to threats, such as those posed by Obama, Clinton, Bloomberg, the author of this blog, and others, to that interest that NRA members stand in opposition. Stop blaming us for criminals' behavior.
This Huffpost blog does a good job of answering the question liberals are always asking (had to answer this one recently, too) when they try to accuse gun owners of paranoia or stupidity: Why do you think anyone is coming for your guns? Because they say they are and I take them at their word.
Somebody gwan get hurt.
Today's dose of partisan absurdity from Huffington Post!
Take a good look at that subtitle:
"Violence continues to plague the GOP presumptive nominee’s campaign events."
So - this is the candidate's fault? Remember the outrage when Trump supporters allegedly assaulted protesters at his rallies - and he was supposed to denounce it. Now his supporters are being assaulted at his rallies and it is his fault. Of course, Huffington Post goes well off the rails by deciding they need to recount everything that a Trump supporter has even been alleged to do - so we are playing that game? That means escalation - where does that end.
Are we seeing the barbarous nature of some people here?
Remember - it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye! Someone is going to get hurt. Quite honestly, if I were at that rally and I knew that supporter who was egged (see below) - or some piss ant decided to swing a weighted shopping bag at me - he would be shot in the street. Lots of justification for self-defense going on there - disparity of force for one.
Again, not a Trump fan - just a never Hillary voter. There are people who want to foment trouble for their own personal gain, professional protesters and criminals who benefit from a failure of civility. Ponder the role of the cherished diversity in all of this if you will.
This is getting out of hand and someone is going to get seriously hurt or dead.
Take a good look at that subtitle:
"Violence continues to plague the GOP presumptive nominee’s campaign events."
So - this is the candidate's fault? Remember the outrage when Trump supporters allegedly assaulted protesters at his rallies - and he was supposed to denounce it. Now his supporters are being assaulted at his rallies and it is his fault. Of course, Huffington Post goes well off the rails by deciding they need to recount everything that a Trump supporter has even been alleged to do - so we are playing that game? That means escalation - where does that end.
Are we seeing the barbarous nature of some people here?
Remember - it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye! Someone is going to get hurt. Quite honestly, if I were at that rally and I knew that supporter who was egged (see below) - or some piss ant decided to swing a weighted shopping bag at me - he would be shot in the street. Lots of justification for self-defense going on there - disparity of force for one.
Again, not a Trump fan - just a never Hillary voter. There are people who want to foment trouble for their own personal gain, professional protesters and criminals who benefit from a failure of civility. Ponder the role of the cherished diversity in all of this if you will.
This is getting out of hand and someone is going to get seriously hurt or dead.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Blah, blah, guns, blah, blah blah
A shout out to all of my academic colleagues who are so very strongly against allowing concealed carry on campus: UCLA is your panacea, a gun-free campus!
As is well known by now a graduate student in engineering shot and killed a professor yesterday. Let's recap: UCLA is a gun-free campus! No firearms are allowed, so it is not at all clear how this could possibly have happened there. Aren't there rules against this?
Truth is, and this is a truth that the intellectual elites cannot seem to wrap their head around even when it is staring them in the face, that when someone is intent on killing, is willing to suffer the punishment associated with it or die in the effort, your silly little rules just don't matter to them. Rules may keep you from doing things, but those intent on mayhem have no such inhibitions. As events highlights, dude clearly didn't decide to do this and then read the student handbook and remember that guns weren't allowed on campus, thus changing his mind.
So what did this "gun-free campus" rule do? It ensured that the professor was not armed (because he follows rules) and could not defend himself - even if he would like to have been. Given he is a Californian and an academician, it is likely he felt great comfort in knowing that the UCLA rules against guns would protect him. He might as well have worn garlic around his neck to ward off evil.
And, btw, this happened in a gun-free zone in California. You know, the state with the most restrictive gun laws in place - and looking for more - the one that the anti-gun crowd would like all states to emulate. Didn't happen in a state where campus carry is legal. This professor's survivors should be suing the state and the university system this afternoon.
But let's end on a positive note and look at another story:
![]()
![]()
![]()
So - this is what one armed trained person with boots on the ground can do to prevent such events. Not a university or municipal PD, that is minutes away, but a person on scene. Who better to end this kind of killing than the intended victim?
Let's be clear - Officer Gudger, although a hero who deserves our praise, is no better trained than many good guys who carry guns. She is simply brave and has the proper mindset. Most LEOS and certainly most SROs, are no better trained and spend less time on the range than many civilians.
So we can pretend that a fantasy world exists where we can prevent bad people from doing bad things they are willing to die accomplishing, that somehow we can keep weapons from evil hands. Those who think "Australian is an example worth considering" should know that it has not really worked out all that well. Conversely, we can trust good law-abiding people to protect themselves (and in so doing, others as well) against evil people who do not follow the law.
That is the choice our future holds.
As is well known by now a graduate student in engineering shot and killed a professor yesterday. Let's recap: UCLA is a gun-free campus! No firearms are allowed, so it is not at all clear how this could possibly have happened there. Aren't there rules against this?
Truth is, and this is a truth that the intellectual elites cannot seem to wrap their head around even when it is staring them in the face, that when someone is intent on killing, is willing to suffer the punishment associated with it or die in the effort, your silly little rules just don't matter to them. Rules may keep you from doing things, but those intent on mayhem have no such inhibitions. As events highlights, dude clearly didn't decide to do this and then read the student handbook and remember that guns weren't allowed on campus, thus changing his mind.
So what did this "gun-free campus" rule do? It ensured that the professor was not armed (because he follows rules) and could not defend himself - even if he would like to have been. Given he is a Californian and an academician, it is likely he felt great comfort in knowing that the UCLA rules against guns would protect him. He might as well have worn garlic around his neck to ward off evil.
And, btw, this happened in a gun-free zone in California. You know, the state with the most restrictive gun laws in place - and looking for more - the one that the anti-gun crowd would like all states to emulate. Didn't happen in a state where campus carry is legal. This professor's survivors should be suing the state and the university system this afternoon.
But let's end on a positive note and look at another story:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)