Given the amount of time I spend goofing around on the Internet and social media (which is what I do when I should be working), it's only a matter of time until I start bumping into the loonier side of cyberspace. Every nutty conspiracy theory there is is out on the web. I've been inundated with this kind of crazy for hours every day, except for the moments where my boss walks by my desk and I have to pretend I'm working. And I finally noticed a common pattern.
All of these conspiracy theories were created by communists. Commies. Oh, yes. That is the only explanation that makes sense. All of the greatest conspiracy theories are obviously created by communists. The faking of the moon landing, aliens at Area 51, the assassination of JFK, the various Rothschild, Illuminati, New World Order conspiracies, and the worst, 9/11 truther conspiracies, are all created by communists to advance a communist agenda.
They do this because the truth makes communists look bad. The moon landing was an early indication that American capitalism would blow right past Soviet communism. Communists thought they had the edge in the space race, but suddenly America was back in the game. When America successfully completed the first moon landing, communists couldn't let people believe that capitalism was actually superior. So they invented the myth that the moon landing was faked. A pack of communist lies that claimed the moon landing was a pack of capitalist lies. Irony, anyone?
The aliens at Area 51 is a similar example. Area 51 is a real place. It's a part of Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The truth is that there was (and probably still is) Air Force research being conducted at Area 51. Crazy, mad scientist, ARPA/DARPA stuff. American enterprise was rapidly making Soviet communism obsolete. The Soviets couldn't let the world believe that the innovations that we made were the product of capitalism. So they cobbled together a half-assed theory that we were actually stealing the ideas from aliens. Damn Commies. Couldn't handle the fact that we were just way more innovative than them.
This isn't the only thing they thought we stole. All of Illuminati, New World Order, Rothschild conspiracies have a similar theme. A shadowy cabal of businessmen, bankers, and whatever controls the entire world's wealth. America is apparently controlled by a few families, like the Rockefellers. Uh-huh. One look at the Forbes 400 disproves this. 70% of the 400 wealthiest Americans are self made billionaires. Many are household names on the list, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Charles Schwab, George Lucas, and Donald Trump just to name a few. There is a Rockefeller on the list. He's tied for 151. Less than the five I just mentioned. How can a few families control all of the wealth, when so many self made billionaires are richer than one of the supposed conspirators? The answer is simple. Commies. They can't handle the fact that capitalism allows people to thrive and be successful in a single lifetime. So they claim that some rich people must have stolen it. The old "behind every great fortune is a great crime" canard.
The last conspiracy led to another goofball theory that was apparently manufactured by the Politburo. When faced with happy people enjoying the fruits of capitalism, communists swung into damage control mode. Western society is "decadent" according to the commies of the world. This was raw denial on the part of the USSR. The commies couldn't admit that things were just better here. They didn't want people to look around at the bread lines and start dreaming of a life in America. So instead, they pushed the idea that we were weakening ourselves. Slowly poisoning ourselves with debauchery. We stole all the money and were living frivolously. Anything to prevent the people living under communism from seeing the obvious truth: communism was a failure waiting to happen.
The JFK assassination theories are a little different. They're a deflection of guilt. The guy who actually killed JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a member of the communist party. The party couldn't have people believing that a communist murdered the American president. So the commies acted like it was a shadowy conspiracy, a convoluted, Byzantine intrigue produced by American capitalism. Anything to avoid having people realize that the actual murderer was just another naive chump duped by communism.
The 9/11 truther conspiracies are a product of the even more naive neo-communists. Communism rightly became extinct. It's political Darwinism; the unfit system perished and the fittest system survived and thrived. But a few leftover douches from the 60's occasionally con some young people into pushing the various quaint and archaic notions of communism. We see this today with Anonymous and the Occupy movement. And it should come as no surprise that plenty of these nuts are in love with the 9/11 Truth idea. Youtube is full of the Truthers at Occupy rallies and Anonymopes demanding an investigation of the 9/11 "false flag" attack.
For the commies, it was absolutely critical that the United States not appear in any way sympathetic after 9/11. The neo-commies would have us believe that 9/11 was a giant conspiracy by the corrupt shadowy cabals that rule the United States and stole the world's wealth devised it as an elaborate power grab. Of course, they already control the world's wealth, according to various other communist theories. So I'm not sure how much power they could grab for. That is irrelevant, though, since logic and reason are not things Occupunks and Anonymopes concern themselves with. America overreached when it responded to 9/11. The simple explanations are that this was political opportunism or, far more likely, a natural reaction that came from fear. But if the world believed that, it would disrupt the commie narrative that capitalism is evil. So they threw together a theory about planned demolitions.
There it is. The one true conspiracy. Communists invent all other conspiracy theories to advance their discredited ideology. All of their conspiracy theories about capitalism and the New World Order are actually an elaborate conspiracy to install a communist New World Order. Of course now that I think about it, does it make sense to assume there is an conspiracy every time I hear something that doesn't fit what I believe? Could this belief that communists are behind everything be the product of paranoia; another Red Scare? Maybe these conspiracy theories exist because there are lots of disaffected nuts in the world who jump on every screwy theory, especially the Anti-American ones, that they can find. That's a much simpler explanation. Nah, screw it. Occam's Razor is for pussies. Commies are behind everything. Damn commies.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
Every State Needs Two Senators Because I Like Maple Syrup
Last week, I saw Bill Maher repeat one of his frequent pet peeves. He dislikes the fact that even states with tiny populations have the same number of senators as huge ones like California. This is an outgrowth of the filibuster debate. Because so many of those tiny population states are red states, they can prevent Democrats from moving legislation through the Senate. Never mind the fact that it wasn't too long ago that Republicans had a majority, but not a super majority, and were clamoring for filibuster reform. He wants proportional representation in the Senate. But he assumes that the only thing of value that a state has is the people there. Some of the tiny population states provide valuable resources that the larger states could not live without.
One of the most critical resources provided to me by a small state is maple syrup. One cannot have pancakes without maple syrup. I may live in the South and have ready access to cane syrup, but that's only good for biscuits. In order to have proper pancakes, one must have maple syrup. And butter. And bacon on the side. Butter and bacon are readily available in the South, but not maple syrup.
The only place to get good maple syrup is Vermont. Vermont's population is approximately 600,000. In Manhattan, there are probably zip codes that have more people than that. Vermont has one senator for every 300,000 people and California has one senator for every 19 million. But Vermont is equally critical to the national well being. Only Vermont can can provide the critical resource that transforms simple fried batter into decadent breakfast bliss.
Utter chaos would result if larger states had more votes than little states like Vermont. The large states would call all of the shots. A small state like Vermont would have no power and just be forced to supply the large states with its precious tree sap/liquid gold. Vermont would be little more than a colony supplying syrup. Big states could push through regulations requiring higher quantities at lower prices. Now I find it unlikely that Vermont would revolt, but there is the "Ah, screw it" effect that results from being under-appreciated. Smarty pants people call this civil disobedience. Because of big state mandates on supply and price, Vermont maple syrup producers would simply not bother creating the same quality of syrup. Instead of high quality liquid breakfast orgasm sauce, we'd have the cheap, runny stuff. Suddenly, breakfast would be ruined. Making me even grouchier in the morning.
At that point, innocent pancake eaters would be forced to search for alternatives. Some of my Whole Foodsy, Fresh Markety food snob friends like to put agave nectar on their pancakes. But if we all did this, there would be fewer agave plants available to make Agave Ambrosia. Also known as tequila. This would cause brawls in the streets. Kind of like the brawls we see when people drink tequila, but worse because the combatants would be sober enough to hit their targets.
There is one other option, but it's problematic. Nobody likes to obtain resources from countries with questionable moral character. But if Vermont has been beaten down so hard by big state bullies that syrup producers can't produce the good stuff, we would have no choice. We would have to turn to the most evil and hideous nation the planet Earth has ever known. Canada. I mean seriously, no decent country would produce beer that nasty. And don't get me started about hockey (shudder).
This is all about principle for me. I'm not a small state guy. The states I grew up in are Virginia and Georgia, the 12th and 8th most populous states. I live in Florida, the 4th most populous state. I'm taking this stand for the greater good. Preserving the availability of high quality maple syrup (and various other lesser resources provided by small states, like grain and meat and timber and minerals) can only be done if small states have equal representation in the Senate. Two Vermont senators could could face down the big state bullies and prevent any oppressive regulations, because a big state would also only have two senators.
Weakening small states in the Senate would reduce breakfast quality nationwide, or empower rogue nations who seek to destroy us by making us dependent on their syrup. The only way to preserve our breakfast independence is to ensure that the makeup of the Senate remains as our founding fathers intended. Ultimately, it's about justice. Pancake justice. And waffles, too, I guess. Nah, to hell with that. I hate Belgians.
One of the most critical resources provided to me by a small state is maple syrup. One cannot have pancakes without maple syrup. I may live in the South and have ready access to cane syrup, but that's only good for biscuits. In order to have proper pancakes, one must have maple syrup. And butter. And bacon on the side. Butter and bacon are readily available in the South, but not maple syrup.
The only place to get good maple syrup is Vermont. Vermont's population is approximately 600,000. In Manhattan, there are probably zip codes that have more people than that. Vermont has one senator for every 300,000 people and California has one senator for every 19 million. But Vermont is equally critical to the national well being. Only Vermont can can provide the critical resource that transforms simple fried batter into decadent breakfast bliss.
Utter chaos would result if larger states had more votes than little states like Vermont. The large states would call all of the shots. A small state like Vermont would have no power and just be forced to supply the large states with its precious tree sap/liquid gold. Vermont would be little more than a colony supplying syrup. Big states could push through regulations requiring higher quantities at lower prices. Now I find it unlikely that Vermont would revolt, but there is the "Ah, screw it" effect that results from being under-appreciated. Smarty pants people call this civil disobedience. Because of big state mandates on supply and price, Vermont maple syrup producers would simply not bother creating the same quality of syrup. Instead of high quality liquid breakfast orgasm sauce, we'd have the cheap, runny stuff. Suddenly, breakfast would be ruined. Making me even grouchier in the morning.
At that point, innocent pancake eaters would be forced to search for alternatives. Some of my Whole Foodsy, Fresh Markety food snob friends like to put agave nectar on their pancakes. But if we all did this, there would be fewer agave plants available to make Agave Ambrosia. Also known as tequila. This would cause brawls in the streets. Kind of like the brawls we see when people drink tequila, but worse because the combatants would be sober enough to hit their targets.
There is one other option, but it's problematic. Nobody likes to obtain resources from countries with questionable moral character. But if Vermont has been beaten down so hard by big state bullies that syrup producers can't produce the good stuff, we would have no choice. We would have to turn to the most evil and hideous nation the planet Earth has ever known. Canada. I mean seriously, no decent country would produce beer that nasty. And don't get me started about hockey (shudder).
This is all about principle for me. I'm not a small state guy. The states I grew up in are Virginia and Georgia, the 12th and 8th most populous states. I live in Florida, the 4th most populous state. I'm taking this stand for the greater good. Preserving the availability of high quality maple syrup (and various other lesser resources provided by small states, like grain and meat and timber and minerals) can only be done if small states have equal representation in the Senate. Two Vermont senators could could face down the big state bullies and prevent any oppressive regulations, because a big state would also only have two senators.
Weakening small states in the Senate would reduce breakfast quality nationwide, or empower rogue nations who seek to destroy us by making us dependent on their syrup. The only way to preserve our breakfast independence is to ensure that the makeup of the Senate remains as our founding fathers intended. Ultimately, it's about justice. Pancake justice. And waffles, too, I guess. Nah, to hell with that. I hate Belgians.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
The IRS Star Trek Video: You're Just Doing It Wrong
The latest government waste outrage is the IRS Star Trek parody video. The government spent $60,000 on this and another training video based on Gilligan's Island. People are up in arms over the perceived waste of money. But making a training video wasn't necessarily a waste. The IRS just made one that was lousy and taught nothing of value. I'm not really against making more entertaining training videos, as long as they actually train people to do something.
I've been forced to sit through various training videos made by the various companies I've worked for over the years. Usually, the typical corporate training video starts with 2nd rate graphics and a corporate logo, with cheesy elevator music playing in the background. Then a narration about whatever blah-blah corporate policy the video is about starts. The voice talent is usually a person with a voice that's both sonorous and soporific, like someone who works for NPR. Right off the bat, this video starts to sound like cheap propaganda. It's groan inducing, eye roll inducing, and cringe inducing. I've seen these on everything from "good corporate ethics" to "how to lift heavy things.". But whatever the subject matter is, no matter how valuable, the message is lost because the watchers stop taking it seriously almost immediately.
Granted, the watchers stopped taking the IRS video seriously almost immediately, as well. But not because it used a goofy story to get the point across. When done right, the entertainment approach can be very effective. It's not the first time the government has used the slightly silly for training. In World War II, Walt Disney famously produced many training cartoons for soldiers, such as this one. Okay, it's actually Canadian, but there are plenty of others that were made for the US. They're just much more difficult to find on YouTube, apparently. This sort of video would have been effective at both keeping the recruits' attention (many of them were very young, and probably had the attention span of young people) and actually training them.
I'm wondering if the military still does this. Looney Tunes was always way better than Disney. Some of them would make great training videos.
Wile E Coyote would be extremely effective at training explosive ordnance disposal personnel on how not to handle explosives.
And he would also be effective at teaching them why one should properly pack a parachute.
Elmer Fudd could train infantrymen on the value of checking the flanks so that rabbits or Taliban or whatever don't sneak up on them.
And Pepi Le Pew would be perfect for teaching soldiers about sexual harassment.
I digress, but not too much. An entertaining video can help make learning about an ordinarily dry subject more palatable, and therefore more effective. And I can think of few subjects more dry than the internal revenue code or policies of the IRS. Sadly, the Star Trek video taught nothing of value. It made a few references to subjects of interest (identity theft, for example), but didn't go into any real depth. This video looked more like the type of thing a really nerdy frat house put together after getting drunk on a Saturday night. 
I've been forced to sit through various training videos made by the various companies I've worked for over the years. Usually, the typical corporate training video starts with 2nd rate graphics and a corporate logo, with cheesy elevator music playing in the background. Then a narration about whatever blah-blah corporate policy the video is about starts. The voice talent is usually a person with a voice that's both sonorous and soporific, like someone who works for NPR. Right off the bat, this video starts to sound like cheap propaganda. It's groan inducing, eye roll inducing, and cringe inducing. I've seen these on everything from "good corporate ethics" to "how to lift heavy things.". But whatever the subject matter is, no matter how valuable, the message is lost because the watchers stop taking it seriously almost immediately.
Granted, the watchers stopped taking the IRS video seriously almost immediately, as well. But not because it used a goofy story to get the point across. When done right, the entertainment approach can be very effective. It's not the first time the government has used the slightly silly for training. In World War II, Walt Disney famously produced many training cartoons for soldiers, such as this one. Okay, it's actually Canadian, but there are plenty of others that were made for the US. They're just much more difficult to find on YouTube, apparently. This sort of video would have been effective at both keeping the recruits' attention (many of them were very young, and probably had the attention span of young people) and actually training them.
I'm wondering if the military still does this. Looney Tunes was always way better than Disney. Some of them would make great training videos.
Wile E Coyote would be extremely effective at training explosive ordnance disposal personnel on how not to handle explosives.
And he would also be effective at teaching them why one should properly pack a parachute.
Elmer Fudd could train infantrymen on the value of checking the flanks so that rabbits or Taliban or whatever don't sneak up on them.
And Pepi Le Pew would be perfect for teaching soldiers about sexual harassment.I digress, but not too much. An entertaining video can help make learning about an ordinarily dry subject more palatable, and therefore more effective. And I can think of few subjects more dry than the internal revenue code or policies of the IRS. Sadly, the Star Trek video taught nothing of value. It made a few references to subjects of interest (identity theft, for example), but didn't go into any real depth. This video looked more like the type of thing a really nerdy frat house put together after getting drunk on a Saturday night.
I'm not sure how someone would successfully combine Star Trek with an IRS training video. Perhaps it would involve an intrepid away team of IRS auditors digging it's way out from under a mound of receipts. But it's worth noting that the Gilligan's Island video was actually determined to have some training value, so it must be possible. Too bad the Star Trek video was a total waste. Granted, $60,000 isn't a huge amount when compared to most government spending. But it does provide another example of the government's cavalier attitude toward spending public funds. There is a culture of entitlement amongst bureaucrats that assumes that they can spend money budgeted to them on whatever they like. Like extravagant conventions held by the GSA. Or Joe Biden's hotel bills.
Goofy stuff isn't necessarily a waste, though. The makers of these videos claim that they can actually save money. I think that's true, since it's probably less expensive than printing loads of instructional materials and hiring instructors to teach long, dull classes that no one pays attention to. That might be more expensive than even five or six videos. But we need someone to ensure that the content actually does the job. And doesn't suck.
So the government doesn't have to explain why the videos were made. It only has to explain why it couldn't do better. I'm all for training government employees in the cheapest and most effective way possible. Videos can actually do that, like the WWII cartons. And on that note, I definitely think the military should consider bringing the Looney Tunes in for training. At least use Wile E Coyote as a drill instructor. But maybe don't have him instruct on the things he's bad at, like explosives, engineering, or anything involving falling from great heights. Maybe he should be a shooting instructor instead?
Friday, March 8, 2013
Trolling the American Randstand
On March 6th, in response to a wishy-washy position posed by Attorney General Holder, Senator Rand Paul threw down an old school move. An actual filibuster. Not the half-assed "don't have sixty votes" filibuster. He hit the floor and said he'd talk until the president responded. The point was simple. Eric Holder wouldn't commit to saying that we would not use predators to kill Americans on American soil. Rand Paul took a stand saying he should commit. Demanding answers from the president. He went on for hours lecturing about due process, the constitution, and any number of entirely relevant things. Not the cheap type of filibustering where some douche just reads from the phone book.
Republican senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, John Thune, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Jerry Moran, Jeff Flake, Mitch McConnell, and showed up. Also, Senators Marco Rubio (MINE!), Saxby Chambliss (from my home state), and Tim Scott (my home state's neighbor to the north) participated. One of the old guard, Mitch McConnell, also made an appearance. And I've heard a lot of people call him Johnny-Come-Lately, but that's better than the twelve Johnny-Would-Rather-Let-The-President-Buy-Him(And One Her)-Dinner senators. And Mark Kirk didn't participate (he is recovering from a stroke, after all), but showed up and deserves a shoutout for bringing a care package.
Even some Democrats were there. Ron Wyden (D) participated in the filibuster. Dick Durbin (Heavy D) was there too. Granted, he wasn't participating, just asking questions, but he was Involved In The Democratic Process. Not something that seems to happen very often these days. And the questions he asked (confrontational, but not discourteously so), added to Paul's credibility. Paul knocked his first two questions out of the park. The last one (towards the end), was more of a single.
For the most part, when the senators broke in for questions, they did so with pertinent questions that added to the debate, Dems and Reps alike. But there was also a bit of fun. Ted Cruz took some time to quote everything from Shakespeare to Patton. Marco Rubio followed up by quoting Wiz Khalifa and Jay-Z. It was all still relevant, though, as they tied the artistic references into the debate.
But the most epic part was when Ted Cruz carpet bombed the Senate with tweets from everyone who was supporting Rand Paul. The twitterverse was alive with all things Rand Paul. Around the world. He did this twice, bringing thousands who were glued to C-Span (when's the last time that happened, ever) into the process. Ted Cruz gets the Best Supporting Actor award for that. But the MVP was still Rand Paul, because he suddenly energized the public about politics, for the first time in years.
Of course, it was only a matter of time until detracty detractors who detract started detracting. The first salvo was the typical opening move of the radical left. Articles, blog posts, and tweets starting referring to his RAAAACISM! This was in reference to a series of interviews in 2010 where Rand Paul failed to properly bless and sprinkle and show proper deference to the Civil Rights Act. Instead, he had the incredibly bad taste to note that other fundamental rights, like free speech and property ownership, are occasionally at odds with the CRA. Instead of bowing and scraping before the almighty CRA, he actually had the temerity to suggest that the CRA and other fundamental rights might occasionally conflict with each other and need to be reconciled. This is an obscure legal concept also known as: The Reason Judges Have Jobs.
Race baiting is all too common these days. But it's a waste of time to obsess over this sort of thing. Someone who fails to have even this rudimentary understanding of how the Constitution works is the posterchild for low information voters. What this episode does is show two key things about Rand Paul. He's willing to explore and debate the Constitution in a nuanced way, and he's willing to go where few dare to tread.
So when "Racist" doesn't work, go for "Irrelevant". Various writers and journalists have decided that he was wasting time. Debating a question that was already answered. For example, I read a piece by Tommy Christopher on Mediaite pushing this point. He believed that Eric Holder actually did answer the question. But the fact is, Holder left the question open. He used 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as examples of unusual circumstances where this might happen, but did not clarify explicitly what defines a circumstance where using a drone is allowed.
Of course, when "Irrelevant" fails, "Crazy" is always an option. I saw Krystal Ball and Toure on the Cycle pushing this. Apparently, Rand Paul was just a nut ginning up a silly, non-issue to pander to conspiracy theorists, anti-government nuts, and "savages" (Toure's word. Stay Classy). Notably, just as liberal Steve Kornacki took a different position (Not sure where S.E. Cupp was) from his two colleagues and upheld the need for exploring these points. The relative newness of the drone program means there are lots of unanswered questions.
It's good that he did. The attorney general's response was a tad vague, saying that use of drones on Americans on American soil would only happen in extreme circumstances, but not clarifying what criteria would be used to determine what those circumstances are. And exploring unlikely hypotheticals is not something a crazy person does. It's common practice in politics.
I'm reminded of the 2008 Republican presidential campaign. In one debate, the various candidates were asked by Brit Hume about a highly unlikely, ticking time-bomb, Jack-Baueresque scenario. Would they, in the wake of several damaging attacks against the US, torture someone who potentially had knowledge of another attack that was imminent? Mitt Romney danced around it (shocking, I know. Kind of like an Eric Holder). Rand's father Ron Paul was strongly against it. So was John McCain. Of course, McCain comes to that position honestly, and from personal experience.
Brit Hume asked a pertinent question about an unlikely, there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-we scenario. This is because these highly unlikely scenarios are the ones where people and governments take the most extreme action and are at great risk for overreach. To a libertarian type of guy like Rand Paul, government overreach is to be avoided at all costs. So I find it odd that John McCain, who was happy to answer the question about the unlikely scenario related to torture, was so willing to dismiss the unlikely scenario that was proposed by Rand Paul.
Paul admits it's unlikely that Obama would ever do this. And it's unlikely that anyone would do this. But one unfortunate election could result in a nut who would consider droning Americans without due process of law. So defining the laws clearly now prevents this scenario from happening. Just as defining torture ensures we don't cross the line there. I'm surprised that McCain would be willing to deal in hypotheticals in one case, but spurn the same thing in another. Especially when the one he spurned is the one more likely to result in dead bodies, if it did ever happen.
Eric Holder did respond. The answer was that we can't use drones against "non-combatant" Americans. Plenty of Paul critics claim that the simplicity of this response (including two out of three Cycle liberals) makes Paul look ridiculous. But it doesn't. Paul got some additional clarification (his goal from the start), which isn't ridiculous. The response also leaves questions open, suggesting that Paul is on to something. What is a "combatant" American? Holder's still missing a few details. And if we don't define it, and we elect some nutjob in the future, that guy may decide to define it for us with executive orders.
Rand Paul took a stand to make the administration clarify how far it would go to protect itself. He's seeking to set a standard that, even if it is highly unlikely we'll ever need it, is something that we must be absolutely clear about. Because if we don't figure it out now, we may find ourselves figuring it out the hard way in the future. This is not Rand Paul being an anti-government conspiracy nut. Nor is he pandering to the extreme right. He's a libertarian. That's not a wingnut; libertarians tend to be moderate. And the evidence of that is the support he got from the left. From politicians (Wyden) to actors (John Cusack) to activists (Code Pink and more than a few Anonymous and Occupy supporters, based on tweets I saw) to left wing journalists (Cenk Uygur of Current TV. That happened.), members of the left wing supported him. He was able to unite disparate factions in a common cause. It's been a while since a politician could pull that off. No wonder #StandwithRand is still trending.
Republican senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, John Thune, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Jerry Moran, Jeff Flake, Mitch McConnell, and showed up. Also, Senators Marco Rubio (MINE!), Saxby Chambliss (from my home state), and Tim Scott (my home state's neighbor to the north) participated. One of the old guard, Mitch McConnell, also made an appearance. And I've heard a lot of people call him Johnny-Come-Lately, but that's better than the twelve Johnny-Would-Rather-Let-The-President-Buy-Him(And One Her)-Dinner senators. And Mark Kirk didn't participate (he is recovering from a stroke, after all), but showed up and deserves a shoutout for bringing a care package.
Even some Democrats were there. Ron Wyden (D) participated in the filibuster. Dick Durbin (Heavy D) was there too. Granted, he wasn't participating, just asking questions, but he was Involved In The Democratic Process. Not something that seems to happen very often these days. And the questions he asked (confrontational, but not discourteously so), added to Paul's credibility. Paul knocked his first two questions out of the park. The last one (towards the end), was more of a single.
For the most part, when the senators broke in for questions, they did so with pertinent questions that added to the debate, Dems and Reps alike. But there was also a bit of fun. Ted Cruz took some time to quote everything from Shakespeare to Patton. Marco Rubio followed up by quoting Wiz Khalifa and Jay-Z. It was all still relevant, though, as they tied the artistic references into the debate.
But the most epic part was when Ted Cruz carpet bombed the Senate with tweets from everyone who was supporting Rand Paul. The twitterverse was alive with all things Rand Paul. Around the world. He did this twice, bringing thousands who were glued to C-Span (when's the last time that happened, ever) into the process. Ted Cruz gets the Best Supporting Actor award for that. But the MVP was still Rand Paul, because he suddenly energized the public about politics, for the first time in years.
Of course, it was only a matter of time until detracty detractors who detract started detracting. The first salvo was the typical opening move of the radical left. Articles, blog posts, and tweets starting referring to his RAAAACISM! This was in reference to a series of interviews in 2010 where Rand Paul failed to properly bless and sprinkle and show proper deference to the Civil Rights Act. Instead, he had the incredibly bad taste to note that other fundamental rights, like free speech and property ownership, are occasionally at odds with the CRA. Instead of bowing and scraping before the almighty CRA, he actually had the temerity to suggest that the CRA and other fundamental rights might occasionally conflict with each other and need to be reconciled. This is an obscure legal concept also known as: The Reason Judges Have Jobs.
Race baiting is all too common these days. But it's a waste of time to obsess over this sort of thing. Someone who fails to have even this rudimentary understanding of how the Constitution works is the posterchild for low information voters. What this episode does is show two key things about Rand Paul. He's willing to explore and debate the Constitution in a nuanced way, and he's willing to go where few dare to tread.
So when "Racist" doesn't work, go for "Irrelevant". Various writers and journalists have decided that he was wasting time. Debating a question that was already answered. For example, I read a piece by Tommy Christopher on Mediaite pushing this point. He believed that Eric Holder actually did answer the question. But the fact is, Holder left the question open. He used 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as examples of unusual circumstances where this might happen, but did not clarify explicitly what defines a circumstance where using a drone is allowed.
Of course, when "Irrelevant" fails, "Crazy" is always an option. I saw Krystal Ball and Toure on the Cycle pushing this. Apparently, Rand Paul was just a nut ginning up a silly, non-issue to pander to conspiracy theorists, anti-government nuts, and "savages" (Toure's word. Stay Classy). Notably, just as liberal Steve Kornacki took a different position (Not sure where S.E. Cupp was) from his two colleagues and upheld the need for exploring these points. The relative newness of the drone program means there are lots of unanswered questions.
It's good that he did. The attorney general's response was a tad vague, saying that use of drones on Americans on American soil would only happen in extreme circumstances, but not clarifying what criteria would be used to determine what those circumstances are. And exploring unlikely hypotheticals is not something a crazy person does. It's common practice in politics.
I'm reminded of the 2008 Republican presidential campaign. In one debate, the various candidates were asked by Brit Hume about a highly unlikely, ticking time-bomb, Jack-Baueresque scenario. Would they, in the wake of several damaging attacks against the US, torture someone who potentially had knowledge of another attack that was imminent? Mitt Romney danced around it (shocking, I know. Kind of like an Eric Holder). Rand's father Ron Paul was strongly against it. So was John McCain. Of course, McCain comes to that position honestly, and from personal experience.
Brit Hume asked a pertinent question about an unlikely, there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-we scenario. This is because these highly unlikely scenarios are the ones where people and governments take the most extreme action and are at great risk for overreach. To a libertarian type of guy like Rand Paul, government overreach is to be avoided at all costs. So I find it odd that John McCain, who was happy to answer the question about the unlikely scenario related to torture, was so willing to dismiss the unlikely scenario that was proposed by Rand Paul.
Paul admits it's unlikely that Obama would ever do this. And it's unlikely that anyone would do this. But one unfortunate election could result in a nut who would consider droning Americans without due process of law. So defining the laws clearly now prevents this scenario from happening. Just as defining torture ensures we don't cross the line there. I'm surprised that McCain would be willing to deal in hypotheticals in one case, but spurn the same thing in another. Especially when the one he spurned is the one more likely to result in dead bodies, if it did ever happen.
Eric Holder did respond. The answer was that we can't use drones against "non-combatant" Americans. Plenty of Paul critics claim that the simplicity of this response (including two out of three Cycle liberals) makes Paul look ridiculous. But it doesn't. Paul got some additional clarification (his goal from the start), which isn't ridiculous. The response also leaves questions open, suggesting that Paul is on to something. What is a "combatant" American? Holder's still missing a few details. And if we don't define it, and we elect some nutjob in the future, that guy may decide to define it for us with executive orders.
Rand Paul took a stand to make the administration clarify how far it would go to protect itself. He's seeking to set a standard that, even if it is highly unlikely we'll ever need it, is something that we must be absolutely clear about. Because if we don't figure it out now, we may find ourselves figuring it out the hard way in the future. This is not Rand Paul being an anti-government conspiracy nut. Nor is he pandering to the extreme right. He's a libertarian. That's not a wingnut; libertarians tend to be moderate. And the evidence of that is the support he got from the left. From politicians (Wyden) to actors (John Cusack) to activists (Code Pink and more than a few Anonymous and Occupy supporters, based on tweets I saw) to left wing journalists (Cenk Uygur of Current TV. That happened.), members of the left wing supported him. He was able to unite disparate factions in a common cause. It's been a while since a politician could pull that off. No wonder #StandwithRand is still trending.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Christmas: An Excuse For Family, Friends, and Co-Workers to Slowly Poison Us
I was on my way to spend Christmas with my family in Georgia, and I stopped in a gas station not far from Savannah. Given that I'd been on the road for over six hours, I felt an urge to use the facilities. While performing the necessary tasks in the men's room, the janitor, who was busy cleaning, said "So, are you ready for Christmas, or are you ready for it to come and go?" Initially, I was perturbed. Problem one, the guy was being too damned happy. I rarely approve of happy people, because I think they're unrealistic. Problem two, he started a conversation with a guy standing in front of a urinal. Major faux-pas. Eyes forward, no talking, and tend to your business is proper bathroom etiquette.
But I overcame my initial annoyance with the guy, because I realized I had no idea how to answer his question. After some thought, I answered honestly and said "That's not a bad question." He thought this was hilarious. I was somewhat disappointed in myself for unintentionally making a guy who was already unnecessarily happy even happier. My inability to answer with a resounding yes was quite simple. I'm not a Scrooge or a Grinch (although I am occasionally a grouch), but I have noticed a downside to the Christmas season. Specifically 5-15 extra pounds. It happens each year.
The evidence of this was confirmed earlier today, when my boss said "Hey, have you put on weight?" If it's not already obvious, my boss has the tact equivalent of, say, Archie Bunker. Or Oscar the Grouch. Or Archie Bunker after he gets his ass kicked by Oscar the Grouch. Or vice-versa. The point is he has limited social skills. But he's not afraid to speak his mind, and he wasn't wrong. Still, I don't want to hear comments on my weight gain from friends, family, and co-workers. This is like drug-pushers telling addicts they have a problem. This was their idea.
Here's why it's their idea. It starts in early December. The biggest clients of my employer and the people who sell things to my employer (payroll provider, benefits provider, etc.) send us gifts for Christmas. This usually means food, which is laid out in a common area to tempt all passersby. Then the people I work with (including boss-guy) bring in leftovers from various Christmas parties. The food in question is not exactly health food. On the contrary, it tends to be assorted forms of sugar-coated lard drowning in cholesterol sauce.
Then I go home for Christmas, and it gets worse. First step, dinner with the immediate family. In Southeast Georgia. Where the only thing we don't fry is the iced tea, and that's just because we haven't figured out how. Yet. Then the next day is dinner with the extended family. Which is a potluck dinner. In the South, that means a smorgasbord of waistline increases and myocardial infarctions waiting to happen. Including ten different desserts covered in molasses or chocolate or both. And iced tea. Of course. Sweet iced tea; loaded with sugar. None of that pagan-style "unsweet" (shudder) iced tea.
As a parting gift, parents, aunts, uncles, etc. give me as much of their leftovers to take home with me as they can. Old people are like that. They pretend it's out of generosity, but they're really just jealously clinging to their remaining years of life. They figure I've got quite a few more left than they do, so if lose a year or two I'll still have a few decades to play with. Never mind that they're slowly poisoning me with the most unhealthy (but admittedly awesome) food on the planet.
So why not throw it all out? Nuh-uh. When you're raised in a culture that celebrates frugality (we use leftover pickle jars as drinking glasses), wasting all that food is sacrilege. Besides, the food is just too good. I can't resist, even though it could kill me. Moth to the flame. So Christmas alone results in double digit weight increase and multiple carb comas. And it takes a week to go through the leftovers.
This means New Year's Eve is just insult to injury. At precisely the moment I finish the Christmas leftovers, I'm beset by a holiday involving the eating of buffalo wings, fried chicken, barbecue, hamburgers, hot dogs, french fries, and onion rings. Not to mention imbibing lots of alcohol. No wonder so many people make a diet their New Year's resolution. Our greatest dietary sins are committed just prior to the end of the year, so our penance begins in January. Fortunately, the raging hangover on January 1st is a not so subtle reminder that I need to start behaving myself.
So, yeah, Random-Guy-In-Gas-Station-Bathroom. I was ready to indulge in an eating orgy for a week, AKA Christmas. But I was also ready for it to come and go, hoping that the damage wouldn't be too great. Yeah, boss. I did put on a few pounds. Truth is, I don't really regret it. It's ironic that I choose what's considered by most Americans to be the holiest time of year to indulge in one of my favorite sins. Gluttony. I know I'll have to make up for it somehow over the next few weeks or months. Maybe I did take a year or two off of my life. But it was worth it.
But I overcame my initial annoyance with the guy, because I realized I had no idea how to answer his question. After some thought, I answered honestly and said "That's not a bad question." He thought this was hilarious. I was somewhat disappointed in myself for unintentionally making a guy who was already unnecessarily happy even happier. My inability to answer with a resounding yes was quite simple. I'm not a Scrooge or a Grinch (although I am occasionally a grouch), but I have noticed a downside to the Christmas season. Specifically 5-15 extra pounds. It happens each year.
The evidence of this was confirmed earlier today, when my boss said "Hey, have you put on weight?" If it's not already obvious, my boss has the tact equivalent of, say, Archie Bunker. Or Oscar the Grouch. Or Archie Bunker after he gets his ass kicked by Oscar the Grouch. Or vice-versa. The point is he has limited social skills. But he's not afraid to speak his mind, and he wasn't wrong. Still, I don't want to hear comments on my weight gain from friends, family, and co-workers. This is like drug-pushers telling addicts they have a problem. This was their idea.
Here's why it's their idea. It starts in early December. The biggest clients of my employer and the people who sell things to my employer (payroll provider, benefits provider, etc.) send us gifts for Christmas. This usually means food, which is laid out in a common area to tempt all passersby. Then the people I work with (including boss-guy) bring in leftovers from various Christmas parties. The food in question is not exactly health food. On the contrary, it tends to be assorted forms of sugar-coated lard drowning in cholesterol sauce.
Then I go home for Christmas, and it gets worse. First step, dinner with the immediate family. In Southeast Georgia. Where the only thing we don't fry is the iced tea, and that's just because we haven't figured out how. Yet. Then the next day is dinner with the extended family. Which is a potluck dinner. In the South, that means a smorgasbord of waistline increases and myocardial infarctions waiting to happen. Including ten different desserts covered in molasses or chocolate or both. And iced tea. Of course. Sweet iced tea; loaded with sugar. None of that pagan-style "unsweet" (shudder) iced tea.
As a parting gift, parents, aunts, uncles, etc. give me as much of their leftovers to take home with me as they can. Old people are like that. They pretend it's out of generosity, but they're really just jealously clinging to their remaining years of life. They figure I've got quite a few more left than they do, so if lose a year or two I'll still have a few decades to play with. Never mind that they're slowly poisoning me with the most unhealthy (but admittedly awesome) food on the planet.
So why not throw it all out? Nuh-uh. When you're raised in a culture that celebrates frugality (we use leftover pickle jars as drinking glasses), wasting all that food is sacrilege. Besides, the food is just too good. I can't resist, even though it could kill me. Moth to the flame. So Christmas alone results in double digit weight increase and multiple carb comas. And it takes a week to go through the leftovers.
This means New Year's Eve is just insult to injury. At precisely the moment I finish the Christmas leftovers, I'm beset by a holiday involving the eating of buffalo wings, fried chicken, barbecue, hamburgers, hot dogs, french fries, and onion rings. Not to mention imbibing lots of alcohol. No wonder so many people make a diet their New Year's resolution. Our greatest dietary sins are committed just prior to the end of the year, so our penance begins in January. Fortunately, the raging hangover on January 1st is a not so subtle reminder that I need to start behaving myself.
So, yeah, Random-Guy-In-Gas-Station-Bathroom. I was ready to indulge in an eating orgy for a week, AKA Christmas. But I was also ready for it to come and go, hoping that the damage wouldn't be too great. Yeah, boss. I did put on a few pounds. Truth is, I don't really regret it. It's ironic that I choose what's considered by most Americans to be the holiest time of year to indulge in one of my favorite sins. Gluttony. I know I'll have to make up for it somehow over the next few weeks or months. Maybe I did take a year or two off of my life. But it was worth it.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Jumping the Gun: Why Most of the Gun Debate After Newtown Isn't Helpful
Jay Carney got some flak after the Newtown massacre by saying "Today is not the day to talk about gun control." Detractors almost universally said "if not now, when." They were right. We can say what we want, when we want. But pushing for gun control immediately after the incident, before the facts come in, increases the chances that we'll just say or do something useless.
Many of the loudest gun control advocates are pushing for assault weapons bans, because a semi-automatic assault rifle was used to kill the children in Newtown. Many gun advocates, including many pundits and politicians who have previously opposed these bans, are saying that nobody needs weapons like this. I'm generally inclined to agree with this, but any time the government tells me what I do or don't need, the Libertarian part of my psyche cringes. One thing they say that makes sense is that certain weapons only belong on the battlefield. The trick is identifying what that means.
The definition of assault weapons is a bit vague. Automatic weapons are always considered assault weapons. Not all semi-automatic weapons are considered assault weapons, only ones with certain characteristics are. The assault weapons ban defined an assault weapon as a weapon with detachable magazines and at least two other characteristics that were considered typical of assault weapons. The problem is, a few of the things that potentially define something as an assault weapon seem mostly or entirely harmless.
Two examples are pistol grips and collapsible stocks. A collapsible stock is a stock that can be shortened in order to be customized to the size of the user. I don't see how this makes a gun noticeably more dangerous. A pistol grip allows the user to control the recoil more easily. One could argue that it makes a shooter more able to shoot people more quickly. But it also makes them more able to shoot static targets more quickly or deer more quickly or whatever. Typically, how quickly someone can kill targets has more to do with the skill of the shooter than the type of stock or grip that a gun has. This ban seems to be designed to ban guns that look dangerous. They may like they belong on a battlefield, but many of them are no more or less dangerous than more ordinary looking weapons.
Another problem with fixating on assault weapons is the fact that they are not used in most murders. Most murders are committed with pistols, which is probably why the last assault weapons ban had no noticeable effect on homicide rates. The President echoed this in the presidential debates, noting that most murders involve "cheap handguns". Even some mass killings are done with pistols. The Virginia Tech massacre, the worst school shooting ever, was done with two handguns. By focusing entirely on the specific circumstances of the shootings in Newtown, we risk ignoring most of the violence in this country.
Another thing that has come to the forefront is a focus on mental health and identifying people with problems and treating them. Many, if not all, of the mass murderers in recent years have had some kind of mental health problem. Disturbing behavior by the Tucson killer was reported by many classmates at a local community college he attended and nothing was done. The Aurora killer's classmates also reported strange behavior and nothing was done. On the other hand, The Virginia Tech killer and one of the Columbine killers had been diagnosed with mental health problems prior to the attacks and had received treatment. The Newtown killer was known to have some mental problems and some reports suggest his mother was about to have him committed. These instances all suggest that more intervention is necessary and when it happens it needs to be more effective. But what's also true is that most murderers are not crazy. Most murderers kill for a relatively mundane reason: an argument, jealousy, revenge. Angry results in more murders than crazy. Focusing only on the mentally unstable ignores most of the problem. It's always a good idea to improve mental health care (or any other health care), but this won't fix most of the problem.
As with every other mass shooting, the debate over the "culture of violence" has reemerged. We are told that America has a history of violence and our culture glorifies violence and contributed to this. But this actually doesn't make any sense. The same violent movies and video games that are common in a America are equally common in other nations where murder is extremely rare. American movies are commonly watched in Canada, the UK, France, Germany, and Australia. They buy the video games too. France, the UK, and Germany have far more violent histories than America. Yet murder rates are low in all of these countries. Not only would attempting to silence or deter these forms of entertainment be a violation of the First Amendment, it would be a complete waste of time. Other countries are able to avoid real violence, despite the fact that they are exposed to the same amount of fake violence as we are and despite the fact that they have histories as violent, if not more so, than ours.
While I'm on the subject of foreign countries, it has to be mentioned that other industrialized nations have stricter gun control laws. In some, like Japan and England, this results in low rates of gun ownership and low murder rates. Others, like Canada or France, have relatively high numbers of gun owners (though not as many as us) but still have low murder rates. And some others, like Brazil and Russia, have low rates of gun ownership but much higher murder rates. What this means is the presence or lack of guns and gun control laws doesn't appear to predict a country's murder rate. The source of the problem is something else.
This doesn't mean gun control is useless. I think some gun control measures makes sense. Smaller magazine size is fine. I truly don't need a 30 round clip to defend myself. If I need to defend myself from an attack and need more than six or seven bullets to do it, this is the sort of attack I should be running away from. And limiting magazine size won't prevent me from buying more than one gun. This won't stop people from producing homemade high capacity magazines, but I still think it will reduce the chances of mass shootings occurring. Background checks should be required for all gun purchases. Instant background checks should be available everywhere. There must be a way to make background checks possible at gun shows. This won't stop strawbuyers, but it will still prevent many felons and crazy people from getting guns. Lastly, one thing that often goes unmentioned is that many criminals acquire guns from licensed dealers who make illicit sales under the table. So another thing that must happen is additional enforcement.
But as for the rest of the debate, it's a hasty reaction which will have little or no effect. We won't fix the problem by renewing an assault weapons ban that didn't accomplish anything significant the first time, other than boosting assault weapon sales before its passage. And hand wringing over movies and video games is a waste of time. This is a multi-faceted problem that will probably take decades or generations to fix. We won't be able to control it if we only respond to the headlines. We will not fix anything if we attempt to resurrect legislation that already failed once. We must be willing to commit to rigorous analysis of all aspects of the problem and explore all possible solutions, while being mindful of the Constitution and its guarantees. We must accept that this requires a prolonged effort at the grassroots level by all citizens who want the violence to stop. If we want to prevent future violence and respect the memory of the victims of violence, we must attempt to find solutions that actually work and shake off the tired old rhetoric that solves nothing.
Many of the loudest gun control advocates are pushing for assault weapons bans, because a semi-automatic assault rifle was used to kill the children in Newtown. Many gun advocates, including many pundits and politicians who have previously opposed these bans, are saying that nobody needs weapons like this. I'm generally inclined to agree with this, but any time the government tells me what I do or don't need, the Libertarian part of my psyche cringes. One thing they say that makes sense is that certain weapons only belong on the battlefield. The trick is identifying what that means.
The definition of assault weapons is a bit vague. Automatic weapons are always considered assault weapons. Not all semi-automatic weapons are considered assault weapons, only ones with certain characteristics are. The assault weapons ban defined an assault weapon as a weapon with detachable magazines and at least two other characteristics that were considered typical of assault weapons. The problem is, a few of the things that potentially define something as an assault weapon seem mostly or entirely harmless.
Two examples are pistol grips and collapsible stocks. A collapsible stock is a stock that can be shortened in order to be customized to the size of the user. I don't see how this makes a gun noticeably more dangerous. A pistol grip allows the user to control the recoil more easily. One could argue that it makes a shooter more able to shoot people more quickly. But it also makes them more able to shoot static targets more quickly or deer more quickly or whatever. Typically, how quickly someone can kill targets has more to do with the skill of the shooter than the type of stock or grip that a gun has. This ban seems to be designed to ban guns that look dangerous. They may like they belong on a battlefield, but many of them are no more or less dangerous than more ordinary looking weapons.
Another problem with fixating on assault weapons is the fact that they are not used in most murders. Most murders are committed with pistols, which is probably why the last assault weapons ban had no noticeable effect on homicide rates. The President echoed this in the presidential debates, noting that most murders involve "cheap handguns". Even some mass killings are done with pistols. The Virginia Tech massacre, the worst school shooting ever, was done with two handguns. By focusing entirely on the specific circumstances of the shootings in Newtown, we risk ignoring most of the violence in this country.
Another thing that has come to the forefront is a focus on mental health and identifying people with problems and treating them. Many, if not all, of the mass murderers in recent years have had some kind of mental health problem. Disturbing behavior by the Tucson killer was reported by many classmates at a local community college he attended and nothing was done. The Aurora killer's classmates also reported strange behavior and nothing was done. On the other hand, The Virginia Tech killer and one of the Columbine killers had been diagnosed with mental health problems prior to the attacks and had received treatment. The Newtown killer was known to have some mental problems and some reports suggest his mother was about to have him committed. These instances all suggest that more intervention is necessary and when it happens it needs to be more effective. But what's also true is that most murderers are not crazy. Most murderers kill for a relatively mundane reason: an argument, jealousy, revenge. Angry results in more murders than crazy. Focusing only on the mentally unstable ignores most of the problem. It's always a good idea to improve mental health care (or any other health care), but this won't fix most of the problem.
As with every other mass shooting, the debate over the "culture of violence" has reemerged. We are told that America has a history of violence and our culture glorifies violence and contributed to this. But this actually doesn't make any sense. The same violent movies and video games that are common in a America are equally common in other nations where murder is extremely rare. American movies are commonly watched in Canada, the UK, France, Germany, and Australia. They buy the video games too. France, the UK, and Germany have far more violent histories than America. Yet murder rates are low in all of these countries. Not only would attempting to silence or deter these forms of entertainment be a violation of the First Amendment, it would be a complete waste of time. Other countries are able to avoid real violence, despite the fact that they are exposed to the same amount of fake violence as we are and despite the fact that they have histories as violent, if not more so, than ours.
While I'm on the subject of foreign countries, it has to be mentioned that other industrialized nations have stricter gun control laws. In some, like Japan and England, this results in low rates of gun ownership and low murder rates. Others, like Canada or France, have relatively high numbers of gun owners (though not as many as us) but still have low murder rates. And some others, like Brazil and Russia, have low rates of gun ownership but much higher murder rates. What this means is the presence or lack of guns and gun control laws doesn't appear to predict a country's murder rate. The source of the problem is something else.
This doesn't mean gun control is useless. I think some gun control measures makes sense. Smaller magazine size is fine. I truly don't need a 30 round clip to defend myself. If I need to defend myself from an attack and need more than six or seven bullets to do it, this is the sort of attack I should be running away from. And limiting magazine size won't prevent me from buying more than one gun. This won't stop people from producing homemade high capacity magazines, but I still think it will reduce the chances of mass shootings occurring. Background checks should be required for all gun purchases. Instant background checks should be available everywhere. There must be a way to make background checks possible at gun shows. This won't stop strawbuyers, but it will still prevent many felons and crazy people from getting guns. Lastly, one thing that often goes unmentioned is that many criminals acquire guns from licensed dealers who make illicit sales under the table. So another thing that must happen is additional enforcement.
But as for the rest of the debate, it's a hasty reaction which will have little or no effect. We won't fix the problem by renewing an assault weapons ban that didn't accomplish anything significant the first time, other than boosting assault weapon sales before its passage. And hand wringing over movies and video games is a waste of time. This is a multi-faceted problem that will probably take decades or generations to fix. We won't be able to control it if we only respond to the headlines. We will not fix anything if we attempt to resurrect legislation that already failed once. We must be willing to commit to rigorous analysis of all aspects of the problem and explore all possible solutions, while being mindful of the Constitution and its guarantees. We must accept that this requires a prolonged effort at the grassroots level by all citizens who want the violence to stop. If we want to prevent future violence and respect the memory of the victims of violence, we must attempt to find solutions that actually work and shake off the tired old rhetoric that solves nothing.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
The Gun Made Me Do It
Bob Costas has been echoing the same tired old talking point that gun control advocates have been spewing for years. On the O'Reilly Factor, Bob Costas said (paraphrasing) that if more people possess guns that it is more likely that a dispute would escalate because someone has a gun. What he actually said is here, on the second clip at about the 1:30 mark. This assumes that the possession of the gun is more likely to cause one person to want to kill another in a dispute. This is false. It's true that a person with a gun is more likely to succeed in killing someone else, but the gun does not magically cause someone to be more aggressive.
The problem is not the presence of guns. The problem is that people in the United States are more likely to want to kill someone than they would be in many other countries. Many of the highly publicized murders we've seen were preventable without taking away guns. Kansas City Chiefs Guy had a history of problems in his personal life. Crazy Guy in Arizona had been reported acting loony at his community college. Nobody did anything. If we had been more proactive about identifying and dealing with these problems, they never would have escalated into violence.
More recently, Michael Dunn killed Jordan Davis in Jacksonville, Florida. This was an escalation of a simple argument. A motive for murder that is all too common. This is the real problem. People in the United States are willing to kill for stupid reasons. Apparently, Jordan Davis and his pals were just playing their music too loud. That's not a sufficient reason to kill. We should be focusing our efforts on figuring out why people are willing to do things this senseless.
Instead, Costas and others simply fixate on the guns. If two guys want to kill each other and we take away their guns, it doesn't suddenly make them not want to kill each other. Disarming us isn't the answer.
Gun control advocates like to point to other industrialized nations which have strict gun control laws and lower crime. But they always forget to mention Russia and Brazil. Russia has extremely strict gun control laws, but twice the murder rate of the US. Brazil is the most violent industrialized nation in the world, despite its gun laws. Here in the US, gun ownership has been on the rise, despite the fact that violent crimes have been declining for years. The presence or lack of guns or gun control laws isn't the problem or the solution.
The problem of violence is extremely complex and nuanced. Simply demanding gun control every time a tragedy happens is a simple-minded solution. Simple-minded solutions do not fix complex problems. We need to make an effort to identify why we can't identify dangerous people in time and why ordinary people are so willing to kill for ridiculous reasons. Until we accept that deeper analysis is necessary, this problem won't go away.
The problem is not the presence of guns. The problem is that people in the United States are more likely to want to kill someone than they would be in many other countries. Many of the highly publicized murders we've seen were preventable without taking away guns. Kansas City Chiefs Guy had a history of problems in his personal life. Crazy Guy in Arizona had been reported acting loony at his community college. Nobody did anything. If we had been more proactive about identifying and dealing with these problems, they never would have escalated into violence.
More recently, Michael Dunn killed Jordan Davis in Jacksonville, Florida. This was an escalation of a simple argument. A motive for murder that is all too common. This is the real problem. People in the United States are willing to kill for stupid reasons. Apparently, Jordan Davis and his pals were just playing their music too loud. That's not a sufficient reason to kill. We should be focusing our efforts on figuring out why people are willing to do things this senseless.
Instead, Costas and others simply fixate on the guns. If two guys want to kill each other and we take away their guns, it doesn't suddenly make them not want to kill each other. Disarming us isn't the answer.
Gun control advocates like to point to other industrialized nations which have strict gun control laws and lower crime. But they always forget to mention Russia and Brazil. Russia has extremely strict gun control laws, but twice the murder rate of the US. Brazil is the most violent industrialized nation in the world, despite its gun laws. Here in the US, gun ownership has been on the rise, despite the fact that violent crimes have been declining for years. The presence or lack of guns or gun control laws isn't the problem or the solution.
The problem of violence is extremely complex and nuanced. Simply demanding gun control every time a tragedy happens is a simple-minded solution. Simple-minded solutions do not fix complex problems. We need to make an effort to identify why we can't identify dangerous people in time and why ordinary people are so willing to kill for ridiculous reasons. Until we accept that deeper analysis is necessary, this problem won't go away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)