So today I was watching my kids walking out of school, which in itself is super cute. There is nothing like watching your 6-year-old and 4-year-old walking to the car, in school uniform (though WHY must the Master 6’s shirts be business style white shirts? Distaster’s waiting to happen that have seen is purchase EIGHT this year so far at $60 each… Yeah holy shitballs right?) and bags that are 2/3 their size dragging behind them. As a Mummy moment, it’s all kinds of cute.
Though we know this blog isn’t about fucking cute. What I also noticed blew my brain. Not too much can do that, I generally fundamentally think the majority of the population is all kinds of stupid. Not you dear reader, because you read this blog and stupid people don’t read this blog. Well unless it’s about them, then they fucking read it obsessively. I’m still living it up in my hater mansion in your head btw. Living it up… Sitting on the deck in the nice spring weather drinking a good glass of Pinot. Cheers!
At my kid’s school you can tell the kids grade level by shirt colour, up to starched business shirt for 6 year olds. I challenge any 6 year old boy to keep a shirt like that in pristine condition, as the school requires. Gotta love private schools. Non pristine shirt gets you an email from them politley requesting you get a new shirt. My inbox would be polluted by these if I wan’t in the business of shirt buying frequently, because my son is 6 and of course his shirt gets dirty so go fuck you and your uniform code are not appropriate. Even when worded delicately. I found this out the interesting way. But I digress this isn’t about the state of my kids shirts or the uniform guidelines (though seriously they are out of control they even have a specific range of lengths boys hair can be, not too short and back of hair can’t be touching collar of shirt). They actually take this shit real seriously.
I’m rarely surprised…. You all know this.
But this surprised me, today after school I saw a kid in a shirt (indicating he was a 5-6 year old) sitting outside in the middle of the oval after school (unsupervised may I add) talking on a mobile phone. Luckily I’m not in the market for another 5-year-old boy. A girl since I have only 1 and 3 boys? Hmm maybe, though my diva is a handful as is. Again I digress…
That’s right, a kid at the age of 6 max sitting in school property, totally unsupervised, talking on his mobile phone. What the living fuck?! On several different levels.
What 6-year-old has his own mobile phone? Prepaid or not? Yes it was a real phone, an iPhone 7 at that and it was his and he was chatting away on it. You could argue Mum might be running late and she was talking to him. But if Mum runs late, the kids go to the after school care which is to make sure kids are safe, watched and generally because it’s the schools fucking responsibility to keep them safe when you have placed them in their care. This means they are not sitting unsupervised on the oval. Damn even the car park is supervised, he’d had been safer there! Digressed again. This kid had a PHONE, an expensive phone and is just chatting away to God knows who for the good 20 minutes I was keeping an eye on him. I REALLY should have gone up to him to check on him and taken him to a more appropriate place for a 6-year-old. Hindsight. Next time I will.
When did it become common place to give small children their own phone? Hell it’s even in the school rules that senior students (year 7 so 12 and up) must have their phones turned off DURING CLASS. So I can draw from this it’s ok for a 12-year-old to have a phone at school as long as they are only using it before, after and in their lunch breaks. Again, what the living fuck? Why does a kid who’s 12 NEED a phone for anyways. Yes you could argue its a safety thing if they are walking home, taking a bus or to call parent that they need to be picked up after an after school activity. But as a kid my parents KNEW what times activities finished and were there to pick me up at the designated time. I never walked or caught a bus to school so I can’t comment on that. Though with private schools bus drop off is from door to door, so that eliminates that. But since the wording of the school rules doesn’t say kids can only have phone in them for this purpose, I assume any kid can have a phone. Has the world gone mad?
I got my first phone when I got my license, at 17. I was independent and if I ran into trouble or the car broke down or something I could contact someone. This makes perfect sense. Actually a child driving without a phone would be irresponsible. As long as it’s wired into the car and hands free. We don’t need new drivers breaking the law talking holding the phone or texting when driving. Let’s face it a 17-year-old has minimal driving skills compared to an experienced adult, or a responsible adult I should say because supposedly experienced and responsible adults still break those two laws plus also drive drunk and high.
Don’t even start me on the total selfishness of drunk and high driving. You get a license here at 17 and can legally drink at 18. We all know, well science does, that the pre frontal cortex for risk assessment doesn’t fully develop into adult logic until 25. This is why basically teenagers and early 20 year olds do a lot of dumb shit. They don’t have the mental faculties to do a full risk assessment and comprehend all the risks and outcomes involved. Yes, we’ve all been there, I admit it freely. But I’m also very type A and for the greatest portion of my life been an over thinker and risk taking was always more calculated than my counterparts. Likely why I don’t have a criminal record or managed to hurt/kill myself or someone else. Though I have saved a few lives….. That’s a whole other life and not for this blog! That said I’ve done dumb shit….
But as far as drink driving or drugged driving goes I have HUGE issues. Wrap yourself around a pole and die because you made a bad decision, not a good thing but it’s never that simple is it? They generally always take someone else out with them. Whether it’s hurt or kill and driving with these idiots on the road, with my four kids in the car and I see all fucking kinds of red. If a drunk/drugged driver ever smashed into my car and even a single hair was harmed on anyone’s head in my car, that other person better be prepared to deal with me. Put it this way if the accident didn’t hurt them badly I would. If my child lost their life, I sure as shit would be in jail for murder. No joke. I could be near dead myself but I would still manage to fucking kill the bastard! Several times over if possible. But again I digress, seems to be the theme today.
We live in such a technology filled world, our kids come out of the womb with iPads, or close enough. There are numerous studies showing the disadvantages of introducing technology too young, yet they are still used in school because they are like kiddie crack. Kids ARE learning off them no doubt, but areas like social communication, attention span lengths for non technology related activities and even health (your kids playing with an iPad rather than running at the park, getting dirty and being physical and building immunity) issues. Yet we are all guilty of letting our kids use these things though I personally DO try to limit non learning activities, I’m that Mum. My kids will thank me for it one day.
So I sit here and ponder the line between technology advancing us as the human race and ruining us. I’m starting to think it’s a precarious line that needs close examination. Sure technology to enhance our lives is fine, when we need it to actually live our lives? Problem. I was lost without internet for 2 days when I recently went to a wedding where there was minimal reception. I had no idea what to do with myself. The saddest part was I ended up reading books on my iPad (or MrBmB as I gave up the iPad a long time ago) or watching movies on my laptop. All technology based…. I didn’t interact with a single person other than Mr BMB and my kids on the phone, I didn’t go outside and I sure as hell didn’t do something spontaneous or adventurous. I might be oldish, but I’m not dead and none of this other stuff occurred to me. I was too busy whining about the lack of internet, how many emails I was missing and how I couldnt shop online (yes I hate people and I hate shopping in centres with them) but I never used to have a choice.
So I wonder if this is what it’s like now, what hope do our children and their children have? We have SO many children being diagnosed with speech/language and communication disorders. Is it because we are more vigilant now or because we simply just don’t really communicate the same way anymore?
I’ll leave you with this interesting tidbit, for most children one of their first 10-20 words is iPad or phone. What the living fuck? That’s at 1 to 1.5 years of age, maybe younger if you have a talker. That clearly points out something is very wrong! The word park? In the top 50 to 100 and linguistically speaking park is a more easily formed word by sound acquisition than phone or iPad. The “p” sound is early developing “ph”, later and 2 syllable iPad, even later. So it’s all about exposure. Sobering thoughts really!
I have a few questions for the Antichrist! He’s listed as the 6th largest threat facing the world today.
Let’s ask some questions here. Lets start with the “build a wall” and go from there…
1. Who is building the wall and is it right all along the border? What is it made of? Who (as in a construction company) will be appointed to erect it? Will you have personal ties with them? Do you guarantee that there will be no backdoor deals?
2. How long will this take?
3. How much is this going to cost and where is the money from? Taxpayers, so in which areas are you cutting funding to support the cost of building this wall?
4. If we look back on history when has building a wall ever been successful? With the exception the the Great Wall Of China, which is one of the great wonders of the ancient world built in 206BC and actually wasn’t a complete wall, it was added to over time. It’s value isn’t in its performance but more to do with the enormity of it and how long it’s been around.
5. Exactly how does this wall stop terrorism? Or is it just stopping illegal immigration?
6. Why do you think you have a sound fiscal policy and proven background? How many times have you been bankrupt? (Twice) Also you claim to be self made but admit you were given a “small loan” from your father of 1 MILLION dollars to start up your companies. Keep in mind how long ago this was and what it would be the equivalent to in today’s terms. (Far more, I can’t be bothered looking back at indexed prices to work out the equivalent.) Then comes in your inheritance, I assume this was used to back the failed ventures that caused you to file for bankruptcy? How much money have YOU actually made? Or was it all inherited wealth that you’ve managed to squander?
7. For fun, Mr Trump can you now explains what the nuclear triad is? How it works? It’s purpose and which one of the triad will you be focusing on?
*hint to question 7 “the nuclear is important” and a 7 minute waffle about somethings unrelated and being totally incoherent is not a correct answer and it was noted you poorly attempted to deflect from the question. Can you answer it now?
8. Putin supports you publicly. How? Why? What is your relationship with him? Shouldn’t we be afraid of anyone Putin supports, his track record isn’t great? It’s ok though you’ve managed to piss him off too (and China), so good job at pissing off two countries you really don’t want offside. Ok I’ll be fair here so far you’ve only pissed off the Kremlin and not Putin (yet) but it’s imminent.
9. If you are so aggressive in debates and bigoted in your views how will you meet with other foreign presidents/prime ministers, heads of state and the people you represent know you will act appropriately? You say you have no filter. Don’t you think international diplomacy is needed in a President?
10. Can you actually give a speech or address where you stick strictly to your policies (which change a lot) and not just call other people names and act like a toddler? Can we have detailed lists of your policies and plans with rationale and costings?
11. When asked a question can you give a straight answer that actually answers the question? Do you hear the question and not understand them or do you just see it as a platform to rant on about something unrelated?
THIS ONE IS VERY IMPORTANT!!
12. You use fear and ignorant hate, the two lowest common denominators, to win over voters. If this is your strategy how can people be sure you won’t react disproportionally to any perceived threat if you do become President? Or do you just act first and think later? Remembering the President has access to nuclear weapons and can give the nod to use them at any point. (See point 7 and think the possibility of evoking “Presidential privilege”)
13. You throw out lots of strategies you think need to be implemented, they are based around perceived threat (which you have successfully managed to elevate through scaremoungering). Please tell us EXACTLY how you will practically implement these things, the timeframes, the costs, where you will get the money from and exactly how they will work. Also a real time analysed report on these so called “threats” so we can see the facts v your take?
14. Have you ever stepped out of Trump Towers (if they are still called that as I believe they are insolvent) and been an average person, of average wealth, without a privileged upbringing? No. So exactly how can you say you understand the plight of the average American? Have you ever been a “the average American”?
15. You used to be a staunch Democrat, in fact you were very good friends with Hillary Clinton. When did you switch teams? When you decided to run for office?
16. Do you have ANY political experience at all? No? So you think that starting off as President is reasonable?
17. You are aware the terms refugee and terrorist are not synonyms right? No you’re not.
18. Why do you think all are Mexicans are all resource sucking, have drug cartel affiliations, are weapon smuggling illegal immigrants who will murder your family in their sleep if you aren’t on high alert?
19. Do you realise the rest of the world are watching you and laughing? Yes we are afraid of you, the damage you could do if you by some ungodly act you did become President. Every trade partner or allied countries are watching you sideways and you’re not making any friends. (Putin and Kim Jong Un don’t count….) China isn’t a country you really want offside and you’ve managed to piss them off even before coming President and Russia is about to follow.
20. Have you ever been ruled clinically insane? If not would you be willing to undergo a test to prove you are sane? Along these lines, do you have ANY mental health issues that may impact on your ability to be a good president (lets start with narcissism and go from there)
i actually loved this blog by Chris Henson I’m going to put it here too!
Let’s Not Talk About Gun Control
It’s uniquely terrifying to consider the absurd extent to which many gun people are willing to suspend reason just so they chuan remain armed and dangerous. It’s like they are all in abusive relationships and every time there’s another shooting, they show up at work the next day with a black eye and a split lip. And they say, “You don’t understand. My guns LOVE me. They’d never do anything to hurt anyone. It’s the rest of the world that’s wrong.”
I am a gun owner.
I inherited five antique rifles from my father, a WWII vet and lifelong liberal, including an M1 Garand that’s pretty danged impressive. I keep them safely locked away and don’t have any ammo. I’ve done some shooting at the range and am a pretty good shot. I don’t believe for a moment that having these weapons in my home makes my family safer, nor do I believe I will ever use them to protect me or my family. In fact, my biggest worry is that someone will try to steal them, as a couple of them are rather valuable, or that they will be stolen and used to harm someone. I have tried twice to register these rifles officially. But, because I live in Virginia, I’ve been told it’s unnecessary. One of those handy loopholes. I’ve been able to buy ammo and go to shooting ranges without ever showing an ID. But I can’t buy Sudafed without one.
In the 90s, my wife was a reporter for WDBJ-7, a fine news organization that is now most famous because two young journalists were gunned down on live television while they were simply doing their job. The assailant had a long history of work turmoil and mental illness. A few months ago he was able to walk into gun stores and buy two handguns legally. Before the shooting the only scrape he ever had with the law was some traffic tickets. He was a law-abiding citizen.
Until he wasn’t.
I live 45 minutes from Virginia Tech and know several people who were directly affected or involved in the massacre there. My fifth grade history teacher was accidentally shot and killed on a hunting trip when I was still his student. I have several friends in law enforcement and the military, several friends I consider to be reasonable gun owners, and several friends I would classify as gun obsessed. I’ve had many, many conversations with many people of every stripe about the issue of guns and gun control.
Pretending that this is an issue of race or privilege or the fault of the media or [most insanely] an indicator that more people need to be armed is flat-out crazy. The reality in just about every single mass shooting in the last couple of decades is that a person with one or more diagnosed mental disabilities was able to legally purchase an arsenal of weapons, spend days or weeks or even months planning an attack, and then strike seemingly “without warning.” Except that typically there has been plenty of warning.
There are lots of carefully crafted, even clever arguments against gun control. They typically start with the Founding Fathers and statistics about other factors involved in gun deaths. Factors like mental illness, drugs, the media, race, man’s inherently violent nature — and that I’m just some kind of “fucking idiot.”
What I propose to do here is take down every one of these arguments, one by precious one. There are plenty of places online with prolific data showing the value of effective gun control. But data and facts and the lessons of history only work when people are willing to listen. We are, after all, talking about a large group of people who put more faith in information provided by organizations created to help industries like energy, firearms, insurance, or tobacco capture more profits than they do in more objective areas like scientific consensus, public education, and well-regarded news sources.
So, I’ll briefly present some familiar, often frustrating arguments against gun control measures, and provide what I believe are reasonably sound rhetorical arguments to dismantle them.
But, what should we do?
So, here’s what I think in a nutshell:
I think it should be much harder to own a firearm, whether a purchase, gift or inheritance.
There should be a permanent national registry of every firearm in the country. Just like there is for cars.
There should be far deeper background checks before anyone purchases a firearm, and these background checks should be kept on file. Anyone wanting to purchase a firearm should forfeit any privacy regarding diagnosis and treatment of any mental illness, history of domestic or workplace violence, etc.
There should be stricter limits on the type and capacity of firearms an individual can possess.
There should be stricter limitations on open and concealed carrying of firearms.
Everyone who owns a firearm should be licensed to do so, just like car ownership is. That license should require training and a qualifying exam.
Basically, potential gun owners should have to prove they are not dangerous to themselves or others before they are allowed to purchase a gun. Not the other way around.
There should be a single, robust federal agency dedicated to guns, gun sales, and gun safety. They shouldn’t have to spend their time worrying about tobacco or alcohol. But, aren’t you saying you want to take all our guns away?
Notice that nowhere have I mentioned taking everyone’s guns away.
But, the Second Amendment and Freedom!!!
For some reason, strident gun advocates appear to be terrified of these simple measures I’ve outlined. They start talking about a police state and “the founder’s intent” and panting a lot. Basically, when the Second Amendment gets talked about, it feels like the only part I hear is “well regulated” while the only part they hear is “shall not be infringed.” If there was ever a good use for a time machine, it would be to go back to when they were scrawling this incomprehensible passage and ask, “What you talkin’ ’bout, Willis?” We’d also have to explain about “Different Strokes” and television and the end of slavery and stuff, so we might want to pack a few sandwiches. Also, we should mention that, in the not too distant future, you can own a gun that will kill 20 school children in a minute or so.
If you believe that the Second Amendment is the only thing preventing tyranny in the US, then you don’t believe in the rest of the Constitution. It’s that simple.
Maybe we Americans need to get a better grip on what exactly our “traditions” are. We have a tradition of marginalizing non-white people. We have a tradition of ignoring facts. We have a tradition of trying desperately not to offend the most offensive people in our culture. We have a tradition of celebrating white losers and demonizing black leaders. We have a tradition of making excuses for hatred.
We are a nation that “prays for the victims” over and over and over and over again, and then conveniently ignores everything that made them victims in the first place. We fight guns with more guns. Drugs with more drugs. Racism with more racism. We fight poor schools by taking money away from them. We fight poverty by screwing the impoverished. We fight inequality by reminding people that equality isn’t for most people.
We’ve become a preemptive, shoot-first, because-me-and-my-bible-said-so, asshole nation. America was a really good idea. But it has too many traditions for it to ever catch on.
But, mental illness!
This brings us to the mental illness can of worms, obviously an entirely new subject. But I think a start would be to ask potential gun buyers these questions: 1. Do you believe you will use this weapon to defend yourself against your own government? 2. Do you believe carrying this gun will make you safer or freer? 3. Do you believe you will use this gun to heroically protect your family from a deranged killer? 4. Do you believe you have actually heard Barack Obama say out loud that he wants to take your guns away?
I believe answering “yes” to any one of these questions makes one a candidate for mental illness. And this doesn’t even get into the whole “are you a loner with murder fantasies?” or “are you currently ingesting any illegal substances other than pot?” side of things. Or “do you have periods of rage?” Or “do you belong to a gang?” Or “are you afraid of people wearing hoodies?” Or “are you constantly being spoken to by a tall, dark-cloaked, hooded figure that no one else can see?”
Then there’s the argument offered up by some gun advocates that “man is by nature passionate and violent. If he doesn’t kill with a gun, he’ll just find some other way to do it.” Following this up with “so, everyone’s right to own an AR-15 ‘shall not be infringed’” sounds batshit looneyballs to me. “Killers gonna kill. So, let’s make it as easy as possible.” But that’s what they say.
Here’s the problem with the “it’s not the guns, it’s the mental illness” argument. You’re essentially saying that “People use guns to kill because they are mentally unstable.” But isn’t it also possible that some people who are mentally unstable are actually drawn towards guns — out of fear, revenge fantasies, or fetishism? And then, by refusing to consider stronger background checks, etc., you’re basically saying, “If you prevent the mentally unstable from getting guns, then I might not be able to get guns either!” That’s when you really need to ask yourself some hard questions. Or better yet, ask a therapist. You’re essentially taking the side that wants the mentally unstable — the very people who you’ve identified as the real danger — to be able to arm themselves, just to ensure that you can arm yourself as well.
But, law-abiding citizens!
I recognize that, in general, violent crimes have dropped dramatically over the last two decades, including gun crimes. I don’t think for a second this has anything to do with relaxed gun laws. The per capita gun crime rate in the US still far exceeds those in every other first world nation.
I am sick to death of the phrase “law-abiding gun owner.” The NRA and its disciples insist that stricter regulations like universal background checks and a national gun registry would infringe on the rights of “law-abiding citizens.” When I point out that Cho, Loughner, Lanza and Holmes owned their weapons legally, the advocates quickly explain that, because they used their weapons in the commission of a crime, they were no longer law-abiding citizens and therefore, could not own their guns legally. Seriously, I’ve had this conversation at least twenty times. What this twisted and dangerous “logic” does is conveniently nullify the issue of legal ownership and thereby remove the Second Amendment from its own defensive argument.
But, only outlaws will have guns!
We’ve heard it a million times. Gun control measures are absolutely pointless because criminals have absolutely no respect for laws. This is true. Criminals have absolutely no respect for laws. That’s what makes them criminals. And yet, for some unknown reason, we have laws anyway.
It’s true that a considerably larger number of homicides are committed by guns owned by people with criminal backgrounds and that they are likely to possess one or more firearms illegally. But, a significant number of gun deaths are perpetrated by people who are, up to the point of pulling the trigger, law-abiding citizens.
Making guns more difficult to purchase legally makes it more difficult to purchase a gun illegally. Demand drives up black market prices astronomically. Tighter scrutiny of gun sales in general makes it more difficult for legal weapons to enter illegal markets.
None of this would wipe out gun violence entirely. But, by simply making it more difficult for a person with a violent history, a criminal history or a history of mental illness is a start in the right direction. What’s wrong with that? And ultimately, if “only outlaws have guns,” wouldn’t that make outlaws easier to identify?
But, guns don’t kill people!
Gun fans like to portray a loaded weapon as an inanimate object that poses no threat in a restaurant or mall or church. It’s the “guns don’t kill people” argument. They accuse proponents of greater restriction of labeling these pieces of metal and plastic as “criminals.” The reality is that a loaded gun is dangerous and, by its presence in a restaurant, raises the risk of someone being harmed. If it didn’t, no one would carry a gun in the first place. The whole point of carrying a gun in this way is “personal protection” by way of making yourself more potentially dangerous to someone else. That, by necessity, makes you more potentially dangerous to everyone else within range. It’s a simple fact.
But, guns save lives!
Yeah? Then why can’t they also kill people? I thought they were supposed to be inanimate objects.
But, car wrecks!
More people die in car accidents every year. So, shouldn’t they be outlawed too? Cars that are designed expressly for killing should definitely be outlawed. No question. Meanwhile, think about this: Cars don’t carry people great distances with little effort. People do! See? It’s not the same thing. So, let’s not muddy our discussion with false equivalencies.
The “Hitler took everyone’s guns away” thing is a bit of a misrepresentation — thanks to the NRA. For instance, the 1938 law signed by Hitler that Wayne LaPierre mentions in his 1994 book “Guns, Crime, and Freedom” basically does the opposite of what he says it did. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years. But even more important, the remilitarization of Germany actually put quite a lot of firearms in the hands of millions of men and boys. Yet, rather than rising up against their government, they marched into Austria, Sudetenland, France, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Hungary, Russia, North Africa, Greece, Yugoslavia, and more. Why? Because they were so easily misled by a propagandist organization that knew the value of inventing and exploiting “demons.” Whipping up fear leads to simple-minded obedience. Even, say, the fear of having your guns taken away.
But, a good guy with a gun!
Mr. LaPierre [a Roanoke native] famously stated that “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” He said this after the Newtown massacre. And he appears to believe it. Since then we’ve seen dozens of active shooters disarmed by unarmed people. Yet, in his world the WDBJ journalists should have been armed so that, despite the fact that they did not see their assailant until he was shooting them, they could comprehend the situation well enough to unholster their firearms and kill the shooter. Or perhaps they should have had an armed guard. Ultimately this fantasy would require an armed guard wherever one or more American citizens are at any given time. On the plus side [for the NRA], this would mean the sale of a whole lot more guns.
And here’s the problem with screaming “Chicago!” and the whole topic of legal guns versus illegal ones. “Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the country. And the most gun deaths.” In gang killings and such, we’re typically talking about a seriously illegal weapon or weapons. Where do they come from? Are they built in illegal, underground gun factories? No. They are manufactured legally by a legal manufacturer and sold to distributors, most of whom sell them legally but some of whom then sell them illegally. It’s pretty darned easy. Why? Because the NRA makes sure it is, that’s why. So when we wonder why there’s so many gun deaths in Chicago, with all its strict gun laws, it’s important to remember that the guns are still getting there, in part, because of lax laws and lax enforcement policies driven by the gun lobby. Keep in mind, there are a lot of places on earth with stricter gun laws than Chicago that have far, far fewer gun deaths. Those places typically aren’t surrounded by other places where you can buy several guns at a civic center.
Think of it this way: You have a stern “No Dog Shit In My Yard” policy. And your neighbors on both sides of your yard have a lax “My 20 Dogs Are Free To Roam And Shit Wherever They Want To” policy. How long do you think it’s going to take before you step in some shit? And when you DO step in that shit, will it be because you don’t allow dog shit in your yard or because your neighbors do in theirs?
But, blacks killing blacks!
The majority of African-American and Hispanic gun violence is gang-related. And gangs are essentially militias in that they are groups of like-minded individuals who have armed themselves so that they can protect themselves from rival militias and law enforcement — or rather, the government. Shouldn’t they be more well regulated?
What possible difference does it make what color a shooter or victim is? There are actually people who insist that if you removed all the black shootings from American gun death statistics, we’d be no worse than any other nation. But, they’re talking about black people who are American citizens — human beings — and are dying. If you don’t see them that way there’s really no point in talking with you about anything.
But, the safety of my family!
Finally we come to the gun lobby’s crowning achievement — fear for personal safety. Gun advocates are terrified of rare, random events like home invasions, armed robbery, and the need to stand their ground against an armed assailant. They insist that in the twenty or so minutes it takes for the police to arrive [it’s always more than twenty minutes, according to them] they could unlock a hidden box, take out their weapon and blow the intruder away.
Let’s ignore the argument that a gun in the house is more likely to harm a resident — through accidental shooting, suicide, or domestic violence — because gun advocates are heavily armed with contradictory statistics of dubious origin, like “2.5 million defensive uses per year!” and won’t let them go. They are convinced that easier access to more deadly weapons will allow them to defend themselves against someone who should not possess these weapons but does. Look at their circular logic. A. Someone very dangerous has access to firearms. B. I should be allowed to protect myself against that person. C. Therefore guns should be made easily available to everyone.
This fever deludes them into thinking the founding fathers believed this absurd scenario. To this argument I simply point out that Adam Lanza’s mother was arguably the most heavily armed woman in Newtown. And she was the first to die.
Again I take no credit for this informative and excellent blog on gun control. I just think everyone should read it! Written by Chris Henson.
Here is another brilliant piece by Sean Illing ia political scientist and a veteran of the USAF.
DISCLAIMER again, I did not write this piece but am sharing it. You’re welcome!
According to the Pew Research Center, the Christian share of the population has declined in recent years from 78.4 percent to 70.6 percent. At the same time, the number of Americans identifying as religiously unaffiliated – including atheists and agnostics – has increased from 16.1 percent to 22.8 percent. The study attributes the changing religious landscape largely to millennials, who attend church far less than previous generations. But the trend is noticeable among older demographics as well. So what are to we make of these findings?
They should be seen, in part, as an inevitable result of the politicization of Christianity. Politics and religion have always made uneasy bedfellows, but there was a definitive shift in America’s political and religious culture in the 1940s that set Christianity on its current course. As historian Kevin Kruse notes in a recent essay, it was during this period that Christian America was co-opted by corporate America. Following the Great Depression, Big Business had something of an image problem, and needed rebranding. Also problematic was FDR’s New Deal, which was indispensable to the middle class but anathema to corporate interests.
Industrialists realized, Kruse writes, that, “As men of God, ministers could voice the same conservative complaints as business leaders, but without any suspicion that they were motivated by self-interest.” Kruse goes on to explain how religious authorities were recruited by business leaders: “It was a watershed moment – the beginning of a movement that would advance over the 1940s and early 1950s a new blend of conservative religion, economics, and politics that one observer aptly anointed Christian libertarianism.” Under the guise of this ideology, American clergy began to demonize the state: individualism was exalted; secularism was synonymous with socialism; and collectivism became the preferred boogeyman of businessmen and Christians. In short, capitalists purchased the pulpits of preachers, who equated economic freedom with spiritual salvation, God with limited government.
This alliance paved the way for the prosperity gospel, a preposterous doctrine according to which godliness and wealth are one and the same. Although the prosperity gospel emerged in the late 1940s as an independent Pentecostal movement, it aligned perfectly with the free market theology of Christian libertarianism.
Much like Christian libertarianism, the prosperity gospel is a swindle, a half-baked justification for hucksterism and greed. It’s also an affront to Christ, who told his followers “to sell what you have and give to the poor,” to deny one’s self and “take nothing for the journey.” I’m not a Christian, but these are clearly not the words of a libertarian or a capitalist. That anyone could wrest a doctrine of self-interest out of Christ’s teaching is a miracle of misinterpretation. Christ was a prophet, not a profiteer. Prosperity theology is the gospel of those who want to feel good about serving themselves, who want to make a virtue of vice. And it’s alive and well in America today, thanks, in part, to the corruption of Christianity by entrenched economic interests.
The politicization of Christianity was hastened in the 1970s and ’80s, as conservative Protestants became politically active. The culture wars were reignited, and conservatives rallied to defend what they believed were traditional family values. The movement was explicitly religious, and fueled by fundamentalism. As evangelical scholar Lynn Buzzard observed, conservative Christians were told to “reject the division of human affairs into the secular and sacred and insist, instead, that there is no arena of human activity, including law and politics, which is outside of God’s lordship.”
This unholy union of religion and politics has proven disastrous, particularly in the era of PACs, which allow economic libertarians to manipulate conservative Christians for political purposes. It has also created a demand-side problem in the Republican Party. Candidates are forced, increasingly, to pander to religious lunatics who openly pine for theocracy, and who insist on imposing a religious test on political candidates. The results of this have been evident in recent presidential primaries, with Republican candidates seeking to out-Christian each other for votes. This has real consequences. It’s the principal source of anti-intellectualism in the GOP. And it’s the reason the Republican Party doesn’t pay a political price for denying science as a basis for public policy. There isn’t another serious country in the world in which presidential candidates are rewarded for their abject stupidity as they are in today’s GOP.
The GOP’s religious problem has only intensified in recent years. The worst, most reactionary elements of the right wing have united under the banner of Christianity. The party has since become a theo-political movement, unable to govern and unwilling to compromise. The Republican ranks are brimming with bigots and unthinking purists with no real interest in governance. Much of the base consists of old, disconnected white people who are fearful of modernity and nostalgic for an America that exists only in their minds. We’re faced with enormous problems like climate change and rising inequality, and political discourse is dominated by religious demagoguery. This has been equally destructive to Christianity and the country’s political process.
Is it any wonder people are turning away from this politicized brand of Christianity? Young Americans don’t give a damn about the culture war. We accept that we live in a secular and pluralistic society. The GOP’s opposition to LGBT rights is a trite anachronism to most people, not a moral crusade. When Republicans are indignant about poor people abusing food stamps, but uninterested in bankers looting middle class pensions, something is amiss. When “value voters” prioritize tax breaks for the wealthy over expanded health care for the poor, most Americans – including earnest Christians – are justifiably turned off.
That so many for so long have cared so little about actual justice is a disgrace. That they’ve done so under the cover of Christianity only makes it worse. The founding fathers placed a wall between church and state for a reason: They knew the alternative would be ruinous to both. They were right. Christianity has been unmoored from its roots, poisoned by the pursuit of worldly power; the faith ought to pay a price for that. And if that price also means less religion in politics, that’s a good thing – for everyone.
It’s brought to my attention in recent months that Americans tend to hide behind religion for various reasons, generally all of them cunty. For example the staunch LGBT movement in states such as Texas. Yes we know Texas you think you’re your own little country. Noted. Dismissed. Now shut the fuck up!
DISCLAIMER: I did NOT write this article but think it needs to be read. I take no personal credit for its contents but will take all the credit for sharing it with you. See I can compromise!
Written by: Sean Illing a former political science professor.
One of the more enduring tropes on the religious right is this notion that America is a Christian nation, or at the very least a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles. This has become central to conservative mythology in this country. Despite having no basis in fact or history, this trope simply won’t die. One hears it from virtually every Republican politician, and it’s always accepted uncritically by conservative commentators and audiences.
This week, Republican candidate for president Ben Carson repeated this lie on Fox News, and he did it in typical nonchalant fashion, as though it were a truism. Near the end of a rambling interview about traditional marriage and religious liberty, Carson said: “This is a Judeo-Christian nation, in the sense that a lot of our values are based on a Judeo-Christian faith.”
This statement isn’t even remotely true, but it reflects a widespread ignorance about American history. America is populated overwhelmingly by Christians, but this isn’t a Christian nation in any meaningful sense – and it never was. This inconvenient distinction is often lost on conservatives, and it’s why they’re under the impression that the government ought to respect their religious morality over and above all others (i.e., Kim Davis).
There are two ways to argue that America is a Christian nation. One is to claim that our laws and Constitution are grounded in Christian values. The other is to say that the Founders of the country were Christians and that they conceived the government on the basis of those beliefs. Both of these arguments are patently false.
First, the Constitution (which is sacrosanct in conservative circles) makes no mention of God or Christianity or even Christ. Indeed, when it does mention religion, it’s to prohibit the state from establishing one over the other. Of course, Christians eagerly point to the Declaration of Independence, especially the part that reads “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” But that statement in no way justifies the view that American is a Christian nation.
To begin with, that line was authored by Benjamin Franklin, who was a deist, not a conventional Christian. More important, the use of the word “Creator” is intentionally vague; it certainly does not specify Christianity. And that’s because the Founders were intent on building a wall of separation between church and state. If Franklin (or any other Founder) wanted to refer to Christianity or Christ in that document, he would have.
As for the Founders themselves, many of them were deists, not Christians – and certainly not Christians in the sense that Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz or Bobby Jindal is. John Adams, for instance, the principal author of the Massachusetts constitution and our second president, signed the Treaty of Tripoli, which stated that “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the Declaration of the Independence and our third president, wrote in the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom (the precursor to the First Amendment) “That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” There’s nothing unclear about the Founders’ intentions, in other words. America’s political roots are decidedly secular – only fundamentalists are confused about that.
The irony of all this is that the Founders (most of them, at least) are precisely the kind of people modern conservatives abhor. They were elitist European-style intellectuals who were inspired by the progressive ideals of the Enlightenment. They looked to history and Western philosophy for guidance, not to the Bible. And they wanted to create a government based on classical republican principles above all else – no objective or disinterested analysis of our founding documents suggests otherwise.
Conservatives can (and almost certainly will) ignore this, but that doesn’t change the fact that America is and was intended to be a secular republic, not a Christian theocracy. If the myth of America as a Christian nation endures among conservatives, it’s because people like Ben Carson repeat it endlessly without evidence and for political purposes. It’s true that, culturally speaking, there were periods of American history that were dominated by Christianity (e.g., the post-Civil War era). It’s also true, as I wrote several months ago, that Christianity became deeply politicized in the 1940s, thanks in large part to the influence of industrialists on the political process. But if you return to the founding documents of this country, there is no question that revisionists like Carson are wrong about this.
There are several Ben Carson videos I could link in here “homosexuality is a choice”, “stands up for nazi Germany and slavery” (wow dude, you’re black and you say what?) and the latest “rape victims and black women are slammed for choosing to have an abortion” His reasoning a rape/incest victim should head straight to the ER and take an abortion pill and that because 30% of abortions are performed on black women, when the black population is 13% “do these black lives even matter as they are the leading cause of death in the black community”
Well greeting and salutations dear reader, it’s been awhile. I’d like to have some really good excuse for not writing more often, but let’s face it I’m not really one for excuses or apologies, so you’ll just have to suck it up princesses. They say absence makes the heart grow fonder, so you’d all having to be in love with be now, right? Oh don’t be fucking shy, you were in love with me before I went AWOL on you and no I wasn’t in jail for some heinous crime but I’ll forgive you for thinking so, if you were, because it’s flattering.
Actually not it’s not, it’s a dumb as fuck because I’d have to have been caught. Tsk, tsk. You underestimate me. Though being caught wouldn’t be so bad I imagine, since I give absoloute zero fucks, in the scientific sense. That’s -273.15 degrees of fucks I don’t give. So yes, hell is literally frozen over. I’d like to give a big shout out to my expanded audience of late. Your effort at gleaning an insight into my little world has not gone unnoticed and is greatly appreciated. I love being all kinds of popular, even the bad kind. Famous, infamous, really it all tastes the same, like a piece of your soul that I own. Delish.
Now we have got the introductions and reintroductions out of the way, because it’s just a formality really and I really don’t do formalities unless I have too. Well even if I have too, I do try to try or at least I intend to, so it’s pretty much the same thing, right? Going to disagree? I still have Magnus remember, he will hunt you down and I will cut you. Fun times.
You know what pisses me off royally? Ok that’s really a leading question because there is an infinite list of answers to that question so no matter what you picked, you’d be right. But let’s focus on the now and be in the moment and talk about what’s pissed me off over the past couple of days…… I feel some people holding their breath out there, relax not everything is about you promise. The fucking feminist agenda. Now before you start calling me a traitor to my gender, hear me out on this one because I have several salient points to make about this. But to sum it up in a nutshell it’s just gone too fucking far. No I’m not saying gender equality has gone too far but I’m saying the super charged feminist agenda has gone too far. So far in fact that it’s the antithesis of feminism and actually anti-feminism, cleverly masquerading as feminism. How is that so I hear you ask? Well as sure as shit I’m about to tell you.
I am fucking sick of the Sheryl Sandberg’s and Lea Michele’s (both epic cunts in my book FYI, one look at them and I literally want to punch them in the face. It’s a visceral instinctive reaction to them that I just can’t explain and can’t give a toss to examine) telling me “even though I am a woman I CAN”…. What the living fuck, of course I can you dumb fucking twats, my genitalia has nothing to do with it. I’m sick of hearing that women need to support each other, hold hands by the campfire and sing some fucking folk song in order to progress in life and their chosen field. You know because without you doing that and reassuring me and holding my hand the entire way, I’d get lost in the woods like bloody Hansel and Gretel. Are you fucking kidding me? I can fucking read a map to start with, but beside the point.
We have these successful women, using both terms liberally, maybe it’s just easier if I say epic fucking cunts? Promoting the shit out of women’s rights and feminist agenda, of which they lead. Hello classic narcissist, how nice to see one of my own kind, well not really cause I fucking hate you. Not because you’re a narcissist but because you are soooooo concerned about the feminist position, that under all your empowerment and crap, you are actually saying that alone we cannot achieve anything. That we have to be part of your fucking pack of she wolves in order to get gender equality and to achieve anything. Oh thank fuck you found me, where would I be without you?
Oh in the same fucking place I am now but with the knowledge I can get here without encouraging pats on the shoulder, pushes from other people and I don’t know having a fucking backbone and the initiative to achieve all without your backhanded support. What you are really saying, is if we don’t rally together as a gender and “fight the man” or “break the glass ceiling” then it can’t be done. Oh for the love of god, I smashed that glass ceiling years ago, with my bare hands and alone. I didn’t need you to prop me up on your shoulder or fly on the wings of your coattails and tell me how to do it. I just fucking did it! You know why and how? Because unlike you I don’t see my gender as a hindrance, in some cases it’s an advantage because looking dumb and being underestimated is a secret weapon in my huge arsenal of tools that I use to sink stupid people. If you’re dumb enough to judge the proverbial book by its cover, without even reading the blurb (or in my case the warning label) then more fool you and the greater your fall will be. I DON’T need you to tell me I’m worthy, I DON’T need you to tell me I CAN or I’m worth it. I fucking know this already. Have for years, it’s not fucking 1970 anymore and the bra burning days of the underappreciated housewife are long and truly gone. If you look around there are plenty of industry leaders who are female, or did you miss that chapter in “how to make a quick buck off women with low self esteem”?
So what are you really doing? Putting back into place antiquated ideas, making that glass ceiling appear shatter proof and basically telling me that without the support of your sycophants I actually CAN’T. Oh for fucks sake, for shame. Do you really think that women SHOULD be promoted, appointed or given privileges based on their gender alone? Even parliaments are moving in this direction, by x year we hope to achieve x number of women in parliament. Well you’ll excuse me while I fucking disagree with that sentiment and say I DON’T want a fucking woman in a job just because she lacks a penis, I want a woman in that job because she is the best person for it, or a man. In my book the BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB is the one that should get the job, fuck quotas and all other shit that make us charity cases. Oh you poor dear, you have a vagina…. What a disability to live with, in compensation I’ll hand you this job. No you don’t have to be the most qualified person for it, the best person to do it or even able to do it proficiently, but we will give you the vagina exemption.
Yeah you can shove that up your ass till kingdom come thanks. FUCKING EARN IT! It really is that simple. You have the same educational opportunities as men (I will add in here that I am all for quota’s when it comes to tertiary education, based solely on the fact not everyone has the same educational opportunities if they come from a background of poverty but that’s based on socioeconomics not the vagina to penis ratio), you have the same ability for tenacity as men, hell I’d argue more in most cases. Men tend to forget transgressions easily but as women we are bitches and we hold every transgression in our memory vault till we die and likely beyond because we are vindictive creatures who will pull it out at any point in order to illustrate a point or win an argument. I can remember shitty things MrBmB (yeah I’m still married and you can say it with me again “poor bastard’) has done/said from over a decade ago in order to prove a point. Him? He’s lucky if he remembers what he ate for dinner last night.
So you’ll excuse me if I don’t bed over to welcome that shit you’re trying to shovel up my ass. Though kudos to you for preying on the perceived weak and by saying you’re empowering them, your actually stripping them of any power that they might have, their self worth and lining your greedy little pockets with their money. Or is it their husband’s money? You know since women are all pathetic little creatures that without your help are destined for a life of mediocrity and being second class citizens. Hey I don’t believe that bullshit, but that’s what your selling isn’t it?
Without you I’d be nothing, nobody, with unfulfilled dreams and living a shell of a life. What a fucking laugh you cunts, really? Let me tell you if I were hired for a job based on my merits and I found out a male counterpart with equal skills was being paid more, you know what? I’d have ZERO issue demanding the situation be rectified, hauling you up against some tribunal of sorts and fucking flailing you alive and enjoying every damn minute of it. Because even if I’m just a woman, I’m really not to be fucked with. Just a woman, oh dear god I want to laugh so hard I could cry. There is no ‘just’ about it, I am a woman and it’s that simple. It has zero to do with my skill set, my employability, my wage earning capacity or the way I live my fucking life. Well ok yeah it may impact on how I live my life, cause it means I get to buy lots of shiny shit like diamonds, designer handbags and when the need comes, sink stupid assholes who see it as a disability. Cause as sure as the sun doth shine, it really is an advantage to be underestimated. Well as long as you stick around long enough to show them the folly of the situation. That really is the fun part.
So my final words on this topic is women are bitches, we agree right? Feminism has become anti-feminism by its backhanded delivery and cunts like Sandberg and Michele epic cunts can go hunt down the mongoose to fuck. I am not getting on their train and insisting that women be told they are worth something. If they can’t figure that out for themselves, then fuck them really. What they don’t need is for these cunts to be telling them they need to be told to believe in themselves, that they need a pack behind them to push them, catch them if they fall or to break a glass ceiling and achieve. They haven’t developed any self-confidence really because it’s reliant on the opinion’s and actions of others, they don’t have a backbone because they haven’t had to grow one and they sure as shit haven’t learned all the important lessons you learn when you claw your way to the top, man or women, that means they will be a lasting success. The point of the matter is if they need to be told these things, how fucking effective are they going to be once they reach the other side? You can’t work effectively if you have someone holding your hand all the time, reassuring you can because you think you can’t (can you really?) or the intestinal fortitude to stand alone and be counted when the time will come. Do we really want people questioning whether we have earned out position or that we merely are just another victim of the vagina quota?
Im also sure there is a good Vagina Monologs joke that could be made in here somewhere, but since I haven’t seen the play the only noise I know for a fact a vagina makes is a queef….. Oh and whatever Ms Michele’s sounds like when she’s dressed like a whore on speed with the wind blowing up her dress.