Guns cost more lives than they save - War Room - Salon.com

Guns cost more lives than they save - War Room - Salon.com: "It's worth emphasizing that the 11 victims were trained, experienced law enforcement officers. But their assailants, who'd found semi-automatic weapons easier to acquire than whiskey, gave them no chance.
Meanwhile, NRA fundamentalists pretend that America will be a freer, safer place if more poorly trained, inexperienced, unfit, would-be Bruce Willis heroes were waddling around shopping malls carrying pistols.
There's a word for people who cling to absurd beliefs against massive evidence. They're called cultists, and they're currently in charge."

College

"The idea of having large numbers of college students packing heat in their classrooms and at their parties and sporting events, or at the local pub or frat house or gymnasium, or wherever, is too stupid for words."

Bob Herbert
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/opinion/18herbert.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

History 1

I really vacillated on whether to post this story or not on facebook, just because the gun issue is such a loser on all counts. The author has good credentials as an American history professor who actually specializes on the history of guns, legal issues surrounding them, and the state of contemporary academic analysis on guns. However, this article jumps around too much to focus on any of these areas. The economic reframing he suggests would be attacked just as vociferously as the taxation of cigarettes, by many of the same people but with the huge dollars of the NRA behind it. However, it was interesting that after reading all the "spoons don't make you fat" statuses, that he brought up the sloganeering used by gun supporters. I guess "I don't want cuckoos to shoot me" doesn't make a very good bumper sticker.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/15/saul_cornell_guns/index.html

Bandwagon jumping wastes of space

I believe the phrase is "ROFL," that is what I felt last night when I saw on the nightly news that a bunch of our new conservative leaders were "threatened" in some way. Had to dig quite a bit on the Journal-Sentinel's website to find the story but here it is: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/113398989.html

My first thought was "is karl rove behind this? or are they merely jumping on the palin 'i'm the victim' bandwagon to deflect criticism?" I actually doubt rove would be behind it, the jujitsu move of turning your (victim, enemy, opponent?)'s strength against them needs to be more subtle and better-timed. Wisconsin may be a provincial backwater, but the move works better and is harder to spot when undertaken by a third-party (swift boat dickheads) or the target themselves (bush's nasty girl records as presented by Ted Koppel or whoever in the mainstream media). So unless this was a trial balloon for the larger movements conservative, these threats were made by local type paranoid schizophrenics either inside or outside the government. I mean, the "good" people of this state did send/return a particularly obnoxious group of saboteurs to office in the recent election.

Could it be genuine? There have to be some people out there upset that walker has already killed thousands of jobs and it hasn't been a month yet. His cronies in the legislature are going balls deep to create, I don't know, feudalism in this state. With the ID law, yanking same day registration, yanking voting rights from felons while making all sorts of new felonies, and bringing back the "good 'ole days" of debtors' prisons. Wisconsin will resemble Mississippi more than Massachusetts pretty darn quick if these schemes go through. But I feel Wisconsinites could get rid of all of them and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. We've been heading that way for quite a while.

Wouldn't it be funny if they were referring to my previous post? My rambling, ultra-vague post about standing up to bullies? No, this is probably just tossing some grist to mark belling and charlie sykes and whoever that incredibly venomous woman is who's show is on right before slush dimbulb. Maybe it's just a way for walker, kleefisch, senselessbrenner, johnson, and my favorite bible-thumper jim liebham to render a few of their enemies to some deep, dark hole and jerk off to the torture vids. Nah, probably just a clumsy "the lady doth protest too much methinks" palinesque victim tirade. The "me-tooism" of it really stinks like yesterdays garbage though. If somebody does take a potshot at one of these idiot polititicans though, I'd be happy to eat my words and apologize. But then maybe, just maybe, the con artists that pollute the airwaves with Orwellian theories, like "Liberals are all effeminate pussies and crazed killers, at the same time" will have to pick one.

P.S. To all the paranoid meatheads out there that insisted I watch that pathetic "zeitgeist" movie, you're in good company http://www.salon.com/news/jared_loughner/index.html?story=/news/feature/2011/01/12/jared_laughner_compiled&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Not%20Premium%29_7_30_110 Seems this wackjob was obsessed with that film too. Though a few seconds of googling revealed an incredibly well-researched refutation of just about everything in the "money" part of the movie, I could care less about the rest of it. I suppose zeitgeist plays to the paranoid people who, while insisting all the problems of people around them are the result of personal irresponsibility, insist that there is a global conspiracy with absolute power and weird motives. The kind of thing religious people attribute to "God's plan" when bad things happen to good or not entirely bad people. This film is for the libertarian, secular males who know everything without ever going to college or even opening a serious book. It catches their attention by affirming all their "religion sucks" prejudices and then trots out the tried and true anti-semitic conspiracy theories complete with supposed quotations of the founding fathers. Basically, a great propaganda film for the unbalanced. Hits all the right buttons. Anyway, this violence thing is not my bag and I plan on moving far, far away as soon as I finish school. My wife is on board with my crazy idea to move to Austria, or at least Canada

Arizona Dreamin'

My sincerest condolences to Congressmember Giffords, all of the victims of this "tragedy," and their families. I have to put that word in quotes because even if everybody else refers to this predictable and despicable act of terrorism as a tragedy, I have to call it as it is. I find it funny that the same "conservative" wankers who get all blubbery about 9/11 and used it as a pretext to wage aggressive, unprovoked war on any muslim country they felt like somehow refuses to admit that this rash of rightwing political violence is anything more than a series of disconnected crimes that have no larger significance or connection to their hate speech. As if by some stroke of Orwellian logic, liberals really are the fascists and the Tucson shooter can can be dismissed as a liberal by one thing he said/wrote when every other thing he said/wrote points the other way.

I do not dismiss the horror of an assasination by not calling it a tragedy, nor do I seek to advance an "agenda" by analyzing the pattern of violence. What can I gain by writing about this event? Nothing. And neither does any other sincere leftist by thinking about what the hell is happening to this once-great country. The path back to civility doesn't run through finger-wagging, but someone has to put the blame where it belongs. When I see some real violence perpetrated against beck, hannity, o'reilly, savage, palin or some other right-winger I'll be willing to call it a civil war, until then it is an unmitigated campaign of terror against liberals and anyone who might be sympathetic to a non-ultra-rightist worldview.

You do not have to be a leftist conspiracy theorist to see a pattern in these recent acts of violence since 2008, the victims all share a common identity as being outside the "conservative movement," and all of the perpetrators being inside that movement. Thing is, I spent all last semester studying conservative intellectuals and there was nary a hint of the legitimacy of violence in political action. A few months ago I wrote about "eliminationism" and the adherents that David Neiwart termed "parafascists," I'd like to think there is a better term (like the real thing perhaps?) but that will do. At least the nazis owned what they did, and made no bones about why they used violence to attain power, here the parafascists do the same thing, but it if far less acceptable so they are happy to employ violent rhetoric to incite acts of terrorism without ever owning the fact that this is what they are doing. Liberalism grants a free hand to its assassins by extending rights to free speech to those sociopaths who will use their giant microphones to incite violence against responsible leaders. Such as the democratically elected congressmembers who dare to go against the vast rightwing conspiracy by voting for measures to that could actually help people instead of turing over more power and money to the machine.

Less well known about the nazi seizure of power was that they were not the only paramilitary force in Germany, most political parties had paramilitary arms. The communists basically were a paramilitary force in and of themselves; there was also the Stahlhelm or steel helmets, conservative but not officially aligned with a party; and there was the Reichsbanner, or paramilitary arm of the Social Democratic Party. The leaders of the last organization sat and waited during the crucial time after hitler was named chancellor when the nazis quietly arrested members of the opposition, for a signal from politicians to act. It never came and the rest is pretty much history. This is not the case in America, there is no force capable of meeting this slippery, right wing threat to the Republic. The victims of right wing violence in America impotently call on the very people orchestrating this bullshit to denounce violence, circulate meaningless petitions and so forth (yes, I signed two of them myself but with no pretension that it means a Goddamn thing). Cries to denounce hate and violence could only work if they weren't handy tools to gain and hold power, intimidating anyone who might challenge the fascist right. I'm sure some unconnected right-winger out there is upset and pouting that I'd make this impolite assertion. That there is a connection between the venom spewed and sputtered forth on the airwaves and the unbalanced freaks and psychos actually putting the rhetoric into action. I'd love to hear the defense/apology from the gun fetishists who in other days make no effort to hide the fact that they hoard weapons in case the government or criminals (no distinction between the two are neccessary) break into their homes.

The leaders orchestrating the hate and now even openly calling for killing their opponents in some cases (Julian Assuage anyone?) are fox news as individual hosts and as an institution, all kinds of cowardly pussy AM radio hosts (lots of crossover there as well) and various bloggers, websites, etc. They share a personality trait with the deranged psychopaths actually pulling triggers: they are bullies. How well, in your experience, does "please stop hurting me" work with a bully? No, I guess I'm shedding my credentials as a lib' but in my experience only a more powerful force can stop a bully. Bullies will always use indulgences, like free speech and due process, to get what they want. Now, someone smarter and more insightful than I already coined the term "Becking" as a verb "To use violent metaphors or make thinly-veiled suggestions of violence against opponents, while maintaining plausible deniability against charges of incitement" and made a handy catalogue of the campaign against America here:  http://veniceforchange.blogspot.com/2011/01/becking-of-america-how-right-wing-media.html

I have little to add, to that posting or any of the other denunciations and analyses. All good, and basically as far as liberalism allows people to do. I guess I keep thinking of what would happen in school if the bully(s) even beat up the teacher or the teacher cannot be bothered to actually confront him(them). That is our current situation, the president sure doesn't care and the republican dicks are responsible for it. Remember John Goodman in "Revenge of the Nerds?" Only this time the Nerds are just crying and taking it from the jocks, while the rest of the campus is indifferent.

Tactically, what is the point of attacking at close range and in broad daylight? Are these clowns really so delusional that they think their guns will help their getaway? Or are they simply suicidal? On some Rambo, hollywood or song of Roland fantasy of going down in a blaze of glory to protect "their liberty, way of life, etc?" I don't know, but the practical effect is simple intimidation. If you want power and want to silence opposition, what better way than to "inspire" nutjobs to shoot at your enemies in public, thereby making others afraid to come out or peacably assemble. What bully wouldn't rather have you frightened enough to just hand over your lunch money without a fight?


These shooters must be insane, the sane ones stay anonymous. Sending a fax of a noose or emailed death threat is easier and less dangerous than showing up in person. At least some of the teabaggers who showed up at townhalls with guns were hoping to get the lunchmoney without expending real effort, the rest really were cowards hiding behind them. There has to be a strong majority in this country that does not feel violence is an appropriate political tool, and not all of them are glued to "real housewives of wherever" or "jersey shore." What they can do to stop this is beyond me though.

The Wal-Mart/Netflix Conspiracy: Bad Movie

All the people I know who use netflix love it. I used to subscribe to bb online but their service started okay but declined quickly. The fact that this deal between the evil empire and netflix even happened shows what has happened to the effectiven­ess of government­, can anyone say "antitrust­"? There is a dirty little secret that a quick perusal of comments seems to be pretty solid, maybe it only exists in my neck of the woods. Ever hear of a library? They will let you check out DVDs for free.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost