I do not write at this blog very often anymore, but given the state of this country and the rampant spread of paranoia, stupidity, and flagrance, I feel compelled to express myself here.
The news is saying that an eyewitness of the shooting at LAX which took place this morning in Terminal 3 claimed the armed attacker asked if he was TSA. If this is true, then it implies the TSA was the shooter's target. I admit speculation at this point is presumptive and dangerous, so without the facts, this post is merely theoretical in nature.
Given the rise of sites like InfoWars and the paranoia present in Right Wing politics, angst toward the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA has skyrocketed. From beliefs that the DHS is arming itself with ammo to speculation that TSA agents will now be armed, paranoia originating at sites like InfoWars has created an unhealthy environment that can only lead to more dangerous outcomes.
The paranoia has evolved into an overt hatred of the government and underneath that umbrella is where the DHS and TSA both reside. It is no secret that people who are paranoid about the government post day in and day out about how much they do not trust the DHS or the TSA. To these people, it is a war. They are soldiers in a fight against some imaginary New World Order fantasy where their enemies use mind control devices (as in the case of the Navy Yard shooter) and subjugation is their perceived outcome should they choose not to resist.
So in my local environment, I have to deal with extreme Right Wingers and NWO conspiracy theorists. I have to put up with InfoWars fans. I have to put up with lots of crazy nonsense. The thing is, I do not know which one of these people will snap. Nothing tells me which of them is truly insane and which is just paranoid. I have to view all of them as potential Navy Yard shooters as a result.
If the angst toward the DHS and TSA is reaching a tipping point, then as InfoWars fans the flames of paranoia, we should also see a rise in activity amongst its followers.
How many of them are going to act on their impulses?
Who, then, do we hold responsible for fanning the flames?
I understand the need to vocalize dissent, demand transparency, and advocate free speech, but the responsibility is on these crazy sites and political officials to rein in the dangerous verbage. They are inspiring a whole group of people to snap.
Should it be revealed that our latest shooter was one of these crazies, then I think it is time for Americans to wake up to the reality that the enemy is not the TSA or the DHS, but those who are willing to kill based on some conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy theorist would default to the ever popular "false flag" bullshit in response to this shooting. The "false flag" defense is one of convenience and proves to be a self serving blind eye to the insanity they have endorsed. Crying "false flag" absolves them of guilt when I feel we should come down hard on them.
Do not let your local nutjob get away with running his mouth this time. The Navy Yard shooting was a wake up call. We have a mental health problem in this country and these same nutjobs are armed. Make no mistake. If you don't side with them, they are perfectly fine with pointing a gun at you.
Denying they are crazy is denying that we have a mental health problem in this country. Do we have a problem or not? Okay, then. Deal with it. Don't say these folks aren't nuts.
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Friday, November 1, 2013
Monday, December 17, 2012
Thoughts on the "threat" of tyranny
In the gun control debate, opponents of gun control often justify ownership of assault weapons in the name of self preservation in the rare chance that the government becomes tyrannical and oppressive. They believe that in order to stand up in the face of tyranny, they must have firepower strong enough to fire back against the military forces that would impose tyrannical rule. However, that hypothetical scenario has some serious flaws, flaws where the reality of the military and our government are in direct conflict with the idea of liberal tyranny.
There are two key features of this scenario which simply do not add up, but seldom will you hear anyone discuss either one because the gun control debate never has a chance to evolve beyond simple sparring. The first is that I firmly believe an American conservative government is more likely to impose tyrannical rule by force than a liberal government. The second point to make is that, should the government use its arm of the military to impose its rule, one has to remember that those who belong to the US military are often conservative.
The first point is the more important one to understand. I concede that a liberal government is equally prone to tyranny by way of legislation as a conservative government might be. In that instance, I would urge you to proceed to the second point I've made. Still, in terms of what we are faced with right now, the Republican party has been hijacked by gun-toting religious fanatics. The militaristic nature of the Republican party alone validates my claim that they are more likely to impose tyrannical rule than Democratic leaders. The funding for the military is more likely to increase under a Republican administration. If anything, a liberal administration would weaken the US military force (if you listen to any conservative talk radio pundit). As a liberal, I should be more afraid of tyranny via Republican rule than Democratic rule. Religion is a powerful player in government all around the world. From Iran to Saudi Arabia, oppressive regimes rely upon religious doctrine to control the population within their boundaries. If a religious movement comes about, it will be of the conservative ilk, not liberal.
The second point, then, is to realize the members of our military are heavily invested in conservative politics. Go to any veteran or currently enlisted member of our military. Ask them if, when ordered to fire upon their fellow American citizens, would they follow those orders or resist?
Then, as a liberal, I have to ask whether I should be more worried about a conservative member of the military shooting me or if a conservative should be more worried about a conservative member of the military firing up on them. Given the rhetoric present in our current political environment, I strongly feel that the threatening language present on the Right would motivate a conservative marine to off me without a second thought, whereas a conservative marine would be sympathetic to a fellow conservative and refuse the order to shoot. Do you see now how a conservative administration is more likely to impose tyrannical physical force upon the populace?
Almost instantly, arguments related to that last question would soon devolve into tangents about how the government has used the military and the FBI to attack certain groups at home. One such example would be the Waco siege in Waco, Texas. What that argument fails to recognize is, the group in question was led by a crazy person. If you are identified as a threat to our security, yes, you very well could face a military force at your doorstep. If you think that the military is going to attack your Constitutional right to organize, then perhaps the organizing you are planning is a tad on the crazy side. You might just be a threat to our way of life at this very moment if your level of paranoia makes that much sense to you.
But if you follow the current conversation over secession, or worse yet, revolution, you will find that rednecks will put down their uniforms and loyalties to the President of the United States and cross the battle lines to fight on behalf of their brothers.
So what I'm saying is, even if tyrannical rule were to be imposed, the safeguard is built in by your own political brethren who serve in the military. You should be more worried that your own elected officials are plotting to impose rigid tyranny. If you want to continue arguing that the Obama administration is tyrannical in its proposed legislation, again, I will refer you to point #2. Your arsenal will be of little necessity since conservatives in the military aren't going to shoot fellow conservatives. You don't need an assault rifle to defend against a military force because you hold much of the military force already.
But paranoia like yours prevents us from having a serious discussion about gun control. We have to entertain arguments like what I just described just to nudge the door of conversation open. We have to entertain ludicrous hypotheticals to simply move on to propose limitations like background checks, mental health restrictions on firearms, and access to firearms that were designed for military use, not civilian protection or recreation. No serious debate can be had until you move beyond these two paranoid delusions I have just discussed above.
There are two key features of this scenario which simply do not add up, but seldom will you hear anyone discuss either one because the gun control debate never has a chance to evolve beyond simple sparring. The first is that I firmly believe an American conservative government is more likely to impose tyrannical rule by force than a liberal government. The second point to make is that, should the government use its arm of the military to impose its rule, one has to remember that those who belong to the US military are often conservative.
The first point is the more important one to understand. I concede that a liberal government is equally prone to tyranny by way of legislation as a conservative government might be. In that instance, I would urge you to proceed to the second point I've made. Still, in terms of what we are faced with right now, the Republican party has been hijacked by gun-toting religious fanatics. The militaristic nature of the Republican party alone validates my claim that they are more likely to impose tyrannical rule than Democratic leaders. The funding for the military is more likely to increase under a Republican administration. If anything, a liberal administration would weaken the US military force (if you listen to any conservative talk radio pundit). As a liberal, I should be more afraid of tyranny via Republican rule than Democratic rule. Religion is a powerful player in government all around the world. From Iran to Saudi Arabia, oppressive regimes rely upon religious doctrine to control the population within their boundaries. If a religious movement comes about, it will be of the conservative ilk, not liberal.
The second point, then, is to realize the members of our military are heavily invested in conservative politics. Go to any veteran or currently enlisted member of our military. Ask them if, when ordered to fire upon their fellow American citizens, would they follow those orders or resist?
Then, as a liberal, I have to ask whether I should be more worried about a conservative member of the military shooting me or if a conservative should be more worried about a conservative member of the military firing up on them. Given the rhetoric present in our current political environment, I strongly feel that the threatening language present on the Right would motivate a conservative marine to off me without a second thought, whereas a conservative marine would be sympathetic to a fellow conservative and refuse the order to shoot. Do you see now how a conservative administration is more likely to impose tyrannical physical force upon the populace?
Almost instantly, arguments related to that last question would soon devolve into tangents about how the government has used the military and the FBI to attack certain groups at home. One such example would be the Waco siege in Waco, Texas. What that argument fails to recognize is, the group in question was led by a crazy person. If you are identified as a threat to our security, yes, you very well could face a military force at your doorstep. If you think that the military is going to attack your Constitutional right to organize, then perhaps the organizing you are planning is a tad on the crazy side. You might just be a threat to our way of life at this very moment if your level of paranoia makes that much sense to you.
But if you follow the current conversation over secession, or worse yet, revolution, you will find that rednecks will put down their uniforms and loyalties to the President of the United States and cross the battle lines to fight on behalf of their brothers.
So what I'm saying is, even if tyrannical rule were to be imposed, the safeguard is built in by your own political brethren who serve in the military. You should be more worried that your own elected officials are plotting to impose rigid tyranny. If you want to continue arguing that the Obama administration is tyrannical in its proposed legislation, again, I will refer you to point #2. Your arsenal will be of little necessity since conservatives in the military aren't going to shoot fellow conservatives. You don't need an assault rifle to defend against a military force because you hold much of the military force already.
But paranoia like yours prevents us from having a serious discussion about gun control. We have to entertain arguments like what I just described just to nudge the door of conversation open. We have to entertain ludicrous hypotheticals to simply move on to propose limitations like background checks, mental health restrictions on firearms, and access to firearms that were designed for military use, not civilian protection or recreation. No serious debate can be had until you move beyond these two paranoid delusions I have just discussed above.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Divided we stand...Wait. What?
Politics in America remains a touchy subject, but for many Americans, the word "touchy" barely even touches on the problems facing us. We are a nation divided. Our politicians are a direct reflection of our own inability to compromise with one another. One side is pitted against the other. Compromise is not a possibility anymore. One side attempts to compromise to the middle and ends up losing, while at the same time, gets framed as uncompromising and so far Left in ideology, the other side has no idea where the middle even begins or ends because they are too far Right in ideology. In the end, nothing gets done and the American people suffer for legislation that has been made ineffectual through backdoor deals and retroactive policies specifically designed to cripple such legislation. Let's face it. We are a mess.
After reading about the horrible event today in Arizona involving Representative Gabrielle Giffords, I went on to read the comments. Depending on the site you chose as your source of information, you were either greeted with comments in line with your political leaning or you were soon enveloped by a sea of vitriol, condemnation, and the rhetoric we have come to know over the past ten years. At that point, whether or not the young man who committed this atrocity was a Democrat or a Republican became moot. Let me repeat that point. This post is not about this young man. It is about our response to the events which transpired.
After reading one comment in particular, it dawned on me. We are likely doomed. We are too divided. We cannot turn back. A major confrontation is inevitable. A war is looming. The comment itself suggested we go ahead and divide our country and be done with it. Let's skip killing off thousands, if not millions of Americans and draw the necessary line. You go where you belong and I'll go where I belong. Let's skip the fighting, the collapse of our economy, and the scuffle over natural resources.
Ah, but that begs the obvious question. Where should this line be? If you follow politics, you might suggest that we go back to the old North and South we knew at the time of the Civil War. I know many Americans in the South want the map to look like that (and if you think I'm exaggerating, you need to spend more time living down here). Unfortunately, the political spectrum of our country has created more of a speckled map of the United States. Republicans and Democrats are neighbors. Individual states are represented by both Republican and Democratic districts. A line dividing us into North and South like that would not go over well. Millions would be left scrambling for their lives just as if there had been an actual war.
What if we allow individual states to actually secede? Secessionists roam the two lane roads just west of here in East Texas. I personally have no problem seeing Texas leave us. Several other states, likely the same ones who have brought cases against the Federal Government over Health Care Reform, would be on this list. Let's set aside the question of whether or not they can sustain themselves on their own. A state with sovereign rights separate from the Union will provide a place for those unhappy with the US Government to go. Let them worry about the anarchy inside their walls.
My point is, I think the only way America can remain standing is if we divide it. United, we are not. We have crossed the line. There is no turning back. You may find my post apathetic and worrisome, but it is the new reality on the horizon. I do not like it and I certainly wish we were not faced with such a scary future. I just don't see how we can recover from the division which has erupted over the course of these past ten years. The threat is very real and while we can stand here hoping it is not true, I do not think hope will carry us for much longer. We need a leader who can simmer down the rhetoric and not only speak the truth, but convince the American people he or she is actually telling the truth without the media spinning the language and feeding the wave of misinformation. Even the strongest and most honest leader I do not think is remotely capable of fighting against such a wave of ignorance and hate.
I do not want anarchy. There is a loud voice in this country which wants out. They do not see that what they are suggesting will create anarchy. Much like their perception of evolution, they believe secession and huge leaps can come overnight. To their dismay, I must be the voice of reason here and remind them that evolution took millions of years. No. Secession and division comes at a price and it will lead to a very long road of recovery.
Some of this post should be read in jest, I admit. At this point in time, I do not see any viable solutions to our problem. Congress needs to be reformed. Our system of elected government needs reform. Election campaign finance needs reform. People like me are not happy, but we are out of ideas. We are just as apathetic about our future as the day Al Gore conceded to George W. Bush. Many of us saw all of this coming. We were unable to stop them.
After reading about the horrible event today in Arizona involving Representative Gabrielle Giffords, I went on to read the comments. Depending on the site you chose as your source of information, you were either greeted with comments in line with your political leaning or you were soon enveloped by a sea of vitriol, condemnation, and the rhetoric we have come to know over the past ten years. At that point, whether or not the young man who committed this atrocity was a Democrat or a Republican became moot. Let me repeat that point. This post is not about this young man. It is about our response to the events which transpired.
After reading one comment in particular, it dawned on me. We are likely doomed. We are too divided. We cannot turn back. A major confrontation is inevitable. A war is looming. The comment itself suggested we go ahead and divide our country and be done with it. Let's skip killing off thousands, if not millions of Americans and draw the necessary line. You go where you belong and I'll go where I belong. Let's skip the fighting, the collapse of our economy, and the scuffle over natural resources.
Ah, but that begs the obvious question. Where should this line be? If you follow politics, you might suggest that we go back to the old North and South we knew at the time of the Civil War. I know many Americans in the South want the map to look like that (and if you think I'm exaggerating, you need to spend more time living down here). Unfortunately, the political spectrum of our country has created more of a speckled map of the United States. Republicans and Democrats are neighbors. Individual states are represented by both Republican and Democratic districts. A line dividing us into North and South like that would not go over well. Millions would be left scrambling for their lives just as if there had been an actual war.
What if we allow individual states to actually secede? Secessionists roam the two lane roads just west of here in East Texas. I personally have no problem seeing Texas leave us. Several other states, likely the same ones who have brought cases against the Federal Government over Health Care Reform, would be on this list. Let's set aside the question of whether or not they can sustain themselves on their own. A state with sovereign rights separate from the Union will provide a place for those unhappy with the US Government to go. Let them worry about the anarchy inside their walls.
My point is, I think the only way America can remain standing is if we divide it. United, we are not. We have crossed the line. There is no turning back. You may find my post apathetic and worrisome, but it is the new reality on the horizon. I do not like it and I certainly wish we were not faced with such a scary future. I just don't see how we can recover from the division which has erupted over the course of these past ten years. The threat is very real and while we can stand here hoping it is not true, I do not think hope will carry us for much longer. We need a leader who can simmer down the rhetoric and not only speak the truth, but convince the American people he or she is actually telling the truth without the media spinning the language and feeding the wave of misinformation. Even the strongest and most honest leader I do not think is remotely capable of fighting against such a wave of ignorance and hate.
I do not want anarchy. There is a loud voice in this country which wants out. They do not see that what they are suggesting will create anarchy. Much like their perception of evolution, they believe secession and huge leaps can come overnight. To their dismay, I must be the voice of reason here and remind them that evolution took millions of years. No. Secession and division comes at a price and it will lead to a very long road of recovery.
Some of this post should be read in jest, I admit. At this point in time, I do not see any viable solutions to our problem. Congress needs to be reformed. Our system of elected government needs reform. Election campaign finance needs reform. People like me are not happy, but we are out of ideas. We are just as apathetic about our future as the day Al Gore conceded to George W. Bush. Many of us saw all of this coming. We were unable to stop them.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Gerry May needs to go bye bye
If you watch KTBS 3 with any regularity, you're probably familiar with the conservative slant, especially from one of their anchors, Gerry May. In fact, whenever Gerry May comes on the screen, his personal web address is displayed at the bottom of the screen. Gerry May is just one reason why I refuse to watch KTBS 3 for news gathering purposes. The other probably has to do with their subpar weather coverage and Sherri Talley, a questionable lush. But this post isn't about the last two.
So what has me fuming mad today? The other day, Gerry May ran a story on a recent flap involving the Shreveport Mayor, Cedric Glover. Let's not start there because the story was really about a traffic stop which has very little to do with Mayor Glover. A web site called Conservative Drink is dramatizing the whole situation and turning it into a gun rights issue.
So let's look at the traffic stop. Robert Baillio was pulled over for not using a turn signal. To give you some idea as to the character of Mr. Baillio, he looks like a reincarnation of some confederate soldier. Here is a photo of the back of Baillio's redneck-mobile. Like any self respecting redneck, his beliefs are elegantly displayed on the back of his vehicle in the form of bumper stickers. One reads "Celebrate Diversity" with various shells and bullets beside it. Another reads " Armed. We Are Citizens! Un-Armed. We Are Subjects." I can't make out what the others say, but let's be honest here. He's a walking stereotype of the Shreveport right winger.
The cop who pulled Baillio over obviously saw the stickers on the back of this guy's truck and was concerned out of safety for both parties. It's safe to wonder whether or not a guy in Shreveport with gun stickers plastered all over the back of his pickup has a gun in his vehicle. Guess what? He did! Part of regular questioning in traffic stops these days involves asking if you are armed, whether it be with a knife or a gun. Cops do ask with safety as their primary concern. If asked, you surrender the weapon for the remainder of that traffic stop for the officer's safety and your own. Choose to hold onto your weapon, and you are viewed as hostile and will likely be asked to step out of the vehicle and get put into cuffs. That's where Glover's quote has meat, folks. If you have a weapon anywhere in your vehicle and you are asked about it, you fess up and listen to the cop. You surrender your right to have a firearm until the officer lets you go on your merry way.
The Kool-Aid soaked nutters claim there is no justification for search and seizure. Yeah...okay boys. Whatever. The cop asked if he had a gun. Baillio complied by admitting there was a gun in the vehicle. Baillio could have just as easily refused. In many states, you can refuse in fear of illegal search and seizure. Just expect another car to show up with or without the canine unit. C.D. claims there was zero probable cause. This is where they've taken the leap away from reality. On one hand, they want Glover to admit a mistake, but as far as Baillio is concerned, well, he's as clean as a preacher's sheets. Yep. These conservatives aren't being the least bit obstinate (sarcasm). That's why I'm not taking them seriously. Neither should you. Their motivation for glorifying this traffic stop has nothing to do with illegal search and seizure. Why do I know this? It's what they've fallen back on now that the out of context rant over "Your rights have been suspended" holds no water. They're reaching at this point as a last ditch effort to cling to ideology. Shame on them.
Now, pay very close attention here folks. This is what I call finding middle ground, something C.D. obviously knows nothing about. I take their point that when the officer asked Baillio if he was a member of the NRA, it had nothing to do with the traffic stop. Maybe the officer was making small talk. Who knows? Still, it had nothing to do with anything related to the traffic stop.
Instead of Baillio deciding to get a lawyer and pursue this traffic stop through the normal channels, he cried to GunTalk Magazine and Conservative Drink picked up the story as well. Let's make him a poster child. Right? Let's blow this out of proportion. Glover's statement came well after the traffic stop. What Mayor Glover said about the incident has no bearing on what will be discussed should Baillio decide to take the cop who pulled him over to court and fight the ticket. Oh wait, Baillio was not issued a ticket? But now Conservative Drink and their buddies want to make this more about Glover than the traffic stop. Come on now children. You know this has nothing to do with liberals taking away your guns. Quit trying to make this situation about your gun rights. What's really funny is how on their site, they are shocked that a mayor from a "major" southern city can say what he did. You give Shreveport too much credit. If that conversation shocks you, then you should hear what your redneck brethren spew out all the time in this town. Nutjobs, the lot of them. Governors in adjacent states have said some pretty silly things too. Bobby Jindal, our own governor, spoke to the entire country as if they were children. You're shocked at one little mayor? Oh, there's just a little bullshit in all of this, isn't there? They've pinned Glover as a liberal elitist. Haha. What a joke! Classic right winger rhetoric folks. I assure you, Mayor Glover is no elitist. Methinks you are confused about what constitutes the elite.
Now back to Gerry May.
May's report sounded more like a plug for the Conservative Drink web site than a balanced news story. There's really a site called Conservative Drink? They don't drink liberal Kool Aid? (Note that the site spells it "Aide"). So, I guess they drink conservative Kool Aid and it's obviously spiked with some sort of alcoholic beverage which could range from simple cheap vodka to Kentucky shine. You be the judge.
Here's what I can tell you. What you're looking at is a hatchet job. Even if Glover made a slip of the tongue, he's gone on record clarifying his comment. The folks at Conservative Drink won't let this go because they want nothing more than to crucify any liberal politician regardless. Consider them a bunch of obstinate right wingers gunning for anyone left of Right. Middle ground is not in their vocabulary. Understanding is not their interest. This is the problem with right wing gun "enthusiasts." They aren't at the discussion table on the gun rights issue because anyone outside of their little circle is anti-gun. Just read the part of their little blog about Glover being part of an "Anti-Gun Group." Gerry May should have seen this coming as a reporter. Instead, I feel he willingly pushed the matter to the forefront to dramatize a relatively unimportant traffic stop. Something like this should have never reached the mayor's office. It certainly never should have involved a recorded telephone call. I wonder, was Cedric Glover informed that the conversation was being recorded? I could see Mr. Baillio being prosecuted for violating the law rather easily. I'd have to check the laws on the books for this state.
Although Gerry May runs a personal web site covering politics, among other things, it is still his personal site. He needs to learn how to separate the blogger persona from the news anchor. A journalist should not push political propaganda as part of his news cast. A blogger can do whatever he or she chooses. As a news anchor, you report on the stories without slant. Gerry May has a well known record for spewing conservative rhetoric on his blog and during news broadcasts as if it were truth. Seeing as how Shreveport/Bossier is a thriving center of redneck right wingers, the last thing we need is a news anchor feeding their appetite for paranoia. Hey, all I'm talking about here is a little bit of journalistic integrity and personal responsibility. Remember that as a news anchor, you're providing news to the public. Your own agenda should be set aside. Otherwise, I suggest Gerry May either resigns or fills out a job application for Fox News.
Quotes of interest in the transcript of the conversation between Baillio and Mayor Glover on display at the C.D. web site:
That pretty much sums up Mayor Glover's stance. Not all of your rights are suspended. There are certain things you may not do when being pulled over by an officer for a violation. What Conservative Drink and others have done is take "Your rights have been suspended" completely out of context to imply that all of our rights have been taken away during a traffic stop.
What's my advice to Mr. Baillio? Get yourself a lawyer. How many of the right wing fringe rednecks bitch when a young black male gets Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the ACLU involved? Is crying to GunTalk or Conservative Drink any different? Look. The Shreveport PD is no symbol of honor. In the last few years, they've screwed up a number of times. Get yourself a freakin' lawyer and see what a judge has to say about it. Leave Cedric Glover out of it. Empty right wing rhetoric is so yesterday.
So what has me fuming mad today? The other day, Gerry May ran a story on a recent flap involving the Shreveport Mayor, Cedric Glover. Let's not start there because the story was really about a traffic stop which has very little to do with Mayor Glover. A web site called Conservative Drink is dramatizing the whole situation and turning it into a gun rights issue.
So let's look at the traffic stop. Robert Baillio was pulled over for not using a turn signal. To give you some idea as to the character of Mr. Baillio, he looks like a reincarnation of some confederate soldier. Here is a photo of the back of Baillio's redneck-mobile. Like any self respecting redneck, his beliefs are elegantly displayed on the back of his vehicle in the form of bumper stickers. One reads "Celebrate Diversity" with various shells and bullets beside it. Another reads " Armed. We Are Citizens! Un-Armed. We Are Subjects." I can't make out what the others say, but let's be honest here. He's a walking stereotype of the Shreveport right winger. 
The cop who pulled Baillio over obviously saw the stickers on the back of this guy's truck and was concerned out of safety for both parties. It's safe to wonder whether or not a guy in Shreveport with gun stickers plastered all over the back of his pickup has a gun in his vehicle. Guess what? He did! Part of regular questioning in traffic stops these days involves asking if you are armed, whether it be with a knife or a gun. Cops do ask with safety as their primary concern. If asked, you surrender the weapon for the remainder of that traffic stop for the officer's safety and your own. Choose to hold onto your weapon, and you are viewed as hostile and will likely be asked to step out of the vehicle and get put into cuffs. That's where Glover's quote has meat, folks. If you have a weapon anywhere in your vehicle and you are asked about it, you fess up and listen to the cop. You surrender your right to have a firearm until the officer lets you go on your merry way.
The Kool-Aid soaked nutters claim there is no justification for search and seizure. Yeah...okay boys. Whatever. The cop asked if he had a gun. Baillio complied by admitting there was a gun in the vehicle. Baillio could have just as easily refused. In many states, you can refuse in fear of illegal search and seizure. Just expect another car to show up with or without the canine unit. C.D. claims there was zero probable cause. This is where they've taken the leap away from reality. On one hand, they want Glover to admit a mistake, but as far as Baillio is concerned, well, he's as clean as a preacher's sheets. Yep. These conservatives aren't being the least bit obstinate (sarcasm). That's why I'm not taking them seriously. Neither should you. Their motivation for glorifying this traffic stop has nothing to do with illegal search and seizure. Why do I know this? It's what they've fallen back on now that the out of context rant over "Your rights have been suspended" holds no water. They're reaching at this point as a last ditch effort to cling to ideology. Shame on them.
Now, pay very close attention here folks. This is what I call finding middle ground, something C.D. obviously knows nothing about. I take their point that when the officer asked Baillio if he was a member of the NRA, it had nothing to do with the traffic stop. Maybe the officer was making small talk. Who knows? Still, it had nothing to do with anything related to the traffic stop.
Instead of Baillio deciding to get a lawyer and pursue this traffic stop through the normal channels, he cried to GunTalk Magazine and Conservative Drink picked up the story as well. Let's make him a poster child. Right? Let's blow this out of proportion. Glover's statement came well after the traffic stop. What Mayor Glover said about the incident has no bearing on what will be discussed should Baillio decide to take the cop who pulled him over to court and fight the ticket. Oh wait, Baillio was not issued a ticket? But now Conservative Drink and their buddies want to make this more about Glover than the traffic stop. Come on now children. You know this has nothing to do with liberals taking away your guns. Quit trying to make this situation about your gun rights. What's really funny is how on their site, they are shocked that a mayor from a "major" southern city can say what he did. You give Shreveport too much credit. If that conversation shocks you, then you should hear what your redneck brethren spew out all the time in this town. Nutjobs, the lot of them. Governors in adjacent states have said some pretty silly things too. Bobby Jindal, our own governor, spoke to the entire country as if they were children. You're shocked at one little mayor? Oh, there's just a little bullshit in all of this, isn't there? They've pinned Glover as a liberal elitist. Haha. What a joke! Classic right winger rhetoric folks. I assure you, Mayor Glover is no elitist. Methinks you are confused about what constitutes the elite.
Now back to Gerry May.
May's report sounded more like a plug for the Conservative Drink web site than a balanced news story. There's really a site called Conservative Drink? They don't drink liberal Kool Aid? (Note that the site spells it "Aide"). So, I guess they drink conservative Kool Aid and it's obviously spiked with some sort of alcoholic beverage which could range from simple cheap vodka to Kentucky shine. You be the judge.
Here's what I can tell you. What you're looking at is a hatchet job. Even if Glover made a slip of the tongue, he's gone on record clarifying his comment. The folks at Conservative Drink won't let this go because they want nothing more than to crucify any liberal politician regardless. Consider them a bunch of obstinate right wingers gunning for anyone left of Right. Middle ground is not in their vocabulary. Understanding is not their interest. This is the problem with right wing gun "enthusiasts." They aren't at the discussion table on the gun rights issue because anyone outside of their little circle is anti-gun. Just read the part of their little blog about Glover being part of an "Anti-Gun Group." Gerry May should have seen this coming as a reporter. Instead, I feel he willingly pushed the matter to the forefront to dramatize a relatively unimportant traffic stop. Something like this should have never reached the mayor's office. It certainly never should have involved a recorded telephone call. I wonder, was Cedric Glover informed that the conversation was being recorded? I could see Mr. Baillio being prosecuted for violating the law rather easily. I'd have to check the laws on the books for this state.
Although Gerry May runs a personal web site covering politics, among other things, it is still his personal site. He needs to learn how to separate the blogger persona from the news anchor. A journalist should not push political propaganda as part of his news cast. A blogger can do whatever he or she chooses. As a news anchor, you report on the stories without slant. Gerry May has a well known record for spewing conservative rhetoric on his blog and during news broadcasts as if it were truth. Seeing as how Shreveport/Bossier is a thriving center of redneck right wingers, the last thing we need is a news anchor feeding their appetite for paranoia. Hey, all I'm talking about here is a little bit of journalistic integrity and personal responsibility. Remember that as a news anchor, you're providing news to the public. Your own agenda should be set aside. Otherwise, I suggest Gerry May either resigns or fills out a job application for Fox News.
Quotes of interest in the transcript of the conversation between Baillio and Mayor Glover on display at the C.D. web site:
Mayor Glover: Their rights have been suspended sir. Certainly you have the right...uh...to to to all of the things to be protected and what have you, but in terms of your right to be able to proceed until that officer has done with the work that he had at that particular point - yes sir your rights have been suspended.
....
Sir! Do do you understand what it is that I'm saying to you? I'm assuming that you...I'm assuming that I'm having a conversation with someone who has common sense. So no...Am I saying that all of your rights at that point have been eliminated and anything can be done to you no matter what. No I'm not saying that.
That pretty much sums up Mayor Glover's stance. Not all of your rights are suspended. There are certain things you may not do when being pulled over by an officer for a violation. What Conservative Drink and others have done is take "Your rights have been suspended" completely out of context to imply that all of our rights have been taken away during a traffic stop.
What's my advice to Mr. Baillio? Get yourself a lawyer. How many of the right wing fringe rednecks bitch when a young black male gets Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the ACLU involved? Is crying to GunTalk or Conservative Drink any different? Look. The Shreveport PD is no symbol of honor. In the last few years, they've screwed up a number of times. Get yourself a freakin' lawyer and see what a judge has to say about it. Leave Cedric Glover out of it. Empty right wing rhetoric is so yesterday.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Local News Drumming Up Gun Paranoia
Over the last few months, all three local news stations in my area, KTAL (6), KTBS (3), and KSLA (12) have reported on gun ownership worries. What's going on? Assault rifles are flying off shelves. Ammunition is too.
So what's the problem?
The local news frames the worry in light of the recent gun violence. Let me give you an example of poor journalism. Three officers were killed in a shooting in Pittsburgh last week. Instead of our local news covering it as a tragedy, they start out their week end news cast with something like this.
(Paraphrasing)
The gun violence in Pittsburgh has gun owners worried.
So instead of addressing gun violence, the real problem, they drum up right winger paranoia over assault rifle bans.
They completely disregard the fact that no legislation is currently in the works in Congress to institute an assault rifle ban. No legislation is on the table to take away guns. Maybe one or two members of Congress have plans to bring certain ideas to the table, but that's the same as Dennis Kucinich standing in front of Congress pushing for the impeachment of President Bush. It's one guy trying to push an idea that is dead in the water.
But oh no, southerners need to have their paranoia validated and news organizations do it in the name of ratings. When the news reports it, one can only assume it's the truth. Unfortunately, it's not. It's spin. We should demand more from our local news organizations, but we don't.
So KSLA, KTBS, and KTAL, would you mind dusting off those journalism degrees and make an attempt to actually do some legitimate fact checking before making hearsay newsworthy?
So what's the problem?
The local news frames the worry in light of the recent gun violence. Let me give you an example of poor journalism. Three officers were killed in a shooting in Pittsburgh last week. Instead of our local news covering it as a tragedy, they start out their week end news cast with something like this.
(Paraphrasing)
The gun violence in Pittsburgh has gun owners worried.
So instead of addressing gun violence, the real problem, they drum up right winger paranoia over assault rifle bans.
They completely disregard the fact that no legislation is currently in the works in Congress to institute an assault rifle ban. No legislation is on the table to take away guns. Maybe one or two members of Congress have plans to bring certain ideas to the table, but that's the same as Dennis Kucinich standing in front of Congress pushing for the impeachment of President Bush. It's one guy trying to push an idea that is dead in the water.
But oh no, southerners need to have their paranoia validated and news organizations do it in the name of ratings. When the news reports it, one can only assume it's the truth. Unfortunately, it's not. It's spin. We should demand more from our local news organizations, but we don't.
So KSLA, KTBS, and KTAL, would you mind dusting off those journalism degrees and make an attempt to actually do some legitimate fact checking before making hearsay newsworthy?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Alabama Shootings, Conceal Carry Didn't Help
An argument in favor of concealed carry gun rights has long been a topic of discussion in the scope of massacre shootings. The argument goes like this. If people are allowed to carry a concealed weapon, someone else will be less likely to pull out a gun in fear of being shot themselves. Someone carrying could stop the crime from happening. Proponents typically go on to say concealed carry offers a form of defense in situations where an attacker starts shooting.
It is my understanding that Alabama does permit concealed carry of handguns.
http://www.usacarry.com/alabama_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
Nobody fired back. So in a state where concealed carry is permitted, not one person was packing that day. The tragedy continued to unfold with disastrous consequences.
So for "pro-gun" concealed carry supporters, this should not sit well. If anything, this tragedy will fuel the argument against semi-automatics.
If you recall, the shooting at the Unitarian church in Tennessee only ended when people tackled the guy. In that instance, nobody shot back. People stopped him with their own physical effort. The notion that more guns equates to a safer society has not shown to be true. Those who argue an armed society is a polite society should visit some southern states and tell me how many times someone is rude to them. By all means, visit East Texas. You might actually get shot. They're nuts over there.
The gun debate is a tiresome one, but the facts are on our side, not theirs.
It is my understanding that Alabama does permit concealed carry of handguns.
http://www.usacarry.com/alabama_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
Nobody fired back. So in a state where concealed carry is permitted, not one person was packing that day. The tragedy continued to unfold with disastrous consequences.
So for "pro-gun" concealed carry supporters, this should not sit well. If anything, this tragedy will fuel the argument against semi-automatics.
If you recall, the shooting at the Unitarian church in Tennessee only ended when people tackled the guy. In that instance, nobody shot back. People stopped him with their own physical effort. The notion that more guns equates to a safer society has not shown to be true. Those who argue an armed society is a polite society should visit some southern states and tell me how many times someone is rude to them. By all means, visit East Texas. You might actually get shot. They're nuts over there.
The gun debate is a tiresome one, but the facts are on our side, not theirs.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Black Friday Sales Must Come To An End
Black Friday sales are going to have to come to an end. The reports I have heard so far say that one has been killed by shoppers entering a Walmart and two other people were shot outside of a Toys 'R' Us.
Are you kidding me? You want something so bad that you're willing to push and shove your way into a store and trample another human being? Surely stores can come up with an organized way of allowing customers access during these sales.
The good side of Black Friday has to come to an end folks. I know stores rely on these sales to put them into the black financially, but it's not worth someone's life. How many more people need to get trampled before we figure out how to shop like civilized human beings? Why in the world would anyone want to carry a gun to go shopping at a Toys 'R' Us? A lawyer could arguably see that as a form of premeditation. What message are we sending?
Greed is making our nation fall apart on every level. It's time you took a good hard look at your life. Decide what is important. We shouldn't be hearing these stories every year. Want to be thankful for something? Be glad you stayed home and avoided these kinds of shoppers. In other countries, people stampede out of fear. Apparently in America, we trample people to buy useless crap.
We all seem to be on our own little trip of self importance.
I am publicly calling for a moratorium on the Black Friday sales.
Are you kidding me? You want something so bad that you're willing to push and shove your way into a store and trample another human being? Surely stores can come up with an organized way of allowing customers access during these sales.
The good side of Black Friday has to come to an end folks. I know stores rely on these sales to put them into the black financially, but it's not worth someone's life. How many more people need to get trampled before we figure out how to shop like civilized human beings? Why in the world would anyone want to carry a gun to go shopping at a Toys 'R' Us? A lawyer could arguably see that as a form of premeditation. What message are we sending?
Greed is making our nation fall apart on every level. It's time you took a good hard look at your life. Decide what is important. We shouldn't be hearing these stories every year. Want to be thankful for something? Be glad you stayed home and avoided these kinds of shoppers. In other countries, people stampede out of fear. Apparently in America, we trample people to buy useless crap.
We all seem to be on our own little trip of self importance.
I am publicly calling for a moratorium on the Black Friday sales.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Teen shot while TPing a house
This story is why I'm not sold on the notion of using guns to protect your home and property.
I heard it on the local news and don't know all of the specifics. I'm not sure what town this occurred in either. Here's what I do know.
A few teens were toilet papering some guy's house. It was very early in the morning. The home-owner thought they were trying to break into his garage. Well he grabbed a shotgun and fired away. He hit a 14 year old in the chest, abdomen, and lower extremity. At this point, there is no information about what charges are going to be pressed.
I understand the need to protect yourself and your home. The problem is, people with guns are arguably a little on the trigger happy side. Gun enthusiasts always boast that they are responsible with their firearms. It's not the firearm that worries me. It's the brain of the guy or gal holding the firearm that seems to be the problem. Fear dictates your perception. Plain and simple. It sounds as though this home-owner wanted to shoot first and ask questions later.
I've been TP'd before. Kids scatter when you turn on the lights. I never got the impression anyone was breaking into the house. We let the dog loose. We might grab a kid by the collar and call his parents. What we didn't do was fire away into the night at anyone.
If gun enthusiasts weren't so damn trigger happy, I wouldn't be so supportive of gun laws. If I'm not sure and I'm holding a gun, I err on the side of caution. Of course, I'm not trigger happy.
I heard it on the local news and don't know all of the specifics. I'm not sure what town this occurred in either. Here's what I do know.
A few teens were toilet papering some guy's house. It was very early in the morning. The home-owner thought they were trying to break into his garage. Well he grabbed a shotgun and fired away. He hit a 14 year old in the chest, abdomen, and lower extremity. At this point, there is no information about what charges are going to be pressed.
I understand the need to protect yourself and your home. The problem is, people with guns are arguably a little on the trigger happy side. Gun enthusiasts always boast that they are responsible with their firearms. It's not the firearm that worries me. It's the brain of the guy or gal holding the firearm that seems to be the problem. Fear dictates your perception. Plain and simple. It sounds as though this home-owner wanted to shoot first and ask questions later.
I've been TP'd before. Kids scatter when you turn on the lights. I never got the impression anyone was breaking into the house. We let the dog loose. We might grab a kid by the collar and call his parents. What we didn't do was fire away into the night at anyone.
If gun enthusiasts weren't so damn trigger happy, I wouldn't be so supportive of gun laws. If I'm not sure and I'm holding a gun, I err on the side of caution. Of course, I'm not trigger happy.
Monday, September 1, 2008
"Pro-Gun" slogan appeals to the simple minded
What the hell is pro-gun anyway?
All gun and no brain? For men, that means all gun and no penis.
If you are pro-gun, here's your sign. Rednecks will get that joke.
Seriously, though...
Does it mean that no matter the circumstance, you are in favor of guns? Does it tell me that your constituents flock to simplistic slogans? Remind you of the term pro-life? God forbid someone is anti-life, right? Another way to look at the pro/anti dialogue is to phrase it in a different light. Take abortion for example. The current lines are drawn between pro-life and pro-choice. The pro-lifers would have you believe that pro-choice folks are anti-life. I never hear pro-lifers called anti-choice in political slogans. The term isn't even part of the main stream pro-choice crowd. "Anti-life," however, is part of the main-stream Right Wing campaign vernacular. When you put it that way, it should start turning those gears inside your head. It doesn't make any sense when you phrase gun politics in that format, but you fell for the simple slogan anyway.
I am seeing this term used more and more in campaign ads. Sarah Palin states she is pro-gun. I understand that in Alaska, everybody and their grandma has a gun to fend off threatening wild animals. I get it. Still, you don't have to go so far as to say you are pro-gun. A local doctor running for Congress says he's pro-gun. A doctor that is using the term pro-gun? Didn't he do a rotation in emergency medicine as a resident or in med school? So you're telling me that no matter what, Dr. Fleming, you are in favor of guns used for any reason? You have likely personally seen the end result of gun violence in your own medical career. Has that not affected your opinion at all?
Politicians love this slogan because it appeals to a very specific population of voters, yet it has nothing to do with the real issue. They love this slogan because it means they don't have to do anything besides sit on their asses. It's a non-committal pledge, if there is even such a thing. It's meaningless, until you begin asking questions. Responsible voters ask questions. Irresponsible voters simply nod and smile. Guess which ones politicians like most.
Pro-gun is a blanket statement and when you use the term, you get rid of any form of nuance. Any opposition automatically acquires the label "anti-gun." Being pro-gun is far different than supporting the right to bear arms. Being pro-gun doesn't tell me where you stand on gun rights while at the same time gives trigger happy idiots solace in their paranoia that scary Liberals are gonna take away their gun/replacement penis. No line is drawn when you are pro-gun. Anyone that uses a gun for any reason is acceptable under a pro-gun mentality. If that isn't the case, then you are not pro-gun and your stance requires some clarification. That clarification comes in the form of regulation and responsibility for your toys.
Let me put it this way. In essence, the individual who believes a gun is going to get them what they want from the guy across the store counter is pro-gun. The young man who feels getting even by shooting whoever gets in his way is pro-gun. The gun gets him what he wants. When Bill Heavey writes his articles for Field & Stream, he cracks rather inappropriate jokes about shooting things, including people. Anyone that trigger happy does not need to own a gun. They are mentally unstable. When Ted Nugent puts a gun to his head, maybe I'll jump on the pro-gun bandwagon. Until then, you'll have to forgive me when I laugh at your pathetic excuse for a slogan and cross my fingers you shoot your own head off one day. Darwinism still works on some level you know.
I've said it once and I'll say it again. Conservatives are simple minded. They have to use slogans which appeal to simpletons. You know, local yokels. Either you have a small penis and like to shoot stuff like a big man or you're a pussy, right? There's no in between on this issue then.
If you are a politician using this term, you are intentionally appealing to the simple minded. If you vote for someone who is pro-gun, it's likely that you are a simpleton. Demand more from your elected officials!
Research has shown Conservatives do in fact tend to think more in terms of black and white and have difficulty dealing with change. You cannot break down issues into purely pro and anti categories because there are important subtleties that seriously need to be taken into consideration, unless the slogan itself uses wording which recognizes some nuance, ie. pro-choice.
(Although the above quote has mysterious roots and I've added my own adaptation, the substance of the quote mirrors that of the current state of America)
All gun and no brain? For men, that means all gun and no penis.
If you are pro-gun, here's your sign. Rednecks will get that joke.
Seriously, though...
Does it mean that no matter the circumstance, you are in favor of guns? Does it tell me that your constituents flock to simplistic slogans? Remind you of the term pro-life? God forbid someone is anti-life, right? Another way to look at the pro/anti dialogue is to phrase it in a different light. Take abortion for example. The current lines are drawn between pro-life and pro-choice. The pro-lifers would have you believe that pro-choice folks are anti-life. I never hear pro-lifers called anti-choice in political slogans. The term isn't even part of the main stream pro-choice crowd. "Anti-life," however, is part of the main-stream Right Wing campaign vernacular. When you put it that way, it should start turning those gears inside your head. It doesn't make any sense when you phrase gun politics in that format, but you fell for the simple slogan anyway.
I am seeing this term used more and more in campaign ads. Sarah Palin states she is pro-gun. I understand that in Alaska, everybody and their grandma has a gun to fend off threatening wild animals. I get it. Still, you don't have to go so far as to say you are pro-gun. A local doctor running for Congress says he's pro-gun. A doctor that is using the term pro-gun? Didn't he do a rotation in emergency medicine as a resident or in med school? So you're telling me that no matter what, Dr. Fleming, you are in favor of guns used for any reason? You have likely personally seen the end result of gun violence in your own medical career. Has that not affected your opinion at all?
Politicians love this slogan because it appeals to a very specific population of voters, yet it has nothing to do with the real issue. They love this slogan because it means they don't have to do anything besides sit on their asses. It's a non-committal pledge, if there is even such a thing. It's meaningless, until you begin asking questions. Responsible voters ask questions. Irresponsible voters simply nod and smile. Guess which ones politicians like most.
Pro-gun is a blanket statement and when you use the term, you get rid of any form of nuance. Any opposition automatically acquires the label "anti-gun." Being pro-gun is far different than supporting the right to bear arms. Being pro-gun doesn't tell me where you stand on gun rights while at the same time gives trigger happy idiots solace in their paranoia that scary Liberals are gonna take away their gun/replacement penis. No line is drawn when you are pro-gun. Anyone that uses a gun for any reason is acceptable under a pro-gun mentality. If that isn't the case, then you are not pro-gun and your stance requires some clarification. That clarification comes in the form of regulation and responsibility for your toys.
Let me put it this way. In essence, the individual who believes a gun is going to get them what they want from the guy across the store counter is pro-gun. The young man who feels getting even by shooting whoever gets in his way is pro-gun. The gun gets him what he wants. When Bill Heavey writes his articles for Field & Stream, he cracks rather inappropriate jokes about shooting things, including people. Anyone that trigger happy does not need to own a gun. They are mentally unstable. When Ted Nugent puts a gun to his head, maybe I'll jump on the pro-gun bandwagon. Until then, you'll have to forgive me when I laugh at your pathetic excuse for a slogan and cross my fingers you shoot your own head off one day. Darwinism still works on some level you know.
I've said it once and I'll say it again. Conservatives are simple minded. They have to use slogans which appeal to simpletons. You know, local yokels. Either you have a small penis and like to shoot stuff like a big man or you're a pussy, right? There's no in between on this issue then.
If you are a politician using this term, you are intentionally appealing to the simple minded. If you vote for someone who is pro-gun, it's likely that you are a simpleton. Demand more from your elected officials!
Research has shown Conservatives do in fact tend to think more in terms of black and white and have difficulty dealing with change. You cannot break down issues into purely pro and anti categories because there are important subtleties that seriously need to be taken into consideration, unless the slogan itself uses wording which recognizes some nuance, ie. pro-choice.
When Fascism comes to the United States, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a gun.
(Although the above quote has mysterious roots and I've added my own adaptation, the substance of the quote mirrors that of the current state of America)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)