It’s Not Time to Cry Wolf

It’s so very tempting to cry out in anger and frustration. If you are one of those self-serving climate change deniers, best cast a wide berth around me today. That is what I am tempted to say.

My heart aches for the people in Oklahoma who have suffered the loss of all their material lives but in addition, many have lost loved ones, many of those children, huddled in an elementary school for safety. Unfortunately, the twister cut a death road right through it.

After all the natural disasters we have suffered in the past fifteen years, it is tempting to believe that we are reaping the consequences of our refusal to seriously address the damage we are doing to our planet. It is so very tempting. And a lot of people are saying just that.

I was tempted. My first reactions were probably much like yours. “Now tell me again that there is no such thing as man-made climate change.” Of course there is, and we know it to be a fact. We know it because of studies done again and again. The science is clear, and the scientific community is also clear, remaining at the level of 97%. When independent studies are conducted, looking at nearly 14,000 peer-reviewed articles on climate change, only 24 were skeptical. That’s a powerful number.

Yet a fair look at the data regarding tornadoes does not suggest that we should make the assumption that climate change is the culprit in what seemingly are more severe and fatal tornadoes. You can look at the actual listing of tornadoes in America since the earliest recorded one in 1671 to the present. A number of things should be remembered:

1. Reporting in terms of damage and severity of twisters changes over time. We use a new system for instance starting in 2007, the Enhanced Fujita Scale. We have better equipment for measuring intensity and damage.
2. We are much more populated. Areas that were virtually uninhabited are no longer so, and fatalities may reflect that to some degree.
3. We have better warning systems that no doubt save lives.

The facts are that scientists generally do agree that climate change is driving a lot of weather phenomenon such as heat waves, drought, flooding, hurricanes and snowstorms. But tornadoes are something else again. The science is not there. There is still much that remains unknown about tornadoes and the main causes–energy in the form of warm, wet air meeting colder air, and wind shear, cut in opposite directions as far as climate change is concerned. This doesn’t mean that climate change is not driving tornadic activity today, but no one can say that with certainty at this point. 

Numbers suggest that 2011 was one of the worst years for tornadoes, but so far 2013 seems relatively sedate. However it is also noted as of the last few years, there seem to be tornadoes of higher intensity and with greater loss of life than we have seen in most of our lifetimes. That is merely anecdotal evidence at this point, and points to no clear trend as far as the science is concerned.

While we generally approve of Democratic Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse and his positions on any number of issues before the American public, he spoke to quickly in my humble opinion in assigning a causative claim to the Oklahoma twister in Moore to “climate change”. Since the science simply doesn’t support the allegation, Senator Whitehouse only serves the reactionary right when he offers up an opinion that can be so easily taken apart.

This is distressing for the reason that as we all know (all of those who are rational, read the actual scientific papers and listen to their testimony) that man-made climate change is real and it is taking and will continue to take a serious toll on this planet, making life uncomfortable for many, and perhaps unlivable for many others. I read just yesterday of,  if memory serves me, a small island in Fiji where the inhabitants recently moved a seaside settlement inland by a mile to get away from rising ocean levels that were washing into their crop lands and destroying them with salt water. That is reality.

It simply doesn’t help to cry wolf at indefensible tragedies no matter how tempting. There is more than enough reality to use as examples.

Related articles

• Can we blame the Oklahoma tornado on climate change? (rawstory.com)
• Is tornado intensity increasing? (livescience.com)
• Can we blame climate change for the tornado that took out Moore, Oklahoma? (grist.org)
• The Oklahoma Mega-Twister Is More Weather Than Climate Change (science.time.com)

The Running of the Bulls. . .hit

Okay, get your outrage ready followed by your thinking caps. It, to pare a Bette Davis phrase, “is going to be a bumpy ride.”

Let’s get rid of the outrage first.

1. It’s bad to target identifiable public groups of people for special scrutiny unless they are promoting pedophilia or making Adolph Hitler’s birthday a national holiday.
2. A man as smart as President Obama is, is surely very good at getting elected and surely very bad at managing his Administration–at least he has a lot of really incompetent people working for him that aren’t doing him any favors.
3. Anything that gives Tea Potters the ability to dance in the street in glee is just wrong on so many levels–mostly because they dress like idiots who missed the bus to the Super Bowl tailgate party.
4. Fourth, Jon Stewart already said it better than you could anyway with this:

“Well, congratulations, President Barack Obama, Conspiracy theorists who generally can survive in anaerobic environments have just had an algae bloom dropped on their fucking heads, thus removing the last arrow in your pro-governance quiver: skepticism about your opponents.”

TeaPotters should of course get somebody to explain to them what he said meant.

Okay, outrage over.

Now, let’s examine the facts, which are still fairly small in number, which allows me the joyous whimsy of speculating all over the place about both what might have happened and why. Given that I’m reputed worldwide to be a fairly decent prognosticator (if you don’t count the times I was wrong), I’m sure you will find my analysis spot on as they say or don’t say. You choose. (We are not getting into the DOJ “new” scandal today, so relax, you won’t go into brain overheating).

Okay, let’s begin.

This goes back, in my humble opinion, and with a tiny bit of help from the ever bubbly Contrarian, to *drum roll* Citizens United. That amazingly short-sighted, ill-thought-out, and all around stupid decision opened the floodgates as you no doubt recall to all kinds of bad things. Corporations could give unlimited amounts of money to elect those persons who would support their cause that the only good dollar is one in the pocket of a rich person, for only they know what to do with it.

Okay, okay, so it also allowed all sorts of other “groups” to also gather and spend tons of dough to influence the minds of mostly mind-numbingly stupid voters.

With me so far?

So a lot, and I do mean a lot, of folks figured out that they wanted to get in on the action.

In the world of the IRS is a thing called a 501 (c) 4. This is a tax-exempt status, not quite as pure as a 501 (c)3 status. It allows you to collect money and not pay taxes on it, but the donor can’t claim it as a tax-exempt donation. The status is reserved for groups who operate “for the promotion of the public welfare.”

See the truck? See the truck drive through the gigantic hole in the wall?

What the hell is public welfare?

Well, I knew you would ask that.

The ACLU is considered to do so. But so is the NRA.

See the more rigorous status, the 501 (c) 3 status requires that you stay the hell out of politics in any way shape or form. The 501 (c) 4 status is a bit more lenient. It allows one to lobby for legislation and also to engage in political activities as “long as their primary activity is the promotion of social welfare.” The mack truck as you can see is still driving right on through.

So a whole bunch of organizations pop up, all claiming they are for the public welfare, when in reality they are really about promoting candidates and issues. Enter the TeaPotters and various other right-wing groups.  To be fair, and we aim for fair,  there are (although to lesser number) plenty of left-wing organizations who also are trying to do the same thing.

Now Cincinnati is the office that apparently is the hub of the IRS operation to approve or deny applications for this status. One can assume that following Citizens United in 2010, there was a general flood of applications as everybody including grandma wanted to get in on the action. (I’m told something like 60,000 would not be far off the mark) The status is valuable since, some of the money is tax exempt which allows more of it be used as the organization desires, whether it be to “public welfare” or quite frankly in some case to allow for bigger salaries to those who run the things. Hint: you can make a good living by setting up and running one.  Also donor lists are not required to be publicized.

What to do with this flood of applications which may well have driven the wait time up many additional months?

I figure that some mid-level bureaucrats, who were told in no uncertain terms to clear the backlog, and “no you were not getting any more workers” because the GOP just says NO!, dreamed up this computer program to sort through applications and flag those that would in all cases require further scrutiny–i.e., were they actually doing “public welfare” or only a front for a political agenda. (It’s fairly hard to argue that any Tea party group or any Occupy Wall street group could be anything but political.) The program used words like tea party, phrases like government not working, taxes, and so forth.

As I understand it, of the numbers of kicked out applications (requiring further scrutiny and action) 25% involved right-wing organizations. The rest involved either left-wing or other groups who did not meet the criteria, being not fraternal organizations of chickadee lovers, chocolate addicts anonymous, or things of similar ilk.

At some point, higher-ups learned of the practice. Discussions were had, and all seemed convinced that it was not aimed at “enemies” so much, as to simply weed out by computer rather than by hand, those applications that would require more time. The normal applications could thus be passed through within a reasonable time.

Of course, it became known up the chain of command what was going on. But apparently this raised no red flag (as it should have) as it was discussed and explained to them.

This is born out by the fact that during this entire episode, one Doug Shulman was head of the IRS. Now Mr. Shulman was appointed and began his leadership of the IRS in March of 2008, having been appointed by George W. Bush. He completed his term in November of 2012. He testified that there was no such thing going on in the IRS, as late as March of 2012. While it is still unknown whether he was aware of the practice, it is now thought that he probably did.

This suggests to me, that he did not consider it aimed at suppressing right-wing groups so much as helping to alleviate the backlog and limited to pulling out those applications that would otherwise require additional scrutiny anyway. It appears that the agency’s interests had turned to increasing revenue since the early 2000′s, and it was felt that as much as 1.2 billions were being lost to tax exempt groups in the 2012 election alone. Clearly some of this, if not most of it, should not be tax exempt under the current laws.

Shulman is and has never been a politico. His entire career has been spent in the business arena. That suggests that while his political affiliation is unknown,  he probably supports business interests and it seems unlikely to me that he would deliberately turn a blind eye to some deliberate effort to damage conservative groups, which typically favor business interests. Thus we can take him at this word I think that there was not attempt to “target” conservative groups per se.

This suggests that the real problem here is not one of an “enemies list” so much as what you get when you try so hard to depoliticize an organization that none within it have the political nose to see a HUGE problem for what was probably created as a benign process to speed up the process for legitimate applications while leaving more problematical ones for later.

In other words, any political junkie would have seen this immediately as “DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON!”,  but they were not so seen by your average apolitical bureaucrat.

So that’s my initial take on it.

Of course weigh in.

Related articles

• The IRS should review all 501(c)(4) organizations (evergreeninstitute.wordpress.com)
• IRS nonprofit division overloaded, understaffed (publicintegrity.org)
• The Monday Long Read: Why the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups is less nefarious – and more necessary – than you think (americangladiators.wordpress.com)
• The IRS Shoots Itself in the Foot, Then Reloads (motherjones.com)
• The IRS Was Wrong – But Many Political Groups Should Not Be Tax-Exempt (business.time.com)

What Would Jesus Do?–Apply Only When Convenient

I try not to go all Jesus on you, at least on this blog. And truthfully, I’m not really. I’m just trying to illustrate a point. Today’s discussion revolves around the death penalty.

The reason it came to mind today for me, is that Maryland’s governor, Martin O’Malley, recently signed a repeal of the death penalty bill, ending that state’s long association with murder by government, and becoming the 18th state to move to the side of life.

What is perhaps most interesting, or draconian, as you see it, is that at the same time, Florida moves to make the killing of its citizens more easy for the state to accomplish. Florida wishes all those on death row executed within 180 days of “a warrant being signed”–presumably from a valid conviction and sentence. This awaits the governor’s signature at a time that Florida ranks first in overturned death penalty cases, a stunning 24 people having been exonerated, since 1970.

When you look at a map of the country, it is easy to see that the 18 states who have abolished the death penalty, almost all reside in the north and east,  my own state of New Mexico being a happy exception. More and more, the killing is confined to the deep South, Ohio being the only exception to that rule. You can check out all the statistics in your state here.

In 2012, 140 countries had abolished the death penalty, 39 more have de facto eliminated it by not using it for a number of years. Fifty-eight still impose it, the US of course among them. Of the fifty-eight, there is not one single what we would call “modern” country, save Japan that does so. We are in the company of Syria, North Korea, the Congo, Cuba, Pakistan and Afghanistan with our penchant for murdering our own citizens. Only Iran and Saudi Arabia beat us in the numbers killed each year (China refuses to divulge such information and the numbers for them is thought to be in the thousands)

It confounds rational beings in this country that we continue this barbarism. In many countries, vigils are held at US embassies when an execution is imminent. Many countries will not extradite prisoners to this country because of its death penalty. Our claims about human rights violations are laughed at across the globe when we so viciously execute our own in the face of growing numbers of those later found innocent.

Yet we continue to do so, and it begs the question why? Why is the deep South, home of the Bible Belt, people by so many who advocate the death of their fellow citizens? Why do so-called Evangelical Christians, or Born Agains stand so steadfast for this legalized murder? How do they square all this with their manual of life, the Bible?

We can’t answer that question, because it is in fact unanswerable. These same people will argue that it is both right and proper for state legislatures to impose all kinds of controls on women to make sure that any fertilized egg is produced as a live birth. In fact, taking their arguments and legislation to its logical extension, absolutely nothing is “too far” when it comes to a fetus. They would allow for women to be imprisoned to insure that she is eating properly. They would allow for an investigation into the circumstances of any “miscarriage” to determine whether there was either deliberate or negligent causation of the loss.

They tell us that life is sacred, given by God. They say this of course, while we know that their interest begins and ends there. They are not generally willing to support that child once born. Many of them later will label that same child a “taker”, a 48%’er, a lazy, or other such appellation suggesting that they are unworthy of their charitable largess. And indeed they wish to reserve that right of “charity” to those persons deemed “worthy” as defined by them.

They engage in this ying-yang dichotomy of what God demands. God demands we preserve life at conception. God is ignored when in the guise of Jesus, He demands compassion and care for the least of God’s children. In the biggest effrontery of all, they accomplish this by proclaiming that God made his manual understandable to everyone, and therefore their self-serving interpretation is sacrosanct. They even have the gall to point to scripture for this proposition–beware of false prophets–everyone who tells them differently are of course the false prophets. It’s all neat and tidy.

However, the facts tend to get in the way. I offer the story of the adulterous woman from the Gospel of John, from Chapter 8.

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.”

Note how the Scribes correctly state that the penalty for adultery is death. Stoning was never a punishment of pain, it was a death sentence. Yet Jesus precludes the use of the penalty, telling the woman to “go forth and sin no more”–an impossibility of course to any mortal human being. He forgives her. He in a real sense rehabilitates her. He sends her forth to resume her life, hopefully with a new outlook and a better approach to community living.

Yet these fundamentalists who insist that there is but one way to read the bible, and that is literally, seem able, as is always the case with them, to manage to avoid the obvious literalness of this passage.

They are quite happy to merrily go on judging others and condemning them to death. They continue to usurp the right of God (from their previous logic) to control matters of life and death.

It is why they forever deserve not only our ridicule, but our condemnation as Christians. They are simply users of scripture to accomplish their own personal desires. As such their opinions carry no weight.

So just jump in and rant away good readers!

Just One of Those Crazy Accidents

So said the local county coroner, Gary White, declaring the shooting of a two-year-old by her five-year-old brother, just one of those things.

Crazy things happen when guns and kids are mixed. The parents are just really feeling stupid for leaving the boy’s “first rifle” propped in the corner and left loaded.

Just an accident. Move on.

Well, HELL NO!

First let me clear the air. Let there be no mistake about what’s about to come your way. I am utterly opposed to guns personally. I have lived with guns all my life. My father was an avid hunter. All my male relatives were as well. I had plenty of occasion to handle guns during my professional career. I know my calibers and I know firearms identification. I’m not ignorant of the territory.

I am also not a mother. This seems an important fact to some. A right-wing, “I love Jesus, the bible, and my guns” adherent told me that I was probably incapable of compassion for unborn babies because I was not a mother like her. So be forewarned, I am going to speak about that which I have no knowledge–children and guns and parents. (Okay, stop laughing–that would eliminate all men from being compassionate I know. But who in the hell ever accused a right-wing TeaPotter of being either rational or logical?)

You may have heard about the story of the five-year-old. For his fourth birthday, his stellarly-bright parents thought it a good idea to buy their boy his first gun. The gun in question is called a Crickett, manufactured by Keystone Sporting Arms. They have since cleaned up their website, because, well you know. Their commercials to kids look pretty damn sick about now. Luckily, it was captured before their wiped the site clean.

Just a couple of weeks ago, a deputy sheriff was showing off his arsenal to guests when his child grabbed a gun off the bed, fired it, and killed the female guest. This is of course nothing new. Although statistics often include more than just accidents, something like a couple of hundred children under the age of 12 die every year from firearms “accidents”. This is to say nothing of the suicides (the method of choice, and by far the most successful) accomplished by our youth by guns.

We can talk about gun violence all day. We can talk about all these tragedies. We can talk about background checks, and assault type weapons and high-capacity clips. Yet who would have thought that it would be legal to market and sell, and buy a gun for a four-year-old? Who in their thinking mind can contemplate that such a thing would be legal?

Apparently the manufacturers don’t specify any age when such weapons are “appropriate”. Goodness, that’s shocking isn’t it. Little triggers for little hands. Ahh, can you just swoon with the sweetness of this new market? Increasingly, as the gun makers have found the male market literally saturated, they have turned to women and children as new targets.

And this marketing is very real, as you can see.

Generally speaking, it is left up to the states to determine the rules under which guns can be legally in the hands of youth. Almost all require that one be 18 to buy a gun on their own, but many states allow people to buy guns for children as gifts, and there seem to be no restrictions in some states at least as it relates to shotguns and rifles.

The penalties imposed upon adults for negligence also vary considerably.

A whole culture has grown, and continues to grow around the “family that shoots together”. This kind of behavior is touted as bonding, and ultimately of course hints at the need of children to be able to defend themselves. Yes, we all want kids to turn to guns as their first line of defense don’t we?

Of course, such things are kept subtle. Mostly the ads suggest that the family fun of gunning is all about “sportsmanship” and family togetherness.

Don’t delay, get your child in on his new membership in the NRA the ads tell you.

The real intent–to sell guns and make profits is hidden behind lofty goals of “gun safety” and the joys of target shooting, to say nothing of spending quality time with dad in the woods in pursuit of making a bloody mess of Bambi.

Studies show that kids who are exposed to guns at an early age, have, as you might expect, good thoughts about gun ownership in general, and worse yet, they are more apt to encourage their friends to join in the fun.

WHY IS THIS LEGAL?

I can only ask the question because the answer seems so obvious. It should not be. At least to the vast majority of rational beings.

Guns are lethal. Cigarettes are harmful to one’s health. We don’t let parents buy them for their kids so start them on the joys of puffing. Alcohol is dangerous to one’s health. We don’t allow parents to invite all the little one’s at Sally’s birthday party to throw a few back between games of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, and ice cream and cake do we? We don’t allow children to drive automobiles on public streets. We don’t allow them operate all kinds of dangerous machinery, work before a suitable age, work at many dangerous jobs. The list is endless.

But somehow we let them use lethal firearms because mom and dad like a well-armed family.

This magazine is for kids.

I’m glad to know that “glocks are for girls” aren’t you?

These kids after reading this bilge will not be begging for Barbies. They will be begging for more fire power!

What kind of insanity is this?

Look, as I said, I’m no parent. But I was once a child.

I knew a lot of other children when I was one.

I know a heck of a lot of adults today.

I know that most people are not competent to tie their shoes without supervision let alone raise kids.

Most of us manage to grow up not being serial killers because I guess the drive to be average is so darn strong that we avoid those pitfalls.

But most of us are from dysfunctional homes to one degree or another. Some of us came from wretched conditions, some of us were physically assaulted, some of us just emotionally assaulted.

Most parents are lousy. But we make allowances because nobody requires potential parents to take classes. We cut our parents slack because they “did they best they could” given their own upbringing. We are generous that way.

But there is a time and place to draw a line. And I draw it when parents are ALLOWED to buy guns for children for “fun”. I draw the line there. I don’t just draw a line. I erect a damn wall. And if you cross it, I am inclined to grab your kid and run while you sit in some damn cell and think about it for twenty years.

I of course, would allow no gun maker to make children’s weapons nor market them, nor sell them to anyone. They are NOT APPROPRIATE–EVER!

Is this country stark raving mad?

Is it just me?

Cuz if it is just me, then boy, I am too damn dumb to breath.

Well?

Does this image make you feel all warm and happy?

Does it?

Or this one?

 

Related articles

• Anyone for Cricketts? The rifles made especially for children (independent.co.uk)
• Guns made for kids: How young is too young to shoot? (newsheadiesblog.wordpress.com)
• Cricket My First Rifle……. (theobamacrat.com)

Battle Lines Are Drawn

As I write this, the votes have not yet been cast. It’s scheduled for a bit later in the day. It doesn’t look good. According to Senator Manchin, they don’t have the sixty votes that are now per-requisite for getting anything passed in the Senate. And Harry was so sure that the Republicans would be reasonable.

To be sure, there are Democrats signaling they are voting no. Their reason? Oh why should they stick out their necks when the House is surely going to ignore it anyway. Safer to placate their owners, the NRA than do the courageous thing, the honorable thing, the DEMOCRATIC thing–vote as their constituents desire. When 90% of the American public’s desires are being thwarted, you have to ask, what is this thing called Democracy anyway? A small minority is able to foil the desires and rights of the minority.

That is not always a bad thing of course. Our constitution envisions the protection of minority rights, but there are no minority “rights” here to protect. Here we have simple blatant greed which drives a small organization which pulls the strings of its puppets, so-called elected congressional representatives.  The NRA, who are in fact beholden to business interests, and get their Congressional puppets to do their bidding.

The NRA wins– and of course a plethora of “patriotic” groups who are in reality nothing more than ill-educated macho types who have fallen in love as children with the idyllic mis-history of the “wild west” of old, and believe themselves to be “saving the country from itself”. They actually believe that their arsenals of semi-automatic weapons, self-created bunkers, bug-out plans, and caches of food will one day make them the Jeffersons, Washingtons, and John Adams of their day.

That they are delusional is obvious. That they are dangerous is both true and not true. They are dangerous to the average person who unknowingly lives next door to them, and may become embroiled in some “last stand” and caught in the cross-fire. They are not dangerous to the firepower and might of the US military, should that come into play in this future Armageddon that they have wet dreams about.

But the real joke is on them. And the NRA is perpetrator of the greatest hoax of all time. This institution, which started off as a means to help teach hunters how to hunt safely, and was assuredly in favor of not having guns in the hands of any but those trained to handle them safely, has morphed into a grand spokesperson for the gun manufacturers and gun sellers. That is who La Pierre and his ilk really answer to.

And they have done this job of theirs well. They have ginned up the rhetoric since before 2008 to assure their members that any day now a President Obama will take away their guns. They preach it with the fervor of a Billy Graham. They worry and threaten their members with confiscations and the demise of the 2nd Amendment. They rewrite the Amendment to mean what it never meant. They ignore their own–Justice Scalia–who informs them that the 2nd Amendment is not without restraint.

They do this, not because any of it is true, but because it causes what they want to happen–the pseudo-patriots race to the nearest gun location and buy up everything in sight. And get this–they do it at inflated prices. You better get yours before they are banned, and sorry, but our supply is short, so the price is twice what it was before all this happened. And the gun manufacturers of course, know better, and they are building them as fast as the shelves empty.

So now you pseudo-patriot, you can sit in your man cave, aka bunker, caressing and admiring your new arsenal of war weapons, confident that once again you have thwarted that Black Man in the White House. Yes, you are locked and loaded. And as the tragedy of Sandyhook retreats from memory and life returns to normal, you will forget that the NRA hoodwinked you and got you to buy up the store at inflated prices.

You will forget it, because you don’t want to feel like the fool you are. And because you are a fool, and you will forget, and when the next tragedy occurs, (and of course it will), the NRA will turn up the heat once again, and regardless of who is president at the time, somehow, they will make you afraid, and you’ll be headed back to the gun shop to load up on what may soon be illegal again.

Because, you see, poor stupid pseudo-patriot, they don’t care about the 2nd Amendment at all. They never have. They care about lining their pockets with dead presidents, and you are the stupid fool that keeps that cash flowing their way.

And the rest of us are just sickened by your stupidity. And we are sickened that we have to put up with people like you. But we do, for we believe in a free society.

But we will change this gun culture, and mark down the name of every single elected official who votes no, and all those who we know encouraged no in the hopes that they would not have to stand up and say NO publicly. And we will defeat you, and replace you with normal people of conscience who believe that they are there to represent the best interests of the people they represent and not corporate whores and their mouthpieces.

Shame on you. And may your children and grandchildren someday deny they ever knew you.

Related articles

• Toomey won’t retreat from background-checks amendment (triblive.com)
• Gillibrand rejects David Gregory’s talking points: ‘This is not about the NRA!’ (rawstory.com)
• “All bow to the NRA and the fear and hate they spread that stopped common sense” – ‘Senate Sets Flurry of Crucial Votes on Gun Measures, Some Expanding Rights’ (thelastofthemillenniums.wordpress.com)
• The N.r.a. Shows Its True (and Ugly) Colours (onehotknife.wordpress.com)
• NRA’s 35-Year Battle to Define the 2nd Amendment (patspapers.com)
• Manchin Accuses NRA Of Lying About Background Checks, Says Bill Is Likely To Fail (thinkprogress.org)
• The Gun Whore Minority Is Winning (duanegraham.wordpress.com)

 

Damn You Harry Reid!

You know there are times when it’s a good thing that I am where I am and Congress is where it’s at. For if I were closer, I would be hard to dissuade from marching up the Capital steps and hunting for Reid and a few others to throttle.

Being not of the assaultive behavior type, that’s saying a lot for me.

If you haven’t heard, Reid has pulled Diane Feinstein’s assault weapons bill from the docket and will not bring it to the floor for debate.

His reasoning: he cannot produce 60 votes for it’s passage.

Since when is this the rule for whether a bill is deemed appropriate for debate. Has there never in the history of that august? body  been a time when a Senator has given so empassioned a plea that it has so shamed the other members that they have had a change of heart?

Okay, so I’m dreaming. Undoubtedly so. But is that an excuse?

Tell me that Turtle-man Mitch McConnell would announce the usual GOP filibuster. Go ahead tell me that it was useless to try.

It was not useless. I am aware enough, I think, of the stupid rules of the Senate to know that that was likely. Mitch is a stooge after all, of who ever is paying his ticket to ride the gravy train formerly known as the US Senate.

But there would be A RECORD.

Even if that record is nothing but the GOP ploy to protect their sick caucus from having to stand up in public and vote NO to rational gun laws. Let them admit in full view of the American people that they side with gun manufacturers and dealers and that they too are part of the insane bunch of fools who think Obama is just biding his time before he outlaws all guns in the US and we are in the throes of a civil war.

Let the so-called Democrats, who are no more than GOP’ers in disguise, who also are on their knees before the god NRA offering the sacrifice of more bodies and more babies to the insane machinations of sociopathic teenagers and young men who decide that suicide should be accompanied by a body count beyond one.  Let them be forced to admit the shame of who and WHAT they are, by voting NO so that I can see them.

Let them spout all their idiotic rhetoric that guns don’t kill people, and legitimate hunters score better bambi kill when their gun looks like GI Joe military weapon, all the while they spray a rain of bullets on a defenseless deer, making the meat unfit for finding let alone eating. Let them moan and groan that respectable people are being forced to give a name and address before purchasing a 30-bullet clip, while they routinely do that to board a damn airplane.

Let them say it all, and let us see them saying it, and see it for what it is.

More of the damn same crap we endure every damn day from those who are supposed to be representing us and the COMMON GOOD.

When was that point?

When was that point when we gave up all sense that our government’s elected officials were actually there to represent us, the average American. When did it turn to representing only the rich and the powerful and their ceaseless greed for money and power to shape the world in a way that serves them, while making the rest of live like animals, gnawing at each other, holding our pistols in terror, fearful to lose  that little that we have.

Was it always the point? Was this country started on that basis and have I been living out the lie that I MATTERED AT ALL?

I’m beginning to believe it’s all just a cosmic joke. I’m beginning to believe that government was never “of, by and for” me, but of, by and for THEM, with me as the worker ant, ever dutifully dying and grubbing on their behalf.

Am I mad as hell?

Yes.

Mad enough to do what?

I don’t know. Except at this moment I just want to fire the lot of them. I’m not sure any of them are “smarter than a 5th grader,” and I’m pretty sure a band of 5th graders could do no worse.

The soap box now belongs to you!

Related articles

• Harry Reid Drops Scary Looking Gun Ban From Anti-Gun Legislation (stoptheaclu.com)
• Harry Reid Decides Newtown Families Don’t Deserve A Vote On Assault Weapons Ban (mediaite.com)
• Senate Leaders Drop Assault-Weapon From Gun-Safety Bill (bloomberg.com)
• Too Far? Michael Moore: If Gunman Killed Harry Reid’s Grandkids, He Wouldn’t Drop Assault Weapons Ban (mediaite.com)
• Delusional White House After Harry Reid Killed Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban: ‘We’re Going To Find The Votes’ To Pass It As Amendment (patdollard.com)
• Feinstein’s Gun Ban Shot Down By Harry Reid (thegatewaypundit.com)
• Feinstein on assault weapons ban: ‘I’m not going to lay down and play dead’ (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)

What a Difference a Mind Makes

You know it’s really funny. Prepare you face for it. To laugh that is.

When I talk about faith or religion here, it brings out the new atheists and their smarmy yak-yak about believing in fairy tales. When I talk about faith or religion on my actual religion blog, Walking in the Shadows, I sometimes get folks who deign to explain to me that I’m not practicing the right kind of Christianity from their point of view.

Yesterday, I was asked, after making a number of statements regarding various fairly technical aspects of Christian theology (atonement theory, faith/works), the sort of things that some of us love to discuss, whether I was a “follower” of Jesus.

I guess it caught me oddly since I can’t imagine why anyone would spend all that much time on a subject of which they had no interest. But then I thought of a few rather well-known scholars who had started their studies in faith, and then lost it, and remained in the discipline. So I guess it wasn’t so odd.

Which brought me to the well-known principle that on just about every subject known to man and woman, people see things very differently. To this person’s mind at least, because I didn’t believe as she did, I must not be a follower of Jesus as she was. There was one way to follow Jesus, and I wasn’t doing it.

Similarly, whether it be economics or climate change, or any of a host of human and worldly problems, you discover that people have views that seem idiotic to you. Yet, when you talk to them, they have the same passion as you do. They are just as sure. Well, I guess that’s not totally true. I always figure that I’m never totally sure about much of anything. Doubt to me is part of the package. Those who are diametrically opposed to what I think, they seem to be very sure.

Therein lies the rub as Shakespeare was wont to say. The “follower of Jesus” if asked, would assure me that her belief is absolute, without question. That seems to me to be the total opposite of faith. For to me, faith is such in the face of doubt. It’s a choosing to believe even when there is no proof that you are right, just no proof that you are wrong.

It led me to conclude that that is probably true about most people who are given to being “absolutely sure”.  I’m also engaged with a very reactionary type who is “very sure” there is no such thing as global warming. Even though logically he can’t be, since he has no training in any science even remotely related to the subject. He is adamant that he is right, because the people he aligns himself with say what he wants to be true.

A scientist will tell you that you can’t be absolutely sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. Something catastrophic could always happen. Is it true that only the reactionary right are “sure” about things? I wonder.

I’m not completely sure where this comes from. One can refer to the fundamentalist mind. People think it refers to super conservative church people, but it actually is a mindset. It refers to a person who likes things in neat little boxes, all tidy and a whole world gets constructed of rights and wrongs. Once they have established this nice world, they can finally relax, they have all the answers. Nobody is allowed to jeopardize that with actual facts to the contrary. They must be defeated, and they are, by naming them as suspect. They are “purveyors of lies”, they are “Marxists” or “socialists” or “one-world government” nuts. They are hucksters conspiring  to obtain grants based on known falsehoods, for the “money”. (of course nobody explains how tens of thousands are all in on this conspiracy and waste their careers getting grants to do things they know already are false). Nobody explains the lack of logic of it all.

One can refer to self-interest, and that explains a lot too. When you poke at the angry all too sure person, they generally erupt in a retort of “we’re going to be taxed to death, and all for nothing!” That is the crux of the issue when you puncture the pus-filled wound they carry around with them. They hate taxes, hate everything they perceive is keeping them from retaining every dime they make.

That is why the GOP mantra is so attractive. They not only support the angry right and it’s desire to pay less taxes, they give them all the reasoning as to why they need not feel guilty about it either. If you show them statistics that prove that raising the minimum wages doesn’t result in an uptick in the unemployment numbers and that it results in raising up the wages of all workers, they retort with a firm “no it doesn’t, all it does it deny poor black kids a chance at a job, and perpetuate poverty, which is all Democrats want because then they have a ready-made electorate who want those handouts.”

It’s so nice when people tell you aren’t racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or wrong period. It’s nice to be told that you are right in denying full rights to gay couples because “God wants it that way.” Nice to deny SNAP to women and children because it just “encourages laziness and relying on the government”. It’s nice to  leave the planet in a mess to the next generation because a few opportunists are willing to assure you that it’s really okay and you shouldn’t be scammed by and forced to pay more taxes to encourage green technology.

So, add another point to how to determine when you are hearing the truth, or when you are hearing what somebody wants you to believe for their own purposes. Are they sure? If they are, and they don’t have the background to make that determination, look for something else at play, and tread carefully when you make your decision of what you believe.

Belief and surety are not the same.