I hear you on Gun Control. I want to hear you on Rape Control.

396384_356189721082253_31469221_n

Reblogged from Deliberate Donkey:

I watch the news every morning and every evening, enough for it to loop a few times. I watch three channels, even though they all pretty much report the same thing.

We are in the midst of a national uproar over the Newton School Shootings; as we very well should be. Twenty-six people lost their lives at the hands of a maniac with a gun.

Read more… 466 more words

It's hard to disagree with anything said here. I'm probably in the minority, but I think sex offenders should be castrated. Brutal? Sure. Unjustified? I think not. I know way too many women who have been sexually assaulted. They live with that torment the rest of their lives. If castrating one rapist saves one woman from a lifetime of horror then it's worth it.

"This Gun Killed Someone"

Stop or it's going to be even LONGER until I can eat some more doughnuts!

Reblogged from littlemisswordy:

Click to visit the original post

The instructions read: Connect the dots to see the picture, then draw something you might see in it. He drew a picture of a gun floating in white space, with the word "News" above it. When asked to explain his picture he said, "The news is on TV, and this is a picture of a gun." As his homeschooling teacher and more importantly his mom, I asked him to elaborate.

Read more… 926 more words

This sums it up nicely. Gun control is a noble idea, but guns aren't killing people. People are killing people. Do we have a responsibility to do our best to keep guns out of the hands of people who would use them for ill? Absolutely. Is banning guns going to stop crimes like Sandy Hook from happening? No. It hasn't in England and it hasn't elsewhere. Guns are not the problem, people are. As my buddy Elyse has pointed out to me, you can get rid of guns, but you can't rid of people. This, unfortunately, is true, but we can choose as a society to pay more attention to mental illness; the diagnosis, the treatment, and the symptoms. I can tell you for a fact that society as a whole does not take mental illness seriously and most people do not get treated properly for it, and up until recently I was included in that group. So, let's put the focus and keep the focus where it belongs. On people. On mental illness. And on finding ways to diagnose and treat people with mental illness. *steps off soapbox* There, I feel better now.  

Bob Costas is an Idiot

la-sp-sn-bob-costas-jovan-belcher-20121203-001-220x220

Bob Costas. He just looks like an arrogant prick. (Photo courtesy of LA Times)

Jovan Belcher (Photo courtesy of LA Times)

I’ve been trying not to bring this up because I just wrote a post about the 2nd amendment, but I just can’t NOT talk about it anymore.

I’m sure, by now, that most everyone has heard something about Bob Costas and his anti-gun speech during his halftime segment on Sunday Night Football.

For those of you in the dark, let me start from the beginning.  This past Saturday, Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher shot and killed his girlfriend, and baby momma, Kasandra Perkins Saturday morning.  He then drove to the Chiefs’ facility where he committed suicide in front of team officials by shooting himself in the head.

Before I start in on Costas, I’ll be up front and let you know that I’ve never really cared for him.  I don’t like his commentating style, or the way he always seems so effin’ smug.  I just don’t like him.  Now?  I can’t effin’ stand him.

So here’s what Costas had to say, courtesy of the LA Times:

“You knew it was coming. In the aftermath of the nearly unfathomable events in Kansas City, that most mindless of sports clichés was heard yet again, ‘Something like this really puts it all in perspective.’ Well if so, that sort of perspective has a very short shelf life since we will inevitably hear about the perspective we have supposedly again regained the next time ugly reality intrudes upon our games. Please. Those who need tragedies to continually recalibrate their sense of proportion about sports, would seem to have little hope of ever truly achieving perspective.

“You want some actual perspective on this? Well a bit of it comes from the Kansas City-based writer Jason Whitlock, with whom I do not always agree but who today, said it so well that we may as well just quote or paraphrase from the end of his article. “Our current gun culture,” Whitlock wrote, “ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it. In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions, and its possible connection to football, will be analyzed. Who knows? But here is what I believe, If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

My first problem with this is bringing in a hot political topic into sports.  Is the fact that Belcher killed Perkins and himself sports-related news?  Yes, but the editorial on gun control is not needed.  That’s what CNN or MSNBC is for.  Or Fox News, if that’s your cup of tea.  Football Night in America is NOT where expect to find any sort of political commentary.  Nor should I.

Secondly, Costas agrees with, and quotes, Jason Whitlock, who is normally as level-headed a sports reporter as there is.  However, this time Jason, and thus Bob Costas, are both dead wrong.  Our current gun culture, as Whitlock refers to it, is NOT ensuring that more and more domestic disputes end in the ultimate tragedy.  If any culture ensures that I would venture to say it’s the hip-hop culture, a culture that advocates the thug life and solving things with guns and violence.  I know many gun-owners and they are not violent people and don’t have criminal records and wouldn’t hurt a soul without provocation.  There are a plethora of reasons these people own guns.  Some collect them.  Some enjoy shooting.  Some have them for protection.  Others have them for hunting.  And some have them for all of the reasons listed above.  But they don’t just randomly kill people because of some imagined gun culture or just because they have one.

Then, Whitlock, and Costas by quoting him, contend that “handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.”  This is an idiotic statement if I’ve ever heard one.  Handguns in the hands of law-abiding citizens enhance the safety of said law-abiding citizen by providing a means of protection from those who don’t abide by our laws.  And let’s face it, there are a lot of criminals out there preying on unsuspecting citizens.  Moreover, owning a gun exacerbates no one’s flaws and does not tempt anyone to escalate arguments.  Violent people are going to be violent no matter if they possess a gun or not.  Peruse YouTube for a bit and do a search for fighting.  You’ll find thousands, if not millions, of videos of all kinds of idiots fighting for inane reasons. And you’ll find that guns are not the reason those situations escalated. Most of the time you’ll find that it’s stupid people arguing over stupid shit.  Embracing confrontation, Jason?  No, people don’t back down or avoid confrontation today because they are more afraid of being called a pussy than of getting their ass kicked.  Peer pressure is a bitch, isn’t it?

Then Whitlock, and Costas by extension, say the dumbest thing yet.  That if Belcher didn’t have a gun that he and Perkins would still be alive.  Really?  I mean, really?  How could you possible know that with absolute certainty?  You both were speaking without the facts.  Since you both weighed in on this topic without getting the facts first, consider this; since you both opined on this incident it has been reported that Belcher and Perkins were having a pretty intense argument prior to the shooting.  Are you two both positive that the only reason Belcher grew angry enough to kill Perkins is because he had a gun?  Or could it possibly be that Perkins had so enraged Belcher (rightly or wrongly) that he would have used anything at his disposal to kill her?

I find it both naive and stupid to blame an inanimate object for a person’s actions.  Blaming Belcher’s gun for Belcher’s actions is like blaming my fork for me eating too much.  A gun cannot think.  It cannot speak.  It certainly doesn’t have its own agenda.  It most certainly didn’t say to Belcher, “You know what?  I’m tired of this shit.  Shoot her.  Nine times.”  A gun is like a computer or a TV.  It only does what you tell it to.  The trigger doesn’t pull itself.  Somebody has to make a conscious decision to do so.

Instead of attacking our “gun culture,” why don’t you attack our violent culture instead?  A culture that embraces and glorifies violence.  MMA.  UFC.  Boxing.  Hollywood blockbusters from which most of the entertainment is derived from violent encounters.  Or why don’t you attack parenting?  Most violent people are raised to embrace violence by their parents.  The finger could be pointed in a multitude of directions, but is instead being pointed at the one thing that can’t possibly be faulted.  The gun.  I’m not going to make any absolute statements like Costas or Whitlock, but I don’t feel like I’m going out on a limb by saying that if Belcher had a Louisville Slugger instead of a gun he would’ve murdered her with that.  Once he was to the point where murder was his intent he would’ve used whatever was within his grasp to carry it out.  It just so happened that he had a gun.

Again, maybe gun control reform is needed.  And maybe it isn’t.  But one thing’s for sure:  guns are not responsible for what they are used for.  Violent people are going to be violent whether they have a gun or not.  Murderers will find a way to murder without a gun if they can’t get one.  This was indeed a terrible tragedy, but the fault for this lies with Belcher and Belcher alone.  It’s not the gun’s fault.

And now, I’ll leave you with a few memes insired by Bob’s idiotic intrusion into the halftime show.

This one really drives the point home.

Rep. Gutierrez rips Arizona immigration law | The Ticket – Yahoo! News

Rep. Gutierrez rips Arizona immigration law | The Ticket – Yahoo! News.

I didn’t know who Luis V. Gutierrez was before I read this article (he’s a Democratic senator representative from Illinois), but in addition to now knowing who he is I know an additional fact about him:  he’s stupid.

Per the linked article, Gutierrez is using idiotic commentary to voice his displeasure with the Arizona immigration law.  He used Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez as his defense.  Seriously.  Here’s what he had to say:

“I’m sure Justin helped Gomez learn American customs and feel more at home in her adopted country. Oh, wait a minute, I’m sorry. Because I’m not a trained Arizona official, I somehow got that backwards. Actually, Ms. Gomez of Texas has helped Mr. Bieber of Canada learn about his adopted country. Justin, when you perform in Phoenix, remember to bring your papers.”

Yes, Justin, remember to bring your papers.  Seriously.  You’re required by Federal law, not state law, to do so.

Dear, Mr. Gutierrez, no one is training Arizona officials or police officers to be able to look at a person and tell whether or not they’re in this country illegally.  That’s one of the dumbest rebuttals to this law I’ve heard to date.  All they’ve been given is the ability to ask for proof of citizenship.  That’s it.  If you’re a citizen or legal immigrant this law will only inconvenience you for the two seconds it takes to whip out your wallet and pull out your ID or green card.

I’m baffled by all of the people who oppose this law that turn it into a racial profiling issue.  Nowhere does it state that this law applies only to Latinos.  The law gives police officers the right to ask anybody for proof of citizenship during routine police business.  Routine being if you’re pulled over for speeding.  Or you’re involved in a bar fight.  Or the cops are called to your house for some reason or another.  Or you’ve witnessed an accident.  Or whatever other routine things cops do on a daily basis.

This does not give police carte blanche to just start pulling over Latinos and asking for papers.  They must be there for some other legitimate reason first before they can ask for them.

This law does not specify that only Latinos can be asked for their papers, and I’m kind of tired of people, Latinos in particular, thinking that this law is directed at them.  Plenty of people from plenty of other countries try to sneak into our country as well.  Mostly using the same paths that immigrants from Mexico use.

Honestly, the only people that need to worry about this law are the people who are in this country illegally.  Everybody else will just show the cop their ID, green card, or driver’s license and will have a nice rest of the afternoon.

Get real, people.

Mitt Romney hits magic number

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts,...

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, 2010 US presidential candidate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is my first attempt at a satire article.  Please let me know how I did, even if it’s to let me know I should never attempt this again.

Mitt Romney hit the GOP’s magic number today, gaining the 1144 delegate votes needed to make him the party’s unofficially official presidential candidate.  He can’t officially be named the GOP’s nominee until August 27, when the Republican National Convention is set to be held.

Romney received the remaining 78 needed delegates from the Lone Star state, otherwise known as Texas, a state that has produced many winners in the past, including George W. Bush and Rick Perry.

After receiving a projected 152 out of 155 delegates in Texico, Romney said he was humbled to have become the GOP’s nominee.

“I am very  honored and flattered that I was able to get a bunch of extraordinarily bigoted Christians to vote for me, a Mormon.  Now, come this November, our country’s citizens will have to choose between a Mormon and a black guy who supports gay marriage and charge him with the task of running this country further into the ground.  I am confident that on November 6, this country vote for me, the guy with the stay-at-home wife, of whom everyone is jealous,” Romney wrote.

Romney was pretty much a shoe-in for the nomination as all of his competition has fallen by the wayside.  Rick Perry dropped out when he realized nobody cared that he doesn’t want gays in the military.  Newt Gingrich ran out of money pursuing votes for the moon base, and Rick Santorum dropped out because of an illness in the family.  Nobody has seen or heard from Ron Paul in weeks, and he’s presumed dead.  Michele Bachmann dropped out after she was advised that this was a rich, old man’s party and that she had the improper equipment.  Herman Cain bowed out in December amid allegations of sexual misbehavior so plentiful and heinous that Bill Clinton sued for copyright infringement.

Romney began his quest for presidency last June.  During a gathering at his New Hampshire farm he declared that Barack Obama had failed America because he uses words most Americans don’t understand.  “Is there really a need for the amount of syllables the president uses?” he inquired of the gathered crowd.  “I don’t understand half of what he’s saying!”

Romney is the first Mormon  presidential candidate of a major party in…ever.  Asked if his religious beliefs would influence his policies, Romney declared, “Boy will they ever!” enthusiastically before continuing to say, “My administration will redefine marriage to be between one man and however many women he wants.  Every wife will have to sign a wife agreement.  Oh, and gay marriage?  Yeah, it’ll still be illegal.  In fact, we’ll make being gay illegal.”

Asked about Romney winning the nomination, president Barack Obama said, “Mitt Romney?  That Mormon guy?  That’s who they’re going to run against me?  Shit, I can stop campaigning now and still win.”

A Letter to NC Supporters of the Marriage Amendment

Reblogged from All that makes you...:

Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post
  • Click to visit the original post

Dear Fellow "Mom" Friends in North Carolina,

Please stop asking me to "Get out and vote FOR the marriage amendment" and that "You believe marriage is between one man and one woman."

It makes me lose respect for you.  It makes me think you aren't very intelligent.  It makes me think you're insensitive, and that you would feed my children to yours if you had to.  

Read more… 695 more words

An incredible post. I couldn't have articulated it better myself. Anyone who supports a bill like this is a hypocrite, though they would never see it that way.
Enhanced by Zemanta

"Religious Freedom," an easy cover for bigotry

Reblogged from Lefty on the Left:

Click to visit the original post

Whenever somebody is looking to promote an idea that the religious groups in this country at large don't agree with, have you ever noticed a pattern?  The pattern that these groups will have their members come out of the woodwork and claim "religious freedom."  It is such a clever line, and through it, all kinds of hatred and bigotry are able to be defended.

Read more… 621 more words

Virginia backs off of vaginal ultrasound requirement

A blogging buddy of mine alerted me the other day to a bill making its way through the Virginia legislature that would require woman who would like a legal abortion to submit to a vaginal ultrasound.

The alleged purpose of this required ultrasound is to “determine gestational age.”  My blogging buddy believes that the purpose of this requirement is to guilt the woman out of getting an abortion.  More than likely, both reasons are correct, but I would presume that the guilt factor was the motivation to get this bill passed.

The bill itself was approved by the Virginia House of Delegates, with the amendment that the woman receive an external ultrasound.

Per the linked article, here is what Virginia governor Bob McDonnell had to say in regards to changing the bill:

It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bills stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.

Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

Gee, Bob, of course there’s no need for a vaginal ultrasound when an external one would suffice.  Then again, since your proposed vaginal ultrasound mandate met the federal requirements of rape you had no choice but to back off.

I will concur that because you must be less than 22 weeks pregnant to receive a legal abortion an attempt must be made ascertain fetal age.  That, however, is normally determined by the date of the woman’s last cycle.  During the pregnancies of both my ex-wife and current wife, ultrasounds did not change the expected due date by more than a handful of days.  Even then, it wasn’t changed until 20 weeks or later.  So, I call bullshit on the need for any ultrasound at all.

Any woman dead set on getting an abortion will get one no matter what obstacles you place in her way.  As long as abortion is legal, women are going to continue to have them.  If it becomes outlawed, they will still continue to have them, as was the case before 1973.

I’ve gone on record as being anti-abortion, but, really, can we give up this fight?  Conservatives have been fighting this battle since 1973 when abortion was legalized.  Our efforts would be better utilized elsewhere.  This nation faces a multitude of issues currently, and I just fail to see why abortion is even on anyone’s radar.  We are still in the midst of a recession.  Our economic system needs to be reformed.  Our welfare system also needs to be reformed.  Illegal immigration needs to be addressed.  We are still at war in Afghanistan.  We will likely be at war with Iran soon.  China and other southeast Asia countries are taking all of our jobs.  There are millions of  homeless people roaming the streets of our decaying cities.  Crime runs rampant in those very same cities.  Mexican drug cartels are moving into our southern states and murdering our citizens and our police officers.  Somebody please explain to me how outlawing abortion is more important than any of these issues because I just don’t get it.

I’m glad that they have backed away from the most ridiculous part of this bill, but I seriously think that they should just drop the entire thing and concentrate on making Virginia, and the Unites States as a whole, a better place to live.

That’s my two cents.  Care to deposit yours?

The problem with politics today

I had an idea this morning to write a post about the dilemma of modern American politics and pointing out how amazingly extreme the right and left have become and how the middle has been left totally vacant, by politicians anyway.

As I was writing this post in my head to jot down at my computer later I realized everything I wanted to say had already been said in an infinitely more mirthful way than I could ever hope to achieve by the late Richard Jeni.  Have a watch.  Though he pokes fun at both sides, his criticisms have merit and point out just how ridiculous things have become.

RIP Richard Jeni.  It’s too bad you left before your time.

Political Ad Antipathy

I can’t stand political ads, for a variety of reasons.  Every two years air waves (and cable, um, waves?) are inundated with political ads.  By the end of October and the beginning of November every other year, entire commercial breaks are filled with politicians attacking other politicians for their voting records, personal lives, and generally implying that the world will end if you vote for the “other guy.”

Back in the day (the late 80′s, early 90′s) political ads were centered around changes that a particular politician hoped to make while in office, or they would tout that particular candidate’s character.  At some point, some idiot candidate decided to make ads impersonating another candidate, which is why every damn ad is now ended with, “I’m (insert disreputable candidate name here), and I approve this message.”  Somewhere along the line, the ads changed and became attacks on other candidates.  So now, instead of political ads essentially saying “vote for me” they are saying “don’t vote for that guy.”  Political ads now come across as adolescent and hateful.

In additional to how poorly crafted and annoying political ads are nowadays, I have a problem with the idea of political ads in general.  Do you know how many millions of dollars are spent on political ads every other year?  I don’t know the exact figure either, but I would guess it’s upwards of hundreds of millions.  What, other than lining the pockets of ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX, do these ads accomplish?  Are there people who are actually swayed by these ads?  I doubt it.  If anything, I would guess that a majority of people are turned off by them just as I am.  Wouldn’t it be more practical to funnel that money to those who need it?  TV stations don’t need that money.  They will be able to find others to buy their ad space.  How about using that money to provide food and shelter for the homeless?  Or medical care for our veterans and the elderly?  Put it back in social security to replace the moneys taken out of that account to pay for things it wasn’t designed to pay for.

Not only are the campaign ads abundant, redundant, and pointless, there are bumper stickers, buttons, yard signs, and other assorted items produced and distributed during these campaigns.  All of these items are paid for with campaign contributions.  I’ve suggested previously that campaign contributions be barred.  I believe that will restrict the chances of politicians being influenced to vote certain ways.  Aside from that, most candidates are independently wealthy.  Let them by their ads with their money.

I know changes like these will never happen because the votes required to change things would need to be cast by the very politicians who become wealthy from these contributions and make these disrespectful and juvenile ads.  Ugh, this post was meant to be a cohesive editorial, but then I got pissed while writing it and it turned into a rant.  Oh well.

What do you think?  Is the status quo acceptable? What changes do you think need to be made?