| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Even Better Than the Real Thing | ||||
| ||||
Thursday, January 7, 2010
When I Was a Kid
As predicted by the Grand Prince, I'm posting another video as part of the "weapons of mass distraction."
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Las Vegas Shootout
The Los Angeles Times reports on the headline-grabbing shootout in Las Vegas which left 2 dead.
Is this the case of just another nut or is there a growing trend of disgruntled folks who are heavily armed and are nearing "the edge?"
This man went over "the edge." It's exactly the same thing the folks in the video of the New Mexico gun rally were talking about. People commented asking what's wrong with that rally, what did I find objectionable. Well, it has to do with the subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle, threat these people make. In essence they're saying if certain things happen, too severe gun laws, too much "socialism" from Obama, they will respond with gun violence.
Poor Mr. Wicks went over the edge about his Social Security claim which was denied, proving that people like this don't need reasonable or factual situations to justify their decision to attack. Many gun owners are precariously close to that very same edge. The glib and irresponsible pro-gun writings on the internet are more than enough to push some of them over. And just like the social security decision that Wicks found so unacceptable, an unstable gun owner doesn't need reasonable or factual ideas to lose it.
As an example, Joe Huffman frequently writes that gun-owners today are persecuted in a similar way as the Jews in 1930s and 1940s Germany. Does anyone really believe that? I don't think the gun bloggers, who for the most part are extremely well written and seemingly intelligent folks, do. But the vast majority of gun owners probably do, like the ones depicted in that video the other day.
So, my contention is the Las Vegas incident was not an anomaly but rather an example of a large and growing trend of disgruntled armed people who are going over the edge. These poor characters are aided in their insanity by well-meaning gun bloggers who are continually pushing ideas which may be debatable but which do serious harm to their own cause.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Reporting from Washington and Las Vegas - A 66-year-old retiree apparently upset over losing a lawsuit related to his Social Security benefits opened fire in a federal courthouse lobby Monday morning, killing one person and wounding another in a chaotic shootout.
The gunman, identified by law enforcement sources as Johnny Lee Wicks, died from gunshot wounds after fleeing across the street as court officers returned fire.
Is this the case of just another nut or is there a growing trend of disgruntled folks who are heavily armed and are nearing "the edge?"
In 2008, Wicks, who had moved from California to a local retirement home, filed a complaint against a regional Social Security Administration commissioner, contending that his monthly benefits had been reduced by $317 because he was black.
"It's all about race," he wrote in the complaint, although he cited no evidence. "I am no fool."
A lawyer for the Social Security Administration responded in court documents that Wicks' payments had been cut because, as a Nevada resident, he was no longer entitled to a supplement he had received while living in California.
This man went over "the edge." It's exactly the same thing the folks in the video of the New Mexico gun rally were talking about. People commented asking what's wrong with that rally, what did I find objectionable. Well, it has to do with the subtle, and sometimes not-so-subtle, threat these people make. In essence they're saying if certain things happen, too severe gun laws, too much "socialism" from Obama, they will respond with gun violence.
Poor Mr. Wicks went over the edge about his Social Security claim which was denied, proving that people like this don't need reasonable or factual situations to justify their decision to attack. Many gun owners are precariously close to that very same edge. The glib and irresponsible pro-gun writings on the internet are more than enough to push some of them over. And just like the social security decision that Wicks found so unacceptable, an unstable gun owner doesn't need reasonable or factual ideas to lose it.
As an example, Joe Huffman frequently writes that gun-owners today are persecuted in a similar way as the Jews in 1930s and 1940s Germany. Does anyone really believe that? I don't think the gun bloggers, who for the most part are extremely well written and seemingly intelligent folks, do. But the vast majority of gun owners probably do, like the ones depicted in that video the other day.
So, my contention is the Las Vegas incident was not an anomaly but rather an example of a large and growing trend of disgruntled armed people who are going over the edge. These poor characters are aided in their insanity by well-meaning gun bloggers who are continually pushing ideas which may be debatable but which do serious harm to their own cause.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Death Sentence Vacated
The News-JournalOnline.com reported on the judge's ruling which vacated a 1982 death sentence.
Well, I guess that settles the question about whether a .22 can kill someone. What it doesn't settle is why the death-penalty proponents insist on killing these pathetic criminals.
Of course it's being appealed to the State Supreme Court. If it's upheld, Ted Herring will serve a life sentence.
What's your opinion? Should we be executing people with diminished capacity? Do you believe like many hard-liners that if a person is capable of doing what Mr. Herring did, then they are capable of paying the ultimate price?
Please leave a comment.
DAYTONA BEACH -- A local judge vacated the sentence of one of Volusia County's oldest death penalty cases, finding that Ted Herring's IQ is too low for him to be executed for killing a convenience store clerk in 1981.Last month, Circuit Judge Joseph Will signed the order setting aside the death sentence, which had been handed down after Herring's trial in February 1982.
Circuit Judge S. James Foxman followed a jury's 8-4 recommendation that Herring be executed for shooting Norman Dale Hoeltzel in the left side of the head with a .22-caliber bullet.
Well, I guess that settles the question about whether a .22 can kill someone. What it doesn't settle is why the death-penalty proponents insist on killing these pathetic criminals.
"There is ample evidence in the record that throughout his life, Herring has suffered from significant limitations in adaptive functioning in multiple areas," Will wrote in the ruling.
Of course it's being appealed to the State Supreme Court. If it's upheld, Ted Herring will serve a life sentence.
What's your opinion? Should we be executing people with diminished capacity? Do you believe like many hard-liners that if a person is capable of doing what Mr. Herring did, then they are capable of paying the ultimate price?
Please leave a comment.
Mayor Booker's 3-Year Public Safety Report
The Daily Newarker posted the Public Safety Report issued by Newark Mayor Cory A. Booker and Police Director Garry F. McCarthy.
I haven't been to Newark in years, except for driving in and out of the airport. But even that, combined with what I read on the internet, makes me a bit suspicious of any report describing it as "improved."
What's your opinion? Is Newark a good example of the multiple factors which are involved in crime, gun availability being just one? What could be the explanation for the strongly fluctuating murder statistics?
Please leave a comment.
Newark officials attribute 21 percent reduction to overall crime rate
to modern technology, alliances, community engagement and anti-gun strategies;
Newark the second city in the country to Los Angeles in reducing gun violence;
Mayor highlights Newark’s prisoner reentry programs
for dropping participants’ one-year recidivism rate to 10 percent
I haven't been to Newark in years, except for driving in and out of the airport. But even that, combined with what I read on the internet, makes me a bit suspicious of any report describing it as "improved."
At the press conference, the Mayor and Police Director McCarthy displayed crime statistics for the past three years, all of which showed a steady decrease in violence crime, despite an increase in murders in 2009, which saw 77 killings, 10 more than 2008’s total of 67. A list of Police Department highlights for the past three years is attached.
“We must remember that this uptick is still lower than the 2007 figure of 99 killings in Newark, and 107 in 2006,” Director McCarthy said. “We finished 2009 with 30 fewer homicides than in 2006. So while we take pride in these figures and how they validate our efforts, they also remind us that we still have more work to do.”
What's your opinion? Is Newark a good example of the multiple factors which are involved in crime, gun availability being just one? What could be the explanation for the strongly fluctuating murder statistics?
Please leave a comment.
Bloomberg's Blueprint
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported on the 40-step plan of Mayor Bloomberg's to improve New York even further. Sebastian already posted about this even before its official release, expressing serious concern about the impact on gun owners.
This is one of the pro-gun crowd's concerns. The fact that no Congressional action would be required worries them, I suppose because proposals like that may be easier to implement. But, haven't the same gun folks complained that enacting new laws is wrong when we already have so many on the books? Haven't I heard frequent overtures from them that we should just enforce the laws we have?
Are the opposing sides of this argument really so different from one another? When talking about punishing violent criminals aren't we all on the same page?
What do you think about the growth of the MAIG? In spite of those attempts on the part of pro-gun people to focus attention on some of the members who'd gotten themselves in trouble, it looks like the organization as a whole is thriving. Do you think Bloomberg will take over from the Brady Campaign as the leading organization in the gun control movement?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
“Every day in our county, 32 Americans are killed by gun-wielding criminals — that’s a Virginia Tech-scale tragedy happening every single day,” said coalition co-chair and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. “Enacting these 40 recommendations will save lives — and each can be done administratively, without action by the Congress. America’s mayors look forward to working with the Obama Administration to better enforce the laws already on the books.”
This is one of the pro-gun crowd's concerns. The fact that no Congressional action would be required worries them, I suppose because proposals like that may be easier to implement. But, haven't the same gun folks complained that enacting new laws is wrong when we already have so many on the books? Haven't I heard frequent overtures from them that we should just enforce the laws we have?
... 96 percent of NRA members and 94 percent of gun-owners surveyed agreed that “Criminals who possess, use, and traffic in illegal guns should be punished to the maximum extent of the law.” The full survey results are available on the Mayors Against Illegal Guns website.
Since its inception in April 2006, Mayors Against Illegal Guns has grown from just 15 mayors to more than 450 members.
Are the opposing sides of this argument really so different from one another? When talking about punishing violent criminals aren't we all on the same page?
What do you think about the growth of the MAIG? In spite of those attempts on the part of pro-gun people to focus attention on some of the members who'd gotten themselves in trouble, it looks like the organization as a whole is thriving. Do you think Bloomberg will take over from the Brady Campaign as the leading organization in the gun control movement?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
It's Deja Vu All Over Again
Truthout reports on the situation in Yemen and its relationship with the United States. (Thanks for the tip Laci).
This is my biggest disappointment with Obama. I was hoping he'd get us out of Iraq, wind down the business in Afghanistan and quit policing the world. I thought this was a characteristic of the Bush years. I was wrong. Now the only question seems to be, which will it be next, Iran or Yemen.
What's your opinion?
...there has been a dramatic turnaround in the fluctuating love-hate relationship between the two countries.And this week's aborted attempt to blow up a U.S. plane by a Nigerian student, with ties to a terrorist group in Yemen, has brought the political spotlight back on a country which is proud of its gun culture.
Yemen reportedly has over 60 million handguns and small arms spread over a population of some 21 million people.
Yehya al-Mutawakil, a former interior minister, was quoted as saying that everyone in Yemen is armed with handguns, while members of various tribes have gone upscale: they are armed with assault weapons, rocket launchers and submachine guns.
Between 2002 and 2008, Yemen received some 69 million dollars in U.S. military aid; and 496 Yemeni military personnel were trained under the International Military Education and Training programme (IMET).William D. Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New York-based New America Foundation, cites press reports to suggest that Washington will rapidly ramp up U.S. military aid to Yemen over the next 18 months.
The projected total, he said, is about 70 million dollars, or roughly the amount provided during the entire administration of former President George W. Bush.
"U.S. military aid to Yemen is a double-edged sword," Hartung told IPS.
On the one hand, the Yemeni government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh has participated in strikes against al Qaeda and al Qaeda-inspired groups within and around its borders.
On the other hand, he said, "The Yemeni government is one of the most unstable regimes in the world, and there is a danger that U.S. weapons and training could be turned against U.S. interests, if there is a change in government there."
This is my biggest disappointment with Obama. I was hoping he'd get us out of Iraq, wind down the business in Afghanistan and quit policing the world. I thought this was a characteristic of the Bush years. I was wrong. Now the only question seems to be, which will it be next, Iran or Yemen.
What's your opinion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)