I Can, So I Do

gun, second amendment, townhall, tea bag, conservative, health care,

Let me start by saying this: I like guns. I'm a 100lb, 5'1.5" female, so it's easy to see why: with a gun, I'm bigger and stronger than anyone else. I could make make a 6'8", 400lb man grovel at my feet with a gun.

This isn't anything to be proud of on my part. It's the part of me that hates being afraid, even a little bit, of every man that walks past me on a deserted street. I don't indulge this violent little bit of my psyche. While I have practiced with the smaller calibers of handguns and rifles (note to the weak: a 22 rifle is the easiest thing to shoot. you'd think a handgun would be easier, but with a rifle, you rest the stock on your shoulder instead of absorbing all the kick with your wrists.), I only own a shotgun. I don't keep it loaded. I certainly don't carry it around with me.

I'm not some people, I guess.

Specifically, it is important to understand why people bear firearms at town hall meetings. I’m not sure that everyone is getting the same message. Oh, I think we are: threatening and scary. Is there any other message to be taken from AK-47s?

There is probably not a single message being conveyed by carrying guns to these forums oh, i'd agree there, but i don't think you meant what you wrote. next time, try "there's not one singular message", but one of the prominent ones is that we live in a Constitutional republic in which we have delineated rights and freedoms. free speech wasn't another way to say that? what about your guaranteed right to congregate? not quartering soldiers in your homes? voting- voting sends that message, too. none of the above could result in death would be my point here. What many of the gun-toting protestors are saying, and I know because I have listened to their explanations comma is this: I am asserting my Second Amendment right in order to remind my representatives that they are bound to uphold the Constitution and to defend my rights and my freedom. In short, I am carrying a weapon because it is my right to do so.

so, the only way you feel you can remind your elected representatives of their duties is to threaten them with a gun? don't try to dance around this issue: a person with a gun is threatening. it's the nature of the beast. if you want to remind people of something, you write a letter or call them on the phone, you don't parade around in front of them armed to the teeth unless what you want to remind them of is this: i am dangerous and you should be afraid.

As for "it's my right to do so", it's also your right to stick potato chips up your nose, i bet you don't do that. you can pee on your living room rug, eat your goldfish and sleep in your trashcan. do you do any of that? i didn't think so.

Nobody that I know have has pointed their guns at anyone. Nobody has issued threats. Nobody has fired a weapon. Had anyone done so, we would have been reading about arrests already.

so, if your child was carrying around a knife, and you told them to put that down immediately, and they said, "but i haven't gotten hurt yet", would you say "oh, okay then"? I didn't think so.

carrying a gun to a political event may be your right, that does not make it a good idea. politics is an emotionally charged subject. the debate over health care reform has been heated from the start. adding guns to that mix is introducing the very real possibility of bloody tragedy.

have you ever been angry enough to yell at someone? i have. have you ever been angry enough to punch someone? i have. have you ever been angry enough to throw something at someone? i have. now imagine being in the moment of that absolute rage- with a gun in your hands. that is how people end up dead. fights that would have ended in a black eye or a broken nose at worst become homicides the instant a gun enters the picture.

so, it may be your right to carry an AK-47 into an emotionally charged situation, but that doesn't make it a good idea. and the fact that no one has gotten hurt- yet- doesn't make me any less fearful for the future.

Gun violence in the US (2006):

Homicides: 12,791

Unintentional: 642

61 of those were aged 0-4 years.

In total, in 2006, 30,896 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths. To put this in perspective, 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War. The entire war, not one year of it.

I Love You, Barney Frank

barney frank, health care, nazi, townhall, obama, hitler


Do I need to say more?

Now You're Just Scaring Me

obama, crime, recidivism, drug, justice, rehabilitation, liberal, conservative, townhall, stupid, religion, atheism,
Mike Adams, of townhall.com, defines the conservative view of humanity in terms that make me truly fear conservatives. I never really liked conservatism, but this just scares me.

The terms “liberal” and “conservative” are bandied about by many who fail to understand the crucial difference between them. that's actually true. those words do get thrown around without any regard for what they mean. i think Mr. Adams is about to add to the confusion. Many believe the difference lies in the liberal’s willingness to support government spending. But that explanation falls short. Conservatives are always willing to spend more on defense. Liberals would rather spend money on social programs. conservatives want to keep you safe from terrorists, liberals want to give welfare queens more money! of course, i could turn that around: conservatives want more pointless, endless wars and liberals want to feed children. we call that framing the argument.

Others believe the liberal is the one who supports “change” while the conservative supports the “status quo.” That explanation also falls short. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. When he came to Washington in 1981 he shook the establishment and brought about change the liberals could not believe in. can we please stop deifying President Reagan? He was deep into alzheimer's by his second term. I have no idea who was running the country from 85-89, but it wasn't him.

If there is one thing that separates the conservative from the liberal it is his view of human nature. wait for it . . . The conservative sees man as born in a broken state. oh dear. This tragic view well, yes, it would be of human nature sees man as selfish and hedonistic by design. headdesk. Given his nature, it is no wonder a man chooses crime. It is a wonder he ever chooses conformity. except that most people do not choose crime. most people do choose to obey the laws. i suppose asshat's answer to that is that the jaysus makes them that way, except that atheists act like everyone else, so clearly not.

This tragic view of human nature also explains why conservatives often speak of religion and family values. so it's not a cynical ploy to get conservative christians to vote for you against their own self interest? Given his selfish nature speak for yourself, asshat, man must internalize some reason to behave in pro-social ways. maybe you, not me. i cae up with on my own. That fact that he falls short of these values does not mean he is a hypocrite. The one who does not even believe what he says is the hypocrite. The one who believes what he says and falls short is merely human. (thus excusing the sexipades of many a republican hero.)

This is the fundamentalist christian view of mankind: everyone would be raping their children to death with chainsaws if it weren't for jaysus! that's ridiculous. of course we wouldn't. those commandments about not murdering and not stealing and not lying? those are societal rules common to all societies, including societies that never heard of jesus.

If that truly is how conservatives view mankind, that's just scary. It certainly explains conservative efforts to make official Years of the Bible, and affirm the US as a christian nation. Since the only thing holding them back from raping and pillaging is jaysus, they assume the rest of us need, for everyone's protection, jaysus, too. Look, Mr. Adams, we're not all hairtrigger psychopaths like you. Most of us don't want to rape and pillage. We don't need jaysus to tell us not to.

The conservative knows in advance that he (and others) will fall short of what religion expects of him. But his solution is not to give up on religion. His solution is to implement a back-up plan. In the context of crime, that back-up plan takes the form of a criminal justice system focused on punishment.

to rephrase: jaysus works, and when he doesn't, jails do!

let's review the recidivism rate, shall we?

Rearrest within 3 years

67.5% of prisoners released in 1994 were rearrested within 3 years, an increase over the 62.5% found for those released in 1983

The rearrest rate for property offenders, drug offenders, and public-order offenders increased significantly from 1983 to 1994. During that time, the rearrest rate increased:

- from 68.1% to 73.8% for property offenders
- from 50.4% to 66.7% for drug offenders
- from 54.6% to 62.2% for public-order offenders

The rearrest rate for violent offenders remained relatively stable (59.6% in 1983 compared to 61.7% in 1994).

Wow, prison's just the way to go, isn't it? works great. just like jaysus. (Look, don't ask me what to do with violent offenders, but nonviolent drug offenders, i.e., some guy caught with a few joints, are about 25% of all inmates. States spent approximately $17,110,415 per day to imprison drug offenders, or $6,245,301,475 per year. That can't be the answer.)

According to the conservative, effective punishment is that which produces fear of transgression. except that prison clearly does not do that. the recidivism rates are over 60%. That means that 6 out of 10 people released from prison ended up back in prison within 3 years. these are people who know exactly how bad prison is, and they're still not all that afraid of ending up back in prison, obviously. Fear of transgression occurs when the punishment is swift, certain, and severe. i.e., the death penalty. except that even the death penalty doesn't deter anyone. In sum, the conservative believes we should first try to love people into conformity. scariest sentence ever. If that does not work, we should scare people into conformity. no, sorry, this is the scariest sentence ever. But the liberal sees things differently. not so much on the conformity and the scaring, more on the loving. Everyone is born “good” with a blank slate. has this asshat met a baby? babies are the ultimate atheists. they're morally neutral. seriously, spend time with a baby. To the extent that people become “bad” it is because “society” corrupted them. he's not really stating the "liberal" position very well. Nowhere does the liberal explain how combining many good people makes a bad society. ummm, why would i have to explain that? it's just a total non sequitur. don't respond to non sequitors, it just encourages more of them.

But this is what the liberal thinks. no, it's not. And it is why he sees the criminal justice system as one which should focus on rehabilitation. clearly punishment isn't working. If people were taught to be bad then, surely, they may be taught to be good again. There are two victims for every crime: The victim of the crime and the criminal himself. i can't even address that. i guess it depends on a lot of things. look, not that i think pedophiles should be let loose to abuse any child they can get their hands on, but most pedophiles were abused as children themselves. and what about drug offenses? who's the victim there? crime and punishment are extremely complicated issues, that everyone tends to view in black and white. maybe the liberal viewpoint could be better explained as "we don't view complex issues in terms of simple, ineffective solutions" or "if all we have is a hammer, we don't view a bolt as a nail, we get another tool."

the rest of this article wanders off into foreign policy (US good! rest of world bad!) and economic policy (obama's a socialist!), and i'm just not up to subjecting my brain to that.

Wrecking Cranes to Wayward Facades

doug giles, townhall, god, religion, christianity, isrealite, yhwh, cthulu, necronomicon, stupid
And the winner of Hell's First Occasional Award for Worst Metaphor in Recent Memory* goes to Doug Giles of Townhall.com for the following:



When Old Testament Israel strayed from following God, Yahweh had unique and painful ways of getting the Hebrews’ attention. killing people isn't unique. prophets are not unique. painful i will grant you. His first line of attack for the people that he loved was to send in His prophets—who were not the shiny ??, happy-clappy ??!?, cliché-spewing actually, how do you know? we don't have the original texts, and you aren't an ancient israelite, so for all you know Moses talked entirely in cliches., aphorism-addicted the bible is full of aphorism. chock full of aphorisms, to spew a cliche. mega church pastors who are were more interested in hawking their books the ancient israelite tribes had a thriving book economy? than bearding the priests of Baal. i don't even know what to say about that.


No, the prophets were wrecking cranes to wayward Israel’s facades. worst metaphor in recent history. congratulations. They were imperfect, difficult dudes seriously? dudes? really? who called a spade a shovel i thought spewing cliches was bad. for a perfect God. so perfect he couldn't figure out a way to get the israelites to obey him for more than 5 minutes at a time, even with the commonplace and painful attention getters. They didn’t give a crap who you were, who your mommy was, is this guy a professional wrestler or something? if you were the King or Pastor Whoop-Dee-Frickin’-Do. worst writing ever. not in recent history. ever. this makes Twilight look like Shakespeare.** They were fiercely devoted to God and His ways. Janet Napolitano would call these truth-tellers “terror threats” 1) the DHS report was begun and researched during the bush administration 2) the first DHS report was on left wing nutjobs. reality fail. because they loathed godless governments you're not selling me on a theocracy, asshat. and butt-kissing priests sigh and had no problem whatsoever letting those entities entities? um, entities? is this whole post the result of an accident involving a thesaurus and some mislabeled psychiatric medication? have it verbally. scary. verbal wrecking cranes, i suppose.



Yep, if you were out of sorts with God because of practicing whacked stuff i'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. or preaching Oprah instead of Obadiah, wow, Oprah's been in syndication forever, huh? you were about to be publically roasted via the prophets’ sizzling invectives. i'm going with laughter. BWAHAHAHAHAHA


Need a mental image? Imagine Rush, Beck, Coulter, Miller or O’Reilly on steroids. in rush's case, the steroids are probably better than the narcotics, and in beck's case, any medication would be a good start.


This skewering, to be sure, was about as fun for the rebel recipients as watching Nancy Pelosi do an interpretive dance of “Riders on the Storm” (the extended version) would be for Simon Cowell. weirdest, least communicative simile in history.


A humiliating open rebuke, however, was a mere love tap when compared to an eternity of misery and the coming decades-long national butt kicking Israel was in line to receive should they remain contumacious. apparently i was right about the thesaurus. and what is with this guy and "butt"?



The prophets’ messages were never complicated. has he read the old testament? These gruff and holy critters i've lived in the south. a "critter" is a small animal, such as a skunk or a squirrel. offered God’s people two choices: turn or . . . burn. no, actually. the ancient isrealites didn't have a concept of hell, or even much of an afterlife concept at all. the whole eternity of torment thing is purely christian. If Israel obeyed, they’d be blessed. If they disobeyed, well . . . let’s just say things didn’t go that well for the next four decades. which really sucked for the people who actually were obeying god. they got punished as much as anyone else. which would be like throwing everyone in my zip code in jail because my neighbor murdered someone.


You see, if Israel turned from their profane BS (belief systems) oh, dear, he's trying to be cute! and back to God, Yahweh would chill and relent from the attention-grabbing calamities He was heatin’ up on heaven’s back burner. please, make it stop! The prophet, unfortunately, was officially out of a job if the Hebrews went the repentant route. Yep, Amos had to go back to fig picking. god has a worse retirement plan than my boss?



However, when Israel blew the prophets off by condemning the messenger, categorizing the message as hate speech, how dare we ask you to be polite to gays and women and blacks and muslims? it's just wrong, and god will get us for it! jailing the prophet(s) or, as in some cases, killing the prophetic salvo, how does one kill a salvo, anyway? God would in turn switch to plan B to get His insubordinate group’s good ear.


God, not the one to run out of advanced repentance techniques, would allow Israel’s economy to go to hell, plagues to ravage their land, nature to convulse, and enemies the ability to pulverize them. again, punishing perfectly obedient israelites along with disobedient one. god is all powerful- but he can't pick and choose.


Yep, unless I’m reading the Bible upside down, i can read upside down with no difficulty- it doesn't change what the words say. it seems that when the nation went astray from God’s law and wouldn’t listen to the prophets’ calls to repentance and instead vilified the saving voices, God allowed one (or more) of the four aforementioned hammers to pound them until Israel became all ears. "four aforementioned"? do you suppose he reads what he writes, or is this some sort of stream of consciousness bullshit?

This is, at least to me, a plain prophetic pattern within the Scripture. The $64,000 question you gotta ask yourself is this: If there is a God unproven assertion, and if the Bible isn’t a bunch of fairy tales unproven assertion written by a stack of whack jobs one word, then does God still roll roll? today like He did with Old Testament Israel as He interfaces interfaces? with 21st century nations that spurn His values to His face? so, assuming cthulu exists and the necronomicon was written by a mentally unbalanced man of arabic descent, then do the invisible pink unicorns in my basement still get down like it's 1999?

I’m guessin’ God hasn’t had an extreme makeover stop that! and that He is the same yesterday, today and forever, which could mean in our current culture—where evil is good and good is evil murder is kindness, rape is love!—that we might be in line for grave negative sanctions well, if yhwh gets down like the United Nations, we've got nothing to worry about because, apparently, America’s new favorite pastime is whizzing seriously, STOP. THAT. on that which is holy, just and good. hating gays!







*There's a reason nobody calls me for name suggestions.



** Sorry, CN.