Much ado about nothing

Question: “Honey, does this dress make me look fat?”

Honest answer: “No baby. Your big ass makes you look fat.”

Dancing answer: “Um,… have you seen the remote?”

Deceitful answer: “No, you don’t look fat at all.”

The idea of the “gotcha” question is rooted in not the question itself, or in its framing, but the way in which it is answered. The respondent should answer direct questioning to the best of their ability, and if it makes them look stupid, well… gotcha!

Stupidity is bipartisan and non-denominational. It is usually a temporary affliction and can be cured with just a little bit of wisdom, empathy, and exposure to facts. Sometimes it can be chronic and untreatable, but those apply to only the most severe cases, and can be quarantined like any other potentially fatal disease.

Sarah Palin fell victim to the “gotcha” question of: “What do you read?” Her inability to answer a question as simple as that made it a “gotcha” moment. Even Ted Cruz would have been able to provide an answer to this question, even if it was a list of Dr. Seuss titles. But Palin stared at the camera and at Couric like a deer in the headlights - wham! Gotcha! It cost her what little credibility that she may have had, which was questionable to begin with.

America seems to have devolved into a knee jerk, reactionary society, with little if any real substance discussed anymore in the public forum. Media does us a disservice. Our education system does us a disservice. Intellectualism does us a disservice. Are we incapable of fleshing out serious content from the white noise that we call discourse?

The manufactured controversy regarding A&E’s pseudo-celebrity Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame is a perfect example of the knee jerk reaction to a perceived affront.

I have to admit, I have never seen (nor intend to see) the show. Twenty years ago, A&E was a fine network, even though awash with Bill Curtis programs. Since then, it has relied heavily on the “entertainment” side, eschewing the “arts” in it’s namesake.

The controversy stems from comments that Robertson made in an interview with GQ magazine that have been largely mischaracterized as homophobic. I say mischaracterized because his statements were not at all homophobic, but simply personal opinions about homosexuality based upon his faith. He said nothing that specifically advocated mistreatment or violence toward the gay community, only his opinion that homosexuality was sinful, and would keep them from “the kingdom of God”. He also mentioned "adulterers", but the cheating class has remained suspiciously quiet.

This is hardly incompatible with Catholic doctrine and statements made by Pope Francis himself, who is tolerant of homosexuals, but certainly does not advocate gay sex or marriage. But somehow, statements that this redneck makes in the same vein as the Pope are somehow homophobic and an attack deserving to be punished. Come on people, lighten up.

Religion is personal and bound by one’s own particular faith. It can be quite dangerous, yet it is not of itself, threatening. We live in a nation that leaves faith and religion untouchable as long as it is not forced upon an individual and creates no immediate or lasting damage. The ignorance of religion (apart from faith itself) is protected, and can be dismissed out of hand, but should not be punished.

Though I think he is wrong, and his faith is clouded, I will defend his right to have his own opinion, regardless of how fucking stupid it is. As such, I would tell him how stupid it is as well, because my opinion is just as sacrosanct, and certainly better informed.

His statements pertain to his particular religious dogma, which should be ignored or embraced as one would see fit. As an atheist, I don’t buy any of it, and see gays as equal human beings, all destined for the same end as me - worm food. But people of faith believe differently. Some believe that God loves all of His children, and they will all live eternally in the afterlife, while others believe that God punishes the “wicked”, and make great efforts to define those who are “wicked”. To me, that sounds like an abusive father and not a divine being of love. But then again, I’m not arrogant enough to claim that I know one way or the other.

The more disturbing statements he made in the interview - which have been brushed aside in favor of his "anti-gay" comment - were with regard to blacks in the pre-Civil Rights South. These comments however are not outright racist, just woefully ignorant.

He is under the false impression that blacks long for the halcyon days of Separate but Equal, cross burnings, beatings, and the occasional lynching. I’m sure that blacks would beg to differ.

Having spent the past decade in the South, I can attest to a certain amount of revisionist history that exists down here. The memories of whites differ dramatically from the memories of blacks from that time. As intermingling was rare, and upon the occasion of such intermingling, blacks were reserved and remote, whites seem to believe that everything was just fine. It wasn’t; and any whites who believe it was need a refresher in history, and possibly a course in Black American Studies.

His religious statements should be taken in the context of his faith and personalized accordingly, while his racial comments should be confronted for the ignorance that they portray. Faith is faith and stupid is stupid; the two may go hand in hand, but they are two separate ideas, and should be taken separately. All tolled however, nothing that he said comes as a big surprise to me, and shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone else either. Have you taken a look at this guy? What did you expect? Gandhi?

The silliest part of this whole kerfuffle is the backlash endured by the A&E network from the fuddy-duddy whiners of the gay community and of the left at large, is that none of it means anything at all.

The network has buckled under pressure by these groups and have suspended Robertson from his own show indefinitely. Big deal. Two things should be recognized in this situation…

First, his comments were made in a magazine interview. They were not made on the show, were not advocated by the show or the network, and are largely irrelevant to the success or failure of the program. Second, this is the network's highest rated hit show. Do you honestly believe that they are willing to scrap the show because people are upset? If you do, you are as ignorant as Robertson.

Rush Limbaugh, that moron disc-jockey with a hateful little heart and even smaller mind, routinely says things that are far more inflammatory, and he does so on his program. It occasionally prompts protest and costs him sponsors, yet the show must go on. That’s entertainment.

Duck Dynasty is hugely successful. This is a good example of the shallow nature of America’s television viewing public - right alongside Honey Boo-boo - but it makes money, and money makes the world go around. A&E will wait for the heat to die down, Robertson will make a public apology of some sort (probably insincere, but public just the same), and the show will go back into production, milking the cash cow that is Duck Dynasty.

The people who watch this show are likely to agree with his religious perspective, no matter how viscerally dumb that it may be. Likewise, fans of the show are likely to hold backward, though not necessarily racist views on integration and race relations in the South.

If these views are repugnant to you, don’t watch the fucking show or the network! Don’t buy their merchandise! Don’t purchase products from their sponsors! And most of all, don’t make this into a federal case, because it doesn’t meet the threshold of shit that matters! You vote with your pocketbook and your feet. So cast your vote wisely, and then move on. You really should have more important things to do.

Ignore all of the idiots who claim that this is a First Amendment issue. Ignore the idiots who claim that this was homophobic and racist. Ignore the idiot pundits, politicians, and personalities who can’t see this for what it is: an ignorant comment or two, taken out of context, and the inadvertent publicity stunt that it has created. There is no such thing as bad publicity, and A&E is well aware of that fact.

Manufactured controversy always benefits somebody, and often that somebody is the one that is controversial. Reactionaries come in all shapes and sizes, and often go off half cocked, with umbrage and ire, just for the sake of pissed-ivity.

Take it for what it is: a pseudo-devout redneck with an irrational spin on reality and the human condition. Giving this anymore legitimacy than that illustrates our own misguided faith and ignorance. Which makes us just like him.

Say what's on your mind

Language is a communication device and words convey ideas. Ideas can be both good or bad, but words themselves are neutral. Granted, some words are far more harsh than others, and some should probably be retired from the common lexicon, however it is up to the individual speaker how they utilize words to express their ideas.

What they mean to the user and the context in which they are expressed is how words should be judged; by the specific audience being communicated to, and not by an outsider's interpretation of the words themselves, or their reaction to that usage.

Recently, there has been a minor controversy regarding something that Suge Knight said about usage of the "N-word". I am personally censoring this word, as I find it distasteful myself, and not for fear of offending anyone. I don’t use it, so I won’t use it here.

This word is one that I don’t particularly approve of, and choose not to use, but I understand it’s usage and the contextual format in which it is used by specific individuals. When Mark Twain used it in Huckleberry Finn it was not in a derogatory fashion, and should not be viewed as such. On the other hand, when the Aryan Brotherhood uses it, it has a completely different context and underlying meaning, which is definitively pejorative.

Suge Knight made the point that using the "N-word" with the “a” ending (although he didn't mention the “r” ending), was more acceptable to him than the term “African American”, and that in common usage, anyone and everyone should be able to use it, regardless of one’s own color or ethnicity.

Though I disagree with him on usage of the word altogether - I prefer the term “black” - what he said does have some merit. The "N-word" is still a nasty invective, but that invective is displayed in the manner in which it is used. If one of my black friends or family members says it, I don’t have an issue, but if one of my white friends uses it, they had better explain themselves quickly, or they’re getting put on their ass.

The part of his comment that I found most interesting though, was his admonishment of the term “African American”, and I whole heartedly agree - this is a term that needs to go away. It is a bad euphemism that is misleading and dismissive.

I have a former employer who immigrated to the U.S. at the age of fourteen, a ginger Jew from Johannesburg. At the same time, I worked with two black guys, one from Belize, the other a native Texan with ancestry tracing back to Jamaica.

In all technical senses, the boss was African American (lily white as could be, but actually from Africa), whereas the other two would have been Latino and Caribbean, as Belize is a Latin American nation and Jamaica is a Caribbean island. The truth is though,... one was white, and two were black.

The fact is, most black people in this country cannot trace their ancestry to Africa. This is not to discount or dismiss the four hundred years of slavery in this country, nor the fact that many cannot trace their roots because of broken ancestral heritage. This is just a simple statement of fact. Many black Americans actual have no ties to slavery and are from immigrant families, just like the rest of us, and not here as a result of forced bondage.

But, as Knight stated clearly, Africans don’t consider themselves Africans. A person from Kenya is a Kenyan, an immigrant from Congo is Congolese, and in immigrant from Somalia is Somali. Whites aren’t considered Europeans - they are Italians, or Irish, or German, or Dutch and so forth. So why classify blacks as “African” regardless of whether they have any African heritage at all?

Black seems the most appropriate terminology as it is a basic descriptive term without being demeaning or untruthful, and yet avoids the blatant insult of being a politically correct term, for usage in mixed company. Skin pigmentation is related to the proximity to the equator of your ancestors, and the last I checked, the equator wasn’t exclusive to the continent of Africa.

Political correctness does little to make  people feel better about themselves, it is used as a means to make others feel badly about how they express themselves. I don’t use the term “African American”, I use “black”. I don’t feel guilty for using it, and I won’t just because somebody tells me that I should. It makes more sense to me than the “appropriate” politically correct label.

Political correctness seeks to punish us for offending others’ sensibilities. Now we should certainly respect the usage that people prefer to be referred to by, however this should not be done at the expense of truth, context, or reality.

“Native American” is less demeaning than “Indian”, yet we fought the French and Indian War, not the Franco-Native American War. They did not originate in India, and therefore I can see the significance of this particular misnomer, however if you want to be truly correct, they should be called “aboriginal Americans”, and would include everyone here prior to Columbus’ landing, from Alaska to Patagonia. Oh, but calling them “aborigines” might offend Aussies.

I understand the offense taken by usage of names such as “Redskins”, but I don’t regularly refer to the Redskins outside of the context of football. As such, Native Americans should be more embarrassed that the team looks like shit, rather than being offended by their logo and name. The underlying principle here is that the term is not intended to offend.

If people insist on being offended by something without clear ill intent, then they will be offended regardless. Their offense carries little weight without malice aforethought; therefore it is a form of self-hatred, and not a racist attack upon them.

“Native Americans” embrace that specific term, so aside from using their tribal designation, I use “Native American” as a broad descriptor out of respect for their wishes. That is, unless they pride themselves as “Indians” as in: the American Indian Movement (AIM). But my Zuni friends are Zuni, my Hoopa friends are still Hoopa, and my Tlingit, Narragansett, Choctaw, Cherokee, and Apache friends and family members are still Tlingit, Narragansett, Choctaw, Cherokee, and Apache, respectively.

Political correctness permeates the way that we view others, not how they view themselves. If I say that someone is black, they are not surprised by this, as they are generally well aware of that fact themselves. If I say that the Tlingit are the only Indians that won - driving the Russians out of Alaska - they beam with pride, instead of seething with anger. I’ve said it before: context is everything.

I was chastised recently for using the term “third world”, being told that this insults people from these countries, and that it would hurt their feelings to have their home nations described as such. Hardly. There is a reason why people leave the third world to seek a better life elsewhere - it’s the third world, and they know it.

The phrase “third world” may make white folks uncomfortable because of the fact that many third world countries are third world countries due to white oppression and puppet dictatorships, but most immigrants I’ve met from the third world have far harsher terms that they use for their homelands, and take little or no offense at that designation. They aren’t stupid, but our political correctness makes us seem so.

Recently, great strides have been made in the LGBT community. C’mon, it’s the Gay Rights movement, okay!?! “LGBT” is the worst offender in the new politically correct vernacular. First of all, as an acronym, it disproves the idea of community itself. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered. That seems to separate each into their own little subcategory, which negates the idea of community. So can we quit with this shit and just call it gay again?

First of all, gay refers to homosexual. It didn’t always, but like “Native American”, it has been the largely accepted terminology for decades. Gay refers to a person who identifies as homosexual. It is not gender specific, nor is the concept of homosexuality.

Lesbian however, is gender specific. This term refers exclusively to homosexual women, clearly separating themselves from other homosexuals as something special. Bullshit. Lesbians are gay women; gay men don’t have to be called by a specific politically correct phrase in order to be self-empowered. They may use “fag”, or “queer”, or “bitch” (which most of my gay friends use frequently), but they still consider themselves gay.

Bisexuals don't exist. I don’t mean this as an insult, but sexual preference is classified as hetero or homo; there is no middle ground. If you have sex with the opposite sex, you are defined as heterosexual. If you have sex with people of the same gender, by definition, you are homosexual. I’ve known many people who consider themselves “bisexual”, but frankly that is a self identifier, and they are still gay; homosexuals, at least occasionally. Not that there is anything wrong with that…

Transgendered is a different case entirely. Our transgendered brothers and sisters are not generally gay. Gender identity is a whole different phenomena. Every transgendered person I have ever known felt that they were born with the wrong gender. Men who felt that they should be women and loved men; women who felt that they should be men and loved women - that makes the transgendered straight as far as I can figure.

Transgendered people just have the wrong equipment, and seek to remedy that genetic mistake. Sexual preference and sexual identity are two different subjects, and it’s actually a bit insensitive for the gay community to co-opt the transgendered, regardless of the similar struggles they have faced.

Although, I hardly think that my opinion is likely to change minds within that group, I will never refer to the gay community as the “LGBT” community, because it is fallacious language designed to make me the bad guy for stating the truth. Fuck that shit.

Which brings me to the work “fuck”. Without getting into the etymology of the word itself, it must be said that this is distinctly powerful word that conveys an idea better than any other can, when used properly.

I have been told from time to time that my usage of this word displays ignorance. Crassness yes, even rudeness, but never ignorance. To use this word properly and creatively often displays the opposite; requiring artistic and intelligent usage of language. To those who would argue against that, insisting that it is an ignorant word, all I can say is: Tell it to somebody who gives a fuck.

The word “fuck” can convey an idea much more clearly than other euphemisms used in its place. For instance: “What the fuck?” is far more effective than asking “What do you mean?”, “Why?”, or “What is that all about?”, and needs little extraneous explanation when asked. It’s all about inflection and intonation.

“Fuck” can be used in differing contexts, situations, and has a myriad of different definitions depending on the specific usage of the word. Not only is it a brutally honest word, but it cuts to the chase, conveying an idea with the utmost brevity.

Basically, it should be remembered that language is used by the individual to convey their personal ideas to a specific audience. As these ideas are tailored to an audience, it is entirely the speaker's prerogative to speak directly to their audience in a way that they feel conveys their ideas effectively.

The speaker has the duty of expressing themselves to the best of their ability regardless of how an outside observer may perceive it or take offense. The speaker is the only one who should censor their language (as they see fit), not some politically correct fuckhead who wants to police how people think and express themselves. Their audience will determine what is offensive and what isn’t. That is the beauty of two way communication.

So voice what's on your mind, and not what the self appointed word cops tell you is acceptable to say.

Smoke 'em if you've got 'em

Vindication!

I am a smoker. Nasty habit, to be sure, but certainly no worse than drinking booze or eating high fatty foods (both of which are also things that I enjoy from time to time). Everything in moderation... except when doing things to excess.

I have always prided myself on being a considerate smoker. I don’t smoke around kids. I don’t smoke around non-smokers, people with allergies, and people who are annoyed by the smell. I don’t even smoke in my own home. You can never get that smell out of the curtains.

Smoking is not good for you. Cigars, cigarettes, pipe tobacco, marijuana, banana peels - smoking anything is carcinogenic. Huffing a campfire can never be considered a particularly good thing. But, since I do smoke, I smoke well. My brand is Camel straights (non-filters to all you laymen). Cigarette filters are made from synthetic fibers, which are likely to cause more damage than the tobacco itself. You’ve seen the ads: "Have you or someone you know been exposed to asbestos or other fire retardant chemicals?" Mesothelioma is a killer, don't you know...

So, I figure, if I’m going to put my health at risk by smoking (which surely protects others, because without my morning smoke, I would surely kill somebody), I will do it by only smoking the best. Finely cut and rolled Turkish tobacco, and the best pot that money can buy. Just like any good bad habit, why go half way?

I try to be considerate because the smell can be overpowering, and as a person with a sensitive olfactory system myself, I feel that shared spaces should be shared free of stink. Hear that ladies? A little dab will do you; you don’t need to bathe in Au de Terlet! And to all the metro-sexual guys out there (you know who you are), take your body spray and shove it up your Axe!

As a smoker, I have felt the exclusionary practices of discrimination up close and personal. Smokers are the new gays, who are the new Mexicans, who are the new blacks, who are the new Indians (the Sitting Bull type, not the Gandhi type).

For decades, smokers have been penalized for our foul habit, paying higher insurance rates and such. We have been excluded from employment, from housing, from public spaces such as theaters, restaurants, and get this - bars and nightclubs. Yeah, I’m work hard at developing psoriasis of the liver, my drunk driving proficiency, and the occasional bout of domestic violence, but don’t ruin my life by making me smell your cigarettes!

Now honestly, the smoking bans in bars was probably the best thing to happen to the singles scene since the Pill. Let’s face it, being forced outside to suck a butt gives you an instant conversation starter - bitching about being forced outside - while women who drink and smoke are more likely to take you home that night to, well… suck their butts.

That said, smokers have been a societal pariah for decades, largely due to specious and fallacious studies that linked secondhand smoke to cancers and other respiratory ailments. Asthma is certainly no picnic, and assuredly lung cancer is far worse. So please, especially you kiddies, don’t smoke. And to those of you that do, at least try to quit. I can tell you that the nicotine patches work every time. At least they did the five times I used them to quit.

The linkage of secondhand smoke to cancer however, has always been a bullshit story, and finally there is scientific evidence to back that up.

An article published this month in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI) found that there is no link to cancer from secondhand smoke. The study, taken over the course of more than ten years and included more than 76,000 women found that indeed, smoking increases the likelihood of cancer for smokers, and even former smokers, but none for people exposed to secondhand smoke.

This has been my argument for years against the militant anti-smoking nazis.

See, a basic understanding of the scientific method would indicate that in order to determine whether or not secondhand smoke caused cancer, one would have to study a control group. To my knowledge, no scientific study has ever locked non-smoking people up for years, forcing them to breathe secondhand smoke exclusively, and studying there susceptibility to smoking related illnesses.

As there has never been a study of that sort - a control group exposed to secondhand smoke - there is no legitimate scientific data to support a claim that secondhand smoke has any deleterious effects, thereby rendering any such conclusion as faulty and completely corrupt junk science. Kinda like the idea of climate change hoaxes, “intelligent design” creationism, and pretty much anything that Alex Jones has ever muttered. Utter bullshit. Science is pretty specific in its methodology and peer review, and not made up entirely to push an agenda.

Your SUV and energy consumption has more to do with your increased risk of developing lung cancer that my cigarettes do. Have you looked outside lately?

I remember as a kid, clear skies and crisp, clean air. You have to travel an awfully far distance away from civilization to find that anymore. I remember that you would come over the hills toward San Francisco to see stunningly blue skies in the East Bay and a large grey fog bank to the west. Today, that same view is blurred and obstructed by a film of brown that hovers over everything, and blends seamlessly into the fog that still lingers off of the coast. The smell of roasting coffee from the Hills Brothers plant has been replaced by the smell of filth - sewage, crops burning, plastics, and exhaust fumes as far as the nose can clog.

I could chain-smoke an whole pack of cigarettes and put out less than half the carbon monoxide that you do starting your car in the morning in your driveway. And the time you spend idling in traffic on your way to work, or school, or the market, throws more shit into the atmosphere than my smoking will over the course of an entire year.

Now, this study gives vindication to all of us smokers who have been relegated to second class status within our own respective peer groups. We no longer have to feel guilty about killing you; just about killing ourselves. That is, if you are the sort that may have a guilty conscience.

So stand your ground smokers! Don’t give in to the hate filled pricks that want to judge you for taking what little enjoyment you can from your time on earth. When that self-righteous non-smoker, or even worse the self-superior former smoker gets up in your face to ridicule you for your addiction, take a long drag, do a quick French inhale, and blow smoke rings in their smug little face.

We reap what we sow

Free trade deals… the national debt… the budget deficit… taxes… campaign finance… Woe is we, say the people - for our Representatives have betrayed us!

The truth is, we have betrayed ourselves.

We have consistently voted against our own best interests by electing and appointing said representatives, enabling them to run roughshod over the American people, and people of the world, at the behest of greed and corporate profit.

Due to our own lack of oversight and accountability, coupled with an abdication of introspection and self awareness, we sell ourselves - through their actions - to the highest bidder, while we argue amongst ourselves over who does a better job at it - the left or the right. We have always been our own worst enemy, while ignoring the real consequences of our actions in favor of the imagined outcomes, the spoon fed ideologies of our chosen political representation.

They don’t answer to us. They propagate the illusion that they do by reminding us to vote, tearing each other apart ideologically and publicly, fomenting fear and contempt for the other, depending on who butters your bread. But they pay us only lip service, while ignoring the needs, interests, and desires of humanity at large.

Instead, they answer to their financial backers; the movers and shakers of the American “dream”, while our cries and nightmares go unaddressed. They bow to those who pay for their extravagant campaigns, ad buys, and opposition pieces. Our representatives willingly take the thirty pieces of silver with a smile on their faces, and glee in their hearts. Judas felt guilty for his betrayal; while they go back with outstretched arms, and with sweaty little palms, each election season.

The idea that any of us have a true voice in the direction and destiny of our country is simply an elaborate illusion, designed by the ownership class to exert their influence upon the globe, regardless of who we are lead to believe is in charge. They have control because we have relinquished it and will not take back the reins.

This nation was founded on the revolutionary notion that people were the driving force of civilization, and as such, could be and would be better equipped to create a civil society.

We have lost our way.

The two truest enemies of the Founding Fathers were Aristocracies and Corporations, not the Redcoats and the Crown. These enemies were largely viewed as one and the same. Without so much as an whimper or a moan, we have surrendered to the enemy time and time again.

These two entities were antithetical to the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the individual, which were basic tenets of the Age of Enlightenment.

The corporation exists on the foundation of the exploitation of people in the name of profit. By controlling the means of our very survival - food, energy, transportation, and thought - they control the people. Servitude and dependence without the attachment of the linguistic term for what it is: slavery.

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." - Thomas Jefferson

Aristocracy is then afforded to those who willingly collude with the enemy - the new robber barons, scions, and nobility that we perpetuate ourselves. Be they Walton’s and Koch’s, or Buffet’s and Gates’, these are the new nobility, and we are their supplicating serfs, giving fealty to the lords of our chosen domains. Ain’t feudalism grand?

Freedom from tyranny meant freedom from aristocracies and corporations.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." - Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution was designed to act as a defense against such tyranny, enabling an informed populace to engage in self-government, and to act as a stalwart fighter against encroachment from either.

We are no longer informed.

We are no longer involved.

And having ignorantly placed ourselves in such a position, are we deserving of anything better?

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion." - Thomas Jefferson

Without taking drastic steps to curb our own complicity in our enslavement, we are a doomed nation in a rudderless world. Our corporate overlords - lords of the manor and all that they survey - are there by our own choosing. Bad choices are still choices, and inaction is an action in and of itself. The lords of the kingdom live by the fruits of our labors, and their prosperity does not reflect our own.

Economies are reliant upon people and the exchange of goods and services. Economics, and thereby the fabricated aristocracies and corporations, are intended to serve the people; not the other way around.

By our own apathy and selfishness, we have created this monster.

Maybe it's time for us to tear it down and start anew.

A year after Newtown

I don’t like guns. I know how to use one, in fact, I’m a really good shot; maybe one day that will be a valuable part of my skill set, but right now, it isn’t. A large part of why I don’t like guns is that, as a small child, I had a revolver pointed at me by a rookie cop, hands shaking, the barrel no more than 36 inches from my sleep-encrusted eyes. Since then, I haven’t had much use for guns or the police. It would be nice if I could avoid both for the rest of my days.

But that is my personal opinion, and despite the fact that I have an aversion to them personally, I don’t have a problem with responsible people, responsibly owning guns. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court and the NRA have made the notion of “responsible” completely moot. Because there is no clear definition of “responsible”, the United States doesn’t have any “responsible” gun owners.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The first major misconception about the Second Amendment is that the people have the right to bear arms to resist the tyranny of the government. The Constitution itself precludes tyranny; it’s entire design was to ensure that tyranny could never take hold in the new form of government - a government for the People, of the People, and by the People.

I know this may be the hardest part for some to recognize. Some people just need to cling to their most firmly held beliefs, and claim that because the Founding Fathers fought tyranny, that they presupposed that their experiment in government would fail, turning them into tyrants, and that the people would have reason and need for a means to defend themselves. Wrong.

They expected to create a model of government to be imitated for generations; and they did. They created a nation were tyranny could not exist. Checks and balances, due process, habeas corpus, etcetera, etcetera, and so forth and so on. Tyranny cannot exist in the U.S., at least not within the government; now the private sector though - that’s another matter…

Anybody who tells you otherwise, probably shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a gun. There are people who seriously believe that they live under constant threat of violence. Even in the worst places in this country, and it’s meanest streets, the facts say that this just isn’t so. There are people who see everyone as a potential threat, and a bogeyman in every shadow. And these are the “responsible” gun owners who are “exercising their Constitutional rights”? Like the Branch Davidians? Or the Montana Militias? Or George Zimmerman? Or the whole State of Idaho for that matter…?

There is no Supreme Leader in our country, therefore, no candidate for tyrant. Sorry, but nobody in our system is that powerful, and never will be. The military is not allowed to operate combat missions within the nation’s borders except during wartime or national emergency; this is federal law, and has been enforced on more than one occasion. There goes the idea of soldiers kicking in your door.

The CIA is prohibited by law to conduct operations within U.S. borders (the NSA spies on us, not the CIA). They have enough problems with the outside world, they don’t need to worry about us too.

Police departments act under local civilian administrative authority; they take their orders from the Mayor and the Chief, not from Washington. These are just a few reasons why the argument of citizens needing guns to protect themselves from government is a faulty and false argument (others would include the First Amendment, the ballot box, and the list goes on…); it defies rational thought.

The second major misconception is that every citizen has the right to own any firearms that they want. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, people had flintlock muskets. This was a one shot firearm, slow to reload, and not particularly accurate. The citizenry did not own cannon or mortars (although the militias and British Army did), they had muskets. None of the Minutemen kept their cannon after the war.

I believe every household should have a shotgun and/or a rifle, as was intended. This makes perfect sense when placed into the context of having to hunt for your food and defend your homestead from marauders, native, neighbor, or wildlife. At the time, man was not necessarily at the top of the food chain, and a musket evened the odds against wolves, bears, and mountain lions.

But an assault rifle? High capacity magazines? Semi-automatic handguns? I have been in some seriously sticky situations in my life, and I have had my life threatened on more than one occasion, but I have never felt so threatened, that I thought that I needed a machinegun to protect myself. Plus, how many home invasions are carried out by large groups? Usually, it’s one or two men, and a shotgun can counter them both.

The Founders never conceived of machineguns and assault rifles, let alone advanced missile systems and the anti-personnel mine. Had they had advanced knowledge of just how adept humans would become at killing each other, and the devastating capabilities of today, they undoubtedly would have worded things a bit differently with regard to the right to bear arms.

Face it: you can’t hunt with a machinegun, unless you’re hunting for hamburger, because that’s all that you’ll get. Sure, you can try it as a semi-automatic single shot, but you would be better served by a deer rifle with a scope. But let’s get serious - how many people hunt with an assault rifle? I’d venture to say none, at least not in this country. Most gun owners who would have an AK, already have a collection of hunting rifles and assorted “sporting” paraphernalia.

And then there are handguns. Handguns then, have one design only - killing people. The only animal that you can hunt with a handgun is man. I don’t know about you, but I was taught to only kill what you are going to eat, and I draw the line at people.

Look, the fact remains that - psychologically - people are more afraid of blades than they are of guns. Americans have been desensitized to the reality of gunshot wounds. The bad guys just fall down on TV, they don’t scream in agony and writhe, choking in their own blood. But everyone has been cut before. We have an instinctive fight or flight instinct when confronted with a blade. Should we all start carrying swords and daggers again, in the name of “protection”? Good fencing makes good neighbors.

That being said, I’m am not advocating that Americans shouldn’t have firearms, I think that they should. But weapons and their owners should be regulated (as the Constitution implies), just like any other commodity that can prove harmful if misused; like vehicles, heavy equipment, drugs, or hazardous materials. I believe people should have access to them,… provisionally. But we’ll go into that later…

There were three reasons that the Second Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights. The first - which I have already mentioned - is that people lived on the frontier. This may still be applicable in the wilds of Alaska, but is certainly not so in Suburbantown, U.S.A.

The second reason was the Founders’ intense reservations about keeping a standing army - hence the “well regulated militia” verbiage - due to it’s expense, impracticality, and the likely perception of oppressive Government might (again, staying as far from tyranny, monarchy, and aristocracy as possible).

Third, they wanted the ability to call up defenders in an emergency (those “well regulated militias”), such as another French and Indian War (the French, who were still in Canada and Louisiana at the time), or just in case the British decided to return and restart some shit (which they eventually did, about 20 years later).

Those three reasons are why the Second Amendment exists. It would potentially provide for the common defense if the need were to arise, it would respect the honor and independence of it’s citizens by avoiding a standing army (saving on the expense as well), and it would provide the citizenry with an opportunity to feed and clothe themselves. Simple pragmatism and thrift.

The Supreme Court has made many rulings on the Second Amendment, and will most assuredly have to make more. Unfortunately, the “Constructionist” wing of the Court has consistently upheld the notion that the Second Amendment was designed to arm citizens against the State, against each other, and against any perceived threat. They seem to discount the intent of the Amendment itself, and focus solely on the precise verbiage. Really stupid for such smart people…

The Second Amendment does not give everyone unfettered access to firearms. It never has, nor should it. If it did, you could open a gun shop in the airport - with or without a permit to sell - or maybe open one in the lobby of a hospital, right between the gift shop and the pharmacy, and right downstairs from the psych ward. Or, you could open up a gun shop right across the street from an elementary school.

Yeah, that’s right,… a school.

Since Newtown, the NRA wants Big Government to put armed guards in every school. Texas’ Lt. Governor is already training teachers so that Texas can arm faculty, which it has begun to do already. Good idea… not! The idea that a gunman can only be stopped by superior firepower is fallacy, and only exacerbates the problem.

Guns don't kill people. People don't kill people. People with guns don't kill people. Nope. It's the high velocity projectile that usually does the trick.

The National Rifle Association. Yeah, there’s some folks who have our best interests at heart. The people who sell guns and make them, buy politicians to protect them, all while claiming to be protecting your rights to buy them, from them. Granted, not all NRA members are gun dealers; but every gun dealer, maker, ammunition maker, accessory maker, hunting products seller, and the like,… all belong to the NRA. It’s not like they have any really useful ideas, aside from boosting their sales.

They still want the Federal Government to implement a nationwide effort to place at least one armed police officer in every school in America. Maybe, the NRA should think about pursuing that avenue on their own dime. They could call it community organizing. Oh, uh… maybe not. Then again, maybe they shouldn’t assume that our schools need anything more than metal detectors. Ah,… but that would be a method of keeping guns out.

Let's say a gunman attacks a school. The armed faculty member would have to respond to the gunfire. This armed faculty member can only react to the sounds of gunfire, they wouldn't prevent it. In the meantime, bullets are already flying.

How long does it take for Coach to confront, and possibly take down the gunman?

How many lives does he save, or does he prolong the carnage and possibly add to it accidentally?

What if his interference enrages the shooter, who reloads and causes an even higher body count?

What if Coach himself gets taken out by the gunman, or even by the cops?

This cowboy mentality has got to change. Americans are not all some weird hybrid between George Washington and John Wayne (actually, I think we’re more of a cross between PT Barnum, Carrot Top, and a random Kardashian).

Life isn’t like TV, and the heroes often get killed. High intensity situations are unpredictable, and instantaneous. People react differently under pressure, and some people are already under too much pressure to begin with. No; an extra gun in school is not a good idea. It's already one too many.

The NRA’s next talking point alludes to guns not being the problem, it’s mental health in America that’s the problem. Granted as a nation, we do not adequately take care of our least fortunate, but don’t be fooled, the NRA could give a rats ass whether we take care of our own or not - to them, it’s every man for himself.

But my issue with this talking point is that it is a huge assumption to leap to the conclusion that mental illness has anything to do with mass shootings. Causation goes to motive, and it’s hard to find out the motives of a dead gunman. The Columbine kids weren’t crazy, and neither was Tim McVeigh or John Allen Muhammad, the Beltway Sniper. Crazy and committed are not the same thing.

Background checks can only catch post crazies, not potential or start-up crazies. One has to have a history of mental illness to be prevented from access to firearms. Most people who commit mass shootings do so with weapons that were purchased legally, after passing a background check. They just weren’t a card carrying mental patient when they bought their gun; only when they used it.

Another of their claims is that it’s not about legal guns, but it’s the illegal guns that we need to worry about. News flash: they are all legally obtained guns at some point. Over 70% of the weapons confiscated by Mexican officials in their continuing cartel wars are purchased legally right here in the United States. The only illegal guns are fully automatic military style weapons, and even some of those have been grandfathered in. Illegal guns is a nice way to say “guns that criminals have”, even if they were purchased legally.

The silliest claim of all though is that “Their gonna take our guns away!”. Yeah,… right. The government can’t catch tax dodgers and deadbeat dads, but they will somehow manage to confiscate every weapon in the country.

Isn’t it funny how some people can complain constantly of government incompetence and stupidity, yet they’ll believe that that same government is capable of successfully pulling off huge conspiracies, without any loose ends? It never ceases to amaze me.

Not only is this not even being discussed in serious circles, it would be next to impossible to do, and assuredly impossible to verify. Nobody has any idea how many guns are on the streets of America. It’s like asking how many jellybeans are in jar; the only way you’ll ever get it the right number is by counting them. I bet you can’t just eat one…

Right after the Newtown shooting, the NRA ran an advertisement calling the President an elitist and a hypocrite for calling for gun control, while at the same time making sure that his daughters are afforded armed security, twenty-four, seven. Okay,… now this one just pissed me off.

Hey NRA,… how dare you? First of all, let me explain this, and let me be perfectly clear for anyone with even half of a brain: He is elite. He is the President of the United States of America - it doesn’t get much more fucking elite than that. This is the Presidency we’re talking about, not a goddamned City Councilman or PTA member. Even the worst Presidents are elite.

Second, the Secret Service protects his children. The Secret Service has a duty to protect the American people by protecting our President, and by extension his family. What kind of bargaining chip would his kids be, if some bad guy decided to abduct them? Let’s get serious, the President doesn’t make that call - the Secret Service does. Just like they protected the Bush twins from date rape and alcohol poisoning.

In essence, what the NRA really needs to do is just shut the fuck up. They have a viral case of foot-in-mouth disease (or is it head-in-ass?). They make the most ridiculous statements, playing themselves off as the downtrodden, ever suffering, ever threatened, oppressed peasants, while demanding their right (which is not in question) to have guns to protect themselves from being, well… downtrodden, threatened, and oppressed. Isn’t there a disconnect in there somewhere?

There are many things that can be done that will afford individual people the right to bear arms while affording better safety, security, and accountability to We the People at large. Realistic regulation of firearms is an opportunity to enhance our rights, as well as lift certain restrictions, if specific provisions can be met.

The Constitution itself calls for regulation, and therefore, regulating guns is not an infringement of one’s rights, but a protection of everyone else’s. It is my right as an American citizen to feel that I can move about in public without being near a potential gunfight.

Lawful gun owners can continue to be lawful, there just might be some extra steps they’ll need to take to remain so. There are plenty of regulations that you could place on guns that would reduce the number of unregistered weapons trafficked in the U.S., to ensure the right to own an AR-15 with the 30 round magazine, and to follow the movement of weapons to criminal elements; while at the same time, protecting the public safety, and keeping them out of unwanted hands.

Here is my common sense, five point plan, that would largely take care of these issues:

1) All weapons must be registered. No “grandfather” clauses, no loopholes. If you have an unregistered weapon in your possession, it would be a felony. Prison time, period.

If it ain’t registered, you’re hiding it, and that would imply some nefarious intent - otherwise, why hide it?

2) All weapons must be licensed. Failure to have proper licensing would also result in a felony charge for each infraction and coupled with heavy fines.

Just like with the DMV, you need a license for whatever weapon you want to have. If you have semi-automatic pistols, than you would need an operators license for semi-automatic pistols. Just like differentiating between a class C drivers license and a CDL, different types of weapons should be categorized as such, with differing qualifying benchmarks to obtain licensing. Depending on the type of firearm, you would have to meet certain base requirements and pass testing. People who choose to own assault rifles and high capacity magazines would have harsher requirements and criteria to meet that somebody who has a .38 Police Special. This is no different than being able to drive a forklift vs. piloting an airplane.

3) When a weapon changes possession between two parties, not only should there be a background check and waiting period, there should be a change of title, so to speak.

Just like with a vehicle, there should be an official change of registration during transfer of the weapon between owners. It would be the seller’s duty to file the background check with the FBI and to provide proof of transfer, while it would be the buyer’s duty to register the weapon prior to physically receiving the purchased firearm.

4) If your weapon is used in the commission of a crime - with or without your knowledge and/or consent, you will be held criminally responsible.

When Junior accidentally shoots his little sister to death, the owner of the weapon should be charged with manslaughter/negligent homicide. When your buddy steals your AR-15 so that he can go shoot up a bookstore, you are an accessory. Not after the fact, you are an accessory to the crime. Think about it - accessory… root word: access… as in: How did the shooter gain access to the weapon? Criminally irresponsible gun ownership.

5) Any persons in an official capacity - local, state , or federal - would be held criminally responsible for their evaluations and approvals.

This would provide a serious incentive for government officials to avoid approving gun sales to questionable buyers. Having the person who signs the permit held accountable for the approval process would lessen the likelihood of “good ol’ boys” obtaining weapons because their cousin Cletus happens to work for the State Licensing Office.

Each of these five points - together or separate - would make gun ownership safer to all, owner and neighbor alike, while making it harder for weapons to fall into the wrong hands - criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill. If responsible gun ownership were compulsory (and not just a meaningless talking point), then more people would be responsible with and for their guns. The fact is though, they just aren’t.

Some people would argue that it isn’t the government’s business what kind of hardware you’re packing. Well, the arguments that a tyrannical state will come down on you are moot, and the bit that they’re gonna take our guns is laughable.

The truth is, government has a duty to us all, collectively, and not just individually. Firefighters have access to the floor plans of our homes and apartments. The PUC has the plans for your power supply, both electrical and gas. The NSA has access to your telephone and internet traffic (and they use it). Credit agencies determine if you are a shitbag or not, and broadcast that information to anyone willing to pay their fee. Meanwhile, without your full knowledge and probably against your will, facebook pimps you out. Keeping track of the number of weapons in circulation is probably a pretty good idea, and much less invasive than most prospective employers are during the interviewing process.

The premise of these regulations is that - people who own these weapons should own them responsibly. This also would make them accountable for the whereabouts of those weapons. Newtown happened because Nancy Lanza’s was kid was an ignored sociopath, and had access to her guns. She’s dead now as a result, as well as 27 others, including her backward baby boy. But the shooting at the mall in Oregon - just days before Newtown - was perpetrated by a kid with his buddy’s gun. A gun stolen from under his nose.

Today, if I drive you to a liquor store, and while inside, you rob and kill the clerk, when we leave, I’m the getaway driver. That makes me an accessory to murder, after the fact. If somebody steals your gun, and commits a crime with it, you should be held accountable for that crime. It all boils down to - who has access to the weapon in question.

Then there are the entirely inadequate background checks… There should be a much broader range and diversification in what type of background checks are required for what type of weapons one intends to purchase. Different guns have different uses, different potential dangers, and should have different measures of protection.

Shotguns are simple: if you can spell your own name, and have never committed a felony or been committed yourself, you can have one.

Rifles should be almost as easy, with and minimum age requirement.

Revolvers: Criminal and medical/psychiatric reviews, as well as a sit down interview with law enforcement.

Semi-automatic weapons (including handguns): Criminal, financial, medical/psychiatric reviews, an interview, and a psychological profile. You cannot make an honest assessment of someone’s mental state by looking backward at a medical file; you have to look into their eyes.

And RPG? Get the fuck outta here.

The issuing authority should be accountable too, as they will have to make a thorough evaluation, and approve or deny the sale to the buyer. The background checks should consist of things such as personal interviews and psychological evaluations, credit checks, and personal and professional references, depending on the type of firearm that you want to purchase.

For criminals who use guns - gangbangers and such - enforce the most severe criminal punishments possible. These laws are already on the books, but juries are still allowed to “take into account” the severity of the crime. Bullshit. If you use a gun criminally, there is no first offense; you should do time.

These five points would do wonders to curb rampant gun violence, simply by tightening access to guns, and holding people accountable for their ownership. Guns are as much a fabric of American culture as cars; and as such, they should be regulated as much, if not far more, than cars. And there are all kinds of regulations regarding the maintenance, ownership, and operation of a motor vehicle.

By why let reason and wisdom interfere with such a fine commercial transaction as buying a killing device?

Freedom of speech... while it lasts

I’ve decided to give blogging another try.

I have been posting comments on Huffington Post for a couple of years, taking idiots to task, and trying to impart a little common sense, insight, and wisdom to the world. Some people were grateful for it, some angered, and many others simply ignored me.

Generally I was not censored, although I was required to tone down my -shall we say “colorful” language - in order to have my posts published. Aside from forced politeness, their terms of use were not exactly hard to adhere to, and it provided me with a useful outlet for my innate outbursts of humor and rage.

Beginning this week, Huffington Post changed their commenting features to require a log in through facebook. That was the last straw. Mark Zuckerberg can suck my dick.

I tried half a dozen times to voice my dissatisfaction at this new development, and to rebuke Huffington Post for their disdain of their membership. Though I tried several times, editing and self-censoring my posts, they were never published on the site. In short, I was silenced.

Let’s not fool ourselves here. They are in the media business to make money, however Zuckerberg already has enough fucking money. We will be mined as advertising demographics, and surely flooded with ads to consume, consume, consume! Again, Mark Zuckerberg can suck my dick. Huffington Post decided in their infinite wisdom that linking their users to facebook was worth whatever graft they received to commercialize all of our data.

I started a facebook page several years ago at the behest of my grandmother who wanted to share her hundreds of photos from her trip to Turkey. On her request, I started a profile, and admittedly for a while there, I was hooked. Since then, I’ve seen her photos, and managed to go cold Turkey/turkey.

What started as a simple way to remain in contact with friends and family soon became a chore. Constant updating, revisions, and changes pushed me away from facebook. It has been an invaluable tool to track down long lost associates (although finding other white folks can be daunting - do you know how many John Smiths that there really are in the world? Thank god for my having ethnic friends).

I stopped using facebook over a year ago, and would only log on occasionally, usually when I received an e-mail notification from someone trying to reach me. As I don’t routinely use it, I have never felt the need to delete my profile, and will now use it (sparingly) to promote this new blog. Again, Mark Zuckerberg can suck my dick.

I am using this format - a Google platform (likely to change as well at a moments notice) - in order to freely express myself as only I can, while I still can. I will touch on topics that interest me, and maybe interest you, the reader (and hopefully participant) on topics ranging from the asinine to the imperative. And I will take all comers.

From self-absorbed, intellectually dishonest, and willfully ignorant Tea Baggers, to the myopic, whiney, “socially” democratic Occupy twits. From the fascist “conservative” right-wingers to the lethargic, “liberal” leftists. From the politically correct to the politically charged. From the “drill baby drill” crowd to the assholes at PETA. And fuck all you people with your cute kitten pictures.

Eight years ago I wrote a column briefly for an online publication. The editor was sloppy, merely cutting and pasting my text without reading, editing, or even correcting my spelling. I have become a better writer since then, and managed to learn to edit and spell without the help of a shit editor. I will eventually be re-editing some of those posts and adding them to this blog’s archive when I am damn good and ready.

I have always been an anti-establishment type, and truth be told, it’s genetic. My family has been starting shit in this country since 1735 and I’m not about to forgo that fine tradition.

So with open arms, tongue in cheek, and a boot ready for your ass, let me welcome you one and all to Incendiary Language.