Kelly Oxford is a poster on twitter who is usually quite humorous and enjoyable, with a keen sense of snark. However, in response to last weekend's tragic shootings in Arizona, she took it upon herself to lecture the US about why Canada's gun laws are better.
It's unfortunate that she's fallen into the trap our two closely related countries frequently rediscover, why we shouldn't try to urge the other country to emulate us. When I visit Canada, I embrace their country without trying to encourage gun rights activism or even encouraging them to at least allow women to carry pepper spray for self defense. I suggest she do the same, especially as she is now doing some work for Hollywood.
(Full disclosure: I consider myself a consistent liberal and therefore consider most gun controls about as appetizing and smart as analogous attacks on reproductive rights. And attacking the NRA is about as cool in my mind as attacking the ACLU or GLAAD)
One thing that I found disturbing about her comments is how blithely they gloss over the fact that in Canada, a bad breakup ever can mean you can never own a gun. If all it takes is a vindictive ex without even the legal proof of a restraining order, that's a pretty poor basis for governing.
Finally, another of her tweets concludes with "and you aren't billed for treating your cancer", which is demonstrably untrue. Otherwise, why would Spider Robinson and his unfortunately now-deceased wife and collaborator have been financially devastated by her battle with cancer?
Stick to being amusing, kellyoxford, you're much better at it.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Let's Be Smart, Here
1. Stop arguing about whether the current TSA nonsense is Obama's fault or Bush's and concentrate on ending it. I'm starting to see more of the typical political wanking that sabotages discussion of serious issues. Let's focus on ending this assault on our freedoms and not get bogged down in assigning blame.
2. It's possible that the TSA may be trying to create uncertainty by implementing different screening rules at different places, with Pistole saying in one press release that hes standing firm on these policies and in others that they'll be fine-tuned. The arrogant prick needs to be fired, along with Janet Napolitano.
3. Various sources are calling the organizers and participants in National Opt Out Day irresponsible for planning the event just prior to Thanksgiving. To be blunt, they are full of shit. The longer we just let the TSA's assaults on our privacy to stay in place, the likelier it is that they'll be permanent. This could be very likely of they are allowed to continue past the Holiday Season. Let's act on the momentum that we now have!
4. Think about writing your state and federal representatives, repeatedly, this week. Say politely but firmly that these policies are ludicrous and that you expect them to take measures to defund the TSA or evict them from local airports. At least urge that the TSA be kept on a much shorter leash. New York and New Jersey, not the most libertarian states in the country, have already done this.
5. Contact your local airport and tell them that you want them to jettison the TSA and implement a screening process that is smart and not an assault on traveler's dignity. Several airports have
Here are some links to recent developments that give hope for suggestions 4 or 5 working: 1 2 3 4
6. Join or post comments to your representatives through the American Civil Liberties Union pr the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
If you find any or all of these suggestions to be of value, forward them to a few friends and ask them to do the same.
2. It's possible that the TSA may be trying to create uncertainty by implementing different screening rules at different places, with Pistole saying in one press release that hes standing firm on these policies and in others that they'll be fine-tuned. The arrogant prick needs to be fired, along with Janet Napolitano.
3. Various sources are calling the organizers and participants in National Opt Out Day irresponsible for planning the event just prior to Thanksgiving. To be blunt, they are full of shit. The longer we just let the TSA's assaults on our privacy to stay in place, the likelier it is that they'll be permanent. This could be very likely of they are allowed to continue past the Holiday Season. Let's act on the momentum that we now have!
4. Think about writing your state and federal representatives, repeatedly, this week. Say politely but firmly that these policies are ludicrous and that you expect them to take measures to defund the TSA or evict them from local airports. At least urge that the TSA be kept on a much shorter leash. New York and New Jersey, not the most libertarian states in the country, have already done this.
5. Contact your local airport and tell them that you want them to jettison the TSA and implement a screening process that is smart and not an assault on traveler's dignity. Several airports have
Here are some links to recent developments that give hope for suggestions 4 or 5 working: 1 2 3 4
6. Join or post comments to your representatives through the American Civil Liberties Union pr the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
If you find any or all of these suggestions to be of value, forward them to a few friends and ask them to do the same.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Why the people who allegedly support TSA screening don't matter
1. If the new enhanced pat-downs don't cross the line with these people, nothing will. They'd clearly tie a ribbon around their junk and pirouette through the metal detector singing "I'm a Little Teapot" if someone with a badge told them it was necessary to the security of air travel.
2. Far too few American s are proactive about protecting their rights. Only a small fraction of the population makes the effort to join the ACLU, NRA, NARAL, EFF or any other pro-right organization. The vast majority people just do as they're told, with some realizing the mistake of that approach when some rule they could have taken action about bites them. The minority of the population that joins organizations like those and is politically active are the watchdogs that reduce government power grabs.
2. Far too few American s are proactive about protecting their rights. Only a small fraction of the population makes the effort to join the ACLU, NRA, NARAL, EFF or any other pro-right organization. The vast majority people just do as they're told, with some realizing the mistake of that approach when some rule they could have taken action about bites them. The minority of the population that joins organizations like those and is politically active are the watchdogs that reduce government power grabs.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Congressional Gun Competition
A friend just posted this link to a page which describes a shooting contest between Democrats and Republicans in Congress, expressing consternation at the fact that Democrats won the contest in question. Upon a closer look at the article in question, however, the explanation for this performance became apparent.
The sports in question are trap, skeet and sporting clays...shotgun sports.
What are the characteristics of shotgun sports?
1) An effete, perhaps even dainty golfing mentality
2) Reaction without thinking
3) Firing in the vague direction of the target without stopping to aim
4) Sending large quantities of lead promiscuously downrange in the vague hope that some of them will come close to and perhaps hit their target, rather than attempting to get a single projectile to fly right and strike the target
All of these are attributes of our representatives in Congress in general and are 'qualities' which Democrats arguably possess to a greater degree. I would be much more impressed to see these representatives excelling at the firing line at Camp Perry's rifle match or in a combat pistol league, sports which place more of a premium on concentration, accuracy and coolness under pressure. I would go so far as to say that the day that I see Democrats who can handle a 1911 or AR-15 safely and well is the day that I might rejoin the party.
N.B. None of the above is to be taken as a case of sour grapes because this editorial comment was written by the worst shotgun shot in Pacific Northwest (perhaps even the entire USA).
The sports in question are trap, skeet and sporting clays...shotgun sports.
What are the characteristics of shotgun sports?
1) An effete, perhaps even dainty golfing mentality
2) Reaction without thinking
3) Firing in the vague direction of the target without stopping to aim
4) Sending large quantities of lead promiscuously downrange in the vague hope that some of them will come close to and perhaps hit their target, rather than attempting to get a single projectile to fly right and strike the target
All of these are attributes of our representatives in Congress in general and are 'qualities' which Democrats arguably possess to a greater degree. I would be much more impressed to see these representatives excelling at the firing line at Camp Perry's rifle match or in a combat pistol league, sports which place more of a premium on concentration, accuracy and coolness under pressure. I would go so far as to say that the day that I see Democrats who can handle a 1911 or AR-15 safely and well is the day that I might rejoin the party.
N.B. None of the above is to be taken as a case of sour grapes because this editorial comment was written by the worst shotgun shot in Pacific Northwest (perhaps even the entire USA).
Thursday, April 29, 2010
A software utility for stalkers?
Thinking that an entertaining utility to write for Android would be a software utility for stalkers. But it wouldn't work QUITE the way the stalkers expected.
OK, so a stalkers decided: I'm going to stalk Bertha Konopski at 867-5309. They enter that into their StalkerApp (TM) and it claims to be watching the stalkee.
But what it really does is contact the stalkee with email and tell them they can determine their stalker's fate by going to a web site. They get there and can choose these buttons:
- report stalker to the police immediately
- lead stalker to step in front of a freight train
- lead stalker to an isolated spot where stalkee can "mod" them wih a scoped rifle
So say the stalkee wants the stalker to be crunched by a train. The geosearch software tells stalker that the stalkee is walking alone in an isolated location and purports to lead him to her. instead, it leads him onto a hazardous railroad crossing and plays loud sounds to mask the approach of an approaching train.
** CRUNCH ***
The software's main server then monitors news sites and reports back to the stalkee when her stalker has been terminated.
A friendly popup then notes that the software's author is a starving software developer who cannot afford to visit Starbucks often enough (hint hint). Is this functional (and evil) enough? Or does the software need more design?
OK, so a stalkers decided: I'm going to stalk Bertha Konopski at 867-5309. They enter that into their StalkerApp (TM) and it claims to be watching the stalkee.
But what it really does is contact the stalkee with email and tell them they can determine their stalker's fate by going to a web site. They get there and can choose these buttons:
- report stalker to the police immediately
- lead stalker to step in front of a freight train
- lead stalker to an isolated spot where stalkee can "mod" them wih a scoped rifle
So say the stalkee wants the stalker to be crunched by a train. The geosearch software tells stalker that the stalkee is walking alone in an isolated location and purports to lead him to her. instead, it leads him onto a hazardous railroad crossing and plays loud sounds to mask the approach of an approaching train.
** CRUNCH ***
The software's main server then monitors news sites and reports back to the stalkee when her stalker has been terminated.
A friendly popup then notes that the software's author is a starving software developer who cannot afford to visit Starbucks often enough (hint hint). Is this functional (and evil) enough? Or does the software need more design?
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Getting Past 'Us vs. Them'
There have been some disturbing news articles concerning law enforcement over the past year. Several have involved despicable career criminals who murdered police officers in cold blood - these people have rightly been viewed with the contempt that they deserve.
There have been other contemptible acts as well, however.
#1 A police officer uses a Taser on a pregnant woman who refuses to sign a traffic ticket.
#2 A police officer fatally shoots a drunken man who refuses to exit his car, an act for which he is currently facing murder charges.
#3 In Maryland, a man who was simply walking home from a sports event and who attempted to comply with police is brutally beaten with nightsticks. Further, the department in question attempted to cover up the incident by blaming the student for the circumstances.
One thing that our society does not need is to continue or see worsened the Us vs. Them rift that frequently exists between the police and the populace. In some respects this rift is understandable because our citizenry is one that deeply prizes their independence and rights (although often failing to understand the responsibilities that naturally accompany those rights) and law enforcement is trained to force compliance (sometimes with a lack of common sense).
Most encounters between the populace and the police end politely and professionally because most cops are good cops and most people know better than to escalate a simple traffic stop into a life changing event. I'm not sure what the solution is, when a confrontation does develop but both extremes (a sullen, disobedient populace vs. police interested in winning confrontations above all) seem like dangerous ideas, where our freedom and the stability of our society are concerned.
There have been other contemptible acts as well, however.
#1 A police officer uses a Taser on a pregnant woman who refuses to sign a traffic ticket.
#2 A police officer fatally shoots a drunken man who refuses to exit his car, an act for which he is currently facing murder charges.
#3 In Maryland, a man who was simply walking home from a sports event and who attempted to comply with police is brutally beaten with nightsticks. Further, the department in question attempted to cover up the incident by blaming the student for the circumstances.
One thing that our society does not need is to continue or see worsened the Us vs. Them rift that frequently exists between the police and the populace. In some respects this rift is understandable because our citizenry is one that deeply prizes their independence and rights (although often failing to understand the responsibilities that naturally accompany those rights) and law enforcement is trained to force compliance (sometimes with a lack of common sense).
Most encounters between the populace and the police end politely and professionally because most cops are good cops and most people know better than to escalate a simple traffic stop into a life changing event. I'm not sure what the solution is, when a confrontation does develop but both extremes (a sullen, disobedient populace vs. police interested in winning confrontations above all) seem like dangerous ideas, where our freedom and the stability of our society are concerned.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Torture
This simulated French game show recently duplicated a famous psychological experiment, in which people were tested to see whether they could be induced to give painful or dangerous electric shocks to random strangers, in this case for money.
This post looks at possible answers should you be asked to torture someone...I will refer to those possible answers as Yes, No or Other.
Yes - if you give this answer, you are a despicable cretin and unworthy of calling yourself a human being. Please immediately throw yourself into a lion pit and help make the human race a little bit saner...and less congenitally stupid.
No - better, but this is kind of an underachiever response and still has the drawback of leaving a threat to your fellow human beings wandering around loose. Let's face it, someone sociopathic enough that they'd ask you to torture people may end up inflicting that torture on other innocents, perhaps someone you care about.
Other - I am postulating for the sake of argument (or perhaps sanity) that the best possible response if you are ever asked to torture somebody is to immediately hospitalize the person making the request. A broken nose, a broken jaw, broken kneecap or ruptured spleen: these may be sufficient to communicate to the person you're dealing with that attacking innocent and vulnerable people can have very dangerous consequences. At the very least, it could render them unable to harm innocent people until the proper authorities put a stop to their insanity.
This post looks at possible answers should you be asked to torture someone...I will refer to those possible answers as Yes, No or Other.
Yes - if you give this answer, you are a despicable cretin and unworthy of calling yourself a human being. Please immediately throw yourself into a lion pit and help make the human race a little bit saner...and less congenitally stupid.
No - better, but this is kind of an underachiever response and still has the drawback of leaving a threat to your fellow human beings wandering around loose. Let's face it, someone sociopathic enough that they'd ask you to torture people may end up inflicting that torture on other innocents, perhaps someone you care about.
Other - I am postulating for the sake of argument (or perhaps sanity) that the best possible response if you are ever asked to torture somebody is to immediately hospitalize the person making the request. A broken nose, a broken jaw, broken kneecap or ruptured spleen: these may be sufficient to communicate to the person you're dealing with that attacking innocent and vulnerable people can have very dangerous consequences. At the very least, it could render them unable to harm innocent people until the proper authorities put a stop to their insanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
