It seems I write the same things over and over again because the
Republican pattern repeats indefinitely. It's OK when we do it or say
it or demand it, it's anti-American, tyrannical, too little, too late,
too much, too soon when they do it. Even if Republicans invented it or
pioneered it or used it until yesterday it's different when "they" do
it.
How long ago was it that John McCain and Fox News
and the rest of the merry bunch made a circus act with all three rings
full of how Obama is a "tyrant" for appointing all those Czars? "More
Czars than the Romanovs," tweets the funny man. So where's the big red nose and oversize pants when John McCain tells us that hapless weakling Obama isn't appointing the Czars we need? That's right, John McCain has joined Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), sponsor of H.R. 3226
(111th): Czar Accountability and Reform (CZAR) Act of 2009 in
condemning the administration for this egregious failure, invoking the
"if it's bad, it's Obama" clause in the Party rules. 2009 is when George
W. Bush left office -- just coincidentally -- and of course George had
33 of them, but let's keep that quiet.
Of course there's no public office with the title Czar on
the door as far as I know. It's a media epithet that began in the 1940s
and of course there's nothing unconstitutional about the President
appointing "other public ministers" no matter how much they chuckle and
chortle and lie in the Fox newsroom.
But quoting
history and public record never seems to have much effect on the magic
thinkers and pea-brained partisans of any stripe. The public's eyes are
always on the jugglers and clowns and what they're doing now, not what
they did ten seconds ago.
"No one knows who's in charge," says McCain, his face revealing nothing of how his party, with the help of the NRA
has blocked the nomination of a Surgeon General, an office designed to
take control and coordinate the process of informing the country of
what's being done. Yes, the NRA, because the Surgeon General might just
get involved in gun policy. Can't have that. Better a plague than risk
a gun grabber liberal doctor commie near our weapons. Better this
country perish from the earth.
If this Surgeon General nominee is as concerned about cars... which kill as many people as guns... at least he is consistent. Has he mentioned both or not?
ReplyDeleteAnyway from reading about him, I see no reason not to vote for him. In any case, delaying the vote is a neglect of duty of "advise and consent".
I have no idea but government influence in how cars are made is enormous. Our government is arguably in a rage about safety in cars and much is made of little things. Will they block the appointment of someone who insists we wear seat belts and use child seats? Somebody who thinks airliner doors with locks is COMMUNISM? Oh wait, they already did that.
DeleteThe Republicans are simply against having a Surgeon General with amedical agenda whether it's birth control or prevention of disease, or prevention of accidents, they will block a nomination of anyone who thinks it's important to immunize children because it may make them more willing, for instance, to have sex. God loves guns but he hates sex and gay people you know. They will block the nomination of anyone who wants to collect statistics or explore ways to keep guns from lunatics. That's the entire story in this case. Every other governmental power and act is secondary to protecting the sacred right to keep and bear arms God gave to Moses at Mount Sinai God, Guns and Guts is all everything is about and they're not too sure about the guts.
The NRA supports legislation that will put your doctor in jail if he asks if you own a shotgun. Imagine these scenarios: Guy walks into the doctors office
(a) "Hey doc I'm losing my vision" " Do you drive to work? Do you fly a plane or operate heavy equipment?" That's a doctor doing his job.
(b) "hey doc, I'm hearing these voices telling me to kill and yesterday I got stoned and beat up my wife. I just can't control myself " "Do you keep a gun in the house?
In Florida, that's a doctor committing a felony and he goes to jail and can never practice medicine again. Guy goes home and shoots his family, sets fire to the house and takes to the street. Who gives a shit? God Guns and all that. Thank you NRA and the Tea Party pricks with their delusions of persecution.
That's is why we don't have a surgeon general. I call it a hostage situation and another fine example of hoping the country will fall apart so they can finally get some demented crank into the White House. Obama can't appoint anyone who won't bend over for the Republican puppet masters.
There's a very real danger of the government confiscating the firearms of law-abiding citizens (a threat to our individual liberties coming from positions as high as the Governor of the State of New York). So some of the NRA-types are worried that the doctors in such situations will collect information for a registry to later be used in the theft of the patient's firearms by the authorities. And... I think it is a real stretch to worry about the the nominee's statements and connect them to this danger.
DeleteThis, and the Senate's duty of "advise and consent" requires that they vote up or down on these nominees. By not doing so, they are neglecting a specific duty granted by the United States Constitution.
Looking at the late and laughable "assault weapons ban" I doubt they are capable, but I think the danger that psychiatrists are plotting to grab the guns of insane people is evidence of paranoia. Registries of guns and owners are already illegal in Florida. I know that some here think I'm a "gun nut" but all I've ever asked is that we look at correlations between legislation and crime rates and that we actually read the legislation we pass. Sadly it's enough for some extremists that some bit of babble is a "gun law" but It's hard to discuss these issues because there is nobody other than me in the lonesome middle.
DeleteSeems you are coming from a sane and moderate point of view, Cap'n. I would not mind at all, actually "psychiatrists .. plotting to grab the guns of insane people". It's the stealing of guns from people just for the hell of it with no due process that I oppose. Whether or not there is an immanent threat? That can be debated. Andrew Cuomo and the New Jersey state Senators who chanted "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate" certainly want this threat to be strong.
DeleteA contentious issue indeed, it seems every article on guns elicits a strong response – even among friends. It is one of those issues whereupon, “You are either with me or against me” with no common Archimedes point upon which to stand. I stepped into this quagmire some months ago with this post, Guns and Culture, Madness and Mass Murder. Although I admit to holding strong views on this issue, I approached the subject from this perspective, namely Freedom versus Responsibility:
Delete“ As parents, we try to teach children the relationship between responsibility and freedom. Parents reward good behavior with confidence and trust and punish misconduct with more supervision and less independence. A reasonable proposition for raising children; yet we do not practice as adults what we preach to our children. Ours has become a society that fails to find balance in this relationship. Every public controversy, and every perceived loss of freedom (whether imagined or real), represents a failure of responsibility.”
Instead, we have hotheads – more children than adult – with whom it is impossible to hold civil debate. At the intersection of Free Speech and a Right to Bear Arms, we now have a lunatic fringe that will brandish arms to intimidate people and violate their free speech rights:
With Spitting, Stalking, and Rape Threats, “these menacing tactics have begun to alarm even some entrenched pro-gun conservatives.”
As recently as Wednesday, Anita Sarkeesian was forced to cancel a Utah State speech because an “open carry” law prevented authorities from protecting her.
Is this the dystopian future of America wrought by new Open Carry laws? Any controversy settled by armed hoodlums and thugs? Democracy via bullying and intimidation, democracy by brinksmanship at the barrel of a gun, democracy via insurgency and insurrection? This is not the kind of future I want for my family and future generations.
Indeed I've alienated people here long enough on this issue that I no longer willingly discuss gun policies in this forum. For every claim that the NRA is stifling information gathering I can show a greater number who cover their ears and chant lalala when I suggest we look at the effectiveness of existing gun legislation or even read the real content of the law. People are defending attitudes not facts.
DeleteSure, some political opportunists will scream "confiscate" Sure you'll hear some putz claim self defense laws make it illegal to go outside or make it open season on black people while admitting privately it isn't true. Hyperbole or dishonesty? I report, you decide. My opinion is that confiscation claims make as much sense as the claim that Obama is a Muslim trying to kill us all with ebola.
Yes, indeed there is an attempt to intimidate with weapons going on and I should point out that this is a felony if an individual does it. Doesn't say much for the honesty of the "law and order" patriots who practice it. Open carry has a place: in the wilderness, but then you know who is or isn't. Concealed carry, which I'm licensed to do is more like Mac the Knife who keeps it out of sight as the song goes.
Despite evidence that some people support getting rid of guns, I think the notion that the public would allow it is obviously far fetched and lacks public support. It would require a 2/3 majority for heaven's sake. We don't get anywhere by concentrating on the fringes and claiming they describe the majority. There are many who support getting rid of cars but no one is discussing numbers of people and that shows dishonesty on all sides.
To me, and I'm unanimous in this, refusing to ratify a surgeon general because he suggests that we could reduce rampage shootings WHICH DESPITE THE HYPE ARE DECREASING LONG TERM by allowing mental patients to be asked if they're armed, is an example of lunatic fringe reasoning. That argument moreover removes one's right to damn the president for inaction.
Suggesting that our freedom is entirely based on guaranteed private ownership of a wide range of firearms is, to use the technical term: bullshit, but that's 99% of what comes out of the NRA.
As long as we base our discussion on the hyperbole of extremists there can be no conversation. As long as we make up numbers, ignore numbers and shout each other down there can be no discussion and both sides are doing this. So I'm confining such things to different venues.
As they say at Looney Tunes Cartoons: "that's all folks"
I hate to say it but here is a perfect example of Swine Flu Over the Cuckoo’s Nest!!!”
ReplyDeleteI can’t imagine anyone approving of pork barrel politics, least of all ME (!!!), but here is an example of anti-government mania that has made us less safe:
“[Most] of the media coverage of the politics of Ebola to date has centered on whether President Obama has adequately and/or honestly dealt with the disease. “I remain concerned that we don’t see sufficient seriousness on the part of the federal government about protecting the American public,” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told reporters. Cruz is probably the wrong guy to talk about seriousness: his government shutdown forced the NIH to delay clinical trials and made the CDC cut back on disease outbreak detection programs this time last year.”
Time to blame the Tea Party for government shutdowns, budget cuts, and hostage taking. And time for the porcine community to rise up and hold those schlock jock ham hocks to the fire!
(Squeal, grunt, snort, and snark!)
Four legs good, two legs bad as the man - uh pig said. And who can argue? Republican refusal to beef up security in Benghazi? another example. It gets my goat, I must say. If it's Obama it's wrong.
ReplyDelete