Another day, another shooting. This time, two people having an argument decided it was important enough to attempt to take the other’s life.
Watching coverage on MNSBC, I just saw two different guests focus their attention on television, video games, and the ‘culture’ contributing to gun violence.
I am sick of this lazy thinking. First, as the graph above helps remind you, WE ARE NOT THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WHO WATCHES THESE FILMS AND PLAYS THESE GAMES. We are, however, the only country in the world that has 300 million guns, a patchwork structure of regulations for them, and numerous loopholes. Seems to me the only difference between us and the rest of the developed countries isn’t the episodes of 24 or a Sunday matinee of Django Unchained or an extended weekend of playing Call of Duty 4…
…the difference between those countries and 10,000 gun deaths a year is the guns.
(graph source)

Another day, another shooting. This time, two people having an argument decided it was important enough to attempt to take the other’s life.

Watching coverage on MNSBC, I just saw two different guests focus their attention on television, video games, and the ‘culture’ contributing to gun violence.

I am sick of this lazy thinking. First, as the graph above helps remind you, WE ARE NOT THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WHO WATCHES THESE FILMS AND PLAYS THESE GAMES. We are, however, the only country in the world that has 300 million guns, a patchwork structure of regulations for them, and numerous loopholes. Seems to me the only difference between us and the rest of the developed countries isn’t the episodes of 24 or a Sunday matinee of Django Unchained or an extended weekend of playing Call of Duty 4

…the difference between those countries and 10,000 gun deaths a year is the guns.

(graph source)

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

That’s the little-cited Third Amendment. Back when we were severing our ties with the British and starting our own little party, this was a big grievance. One of the many “taxes” the British put on the colonists was for us to pay to house their troops, and if no barracks were available, the troops would just set up anywhere. Your house, maybe.

It doesn’t have much relevance today. There has been the odd case here and there that’s cited it, but the most direct case (Engblom v. Carey, 1982) seems to have more to do with a labor strike dispute. It’s a perfect reminder of how the Bill of Rights were written in a specific time, quite different from our world in 2013.

Remember Billionaires for Bush? The satirical, ironic ‘protestors’ who’d dress up in top hats and tuxes and hold signs supporting the GOP agenda? I think, in this current debate on gun safety (in which few are calling for an outright destruction of the 2nd Amendment; more focus on the ‘well-regulated’ part of it), we could use another satirical protest group, shouting at the top of its lungs that it will NOT QUARTER A SOLDIER IN A TIME OF PEACE WITHOUT MY CONSENT!!! Let’s treat all the Amendments with the same over-the-top vigor that the gun lobby does with the 2nd, and see if we can include a little perspective. The Bill of Rights wasn’t written in a vacuum. They were looking out their window at a very specific world and thinking what they wanted to do. That window view is much different today. You don’t ignore the Constitution. But you need to start looking at its spirit in order to keep it relevant in this completely different era.

There’s a scene in Spielberg’s Oscar-nominated film Lincoln featuring an old Derringer muzzle-loading pistol. It’s meant to be a comic scene, within a montage in which James Spader’s character has been relentlessly persuading members of Congress to vote for the 13th Amendment. He’s weary, tired from all the people he’s been talking to, and falling asleep at a table next to a Congressman reading over the bill.
Once the Congressman realizes what it is, he draws his pistol. Spader panics, they wrestle, and the gun fires into the air. Spader starts to run away, then realizes the bill is on the ground, he needs it, stops, turns, runs back, picks it up, bumbling, turns, and takes off again.
Within that little bit of schtick, which takes maybe 8 seconds, the shooter is reloading: bringing out his gunpowder, pouring some in, loading it, cocking it, pointing it. He fires again, but Spader is long gone.
This scene takes place in 1865, 74 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, containing the 2nd Amendement.  So this handgun, that required time enough to load to allow a bit of comic slapstick from James Spader, is three-quarters of a century further along in firearms technology from when our forefathers decided to allow a well-regulated militia to bear arms. 
Imagining how that scene might have played out, had the shooter had an AR-15 with a 30-round clip, I find it hard to believe that John Adams and James Madison would have said, “Yeah, let’s let everyone have one of those. Or as many as they wish.”
And poor James Spader would’ve had a much smaller role in the film.

There’s a scene in Spielberg’s Oscar-nominated film Lincoln featuring an old Derringer muzzle-loading pistol. It’s meant to be a comic scene, within a montage in which James Spader’s character has been relentlessly persuading members of Congress to vote for the 13th Amendment. He’s weary, tired from all the people he’s been talking to, and falling asleep at a table next to a Congressman reading over the bill.

Once the Congressman realizes what it is, he draws his pistol. Spader panics, they wrestle, and the gun fires into the air. Spader starts to run away, then realizes the bill is on the ground, he needs it, stops, turns, runs back, picks it up, bumbling, turns, and takes off again.

Within that little bit of schtick, which takes maybe 8 seconds, the shooter is reloading: bringing out his gunpowder, pouring some in, loading it, cocking it, pointing it. He fires again, but Spader is long gone.

This scene takes place in 1865, 74 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, containing the 2nd Amendement.  So this handgun, that required time enough to load to allow a bit of comic slapstick from James Spader, is three-quarters of a century further along in firearms technology from when our forefathers decided to allow a well-regulated militia to bear arms. 

Imagining how that scene might have played out, had the shooter had an AR-15 with a 30-round clip, I find it hard to believe that John Adams and James Madison would have said, “Yeah, let’s let everyone have one of those. Or as many as they wish.”

And poor James Spader would’ve had a much smaller role in the film.

Sure, the platinum coin idea is silly. But yes, it seems to be legal, and threatening not to raise the debt ceiling is also silly (and dangerous).
But come on, let’s at least have an discussion based in reality. 
- No, you do not need $1 trillion in platinum for a $1 trillion platinum coin.  Do you think there’s $100 worth of cotton in each $100 bill? Fiat currency: look it up.
- It’s not to “pay for [Obama’s} spending”. The President does not have the power to spend money, Congress does. The debt ceiling raise merely allows Treasury to borrow more money to pay for the things Congress already voted for.

Sure, the platinum coin idea is silly. But yes, it seems to be legal, and threatening not to raise the debt ceiling is also silly (and dangerous).

But come on, let’s at least have an discussion based in reality. 

- No, you do not need $1 trillion in platinum for a $1 trillion platinum coin.  Do you think there’s $100 worth of cotton in each $100 bill? Fiat currency: look it up.

- It’s not to “pay for [Obama’s} spending”. The President does not have the power to spend money, Congress does. The debt ceiling raise merely allows Treasury to borrow more money to pay for the things Congress already voted for.

It astounds me that so many on the right think (or portray themselves as thinking) that if small businesses have extra money lying around because of low taxes, they’ll automatically go spend it to hire more people.

Business doesn’t hire more employees just because they have the money to do it. They hire more employees to meet increased demand for their product or service.  When the middle- and lower-class citizens don’t have jobs or disposable income, there is little demand. So either the businesses need to unwisely spend money they don’t have to spend just because they have it, or we need to focus on increasing demand.

The GOP is focused on giving money to the rich (Job Creators™) and counting on them to spend the country out of recession and high unemployment. They aren’t doing that. They’re pocketing the money as profit (as any smart business owner would do). So let’s try something else.

To the people saying “it’s the culture, it’s those violent video games”. Newsflash, the US doesn’t live in a bubble. Those same video games are played in other countries around the world. And guess what: no correlation with gun violence.
(Source: WaPo)

To the people saying “it’s the culture, it’s those violent video games”. Newsflash, the US doesn’t live in a bubble. Those same video games are played in other countries around the world. And guess what: no correlation with gun violence.

(Source: WaPo)

The GOP’s Plan

Maddow was on her game last night, covering all the ways in which the GOP - instead of adapting their brand to actually appeal to a majority of voters - is spending its time and money trying to rig the system. 2010 gerrymandering, attempts to distribute electoral votes by congressional district, union busting, voter ID/registration laws.

Seriously, watch the whole thing, if you can.

think-progress:

Corporate profits are at an all-time high. Worker wages are at an all-time low.
Read more at ThinkProgress.

think-progress:

Corporate profits are at an all-time high. Worker wages are at an all-time low.

Read more at ThinkProgress.

Nutz

Here are just a few of the conspiracy theories popping up, just today, in my political RSS feed:

- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) suggests the FBI was blackmailing Petraeus to force him to testify favorably in his Benghazi session with Congress.

- The head of Maine’s GOP has suspicions about Obama winning Maine by 100,000 votes: “In some parts of rural Maine, there were dozens, dozens of black people who came in and voted on Election Day. Everybody has a right to vote, but nobody in town knows anyone who’s black. How did that happen? I don’t know. We’re going to find out….”

- American Family Association hack Bryan Fischer has minorities figured outHispanics do not vote Democratic because of the issue of immigration but rather because “they are socialists by nature” who want open borders simply so that they can bring in their families to “benefit from the plunder of the wealth of the United States.”

- Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) suspects the United Nations of trying to take over our gun regulation.

- The Fox News Channel questions the new high jobless numbers, which Fox’s own website attributes to Hurricane Sandy. FNC personalities call the Department of Labor “sketchy”.

- Glenn Beck claims that Obama has intentionally ‘set-up’ General Petraeus in order to discredit the military.

That’s all just this morning in my feed. They’re going all-in on the crazy. But it continues to be all for show.  Because also this morning, we find this little tidbit about John McCain, who has been on the war path questioning Benghazi:

John McCain is calling for more information to Congress, but he had a press conference yesterday instead of going to a closed briefing where administration officials were giving more information. Well, Ted Barrett asked John McCain about that, and it was apparently an intense very angry exchange and McCain simply would not comment on it at all.

Four more years of this? Or are they gearing up for impeachment?

"But the president succeeded by suppressing the vote, by saying to people, ‘you may not like who I am and I know you can’t bring yourself to vote for me, but I’m going to paint this other guy as simply a rich guy who only cares about himself’."

See, normally, when a candidate running for office tells voters not to vote for his or her opponent, this is called “running for office”.

But to Karl Rove, when it’s Obama, it’s called “suppressing the vote”. Another example of the classic Rovian technique of taking your greatest weakness (i.e. GOP voter suppression tactics) and painting your opponent with it.

Why does that tend to work? Because A) no one expects anyone to actually have the balls to do it, so when it is done, it’s out there first. So B) when the person Rove is smearing responds by saying, “Actually, the other side is the one guilty of this, not me”, the media then just covers the horse race as “both sides accuse the other of the same thing.” The facts become irrelevant, and Rove’s side’s greatest weakness has now become diluted.

The question is, after the thumping the right just got (made worse for them by the factless optimism), can they keep this shit up and stay relevant?