Cracked: Self awareness what's that?

Our Brains Can't Handle This Without a Villain.

Craked... isn't wrong.

Amazingly.... no mention of President Trump.  And only a veiled reference to "political leaders".  And wow...  no mention of China at all.   Not even to mock Anti-Asian racists or conspiracy theorists who thought it escaped a lab.

That's right.  In an article about people needing a villain in the Pandemic they won't even touch the two big villains in popular culture.  (And it's not like they won't mock conspiracy theories,  they'll mocked people blaming it on 5G).

That's a real "dog who didn't bark" right there.

The history of anti-government attitudes in America needs about 500,000 more words to go over than we have space for, but equating "We're technically ordering you to stay at home so people don't die, but ultimately we're just working on the honor system here because some of you are fucking nuts" with Orwellian tyranny is the culmination of treating every issue as having two equally viable and diametrically opposed viewpoints. At a time when the deletion of a horny tweet promoting a video game can be decried as "cultural Marxism," there has to be a pro-virus side. If there are heroes tolerating the death of loved ones, financial ruin or, most horrifying of all, hair that looks a little shaggy, some villain, however improbably, has to be benefitting from, and encouraging more of, all this human misery.

What's interesting is Cracked has a looong history of documenting horrific abuses of the US goverment has done to it's own citizens and other countries.   And as for there having to be a villain... recall the whole "oh so you want Grandma to die"  thing or the "Georgia genocide"   or "grim reaper at the beaches".  And that doesn't even get into the whole cancel culture around video games.  Again... something Cracked has a long history of detailing.

And there's a few oblique gun references.

Maybe the people currently pushing American gun sales to record highs aren't major cinephiles, but their apocalypse cosplay certainly puts them in the center of a reality where their violence is conveniently righteous. 

Less gun control and more.... well the standard classist "gun owners are stupid".

The article itself is...  well it raises some good points on people using simple narratives and how pop culture depicts pandemics.   And how it all has heroes versus villains versus sheep.  And the privileged versus the meek

But when you take a meta standpoint... it's clear that the article itself has a group of villains who for various selfish, paranoid, or greed reasons are not "doing their part". 

Of course, the obsession with giving every story heroes and villains has also given the handfuls of people waving signs about how 5G will melt your brain into goo outsized attention, because no one wants to read profiles of the people who did their part by staying home and re-enacting the entirety of Point Break in Animal Crossing. The escapism of post-apocalyptic stories is that the hero only has to be a little more ethical in their mass slaughter than the villains to be worth rooting for, that the societies we've spent millennia establishing will just melt away and never be thought of again. 

Emphasis added.

It is... interesting that the article is valorizing...  lazing on the couch.  Which.... well being able to do that, for MONTHS at a time is pretty damn privileged.

For all the talk about "global empathy" there is little attempt to understand why some people...  can't just play video-games on their couch.

And it was only....   about ten days ago that Cracked mocked the privilege of Celebrities... for being able to stay home and make vlogs...

And this whole...  wow,  look at all these people making enemies.... has a meta component as also published today on Cracked is a piece about a nasty protest   And while it raises good points about the mobs and ill-conceived protests the whole thing has a very "only these garbage people protest the state, you don't want to be one of them do you?"

And no... that's not reading too much into it as also today Cracked posted.... The Senate's Two Biggest Trash Boys Could Lose This November.  Which is itself not too far out of Cracked's wheelhouse and tone.  But when combined with the daily short articles that seem nothing more of agitating about the wrongs of the Trump Administration...

Well, it's kind of funny given today's article about the "need to make villains."  I'm sure it's a coincidence that during the 2nd month of the pandemic lockdown Cracked decided to go even further on articles against the enemy they see in all of this.


So... the article is right.

And they were right to go "our brains", because clearly the Cracked writing staff  needs a villain in all this as well.  They just can't connect the dots, or openly admit that they're just as human as the rest of us.

Cracked: The Media doesn't cover school massacres enough

How can cracked take a school massacre where no one was shot and turn it into a dog whistle for gun control?


This:

"4 Reporters Skipped America's Deadliest School Massacre To Witness Charles Lindbergh's Transatlantic Flight"

"As opposed to facing the gruesome realities of a school massacre, the return of the Lone Eagle was exactly the uplifting story needed during the Great Depression. News organizations pulled journalists covering the Bath disaster and reassigned them to report on Charles Lindbergh's heroic exploits, and the story of 38 murdered students was forgotten within the year. We're sure there's a lesson in there about America needing to take school tragedies more seriously and not get distracted by attention-seeking fascists, but how would that still be relevant today?"

Because school shootings don't get much media coverage in the US?  Note that it's not a plea for gun control, directly.  Just bemoaning how the US doesn't learn and the media isn't... pushing for it enough?

Huh?

And does Cracked really want to get in with Nazis and Gun Control?

Because the last time they tackled that it sounded a bit like an apologia. Including insinuating that Nazi gun control did not go far enough, victim-blaming the Warsaw Uprising, and other creepy pro-fascist statements.


 Such as how it's not "gun policy" when a gun law "strip[s] Jews, communists, union leaders, and other enemies of their guns with the help of the registry" but it is pro-gun  when the law "exempt[s] Nazi Party members from most regulations".

And it's not like Cracked hasn't covered Bath before.

Where they also get in a jab at gun control by ending the other entry on Bath this way.

So, why did he do it? Apparently, he was upset about high taxes, losing the town clerk election, and, oh yeah, he was fucking nuts. Obviously, the U.S. invested heavily in mental health after the disaster, and nothing like this ever happened again.
Related:
How The NRA Lost Its Mind

Gee....

And yest that link does go to an Adam Wears article where he and another person basically rail against the NRA's Cincinnati Revolt. Basically getting angry that the NRA started to actually lobby and organize against gun control.

Cracked: Fake News Makes people Afraid of Mass and School Shootings

That is David Wong Cracked's Executive Editor's assertion in this list.

"13 Myths About Society Too Many People Believe"

Specifically:

6) Myth: School Shootings Are Rampant

7) Myth: Mass Shootings Are A Significant Danger To The Average Person

And he does a calm rational way to show that yeah these myths are false.
And he's saying this as someone who would happily ban these guns.

I do have to wonder how he squares this with Adam Wears  the frequent, and bilious, anti-gun writer he has on staff.

Ah well. Does show that for all the time Cracked goes against pearl-clutching moral panics in the media, they're quite guilty of it too.

Also Wong takes apart a few other sacred cows so the article does read like one of those older Cracked pieces where one has to wonder if this is being subversive or not.

It's no retrospective...

In fact it's another Cracked piece. This time Cracked goes back to their wheelhouse (used complementary in this case). Of interviewing a person with a unique experience.

Speifically someone who served on a grand jury on anofficer involved shooting. It's an interesting read as it covers issues of emotions, timing, information restriction while the trial is occurring, ignorance in media reporting, use of force procedures, and even a bit on the aftermath of someone who has been "cleared" in a shooting.

A... good article about Mass Killers fom Cracked.

This was surprising....

The Baffling Stories Behind Our Epidemic Of Mass Killers

One the one hand the article repeatedly calls a semi-auto pistol and an AR-style gun (even when it's not an AR) the "standard mass shooter gear."  And it notes how common Glock handguns are... in these killings... but that's like saying drunk drivers prefer Ford F150's and Honda civics.

A common gun would tend to be...  common


On the other hand the article admits time and time again, that these killings have been done without "assault weapons" (or even guns),  that the background check laws in the above examples wouldn't have done anything because the killers had clean backgrounds, and makes a point that unless you want to  "ban[] all guns and magically mak[e] the existing 300 million of them vanish" that the laws wouldn't do anything.

The Article has #2 as the Nice massacre, and points out that all the killing was done with a truck, and then mentions at the end the dozens stabbed to death in a mass killing in Japan.


And then there's this:

OK, I have to pause to address everyone who's been shouting, "assault weapons ban!" at their screen for the last 4,000 words. After all, should that crazy fucker have been able to buy these?

But remember, all we're talking about with an assault weapons ban is a limit on how many bullets they hold at a time before you have to reload. Would this particular shooting have turned out differently if he'd only been able to fire, say, ten shots before swapping magazines? Remember, he had combat training -- with practice, swapping magazines can be done in a couple of seconds.

And an AWB doesn't even cover *that*.  What he's talking about is a magazine ban.
An AWB bans guns if they have a certain number of cosmetic features.

Obama totally doesn't want to ban guns! Says Writer that totally wants to ban guns.

That's right!

Cracked's  Luke McKinney  is at it again.

When we last saw him in September he was spewing quite a lot of usual bile.

Where in about every other paragraph he mocked the intelligence and sexuality of gun owners.

This is a guy who was visibly angry at a lack of bans and confiscation.   A man who thought even hunting wasn't a valid reason to own guns (#5 on the preceding link) .

And here he is doing 20 questions On Obama's recent executive actions.

And in short... he's pretty correct and shows that he's fairly informed on the legal rules on purchasing and how the Executive Actions would change things.

And it's (especially by Luke's standards) very civil.

Isn't it odd that a guy who doesn't think there's any valid reasons to own guns and demanded some pretty strong gun control is so calm about Obama's actions?  You'd think he'd be livid, right?  

I mean this is a guy that couldn't write go two paragraphs without an insult to gun owners.

Of course the first question shows why Luke is taking this tack.  All of a sudden a writer that was all about gun bans and confiscation is telling us that no one wants gun bans and confiscations.  Especially the president!

And lest we forget Obama did spend months lobbying congress to pass an Assault Weapons Ban, and endorsed states that did pass assault weapons bans.  Including states that did away with grandfathering and meant that gun owners had to give up their guns.

Though Luke's change in attitude means a lack of sincerity either then or now.


Heck let's just track  how Luke ends these articles.

Luke's  June post:

Check out more NRA nutcasery with 3 Reasons It's Time To Stop Taking The NRA Seriously and The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control. 

Enjoy imaginary worlds where guns make sense with The Strange History Of Terminator Games and The Greatest Video Game Gun Of All Time.

His September post:

Do you want more rootin' tootin' anti-gun argumentin'? Of course you do! We've got more adventures in all-American gunplay right here, with 5 Reasons Even Gun Owners Should Hate The NRA and The 4 Most Meaningless Arguments Against Gun Control.

And don't forget that minigun barrages are entirely reasonable in professional, movie-invented, killer robot and/or generic foreign despot scenarios. That's why Luke gathered The Toughest Action Dads In Movie History and The Most Advanced Terminator Games Ever Made in handy lists, for YOU.

And today's:

Luke openly admits he has a bias when it comes to the gun control debate. Read more from him on the subject in 7 Incredibly Biased Arguments Against Gun Control and find some common ground in the gun control debate after reading 6 Things Gun Lovers And Haters Can Agree On.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see why James Bond needs a lot more than a silencer to be stealthy in 5 Gun Myths You Probably Believe (Thanks To Movies), and watch other videos you won't see on the site!

Huh how about that.  Why it's like he decided to back off on how much he hates guns.
Shame there's links showing he's got a bit more than a "bias".

The Daily Beast admits that gun control is a dog-whistle!

So they're talking about the racist roots of gun control in the US?

Well... no.

Or maybe that gun control still is used in a racist context?
(Take the objections to Voter ID and see how well they remap to UBCs)

Nope.

Oh, well surely they're admiring that gun control and "common sense laws" are really code words for bans and confiscation.


Wrong again!

No, this article is all about how Gun Control just needs a new name!

Really the central thesis of this article is:  "Too many people think Gun Control is a dog whistle  for 'Gun bans and Confiscation', clearly the solution is to change the label used to advocate for Gun Control."

Heck the phrase "Gun Control" /itself/  was taken because the advocacy groups didn't want to have "ban" in the title.

 Remember the National Coalition to Ban Handguns?
Or by its current name "Collation to Stop Gun Violence"

Or how about the national Council to Control Handguns?

I mean they change their name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Which is totally different from "Gun Violence Prevention"

Yeah... that'll fool 'em.


But the article has more to it than that.

1) The article is rampantly insulting to gun owners. Using terms like hoarders, fragile, paranoid, irrational, frenzied, and "holed up in their basement".

2) And the article laughs of the idea that Obama wants to ban guns and that any such fears are irrational.  Except... the president advocated and lobbied for a law that would ban the most popular rifle in America.  And he pushed hard when the bill doing just so came up in congress.  He also endorsed states that passed such bans while he was in office.  Hillary Clinton has also been a long time supporter of such a ban as well.

3)  And going beyond bans, both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have spoke approvingly of laws such as Australia's that confiscated millions of guns.

4) Which leaves two options for the writer of the article, Donna Dees,  a)  Dess is massively ignorant of the very subject she is giving advice on national policy.  Or b) Dees is lying about the intentions of prominent gun control advocates.

5)  Taking in  1-4  why on earth would a gun owner be persuaded by the replacement of the term  "Gun Control"  with "Gun Violence Prevention"?"

6) There's also that Dees is ostensibly saying this term change is required to better sooth the fears of gun owners.  But given the conclusion in 5 and the vitriol she uses in 1...  does that make any sense?

7)  Thus is Dees actually considering this change in labels to better convince people who aren't /gun nuts/?   Though that would imply that gun control has become an unpopular term to the public at large.  Something Dees studiously, perhaps tellingly,  shies from.

8)  Amusingly this article is actually behind the times.  Since trying to replace "Gun Control" with "Gun Violence Prevention" has already been tried and now the new buzzword is "Gun Safety".  Heck the Brady Campaign changed their name to almost the exact same phrase in 2001.

9)  For all the talk about how to label things... the article has a compel lacking of any proposed solutions.   Which perhaps might be because the writer has boxed herself.  If the article talks about how great bans and confiscations are, that means those gun owners are right to be concerned.  If the article talks about how great Universal Background Checks are,  the cited examples of death and destruction can be readily countered by pointing out that in the vast majority of the cases background checks /were/ conducted.

10)  Thus the article reads less like an explanation on how to save lives, and more a media trade journal on how to better market gun control.

11) It's noteworthy that an article that talks about dog-whistles, specifically about how they're used in racist contexts and gun control, doesn't mention for once the racist history of gun control.  Or that there are dog whistles still in use.  How many politicians put gun control under "urban policy"?  Or the old dog whistle of "Oh well urban areas need different laws than rural areas."

How to spot the Media endorsing Censorship...

Ken White of Popehat notes that there's more than the overt pro-censorship messages among the media,  there's also pro censorship assumptions and rhetorical devices.  (Such as the idea that there's such a thing as "Hate Speech" under US law."

Fortunately , Ken White has some advice.

Fortunately, this ain't rocket science. Americans can train themselves to detect and question the media's pro-censorship tropes. I've collected some of the most pervasive and familiar ones. This post is designed as a resource, and I'll add to it as people point out more examples and more tropes.

When you see the media using these tropes, ask yourself: what normative message is the author advancing, and does it have any basis in law?

There's Blaming the Victim and then there's....

Okay...  Sandhya Somashekhar of the Washing Post has decided that the Garland Texas attack was analogous to hunting over bait:

If the contest was intended as bait, it worked. Police say two men drove 1,000 miles from Phoenix, shot at a police car outside the event and were quickly killed by one of the hired guards. The shooting has been condemned by Muslim leaders, and Geller, too, has come under fire for staging an event many viewed as purposely provocative.

Well then.     If saying Geller brought it upon herself is the metaphorical "She shouldn't have been wearing such a short skirt."

This...   this is: "Damn that Jezebel for using her harlot-whiles to get those nice boys kilt by the police! It wasn't their fault she got their dander up!"


And then the article goes on to talk about how Geller was "almost gleeful" afterwards and how bad of a person she is.

Uh... MSN...  yeah,  even assholes get Free Speech rights.

It's sort of like how  just because someone has a criminal record,  like say Freddie Gray...  still has the rights of due process, especially with regards to the police.

And for a bonus.... Geller might be an anti-Islam bigot.  I don't know her well enough to make that call.

What I do know...  she's not the one equating Muslims with some sort of game animal that can be predictably baited to a spot and then shot by hunters.  That's all on Somashekhar.

Huh, at least we know the writer's against provocative art that offends the sensitivities of gun-totin' religious conservatives.  Course... I'd worry about the incentive system being setup...

Oh Cracked....

So  Cracked decided to tackle Brian Williams.

Now... once again we have the fun of URL title versus actual title.

The url is "why-internet-needs-to-calm-down-about-brian-william"  but they then decided to go with the more sedate... "4 Terrible Lessons the Brian Williams Scandal Taught Us"

What's funny is that the article actually doesn't say that Williams is a victim of a witch hunt or that it was even political scalping/swifboating whatever.   In fact they actually a passable summary of events and implicitly condemn Williams for unacceptable behavior.

However....  the rest of the article is all about how stupid 'merican's are stupid for feeling offended.

And their list is basically 

4 Internet news people aren't trusted... and that's somehow... relevant to a non-internet newscaster...

3 "We Can't Trust Ourselves to Choose What's Important"  Yeah... that's the literal title. Yup... an article about a "legitimate" reporter being caught in an ethical lapse is just evidence that the proles *need* those elite media gatekeepers.  

Okay I kid.  See because newspapers cover "legitimate" news and articles trending on facebook are fluff that means the proles can't be trusted.  

"Newspapers tell you what you should know, and tabloids tell you what you want to know."  Again that is an exact quote.  I mean... wow.  Paging Walter Duranty

2 Let's complain about shoddy standards of such internet news sources as Newsweek and Salon

Seriously.  These guys point to Newsweek, including that it didn't report on Williams years ago as the fault of "internet media"

And again let's go to something that I have to stress... is a direct quotation "Hey, Internet Media: Why didn't you figure out and report that Williams was a fibber 12 years ago?"

Good points.  At least they mention... Salon (supposetly a publication in good leftward standing) but hey it was online 12 years ago!  And Newsweek...   was a magazine. In fact was up there with Time, and only stopped publishing a print edition two years ago.  After....  80 years of publishing.

Note  that one of the major news publications that has been in print for nearly a century  becomes "Internet Media".

And note that they do not ask why the print media or broadcast didn't bother to break the Williams story.  You know...  given he was a broadcast anchor...

Oh and the best part...  

1 "We're Comically Smug About How Uninformed We Are"

Again, this is the actual line.  Now sure they're bashing Gawker...   but in the immediately preceding section they were snidely deriding Newsweek as "Internet Media"  and in the section precding THAT they were jock-sniffing the print media.

Man... if only Newsweek had kept printing issues....

Now here's the thing.  There are some good points on how people are just as uniformed as they always have been, and how we like media that confirms our own biases, and that the media was lazy and didn't actually investigate Williams...

But...  those points are kind of lost when the writers themselves engage in the very things they rant about.

Course Williams isn't the only bad thing to happen in the media last week...

Funny who gets excluded from this "National Conversation"

Via  Linoge who also has a transcription.

Powerful stuff.  And the kind of stuff the Media will embargo.

Something to keep in mind.   And something you should share.

QoTD Weer'd: "It’s the gun grabber version of “How about a .38 Snubbie for the little lady!”

Said in reply to this bit about Biden's  self defense advice.

That's right,  take comfort in that slow Joe has your back.

Meanwhile, not  Steven King is not only letting his anti gun flag fly.
(If you're shocked don't be; he's always been one.  When some punk who did a school shooting was found with a book written by King about... a school shooting.  King went right into blaming guns and gun culture.)

But the funny part is that King is charging for his essay.  Ace has a fun take down, but soon gets to the meat of the matter on why the antis are for such seemingly stupid and cosmetic bans.

The measures being proposed are so obviously inadequate to accomplish what they purport to accomplish that a gun-righter could almost say, "Sure, let baby have his bottle, if you want these cosmetic, symbolic, futile actions to convince yourself you're a Good Person, and then you'll shut up about it, fine."

But a guns-righter can't say that. Because he realizes something: These proposed measures are in fact so obviously inadequate to accomplish what they purport to accomplish that that must not be the reason they are offered at all.

Because these measures would accomplish nothing directly, one must then wonder why they would be advanced at all; and of course the immediate realization is that they are advanced to accustom people to the ritual of giving up this and that freedom in response to some new Moral Panic.

....

But they cannot agitate for that, for the public would not hear of it; so instead they push measures which are deliberately calculated to be perfectly useless for attaining their stated goal, but in fact are quite useful for attaining their unstated goal, which is to say, conditioning the public to give up gun rights on a piecemeal, this-one-and-then-that-one basis such that that which cannot be accomplished in one great step can be accomplished in 40 or 100 smaller ones.

And hence the shouting, because we are, in fact, not talking about these measures in reality; we are on both sides really talking about the intended endgame of complete disarmament of the public.

If we were talking about achieving the goal of reducing the number of people killed by guns, why on earth would a gun-control advocate be extolling the shotgun as a more efficient and deadly person-killing weapon than an AR-15? 

Hence you see  New York State go from a 10 round limit to a 7 round magazine limit.

And back to Weer'd.  Yeah, Biden really did recommend that a shotgun over a  rifle because it's more deadly.  In some cases... yes, but funny how "more deadly" is a good thing when he deems it.  And if those "evil" guns are less deadly, then why's he wanna ban them?

And speaking of real motivations here's a choice little exchange.

 GINGRICH: Isn't your real view that you would ban pistols if you could?
MORGAN: No, it wouldn't. What --
GINGRICH: Wouldn't you ban pistols if you could?

You trust Piers Morgan right? I'm sure he's concerned only with these rifles, and doesn't want a handgun band. Never-mind that the Feinstein bill he supports covers many pistols, and even shotguns.

Oh and speaking of Piers Morgan here's him talking with someone with very sexist ideas about guns
You see those lil' women are too weak to use those beefy manly ARs and should use "traditional" rifles.

Which... tend to have more power per cartridge.

Anyone who's fired an AR would know the 223 has very mild recoil.  But know, these clowns say if you're worried about recoil you should go for the shotgun... and not the rifle.

You wanna take gun advice from someone who has made it a life's work to lobby and legislate restrictions on guns?

Another media narrative on the rise.

So I was reading this article that was bragging about how "quick"  Cuomo's ban was.
You see,  Cuomo had to sign it quickly to prevent the proles from going out and buying before the ban went into effect.

Gee...  maybe there is something to this panic buying.

Though the newsie was sly in simply saying the State Senate vote was "late night" and not "The bill was printed up 22 minutes before it was voted on."

A couple things stuck out.

“It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment,” said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island. “And there is no confiscation of weapons, which was at one time being considered.”

Don't assume Republicans will be your friends.  And see! There's no confiscation.  Just a ban on possession of certain magazines.  And nice to see the "We're really protecting you!"  being trotted out.

But this one really raised my eyebrow:

Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. Current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. Someone caught with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

The national standard is 10?   Really now?

Well if by national Standard you mean California,  Massachusetts, Hawaii, and DC.

New Jersey has a fifteen round ban and Maryland has a twenty round ban.
Edit:  I don't think Illinois has a magazine ban, but a quick look didn't yield a result, which is strange.

The other 43 states don't.

Ah but why let a little thing like basic facts get in the way of a narrative.

"Because that's where the money is."

That  was  Willie Sutton's answer to why he robbed banks.

On a related note if the question is: "Why attack schools?"

"Because that's where the children are."

As a bonus it's also an area where, aside from a visiting cop, no one has the tools to fight back, and very few have the inclination.

Edit:  This is horrific and that's the point. And we should morn the dead. The people that do this want the infamy.

And as China has repeatedly shown, even in an attack today,  banning guns won't stop someone from going into a school and causing a couple dozen casualties.  Again "that's where the children are".

Don't expect this to stop the antis.  They think they can make this America's  "Dunblane"

Edit:  This from Glenn Reynolds: "Meanwhile, get ready for cynical attempts to push gun control on the back of a tragedy, again. As William S. Burroughs once said, “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.” "

But Freiheit and Robb Allen on GBC have hit on a larger point:

RobbAllen; RTBAV?
Freiheit; refuse to be a victim
RobbAllen; Got it
Freiheit; NRA program, teaches you not to be condition white, lock your shit up, that kind of thing
...
RobbAllen; At this moment, Freiheit has changed my perspective. I don't give a fuck about the calls for gun control. I'm pissed. I want calls to teach kids to NOT LAY DOWN AND DIE

Like how the antis are not just anti-gun.  The problem here is not just the calls for gun control.  Again, China has a major problem of mass-casualty knife rampages in schools.

Added: Bad things will happen, monsters do exist.  And people should be prepared for it.  This is tragic, horrific and frightening, and that's what makes large gatherings of children such a prime target.

As Freiheit says:  "Being armed is only one facet of being safe. It's a prepared response to risk of being attacked. However being aware of your surroundings, physical location security and similar strategies pay off more than being armed."

Not Just Anti-Gun: Free Speech Control

The same man that worries about Guam flipping over now wants a constitutional amendment banning free speech.

“We need a constitutional amendment that would allow the legislature to control the so-called free speech rights of corporations,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) was quoted as saying by CNS News.

As reported by the  CBS Corporation.   GASP!

But wait this brain-trust has more.

“They control the media. They control the messages that you get,” he added. “And these folks … are setting up a scenario where they’re privatizing every aspect of our lives as we know it. So, wake up! Wake up! Let’s look at what’s happening.”

Control the media?  I have grim news, other than PBS they OWN the media!  Double gasp.

And gotta love the idea of  "privatizing every aspect of our lives" being cast as a bad thing.  More public housing!  More Collective Farms!  All media should be owned by the State!

How dare people think that just because they freely associate that they can just say whatever they want!

It's a good thing there aren't many corporations in publishing, telecommunications, entertainment, or the media.  Oh wait, I'm sure that "responsible" corporations will get exemptions.

Mind you.  This is the kind of person that thinks he can run your life better than you.  This same island-flipping ignoramus that thinks that free speech is a privilege not a right.

At least he is honest enough to be going for a full on Amendment.     As opposed to something Statutory or Executively invoked.

And of course giving the State the power to control free speech would Never be abused.  It's not like those evil  Republicans wouldn't ever get into power.

For reference good old Mr. A had a similar idea to limit the First Amendment to those corporations deemed to be "truthful"

But that  was almost a year ago.  What does Mr. A think now?

People have rights.Corporations aren't people.We need to sort this out. Saying corporations deserve free speech is like saying fish have souls.

And what about publishing? Would that not have a disastrous effect? Well...

And yeah, the sort of policy I'm advocating WOULD create a situation where people can say things that corporations cannot. That's by design, because they're real living beings and corporations are not.

And, for the publishing thing, it would absolutely create a situation in which corporations could be held liable for things that the author cannot. In which corporations would, hopefully, have to restrict their involvement in politically sensitive matters to avoid liability. This is one of the intended outcomes

Emphasis added. And what's Mr. A's dream as to what corporations should not be allowed to do:

They should not be able to speak on political topics, finance speech on political topics, exercise any manner of influence over elected officials or the election of officials Their shareholders, of course, have the right to do so but they have to do it on their own personal time and dime

Personal dime.   So those with the most personal wealth can just buy the most free speech.

But there's more Miss W (the Canadian friend mentioned here) was also there.  And oh boy did things get rough. I got down a bunch of lines from that little exchange. 

Hold on for some grade-A progressive pap.   And mind that Miss W despite liking guns is quite good on Single-Payer healthcare AND is very open to campaign contribution caps and thinks that SuperPACs broke the american political system.

Mr. A: I do not need to be in, or part of, a corporation, to succeed at political commentary
Miss W: Forget political commentary. How are you going to publish a novel without such resources?
Miss W: Which restricts the production of TV, movies, and games to the mega-rich individuals only.
Miss W: Entertainment is political. Everything is political.
Mr. A: Yawn
 Miss W: Cut out social commentary in your movies
Mr. A: Bullshit
Mr. A: Most movies don't really have any
Miss W: You include a gay character in a movie? You made political commentary, and there are groups out there that would like to have you taken off the air for it.
  Mr. A: it's unfortunate that North America is somewhat barbaric in this respectMiss W: Look... what speech would you have suppressed?
Miss W: Who decides?
Mr. A: We the people decide
Miss W: In the end, the speech that gets suppressed is the speech that is unpopular.
Mr. A: through the process of government, electing congressmen and senators
Mr. A: just like how we decide what to do with our army
 Miss W: Neo-Nazis are unpopular. But fifty years ago? It was people who said 'blacks are human beings' who were unpopular.
 Mr. A: but when you have 22 hours of "OBAMA RAPES BABIES" on TV for months straight.. well.. turns out, it has an impact

Nevermind that he –um- won.

 Miss W: The solution is not shutting people up, the solution is basic education so that which is stupid can be seen as stupid.
 Miss W: Speech that can't be heard isn't speech, Mr. A
Mr. A: Canada doesn't have enough christards clamoring to make their mythology a fact to ruin that system, thankfully
 Miss W: And you don't think the christards won't make use of the 'shut down people saying shit I don't like' power?

And Mr A never had a good answer to that.

Again, they're not just anti-gun.

Petraeus resigns, gets out of testifying about Benghazi

The timing sure is convenient.  Head of the CIA former General and major coutner insurgency officer  resigns over an affair...  right after the election and right before he was going to testify about Benghazi?    Course it's not just him.   And it's not just mass resignations  that are "suddenly" coming up.  Other stories are now newsworthy.  And things like 100%+ voter turnout and 99%, 100% voting for Dear Leader are seen as gee-whiz and strange-news instead of frightening harbingers.

Really the best way to defuse this is to still have Petraeus testify.  He can still do that.  Sure it could just be an affair,  and if it is, then it shouldn't get in the way with him testifying about something of national import.  

And I had to laugh at this bit from Moe Lane: “Seriously, Is there a single member of this administration that has a better public reputation now than when he or she started?”

Who will retake the Whitehouse?

I heard that line just now on the radio on the drive home.

You expect that with an election and all.   But there's some caveats.

The AP newsdroid was talking about "The Obama campaign's plan to retake the Whitehouse."

Not retain the Whitehouse.  But retake.   

At least they're admitting that Obama was in office, at some point in time.

 

And of course the newsdroid herself used that blatant language.  Democratic operatives with bylines indeed.

Though I wonder why the Progs are so worried. It's not like the Stupid party is a real threat to them,  and even if the Stupids won it wouldn't be too different.

Then again, Maoists and Stalanists don't get along either.

Soothing Scapegoats.

So noted, nutty commentator  Glen Beck recently proposed that one of the guards that died with Ambassador Stevens Glen Doherty might have been CIA and that before his death upon seeing the situation worsening  sent an electronic message to warn allies of the deteriorating conditions.

  A diplomat and former SEAL being a spook and using the internet to get a message out? Sounds sensible right?

Not to slashdot!

No they studiously ignore Beck's main thrust, that the attack was premeditated and had nothing to do with a youtube video.  No they zero in on... things Beck Never said.

It's actually a fascinating game of telephone where slashdot reports the comments on one article here. Which itself is a paranoid exaggeration.

In sort, because Doherty sent his message via Eve Online's messaging system, Kris Ligman at  Gameranx reached this conclusion: "Glenn Beck Thinks EVE Online is a Front for the CIA."

Yes, and AT&T is an NSA front and the US Postal System is an FBI  sting operation.   And Slashdot decided to go further into the fantasy and report a sarcastic comment as gospel.

And thus you have this meme:   "Here's one that even The Onion would reject as too blatantly ridiculous: American right-wing radio and TV clown Glenn Beck believes that Sean Smith aka Vile Rat, the EVE Online diplomat who was killed earlier this month during the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi, was actually a CIA agent, relaying communications to his fellow undercover agents at Something Awful."

Note that the names are different too.  And note the fluffy chat that obscures the shocking concept of  "Diplomatic staff can sometimes be spooks."

But hey, Beck would have said something crazy anyway!   And this provides a nice soothing distraction.   Romney and Beck and the rest of the Right Wing are the real ones to blame.

It's not like the State Department ignored flagrant threats, attacks, and kept a woefully under secure facility,  the FBI waited for weeks before finally giving up and never did investigate the consulate, or that the White House is actively covering up what happened.

Nope! No worries about that.  Beck said something crazy!

 I'll note that this cropped up in my my mostly liberal, low information voter test group as the first mention of the terrorist attack in Libya.  Take that for what you will.

Quote Of the Day Bleddyn: "Journalistic Only Ones"

In a comment, responding to Robb Allen's post on "offensive speech" and how "American Journalists whose entire lives revolve around being able to say what they want, when they want" are moaning and whining about how free speech must be curtailed Bleddyn says:

This is the journalist version of the "only ones" mindset. When they espouse restricting speech they don't mean THEIR speech. They are smart and trained to speak only correct ideas. If you take offense, it's because you are wrong. But who knows what filthy, terrible ideas you might express if given the freedom to?                      

 This.   Spot on.

As has been said before.  The Antis are not simply anti-gun.  They are anti Liberty.   They have as much contempt for the First Amendment as they do the Second.  They hate any limit on governance and any idea that the common rabble have the same rights as them.

Mark my words.  We will see a push for May Issue style discretionary Free Speech permits.

And the media will happily play along. After-all  it'll crush their competition, dissenting voices, and maybe with a few "informed citizens mandates"  bring back their market share.

Shorter Obama: Terrorism works! We'll Ban whatever you want if you spill enough blood.

Yes it's a long post.  There's been a lot of stupid.

Message from the Obama Admin: Cause enough violence and we'll pressure media companies to censor content on your behalf.

Talk about incentives!

Administration officials have asked YouTube to review a controversial video that many blame for spurring a wave of anti-American violence in the Middle East.

The administration flagged the 14-minute “Innocence of Muslims” video and asked that YouTube evaluate it to determine whether it violates the site’s terms of service, officials said Thursday. The video, which has been viewed by nearly 1.7 million users, depicts Muhammad as a child molester, womanizer and murderer — and has been decried as blasphemous and Islamophobic.

All we need for peace is do to whatever they want!

And if you want, go and look at the comments for the sickening useful idiots taht are getting angy at the people behind the film, including those that demand publishing the names of everyone involved and the forceible relocation to a Muslim country. Or those that think this movie was made as a conspiracy to incite voilence, and thus make Obama look bad. It's all about him isn't it?

Classy eh?

Who wants to bet me money that the "anti-Muslim film" was produced for the sole purpose of affecting the outcome of the 2012 election by inciting violence in the Middle East during the election season, and for no reason other than that?

And another

Yea this seems to be another one of those "Swift Boat" type of corruption. President Obama really needs to step up and do something. We cant have this type of corruption effecting our foreign policy and putting Americans at risk around the world. The President needs to get the FBI on this case and see where it leads and then try to rat out all the conspirators. We got our Libyan Ambassador killed and 2 embassies raided so this is a matter of national security now. If this film is not made then none of this happens.

Free Speech must be tempered by security! Forign Policy cannot be risked by such dusty old concepts of Free Speech. Not when it can embarass the President!

Oh and anonymity must be banned. And people should not be able to go into hiding if being threatened. Okay then...

Note the self serving and delusional nature where the State is king and the State's concerns literally trump every individual act of expression. Who dertermins what's offesnive? Why the murderers that's who!


Also by Ed Driscoll is this bit on our Constitutional Scholar President's Ignorance of the First Amendment.

Especially this bit from Jonah Goldberg in appeasing lynch mobs by discarding Freedom of Speech.

One might ask who is to decide what is crude and what is refined. But that would be fruitless, because we know the real answer: the Islamist mobs and their leaders. Their rulings would come in the form of bloody conniptions around the world.

Are we really going to hold what we can say or do in our own country hostage to the passions of foreign lynch mobs?

If your answer is some of form of “yes,” then you might want to explain why U.S. citizens aren’t justified in attacking Egyptian or Libyan embassies here in America. After all, I get pretty mad when I see goons burning the American flag, and I become downright livid when a U.S. ambassador is murdered. Maybe some of my like-minded friends and I should burn down some embassies here in Washington, D.C., or maybe a consulate in New York City?

Of course we shouldn’t do that. To argue that Americans shouldn’t resort to mayhem while suggesting it’s understandable when Muslims do is to create a double standard that either renders Muslims unaccountable savages (they can’t help themselves!) or casts Americans as somehow less passionate about what we hold dear, be it our flag, our diplomats, or our religions. (It’s hardly as if Islamists don’t defame Christianity, Judaism, moderate forms of Islam, or even atheism.)

Meanwhile the Whitehouse is telling Youtube to pull the video:

As anyone who has dealt with YouTube knows, though, asking the video site to review a video for possible violations is how one starts the process of getting a video pulled from the site. Todd’s clarification amounts to a confirmation.

Added to Thursday’s news that the Department of Justice investigated and publicly identified the man believed to be behind the film, and the fact that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey called Rev. Terry Jones to ask him to rescind his support for the film, and the picture of a White House going out of its way to squelch free speech is clear.

Good for Youtube, they're telling Obama to pound sand.

Take note fanatics of other faiths and even ones of pure political stripes. Maybe you too can get the Pentagon, the State Department, the Department of Justice, and the White house to bat for you if you kill an ambassador.

To put this into clearer terms. Say there were mass attacks on gay activists at the hands of some "traditional marriage" fanatics or maybe on some abortion activits or doctors that preform abortions, and in response the US goverment decidedto pressure Youtube to remove a video critical of Jesus that the murders were using to "justify" their rage.

When you put it that way, it sounds like the goverment is rewarding very people commiting the atrocities doesn't it?

The lesson is obvious. The more ruthless, voilent, and desturctive you are the more the US goverment will bend over backwards to satisfy your demands.

Blasphemy laws ho!

Ace is more to the point: "US GOVERNMENT NOW ACTING AS CENSORSHIP ARM OF ISLAMISTS"

If we're going to have anti-blasphemy laws, I want them official and passed by Congress and reviewed by the courts. I don't want this executive-only implementation of a despicable law.

Executive only is Obama's style. And more with the FBI getting in on it.

And Roger L Simon notes that this is all part of the real danger. It's not what they'll do to us, but what we'll do to ourselves.

The Middle Easterners can cause isolated outbreaks of mob violence, killing or injuring innocent people, more often than not themselves. The media can break apart the fabric of the Western world, destroying through their narcissism what it has taken generations, indeed centuries, to build.

This delusional thinking from the media and government is getting hilariously frightening.

JAY CARNEY: Well, as you know, there, we, are very vigilant around anniversaries like 9-11. The president is always briefed and brought up to speed on the precautions being taken. [crosstalk] But let’s be clear. This, these protests, were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region. [crosstalk] We don’t know otherwise. You know, we have no information to suggest that it was a pre-planned…attack.

That’s a lot of false information to pack into one short soundbite. The foreign office in Benghazi was not secured, so the administration was not vigilant. The president tends to skip his daily briefings. He even skipped the briefing on the day after the attacks. The attack was pre-planned; we posted the warning here on Monday regarding the embassy in Cairo. It was not in reaction to a film, but an attack staged by terrorists on the 9-11 anniversary.

And then less than an hour later Carney contradicts himself.

The administration would rather pretend that some film was the cause of all this. That's right, they would rather play along with a patsy and scapegoat and go with instituting ad-hoc Blasphemy codes.



Well, you can bet on the American Media to keep dutifully pushing the narrative.

More here. And here.

If an American consulate had been attacked and four Americans including the ambassador slaughtered on George W. Bush’s watch –on 9/11, no less– the outrage broadcast over the nation’s elite media would have been intense and round-the-clock.

Had George W. Bush then responded to those events by jetting to Vegas for a fundraiser and campaign rally marked by a rote and emotion-less nod towards the victims and a callous transition to the difficulty of campaign life for political volunteers, well, the hysteria that would have followed would have melted wires.

Because Barack Obama is the MSM’s favorite president ever; however, when these events followed that outrageous attack on Wednesday, the Manhattan-Beltway media did not even pause from their unremitting attack on…Mitt Romney, of course.

From Glenn Reynolds:

"MICHAEL TOTTEN: "Why can’t the President of the United States bring himself to defend free speech in front of a murderous mob? Because apparently he doesn’t respect it." Got it in one."

And here's the Top 8 Dumbest Things Said about the First Amendment this Week


Can't say we weren't warned. Hillary Clinton did pledge to "shame and pressure Americans who denigrate Islam".

Laugh now all you progs. But remember, Islamic conservativism isn't exactly keen on abortion, homosexuality, or feminism either.

How long until the "Arab Street" starts saying they're rioting because of those offenses?

Is the lesson here that if Social Cons in America really want to stop gay marriage, or whatver they think Jesus finds offensive, that they should start voilent riots and break into US govermental buildings?

Remember Obama did predict that hostilities with the Islamic world would cease with his inauguration. Well, Obama is campagining on "Gimme a  Mulligan". Steven Green takes that idea with: "Maybe we should have bowed more."

Maybe hostilities with the Islamic world will *really* cease the day we set up our very own Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Maybe we can merge it with like minded organizations such as the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Really, none of this is terribly shocking.  If our political elites don't want people to have dangerous tools, they certifiably don't want us to have dangerous ideas,  let alone being able to spread them to whoever we want.

Keep an eye out for more "May Issue" Free Speech laws.