Just following orders [IMMIGRATION]

        Time and time again we have heard the defense that individuals were just “following orders”. Police, soldiers and citizens alike have professed that phrase in defense of questionable actions. As a general rule when someone is using those words it’s in defense of being accused of committing a questionable, insensitive, heartless or evil act.

        Historically we have the capacity for slaughter and genocide. People of this country, with the approval of government, separated husbands, wives, children and families during the days of slavery. After all, at the time they weren’t really considered human; just animals fulfilling the need for cheap labor. The original inhabitants of what are now called the United States of America were decimated during their conquest. There are estimates that 8 to 9 million men, women and children who were native to what we now call America were slaughtered during the process of conquering them. Many tribes were wiped out completely. Eight to nine million people. By the 1900s there were only approximately a quarter million Indians still living.

        Well here we are again. Now, people of color are being separated from their families as a matter of “policy” from the current administration. Guilty only of crossing the border while brown. (Is anybody bothering to track down white Canadian immigrants, assuming there still are any?)

        This is just a rough guess but probably over a third of the country is in agreement with what is taking place if not outright celebrating. The jury is still out as to whether the children who have been separated from their families are being placed in cages or are just behind wire fencing with security. As if that makes a difference. Does it bother people that we already have internment camps? Are military internment camps being prepared in addition to the civilian ones that we already have? Is this only a temporary solution to the PROBLEM of the invasion of brown people? What is the final solution going to be? It will need to be efficient and cost effective. There will be a need for people willing to the job of—whatever it takes.

        Such people are already here. They marched with torches in the streets of Charlottesville. They will fill any need from their ranks and there will be a ready supply of new recruits. They will come from the ranks of the trolls that leave all the “I’m coming to get you” comments on the internet. They are already emboldened and a Commander in Chief that needs their talents and supports their views with his words and actions.

        Why are immigrants/brown people coming here in the first place? Wanting to work? Wanting a chance for a better life? Are they escaping violence? Are they escaping an oppressive government only to land in the hands of another?  They came here because there are employers with millions of jobs waiting for them. Jobs that employers can’t fill for whatever reason. They came here to fill an existing need. There is a market for their talent. They provide cheap labor for that waiting market. They want freedom. They want a chance for the better life that is being offered.

        Prior to where we live now, we had a Hispanic neighbor who was a contractor. He complained that Mexicans (illegals) were constantly underbidding him because they provided cheap labor. When he had his roof replaced can you guess who he hired to do the work? Did you guess illegals? If you did you would be right. BTW they were hard workers.

        President Trump uses cheap immigrant labor. He sees to it that the particular brown people immigrants from shithole countries that he needs have the proper paperwork to serve in his hotels. Well at least we assume he does. Has ICE ever raided one of his businesses?

        Well, the lady in the harbor provides a standing invitation to people. We’re at least proud of the statue. It would be better if we were proud of and supported the ideals that she represents.  

        Men and women are stopping children at the border. What kind of man or woman takes a child away from their parents? Do they consider themselves to be good people? Are they Christian? Would a Christian take a child from a mother’s arms? Is it in their job description? Could you do it or are you only comfortable with others doing it in your stead?

        I have heard and read the argument that it’s the fault of the parents and that this draconian policy of taking a breast feeding baby from a mother’s arms is to be a deterrent. Just exactly how are they supposed to get the message? Through social media? Word of mouth? They’re desperate enough to be traveling with their children. Do they expect monsters to be waiting for them? This is the stuff that nightmares are made of, oh Christian Nation. It’s immoral. It’s ugly. It’s beneath a civilized people.   

        Despots always have their loyal supporters willing to do what it takes.

        How about you? Are you onboard? Which side are you on?

Facebook Litter [Social Media]

        The other day a friend expressed their exasperation over all the litter that’s posted on facebook. I think I know what they mean. Here lately I’ll scroll through a dozen posts before seeing a post where a person is actually communicating. There’s also an endless stream of memes with false information being shared. I’ll see a post “informing” me about something and know immediately that it’s false and has usually been debunked countless times before because I’ve already checked up on it. Usually the veracity of a post can be checked in less than a minute. A lot of the time it doesn’t even take 30 seconds. I could spend most of my time on facebook pointing out false or useless information and false equivalencies that people are sharing. Then there’s the never ending stream of Click Bait.

       What do I mean by litter? I’ve already provided some examples above but here are some more. EXAMPLES: News feeds are full of them. See this sad-eyed child. Click to show that you love them. This horribly scarred veteran needs to know that you care. Click and share this post. If you love Jesus you’ll share this post. If you don’t you’re with the devil. Picture of a sad puppy. I’ll bet that I won’t even get one share. I support our nation! Click and share! They’re coming for your guns! Click and share! Are you old enough to remember this? Click and share! Do you know what this is? It’s a can opener! Click and share! What’s the answer to this riddle? If you know—click and share! And with each click and share we give the data cruncher’s vacuum a little more information about ourselves and our personal lives.

        What do I mean by useless information? I’ll see a post telling me to watch out for a particular individual in regards to a child abduction. A quick Less Than 30 second (LT30) check shows me that the missing child is in Australia. Since I’m in the United States there really isn’t a whole lot that my sharing this point will accomplish. The exception of course would be if I had a lot of friends living in Australia.

        What are false equivalencies? These things are posted all day long; usually they’re about hot button items like LGBT rights, gun control, religion, etc. Here’s an example: saying that a baker refusing to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding is the same thing as a Muslim-owned restaurant refusing to serve bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwiches. This is a false equivalence because the bakery offers the service of baking wedding cakes to the public. The Muslim-owned restaurant has no duty to have bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwiches on their menu. Another example of false equivalence comes from Trump’s Twitter feed, in which he accuses Hillary Clinton of colluding with the Democratic Party to beat Bernie Sanders for the nomination (as opposed to his collusion with the Russians). Oh, and guns: “cars kill more people per year than guns, so let’s ban cars.”

        Then there’s click bait. OMG so much click bait.  Click Bait is often a LT30 check. It’s possible to just hover the cursor over the originator of a post to see who is sending it. For instance there’ll be a picture of a sad puppy with a caption like “I’ll bet I won’t even get one share”. I’ll move the cursor over the originator of the post and see that it’s a radio station. What they’re trying to do is boost their traffic stats. The ones that really tighten my jaw is when they use pictures of veterans, children, cancer patients, etc. to boost traffic to their home page. In other words there isn’t any information going to the person portrayed. One LT30 click can tell you if it’s legit.

        How about boycotts? A post went through about a hotel chain awhile back telling people to avoid doing business with them because of a policy they had. The information was years old, had already been addressed by the business and all the parties were satisfied. But the meme keeps circulating. This one is also an LT30 check. The ones that are more difficult to check are toxic posts about someone being, or some small business doing, something despicable or things of this nature. Often they’re just people with grudges trying to hurt someone. I will read someone saying that they shared something because “better safe than sorry”. Okay let’s say someone accuses you of being a thief and starts posting that people should watch their stuff around you. Would you want that spread around or would you want people to check? This kind of junk is just harmful gossip. (BTW Christians aren’t supposed to gossip.)

        Political memes and news is a little more difficult to check. It takes effort. Sometimes a lot of effort. The main problem on this front is that people want to believe bad things about the opposition even if reality doesn’t support their position. People will share falsehoods simply because they don’t like something or someone. I’ll use Hillary Clinton as the best example of a person who has endured decades of falsehoods. One conspiracy theory and false accusation after another were hurled her way. I spent years tracking all the stuff down. Nothing to them. I would point out to people that what they shared as gospel simply wasn’t true and then provide the source showing that it was a lie. The answer that I would get back was well it’s kinda’ true and they would share it anyway. In other words they shared a lie because that confirmed their belief that she was a “bad person” and since she is a bad person it is okay to lie about her. I don’t like President Trump but I won’t knowingly share incorrect information about him.

        People say they want unbiased news but they won’t accept the reality of what is being reported by what I’m going to call mainstream media. For instance I don’t like what is being reported about President Trump’s sex life any more than I liked what was reported about President Clintons. But there you are. Their sex lives may have absolutely nothing to do what how they conduct their business as President. But here we are again. Unfortunately it is news whether we like it or not. It’s going to be reported. When you go to a story and the site claims they’re news media, at least check their posts and see if they do anything besides post memes! A lot of these “people” are just troll factories.

        So if you’re unsure what to believe come back to normal. Check the major media outlets. They do get stuff wrong occasionally but they usually correct their mistakes when they’re pointed out. Yes, they have bias from left to right but what they’re reporting is true. The actual event is there. How they report it may differ. The hyperbole of words around the event or item is what’s different. In other words the Trump Administration has had an unprecedented turnover in Presidential appointments. The last I checked he’s had like a 40% turnover in staff. How is it portrayed? The AP would be more likely to give you just the straight facts and leave it at that. MSNBC in all probability will additionally tell you that that’s the highest of any President, whereas Fox News might not cover it at all.

        Who do I use?  In not any particular order I use these news outlets:  AP, Reuters, Axois, ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC (Not to be confused with MSNBC), Time, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NPR, New York Times, Bloomberg, Politico, CNN. There are a couple that I get a kick out of like MSNBC and The Economist. They’re still fair in their reporting.

        Politifact, Snopes and Factcheck are all good sources to check. If they don’t have the answer then you can go to Mediabias. They will only check something out if the others don’t have it. You can also go to Mediabias to find out how your news source is ranked from left to right or anywhere in between. Keep in mind that extremist groups along with the Russians will pump out information saying that these fact-checking sites are biased and false. If you choose to go along with that assessment then you are indeed lost. Seriously, if Infowars is any source of news for you, you will absolutely believe anything.

        I have biases. I tend to lean certain ways about various topics. I believe that if one recognizes their biases they’re better able to maintain objectivity. If you’re passing stuff without thinking critically, you need to at least understand that’s what you’re being manipulated to do. Our prejudices should not get in the way of the truth. Just because it resonates with you and reinforces your opinions, doesn’t mean it’s true. If things are going to get better in our nation we all need to be more honest about our actions.

        Facebook is starting to go the way of email. 90% of email traffic on the internet is spam. At this point we don’t see most of the junk. It’s filtered out. Only all the junk on facebook isn’t being filtered out and it’s increasing. It is like writing graffiti on walls. This is why we can’t have anything nice. Too many people are willing to corrupt it for too many reasons.

        So, if you believe in the First Amendment, click and share this (copy and paste the url) with all of your friends!

       

Constitutional Slaughter [GUN CONTROL]

More Guns!

        The NRA has mutated a long way from its 1871 origins to now serving as a surrogate for weapons manufacturers under the guise of protecting a second amendment that was never under attack any more than praying in school has been. They created a threat that didn’t exist and then built a base to support the agenda of militarizing a civilian population to protect us from immigrants, criminals, terrorists, crazy people, gangs, media and last but certainly not least our own government. Without fail whenever guns are in the news negatively their argument is that what is needed is more guns.

        Yes, government is in the above list. Why? Because a fear often expressed in defense of having military weapons in the hands of civilians is that we will lose our Constitutional Second Amendment rights and that our guns will be taken away! Who would do that exactly? Who would come for our weapons? Ah yes, the Government! More specifically our soldiers or federal police. The NRA and pro-police Neo-Republicans champion having arms for us to use against our own soldiers (Government) and police. This is their ultimate fear and their rallying cry. The government, a.k.a. our friends, neighbors, police, fellow citizens and family members that are serving will be coming for our guns. 

Be ready to shoot them when they do.

 

        Up front. I am not going to take up arms so that I can shoot at our own soldiers and police. They aren’t a threat. They aren’t coming for my guns and I choose not to live in the weird paranoid ultra-conservative neo/Nazi/Confederate/White Supremacist world where they are.

 

Save the guns!

        Whenever there is a slaughter of children there follows a national demand for action even though such deaths are a small percentage of gun deaths overall. The NRA immediately hits the streets with propaganda explaining how any laws limiting weapons are wrong and advocating fixing everything BUT weapons. Weapons are innocent bystanders! The arguments are usually kicked off with “they’re after our second amendment rights!” Followed by misdirection and deflection. Our culture of violence is blamed. Video games are blamed. Parents are blamed. Our educational system is blamed. The authorities are blamed. The kids themselves are blamed. Not enforcing the laws we have is blamed. (That last one is truly ridiculous given the NRA has worked on a national scale to eliminate laws pertaining to weapons and advocates getting weapons in the hands of as many people as possible.) They’re a large part of the reason why we have citizens walking the streets with long guns.

        One of the most effective memes that I have seen circulated had a phrase that truly encapsulates the entire argument. “Let us take a moment to honor the sacrifice of our brave schoolchildren who lay down their lives to protect our right to bear arms.” There is NO constitutional right to slaughter and/or endanger our fellow citizens. The Constitution provides for the rule of law. Regulating fire arms is a part of that law.

Body Count

        I’m not going to waste a lot of time here with statistics. Here’s what I believe is most relevant to the ongoing problem of how do we dig ourselves out of the mess that we’ve created. Between 1984 and 1994 there were 19 incidents involving 6 or more people dying resulting in 155 deaths. Military style weapons were banned from 1994 until 2004. During this time there were 12 incidents resulting in 89 deaths. In 2004 the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire. Between 2004 and 2014 there were 34 incidents resulting in 302 deaths.

        Now in the scheme of things the above number of deaths isn’t really that big a number when separated out from all the other gun deaths. Mass shootings grab our attention though and make us acutely aware of the problem that we as a nation face—the proliferation of arms. So the NRA makes dead children an irrelevant statistic in the grand scheme of how many people die annually. Well, they aren’t irrelevant. They shouldn’t be marginalized because enough of them aren’t dying yet. 

 

Hardened America

        When we have actual firefights taking place in the streets, movie theaters, night clubs, schools and churches, the NRA will have succeeded in attaining their goal of market saturation. Some might say that we’re there already. Not quite. In a firefight all sides will be throwing lead. Then when maximum carnage is taking place the NRA can declare a victory and will be the quintessential arms dealer lobbyist for having supplied all the combatants.

        Our Republic as envisioned by the NRA and Neo-Republicans will be an armed camp with a militarized civilian population, militarized police force, militarized educational system, militarized government with hardened schools, theaters and just really anyplace that provides for a concentration of people. We’ll be going through metal detectors everywhere. Those that can afford it will live in hardened homes or protected enclaves; armed guards everywhere. Corporations and the ultra-rich will be like warlords and have mini armies protecting them. What a beautiful paranoid world they envision for us to live in.

 

Gun's rights

        OR we could as a nation begin taking things in another direction and start electing people who aren’t opposed to passing legislation to commence de-militarizing the nation. It’s going to take decades to build a peaceful society but it can be done and is worth pursuing.

        We need to stop passing legislation to protect the rights of guns as if they are somehow innocent bystander victims in all of this and put people first. There’s nothing wrong with regulating inanimate objects. Realistically it’s going to take years of concentrated efforts in multiple areas to turn things around. In the meantime we’ll wait for the next body count to make the news.

 

Hunting people

        We need to elect people that believe fully automatic weapons in general aren’t necessary to our civilian population. Military styled weapons need to go. High capacity magazines need to go. Open carry needs to go. Permitted conceal carry that requires training should be encouraged. People may want AR15s to hunt but they really don’t need AR15s to hunt. If people are afraid of their government then elect people to office that aren’t fanatics. The above are just a few suggestions and not in the least nor meant to be comprehensive. As a nation we need to stop electing dithering politicians and elect those that will be serious about arms control and willing to do something.

        I think that it’s only appropriate to finish this with words from a survivor of a school shooting. The link below is to an essay from Emma González in Teen Vogue. Her closing words in a video presentation at the same link. “Why are we doing this? 

Because it’s about damn time someone did.”

 

 https://www.teenvogue.com/story/emma-gonzalez-parkland-gun-control-cover