From
Kootenai County, Idaho...
Woman takes her four kids shopping. Woman puts her two-year-old son in the shopping cart. Woman puts her purse in the shopping cart next to him.
Two-year-old reaches into mom's purse and pulls out a loaded, chambered handgun without a safety. Kid shoots and kills mom.
The victim’s father-in-law, Terry Rutledge, told Associated Press that she “was a beautiful, young, loving mother.”
“She was not the least bit irresponsible,” he said. “She was taken much too soon.”
First, the kids were the victims here. Everyone else in the store were victims. The woman was the perpetrator.
Second, the woman was ABSOLUTELY irresponsible. She took a firearm, loaded it, chambered a round, put it in her purse without a safety, then put that purse next to a child and left them unattended long enough for the kid to reach in there and get it.
The only bright spot is that the irresponsible perpetrator was killed, rather than some innocent bystander.
Speeches, Apologies and Peace Treaties
Twelve years ago, then Louisiana State House Representative Steve Scalise went around speaking in opposition to the "Stelly tax plan". During that time, Scalise may have spoken to the Wrong People.
The European-American Unity and Rights Organization hosted a convention and one of their organizers invited Scalise to speak, but it's debatable who he was invited to speak TO. Scalise either spoke to EURO directly or to the Jackson Heights Neighborhood Association and some members of EURO -- because that conference organizer was also a member of the neighborhood organization and borrowed the space for the local group.
Scalise is now a U.S. House Representative (R-LA) and the newly elected House Majority Whip -- and he either spoke to a White Nationalist group or he spoke to a neighborhood organization which was tangentially related to the group.
Apologies ensued.
We all know why he apologized -- whatever the truth is, he has to immediately distance himself from any appearance that he supports them or their rhetoric or their ideas.
Is this good? If we put our umbrage and outrage on Pause for a moment, do we want to say that representatives should not engage with their constituents if those constituents say awful things? Is it better that we ostracize those persons rather than speak to them on ANYTHING? Scalise went to talk tax policy -- what's wrong with that?
Other than We're-The-Good-Guys, how is this any different than criticizing someone for speaking with ACORN or the Black Panthers -- or 60 years ago, working with the NAACP? I know, I know, "We're The GOOD GUYS." What does that matter? Is it not ok to talk with the Bad Guys? Do you know how peace treaties are made?
Absolutely, if Scalise spoke in support of racist rhetoric or racist ideas, he should be taken to task for it. This should happen whether he did this in front of the group or not. What he should be permitted to do, what he should be ENCOURAGED to do, is to engage them as constituents in his normal role as an elected representative, whether it was individual members at a neighborhood organization meeting or the members as part of their convention.
And further, we need to be able to engage persons and groups we disagree with, when we find areas we DO agree. This is how peace treaties are made.
The alternative is that battle lines are drawn between the entirely subjective Good Guys and Bad Guys and nobody from one side is allowed to talk with the other.
From Columbia Law School, the
redefinition of the word "trauma":
In his email, Mr. Scott wrote that following existing policies for
“trauma during exam period,” students who felt their performance could
suffer because of the decisions in the Ferguson, Mo., and Staten Island
cases could request a delay.
Have we expanded the word "trauma" to include the non-indictment of someone you don't know for the murder of someone you don't know? How loosely should we definite this? If I cut my finger, would that be enough "trauma"?
The existing policy certainly included deaths in the family, possibly some language for a case-by-case death of a friend. How many persons at Columbia Law School knew Eric Garner personally? How many personally knew Mike Brown, when Ferguson (outside St. Louis) is 900 miles from New York City?
What about all of the other persons killed in violence every year? Will the school give delays in exams for students who know a victim not named on cable news? How far does this extend?
We should not minimize the trauma persons experience by conflating it with being upset about persons we didn't know, simply because that person has become a symbol in death.
I'm no fan of Reza Aslan, but between him and CNN, holy Jesus fuck, are they stupid. Basically, Aslan points out that the phrase "Muslim countries" includes relatively tolerant countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey, while many of the criticisms of "Muslim countries" are specific to a region (female genital mutilation is primarily in African countries, Muslim and not) or specific to a country and its regime (Saudi Arabia, Iran).
Fair point, right? Except that even after he explains it, the CNN anchors Still Don't Fucking Get It and continue to say "Muslim countries" to mean "Saudi Arabia" or "Iran" or "Muslim and non-Muslim countries, mostly in Africa, where female genital mutilation is common".
'Cause CNN is fucking stupid.
(h/t
Mediate)
Labels: africa, cnn, islam, religion, reza aslan
Homicidal Teen Writes Dinosaur Story, Only Gets Suspended and Misdeamor Arrest
From Summerville, SC (
WCSC):
A 16-year-old Summerville High School student says he was arrested
Tuesday morning and suspended after writing about killing a dinosaur
using a gun.
Alex Stone said he and his classmates were told in
class to write a few sentences about themselves, and a "status" as if it
was a Facebook page.
Stone said in his "status" he wrote a fictional story that involved the words "gun" and "take care of business."
"I
killed my neighbor's pet dinosaur, and, then, in the next status I said
I bought the gun to take care of the business," Stone said.
What a fucking sociopath.
According to police, when Stone was asked by school officials about
the comment written on the assignment, he said it was a joke.
Summerville police officials say Stone was disruptive and was told that he was being detained for disturbing schools.
Stone was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. District officials say the student has been suspended.
If anything, this was an under-reaction. Cops should've taken Alex behind the music building and put a bullet in his brain.
Proportional response and all.
(h/t
Reason Magazine)
Labels: education, gun, police, reason magazine, school, school to prison pipeline, south carolina
Gerry Conlon, falsely convicted of the Guilford Pub bombing, died at the age of 60 on Saturday, 21 June 21, in Belfast, Northern Ireland
Mr. Conlon's life of false accusation, false testimony and false conviction demonstrated how conscious we must be of the rush to judgement. Conlon spent 15 years in prison -- his father spent three and died a prisoner. His family, including children, were convicted on similar terrorism charges.
Nothing can ever correct that mistake. And yet, we continue to make it. In our fear, we strip away protections and make it easier to arrest, imprison and execute someone.
The British government tried to change the law so that Conlon and his family could be executed. His judge lamented that Conlon wasn't tried for treason, that the judge could sentence him to die.
In January of 1980, Giuseppe Conlon, Gerry's father, innocent of all charges, died in prison. The judge gave him a death sentence.
There was a time where we believed that it was better for guilty men to go free than to convict one innocent person. Now, it's simply a matter of efficiency:
How many guilty men do we get to kill at the cost of each innocent person?
"Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but what right does a person have to share that opinion if it causes harm to another person?"
It's rare that someone says so plainly what they mean: If I don't like what you say, you shouldn't be allowed to say it.
Words -- labels -- are thrown around very carelessly. If someone cracks
a joke and someone else feels offended, it is "harassment" or
"bullying" or "harm". In reality, it's neither, but by attaching those
specific words, "I felt insulted" is put alongside sexual harassment and
stalking and assault.
That quote came about in reference to a
Facebook page which posted images of obese persons in costumes. The
page was likely mean-spirited. It was insulting. Did it rise to the
level at which we say, "You aren't allowed to say that?"
In the
meat world, there are lots of public spaces. In the public spaces, the
1st Amendment to the US Constitution permits one to say nearly anything
they want. And someone is allowed to respond in kind -- in speech. Those
public spaces are bordered by private spaces where you can continue to
speak your mind, without needing to share the space. You're allowed to
express hate for anyone. Blacks. Jews. Gays. Women. Immigrants. You can
say some pretty vile stuff. Your right to say it is codified in our
primary legal document.
On the internet, there are NO public
spaces. Everything is private space owned or provided by someone else
and you have no rights. If they don't like what you say, they can find
someone in the chain -- the forum, the hosting provider, the ISP, even
the DNS registrar -- who will pull the plug on you rather than deal with
whatever harassment or bullying they get from the people who don't like
what you say.
Yes, some of it rises to actual harassment and
bullying. Filing a complaint is one thing -- going onto forums to
badmouth the company, contacting business partners, trying to cause them
enough harm that they'll do what you want, that IS bullying. It IS
harassment.
And yet, because of the internet, you don't pass
anything you don't choose to. There's no issue of sitting in the park
with your kids and seeing hateful signs across the street. Those kinds
of borders are entire walls on the internet. You cannot see through
them. If you don't like a Facebook page, you don't have to click on it.
That's it!
Or, at least, it should be. However, rather than
making the personal choice to avoid something, rather than fighting
speech with more speech, someone tries to make enough noise, disrupt
operations enough that someone in the chain says, "Enough!" and yanks
the page down.
Because if what you say harms someone, what
right do you have to say it? In the real world, you have every right. On
the internet, you have none
Labels: bullying, constitution, convention, cosplay, facebook, first amendment, free speech, geek, harassment, internet, nerd, science, speech
