Gun Violence: Where's the Outrage?

April 7, 2009

I am no gun control freak. I admit, I have only handled and shot a gun once in my entire life. My father did not take me hunting when I was a child. We did not have guns in our home, and the mere idea of me owning a gun and storing it in my house frightens my wife to death. But I am in no way a proponent of getting rid of all guns.

However, it has struck me as odd how the recent violent episodes of gun violence in various parts of the country have sparked so little concern - from the news media, from gun-control advocates, or from anyone else, as far as I can tell. Click here to see a list of the latest bloodbaths.

Coming from Wyoming, it is no surprise to me that high school students in the past routinely carried rifles and other arms in their vehicles while driving to and from school. It never occurred to me at the time the danger this could pose to me or other students. This even after experiencing a shooting at my own school when I was in the seventh grade in Sheridan, WY.

Then came the brutality of Columbine. I am not completely sure, but since that incident, I don't think high school students are allowed to drive with weapons in their cars to school. Some probably still do, but they better not store them above the back window of their pickup. Columbine seemed to have the affect of changing the way a lot of people thought about the use of firearms.

There have been several other incidents since Columbine that have sparked disbelief and horror in us all, school shootings, sniper shootings, etc. Even with the shootings at Virginia Tech about two years ago, it seemed the discussion was very heated on how to combat these types of occurrences.

Yet, with the several killing sprees that have erupted over the last month and a half, these discussions seem to have vanished. It may be because of the fear that was hatched with the insidious misinformation that President Obama would take away our guns if he were elected. I honestly don't know. But it seems to me, the more incidents that happen, the more discussion should be had, not less.

One good argument (really the only argument I've heard so far) is that with too much coverage, these violent crimes encourage copycats, which could only increase the incidence of these acts. But there is a way to cover the issue without practically glorifying the killer, as I felt may have been the case with the Virginia Tech gunman. I recently heard of a group of young people in Casper who were discussing suicide on a MySpace board. It would be silly for the authorities who learned of this to say, "well let's just pretend it isn't a problem, because we might be glorifying the participants." Something had to be done in that instance, and something probably needs to be done about these shootings. Nothing is going to happen if no one will even entertain discussion.

No doubt there are lobbies out there trying to curtail the right to bear arms. No doubt they want to stop people from owning and storing guns in their homes. But I don't know where they are right now. It is just curious that at a time when our president supposedly wants to take away guns, and when the media supposedly are riding along in his bandwagon, that somehow the media have collectively turned a shrugging, indifferent shoulder to the multiple massacres that have recently unfolded.

Why the apparent refusal to at least discuss that there may be some correlation between the increasing number of innocent deaths, and how gun laws are in force today? That includes discussion of whether it would have made people more safe if there had been a gun in the building where the killer opened fire. Has the discussion become so polarizing that people are avoiding it all together? Or, as the CEO of the NRA recently put it, are the ones with the guns making the rules currently? Is it because the economy is hurting, and people have more important things to worry about?

I have a lot more questions than answers. However, since I began writing, I found that ABC is going to do a special shortly on the violence that has happened over the last year. Maybe they will do what should already have happened - begin a dialogue about what is going on, why it's happening, and what possibly can be done to change the situation.

There was another mass killing over the weekend in Graham, Washington. That apparently brings the number of mass killings to five in the last eight days. It is very disturbing that these killings are happening. It is also very disturbing that no one seems to care too much about it all.

Jon Stewart/Media Matters make my day

March 3, 2009

I already watched episodes 11 and 12 of this season of 24, so I needed something to pass the time. I watched thankfully as Jon Stewart made fun of Rush Limbaugh and people who use Twitter in the same hilarious episode. Then I found an all new page on Media Matters for America's website dedicated exclusively to Limbaugh. If Limbaugh is the new leader of conservatives, then I am definitely not a conservative.

How has this happened? How have I allowed the lying, biased, partisan media to deceive me and brainwash me? Well, I guess because of the massive conspiracy that won't allow funny conservative guys on TV.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CPAC After Party

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Twitter Frenzy

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Update 3/4/09
Just a thought about Rush saying he wants President Obama to fail. I am reluctant to admit that many years ago, I impersonated Limbaugh for a 7th grade project on the person I most admired.

It is impressive to me how so many have such a poor memory of history. Aside from the fact that Rush regularly resorts to five-year-old playground behavior - name-calling and using childish voices to mock his detractors - he has spent at least the last eight years shouting that people who hate George W. Bush were unpatriotic for not supporting the ex-president. Now he opens right up and admits he is waiting for Obama to fail. I know he's a smart guy. I am not even kidding. It is just shameful that he has a hold on so many dittoheads who don't even seem to understand pompous, repulsive, hypocrisy, even when it's playing on the radio three hours a day.

Republicans Blame, McCain Attacks

Some curious observations: the Republican Party, the party of responsibility, and self-reliance, seems to always pay lip service to its creeds, until it is not advantageous to do so.

Then they start blaming everyone else. John McCain is already acknowledging that if the debate centers on the economy, he will lose the election.

So he's starting to attack. Keep in mind, his personal attacks will be cloaked in broad, fuzzy terms, to make them sound less malicious. Meanwhile, his surrogates will call Obama a terrorist, a Muslim, the n-word, or make up whatever false claims necessary to scare the American people.

Notice how McCain's big line is, "We don't know enough about Obama." Nevermind Obama has answered any and all the questions we supposedly don't know about him, and if you have an Internet connection, and a pulse, you can find them. Regardless, people will say they are not prejudiced, they are only voting for McCain because Obama has a scary name. Nope, no prejudice there.

Then there's the Ayers connection. For that, I turn to Media Matters, one of my favorite sites, because Bill O'Reilly hates them so much.

On October 4, The New York Times published a 2,140-word front-page article about Sen. Barack Obama's association with former Weather Underground member William Ayers -- at least the 18th Times article this year mentioning that association. But the Times has yet to mention, let alone devote an entire article to, Sen. John McCain's relationship with radio host and convicted Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy. Indeed, in its October 4 article, the Times quoted Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman denouncing Obama's association with Ayers but did not note that Chapman has described Liddy as McCain's "own Bill Ayers" and has written that "[i]f Obama needs to answer questions about Ayers, McCain has the same obligation regarding Liddy." The Times, moreover, quoted McCain criticizing Obama for his association with Ayers without noting that Chapman has faulted McCain for what Chapman described as McCain's "howling hypocrisy on the subject."

As Media Matters for America has noted, Liddy served four and a half years in prison in connection with his conviction for his role in the Watergate break-in and the break-in at the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers. Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention -- a plan he outlined to the Nixon administration using terminology borrowed from the Nazis. (The murder, firebombing, and kidnapping plots were never carried out; the break-ins were.) During the 1990s, Liddy reportedly instructed his radio audience on multiple occasions on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents and also reportedly said he had named his shooting targets after Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Liddy has donated $5,000 to McCain's campaigns since 1998, including $1,000 in February 2008. In addition, McCain has appeared on Liddy's radio show during the presidential campaign, including as recently as May. An online video labeled "John McCain On The G. Gordon Liddy Show 11/8/07" includes a discussion between Liddy and McCain, whom Liddy described as an "old friend." During the segment, McCain praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great," said he was "proud" of Liddy, and said that "it's always a pleasure for me to come on your program."

Additionally, in 1998, Liddy reportedly held a fundraiser at his home for McCain. Liddy was reportedly scheduled to speak at another fundraiser for McCain in 2000. The Charlotte Observer reported on January 23, 2000, that McCain's campaign vouched for Liddy's "character."

However, I've learned long ago, that if you're a terrorist, that's all there is to it. If you're NOT a terrorist, as I'm sure Liddy is NOT in the mind of conservatives, because they agree with his views, then you can plot to kill people, bomb things, and imply shooting a president and his wife (if they are democrats). That still doesn't make you a terrorist.

On the other hand, if you ARE a terrorist, then no matter what you say or do, you ARE a terrorist. That labeling reflex in conservatives is just so powerful and strong.

Finally, there's the Keating scandal, which we will need to examine more in the coming days.

Meanwhile, be wary. Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, your mom, they're all going to be making greater and greater fabrications about Obama.

I will never be able to make this point the way I would like: is it about Obama? Or is it about, how can I trust someone who lies about another candidate just to win an election. I am almost certainly not voting for Obama. I'm just trying to show how hypocritical the far-right are in their characterizations. They'll vote for McCain because he's the "lesser of two evils." Meanwhile, they swallow all kinds of garbage just to be able to do so. First and foremost, they've elected a dishonest person.

But Republicons will respond, Obama is dishonest, too, and I'm sure he is. Then the party of responsibility will blame having to vote for McCain on Obama. The party of responsibility will blame the bad economy on the democrats. The party of responsibility will blame Bush's low approval ratings on the biased left-wing media. How responsible of them. Vote for a liar, support a liar (Bush), but always put the blame elsewhere.

The party of responsibility can't even defend McCain. All they can say is, his policies are better than Obama's. Well, let me tell you, I suck at basketball, but I am WAY better than my two-year old. So I guess I'm pretty dang awesome.