For many years now, the states of the United States have been enacting concealed carry laws that enable their citizens to arm themselves with handguns for self defense. Wisconsin became the 49th state to do it, leaving only Illinois without a concealed carry law of some kind. Opponents of these laws have been predicting chaos for years. And during that same time they have also ignored the explosion of gun violence in that city to our south, Chicago. There were 49 shootings in Chicago last WEEKEND. Wow, just imagine how bad it would be if they allowed concealed carry! That's a joke of course, since the number of shootings would be more likely to go down, not up, if they had concealed carry. You'd think that after predicting chaos so many times and continuing to be wrong, they would take a different tack. But I guess when you've got such a good story, it's hard to let it go. You wait, and wait and hope for some clown with a permit to lose it and do something stupid that proves you were right. But darn it, it just keeps not happening. They thought they had one a few years back. It seemed to be the epitome of an impulsive act, the kind we were told would happen daily if everybody started packing heat. A permit holder in Minnesota shot a guy at the drive up window at McDonald's. It looked perfect. A guy gets into an argument with a fast food worker and then pulls out his too handy pistol to impulsively shoot the offender. But the problem is it turned out that he didn't have his gun with him. So he went home got it, and then came back to shoot the guy. But this week they got the story they wanted.
A young black man walked from his father's house to the convenience store. On the way back he is confronted by a member of the neighborhood watch, who is armed. The police tell the watch captain that he should not pursue the man, but he does anyway. By the time police arrive the young black man is dead and the gunman is claiming self defense. My proof that the mainstream media has been waiting for this story is in the complete saturation coverage it has received. The victims family has been on the Today show every morning this week. Countless columns have been written connecting this story to gun control, because this is what kept not happening. This was, FINALLY, the story of a good gun gone bad.
You see, in the debate about concealed carry, advocates make the argument that the "bad" guns are already out there. They are in the hands of criminals who don't give a damn about what the laws say. They are going to carry guns whenever and wherever they want. They are the "bad" guns, and they are a given. Enter, the "good" guns. These are the guns that are now being carried by "good" people. For the longest time, gun opponents would have you believe THESE are the guns you need to fear. Their mantra was more guns equals less safety. They would concede that the bad guns were out there, but they saw all guns as equally bad, and reasoned that more guns just meant more trouble. And so they waited for that thing that kept not happening, a good gun gone bad. And there's not much doubt that is what did happen in Florida.
But it's the massive coverage that tells you something is up. In my opinion, there was a far more compelling story earlier this year. A single mom in rural Oklahoma who had recently been widowed, heard two men breaking into the house where she and her infant lived. When the first one broke through the door. she calmly shot him dead. The other one wisely decided to leave, and was arrested later. If you were a journalist, which story would you rather write about? Unless you have an agenda, it's pretty clear which one is more of a feel good story. But for some reason, the Oklahoma widow never made it on to the Today show. In fact, you likely never heard about it. See, that was a good gun, done good and doesn't help at all.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Desperately Seeking Bob
I have a friend that I see once or twice a week in purely social settings, and this person has suddenly developed an intense desire to start a political discussion. As you know, I seldom shy away from such a fight, but I frankly do not see any one good thing coming from it. I've picked up on this person's politics before, but that's not what keeps me from taking the bait that they've thrown out there each of my last few encounters. I detected this person's relative position on the political matrix ( and BTW, it is a matrix and not an axis) but I've also gotten a feel for the depth of their political acumen, and it's mostly from a level of Rachel Maddow talking points. And that means very particular subjects from a very particular angle. Let's just say that keeping Iran from going nuclear would not be on the list, nor would the best way to stimulate the economy and create jobs. No. it would all be about the social positions of particular conservatives, and the quotes from them that I would be asked to defend or condemn.
They seem to be quite desperate to engage me in particular, and I'm kinda having fun with it in that I am frustrating them at each turn. At the risk of sounding conceited, I'm guessing that they just don't know any other smart conservatives to engage. It seems that I am their Holy Grail and they are convinced that they can take me down, as long as they can pick the subject. I'm sure I have not seen the last ham handed attempt to pick a fight. But you know how I said in my last post that I do have friends that I can argue with, and remain civil? I don't think this debate would fall into that category. So I think I'll just enjoy keeping my mouth shut and seeing how far they will push it.
They seem to be quite desperate to engage me in particular, and I'm kinda having fun with it in that I am frustrating them at each turn. At the risk of sounding conceited, I'm guessing that they just don't know any other smart conservatives to engage. It seems that I am their Holy Grail and they are convinced that they can take me down, as long as they can pick the subject. I'm sure I have not seen the last ham handed attempt to pick a fight. But you know how I said in my last post that I do have friends that I can argue with, and remain civil? I don't think this debate would fall into that category. So I think I'll just enjoy keeping my mouth shut and seeing how far they will push it.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Avoiding The Argument
Usually, I'm up for a good argument, particularly when it's about politics. The saying in the household where I grew up was that if we were walking along and saw two guys going going at it in the middle of the street, we'd stop and ask, "Is this a private fight, or can anybody join in?" At a very young age, I didn't understand what the dropping of a hat had to do with anything, but my mother constantly assured me that I would be glad to argue about it.
I enjoyed the give and take, but let's be honest about it, I really liked what everybody likes: winning. I never took forensics in high school or college, but I learned how to state my case. Over the years, I think I learned to both stay on point, and detect when my opponent was not. I learned to not get personal, and have found a few friends that I can still engage in a political debate, and not alienate them. I firmly believe that a good argument is the only way a mind gets changed. That doesn't happen when I say "X," you say "Y" and then I conclude, "Oh, you're right, now I see that it IS 'Y'." No, for me, it happens when I start to make my point about "X" and suddenly realize that the words coming out of my own mouth are bullshit. When you aren't buying your own arguments, it's time to reassess. My mind is the one that ends up changed, not my opponent's. At least, that's how it works for me.
But sometimes a debate goes on long enough that just about every angle and argument has been explored. Here in Wisconsin I believe voter ID is just such an issue. But both sides have failed to recognize the BS coming out of their respective mouths. Now we have a law that infuriates the left, and will likely be tied up in legal challenges for some time to come, which infuriates the right. When this matter first came up, I was, predictably, on the side of conservatives. The left would say that it was a fact that very little actual voter fraud took place, that this law wasn't needed. They would cite studies and statistics on charges of voter fraud. I argued back and said that their studies only proved that voter fraud was incredibly hard to detect. Their studies only covered the people who were caught. And voter fraud was one of those crimes that did not make itself evident. They had no idea how much fraud had actually taken place. They just knew how many were caught. They claimed it was a burden to voters. And I would respond that you needed an ID to rent a lousy video. Surely we could ask for this tiny bit of proof on something as important as the integrity of the voting booth, couldn't we? "You're disenfranchising voters" they cried. "And you're enabling voter fraud among the convicted felons and illegal aliens," I'd respond.
But then it occurred to me that they had a point, all be it, a small one. I asked myself if an indigent, homeless person should have an unimpeded right to vote. The answer was, yes, they do. And I further had to admit that having to secure a certified birth certificate was an obstacle, however small. So I had a thought about a way to ensure integrity without putting up obstacles.
You set up a digital video camera at each polling station.
As it is, a person has to step up to the table and state their name and address so the poll worker can look you up. All that would be different is that now, you just add the caveat that you are in fact a legal voter, and you do it in front of the camera. Plus you add that the penalty for making a false statement under those circumstances, is a year in jail and a $10,000 fine. Rather than create another obstacle, this would make it easier to vote. You wouldn't even need to produce a utility bill.
I started to circulate the idea to see what objections there would be, and that's when I had my "aha" moment. At first, a few people said that the problem was you'd have to have somebody view all that video. I'd politely explain that they were missing the point. This was not a system that would verify, it was system that deterred, in spades. Like the endless hours of surveillance video that a store records, you'd only view the tape if you thought there was an issue. But the big point was that not even the most wild eyed, Walker-hating union worker would step in front of that camera and provide iron clad proof that they just committed a crime that could land them in jail for a year and cost them $10,000. All for the sake of casting a singular, fraudulent vote for Kathleen Falk? I think not. And liberals couldn't say anybody was denied their rights. Don't speak English? Say it in Spanish. You're deaf? You can sign it in ASL.
I gave the idea to both sides, but the only positive response I had at all was from my liberal state rep. He wrote me back and said he liked it and would be looking into it. At that time, the ID law had not yet been passed. It's been crickets ever since. It made me think that maybe Republicans actually were looking to suppress votes, and maybe Democrats actually were looking to benefit from felons and other illegal voters. I don't want this to sound like it's all about me and my idea. I'm not miffed because nobody listened to me. I'm miffed that we are still having the same arguments and it was all so avoidable. Republicans need to admit that their law will prevent people from voting. It doesn't matter how few, and it doesn't matter if they think the obstacle is really small. Poll taxes and literacy tests sounded pretty reasonable in their day too. There should be NO obstacles, not just small ones. And Democrats need to admit that catching so few after the act does not translate into "not happening at all." If you had the cameras in place, they couldn't argue about any of this. And that makes me wonder if that's why they won't do it. They both seem to prefer their arguments to a solution.
I enjoyed the give and take, but let's be honest about it, I really liked what everybody likes: winning. I never took forensics in high school or college, but I learned how to state my case. Over the years, I think I learned to both stay on point, and detect when my opponent was not. I learned to not get personal, and have found a few friends that I can still engage in a political debate, and not alienate them. I firmly believe that a good argument is the only way a mind gets changed. That doesn't happen when I say "X," you say "Y" and then I conclude, "Oh, you're right, now I see that it IS 'Y'." No, for me, it happens when I start to make my point about "X" and suddenly realize that the words coming out of my own mouth are bullshit. When you aren't buying your own arguments, it's time to reassess. My mind is the one that ends up changed, not my opponent's. At least, that's how it works for me.
But sometimes a debate goes on long enough that just about every angle and argument has been explored. Here in Wisconsin I believe voter ID is just such an issue. But both sides have failed to recognize the BS coming out of their respective mouths. Now we have a law that infuriates the left, and will likely be tied up in legal challenges for some time to come, which infuriates the right. When this matter first came up, I was, predictably, on the side of conservatives. The left would say that it was a fact that very little actual voter fraud took place, that this law wasn't needed. They would cite studies and statistics on charges of voter fraud. I argued back and said that their studies only proved that voter fraud was incredibly hard to detect. Their studies only covered the people who were caught. And voter fraud was one of those crimes that did not make itself evident. They had no idea how much fraud had actually taken place. They just knew how many were caught. They claimed it was a burden to voters. And I would respond that you needed an ID to rent a lousy video. Surely we could ask for this tiny bit of proof on something as important as the integrity of the voting booth, couldn't we? "You're disenfranchising voters" they cried. "And you're enabling voter fraud among the convicted felons and illegal aliens," I'd respond.
But then it occurred to me that they had a point, all be it, a small one. I asked myself if an indigent, homeless person should have an unimpeded right to vote. The answer was, yes, they do. And I further had to admit that having to secure a certified birth certificate was an obstacle, however small. So I had a thought about a way to ensure integrity without putting up obstacles.
You set up a digital video camera at each polling station.
As it is, a person has to step up to the table and state their name and address so the poll worker can look you up. All that would be different is that now, you just add the caveat that you are in fact a legal voter, and you do it in front of the camera. Plus you add that the penalty for making a false statement under those circumstances, is a year in jail and a $10,000 fine. Rather than create another obstacle, this would make it easier to vote. You wouldn't even need to produce a utility bill.
I started to circulate the idea to see what objections there would be, and that's when I had my "aha" moment. At first, a few people said that the problem was you'd have to have somebody view all that video. I'd politely explain that they were missing the point. This was not a system that would verify, it was system that deterred, in spades. Like the endless hours of surveillance video that a store records, you'd only view the tape if you thought there was an issue. But the big point was that not even the most wild eyed, Walker-hating union worker would step in front of that camera and provide iron clad proof that they just committed a crime that could land them in jail for a year and cost them $10,000. All for the sake of casting a singular, fraudulent vote for Kathleen Falk? I think not. And liberals couldn't say anybody was denied their rights. Don't speak English? Say it in Spanish. You're deaf? You can sign it in ASL.
I gave the idea to both sides, but the only positive response I had at all was from my liberal state rep. He wrote me back and said he liked it and would be looking into it. At that time, the ID law had not yet been passed. It's been crickets ever since. It made me think that maybe Republicans actually were looking to suppress votes, and maybe Democrats actually were looking to benefit from felons and other illegal voters. I don't want this to sound like it's all about me and my idea. I'm not miffed because nobody listened to me. I'm miffed that we are still having the same arguments and it was all so avoidable. Republicans need to admit that their law will prevent people from voting. It doesn't matter how few, and it doesn't matter if they think the obstacle is really small. Poll taxes and literacy tests sounded pretty reasonable in their day too. There should be NO obstacles, not just small ones. And Democrats need to admit that catching so few after the act does not translate into "not happening at all." If you had the cameras in place, they couldn't argue about any of this. And that makes me wonder if that's why they won't do it. They both seem to prefer their arguments to a solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)