Just yesterday I posted about the Senator in Tennessee who wants to make TANF assistance payments to families conditional on how well the children are doing in school. Today, the Universe saw fit to deliver Round Two of this sort of fuckery to me, in the form of a school in Maryland making religious accommodations for Muslim students conditional on their grades.
Gosh, why didn't anyone ever tell me that the human rights of children - rights to food, shelter, and religious expression - are contingent upon how well they please the almighty public education system? "Get good grades" is not as simple as it generally sounds, for a variety of reasons ranging from developmental disabilities, different learning styles, difficulties with particular subjects, or simply being the kind of kid whose unconventional personality and academic style is "unacceptable" by the rigid standards of the public school system. (Show of hands, who here got in trouble, repeatedly, for not showing your work or for using alternate methods to get your answers, because it made more sense to you than the "right" way of doing it - even if you still got the correct answer? *raises hand*)
This comes down to ageism and Islamophobia, pure and simple. Islamophobia because they're certainly not requiring Christian students to get good grades before being allowed to wear a cross or pray before class. Ageism because I'd love to see a workplace try to make legally-required religious accommodations contingent on your latest performance review. Just imagine the shitstorm that would kick up!
For bonus fuckery points, this "accommodation" - and I hesitate to call it that, because can you call a conditional concession that must be earned a real accommodation? - only came about after some Muslim students began praying during the day at school, and teachers got upset and tried to make them stop, telling them "this is a Christian school".
By the way, Parkdale High School is a public school.
At which point the principal stepped in - good for her, I guess? Really I shouldn't have to feel approval of that course of action, it's the bare minimum requirement of school management, caring for the needs of all one's students equally, but there are plenty who wouldn't have said anything, or would have supported the teachers in their harassment of Muslim students. - and came up with this "compromise". I just want to ask, why was a compromise necessary? Why could she not have just told the teachers to STFU and look up the 1st Amendment as pertains to education, and given Muslim students the accommodations they needed without making it conditional?
Oh. Right. Because fuck fairness, when it comes to children, Muslims, or Muslim children.
1.29.2013
People seeking abortions may only think about their decisions on business days, according to South Dakota
In the chip-chip-chip fight to render Roe a meaningless statute by eroding access to abortion services until we have the right, but not the ability, to access it, waiting periods have been a core piece of the movement. Force people to make two visits to the clinic, which makes it harder for people who don't live near the clinic, which very few people do at this point what with absurd over-zoning and regulation forcing clinics out of business. Force people to have to arrange rides, time off work, childcare, or missing class not once, but twice, possibly missing out on an extra day's pay in the process. Make the whole thing drag a little more and hope that some of them tip over into the 2nd trimester while they have to wait, so that it becomes even more difficult, costly, and time-consuming to get that abortion. And do it all under the plausible deniability of "we just want to make sure you don't do something you'll regret! We are helping by making sure you take lots...of...time...to think about this (because we assume you haven't already thought about this, because if you had, obviously you wouldn't have decided to do it, Q.E.D.)."
And last year, if you'll recall, South Dakota made infamy by insitituting the longest waiting period thus far, at 72 hours (most states that have it are 24 hours, though I think there might be a couple 48s).
Not satisfied with that, they're now trying to make those 72 hours stretch e v e n f u r t h e r by specifying that they mean 72 hours, not including weekends and holidays.
>.>
<.<
o.O
So...if the ostensible point of waiting periods is about making sure pregnant peopleSIT DOWN AND THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING YOU FILTHY BABY-MURDERING WHORE take enough time to come to a reasonable decision so they don't do anything they'll later regret...what does it matter which days the sit-and-think period encompasses? Are people incapable of considering serious, life-altering decisions* on their days off?** If anything, I'd think that'd be when people have more time and leisure to consider major issues, when they're not busy taking care of work, kids, and/or school obligations.
It all makes perfect sense when you know what's really going on, whisper-thin veil of concern for pregnant people aside, but usually they try a little harder to hold on to that veil. When they start proposing restrictions that no longer make even surface sense with their supposed reasoning, they're beginning to risk more people figuring out what's actually happening. Which suggests two very scary possibilities, to me. Either they really do believe that people won't notice, that the average public isn't paying enough attention to catch the disconnect and suss out their real motivation (and what scares me here is the possibility that they're right) - or they are so confident in their political power after all the gerrymandering bullshit of late that they don't care how it looks, they're sure it'll go through anyway, and that's all that matters to them.
Like I said. Scary possibilities.
*It's a serious, life-altering decision for some, but not for all; I phrase it this way because that's the framing that always surrounds this issue when we talk waiting periods.
**Not that weekends and holidays are everyone's days off, though a lot of people forget that. Retail and food service don't stop for holidays and weekends. And considering that it's low-income people, like those who work retail and service industry jobs, who are generally most affected by abortion restrictions, it sort of makes this doubly shitty by imposing a more or less irrelevant concept of "non-work days" on the people it's enforced against.
And last year, if you'll recall, South Dakota made infamy by insitituting the longest waiting period thus far, at 72 hours (most states that have it are 24 hours, though I think there might be a couple 48s).
Not satisfied with that, they're now trying to make those 72 hours stretch e v e n f u r t h e r by specifying that they mean 72 hours, not including weekends and holidays.
>.>
<.<
o.O
So...if the ostensible point of waiting periods is about making sure pregnant people
It all makes perfect sense when you know what's really going on, whisper-thin veil of concern for pregnant people aside, but usually they try a little harder to hold on to that veil. When they start proposing restrictions that no longer make even surface sense with their supposed reasoning, they're beginning to risk more people figuring out what's actually happening. Which suggests two very scary possibilities, to me. Either they really do believe that people won't notice, that the average public isn't paying enough attention to catch the disconnect and suss out their real motivation (and what scares me here is the possibility that they're right) - or they are so confident in their political power after all the gerrymandering bullshit of late that they don't care how it looks, they're sure it'll go through anyway, and that's all that matters to them.
Like I said. Scary possibilities.
*It's a serious, life-altering decision for some, but not for all; I phrase it this way because that's the framing that always surrounds this issue when we talk waiting periods.
**Not that weekends and holidays are everyone's days off, though a lot of people forget that. Retail and food service don't stop for holidays and weekends. And considering that it's low-income people, like those who work retail and service industry jobs, who are generally most affected by abortion restrictions, it sort of makes this doubly shitty by imposing a more or less irrelevant concept of "non-work days" on the people it's enforced against.
1.28.2013
State Sen. Campfield to TN kids: "The beatings will continue until morale improves!"
Or rather, in this case, "The starvings will continue until your grades improve!"
By which I mean, he has proposed a bill to punish the families of underachieving children on public assistance by decreasing their TANF allotment (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, ie, food and living subsidies).
"How are your grades, little Timmy? Well, no pressure or anything, but we could get kicked out of our apartment and end up in a shelter if your grades aren't up to snuff! Have a great day at school, kiddo." Because as we all know, children learn best under pressure and threats of starving their whole family. It's a motivation thing.
And the whole ugly affair gets even grosser, if you read his own words on the subject:
Secondly, are you just completely unaware of the fact that children are dependent upon their parents to provide food/shelter/etc.? Children don't exist in a vacuum. Putting "responsibility" and "accountability" - ie, punishments - on the parents transfers those effects directly to the kids, who are relying on their parents to be able to care for them. So you can cloak it in "parental responsibility" language all you like, but it still comes out to punishing children for bad grades by TAKING THEIR FUCKING FOOD AND HOUSING AWAY. And there is absolutely no possible circumstance in which that is anything but a hideously, grossly unethical and immoral thing to do. (But of course, Stacey Campfield has a 100% rating with Tennessee Right to Life, and sponsored a bill in 2007 to issue death certificates to aborted fetuses. He's very consistent that way. All about caring for the lives of children, amirite?)
Thirdly and most importantly, this completely and utterly fails to take into account the sorts of structural barriers to excelling at school that poor children ALREADY FACE. Kids are already under stress when their family is struggling with poverty, both stress within the family - especially if there are issues of food scarcity, which has effects on a child both physiologically and psychologically - and from the fact that kids are evil, nasty, bullying little shits sometimes, and poor kids make a great target for that kind of bully. Additionally, children who have learning disabilities or illnesses - mental or physical - that make school more difficult are less likely than their economically well-off peers to receive the interventions and accommodations they need, which further sabotages their ability to do well in school. Then you have older - teenage - kids in poverty-level households who may well be trying to hold down jobs in order to help their families get by, which takes time away from schoolwork.
He frames it as "Parents are responsible to make sure their kids are ready for school and that they get an education." Which, again, shows stunning ignorance of what families in poverty are having to do to get by. Parents who are struggling to make ends meet often just don't have time to do the suburban-middle-class "make sure your kids have a nutritious breakfast, drop them off at school, pick them up after school, and help them with their homework" thing. That takes time and energy that the parents are already expending just trying to make ends meet.
So to sum up, this absurdity of a proposal specifically targets those children who are already struggling the most with school, sets up a hard-line target that doesn't take any variance in circumstances into account, then threatens to punish those who don't meet the requirement by pushing their whole fucking family even further into poverty.
What part of that sounded like a good idea to you, Senator?
And is it just me, or is there a "welfare queens" sort of dogwhistle in there, too? The whole thing, especially the fact that it hinges on rhetoric of "parental responsibility" and parents "not doing their job [of making sure their kids do well in school]", seems designed to evoke the image of lazy welfare-dependent adults who are just not bothering to help their kids out of apathy or spite.
See, class, here we have a truly stunning shitshow of ignorance, arrogance, classism, racism, and paternalism, held together with BOOTSTRAPS GODDAMNIT.
Congratulations, Mr. Campfield. You are officially the douchiest Republican I've seen in the last few days. Which, considering the state of your party, is actually kind of an accomplishment. I hope you can look back fondly on this experience from your post-political career in the very near future after the people you claim to represent toss you out on your ass.
By which I mean, he has proposed a bill to punish the families of underachieving children on public assistance by decreasing their TANF allotment (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, ie, food and living subsidies).
"How are your grades, little Timmy? Well, no pressure or anything, but we could get kicked out of our apartment and end up in a shelter if your grades aren't up to snuff! Have a great day at school, kiddo." Because as we all know, children learn best under pressure and threats of starving their whole family. It's a motivation thing.
And the whole ugly affair gets even grosser, if you read his own words on the subject:
One of the top tickets to break the chain of poverty is education. To achieve a quality education is like a three legged stool. The state has put a lot of responsibility on schools and teachers to improve student performance. If the children don't produce, it could impact the pay of the teacher and the standing of the school with the state. We have pushed two of the three legs of the student performance (teachers and schools) to improve, and they are. ... The third leg of the stool (probably the most important leg) is the parents. We have done little to hold them accountable for their child's performance. What my bill would do is put some responsibility on parents for their child's performance.First of all, "If the children don't produce"? Produce? Are we talking about schools here, or child labor factories? Come on, Mr. Campfield, let that ill-fitting compassion mask slip a little further and show us the full extent of your disdain for poor children and how you're already seeing them as future disposable worker-commodities.
Secondly, are you just completely unaware of the fact that children are dependent upon their parents to provide food/shelter/etc.? Children don't exist in a vacuum. Putting "responsibility" and "accountability" - ie, punishments - on the parents transfers those effects directly to the kids, who are relying on their parents to be able to care for them. So you can cloak it in "parental responsibility" language all you like, but it still comes out to punishing children for bad grades by TAKING THEIR FUCKING FOOD AND HOUSING AWAY. And there is absolutely no possible circumstance in which that is anything but a hideously, grossly unethical and immoral thing to do. (But of course, Stacey Campfield has a 100% rating with Tennessee Right to Life, and sponsored a bill in 2007 to issue death certificates to aborted fetuses. He's very consistent that way. All about caring for the lives of children, amirite?)
Thirdly and most importantly, this completely and utterly fails to take into account the sorts of structural barriers to excelling at school that poor children ALREADY FACE. Kids are already under stress when their family is struggling with poverty, both stress within the family - especially if there are issues of food scarcity, which has effects on a child both physiologically and psychologically - and from the fact that kids are evil, nasty, bullying little shits sometimes, and poor kids make a great target for that kind of bully. Additionally, children who have learning disabilities or illnesses - mental or physical - that make school more difficult are less likely than their economically well-off peers to receive the interventions and accommodations they need, which further sabotages their ability to do well in school. Then you have older - teenage - kids in poverty-level households who may well be trying to hold down jobs in order to help their families get by, which takes time away from schoolwork.
He frames it as "Parents are responsible to make sure their kids are ready for school and that they get an education." Which, again, shows stunning ignorance of what families in poverty are having to do to get by. Parents who are struggling to make ends meet often just don't have time to do the suburban-middle-class "make sure your kids have a nutritious breakfast, drop them off at school, pick them up after school, and help them with their homework" thing. That takes time and energy that the parents are already expending just trying to make ends meet.
So to sum up, this absurdity of a proposal specifically targets those children who are already struggling the most with school, sets up a hard-line target that doesn't take any variance in circumstances into account, then threatens to punish those who don't meet the requirement by pushing their whole fucking family even further into poverty.
What part of that sounded like a good idea to you, Senator?
And is it just me, or is there a "welfare queens" sort of dogwhistle in there, too? The whole thing, especially the fact that it hinges on rhetoric of "parental responsibility" and parents "not doing their job [of making sure their kids do well in school]", seems designed to evoke the image of lazy welfare-dependent adults who are just not bothering to help their kids out of apathy or spite.
See, class, here we have a truly stunning shitshow of ignorance, arrogance, classism, racism, and paternalism, held together with BOOTSTRAPS GODDAMNIT.
Congratulations, Mr. Campfield. You are officially the douchiest Republican I've seen in the last few days. Which, considering the state of your party, is actually kind of an accomplishment. I hope you can look back fondly on this experience from your post-political career in the very near future after the people you claim to represent toss you out on your ass.
1.02.2013
Quote of the Day
What will religion look like in the year 2060? Conservative Christians will be treated as second class citizens, much like African Americans were prior to civil rights legislation in the 1960s. Family as we know it will be drastically changed with the state taking charge of the children beginning at birth. Marriage will include two, three, four or any number of participants. Marriage will not be important, with individuals moving in and out of a 'family' group at will. Churchbuildings will be little used, with many sold to secular buyers and the money received going to the government. Churches will not be allowed to discuss any political issues, even if it affects the church directly. Tax credit given to churches and non-profit organizations will cease. Christian broadcasting will be declared illegal based on the separation of church and state. The airwaves belong to the government, therefore they cannot be used for any religious purpose. We will have, or have had, a Muslim president. Cities with a name from the Bible such as St. Petersburg, Bethlehem, etc. will be forced to change their name due to separation of church and state. Groups connected to any religious affiliation will be forced out of health care. Health centers get tax money from the state, making it a violation of church and state. Get involved! Sign THE STATEMENT."- The [White, Straight, Rich, Nuclear, Christian] American Family Association, in an email designed to make privileged asshats very, very afraid indeed.
There is only one possible response to this.
 |
| A screen-cap from the old Spiderman cartoon. Spidey is pointing urgently at something off-screen, and two policemen beside him are laughing. Macro-style text on the image reads "LOOK AT HIM. LOOK AT HIM AND LAUGH." |
This Should Be Interesting...
I've complained before about the IRS' privileging of churches and religious organizations. My complaints were generally more about churches being totally tax-exempt despite their politicking, which has gotten bolder and bolder in its forays over the border between "non-specific beliefs that have political ramifications" and "telling people how to vote or who to vote for" - and the IRS has done nothing about it.
These two lawsuits, however, take up against different religion-specific tax rules, ones I hadn't even known existed. Apparently, churches and affiliated organizations which have 501(c)(3) status or want to acquire such don't have to pay application fees, which secular non-profits do - and these are not $20 copay type fees; apparently, they can run up to $850. Which isn't *that* much to most big orgs, but a lot of starting-out non-profits don't have a generous budget, and so this takes a big bite out of what they can do as they're getting set up. Additionally, churches and religious organizations aren't required to submit yearly financial information filings, which secular non-profits do. When the IRS itself estimates a total of 211 work-hours to complete the relevant filing? That's not a small inconvenience. The informational filings are public information, and must include the names of any donors who give over $5,000. People who want to donate fuckbuckets of money to churches to carry out their (frequently political) work can do so in anonymity, but if you want to donate to a secular non-profit, your contribution goes on public record.
I don't know enough about the relevant laws and precedents to speculate on these cases. But I think it'll be interesting to see how they play out, and if it might help lay groundwork for further challenges to churches as tax-exempt demi-political organizations (for those who choose to behave that way).
These two lawsuits, however, take up against different religion-specific tax rules, ones I hadn't even known existed. Apparently, churches and affiliated organizations which have 501(c)(3) status or want to acquire such don't have to pay application fees, which secular non-profits do - and these are not $20 copay type fees; apparently, they can run up to $850. Which isn't *that* much to most big orgs, but a lot of starting-out non-profits don't have a generous budget, and so this takes a big bite out of what they can do as they're getting set up. Additionally, churches and religious organizations aren't required to submit yearly financial information filings, which secular non-profits do. When the IRS itself estimates a total of 211 work-hours to complete the relevant filing? That's not a small inconvenience. The informational filings are public information, and must include the names of any donors who give over $5,000. People who want to donate fuckbuckets of money to churches to carry out their (frequently political) work can do so in anonymity, but if you want to donate to a secular non-profit, your contribution goes on public record.
I don't know enough about the relevant laws and precedents to speculate on these cases. But I think it'll be interesting to see how they play out, and if it might help lay groundwork for further challenges to churches as tax-exempt demi-political organizations (for those who choose to behave that way).
12.21.2012
The Problem With Reinstating the AWB
[This is going to be a post about guns, and it does include pictures of them]
Fair warning: I am far less anti-gun than most people who share my other sociopolitical positions tend to be. I believe in gun control. I believe that the US's gun laws are pretty fucked and need some serious overhaul. I also believe that said overhaul needs to be sensible, measured, and written by people who know what they're talking about.
In recent weeks, in the wake of the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary, I've been bombarded by requests from the cause orgs I'm on the email lists of, asking me to sign petitions in favor of reinstating the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004.
I have not signed these. And I'm not going to.
This is not to say that I am against the idea of tightening our current gun laws. Not at all, not even a little bit. But there are some major problems with just saying "let's reinstate the existing AWB".
Firstly, that the old ban was bullshit. It created the phrase "assault weapon" out of thin air (much like the partial-birth abortion ban did with its title) to describe a very broad class of guns that could best be described as "Guns That Look Scary." It banned certain combinations of features that sounded reasonably unnecessary, without actually reducing the availability of the style of guns it ostensibly banned.
Let me ask you something, real quick. When someone says the phrase "assault weapon", what kind of gun do you think of? Something like this, right?
It's scary-looking. It's a semi-auto civilian version of a military rifle, and it serves pretty much no purpose for an average person to have aside from "this looks cool/makes me feel cool".*
Here, let me show you a gun that was specifically made for the AWB era to conform to those rules:
Gee, that looks really similar. Identical, even. And it nearly is; same mag capacity, same pistol grip. They just removed the bayonet mount and changed the stock to fixed-length.
So...how did the AWB make things safer, again? Will the fixed stock make it kill fewer people or something? Was there a rash of gun-based stabbings with bayonets that we needed to crack down on?
If an assault weapons ban is passed that ends up being nothing more than a reinstatement of the old ban, the opportunity and social will to push for real change that was created by the ugly events of last week will be wasted, and the NRA will have won another round by keeping the conversation stagnant.
I don't want cosmetic change. I don't want lip service that still leaves ridiculously-unnecessary weapons and accessories widely and legally available. There's much kerfuffle about "politicizing" the deaths of so many children, but which is more politicizing? A political move for show and constituent goodwill that makes a mere incremental difference in the rates of gun violence in this country? Or a real change to try to prevent the like from happening again?
Here's what I'd like to see from a new gun-control law, in no particular order:
*I sympathize with this feeling as a justification for owning a particular gun, I really do. Why else did I have a Desert Eagle .50 or my FN PS-90? For feeling like a badass. Duh. I had a thigh-holster for the DE and I was excellent with the PS90, out-shooting gun-nut ex and one other with my PS90 and non-magnification optic, standing, versus their rifles on bipods with scopes and them shooting prone. I really truly enjoyed owning both of those guns, going shooting regularly and honing my skills as well as having fun with it.
"I wanna feel like a badass" is not sufficient justification to keep such guns available when weighed against the lives of children, though. No matter how cool the gun is.
**I speak from experience. Gun-nut ex's favorite rifle was his Dragunov, and it spent an irritating amount of time just laying around our room rather than in the giant gun safe it was supposedly kept in.
Fair warning: I am far less anti-gun than most people who share my other sociopolitical positions tend to be. I believe in gun control. I believe that the US's gun laws are pretty fucked and need some serious overhaul. I also believe that said overhaul needs to be sensible, measured, and written by people who know what they're talking about.
In recent weeks, in the wake of the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary, I've been bombarded by requests from the cause orgs I'm on the email lists of, asking me to sign petitions in favor of reinstating the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004.
I have not signed these. And I'm not going to.
This is not to say that I am against the idea of tightening our current gun laws. Not at all, not even a little bit. But there are some major problems with just saying "let's reinstate the existing AWB".
Firstly, that the old ban was bullshit. It created the phrase "assault weapon" out of thin air (much like the partial-birth abortion ban did with its title) to describe a very broad class of guns that could best be described as "Guns That Look Scary." It banned certain combinations of features that sounded reasonably unnecessary, without actually reducing the availability of the style of guns it ostensibly banned.
Let me ask you something, real quick. When someone says the phrase "assault weapon", what kind of gun do you think of? Something like this, right?
 |
| Bushmaster M4A2, which counts as an "assault weapon" for purposes of the 1994 AWB because of its folding stock, pistol grip, and bayonet lug. |
Here, let me show you a gun that was specifically made for the AWB era to conform to those rules:
So...how did the AWB make things safer, again? Will the fixed stock make it kill fewer people or something? Was there a rash of gun-based stabbings with bayonets that we needed to crack down on?
If an assault weapons ban is passed that ends up being nothing more than a reinstatement of the old ban, the opportunity and social will to push for real change that was created by the ugly events of last week will be wasted, and the NRA will have won another round by keeping the conversation stagnant.
I don't want cosmetic change. I don't want lip service that still leaves ridiculously-unnecessary weapons and accessories widely and legally available. There's much kerfuffle about "politicizing" the deaths of so many children, but which is more politicizing? A political move for show and constituent goodwill that makes a mere incremental difference in the rates of gun violence in this country? Or a real change to try to prevent the like from happening again?
Here's what I'd like to see from a new gun-control law, in no particular order:
- Reinstate the limit on high-capacity magazines. I'm tempted to say drop it to 5 instead of 10, because what on earth could you be hunting that actually needs 10 shots to drop it? If you need 10 rounds to drop your prey, you're either a terrible shot and shouldn't be firing guns around other life-forms anyway, or hunting things that probably shouldn't be hunted and why are you doing this? I realize this makes target shooting less fun because you have to keep stopping to either reload or switch to a fresh mag, depending on how many mags you own, but...tough titties. A less smooth and flowing sport shooting experience, or mass murders a few times a year? Not exactly a tough decision, unless you've had a truly successful compassionectomy. (And if you have, what the fuck are you even doing here? Go away. Return to the WND swamps from which you came.)
- Standardize controls on the process of acquiring guns. I personally know someone who has purchased guns while traveling to other states where things are far less restrictive, then brought them back into California, rather than deal with the waiting periods and trigger lock and background check requirements here. That shouldn't be possible - or at least, it shouldn't be that simple.
- Same for issuing carry permits. When my gun-nut ex and I were driving cross-country, we'd had to plan for which states allowed what in regards to his gun, whether it had to be locked in the trunk, could be in the glove box if unloaded, or could be sitting on the dashboard in plain sight. States set their own qualifications process for getting a carry permit, and some have reciprocal agreements to honor each other's permits, and some don't, and that's frankly ridiculous.
- Mandatory registration of all guns. I'm not under the illusion that this will do anything to stop certain elements of society from having, acquiring, selling, etc. under the radar. I knew people in Tennessee who could literally make a gun start to finish including the ammo. And there's always a criminal element willing to flout the law. But again, as has been pointed out many times, all the shootings in the past few years have been carried out with guns legally acquired, and no major shooting has ever been stopped by an armed bystander, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that reducing/controlling the total number of guns in circulation is probably going to help somewhat, or at least not make things worse.
- Common-sense restrictions on what caliber guns people can legally keep in their homes. You do not need a fucking .45 or .44mag handgun for self-defense. A 9mm will suffice perfectly well for that purpose. Nor do you need a rifle in 7.62x39, which is a MILITARY ROUND. 7.62x39 was made for a Russian machine gun, and is what the AK-47 shoots. What in the world does a civilian need military rifle rounds for? Serious question. What are you doing that you need this? Explain to me why your safety can only be guaranteed by keeping weapons of war in your house. I'd really like to know what the hell you get up to in there.
- For collectors or fans of exotic guns and ammo, I suggest a compromise. You can own them, buy them, etc. But they must be kept under lock and key at a licensed shooting range or gun dealership. You can access and shoot them whenever you like, but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to need to keep a Russian sniper rifle in your bedroom.**
- Speaking of which, tighten licensing and monitoring and regulation on gun dealers. No more of this swinging by Walmart to pick up a new gun. Require that the same procedures for licensing, sales, and background checks be followed at gun shows as in regular shops. (In an ideal world, I'd like to see gun shows go the way of the dodo entirely, but I think that would probably provoke too much pushback to be feasible right now.)
The opportunity we have right now to create meaningful change in the way this country handles guns came at an incredibly high price. Let's not squander it on simply reinstating what few limits were wrested from the resisting grasp of the NRA nearly 20 years ago. We need to do better.
*I sympathize with this feeling as a justification for owning a particular gun, I really do. Why else did I have a Desert Eagle .50 or my FN PS-90? For feeling like a badass. Duh. I had a thigh-holster for the DE and I was excellent with the PS90, out-shooting gun-nut ex and one other with my PS90 and non-magnification optic, standing, versus their rifles on bipods with scopes and them shooting prone. I really truly enjoyed owning both of those guns, going shooting regularly and honing my skills as well as having fun with it.
"I wanna feel like a badass" is not sufficient justification to keep such guns available when weighed against the lives of children, though. No matter how cool the gun is.
**I speak from experience. Gun-nut ex's favorite rifle was his Dragunov, and it spent an irritating amount of time just laying around our room rather than in the giant gun safe it was supposedly kept in.
12.15.2012
Someone doesn't know the history of her (former) organization...
It seems Karen Handel, the woman responsible for Komen's withdrawal of funding for breast exams from Planned Parenthood because icky, abortion, has taken her anti-PP fervor with her after leaving Komen in the wake of the massive PR backlash they received.
Only, she's making the most ridiculous claims now in criticism of PP, especially for a former Komen official who's still defending actions she took while a member of the organization.
PS: People can copyright some really stupid stuff - DNA, anybody? - but I have yet to hear of anyone successfully copyrighting a color. Komen didn't invent pink, and they don't own pink. You're just mad because the public backed PP and you lost in the court of public opinion. Take your ribbons and go home, please.
Only, she's making the most ridiculous claims now in criticism of PP, especially for a former Komen official who's still defending actions she took while a member of the organization.
[She] alleges that Planned Parenthood “literally co-opted the color pink” from Komen in a sinister “bait and switch.”Gee, that's a funny accusation to make, coming from a former VP of an organization whose most recognizable symbol, the infamous pink ribbon, was itself co-opted from the woman who created the original breast cancer awareness ribbon in all but color, because she declined to participate in the commodification and corporatization of her work. Hypocrite.
PS: People can copyright some really stupid stuff - DNA, anybody? - but I have yet to hear of anyone successfully copyrighting a color. Komen didn't invent pink, and they don't own pink. You're just mad because the public backed PP and you lost in the court of public opinion. Take your ribbons and go home, please.
12.14.2012
Connecticut
I've been sitting here staring at the blank "new post" screen for several minutes now, unsure how to begin, or even what to say, really.
My heart aches - literally, my chest hurts and makes breathing difficult - with horror at what happened today. May the souls of those who were killed find peace, in whatever way is best for them. May the shooter's soul never find rest for the rest of eternity. I cannot imagine the kind of pain the parents of the murdered children, their siblings, grandparents, extended family, as well as families, friends, and partners of the adults who died, are feeling right now. I hope they can find some kind of peace, solace, and healing.
I am disgusted almost beyond words at the way those who want to reopen the conversations around gun violence and gun control legislation, in order that massacres like this don't happen again, to anyone, ever, are being chastised for "politicizing" the issue. Is it politics to say "This is an awful tragedy, and we should do something so that it doesn't happen ever again"? If so, then I'm 110% willing to "policitize" the issue, if it means a reduction or cessation of loss of life to incidents like these. A big, hearty FUCK YOU to those who use such tactics to silence a conversation that we obviously desperately need to be having in this country right now. They know that for as long as they can keep kicking the can down the road, hiding behind the victims' pain and trauma to hold on to the status quo, they win. And if that's not politicizing the issue, I don't know what is.
On that note, the first person to try to frame this in terms of "crazy" or "lone nutjob" in my presence is going to find their face suddenly, and forcibly, intimately acquainted with a fucking BRICK. I am "crazy", after a fashion. I am not always particularly stable. And yet somehow, I've managed to get through 27 years on this earth without massacring children. Funny, that.
Same goes for any claims that if more people had been armed at the school, this wouldn't have happened. To quote commenter aphra_ben at Shakesville, "The sooner the US debate accepts that being able to shoot a gun is not the same thing as being able to effectively neutralize an armed threat, the better off we'll be." Unless this country is willing to go to the collective time, effort, and expense of educating and training every single gun owner in not only target accuracy, but also tactics and police/military procedures for such instances, not to mention psychologically preparing them to fire on and possibly kill another person, simply increasing the number of firearms present in a given location at any given time isn't going to do fuck all. "Has a gun" != "Knows what to do in a situation of gun violence (and can do so effectively, without inadvertently causing further casualties among bystanders)".
I'm a lot more gun-friendly than most progressives tend to be - comes of living with a collector and pistol instructor for a couple of years and regularly going shooting with friends in a very gun-friendly state - but even I will say, there is no amount of "I enjoy recreational target shooting" that justifies the overly-free availability of firearms, when the result is this much death.*
We didn't have the conversation after Virginia Tech. We didn't have it after Aurora. We didn't have it after Portland. All because nobody wanted to "politicize the tragedy". We promised we'd revisit it later, once the wound wasn't so fresh. And yet we didn't. We don't. When are we going to finally just goddamn well do it?**
*I still disagree that reinstating the old assault weapons ban is even remotely helpful, for a variety of reasons that begins and ends with "this is why we don't let legislators write the definitions of things they're not experts in", much like most reproductive health laws. But that's a specific issue with the how part, not the whether or not we should do something part.
**There's a sick part of me that could kinda see the shootings as being on a timetable - "Okay, it's been long enough. Quick, let's have another shooting before anyone tries to talk gun control, to give us another excuse to avoid it!" When they're happening so horribly often, well, there will simply never be a time where it's far enough removed, because another one will have taken place in the interim. It works out so nicely for the pro-gun lobby that one begins to wonder if it's not perhaps a feature, rather than a bug.
My heart aches - literally, my chest hurts and makes breathing difficult - with horror at what happened today. May the souls of those who were killed find peace, in whatever way is best for them. May the shooter's soul never find rest for the rest of eternity. I cannot imagine the kind of pain the parents of the murdered children, their siblings, grandparents, extended family, as well as families, friends, and partners of the adults who died, are feeling right now. I hope they can find some kind of peace, solace, and healing.
I am disgusted almost beyond words at the way those who want to reopen the conversations around gun violence and gun control legislation, in order that massacres like this don't happen again, to anyone, ever, are being chastised for "politicizing" the issue. Is it politics to say "This is an awful tragedy, and we should do something so that it doesn't happen ever again"? If so, then I'm 110% willing to "policitize" the issue, if it means a reduction or cessation of loss of life to incidents like these. A big, hearty FUCK YOU to those who use such tactics to silence a conversation that we obviously desperately need to be having in this country right now. They know that for as long as they can keep kicking the can down the road, hiding behind the victims' pain and trauma to hold on to the status quo, they win. And if that's not politicizing the issue, I don't know what is.
On that note, the first person to try to frame this in terms of "crazy" or "lone nutjob" in my presence is going to find their face suddenly, and forcibly, intimately acquainted with a fucking BRICK. I am "crazy", after a fashion. I am not always particularly stable. And yet somehow, I've managed to get through 27 years on this earth without massacring children. Funny, that.
Same goes for any claims that if more people had been armed at the school, this wouldn't have happened. To quote commenter aphra_ben at Shakesville, "The sooner the US debate accepts that being able to shoot a gun is not the same thing as being able to effectively neutralize an armed threat, the better off we'll be." Unless this country is willing to go to the collective time, effort, and expense of educating and training every single gun owner in not only target accuracy, but also tactics and police/military procedures for such instances, not to mention psychologically preparing them to fire on and possibly kill another person, simply increasing the number of firearms present in a given location at any given time isn't going to do fuck all. "Has a gun" != "Knows what to do in a situation of gun violence (and can do so effectively, without inadvertently causing further casualties among bystanders)".
I'm a lot more gun-friendly than most progressives tend to be - comes of living with a collector and pistol instructor for a couple of years and regularly going shooting with friends in a very gun-friendly state - but even I will say, there is no amount of "I enjoy recreational target shooting" that justifies the overly-free availability of firearms, when the result is this much death.*
We didn't have the conversation after Virginia Tech. We didn't have it after Aurora. We didn't have it after Portland. All because nobody wanted to "politicize the tragedy". We promised we'd revisit it later, once the wound wasn't so fresh. And yet we didn't. We don't. When are we going to finally just goddamn well do it?**
*I still disagree that reinstating the old assault weapons ban is even remotely helpful, for a variety of reasons that begins and ends with "this is why we don't let legislators write the definitions of things they're not experts in", much like most reproductive health laws. But that's a specific issue with the how part, not the whether or not we should do something part.
**There's a sick part of me that could kinda see the shootings as being on a timetable - "Okay, it's been long enough. Quick, let's have another shooting before anyone tries to talk gun control, to give us another excuse to avoid it!" When they're happening so horribly often, well, there will simply never be a time where it's far enough removed, because another one will have taken place in the interim. It works out so nicely for the pro-gun lobby that one begins to wonder if it's not perhaps a feature, rather than a bug.
12.06.2012
Republicans fart in science's general direction - again.
Since Indiana state senator Dennis Kruse apparently can't take a hint after his last few attempts to pass a bill to allow/mandate Creationism be taught in science classes in his state went nowhere fast, he's now introducing what he's calling, in classic Republican spin style, a "truth in education" bill. It would require teachers to produce proof on demand any time a student challenged or disagreed with the scientific subject being taught.
First of all, isn't that basically what school is? Maybe it's different in Indiana, or maybe schools have changed since I was there, but I don't remember much by way of truly rote learning in science, aside from basic things like the periodic table and the laws of thermodynamics. When we learned about evolution, it wasn't just "We evolved. End of story."* It was a whole subject, complete with an age-appropriate rundown of the discoveries and theories and reasoning that support it. No, we weren't reading anyone's dissertations or scientific journal articles, but we had the cliffs notes from them. If you challenge what the teacher's telling you, perhaps you should just read through your textbook and get your "proof" that way? (Hmm. On second thought...bad idea, actually.) Everything they teach in science classes is supported by evidence to at least some degree. We're not the ones who just throw ideas together and call it truth - you're thinking of Creationism.
I almost hope they do pass this. I'd love to see some self-righteous student stand up and challenge the teaching of evolution, and have the teacher cite research, then turn around and ask them "So what's your proof, then?" I mean, fair is fair. Also, I move to have Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye put together "Teacher's Proof Kits" for common questions so that teachers don't have to waste time on some evangelical kid trying to disrupt everyone else's learning with inane debate - just chuck a booklet at the kid's head and move on.
The one thing that would concern me is how they're defining "proof". The bill hasn't been introduced yet so I don't have the text to look at, but I'm wary, because Republican-led legislation around science issues tends to be vague as fuck or have really weird or totally wrong definitions for things. What's the standard for proof here? "9 out of 10 dentists agree"? Every single article on the subject in every single scholarly journal for the last 20 years must agree with this conclusion? Or are we trying to use the actual scientific definition of "proof"? Because that'll go nowhere fast. Since science is a constantly moving, changing, self-refining field, the standard for "proof" is set extremely high - hell, even gravity is just a theory in scientific terms. Make it so you can only teach 100% "proven" science, and science classes will get a hell of a lot shorter - and students will lack important information and background in the field, simply because some asshole in a suit willfully misinterpreted scientific notions of "proof" and "theory" in order to undermine science and get Creationism a toe in the door.
*Although my favorite super-simplified explanation of evolution ever came from my senior year environmental science teacher. When we began that unit, he started class by saying "Evolution can be summed up in four words: dead things don't breed." It's stuck with me for ten years now. Clearly this is an effective teaching tool.
First of all, isn't that basically what school is? Maybe it's different in Indiana, or maybe schools have changed since I was there, but I don't remember much by way of truly rote learning in science, aside from basic things like the periodic table and the laws of thermodynamics. When we learned about evolution, it wasn't just "We evolved. End of story."* It was a whole subject, complete with an age-appropriate rundown of the discoveries and theories and reasoning that support it. No, we weren't reading anyone's dissertations or scientific journal articles, but we had the cliffs notes from them. If you challenge what the teacher's telling you, perhaps you should just read through your textbook and get your "proof" that way? (Hmm. On second thought...bad idea, actually.) Everything they teach in science classes is supported by evidence to at least some degree. We're not the ones who just throw ideas together and call it truth - you're thinking of Creationism.
I almost hope they do pass this. I'd love to see some self-righteous student stand up and challenge the teaching of evolution, and have the teacher cite research, then turn around and ask them "So what's your proof, then?" I mean, fair is fair. Also, I move to have Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye put together "Teacher's Proof Kits" for common questions so that teachers don't have to waste time on some evangelical kid trying to disrupt everyone else's learning with inane debate - just chuck a booklet at the kid's head and move on.
The one thing that would concern me is how they're defining "proof". The bill hasn't been introduced yet so I don't have the text to look at, but I'm wary, because Republican-led legislation around science issues tends to be vague as fuck or have really weird or totally wrong definitions for things. What's the standard for proof here? "9 out of 10 dentists agree"? Every single article on the subject in every single scholarly journal for the last 20 years must agree with this conclusion? Or are we trying to use the actual scientific definition of "proof"? Because that'll go nowhere fast. Since science is a constantly moving, changing, self-refining field, the standard for "proof" is set extremely high - hell, even gravity is just a theory in scientific terms. Make it so you can only teach 100% "proven" science, and science classes will get a hell of a lot shorter - and students will lack important information and background in the field, simply because some asshole in a suit willfully misinterpreted scientific notions of "proof" and "theory" in order to undermine science and get Creationism a toe in the door.
*Although my favorite super-simplified explanation of evolution ever came from my senior year environmental science teacher. When we began that unit, he started class by saying "Evolution can be summed up in four words: dead things don't breed." It's stuck with me for ten years now. Clearly this is an effective teaching tool.
The Beauty of Anti-Choice "Logic"
TW: sexual abuse, reproductive coercion
This isn't the first time I've seen this argument, and I'm sure it won't be the last. But something about the way it's phrased here kinda poked my brain with a sharp stick.
Yes, because what a young teen or pre-teen who's being abused needs is an unwanted pregnancy on top of that whole abuse thing. I'm sure that'll be very helpful. Especially considering these asshats are the ones who would then force her to carry and give birth to her abuser's baby. That'll do wonders for the child's mental health, really. "Well, the abuse was discovered when you got pregnant [and theoretically has been stopped]! Hooray! Now it's time to further derail your life by having a baby at 13! Aren't you glad we're here to help you?"
Lucky teens, to have CWA on their side. With friends like these...
This isn't the first time I've seen this argument, and I'm sure it won't be the last. But something about the way it's phrased here kinda poked my brain with a sharp stick.
Over-the-counter birth control pills could encourage men to prey upon younger girls and dictate their contraceptive choices, according to Janice Shaw Crouse of the Christian activist group Concerned Women for America.
"Any guy who is older and taking advantage of a younger girl could put her on a pill," Crouse said.This really leaves me with only two possible conclusions. Either CWA et al believe that a lack of hormonal BC will prevent men from abusing young women - a dubious notion at best, and with no factual support whatsoever for the idea, I'm calling shenanigans - or they believe an abuse victim is better off abused *and pregnant*, than just abused. (Also, victims of sexual abuse would never have the agency to decide for themselves that they'd rather be protected, and seek out BC themselves.)
Yes, because what a young teen or pre-teen who's being abused needs is an unwanted pregnancy on top of that whole abuse thing. I'm sure that'll be very helpful. Especially considering these asshats are the ones who would then force her to carry and give birth to her abuser's baby. That'll do wonders for the child's mental health, really. "Well, the abuse was discovered when you got pregnant [and theoretically has been stopped]! Hooray! Now it's time to further derail your life by having a baby at 13! Aren't you glad we're here to help you?"
Lucky teens, to have CWA on their side. With friends like these...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
