Feedback to Inevitable comment
Jun 20, 201408:58PM
Denise Beucler @dmbeucler 4h @scalzi @mzmadmike I'd really love to go a day without men telling me how not to get raped. Details Reply Retweet Favorite
I'd really love to go a day without being assumed to be some sort of predatory monster, based on my gender.
I'd really love to go a day without my informed opinion being dismissed because of my gender.
I'd really love to go a day where facts weren't presumed to have a gender.
I'd really love to go a day where it wasn't assumed that the collators of said facts were entirely male.
I'd really love to go a day without some female chicksplaining to me how I'm wrong, regardless of my training and experience.
I'd really love to go a day where as a male survivor of sexual assault, I wasn’t assumed to be irrelevant to the discussion.
So I guess we're both disappointed.
If you don't believe most people regard rape as abhorrent and vile, don't bother reading further. Subjectivity and objectivity are awkward partners.
If you disagree with others on strategies for fighting rape, then we can have a discussion. We probably should, because people seem to be talking past each other. I've largely stayed out of this, but as of late there are a lot of people with unsupportable concepts that don't rise to the level of hypothesis, much less theory, telling women what the world should do for them to end rape.
There are several strategies one should use for dealing with any crime or encroachment. We'll break this down into PREVENTION, AVOIDANCE and REACTION.
This is a long term strategy to reduce the incidents of attack.
Now, it's perfectly valid, and useful, to educate young men as to what constitutes rape. Yes, getting a woman drunk and taking advantage of her is rape. Manipulation can be rape. If you don't have consent, it's rape. These are problems that have always existed, and were exacerbated in recent decades due to several factors—young adults 18-21 not being able to socialize with adults around alcohol, lack of chaperonage for those learning how to be adults, failures in both parenting and education.
We can greatly reduce the existence of these type of rape by ensuring otherwise clueless and unfeeling people get a clue and comprehension. Especially as you can look back to a number of movies and other media portrayal where exploiting drunk women is seen as humor.
Deliberate intoxication reaches another level of intent.
Since I can speak as a man who's been sexually assaulted after a doctored drink, it's not amusing. It's disorienting and terrifying, especially when you realize you're too incapacitated to drive away from the event (after dealing with the attack).
This level of intent reaches that where there is an active, hostile threat with violence. There's no moral difference between doping someone's drinks and punching them unconscious. Only the method is different.
No amount of education is going to stop this person because they are a sociopath. They know what they are doing, are doing it with intent, and don't care what society thinks. At this point, "teach men not to rape" breaks down. You might as well teach rabid dogs not to bite, or arsonists not to start fires. It's what they do.
The arson one is a very useful comparison. We can teach kids not to play with matches in a flammable environment, educate them as to the impact. We can't teach an obsessed sociopath not to torch things.
Getting upset over this reality (as some have) is of no help to the problem, and can, in fact exacerbate it despite good intentions.
If you wish to say "X (doesn't) work as a tactic," then you need to have supporting evidence in the form of statistics, experimentation and supporting documentation.
Sociopaths exist, and must be treated as such.
In a perfect world, one would be able to walk naked to the park, carrying a roll of $100s and gold coins, nap under a tree, legs spread, and wake up, body and property unmolested.
I'm going to tell you a disturbing truth: We don't live in a perfect world.
I'm a (Despite health issues) reasonably large, fit, adult male with some training and experience in violence. I'm generally armed. There are still places I don't go, because it would be unsafe. I use locks as needed, take friends if necessary and possible, and on a few occasions, have in fact drawn a weapon to emphasize my desire to be left alone.
It would delight me no end for that world not to exist. But I'm not going to stick my head in the gutter and imagine that a couple of platitudes are ever going to change anything.
Planning to avoid attack is not "blaming the victim." If someone gets attacked, it is the attacker's fault, the. Fucking. End. The attacker is the agent.
We tell kids to watch for cars, even though drivers are responsible for yielding to pedestrians. We tell cyclists and motorcyclists this, too. A friend of mine died when an SUV knocked his bike under a semi. It wasn't his fault for "not being aware." We keep fire extinguishers (well, some of us, the smart ones, do). We recommend not riding bikes down stair railings.
Maximizing one's odds is maximizing one's odds. Nothing more, nothing less. Knowing a threat exists, it is a good idea to try to avoid it. This doesn't mean cowering in fear. It's not an admission of defeat. It's a tactical decision. In a perfect world, it wouldn't be necessary. But remember that dark secret? This isn't a perfect world.
And if you get attacked by an agent, that agent is responsible for the attack. Not you.
Demanding that the world change so victims are never victimized is fruitless and unproductive. It's never going to happen. It's also ENABLING THE AGGRESSOR.
First, some cited facts. Now, this is not to say there are no other facts that can be cited. I'm making my case. I'm making it with facts, not emotion. I'll be happy to discuss other facts found and supported, but am uninterested in hopeful belief without knowledge—we call that religion, and it's not scientific.
Peer reviewed, and deemed especially valid, as Drs Wright and Rossi were opposed to gun ownership and use, but concluded their positions were not supportable by fact. Conclusion: Guns are very effective as a means of self defense:
Florida State University criminologist, Gary Kleck, analyzed data from the Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-1998 ). Describing his findings on defensive gun use, in Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, New York: Prometheus Books (2001), Kleck writes:
"In general, self-protection measures of all types are effective, in the sense of reducing the risk of property loss in robberies and confrontational burglaries, compared to doing nothing or cooperating with the offender. The most effective form of self-protection is use of a gun. For robbery the self-protection meaures with the lowest loss rates were among victims attacking the offender with a gun, and victims threatenting the offender with a gun. For confrontational burglarly, attacking with a gun had the second lowest loss rate of sixteen self-protection measures, bested only by another mode of armed self-protection, threatening the offender with a nongun weapon." (p. 291):
Easy chart here:
Study: Violence most effective means of preventing rape: http://sds.hss.cmu.edu/risk/articles/JudgedEffectRape.pdf
National Institute of Justice study:
Most self-protective actions significantly reduce the risk that a rape will be completed. In particular, certain actions reduce the risk of rape more than 80 percent compared to nonresistance. The most effective actions, according to victims, are attacking or struggling against their attacker, running away, and verbally warning the attacker.
In assaults against women, most self-protective tactics reduced the risk of injury compared to nonresistance. According to the researchers, the only self-protective tactics that appear to increase the risk of injury significantly were those that are ambiguous and not forceful. These included stalling, cooperating and screaming from pain or fear.
One study correlated the victim’s success in avoiding rape during an attack with the methods she used to resist:
- Victims crying or pleading were raped 96% of the time
- Victims who loudly screamed were raped between 44% and 50% of the time
- Victims who ran were raped 15% of the time
- Victims who forcefully resisted (without a weapon) were raped 14% of the time
- Women who resisted with knives or guns were raped less than 1% of the time
Victims who resisted were less likely to have the rape completed against them than were those who did not resist and not significantly more likely to be injured. Resistance with a gun, knife, or other weapon was most effective in preventing completion; unarmed forceful resistance, threatening, and arguing were least effective, but generally did not provoke rapists to inflict injury.
So, there are very good, very strong, very supportable arguments to be made that violence is the most effective response to certain types of rape.
It's less effective for date rape, rape involving drugs, marital rape. It's most effective against direct physical attack, which may or may not be part of the above.
If an attack happens, a response results on the part of the subject. Doing nothing doesn't stop the attack from happening. This is not "enabling." It is, however, ineffective at stopping the attack.
Fighting tactics have developed over thousands of years, and the successful ones persist. Reaction to an attack can take several forms. One can flee. One can hold ground. One can counterattack.
If fleeing is an option, it's often the best choice. One engages the enemy on ground of one's choosing, when possible. There is no shame, no foul, no moral lack in refusing to give the enemy what he wants. Run, if possible.
Of course, for people with limited mobility (or small children in tow), running may not be possible, and a great many activists forget their able privilege.
Holding ground is usually not advisable in this context, because it's usually not feasible. Holding ground is best done with equal force, and attackers tend to seek those smaller and weaker for that reason. However, if workable, it's an option. Apply force to the attacker at once. Don't wait for an attack—the attack is already in progress.
When outmassed, Sun Tzu advises, "On deadly ground, fight." If you cannot run, and cannot match, then the choices are to surrender to the attack, or fight a last ditch battle. This 3000 year old advice is still taught, because in extremis, it is usually the only response that MIGHT succeed. When ambushed, counterattack, fast, viciously, and with no remorse. Attempt to tear a hole through the attacker using any weapon at hand.
Now, here's the part that all these "experts" who don’t actually know how to fight want to pretend doesn't exist: The cites above prove single most effective means of fighting an attacker is a firearm. Thousands of tabulated crime reports through the Department of Justice bear this out. There's no "interpretation." Attacks committed, attacks successfully defended against, guns are the most effective means. End. The cites above are based on years of tabulating actual events. Violence works, and guns are a device that doesn’t rely on the physical strength of the user.
Obviously, odds are better with more training. But guns don't rely on strength, only on mindset. If your attacker can literally pick you off the ground, throw you into a wall, and proceed to violate your unconscious person, no unarmed method is going to matter. There's a reason martial arts have gender and weight classes, and go in small increments--10 lbs or so. That difference in mass matters. A lot.
It's true that armed force might not matter, either. But it is has been proven tremendously more effective.
Right now, those who don't understand this field are bleating the myth of the gun "Being taken away from you."
Please provide a cite on this happening. I'm not going to say it's never happened, but it's a vanishingly rare occurrence. And, even if it were true, if the proven most effective means of defense could be bypassed so easily, then no means of less effect would be of any value at all.
In which case, YOU are advocating, "Shut up and take it, bitch."
Which IS enabling the aggressor.
The solution to violence is almost always more violence, escalated to the point where the attacker decides to disengage. This is how wars are won, how battles are won, how fights are won, how business competitions are won. When the aggressor finds the payoff to be worth less than the effort engaged, the behavior stops.
Is that the world you want to live in? Trick question. That IS the world you live in. Pretending otherwise won't change it.
In fact, you engage in that behavior yourself.
If you call the police after a crime, they show up to apprehend the perpetrator. If the perpetrator resists, force will be applied by hand, stick, pepper spray, taser, gunfire, until the perpetrator accompanies the officers or dies in the struggle.
Congratulations. You have committed violence by proxy, by mercenary, if you will. You have paid (via tax dollars) someone to do violence on your behalf.
There's no moral lack in hiring experts when possible. There are advantages in that they have training, equipment and neutrality (though that can also work against the victim. The proxy has less capital invested or to lose).
But, morally, if you will hire an expert to commit violence on your behalf, you should have no qualms against committing it yourself. If you will refuse to do so, demanding others do it for you, you have surrendered your independence and made yourself a ward and…dependent. And a hypocrite.
The other problem with that is that your minders can't be everywhere, unless you're really rich and hire your own.
Engaging in force doesn't demean you or make you a victim. It expresses your intent more strongly than words alone.
Not expressing intent doesn't make you a victim. You were already a victim. It means you express no intent, and the attack will be concluded in the aggressor's favor. Neutral is only (sometimes) effective for a non-participant. Once you are attacked, you are a participant.
Once attacked, you have the right, per 3000 years of common law, to use force against your attacker, deadly force if necessary. You can choose not to. There are times when defeat is inevitable, and survival is all one can hope for. This has to be judged on a case by case basis, in the midst of an attack. It's entirely possible to not choose the best answer under duress, and this is not a fault of the victim. Agency is with the aggressor, always.
You also have a duty, if you are able, to defeat or hinder the attacker. The next victim may not be able to. You owe it to them to put up the best fight possible, to deter future attacks—we come back around to prevention.
There's no moral failure in being unable to. That would constitute blaming the victim (A previous victim, even). If you can't, you can't.
But, while no one can tell you what you should do, it's dishonest to tell others what they shouldn't do, unless there are supportable, documentable arguments for a particular response.
"Do nothing and wait for change" is not an effective response. Worse, it can have negative effect. While you're "educating" rapists not to rape (And murderers not to murder, arsonists not to arson, muggers not to muggle), you are not putting resources into Avoidance or Reaction processes. There comes a point where you have to realize you've maximized effect in one area, and move resources to others.
Men and women should be taught what rape is, and to not engage in behavior that enables it, or conducts it. Consent is necessary. Without consent, it's rape.
Conversely, as I've said and will say again in blunt language: Violence isn't always feasible, effective or desirable. "Just shoot him" only works for certain types of attack.
And again, these are not exclusive responses. All of them are good ideas. No one should be attacked for implementing one or more, and none of them constitute "endorsement" of the aggressor.
Fighting amongst ourselves doesn't help anyone.
In the interest of fairness, I'm linking to a post by John Scalzi, who quotes someone who claims to have been a USMC firearms instructor during part of his four year tour. I'm not entirely convinced of the former sergeant's expertise, because he repeats a lot of untruths and straw men that Scalzi, whose degree, IIRC, is in the philosophy of language (corrected) agrees with, obviously without credentials.
But, it's always possible to find someone of some stripe to agree with one's preconceptions.
I'll note that those preconceptions are thoroughly smashed by the numerous, peer-reviewed studies of actual incidents above, and hundreds of other anecdotes of people actually successfully using guns in self defense, hundreds of times a day (even The Brady Campaign concedes the number might be at least 100). So to claim that this doesn't actually happen is, frankly, silly. There are much better arguments he could make.
I urge everyone to be wary whenever anyone argues, "You can't possibly be good enough to defend yourself," especially when the military teaches 18 year olds to do just that, every day of the week.
If Scalzi is actually interested in protecting women, I hope he'll link back to this so readers can find a dissenting view to compare, contrast and decide for themselves. Because in my opinion, what HE is doing is disempowering women, creating victims, and promoting rape and rape culture.
Of course, I don’t have a degree in philosophy of language, just decades of real experience with the tools of violence, consults to various clients including the US military, and links to actual studies.
Some select comments from Scalzi's twitter discussion, and my responses:
Invalid comment. Does not add to debate. Men get raped, too. Including me.
I covered that exactly in the first part of the post.
Easy enough with practice, and few > 0.
But? I covered that.
Jed A. Blue @Froborr 5h
@scalzi @mzmadmike The biggest point he is ignoring is that by buying a gun you are arming the person statistically most likely to shoot you
Details Reply Retweet Favorite More
Wrong. Completely disproven myth. BTW, what are your credentials? Instructor? Researcher? Or did you read something on the internet?
Yet Still More "Tolerant" "Liberals" (as long as you agree with them)
Feb 18, 201411:47PM
So I'm looking at the teacup tempest in response to the petition to SFWA to stick to the business of writing and ignore the politics of the writers.
He links to response here:
[Image]Steven Saus saysFebruary 10, 2014 at 12:15 pmThis is really easy for me: As I posted on Twitter, all parties who have signed that petition can go ahead and recuse themselves from any projects (including paying ones) that I control. If they haven’t yet violated my respect policy as a publisher, they will soon enough.They’ve just put themselves on the list of “people whose opinions I can safely ignore”.
Let me explain something here: When Harlan Ellison, Mercedes Lackey and David Gerrold are your hateful rightwingers...you're doing it wrong. Also, I doubt Harlan even knows you exist, much less gives a shit. And I'm sure you can't pay enough to interest him (even on your paying projects…seriously, did you say that?). You're a "micropublisher," an utter fucking nobody who can't even qualify for the most rudimentary of Wikipedia mentions for your "business." And "If they haven't violated my rules yet, they will." So, thoughtcrime, and prior restraint.
However, I'd be happy to host or publish you in any of my debates or publications, because as an actual liberal, I'm tolerant of differing viewpoints and respect diversity of opinion, even if it's opinion I disagree with.
I look forward to the right-wing name calling in response to my position.
So, if SFWA is only going to represent certain SF/F writers (They call this being "inclusive"), shouldn't they change their name?
The Tolerant, Liberal, Open-Minded Fantasy Writers of America?
As I noted elsewhere--I can think of two dozen writers off the top of my head--including several of various genders and relationships--with over 1000 publication credits between them, who want nothing to do with SFWA.
It's quaint to sit there and insist you don't need those people, but the fact is, they're the ones the publishers might listen to, which, at one time, was the purpose of SFWA. If you can't take money away from them, they have no reason to care about you.
As to the OP's background, she seems to be some sort of barely known blogger who's moderated a couple of panels. Publication credits? Editorial work?
All I can say is that if this person I’ve never heard of [this was addressed to someone else. Mr Nobody hasn't heard of someone else, so they should feel slighted] hasn’t heard of, say, our gracious host Ms Luhrs, that’s his loss. The many people who’ve heard of Ms Luhrs, know and admire her as a blogger of sense and considerable knowledge. Some people may even be curious enough to read all about her here.
My name is Natalie Luhrs and I was the senior science fiction and fantasy reviewer and section coordinator for RT Book Reviews from early 2005 until November 2012. During my tenure, I reviewed over 550 books, attended three RT Conventions (and met lots of great people!), and generally had a wonderful time. I’ve also been a program participant at Readercon and moderated a panel at C2E2 in April 2012. As of January 2013, I am also the acquisitions editor for Masque Books.
"Coordinator" of what? and a panel moderator! ZOMG! Wow. This person is definitely a key player in the publishing industry, or literary end, and should be listened to at length! Only benefit can befall your career from the wisdom she will dispense!
Yes, Masque Books is an imprint of Prime Books, a noted independent publisher with several credits, and some Phil Dick reprints. Fair enough. But being the acquisitions editor for a subsidiary imprint of a small press is not exactly a John W. Campbell, a Hugo Gernsback, or even a Martin H. Greenberg.
Oh, RT is legit, but I would like to draw attention to this:
Romantic Times is a genre magazine specializing in romance novels. It was founded as a newsletter in 1981 by Kathryn Falk. The initial publication took nine months to create and was distributed to 3,000 subscribers. In 2004, the magazine reportedly had 150,000 subscribers, and had built a reputation as "Romance's premiere genre magazine".
Since 1982 the magazine organizes the "Romantic Times Booklover's Convention." Several thousand people attend the convention, which features author signings, a costume ball, and a male beauty pageant.
Wait, define "Male" and "Beauty." This sounds like cisgender hetoronormative sexism. Shouldn't all right-thinking liberals be boycotting such an organization and distancing themselves from it? Not boasting of association?
Oh, and Sarah Hoyt and Larry Correia? Yeah, they're legally Latino. In fact, Sarah still has a Portuguese accent. So stop with the "White supremacist" horseshit on Twitter. Neither one would be allowed within 50 miles of a Klan gathering.
Once again, the "tolerant" "liberals" prove themselves to be racist, sexist and hypocritical.
I guess I'll never publish anything for Mr Whatsisname. Not a problem. I doubt he can put enough zeros on a check to attract my attention, and I'm a lot cheaper than Harlan.
They Pretty Much Ask For It
Feb 11, 201402:28AM
Mike: this what Herr Davila thinks of your blog post. Art Davila All that post proved is that the author is way too obsessed over this. So he wanted to immortalize the woman who created the original meme. The meme that was an answer to the original was created by an individual who actually goes out and protests in public at risk to his own life. He is not at home whining about things he doesn't like. He is an individual who has his own opinion not bought and paid for by any gun lobby. It's not even bought by this page which supports his opinion. That link is just one man's disgruntled diatribe over pages that delete any opposing viewpoints. I have been banned from Tea Party Patriots, Molon Labe Industries, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and various other Conservative and pro gun sites. All I did was post constructive opposing viewpoints and not silly name calling diatribe or personal attacks. Despite my banning, the worst I ever do is send a final email to the administrator telling them they banned me in haste. After that, I move on. I suggest you tell Michael Z Williamson to do the same.
2 minutes ago · Like
Where to start?
Well, first, they "answered" Oleg's original photo, with a bunch of false assumptions about a young woman, because liberals never make assumptions based on gender. Then they refused to actually debate the subject, because liberals are all about public discourse.
It was created by someone who actually goes out and protests. Hey! I go out and protest, too. How about that? And at risk to his life! I respect that. He must protest in Africa or Communist China or Russia, then. Since there's absolutely no risk to his life at any US protest on the subject of firearms, proven by the fact that no one has been killed protesting against that particular civil right in this country.
So, the man's been banned by a bunch of pages. Neat. I, also have been banned by a bunch of pages. However, I've been banned by liberal pages who claim they're tolerant. See, the thing about claiming to be tolerant is, it only works if you're actually tolerant.
Then he's upset that I actually get paid for my "diatribe." Indeed I do, because what I have to say is interesting enough to earn me a living. Sorry he's jealous. But then, he's risking his life and all. I totally understand, having deployed twice to the war zone. Those protests can be dangerous.
Then the worst he ever does is send an email to the people who banned him, because that's always so effective at arguing with tolerant people. He doesn't engage in diatribe or personal attacks...such as pointing out the hypocrisy, sexism and complete erroneousness of the opposition. I guess that constitutes an "attack" to a "liberal." Facts are cruel things. Especially teenage girls. Those can be dangerous. Better to not learn too much about them.
Tell you what, Mr Davila: Come to my FB wall. You have my word I will not block you, not a single word you post. Do please refute any fact I've actually posted. I genuinely want you to show me where I'm wrong in my years of experience in this field, what facts I've confused. There are liberals and conservatives on my wall (because I try not to block anyone), and we'll let them judge how you do.
You won't have to send any final emails. I'll open the floor to you, to say whatever you wish on this subject. I'll even tag the 16 year old so she can debate you herself, if a 16 year old girl doesn't scare you too much.
Because unlike some other people, I actually AM liberal.22 May 2014: Mr Davila was afraid to debate a 16 year old girl. Enough said.
Responsibility for Liberals
Feb 10, 201411:10PM
Ah, yes. "Liberal" "Truth." The kind that doesn't need fact checked, because when several of us did so, our posts were deleted. Because liberals love truth and support accurate statements.
Assuming the above post will be deleted shortly, to protect its honesty from my alleged hatred, it's a picture of a little girl, captioned: "If you think giving me a gun is teaching me responsibility, someone needs to teach you about responsibility."
The hilarious thing is they deleted posts that showed the original image that caused the butthurt. http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/allpink4803.jpg.html
But this comment jumped out at me, so I feel compelled to immortalize the woman:
Breann Louise Hall This looks like my kid. If i gave my kid a gun, she would shoot me.
And 6 people agree with her, so there are at least 7 people who think their kids would shoot them if given a gun.
Breann Louise Hall has a degree in socio-anthropology and claims to be a mediocre author and poet. Oh, and is big into supporting slut culture.
I find a poster she likes that equates Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks with Angela Davis and Assata Shakur as 'not well-behaved women'.
I know of Davis, but had to look up Shakur:
"In May 1973, Shakur was involved in a shootout on the New Jersey Turnpike, in which she killed New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster and grievously assaulted Trooper James Harper. BLA member Zayd Malik Shakur was also killed in the incident, and Shakur was wounded. Between 1973 and 1977, Shakur was indicted in relation to six other alleged criminal incidents—charged with murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, bank robbery, and kidnapping—resulting in three acquittals and three dismissals. In 1977, she was convicted of the first-degree murder of Foerster and of seven other felonies related to the shootout. In 2013, the FBI announced it had made Shakur the first woman on its list of most wanted terrorists."
Fascinating. I'm a best-selling author, and my kids have never tried nor expressed an interest in killing me, despite access to firearms, kitchen knives, flammable liquids in the shop, and heavy exercise equipment in the gym. I guess I'm not only a better writer, I'm a better parent, since I haven't raised kids who are incompetent, amoral or psychopathic or who worship terrorists. That may be because I figured parent culture was a more important pursuit than slut culture and endorsing terrorism, once I was a parent. Liberalism is starting to scare me, if that's their default and publicly admitted outcome.
This explains why they don't understand responsibility. See, FIRST comes the responsibility, THEN comes the gun. I realize that's a large intellectual leap for a "liberal," so I'll elaborate further:
My daughter started shooting at age 4:
At age 7, I dropped $1000ish in materials and parts to build her that pink AR carbine, and have since added about $1000 in accessories, because I believe in having quality tools. Her favorite guns are a 1916 Smith & Wesson in .45 Long Colt and an Astra .44 Magnum. She's proficient with both.
In those 12 years, she's never once proposed or attempted to kill me, nor been so incompetent as to do so by accident, nor even have a negligent discharge. So I guess she meets their standards of responsibility.
Oh, yes, she also has $1000ish worth of harp that she half paid for, a couple of thousand bucks' worth of Luna and Schecter guitars we bought for her, a couple thousand more bucks' worth of keyboard, signal processor, amplifiers, and various small instruments, as well as lessons, because like the ancient Greeks, I believe a warrior should also be a scholar and an artist. She maintains excellent grades, pursues athletics on occasion, and also has an interest in painting and writing. She's more than a mediocre writer, in my professional opinion (apart from my biased opinion. I've seen much worse writing from adults twice her age).
Of course, the Rolling Stoner article that referenced her missed all this, too, because being good "liberals," they didn't need to actually talk to a woman to know all about her failures. They just mansplained away. They even rose to the hysteria of insisting the gun lobby is "desperate" to get her money, when in fact, she's appeared in promotions and ads in several shooting magazines. To be precise, lots of firearm and accessory manufacturers are desperate to throw money at her for endorsement.
This is like pointing at Alex Lifeson as a bad example of the dangers of an obsession with guitars, or using Sage Kotsenburg to claim snowboarding will ruin your life.
So, yeah, my daughter's an honor student, musician, artist, experienced in household tasks including cooking and budgeting, a reasonably good martial artist, an actress with professional TV credits, is socially conscious, supports marriage equality and reproductive choice, understands the economics of recycling and logistics, and is exploring college programs.
Sadly, she probably won't be getting a degree in socio-anthropology or slut studies, because we ruined her life with guns.
If only liberalism could have saved her.
So I Saw This Panicky Article...
Feb 06, 201412:34AM
This is one of those articles where the quotes are just too silly-looking to not be suspect. So I made some polite inquiries. I've only heard back from one administrator. Our exchange is below, correspondent's comments in bold:
“One of my biggest concerns as a principal is safety and security,” Tinley Park High School Principal Theresa Nolan said. “It is bothersome to have to post a sticker of a gun that says, ‘Hey, folks, leave your guns at home.’ ”
I appreciate the question…The logo created is to inform those who have undergone the training and licensing protocols to carry a concealed weapon that they are not allowed to carry on this premises. The onus for knowing where you “can” and “can’t” carry is placed upon the individual who has undergone the training. To our general public, who has not undergone the training and is not familiar with the logo or legislation, may associate that we are simply reminding the general public that guns are not allowed in our building, as if that is a necessary reminder.
Anyone who works in a school these days, especially in my role where I am the one responsible for everyone’s safety and security, seeing a “no guns allowed” sticker on our entryways is just awkward. My attempt was to educate the public as to why these stickers will be displayed. I was not passing judgment on the legislation, nor am I ignorant enough to believe it will deter someone with criminal intent.
With that being said, if there was a logo that represented the Concealed Carry Legislation with the red circle and slash , or, an acronym with the circle and slash, or even just verbiage that stated “ NO Concealed Carry Allowed” it would remove the image of the gun from our entryway doors. Again, I am not opposed to the posting of it, but if the sticker serves as a reminder to those who are trained to look for it, then I felt that the community members who did not have training deserved to know why we are posing signage that represent, “No Guns Allowed.”
Again, I appreciate the question….and although I know I have touched a nerve, my intention was to make people aware of the legislation and it’s concurrent signage.
If I you have any other questions, please let me know.
If it won't have any effect on criminals, what is the point? Non-criminals are not a threat. (I realize you are not responsible for the law.)
I agree with you on the first part….I don’t have input in that.
I think it could be as simple as NO CONCEALED CARRY ALLOWED. Or an appropriate acronym with the red circle and slash. Those who are trained and licensed would know what to look for. And eventually the rest of the community will be aware as well. I am not saying those are the greatest examples, as there are far better advertising or marketing specialists that could come up with something better.
The purpose of my part in the article spoke to the fact to clarity what the stickers looked like and why we were posting them. Anytime guns and school are associated with one another, a certain panic ensues. . I never stated an opinion about the legislation…. I was simply trying to get ahead of the curve of public panic and assumption.
I actually would appreciate it! It’s interesting, because I thought I’d have more of a feverish response for NOT advertising why the signs were being posted! And I don’t mind answering the questions. I appreciate that you asked.
I see that you are an author, and have some significant experiences to share….congratulations and best of luck to you.
I checked out your Wikipedia page. It’s quite impressive. But that is why I give you the credit for sending me an email asking for more information. For the most part, I was just called names that high school students use!
Again….thanks for reaching out.
So, what I'm taking away from this, is the school isn't responsible for the frantic panic of IL legislators (obviously), and the principal is stuck in the middle between CCW activists, and "ZOMG GUNS ARE BAD MKAY?" parents, and trying to find a way to remain neutral.
So at least as far as this school is concerned, there's no hostility, just frazzlement, and really, namecalling and profanity doesn't help our, or any cause, eh?
Let's help IL join the rest of the states in CCW by being civilized and mature.
LTC Bob Bateman: Less Manly Than a Little Girl
Dec 10, 201302:20AM
There's an article about gun control that's all the rage on Esquire.com, by one Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bateman, but he says to call him Bob. Okay, "Bob," is that your name or what you do?
LTC Bob makes a big deal about being a combat arms officer, but discreetly alludes to the fact that it doesn't appear he's ever actually served in combat. He told someone:
“You may disagree with my analysis, but let us focus on that debate rather than getting into a dick-measuring contest about my qualifications as a US Army Strategist. Unless, of course, you are also closely familiar with Strategists? In which case, I’d be happy to engage in a critique of my functional area, and your belief that you are a better strategist than I am, but then you would have to give me your qualifications as a strategist.”
So, if you want to have a debate about the Second Amendment, I’m hear [sic] to listen and argue. Obviously we both have some pretty strong opinions about the topic.”
“PS~ You don’t need to use my rank. You’re retired and LTC is not exactly such an exalted rank that one needs to stand upon it. “Bob” will do just fine.”
He also is vague on his credentials but demands them from others. How cute.
And if "Bob" is good enough, why did he use his irrelevant title (likely in violation of the UCMJ) to promote his credibility? Why claim the Infantry status he admits isn't relevant, then switch to being a strategist? And what would being a strategist matter to the criminal use of small arms?
He's an FA59, which isn't really managing violence. From a 2007 Military Review article:
FA 59 officers execute key institutional and operational core processes, including formulation and implementation of strategy and strategic concepts and policies, and the generation, strategic projection, and operational employment of decisive joint and coalition land combat power.”1
In addition to the common leader competencies discussed in the chief of staff of the army’s “Pentathlete Vision,” FA 59 officers perform four unique functions: strategic appraisal; strategic and operational planning; joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational (JIIM) integration; and strategic education.
He's a buzzword generator, and real warriors pay little attention to that bullshit. It's makework created by the lefticle desire to make war decent and kind and hearts and minds and such. Real warrior want beans, bullets, bandaids and batteries for the purpose of breaking people and killing things. Or vice versa.
"Managing violence" my ass.
And if he wants credentials, I do in fact have real world credentials in the use of the M16 (a lot more than he does, with military trophies to show for it), civilian rifles, and consults with clients that include firearm manufacturers who have real government contracts. So unless he's got some actual credentials in the field, he needs to take his own advice and STFU.
In response to comments and outrage, he called a documented SF soldier a "faker," a former AF Security Policeman who's now a federal agent a "peacetime veteran," and a gay, black 2nd Amendment supporter a "fake persona," because no gay black man could POSSIBLY support gun ownership. (That person's an acquaintance of mine. Gay, black, gun owning, conservative, union train engineer. How awesome is THAT combination?)
In short, he's the textbook example of the small-dicked little limpwrist who joined the military to prove he's not, and hates guns because he does have something to compensate for. Likely why he's been cuckolded twice and divorced. He doesn't measure up, literally and emotionally. Google "psychological projection."
Moving on, then, to his cute theories of gun control, which aren't worth dismantling, because they've been dismantled ad infinitum. It's like the junior high kid who can tell you why physicists are wrong about the speed of light, Creationists who can tell you why physicists, astronomers, geologists, biologists and geneticists are all wrong about the age of the Earth, and the guy who wants to insist there's no racism in America because he lives in an all white town and has never seen any. It's crap.
However, his legal and historical interpretations are wrong. The Dick Act doesn't say that. The Militia is defined in Title 10, USC, Ch 13, Sec 311, and isn't what he claims. "Well regulated" had a definition then, and still has a legal definition, and the unorganized militia IS well-regulated. It doesn't matter what Bob thinks about that process. He's not in Congress, he's not a SCOTUS Justice, and he's an ignorant little fuck. I'm quite happy the facts offend him.
Now, apart from violating the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend, this has another problem: It is retarded. It's also all crap we've heard before and laughed at. It's like the guy in the parking lot telling you what a badass he is, and how he's going to report you to the cops for taking his space.
That he had to give a lot of thought to this to come up with a retarded solution is not impressive.
Lessee: You'll pay 200% of "Face value," of all guns in the US. Awesome. Of course, "face value" is a currency term. You probably mean "market value." Cool. That works out to about $300 billion dollars. Really. Where is DoD going to get that money?
Oh, first of all, how did we establish DoD as a law enforcement arm? That seems to violate posse commitatus, AND make the military a domestic branch of the Executive. That's called "fascism," shitweasel.
But let's assume you proceed. A two year window. I wonder how many guns can be manufactured in that two year window? And what is their market value? I'm reasonably well known as a personality. If I get my 07 FFL, start cranking out single shot .22s and price them at $35K, I only need to sell one to a sponsor to establish that's the market value. If I don't sell any others, I can produce a few ten thousand with backing from my investor, turn in the inventory for $70K per rifle times 10,000, pay my investor 1000% on his investment, and still have enough money to retire to Macau. Me and 30,000 other people with machine tools. Let me guess: You never studied business, did you?
So, the list of things you suck at includes law, business, and being a military officer. You're good at throwing tantra, however. Maybe you should get a job with CAIR or PETA. They're about your speed.
Seriously, Bob, how the fuck did you get into the military? I thought incontinence was a bar to service. I don't think I've ever encountered a bigger pussy, and I first enlisted in the doldrums of the mid 80s and dealt with USAF supply who hated "camping" with the engineers.
Death threats? You threaten to ignore the Constitution based on your own retarded misreading, to ignore SCOTUS, threaten military violence against dissenters, and you wonder why you're getting death threats? Guess what: That's EXACTLY the purpose of the Second Amendment—so fascistic little shitweasels like yourself can be shot, tossed into a ditch, and anointed with beer, after it takes a short detour through our kidneys. There are about 100 million gun owners and families. Want to bet on the odds of one of them shooting you down like a rabid dog?
Count on it, Shitweasel. This is in fact a death threat: If you somehow get more than 50 votes (but you won't) and actually become president (you won't), should you order such a chain of events (you can't and won't), and should it actually appear it will come to pass (it won't), I will kill you. And being some uber-Infantry officer will not save you. Especially as you're not.
In reality, he's just jealous that my teenage daughter (who was 11 in this picture) is more of a man than he is, has more weapons handling experience, and thinks he's a pussy:
Yeah, as a warrior, this guy's a great excuse for a sniveling little bitch. And I don't mind telling him that to his face, if he wants to make an issue of it.
Bob, let me give you some advice: If you're going to shit your pants, don't do it in public. It's embarrassing to you, and makes the Army look bad. Have the decency to do it in private. And don't shame the Rangers, Airborne, Infantry by pretending you're some kind of warrior. You're a pathetic coward. That you even became an officer is a disgrace to the Army.
In conclusion, I'm running for Dictator, not President.
I have a better plank than his: Elect me, and Bob ("Mastur") Bateman will be lashed to a table and raped to death by rabid yaks on Viagra.
My platform only violates the rights of one person, therefore it is morally superior to his.
Working on Thanksgiving--Waaaah.
Nov 26, 201301:18PM
Okay, so some bunch of whiners has decided to single out WalMart for demanding its employees work on Thanksgiving. THE HORROR!
What's going to happen when you run out of wine, realize you forgot to get any rosemary or need some condensed milk for the pumpkin pie? You'll want WalMart, or some other store, to be open.
What happens when your roasting pan breaks?
Are they planning to protest the airlines for making their employees work, taking them to see their families?
What about those police and fire departments that selfishly expect their staff to be working, to respond to your dinner brawls and cooking misadventures gone flamey?
When they get food poisoning, do they want the ER doc, interns, nurses and staff to have the day off "to be with their families"?
Perhaps DoD should shut down, vacate the missile solos, and let the ships float freely around the sea for a few days?
Maybe State Dept could tell all our foreign interests, "Sorry, we're not working today. Holiday! Stop your fighting and demands."
What about that hotel they're using to visit Grandma and Grandpa. Should it be closed, the desk staff home with their families? What's wrong with sleeping in a bus stop, or in Grandma's spare room full of used medical devices and creepy stuffed cats?
As for me, I'll be working on the meal, then loading my van, then setting up at a convention, because if I want any money, I have to go out and earn it. This doesn't bother me. It's called "life."
Interesting Graphs From a Reader
Oct 30, 201310:20AM
Which of Us Is Selfish?
Oct 25, 201311:34AM
Joel • 36 minutes agoYou choose to buy an Audi A6, a Samsung flat screen TV, an inground pool, and a trip to Europe. You don't choose to develop gallstones or appendicitis or a tooth abscess or bladder cancer or a fractured sacrum.
Health care is a necessity, NOT a luxury. 6 •Reply•Share ›
MichaelZWilliamson Joel • 17 minutes agoMy health care is a necessity. Yours is a luxury, to me.
Mine is a luxury to you.
If you argue this point, please write a check for $5000 payable to the Dept of Health and Human Services. I will see that they receive it and deposit it.
If you will not do so, you are admitting you really don't care about other people's health care.
As far as the Audi A6, I'd be happy just to replace my 1996 van, and would have, except that money is now going to additional insurance every month.
Joel MichaelZWilliamson • 15 minutes agoFind another employer that pays you more.
Why is your health care a necessity but everyone else's is a luxury? It's all about you and your needs, isn't it?
MichaelZWilliamson Joel • 2 minutes ago −Mine is a necessity because it's mine. I don't care if you have shoes.
Write that check for $5000 to HHS. If you actually care about other people's health. Or admit you're a whining, greedy, selfish little wuss.
MichaelZWilliamson Joel • a minute agoWhy don't YOU find another employer who pays more? FYI: I'm self employed. I could go to the VA, but I prefer real doctors, so I pay for them.
MichaelZWilliamson Joel • a few seconds agoSeriously. If you die tomorrow, you know who on this forum cares? No one.
If an interstate shuts down, a whole bunch of people have trouble getting food or doing business.
Your health care is only important to you. And the world does not revolve around you.