Mike's Home Page

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.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/02/sfwa-petition.html

He links to response here:

http://radishreviews.com/2014/02/10/oh-dear-sfwa-bulletin-petition

[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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_Times

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.[1] In 2004, the magazine reportedly had 150,000 subscribers, and had built a reputation as "Romance's premiere genre magazine".[2]

Since 1982 the magazine organizes the "Romantic Times Booklover's Convention."[2] Several thousand people attend the convention, which features author signings, a costume ball, and a male beauty pageant.[3]

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 Hispanic.  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

Category: Politics

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.

Responsibility for Liberals
Feb 10, 201411:10PM

Category: Politics

https://www.facebook.com/LiberalTruth78/posts/10201483181143150?comment_id=62873667

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.

February 7 at 12:11pm · 6

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.[5] BLA member Zayd Malik Shakur was also killed in the incident, and Shakur was wounded.[5] 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.[6] In 2013, the FBI announced it had made Shakur the first woman on its list of most wanted terrorists.[7]"

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.

http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/25301892-418/school-officials-are-no-fans-of-gun-ban-signs.html

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:

Article quote:

“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.’ ”

Nolan said she is not opposed to posting it, she’s just worried that not enough people are aware of what it means and could misinterpret the new signage.
“I think the general public will be alarmed by it and wonder if people have been allowed to bring guns to school in the past,” she said. In her 22 years with Bremen Community High School District 228, she said, “I have no knowledge of guns ever being in this building.”
Nolan, and others, take issue with the sticker’s design.
“I would have appreciated something more subtle, yet still recognizable — a logo, perhaps, not a gun,” she said.
My inquiry:
What logo would you use to represent a gun that wasn't a gun?
Why would the presence of guns in the past, if no harm was caused, be distressful to anyone now?

Hi Mike,

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.

Theresa

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.)

The first part remains: What logo would serve in this capacity that would not have a picture of a gun?  What would represent a gun without being a gun?
Which leads to another question, of why is a generic image on a sticker so disturbing?  As a parallel, would we attempt to teach sex ed without representations of organs and birth control devices?

Thanks
Mike

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.

 Theresa

Thank you. That's very informative.  I understand your position.
I always assume (based on my own experiences) that a news article contains cherry picked quotes out of context.
Do you mind if I reference the dichotomy between statement and media presentation as an example?

Thanks
Mike
[NOTE:  in fact, teaching about no-carry zones is part of the IL CCW training]

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. 

Theresa

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.

 Theresa

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.

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?

To clarify:

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.

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."

http://www.securitydegreehub.com/mass-shootings/

My response: 
I notice one questionable point in the graph, "Armed with" and "Body armor."  It's not an arm.  "Equipped with" would be fair, though I would suggest it be a separate category for support equipment.  Other things in such a category could be battering rams, night vision, etc.  (if present).
I attribute the rise in incidents in part to visibility. With the need for 24 hour news to beat a subject to death in order to maintain ratings, the apparent eternity of information online, and even sites such as your own (Observation, not criticism), mass killers hope for some notoriety in death that they lacked in life, and that visibility is all but guaranteed.
I foresee the trend increasing, along with the choice of weapons.  It will take a cultural shift to reduce it, or improvements in real security, not just security theater.
And of course, cultural, social and economic stress always lead to an increase in visible demonstrations of frustration and pain.

Which of Us Is Selfish?
Oct 25, 201311:34AM

Category: Politics
Joel  • 36 minutes ago
You 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 ago
My 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.
   •Edit•Reply•Share ›  
Joel   MichaelZWilliamson  • 15 minutes ago
Find 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?
   •Reply•Share ›  
 •Edit•Reply•Share ›  
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.
   •Edit•Reply•Share ›   
MichaelZWilliamson  Joel   • a minute ago
Why 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 ago
Seriously. 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.

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.     

 •Edit•Reply•Share › 

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?     
 •Edit•Reply•Share ›  

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.
•Edit•Reply•Share ›   


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.

•Edit•Reply•Share ›

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.

At $42.8 billion per year, the Federal Highway Administration costs a smidge under $200 per person.  You benefit from roads, because you drive on them, and everything you buy or use is delivered on them.  There are other aspects of Federal transportation, and they're paid for by a combination of excise tax, income tax, etc.  Ultimately, all those taxes are a cost of doing business, and are passed on from shipper to user to consumer—you. 

http://www.dot.gov/mission/budget/fy2013-budget-estimates

What about schools?  Department of Education has a budget of $69.8 billion (it's doubled in four years, by the way), which costs about $326 per person.  Schools provide a skilled workforce that generate GDP, and it reduces the amount of scavenging, looting and other activity that we commonly consider crime.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html (also see Wikipedia for an easier summary).

So, these are things you pay for, and derive benefit from.

Now, let's move on to health care.

The uncomfortable fact is, few individuals affect you.  Immediate family, a few friends and coworkers, your employer.  And through Sept 30, 2013, we didn't have millions of people dying in the streets.  The system we had worked.  The worst case claims of the opponents conclude that 85% of Americans had adequate coverage, which means the real case is almost certainly over 90%, which is on par with any Western nation.  Let us dispense right now with (profanity for emphasis) any bullshit that "our life expectancy is 13th" or whatever.  It's within a year of every other Western democracy, and that's without accounting for lifestyle issues like diet and exercise, which health care can't fix.  More people come here for health care than go elsewhere.

Please keep in mind there was no requirement for any employer to provide you with health care coverage.  It was entirely a choice on their part, and those who could afford to generally chose to.

They can still choose not to, and you get the bill.  But now, that bill is mandatory.

So how much are you willing to pay for a human life?  If it's your own, and you have 50% odds, you'd likely sell all your possessions, because they're no use to you dead.  You’d probably do this for your immediate family.  For a close friend, you might sell a used car or take a loan on your house.  For a coworker or a local child with cancer, you might throw in fifty bucks.  For the homeless guy in Pasadena who's about to die in the gutter of liver failure, you don't give a shit.  Nor should you.  Millions of people get sick and die every year, with no real effect on you.  Close down a road, you suffer.  Close down a school, you'll suffer in twenty years.  Someone dies of cancer?  If they're not a close acquaintance, it doesn't affect you at all.

Be honest.  Would you pay $200 to save some homeless guy?  You might.  Once a year.  What about $326?  Possibly.

Would you pay $1000?

What about $10,000?

What about $100,000?

At some point we passed the threshold at which you care about another human being's life.  If you want to pretend we didn't, write a check for $5000 payable to Health and Human Services, mail it to me, and I'll see that they deposit it.

Here's the problem:  You've told the government they get to set that value.  You no longer have a valid legal argument against paying.  It doesn’t matter if you can't pay it. It's tax.

Now, they insist there will be various means of moderating the system.  But liberals are notorious for having no clue how these things work.  Canada's gun registration program was supposed to cost a few million dollars.  It wound up over $2 billion.  On this, we've already found out that the morons didn't figure that a business would actually shift employment to part time to avoid a cost it could avoid.

Here's what it's likely to cost you, now, before they find more problems and realize that since it's cheaper for a young college person earning $25,000 to pay the fine (sorry, "tax") rather than get insurance ($2535) with an $826 subsidy taken out, which you'd pay, they're probably going to do that. Which means you'll STILL be paying for the ER care, just like now.  Same for the 64 year old on a marginal income ($7606).  They actually pay $1729, getting a subsidy of $5877, which you pay.  For every one of them getting a subsidy, one of YOU has to pay that subsidy. The money doesn't magically appear from nowhere.

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

You will be paying $5000 a year for someone else.

It may only be $2000.  It may be $10,000.  But YOU will be paying for some random stranger's care.

At what point does your employer decide they can't afford it?  Keep in mind, in the real nonliberal world, a company's assets are limited, and most companies are fairly small.

When they decide they can't afford it, you pay out of pocket.  If you're lucky.  If you're unlucky, they say they can't afford to keep you on, and you have no job, and STILL pay out of pocket.  Of course, you're then eligible for "free" care, which is good, because all the people who were getting it free were being paid on your dime.

The cold, hard fact is that public health is a matter for epidemics and immunizations, and your horrifically painful liver cancer matters not at all to 214 million people.

Nor should it.

The Budget Menu
Oct 08, 201307:14PM

Category: Politics

The House today sent its tenth dinner menu to Harry Reid and Barrack 0bama.

"We'll try carrots," John Boehner said.  "Harry absolutely refused to open his door to brussels sprouts or fried cabbage.  Barrack gathered up his toy soldiers and ran bawling when we said we were having broccoli.  We've tried stir fried squash, celery with peanut butter and even deep-fried okra.  There's only so much left in the grocery."

Harry Reid said if dinner wasn't cake and ice cream, he wasn't coming to the table.  He said he was willing to consider strawberry, but wouldn't even respond if it wasn't at least vanilla, with the cake having chocolate frosting.

John Boehner said, "He's not being realistic.    They get to vote on the menu, but we do the shopping and the cooking.  At some point, they're just going to have to eat their vegetables.  Whining to their friends is not going to change that."