« Here's What I Did Yesterday To Keep Busy | Main | Think Before You Tug »
Wednesday
Feb132013

Just Noticed

Maybe it is just me, but I have a tendency to notice things other people don’t.

Here are few examples:

I noticed that at the Super Bowl these days you are not allowed to have camera shots of the various cheerleaders from the chin down, if at all, shown during the game like we used to see when I cared about football.

But at half-time in 2013 you can watch some leggy woman in a thong do squat thrusts, hand stands, and splits for a solid half hour.

Another thing I noticed recently is the total evaporation of burger joint commercials that have a dorky white guy rapping the words to some ode to the hip culture of fast food.

The most disturbing trend I spotted recently is rigged polling data about guns.

Have you noticed that?

All the questions in ALL the polls are the same. I’ll sum it up.

They go in a pre-planned direction like this:

“How long will it be before America stops letting people have guns?”

Choose one answer

A. Five years.

B. Ten years.

C. Next year?

That’s what it looks like to me.

First of all, the polls are all about gun control, not Second Amendment limitation.

Take for example if I had a poll that asked if people thought certain things should not be said – bad things.

Ask a person a question like this:

“Do you think it would be helpful if people did not say hateful things?”

Choose one.

A. Yes it would.

B. Most likely.

C. Not sure.

Frame the poll about “saying bad things” NOT the First Amendment. Then all you do is ride that poll, and any more you can have some rich non-profit pay for, right up to Election Day.

If Republicans were not so lily-livered they would invest in my idea of a “gun” poll.

 

“Are you in favor of registering all guns in America so they can be confiscated?”

A. That would be treason

B. Not as long as I live.

C. I knew Obama was a communist.

 

“Do think Obama’s plan for gun confiscation violates every person’s God given right to self-defense under the Second Amendment?”

A. Sure it does.

B. How could it not?

C. I knew “community organizer” meant communist.

 

“Did you know most liberals are armed to the teeth with illegal weapons?”

A. My panty-waist progressive neighbors all have handguns and Volvos.

B. Yes, it makes up for other shortcomings they have.

C. Probably Russian or Chinese.

 

Aren’t you glad you have an honest poll about the Second Amendment for once?

A. Bout time.

B. Hold it up one hundred yards away and I’ll fill it out.

C. Communists always lie about gun confiscation – just like Nazi’s

 

Reader Comments (22)

I just noticed that the way you try to frame an issue is to take it to the extreme. Instead of talking about the possible solutions being presented for greater gun safety and crime prevention in the United States, i.e. (1), more thorough background checks, (2), limitations on some kinds of mass-killing machines, and (3), responsible limitations on high-capacity gun clips, you talk about confiscation -- which President Barack Obama hasn't mentioned at all.

That's an interesting technique by you and the corporate gun industry, which makes big bucks out of selling their ever-more powerful weapons to fearful Americans. But, it's just a big lie. And I trust most Americans see through that tactic. Even strong supporters of the Second Amendment like myself and most N.R.A. members support reasonable regulations for greater gun safety and crime prevention.

THAT'S what this issue is about. But instead of having an intelligent discussion, some just want to confuse the issue for their own self-centered political, philosophical, or financial purposes. And more will die because of that. Sad. Very sad.
February 13, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Jim:

I'm afraid if you keep up this hurtful speech I may, for saftey sake, have to limit your ability to provide us with your upside down progressive logic.

From now on I will regulate what you say and put some minor restrictions on selected sentences.

I don't think anyone will mind if we can save just one child.
February 14, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
Do it for safety's sake, Ed. Jimbo's rat-a-tat high-clip speech is both excessive and not what America wants. We need reasonable limits on how many words he's allowed to extrude through his pie-hole. As a first step toward this very reasonable approach – you know, to get the conversation started, to engage with the community – I recommend that we first register the speech of Jimbo .... I did not say confiscate. But we certainly will have his address should a kerfuffle break out and prove the need to impound his silly little words before they go out and hurt the chilt'ren.
– C. dog, Safety Agent, FCC
February 14, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
I'll support stronger background checks for guns when we institute strong background checks for politicians.
After all far more harm can be brought to far more people by a corrupt criminal politician then a sole person with a gun.
February 14, 2013 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Unless everyone starts talking about the same thing, it's just a huge waste of time to even try to have a discussion. Let's start with the basics. Do we have a gun violence problem in the United States?
February 14, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterTroll
dog:

Our problem in America is that so many politicians and former politicans are saying things that should be, at the very least, regulated to some extent.

We all agree, correct!

I request unanimous consent - thank you.

Now on to what I was saying:

Simple restrictions on liberal speech would do everyone a great service and lend a huge lift to overall debate and acceptable sets of facts.

I am going to do a poll regarding sensible speech regulations.

First, everyone must register to speak/comment on this site.
February 14, 2013 | Registered CommenterEd Naile
Troll, you are doing exactly what Ed points out in the article, framing the debate around the question that leads to the solution you want.

More people are murdered with hammers or other blunt objects each year then with assault rifles.

Therefor how about we has the question, do we have a hammer problem in the US?

Or how about this question, just 50 years ago in American history we trusted children in school to take shooting classes and carrying rifles in school, today schools go into lock down when children pretend their fingers are guns and the children get suspended for it. What changed in the last 50 years to cause such a dramatic shift in our culture?
February 14, 2013 | Registered CommenterRick Barnes
Troll –
No. Here's a question: do we have a motor vehicle violence problem in America? Too much food in pie-hole violence in America? Too much prescription drug violence in America? Take your pick, discounts for bulk sales.
– C. dog, Violence Moderator, CNN
February 14, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
Troll asks a core question, and frame the issue as anyone will you still can't get around that core question: do we have AN UNNECCESSARY SPEECH problem in America?

If so, then what to do? We can probably all agree on better mental health background checks before SPEAKING TOO MUCH, can't we?

Can we then agree that we should keep SPEECH out of the MOUTHS OF LIBERALS let out of THE LEGISLATURE? If so, those background checks need to include secondary-SPEECH such as COMMENTS ON BLOGS.

Do we agree that people shouldn't TALK OUT OF TURN? If so, are there other high-capacity LANGUAGE and talking that should be limited? If not, are there no limits? If so, why not allow people WHO SAY BAD THINGS? Then what? Cannon? Bombs?

I think if everyone put their own walls aside and look at Troll's question, we might be able to have a national dialogue. If not, then we get nowhere. As a strong supporter of the NEW FIRST Amendment, I hope we have the dialogue.

(READERS: I had to re-write some of Jim's speech to make it conform to my new, common sense regulations so that not one child would be harmed. He is a great proponent of the New First Amendment and certainly will not mind some small amount of regulation.)
Ed Naile - Speech Regulator per Administrative Rule
February 14, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Classic, Ed. Poor Jimbo, victim of his own rules, hoisted by his own petard, whatever a petard is. Long live Jimbo Shackelford, and the a$$ he rode in on.
– C. dog unchaining his sweet melody
February 14, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
(whisper)
dog:
He won't even get it.
(disengage whisper)
February 14, 2013 | Registered CommenterEd Naile
So sad, Ed. Blocking other's commentary is one thing, but changing words or adding your own over someone's name is just plan wrong, even with a blogger's license.

You have gone overboard, and made it clear you don't want to engage in intelligent dialogue. Fortunately, no one but those who agree with your narrowly-defined viewpoints read your commentary anyway, so I will leave you to your own friends.

It's been fun while it lasted, and that I have been able to force you into a corner and close your door is success on my part. You can't stand the heat of logic thrown back at you, so your response is to ignore anyone who challenges your lack of sense.
February 14, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Dear readers:

Alas, Jim Splaine's notion that the old First Amendment means something has left him with no alternative but to wander off the New Second Amendent reservation.

(He may never have passed the background check for registration to comment here anyway.)

I never, in my wildest dreams, thought Jim Splaine would act like some frightened, knuckledragging gun owner who had his his right to bear arms infringed to the point of risking arrest for possesing scary looking guns - in the common sense name of safety. We all want safety.

But as we could all see, his comments were getting a bit outrageous to the point I was forced, by common sense regulation, to limit the carrying capacity of some of his comments - so no child or animals would be harmed.

Who could have predicted this outcome.

I will miss Jim's upside-down, right is wrong, good is bad, words don't mean anything, progressive comments, but we just can't have all that kind of old-fashioned debate with the New First Amendment regulations imposed here by me in my official capacity as Administartive Head of Speech.
February 14, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
Oh, and Happy Valentine's Day!
February 14, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine
Thanks Jim!

As usual, I forgot to get ya a card.
February 15, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterEd Naile
Jimbo –
Let me 'splaine somefin' to you, somefin' I thought would have been obvious to anyone except the most concrete of government school extrusions: Ed was showing you first hand, by example – a very important teaching device don'tcha know? – what it's like to have one of the enumerated rights in the constitutions trampled all over. Evidently, you were not clever enough to pick up on that. I am neither shocked nor surprised that this blew past you, and your only response was to have a hissy fit. We expected nothing more from you.

Now Troll on the other hand, maybe he picked up on a pointy barb or two.
– C. dog toying with dumbfounded Lib trolls caught in their own traps
February 15, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
Rick, first your hammer/ assault rifle arguement is a straw man and is not germane to the discussion. We can all throw out Fox news/CNN talking points but they add nothing to the dialog that is going on. If you want to make your arguements with sound bites you heard on Rush then it's a waste of time even discussing this with you.

I understand what you mean about the question I posed so let me see if I can reframe it. In 2011, 32,163 people were killed by firearms in the United States. Is there an issue that needs to be addressed? I'm not sure how else to ask the question. If you think that is too directing as well then I would ask how can the question be framed in terms you don't think are leading. My guess is any question that involves firearms and death would be too pointed for you.

I see Dog throws out his larks about vehicle violence and perscription drug violence but honestly I think he's arguing againt point there. There is a vehicle violence problem. That's why we make reasonable laws limiting speed and also have regulations that require minimum safety standards. The result is a 60 year low in vehicle deaths. Then, we have a prescription drug problem in the US. So we make reasonable laws that target prescription drug abuse to attempt to decrease the damage. I know that guns are not the same as these but Dog was the one who made the comparison. I'm just pointing out the speciousness of his arguements.

As to you last point about children and guns, I think you have a valid point. In general, people who are exposed to guns IN A PROPER WAY at a young age have a better understanding for the potential harm and thus show firearms a proper respect. I'm not sure what has changed in 50 years and that is certainly worth exploring as well. However, I think rather than taking 50 years to try and change norms back, we need to look at how society is today and work within that framework. Wishing for the good old days to come back around is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent dealing with today.
February 15, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterTroll
Oh, dear.

It looks like some people just don't understand how the New First Amendment works.

Fifty years ago people could say just about anything and get away with it.

Not so in the year 2013 as we have grown beyond the need for a written Bill of Rights with traditional meaning.

Americans have grown past needing to protect themselves with the old-fashioned description of arms since the government does such a good job - and that extends to crazy speech as well.

So, as the Administrative Head of Speech and Comment I am issuing a warning to all those using the old-fashioned definition of debate - that I will be regulating the high capacity commenting with minor adjustments for everyone's benefit.

Here is to saving at least one child and possibly, animals as well.
February 15, 2013 | Registered CommenterEd Naile
So Troll –
What's the real problem here: people dying, or people killed by the hands of others, or people killed by others using somefin' you don't like? If you are for assisted suicide, then right off the bat we can eliminate about half the deaths involving the use of a gun ... or do you want to regulate that too?

Then we have the criminal element. Sure are a passel of them lurkin' about. What do to do, what to do. Might want to start by keeping bad boys and girls in jail, and to make room, zap the really, really bad ones. Of course, we could free up many more beds by getting rid of silly prohibitions, not by instituting unconstitutionally even more. Works for me. But it sure will have a dampening effect on income redistribution to your friends south of the border. But I digress, my focus is on the United in unholy matrimony states.

Then there's the crazies. Seems like they will always have access to some instrument of destruction, be it a car, a bomb, or guns. Well, there was that suggestion I posited to you some time ago about eliminating the shooting galleries. Why it's so damn logical that even BozObama couldn't completely ignore its sensibilities. Perhaps you're up to this Herculean task? (Have you cleaned out the stables lately?) Or is this a conversation you're not ready to have?

There, that oughtta put a dent in your numbers, or is that not the purpose of this community conversation?

Now let's leave discussions of Government motor safety to another day. And I bet you wouldn't want to engage in a chat about Nanny's efficacy in keeping tabs on the medicine cabinet considering her woeful record rate of failure. (pssst, she's used to it)
– C. dog emerging from his cabin chrysalis a tad early to stretch
February 15, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterC. dog
No hissy fit, Mr. or Ms. C.dog. But when people change words or add words in any blog, that's overstepping blogging license. Blogs live on forever, and free speech on anyone's part does not include changing the wording of a blog attributed to a name. Mr. Ed overstepped the responsible bounds of blogging, to his detriment.

Of course, if he were to apologize and say he'll never do that again, I'd continue playing on his field. Otherwise, he's shown he will abuse his editing power, which I assume he's responsible enough not to use on this posting.

And belated Happy Valentine's Day to you, too.
February 15, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJim Splaine

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.