Secret Police
Oct. 9th, 2007 03:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pasitheahttp://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1035832#articleFull
Well.. Okay. Do you think it's secret police or do you think it's a clever new dodge for HMOs? How easy it'd before them to say, "Oh! This person falsified information to their doctor. They had a drink last Tuesday. Obviously an alcoholic in denial."
Generally I'm all for making parents suffer (particularly the ones across the way from me with about 18 children that all ride around on electric dental drill toys and have very loud bad sound samples on them, and they fight a lot and scream at their kids at 6 in the morning to get ready for school. Oh, and did I mention the parrot? PRETTY BIRD! (Note to self, borrow Atari from Ashy and leave it running in the window to reprogram neighbor's bird)
But seriously. Creepy, neh? I must also admit I find the focus on guns rather dull from both sides. On the one, WAH GUNS LIBERALS COMMIES! And on the other, who cares if some idiot has a gun. Wars in the US are fought with TV stations. Guns are useless against satellites and nuclear missiles and aircraft flying at mach, and tanks. They're not even very useful against modern riot armor. Oh sure, the militias yap about how they could take a military compound or have military people join them but take another look at the first 2. There were huge protests at the start of the Iraq war but they got no air time on TV. They were played down to be 'small groups of angry protesters' on the national news. Guns are useless against media.
Coming back around, I think the thing that bothered me most about this article was the focus on guns and the implication that gun-control (read as liberals) were behind this and that's all that any of the other articles online seem to care about. Guns guns guns! WAH!!!! But you know what. It took joint approval for this kind of crap. The BATF and the increase in power to the FBI was the work of conservative christians regulating morality during prohibition. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed by democrats, right wingnuts are fond of pointing out. Though if you were talking about racism instead of guns, they'd happily tell you that most KKK members at that time were democrats. Oh, and the Brady bill... Signed by majority of democrats and Clinton.. Named after the secret service guy that died taking a bullet for Ronald Reagan. Take a closer look at the way the votes went down on that one, and fucking wake up.
A so-called liberal may have pulled the trigger in Massachusetts but conservatives are every bit as guilty for setting up an environment with so much fear that stuff like this could be approved. From what google searches tell me, I suspect they'd make scarcely a peep if kids were just reporting on the drug and alcohol use of their parents or if they were gay or commies. The right will continue to blame the left 100% for gun control issues and simultaneously scare people into accepting more and more control. Run sheep run!
Well.. Okay. Do you think it's secret police or do you think it's a clever new dodge for HMOs? How easy it'd before them to say, "Oh! This person falsified information to their doctor. They had a drink last Tuesday. Obviously an alcoholic in denial."
Generally I'm all for making parents suffer (particularly the ones across the way from me with about 18 children that all ride around on electric dental drill toys and have very loud bad sound samples on them, and they fight a lot and scream at their kids at 6 in the morning to get ready for school. Oh, and did I mention the parrot? PRETTY BIRD! (Note to self, borrow Atari from Ashy and leave it running in the window to reprogram neighbor's bird)
But seriously. Creepy, neh? I must also admit I find the focus on guns rather dull from both sides. On the one, WAH GUNS LIBERALS COMMIES! And on the other, who cares if some idiot has a gun. Wars in the US are fought with TV stations. Guns are useless against satellites and nuclear missiles and aircraft flying at mach, and tanks. They're not even very useful against modern riot armor. Oh sure, the militias yap about how they could take a military compound or have military people join them but take another look at the first 2. There were huge protests at the start of the Iraq war but they got no air time on TV. They were played down to be 'small groups of angry protesters' on the national news. Guns are useless against media.
Coming back around, I think the thing that bothered me most about this article was the focus on guns and the implication that gun-control (read as liberals) were behind this and that's all that any of the other articles online seem to care about. Guns guns guns! WAH!!!! But you know what. It took joint approval for this kind of crap. The BATF and the increase in power to the FBI was the work of conservative christians regulating morality during prohibition. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed by democrats, right wingnuts are fond of pointing out. Though if you were talking about racism instead of guns, they'd happily tell you that most KKK members at that time were democrats. Oh, and the Brady bill... Signed by majority of democrats and Clinton.. Named after the secret service guy that died taking a bullet for Ronald Reagan. Take a closer look at the way the votes went down on that one, and fucking wake up.
A so-called liberal may have pulled the trigger in Massachusetts but conservatives are every bit as guilty for setting up an environment with so much fear that stuff like this could be approved. From what google searches tell me, I suspect they'd make scarcely a peep if kids were just reporting on the drug and alcohol use of their parents or if they were gay or commies. The right will continue to blame the left 100% for gun control issues and simultaneously scare people into accepting more and more control. Run sheep run!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-10 05:20 pm (UTC)On the other other hand, I suppose it would be fair to say that I do hold a certain contempt for breeding. We're rapidly approaching 7 BILLION people on the planet. It's sick. I like wild spaces and other animals and room to move around. I do see breeding as being rather selfish and ugly. I'm struck by a certain irony when I go to the zoo and see a family with 5 children gawping at a tiger in a cage and shaking their head sadly that there are so few left. If there weren't so many god damned humans encroaching on their space, there'd be more tigers.
Hate's such a funny word though. I don't think I genuinely hate anything. I hold contempt for a lot of things but it doesn't translate to unequivocal hate for an entire group. I don't hate parents. I don't support the idea of having children and I don't care for people who are rude to others or selfish but hating people just because their parents or christians or ex-republicans or whatever would be like road-rage killing someone who cut you off in traffic. Everyone does things other people don't approve of. It's not the end of the world.
Blah. So hard to explain what I feel is the difference between me and a bigot. I guess the best way I can come up with is a comparison:
You know I hold religion in low regard BUT I don't say that faith is completely useless. There are even aspects of it I envy. My disrespect is for the way people cede power thoughtlessly. Furthermore, I have NEVER said and would never support any kind of law saying people could not practice their religion at all. That's a lot different from the majority of the other side who would happily declare being gay a felony and a mental disorder and do not grant me and my partner of 10 years the same rights as heterosexual couples.
Same kind of thing with having children. I don't really think breeding is a good idea at this time in history but I'm not going to suggest your children get shipped off to the camps and gassed or that you should be beaten with a rubber hose.