HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Dog Gone at Penigma » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

Dog Gone at Penigma

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:55 AM
Number of posts: 431

Journal Archives

The claims about gun control and the Holocaust are bogus

Factually inaccurate revisionist history, like that promoted by the Tea Party, is the intellectual equivalent of lead poisoning. It dumbs down America. This is true of world history being distorted and subverted, and it is true of the claims about WW II and gun control. Right wing gun control opponents persist in circulating fake Hitler quotes, as an example. Accurate history, not gun control, is the best way to prevent future Holocausts from ever happening again.

from the JTA

ADL calls on conservatives to keep Nazi analogies out of gun debate

January 25, 2013

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- The Anti-Defamation League called on conservatives to keep Nazi analogies out of the gun control debate.

"The idea that supporters of gun control are doing something akin to what Hitler’s Germany did to strip citizens of guns in the run-up to the Second World War is historically inaccurate and offensive, especially to Holocaust survivors and their families," Abraham Foxman, ADL's national director, said Thursday in a statement.

The statement cited the proliferation of such arguments among gun control opponents in the wake of calls for greater gun controls after last month's massacre of first graders in Connecticut by a lone gunman.

The Drudge Report headlined the White House's announcement of such proposals with mug shots of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin and an array of conservative pundits have claimed that the Holocaust would not have been inevitable had Jews been able to bear arms.


Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:23 AM (80 replies)

gun porn and the response to gun control

from penigma:

(warning; while not hard core porn, the images on the content on penigma are possibly NOT suitable for an office computer)

The urban dictionary refers to gun porn as the fetish images of guns lit like porn models (no gender or orientation specified), or as exaggerated gore and violence in the portrayal of guns. The way I'm using the term here it is the connection between guns and the sexuality of guys who aren't getting any - or not what they want, and their desire for firearms to make them feel manly and powerful, and therefore appealing to women who want them with guns but not without them.

Statistics show that fewer people are owning guns, with more of those few owning more guns than previously. Similarly statistics show that more conservatives/ Republicans and Tea Partiers own guns, while there has been a marked decline in gun ownership among liberals / Democrats from earlier years.

I would point out that these images demonstrate a sexual objectivizing of women, and note that it has been the right that has been the most pro-rape, anti-women in their various culture war legislation AGAINST women. There appears to be a clear pattern of attempting to dominate and subordinate women from the right under the guise of traditional values, reducing variously the legal support for women to be paid equally, and attempting to take away women's rights to control their reproductive health decisions.

(Please note where there is no copyrighted indication or origination information, attribution is included in the photos)

Here is an example of what is wrong with the gun nuts, including apparent sexual gratification from guns and a relationship to them that strongly implies they are classic fetish objects.

Wikipedia defines sexual fetish as:

Sexual fetishism, or erotic fetishism, is the sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation. The object or situation of interest is called the fetish; the person who has a fetish for that object/situation is a fetishist. A sexual fetish may be regarded as an enhancing element to a romantic/sexual relationship "achieved in ordinary ways (e.g. having the partner wear a particular garment)" or as a mental disorder/disorder of sexual preference if it causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life.

This suggests a more accurate explanation of at least some of the pro-gunners at having their sex toys regulated or restricted, and certainly justifies the skepticism that the desire for guns is only the oh-so-heroic duty to defend their helpless loved one. There is clearly an alternate aspect to the appeal of guns, and that attraction and relationship in turn is very much a part of the response to gun control that is emotional rather than entirely logical.

read the rest :
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2013/01/gun-porn.html
Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Wed Jan 30, 2013, 02:54 PM (52 replies)

Tennessee suspends James Yeager’s handgun carry permit The star of a terrifying viral video promise

Source: Salon.com

Yeager — who made that frightening video promising he would start killing people if gun control legislation progressed — has had his handgun carry permit suspended by state officials, according to local TV reports.

Late Friday afternoon, the move was made by the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security. In a statement, the department cited a “material likelihood of risk of harm to the public.”

Yeager told a WSMV-TV reporter that he is “aware of the suspension,” but will let his lawyer speak for him from now on.

In the YouTube video, which went viral today, Yeager vowed that ”I’m not going to let anyone take my guns. If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/tennessee_suspends_james_yeagers_handgun_carry_permit/



Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Fri Jan 11, 2013, 05:38 PM (13 replies)

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair

How prophetic about the right wing, including the religious right, Minnesota-born Nobel-prize-for-literature-winning author and playwright Sinclair Lewis was. He knew his onions, as the saying goes, or in this case human nature and behavior, specifically conservatives, and he apparently had shrewdly observed early on the same symptoms that were later correlated as right wing authoritarian syndrome. The term really became well known during his lifetime, born in 1885 in Sauk Centre, MN to 1951 when he died in Italy; so he used it from direct observation of fascism in his lifetime.

Because when one hears the word fascism or sees it used, it usually refers to a coercive, authoritarian, conformity requiring entity or part of the political spectrum.

As the right becomes increasingly desperate in the face of losses and failures, it is reasonable to expect they will continue to double down on the same causes of that failure, or retreat into greater extremism. The lack the capacity to adapt, modernize, or change. Change terrifies them, and they seek consolation and comfort in ideology no matter how badly failed, like their economic policies, by ignoring the reality of that failure.

A tip of the hat and a thank you to my co-blogger on penigma, Laci for permission to cross post part of this from his own blog. It is eerily appropriate to some of our contemporary events :



By Lawrence W Britt, NOT Dr. Lawrence Britt - there is no such person as Dr. Britt; the author has no such academic credential. Lawrence Britt is a former corporate executive who wrote a dystopian novel back in 1998, set in the mid 2000's. The following is however from an email that widely circulated from this interview originally appearing in July, 2004. That does not change that Britt appears to have quite correctly identified themes or characteristics common to fascism. While I'm still trying to confirm that the obit I found is for the same person, not someone who shares a name, if correct, Britt was born in 1939 and died in 2010, which would have given him at least some overlap in time with Sinclair Lewis during the rise and fall of fascism during WW II. The following is not Sinclair Lewis Nobel prize winning literature, but it is still shrewd observation from lowly chain emails.

Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military – Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.


read the rest here:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2013/01/when-fascism-comes-to-america-it-will.html

Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Thu Jan 3, 2013, 04:54 PM (6 replies)

A modest proposal

A Modest Proposal
Earlier this week, there was a law suit filed and then withdrawn over the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre.

I read this article, in the Examiner, that predicts future law suits.

I read MN state Rep. Tony Cornish's piece in the STrib advocating for a hearing to put armed guards in schools and applauding armed teachers too. Cornish submitted the MN shoot first law, that appears to have actually been drafted by NRA board member and Minnesota law professor Joe Olsen. It is a recipe for liability litigation disaster and a dangerous situation setting up significant potential risk.

I was appalled that he claims there are already armed teachers in schools - there should not be. They can legally do so under this statute:
MN statute 609.66, subdivision 1d, section 8. "This subdivision does not apply to (8) possession of dangerous weapons, BB guns, or replica firearms with written permission of the principal or other person having general control and supervision of the school or the director of a child care center; "


A suggestion that I think makes sense in the larger context of Newtown, CT, and the lawsuits that are already being filed or are anticipated against that school district:

Amended that statute, that section, to state that all such permission:

1. MUST be in writing, with copies kept on file by the person giving permission, (protection for both school admin and teacher) AND

2. that such permission must be covered by the school's liability insurance, AND

3. that the insurer must be notified that such person has been given that permission in writing, AND

4. that the person given the permission must show a current concealed carry permit.

I really don't see a lot of schools willing to pop for the additional cost of paying for armed guards or paying for the liability insurance that should go hand in hand with the risks that are posed by armed teachers. But if we have made it legal, let's make it financially responsible too.

Meanwhile, in Arizona, gun nut right wing crazy Sheriff Joe Arpaio is organizing armed citizens with firearms to surround and patrol their schools. There are few if any requirements to carry a gun in Arizona, nor does Arizona cooperate with the submission of prohibited people's names to the NICS data base -- which means that the FFL checks before someone buys a gun from a licensed dealer are checking a largely empty data base, not that there are few prohibited people buying guns in Arizona. Arizona is also one of the border states where straw purchasers frequently make large purchases of assault style weapons, and then turn them over to drug cartels and narco-terrorists while the authorities blow it off as legal citizen purchases. Are THESE the people you want to trust with guns around ANYONE, much less a school?
As Newsvine noted about these volunteers]:

It should be noted, of course, that while some sort of background check is being done on these volunteers, no mental health tests are being done and, therefore, we won’t know if we may be sending a crazy person with a gun to a school full of trusting kids. And even though a background check may show some discrepancy, it is not known what level of acceptance the Sheriff is allowing for those with misdemeanors, those who are wife beaters, those with anger management issues; those who have problems with alcohol and substance abuse or even some alleged but unproven pedophilia issues. These are not the people to be sending into schools with guns.


Why does this matter?
Anyone here remember T.J. Ready?

If we are arming people in direct response to a threat, real or perceived or imaginary, then it makes sense to have everyone's ducks in a row, to do so in a financially responsible manner, and in the safest possible way. We should not be taking less care with who we arm than we do with who we allow to drive our school buses.
Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Thu Jan 3, 2013, 03:07 PM (3 replies)

gun violence control through mandatory liability insurance and taxation - from Forbes

I find the intersection of economics and other disciplines fascinating, like endocrinology and neuro-economics. In this instance, the author proposes a means by which the invisible hand of the markets might help contribute to the reduction of gun violence.

I think the idea of mandatory requirements for liability insurance for firearms, the way we require it for automobiles, is an excellent solution to a range of problems, including losses from injury and from property damage.

This particular author includes an aspect of taxation in conjunction with liability insurance while referencing social economics sources which make it of particular interest in how financial policy affects our lives.

From Forbes:

Newtown's New Reality: Using Liability Insurance to Reduce Gun Deaths


We are all mourning now. Children should not be murdered in their classrooms. They shouldn’t be afraid that their teacher will be shot, as my 12-year-old daughter worries. Schools should not become armed camps. Many of the low-hanging fruit approaches seem like no-brainers: Ban assault weapons, gun-show sales, multiple-ammo clips and require longer, more stringent background checks.
For the record: I’m not of the mind that every gun-owner is a threat to society nor should we restrict gun use for hunters, collectors and target shooters. My father owns guns, I have shot guns many times, have known people who were murdered by guns and witnessed a police shooting in 1981.

But I don’t think a widespread seizure of some 300 million American weapons will ever work. In fact, just mention “gun control,” and the very phrase shuts down conversation and invokes the vague rights and curse of the second amendment. Challenges to the constitution would never make it through the Roberts court, anyway.

What we can do is to look at gun sales through the lens of social economics. Market-based risk pricing is the partial answer. Let’s agree that guns as weapons are inherently dangerous to society and owners should bear the risk and true social costs. Translation: Require both owners and sellers to purchase liability insurance that is universally underwritten by actuaries according to relative risk.

Given that gun violence, which kills more than 30,000 Americans annually, is harmful not only to our well being, but our economy, we should use economic disincentives to regulate its use.


read more here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/12/17/newtowns-new-reality-using-liability-insurance-to-reduce-gun-deaths/
Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:23 PM (111 replies)

guns and the social economics of mandatory liability insurance and taxation

I find the intersection of economics and other disciplines fascinating, like endocrinology and neuro-economics. In this instance, the author proposes a means by which the invisible hand of the markets might help contribute to the reduction of gun violence.

I think the idea of mandatory requirements for liability insurance for firearms, the way we require it for automobiles, is an excellent solution to a range of problems, including losses from injury and from property damage.

This particular author includes an aspect of taxation in conjunction with liability insurance while referencing social economics sources which make it of particular interest in how financial policy affects our lives.

Apart from the emotional costs of lost lives and the pain of injury, there are very real financial costs to our gun culture in the U.S. that have an impact on our economy. The CDC noted here that there is a real economic cost to suicide:

Injury from self-directed violence, which includes suicidal behavior and its consequences, is a leading cause of death and disability. In 2007, suicide was the 11th leading cause of death in the United States and the cause of 34,598 deaths (1). In 2000, the estimated cost of self-directed violence (fatal and nonfatal) was $33 billion ($32 billion in productivity losses and $1 billion in medical costs) (2). Suicide rates are influenced by biological, psychological, social, moral, political, and economic factors (3). Self-directed violence in the United States affects all racial/ethnic groups but often is misperceived to be a problem solely affecting non-Hispanic white males (4).


Bloomberg Businessweek noted a week ago that gun violence costs the U.S. 174 Billion:

The impact of gun deaths and injuries go well beyond heartbreak to include billions of dollars of losses to the economy. The cost of U.S. gun violence in work lost, medical care, insurance, criminal-justice expenses and pain and suffering amounted to as much as $174 billion in 2010, according to data compiled by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Calverton, Maryland.

The nonprofit organization provides cost estimates of illnesses and injuries for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Transportation Department and industry associations, said economist Ted Miller, the group’s principal research scientist.


This is not in any way to diminish the other aspects of gun violence - I also posted this to the gun group btw. But it also belongs here for discussion because it is about using economics to solve not only an economic problem but to also understand the potential for the application of practical economic policy and economic pressures on a social problem that is also an economic problem. It is about, imho, practical economics in a very important kind of usage. So while some of you might at first blush think this post is in the wrong group, please withhold your judgment for a moment, and read the whole thing. It is about guns, yes, but it is about economics and it is about taxation, and a proposal to use how those applications work in the real world to solve a problem which is, at least in part, economic in nature. I hope you will read both the Businessweek article and the Forbes article, and that it might prompt some discussion.

From Forbes:

Newtown's New Reality: Using Liability Insurance to Reduce Gun Deaths


...What we can do is to look at gun sales through the lens of social economics. Market-based risk pricing is the partial answer. Let’s agree that guns as weapons are inherently dangerous to society and owners should bear the risk and true social costs. Translation: Require both owners and sellers to purchase liability insurance that is universally underwritten by actuaries according to relative risk.

Given that gun violence, which kills more than 30,000 Americans annually, is harmful not only to our well being, but our economy, we should use economic disincentives to regulate its use.

read more here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/12/17/newtowns-new-reality-using-liability-insurance-to-reduce-gun-deaths/
Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:22 PM (36 replies)

Please sign a petition to the White House on gun legislation

cross posted from facebook:

I did something useful this afternoon; I went to the white house gov petitions site, and not only signed ALL of the petitions to pro actively enact and promote safer gun laws - there are approximately 166 possible petitions to sign (and a lot of them are seeking to put guns in schools, and armed veterans in schools); I also started a petition of my own, because I didn't see anything similar.

My petition is one I hope will be reviewed by Vice President Biden, and incorporated in the recommendations he makes to Congress. My petition was that all gun owners must carry liability insurance on every gun they own, lease, or use.

To be seen among the 166 petitions, I have to first have 150 people sign that petition. So I would like to start with all of you, and have you share it with your friends and family.

Liability insurance would be like car insurance; it would mean that those who are harmed by someone's gun, whether they use it or it is used by someone else (with or without their permission) could expect to be compensated for their medical bills, for pain and suffering, for lost wages. In the event of fatalities, that could mean paying for the very expensive costs of a funeral. In the event of property damage, it could mean reimbursement for loss or damage.

Firearms use causes a lot of expense, and too often the victim has to bear that burden, or the taxpayers, or a mix of both. In this respect we should not be treating guns any different than automobiles. Depending which side you sympathize with, if you remember the wrongful death civil case of O.J. Simpson, the advantages to the gun owner with having insurance, to pay for any liability, rather than risk losing what you own or earn, should also be obvious. It is a win-win suggestion that benefits gun owners as well, in the way auto insurance works with accidents, including those that could occur if your car was stolen and involved in an accident.

If liability insurance becomes widely used, comprehensive property insurance should also become more cheaply and widely available that could compensate the gun owner for loss, theft, or damage of their firearms and related firearm equipment.

Please sign, and please ask others to sign. I have only 30 days to get 25,000 signatures. The sooner the petition has 150, the sooner other people can see it easily on the white house gov web site. Thank you.

The petition is available here:
http://wh.gov/n968|http://wh.gov/n968]
Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Wed Dec 19, 2012, 05:39 PM (4 replies)

In the context of the fiscal cliff discussion, and austerity/cuts.....

this was a fascinating article from Robert Skidelsky, at project syndicate:

a brief excerpt from his bio:
Robert Skidelsky, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University and a fellow of the British Academy in history and economics, is a member of the British House of Lords. The author of a three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes, he began his political career in the Labour party, became the Conservative Party’s spokesman for Treasury affairs in the House of Lords, and was eventually forced out of the Conservative Party for his opposition to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999.


UK conservatives are significantly different than US conservatives in many respects. For starters, they can be openly Keynsians instead of Austrian School adherents, and they don't tend to be disconnected from verifiable facts and objective reality. What happens in Europe affects us; what we do affects them (possibly more so). We should avoid the mistakes occurring with the economic models in calculating the affects of our political decisions more accurately before we bring each other down economically. Austerity, at least too much of it or the wrong kind, is a huge mistake.

Models behaving badly

LONDON – “Why did no one see the crisis coming?” Queen Elizabeth II asked economists during a visit to the London School of Economics at the end of 2008. Four years later, the repeated failure of economic forecasters to predict the depth and duration of the slump would have elicited a similar question from the queen: Why the overestimate of recovery?

Consider the facts. In its 2011 forecast, the International Monetary Fund predicted that the European economy would grow by 2.1% in 2012. In fact, it looks certain to shrink this year by 0.2%. In the United Kingdom, the 2010 forecast of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) projected 2.6% growth in 2011 and 2.8% growth in 2012; in fact, the UK economy grew by 0.9% in 2011 and will flat-line in 2012. The OECD’s latest forecast for eurozone GDP in 2012 is 2.3% lower than its projection in 2010.

Likewise, the IMF now predicts that the European economy will be 7.8% smaller in 2015 than it thought just two years ago. Some forecasters are more pessimistic than others (the OBR has a particularly sunny disposition), but no one, it seems, has been pessimistic enough.

Economic forecasting is necessarily imprecise: too many things happen for forecasters to be able to foresee all of them. So judgment calls and best guesses are an inevitable part of “scientific” economic forecasts. But imprecision is one thing; the systematic overestimate of the economic recovery in Europe is quite another. Indeed, the figures have been repeatedly revised, even over quite short periods of time, casting strong doubt on the validity of the economic models being used. These models, and the institutions using them, rely on a built-in theory of the economy, which enables them to “assume” certain relationships. It is among these assumptions that the source of the errors must lie.

Two key mistakes stand out. The models used by all of the forecasting organizations dramatically underestimated the fiscal multiplier: the impact of changes in government spending on output. Second, they overestimated the extent to which quantitative easing (QE) by the monetary authorities – that is, printing money – could counterbalance fiscal tightening.


http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-forecasts-of-economic-recovery-have-been-wrong-by-robert-skidelsky

Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:11 PM (2 replies)

How do I protest or have reviewed a post that is locked?

In conjunction with the discussion on banning the NRA topics on DU, I have written something on the gungeon about the response to the Connecticut shooting -- clearly, gun related.

The host locked it, and I don't believe it should be locked. The NRA lobbied for changes in CT law, notably just before the mass shooting for guns to be allowed in schools, which was enacted.

I believe this is inappropriate censorship, but also an example of how there is bias and unfair censorship in the forum. I can find no PRO-NRA posts which have been locked.

It is in fact pretty hard to find any pro-gun posts which have received even handed criticism or locking.
Posted by Dog Gone at Penigma | Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:06 AM (1 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »