Thoughts on the gun control debate (yet again)

It's amazing how fast time is going. Looking over the posting date of my last post I hadn't realized so much time had elapsed before coming up with a new idea. Sorry to my handful of fans. Liberals act like if they were in charge tragedies like the recent newsroom shooting in Maryland wouldn't have happened. Then I'm reading some hyperventilating political/social commentators extrapolating from one weird individual living in his own self-contained weird mental universe that there's some kind of male rage/war against Women. Well as one conservative blogger here said some time ago back in the day re Newtown sometimes bizarre and tragic things happen and there's almost nothing we could have done about it, nothing that could have prevented it so the whole gun control debate becomes a kind of cosmetic discussion imo. Then there's this thing about some revenge porn law that seems to have gotten stuck in the New York State Legislature that won't pass and folks are blaming Google. I'm no attorney but isn't it already illegal to post say nude pictures of myself without my consent on the Web not that you'd want to see? In our zeal to pass new laws based on the latest tragic social circumstance we should first check what's already on the books that maybe need to be better enforced. If you're having sex maybe don't leave the smartphone out? Here's the problem: reality itself is weird and bizarre and tragic things happen, sometimes rarely and in the case of guns for some reason in cycles. There are bizarre and odd individuals walking amongst us right now. All I can say and offer is don't make eye contact:)

The bogging down effect of social conservatism

I've been reading a lot lately from various conservative writers what they consider bad social trends. It could be millenials delaying marriage and then further delaying having children. Some couples don't want children at all. Another conservative opiner will note the to him disturbing trend that Americans don't move as much as they used to (as if it's easy), go to other better jobs across the country. This leads to ossification and lower wages etc. etc. The list of social concerns for these writers/pundits run the gamut and is quite long but I always find myself asking what does it matter? Why are they bothered by these things? Modern conservatism should stick to the pillars of limited government, free speech, economic growth, a strong defense, lower taxes etc. etc. What matter how people choose to live their lives? Is that really of our concern? Naomi Schaeffer Riley and Kyle Smith are two of these social-type commenters. Another common complaint is people especially the young'uns are on their gadgets too much. My friend and I were walking around White Plains one day and practically everyone was walking but looking down at their smartphones. Yeah you wonder what the hell are they looking at to the point where they can fall down an open manhole but again this is what people do. IMO conservatism has strayed heavily off the straight path into these by-roads of cultural concern which can actually lead to other conservatives feeling alienated if they don't share their complaints. Laura Ingraham too has done this in books and whatnot heavy on the social commentary, trends that bug her, social quirks and patterns that don't meet her approval. I think this is where the word "reactionary" comes from as in reacting to everything. The conservative movement seems to be stagnating at the moment with everyone having their disparate concerns with no common thread except things like hatred of Obama, hatred of Hillary, hatred of whoever. Despite all this I think we won the last election by accident. You won, what are we complaining about?

What's up with the cops in this country?

If Eric Garner were a coyote roaming around one of the five boroughs of NYC he'd be alive today but professionally and humanely relocated - I wanted to work this thought into some kind of workable blogpost-title but it's somewhat unwieldy. Watching the coverage of the Baltimore protests/riots on the Today show this morning and a very conservative person said to me "you can understand their frustration" to which I nodded and said they (black folk/African-Americans) hardly ever get justice. These controversial cop cases involving unarmed black man who later die are mounting in this country and while I like to take them individually and analyze them at my own pace and I do have a fairly strong law-and-order bias cumulatively I find myself asking what's up with the cops in this country? Now practically everybody and their grandmother has a built-in video camera in their cell phones these days but the cops don't seem to care, they keep doing what they're doing whatever they're doing and it usually doesn't wind up good for the unarmed black man. WHY should 25-year old Freddie Gray have a broken spine while in police custody??? Now your typical conservative response will be but we don't know all the facts yet (tin ear on Race those conservatives) but ya wanna know something? What's up with the cops in this country?

The mistake of conflating Ferguson and Eric Garner

Everybody seems to do this, it's become generic trademark commentary on race. Civil rights activists act like a white cop in Missouri decided one day to shoot an unarmed black teen with his hands up and some (but not all) right-wingers see Eric Garner the same way they see Michael Brown (my God the guy was a criminal selling those loosies). My view: the grand jurors in Ferguson did not come up with an unreasonable decision though I might disagree with it whereas in Staten Island the grand jurors did come up with a perfectly unreasonable decision. I take these cases one by one as they come up which is the best way. In the case of Eric Garner it would be far easier and more productive for conservatives to simply admit this cop did wrong, admit it, learn from it and move on instead of hunkering down as they always do in defense of the cops and smearing those who disagree as somehow being anti-cop. It seems grand juries these days are reluctant to indict the men and women in blue. Righties will point out that they hear reams of more evidence than we ever get to hear but I think it goes deeper than this. It's a cozy-and-toasty emotionalism on the part of those hand-picked from society to become jurors that ultimately gives the police officer the bennie of the doubt. So far the NYC protests are far more civilized than what went down in St. Louis, a social model for proper but passionate protest. The ME in NYC says Garner died from a police chokehold, Det. Daniel Pantaleo said to the jurors he was using a technique he learned at the police academy. All I can say is God help us!

The fog of race

I have to say it was dramatic and intense coverage over on the CW Channel 11 News here, while the prosecuting attorney over there in Ferguson Missoui was droning on and on about the finer points of the grand jury verdict on the bigger split screen they were showing live and growing reaction among the large crowd gathered to hear the no indictment verdict against Ferguson PO Darren Wilson in the tragic Michael Brown case. It didn't take long for the first police cruiser to be set on fire and for the tear gas canisters to be shot in the air. I've noticed more and more in these type racially-oriented protests the increasing number of white protesters joining the African-Americans so it might sound contradictory to say we've made some racial progress but sometimes you have to look for it. There's no way in hell PO Wilson can go back on the streets in Ferguson or any predominantly black community across the country. He'll just have to make some sort of drastic career change so that's a kind of social price against him despite the verdict that was rendered by the jury.

I never thought I'd agree with Sharpton

but...I don't think I'll be installing the NYPD app anytime soon. NYPD has a force of about 35,000, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton says they'll have to retrained all of them. I was never big on this broken windows theory of policing or go after the squeegee men and the homeless basically and the Chinese guy with his left nut hanging out. When I used to drive the van for the wholesale flower company I had to go down the city really early one morning, got off the West Side Highway somewhere and there was one of them guys with the bucket and the squeegee and my windshield was dirty anyway so I gave him a buck. Polite, didn't bother me, didn't feel threatened, didn't feel gangsterized. By some convoluted logic of modern policing go after the graffiti artist and the serial killer won't take the girl into the woods, dunno. PBA issued a statement saying that while their thoughts and prayers go out to the Garner family this tragedy wouldn't have occured if Mr. Garner didn't resist arrest. Vile. Disgusting. Offensive. That's a union for you and if Giuliani or even Bloomberg were still mayor they'd be chiming in too on the side of the cops of course. All conservatives can ever talk about is Sharpton's rhetorical style but imo he's being mighty civil in this case. Broken Windows - Broken Lives.

Other thoughts on the Santa Barbara shootings

I was watching the PBS Newshour last night and Judy Woodruff was interviewing reporter Adam Nagourney of The New York Times. I didn't know this but Mr. Nagourney stated quite clearly that the guns 22-yr. old shooter Elliot Rodger used in the seaside massacre in Isla Vista were all legally purchased and CA has some of the nation's strictest gun control laws on the books. I've long felt while I'm fairly in support of gun control in many cases and welcome some legislation to that effect I'm also realistic enough to know it's not the magic bullet if you'll pardon the pun. It was truly a bizarre manifesto Rodger left behind and my first thought was angel dust or bath salts but you know what's scary? if you're this Nutz and you're NOT on drugs, I mean at least ex-rapper Big Lurch can fall back on that. My other thought was let's say Rodger in his YouTube videos and other postings steered clear of the more violent and weirder elements it would have come across as angry and whiny but truth be told many men would have agreed with him. So instead of discussing maybe a valid social issue or two once the person behind the "cause" resorts to violence that invalidates the cause right off the bat so then the trending topic turns to potential armies of psycho virgins training in the caves somewhere instead of maybe what alot of men can relate to. I honestly think if he was this far gone take away ALL his guns he would have easily found another way to commit mayhem perhaps with a samurai sword say. This is one of the very rare times when I actually agree with the Scientologists as I don't put much stock in psychiatry as a whole as the guy had his therapists and counselors and look what happened. The debate needs to go beyond gun control and the latest theories of the shrinks but that's where it seems to be stuck:)

A status check on feminism

Last night I was watching an always interesting local program here called Chasing NJ and there was a segment on the increasing number of women who are getting breast augmentation surgery without the benefit of general anaesthesia. The host had asked one woman what was her motivation, after all we're not talking a critical and life-saving operation and she said so she can feel more "confident." So I got to thinking about the apparent increasing cultural irrelevancy of modern feminism, the guys want a nice ripe soft breast to handle so wouldn't want to disappoint the boys would we? So who's more sociologically relevant here Hef or Gloria Steinem? Now before you get on my case I actually agree with a few points of feminism our society's overemphasis on beauty and physical perfection being one of them but you have to ask yourself whether feminism as an overall life philosophy has ever really caught on. I mean are women demanding larger and thicker penises? It would seem for all the talk of women's empowerment these days we're still at heart a bit of a patriarchal society. Thanks gals.

Have YouTube and Twitter gotten out of control?

Al-Shabab the Somali offshoot of al-Qaeda has or had an actual, authentic and official Twitter feed and boasted online of the horrific massacre they pulled off at the upscale Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya. Now one of the most viral videos out there is the one on YouTube involving the hordes of psycho motorcyclists on the West Side Highway in NYC and the only way it got on YouTube was one of the moto-psychos was wearing a helmet cam at the time and recorded the whole thing from before up to and including the motorist who ran over one of his fellow bikers and then the biker gang chasing him down for miles and beating him up in front of his wife and young daughter. Facebook isn't much better with gangbangers having profiles and regularly boasting of their day-to-day and I got to thinking these three major and popular sites have TOS sections that you have to agree to when you first sign up right? A key section usually involves not breaking the laws and not inciting to violence and threatening and harassing people and similar caveats no? From terrorists to common thugs and garden-variety criminals it seems everyone has a site or linkup or feed these days and they're so teched up to the gills that even during the commission of their diverse crimes and atrocities and general social mayhem one of the things foremost on their minds seems to be going online later. Is the omnipresence of Technology doing something to the Brain? or to put it another way does the mixture of criminals and technology make things worse? call it Techno-Porn:)

Anthony Weiner aka "Carlos Danger"

It's a real Weiner roast here in NYC with three of the current candidates for Mayor telling him to as the Daily News put it BEAT IT (that's so clever).  Then there's former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer running for Comptroller and if I had to choose between the lesser of two pervs I'd go with Weiner since with Weiner it's just the compulsive addictive sexting but with Spitz in addition to the 'hos you also got steamrolling over political enemies, overinflating charges against Wall Street etc. or maybe that was just his way of celebrating.  I'm actually not joining the swelling Chorus telling Weiner to drop out of the Mayor's race and the way I see it he actually didn't have sex with anyone.  It'd be like going to Hell over masturbation, looking at dirty pictures, subscribing to Penthouse.  Clinton had actual sex in the Oval Office while President and Dems pretty much backed him to the hilt whereas more and more Dems are telling Weiner to drop off the radar so what gives?  I mean the guy never even got a handjob.  It is shocking though that these latest sexting revelations are about new sexts after Weiner's resignation from Congress in 2011 even a year later, maybe he was depressed or as Devo has said "when a problem comes along you must whip it."  His most recent sexting partner though, this 20-something woman/progressive activist seemed pretty willing at first at least from what I've read, what'd she re-envirginate herself? so aside from being a problem for his marriage it doesn't seem to be a crime.  Huma Abedin, I kinda liked it that she spoke at that press conference the other day, broke the mold and speaking as a conservative don't we have too many divorces in this country anyway?  Aren't they being more faithful to their marriage vows than, oh I don't know Rush Limbaugh?  According to the most recent polling data half of NYC voters seem willing to give Weiner a pass and he is leading or at the top of all the polls and I think this has to do with they do similar stuff too, it's a different age after all.  I mean how do you get on Weiner's case when you're downloading porn yourself?  You know I was reading the other day about Blogger's Content Policy and this really surprised me but Blogger allows you to use sexually explicit content in your blog if you so wish but they'd appreciate it if you'd label it Adult.  I just hope Weiner doesn't take up blogging.  

No, Obama was not Trayvon 35 yrs. ago just a budding lefty

So if I understand Obama's racial speech the other day if I'm driving along and decide it would be a good idea to lock my doors, after all white guys do alot of carjackings, but just then a black guy is crossing the street I should not lock my doors so as to not offend the black man or something like that. Our frank national conversation on race continues.

The George Zimmerman Verdict and Al Sharpton in all his glory

So I go to work this morning and a black co-worker is carrying around The Daily News and you're like I heard that Jeter got hurt again. NOT GUILTY, look I'd have more respect for the Black View in this case if they didn't cheer when OJ got acquitted. The circular reasoning of pro-choicers like BB and Saty - if Barack Obama were aborted we wouldn't have one of the greatest presidents of modern times (in their view). Discuss all this and more.

Some more post-Newtown thoughts,

since it's still percolating out there and the state of CT has just passed some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.  I only thought I'd do another Newtown thread if I have any fresh insights and so let's begin with the mathematics of Newtown.  Now all these massacres of late within the last several years are being lumped together somehow but in the vast majority of shooting massacres grown adults are the victims.  That's tragic enough but what happened at Sandy Hook is on another level totally IMO, a kind of existential quirk.  In fact it's bizarre and I don't think there's a snapshot anywhere of Adam Lanza where he's not a bug-eyed bastard, such a joyless individual.  Now the math angle, if you gun-controllers want to prevent another gun massacre ok but if your goal here is to prevent another Sandy Hook you're trying to prevent something that may not happen in another 150 years or ever for that matter.  Another point - how did the post-Newtown debate/discussion somehow evolve into ONLY talking about guns and gun control with a healthy side of mental health and no mention of DRUGS whatsoever?  meds, PCP, bath salts, prescription abuse, airplane glue, whatever but it's high past time authorities lay it all on the table so maybe we can have that other discussion.  One senses just another generic post-gun massacre political debate with an angle or two being deliberately suppressed and I've been wondering why.  Lastly since I'm trying to be fresh in this blog, to look at these things from another angle when you post comments I'd like some fresh and original thoughts too, maybe give yourself an aerial view of the issues instead of same-old same-old, left/right-wing talking points.  NRA Bad, ok we get that but how can you legislate exactly against or to prevent the tragically bizarre which is what Newtown was?  Conclusion: I'm not disagreeing with you about gun control per se but could Sandy Hook have been prevented?  I'm gonna go with a no:)  

Obama Priorities - the Rich but what about the prevalence of guns in society?

It was one of those nonissues during the campaign and Romney didn't have much to say on the matter either.  I'm talking of course about guns and not the well-to-do on which there were plenty of thoughts.  I'm kinda more concerned lately with the threat posed by guns in society and not so much on those individuals/families/entities making more than $250,000/yr. not paying their fair share.  There was lately a shootup in some mall in Portland, OR.  Before that there was of course the Batman/Movie Theater Massacre in Aurora CO.  There was most recently some weird guy who shot and killed three Brooklyn shopkeepers and he said the CIA put him up to it and then just the other day the brazen Midtown Hitman attack in broad daylight in NYC this in probably one of the most heavily surveilled cities in the world today.  Just today at about 9:30 in the morning a 20-yr. old gunman opened fire on a couple of first-grade classrooms in an elementary school in bucolic Newtown CT killing 26 people including 20 children.  The gunman is now deceased but he was armed with three firearms and wore a bulletproof vest.  Historically it ranks as the second deadliest massacre after VA Tech and Newtown is quite close to the Danbury Mall so there are alot of open questions about the gunman's motivations/psychology here and why he chose a helpless group of first-graders instead of the usual throng of Christmas shoppers. 

My position on guns and gun control is rather complex and I've enough to say on the matter to piss off both sides.  I'm not against all gun control measures, would probably support many of them but also recognize their limited effectiveness.  Liberals talk as if this is the magical solution, would that this were so.  Put simply only honest law-abiding people obey laws, criminals don't that's why they're known as criminals in the first place.  Pass all the gun control measures you want and criminals will still get ahold of guns and continue to maim and kill, that's basic existential reality.  I could fill a whole blogpage with my thoughts on the subject and they ramble in all political directions at times but bottom line is Obama seems to care more about the wealthy these days and the apparent threat they pose to the country.  I wish he were just as concerned about the prevalence of guns in our society but we can't have that discussion right now because of the Fiscal Cliff.  Obama if he were a more mature and reasoned leader, not still running a campaign could have helped put all that behind us and on to more pressing matters like, say Guns in Our Society and I'd like to hear President Obama's response on the tragedy in Newtown CT and also what his mouthpiece Jay Carney has to say I mean if they have the time since the wealthy are taking up so much of their attention lately.  There will be the usual obligatory pro-forma statements of course but you would think they would at least question some of their own political obsessions/fixations of late, sober up.  The poor will always be with us and so will the wealthy and there will always be time for those discussions but the dead remain the dead.

Your thoughts? (and don't be surprised if I might agree with you at times).

Generic political commentary - the msm framing the narrative on the fiscal cliff

The disappointing commentary of Mark Shields -- he's the liberal commentator on the weekly roundup on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer with neoconservative David Brooks allegedly providing some type of counterpoint and this happens every Friday evening.  Leaving aside the fact that I'm not clubbing, a sure sign of age I do quite often get their takes on the week's political news and events.  So usually what happens is I'm sitting there and I'm slowly getting depressed and agitated, vaguely restless, irritated and I haven't even sipped from my nightly goblet yet.  It's not that the commentary is creepy or off-center and one of the few other options is the Filth known as 2 1/2 Men so I stick with it.  It's your standard fare, quite mainstream, safe even and Shields looks all serious with his folksy jowls but I'm like when's it gonna happen? it's gonna happen if not this week then the next but it's gotta happen.  No not when is Shields gonna drop the word "dick", Vampire Diaries already does that but WHEN is Shields gonna criticize President Obama even a mild anti-?  Now I know he's a liberal but he has gotten marks in the past for being a more honest and centrist kind of lib but take the current hot topic of the fiscal cliff.  Actually there is no other topic (Sandy, been there/done that).  Now I get it that one way to look at it is that Republicans according to most opinion polls will take the heavy blame if we fall off by insisting that the top 2% can't be taxed any higher than they already are and so taxes go up on the rest of us in the vast middle class -- ooooooh populism and pitchforks!  OK I get that, I'm not stupid but what Shields should be saying (also) is WHY is Obama still pursuing this class-warfare game??? the campaign's over, Romney was defeated and then taken out to lunch and so then what also happens is Brooks more often than not kinda goes along with Shields because he always has his acute neocon antennae attuned to the prevailing political zeitgeist.  Not too long ago Brooks was the one who first made the helpful suggestion that Repubs be willing to close loopholes and deductions instead of raising marginal rates on the wealthy and everyone kinda thought that was the way to go but Obama would have none of it.  Obama is now almost overtly Marxist but Shields will never be accused of saying anything ballsy or radical or even mildly controversial.  It's always safe plain yogurt, ya gotta go underground for the unpasteurized Stilton.  It's the old familiar framework, actually the media are in a rut but the story goes the Dems are somehow wiser and more right and the Repubs are wrong.  Tax Cuts along with Obesity is now the New Evil.  In the cosmology of the msm Grover Norquist is the Devil, at least Beelzebub never mind that Obama and the Dems have no intention whatsoever of cutting or reforming entitlements, of giving Boehner and his side a few crumbs and scraps off the table.  Obama is somehow getting tagged with the populist label but is ginning up hatred for the rich part of the definition of populism? not as I understand it.  The new jobs #'s are out and 146,000 new jobs were added for November and the unemployment rate dipped to 7.7% the lowest it's been since Dec. '08.  Of course alot of this has to do with lots of jobless folks still dropping out of the marketplace permanently and I think Obama kind of actually encourages a kind of semipermanent dependent circle-jerking culture/malaised social class but don't count on Shields to point any of this out or even his sidekick.  My #1 Rule for Blogging -- my commentary is my own.  The day it becomes generic I'm retiring:)

The Hunger Games

I bought the DVD at a FYE store yesterday and wasn't sure I'd even like the movie due to its overly dark and disturbing material, kind of reminds me of Shirley Jackson's The Lottery and then there was the matter of protagonist Katniss Everdeen, how can you make a heroine out of someone who participates in the madness and kills other people?  Once I started watching The Hunger Games though my views slowly changed.  It became obvious that those teens Katniss killed were at the root evil to begin with and she had to defend herself.  The Hunger Games based on the first book in a trilogy by American YA writer Suzanne Collins is a kind of prophetic hybrid of Lord of the Flies and 1984 with a healthy dose of Serling.  I've often thought of why don't we have literary classics anymore but with the themes here that hearken back to elements in those earlier works I can see the potential for a classic itself here, a future item on a high-schooler's reading list.  So what is the interpretation?  First off I agree with Beth who blogged about this once and I hope she takes time out to join the discussion here and so I do see it as a kind of cautionary tale against Big Government and in the comments section I'll delve more into that.  Yes of course it's a kind of satire of the reality TV craze and all.  When things in the 74th annual Hunger Games get a little boring for the viewers at home the staff at the central control panels first add a blazing forest fire to get Katniss closer to her adversaries and later on noontime eerily turns into nightfall and three large black and frightening attack dogs that look like a cross between a pitbull and a panther are added to the mix, so much for playing fair.  The president of Panem played by Donald Sutherland says to one of the younger bosses, not sure what his role is exactly and they all look weird but he says to him early on to watch this Katniss character as she represents hope and hope is stronger than fear and it may be a spark now but to contain it.  The Hunger Games as well can be Glenn Beck's worst nightmares come to fruition.  There is also the theme of the star-crossed lovers Katniss and Peeta the other teen chosen from her District 12 and the two are willing to die at the end by eating the poisonous nightberries until a Voice comes from the sky telling them to stop the Games are over and they're the victors.  Then there's the central enigma of the movie, WHY do the 24 teens chosen HAVE TO kill each other?  Did the Powers-That-Be mandate this?  I didn't catch that.  Of course they could have all just teemed together to survive so there's some powerful philosophical and theological observations going on here about human nature itself, about the nature of Good and Evil and you could say maybe it was all just one big vast social experiment besides being a form of perverse entertainment.  I have to say this is really a great and thought-provoking movie well-suited for the action/adventure format and there's so many political angles to this thing so let's get started...... 

Wage discrimination addressed

A conservative POV to explain the so-called pay gap between men and women:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-13/don-t-blame-discrimination-for-gender-wage-gap.html

You don't even have to agree, in fact you're not expected to but we've been accused lately of not addressing certain things around here.  So grab a cup of java sit down and let's hash 'er out.

Thuganomics and the psychology of organized crime

With the passing at 69 of mob turncoat Henry Hill there have been some positive things to say about the fellow from people who should know better.  His main claim to fame/celebrityhood is that he was the main inspiration for the mob classic Goodfellas and the Ray Liotta character yada yada and the eulogies go on.  Hill was a drug trafficker among other things and was involved in the infamous Lufthansa heist at JFK.  You know the rest and I think it's a fair social comment to make that we've romanticized, glorified the life of the gangster and this probably goes back to Mario Puzo and The Godfather book and movie.  By all accounts The Godfather (Parts I and II, forget the 3rd) is a superb film from a cinematic standpoint but my friend had a rather oblique take when he said how many lives taken is the movie responsible for? by which he meant how many joined the Club because the life portrayed in the movie inspired them to?  Actually this may not be that far off the mark as a key member of the now defunct young gangsters known as the Tanglewood Boys in Yonkers admitted to the late NY Daily News columnist Mike McAlary that they watched Goodfellas a number of times and it was sort of their inspiration.  Here's the deal for me though, take any level gangster or thug and let's say he led an independent life of crime, killings, robberies, general mayhem Society would level at him that he's a bad dude, a psycho, a criminal, a mutant, a deviant and needs to be taken off the streets pronto and go to the Big House for a long long time BUT take the same psycho and have him working as part of a GROUP operating in concert for some unified ends, a hierarchy, a criminal bureaucracy so to speak and it's somehow respectable, even glamorous.  Read two cases in the paper recently of a Mafia member putting out a hit on an average non-criminal man for the sole reason of going out with or marrying the mobster's ex-wife, this was two separate situations and let's say he wasn't a member of Cosa Nostra and did the same thing he'd be universally condemned as an obsessed psycho, a stalker yada yada but because he's a member of organized crime there really isn't the usual social and reportorial commentary you'd expect in such a case because hey that's what gangsters do.  Organized psychos is another way of putting it and the usual psycho/anti-social labels are dropped because it's an organization, a group, a conspiracy, a secret society and so it's somehow rational, none of the member's self-esteem will suffer because we're in this thing together and hey we're selective, we ain't bumping off old ladies crossing the street.  Serial killers and rapists bad, gangsters good, that's our social mindset/collective moral philosophy and we simply don't know Right from Wrong anymore, never really did.  The media wants to keep the theme going though with more books from former mob wives down the pike and some new tv shows with mob themes even though it's a passe genre by now, bloodsuckers is where it's at.  We love the desperado but hate the psycho even though they may be one and the same:)

What does OWS & ice-fishing have in common?

Not much.  I lost alot of respect for them when they stopped protesting throughout the winter months.  Sure some judge told them they can't camp out in Zuccotti Park anymore but what was it? by late December or early January they weren't even in the news anymore probably replaced by some Kardashian crap and the latest political scandal.  Lost alot of steam imo by hibernating like this, even the 'possum risks ice-frost every now and then to get a bite to eat.  The brave May Day protests to shut down work, schools and banks, expect more brave protests throughout the summer months, probably into the fall as well.  This blogpost is not about whether you agree or disagree with them, you probably don't and will comment as you see fit but real protesters protest in whatever kind of weather.  12 degress in the middle of January, you're out there with your frozen snot and a chapped ass, a rumbling belly because you're body expelled all that fine OWS cuisine and you have to use the Port-o-San at least 10X because you had a couple cups 'o' joe when you woke up in the morning, now that's Democracy in action and I can respect that politics be damned!  They really need to watch reels of those old-time black civil-rights protesters from the 60's getting pushed back by fire hoses and bitten by German Sheperds these hippy/yuppie hybrid malcontents.  Bunch 'o' pussies, meteorological cowards.  They don't make protesters like they used to:)

The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, spinning out of control

As you know by now Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey has brought Murder 2 charges against the shooter of Trayvon Martin. Even Trayvon's Mom said she believes her son's death was a kind of tragic accident at the hands of George Zimmerman a way overzealous and quite possibly racially charged neighborhood watchman. Now for the bulk of this case I've taken what you can call the "liberal" side for lack of a better word but 2nd degree Murder is way out of whack, some type of manslaughter charge would have been much more appropriate and it's my opinion that Ms. Corey will eventually run for some type of office down there in the Sunshine State and she wants this high-profile case. So what we have here is maybe a second travesty of justice and it's a damn shame IMO. A word about guns, I'm not a fan of 'em even though I'm a conservative. They make me nervous and yes I understand the 2nd Amendment but I think there's many many people out there who don't know how to use them responsibly, to exercise proper judgement and restraint and this goes for licensed gun owners who've been "properly" trained. One lesson - public pressure is fine, it's our right and constitutionally protected but it doesn't always lead to the right outcome:)