Another Public Shooting Fades From the Media

This week there was another public shooting, this time outside of a high school in Pittsburgh, PA. The shooting resulted in three teens being wounded, but no fatalities. This was briefly picked up by news media across the country, but media coverage has quickly faded. We can only guess as to why this might be the case, but let's try anyways:

No Fatalities

None of the victims died during the incident although one is recovering in the hospital at this time.

Possible Drug / Gang Related Activity

Although there is no conclusive evidence at the moment, there is speculation that this attack was in retaliation to a previous incident, and authorities suspect drug and/or gang related activity. One contributing reason as to why we don't know the facts is that no one is cooperating with police in this incident.

It's possible that the reason why this is not getting more attention, especially from gun control advocates, is that this situation actually backs up what gun rights activists have been saying all along during the debate over gun control. Not only did this take place in a "gun-free zone," but this incident of gun violence is just another example of the circumstances in which gun violence occurs in this country, something that gun rights advocates cite repeatedly. If the perpetrator(s) of this shooting were around the same age as the intended victims, then the gun used in this act was more than likely obtained illegally as well. But let's not let that get in the way of "common sense" right?

Montana Democratic Governor Candidate Compares Political Opponents to Terrorists

Recently, I pointed out how the founder of Moms Demand Action, Shannon Watts, reminded me of the tactics of the reprehensible Joseph McCarthy. It seems though, that such tactics are becoming all too common in politics these days. Former Montana Lt. Governor John Bohlinger (D-MT) is the only the most recent example of this.

Like Ms. Watts, Mr. Bohlinger, upon announcing his candidacy for Governor, compared the Tea Party to the Taliban. Bohlinger even went so far as to comparing the Tea Party's actions to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in World War 2 and the September 11th terrorist attacks.

While the inflammatory tactics are nothing new, they should not be tolerated as acceptable public discourse, especially for individuals who seek to advance public policy. There is a disturbing trend of politicians and pundits who seek to divide us for their own political gain through the use of galvanizing and hateful rhetoric.

The question is, will the American public accept this rhetoric or will they stand against it?

Moms Demand Action: Founder Shannon Watts Compares Gun Owners to Taliban

Recently I came across this little video snippet of Moms Demand Action founder, Shannon Watts, comparing a recent gathering of counter protesters from Open Carry Texas to the Taliban, a terrorist group.



Shannon Watts comparing her political opponents to terrorists is an attempt to demonize them in order to garner support for her cause. This is nothing new as we've seen similar comparisons made by Democrats in Washington describing Tea Party Republicans as "terrorists" and "hostage takers" during the recent Federal Government shutdown.

Being a bit keen on history though, I was reminded of similar tactics being used by Ms. Watts and DC Democrats by a certain Wisconsin Senator bent on levying false accusations on innocent people in order to demonize them for his own political gain.

It only took the courage of a journalist named Edward R. Murrow to shine a light on the Senator's reprehensible behavior for the public to take note and put an end to the fear mongering. Remember, at the end of the day, all of us still need to live together side by side. Demonizing our neighbors, who work hard, raise families, try to live our lives, and pursue our dreams, will do nothing to help move our society forward.

We can't allow those who seek to turn us against each other for political gain to triumph. They should be called out for their division and fear mongering politics like this gentleman from Wisconsin.

Sen. Joseph McCarthy (Wisc. 1947-1957)

Another Public Shooting and the Lessons Not Learned

There was another public shooting recently which took place in a shopping mall in New Jersey. There were no casualties in the incident except the shooter himself as he eventually took his own life. Already the story is disappearing from the media, probably because the story lacks the drama that comes with a high body count. This is one of the reasons why I have such disdain for mainstream media. There are many lessons that we could learn from this to help us tackle the real issues that lead to the tragedies that the mainstream media love to focus on. So what can we learn from this incident?

For starters, we can assume that the shooter could have killed some of the people around him if he had intended to do so, but apparently that was not his intention. He was not aiming at anyone in particular, but instead fired several rounds that struck an escalator, elevator, and the general environment around him. We shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that this couldn't have easily resulted in a mass shooting if that was the perpetrator's intent. The biggest take away out of this incident is that it is not the type of gun involved that really determines the outcome, but it is the person and his motivations that play the biggest factor.

Secondly, after some time, the shooter retreated to a storage area in the mall, where he committed suicide by shooting himself. This scenario plays out time and again in these public shootings, where after the initial events take place, and law enforcement arrives, the perpetrator takes his own life. It becomes obvious that this person had personal issues, and perhaps mental health issues to some degree. In addition, the fact that he retreated at all, assumes he was expecting some type of armed response to his actions. Just like most other incidents, the mental health of the perpetrator comes into question.

One of the last major lessons that I see from this incident is that gun laws would not have stopped any of this from happening. The perpetrator did not buy his gun or obtain it legally. He had stolen the firearm from his brother who did obtain the gun legally. A universal background check or gun registry would have done nothing to prevent this from happening, and yet these are the solutions that gun control advocates propose for these situations.

Just as the we learned from the tragedy in Newtown, it did not matter that the perpetrator did not get their gun legally. They were already willing to commit a crime with a firearm, yet we are to somehow rationalize that someone willing to commit murder would make a conscious decision to not break that specific law? The only explanation that I see for gun control is that they want to take away the availability of guns. That would mean that in this instance, they would deny the legal owner access to a gun so that his brother would not be able to steal it. Perhaps that is the gun control advocate's unstated goal all along.

At some point, we all have to realize that it's not the gun that matters in all of these displays of public violence, but its the perpetrator, their intent, and their mindset that matters. A recent poll showed that most Americans identify the main issue that affects all of these public shooting instances is mental health, and yet we do not yet have a national conversation about it. Instead, we are drowned with mainstream media, pundits, anti-gun groups, and politicians talking about gun control and banning certain firearms.

The failure though is not just in our mental health system. The responsibility for this also falls on the mainstream media, pundits, and politicians who refuse to take up the issue of mental health because it does not benefit them monetarily or politically. The American people are aware that mental health is the key factor in all of these instances, despite being deluged by conversation from gun control advocates.

Gun control advocates' first priority, however, isn't in helping people or solving the underlying problems that lead people to lash out violently. Instead, they are more interested in spreading their hatred of guns and the people who own them. They label their opponents as those who oppose their spin on 'common sense,' but is it really common sense to not focus on what most Americans already identify as the problem in society?  Perhaps if the body count were higher, the talking heads might be blasting it on the airwaves 24/7.

Russell Brand is Both Right and Wrong

Recently actor/comedian Russell Brand sat down for an interview where he talks politics and the state of the world today. In the interview he foresees a revolution of a frustrated 'underclass' against the 'apathetic' political class. He points to the 'Occupy movement' as one of the visible signs that we are at the tipping point where something has to give. See the interview below:

I would agree that the needs of the vast majority of the people are not being met by the political class, and that these politicians are not being held accountable for this. I also agree that we are seeing frustration boil over and we are beginning to see frustration manifest itself in political movements. I find it rather myopic of Mr. Brand that he points out the 'Occupy' movement while never once recognizing or mentioning the Tea Party / Liberty movements. These movements predated any 'Occupy' activity, and unlike 'Occupy' they have maintained their strength and presence while at the same time made some political gains.

This is another point of contention that I have with Mr. Brand. He says he does not vote because it does not make a difference. The political gains made by the Tea party / Liberty movements have proven that voting can still make a difference. Not voting though, makes no difference whatsoever, and the act of not voting, especially when espoused by a prominent celebrity, dangerously perpetuates the idea that voting is a futile effort. The 2012 election cycle in the United States already had under a 54% turnout rate. I would posit that the reason why we are in the mess we're in today is because of voter apathy towards elections in that those that don't vote, like Russell, don't feel like their vote matters and those that do vote don't do their due diligence in voting intelligently and holding their elected officials accountable.

My major point of contention however, is with Mr. Brand's, solution to all of this. Mr. Brand wants an egalitarian socialist system with a massive redistribution of wealth. The one major flaw in this is the same flaw that we are suffering from today, in that this system would still be run by people. In fact, I would hypothesize that this type of system would make today's problems worse, not better.

Think about it for a minute. Such a system would require massive if not total state control of economic activity. Entrusting a government with more control over a people's economic lives has never turned out well, and there are countless examples from just this past century, but I suppose Mr. Brand glossed over those cases in his history courses.

While Mr. Brand is right when he says that the political class are not responding to the needs of the people and he rightfully recognizes that they are serving the needs of big business and corporations, how exactly would that change if we were to give the state even more power over the economy. The problem is that the state already has too much power over the economies. That is why they are beholden to the special interests. Corporate cronyism is rampant because through government, corporations can impose their interests on the rest of us. There is an old saying that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Why would I want to entrust a government with such absolute power?

Mr. Brand also misses the target when he criticizes 'profit.' What is profit other than gains made through work? Profit is nothing more than an economic incentive to do something. Profit is not a zero-sum game or transaction where if one person makes a profit it comes at the expense of someone else. No, the whole point of conducting trade or business is so that all parties involve come out ahead relative to their situation. While true, some may not come out ahead, it is up to the individual parties to gauge their situation and make that decision. The perfect example is professional sports when two teams trade players. Teams agree to trade players because they see a need that the other team's player could fill for them, so in essence both teams could potentially come out ahead. If there were no profit motive why would anyone bother to conduct any such activity?

The frustration of the political class that Mr. Brand vociferously point out is indeed evident, but he that in itself is not anything special. Millions upon millions of people are already aware of it. I do agree that we are approaching that tipping point where something has to give as well, however that is where I draw the line with my agreement. Mr. Brand's ideas about voting, but his proposal for a socialist egalitarian system would do nothing except exacerbate the problems we see today. This is why we should not idolize celebrities or the ideas they espouse. While I applaud Mr. Brand for recognizing and voicing his own political frustration, it behooves us all to think about the current state of the world and think critically for ourselves instead of letting others do the thinking for us.

The Show

As of right now, there is a bipartisan budget deal that kicks the can down the road for another 3 months. Washington DC insiders win, the rest of us lose... good game.

So what was all the hooplah about if democrats basically got everything they wanted again? What exactly did they concede during negotiations (or the lack thereof)? Can anyone please point that out for me because I don't see any concessions worth a lick.

They should have just kept the federal government shutdown along with Congress and the Executive Branch because neither of them did anything fruitful this entire time. Might as well shutdown mainstream media too as they just turned it into a spectacle while parroting the false narrative for the Obama administration that the federal government would default on its debt.

Mainstream media is in bed with the federal government lock stock and barrel. This past Sunday, mainstream media ignored the vet rally in DC, where thousands of vets tore down the barricades that were blocking off war memorials and monuments and piled them in front of the White House.

The "Million Vet March' was the top trending story in social media, yet it was wholeheartedly ignored by the mainstream media. In an age where Miley Cyrus twerking makes headlines, why does such a powerful message and rally from thousands of veterans in our nations capital go unreported? Please someone explain that to me?

The only answer that I can come to is that we no longer have a free press that informs us, but one that is used to manipulate, push agendas, and distract. We not only need an alternative to these two political parties, we also need an alternative to mainstream media to step up.

The Most Non-Essential Government Employee?

As many know, this week the media has been covering the partial federal government shutdown ad nauseam. During this time federal government employees who are labeled as non-essential have been furloughed, and yesterday Congress passed a bill to provide backpay to all of those furloughed employees.

I'd like to propose relabeling the President of the United States as a non-essential government employee, as he has shown no signs of negotiating to resolve the situation, making me wonder what exactly is he doing at this time.

Well I guess he's too busy offering his opinion on renaming the Washington Redskins and barricading national parks and memorials to have any time negotiating. He is even going so far as to barricade attractions that are not run by the federal government. That's essential right?

Or maybe he is busy fixing the Obamacare servers...