US Extremism Not Surprising

---

dekexceevadaf December 7, 2013 1:16 pm (Pacific time)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwNh2HZAxVc

---

Jerry West March 1, 2011 2:50 pm (Pacific time)

Well, Old Soldier, where to begin? First, I did not say flintlock muskets, I wrote flintlock muzzle loaders. Certainly it does not seem to preclude ownership of other arms, and it is arms, not just firearms, that were known at that time.

But my point is that no matter the reasoning, they based it on what they knew, not on what we have. A very literal interpretation would be that we could all have stinger missiles or our own ICBMs if we could afford it. In fact, then, we could all have truck bombs if we so desired.

Are you arguing that their should be no restriction on what type of arms anyone in the US should be able to have, carry and use at will? If not, then you must agree that there are limits to the Second Amendment.

Second, my point is not against the right to bear arms or the Second Amendment, but against extremist defense of that right by opposing all regulations whether they make sense or not and whether they inhibit the basic right or not. The point being that extremist, idiotic defense makes one and one's case look idiotic and weakens it rather than strengthening it.

There is little difference between those who want to permit everything and those who want to ban everything except that they are fruitcakes with different recipes.

Third, I did not say nor assume that gun ownership is responsible for extremism, I would find that argument flawed myself. Why you create a strawman here makes me wonder.

As for who or what gun owners support, who cares, it is beside the point.

And for comparing rhetoric, that is a dodge from the point that extreme violent rhetoric contributes to violence, no matter which side it comes from. My article focused on the radical right rhetoric since it was most prevalent at the time, and because it does threaten the Second Amendment.

Now, for throwing off despotism, one way is to do away with a mercenary military and go back to a core of professionals with the bulk being conscripts with no exemptions outside of physical or mental handicaps.

With a mostly all draft force we probably would not have gotten into such a disaterous mess in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And mentioning despotism, would that be like Governor Walker who refuses to reach an easy compromise with a position supported by more people in the country than his position? The protesters in Wisconsin make me think of the Founding Fathers and all of my ancestors who fought in the Continental Army.

Suppose a Governor and her/his party were to pass a bill severely restricting the possession and use of firearms in their state, and won election having made that promise. Would you be against the protesters? Would you be against the protesters if the US Supreme Court upheld the governor?

---

Old Soldier February 28, 2011 6:24 am (Pacific time)

Jerry, You are displaying flawed logic on the issue of the founder’s 2nd Amendment intentions. To suggest that they only intended that citizens be allowed to carry flint-lock muskets does not pass that common sense test. First of all, in addition to flint-lock pistols, those were the only hand carried firearms at the time of the drafting of this document. It does not preclude the ownership of the other larger weapons of war from that era, such as cannons or mortars, thus eliminating the argument that they wanted any restrictions on private ownership. Second, and more importantly, you miss the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It was intended to be, as George Washington put it, “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth”. As was stated in the Declaration of Independence, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” How else do you presume that we “throw off” such despotism if the populace is no longer armed with similar weapons as are possessed by the despots? As for your assumption that gun ownership is in any way responsible for extremism, I find that argument flawed as well. If you look at the largest population of gun owners in the US it would likely be 2nd Amendment supporters and those that associate with the Tea Parties. If you compare the behavior and rhetoric at Tea Party rallies as compared to the recent pro-union protest in Wisconsin, you will find that the pro-union protests have been far less civil than any Tea Party rally in the past two years. Respectfully An Old Soldier in Tennessee

---

Jerry West February 23, 2011 6:31 pm (Pacific time)

Erin said: "so how would you rate extremist Saul Alinsky for distractions?"

Distractions? I think that you have wandered way off the reservation with that one, Erin. If you want to pursue that line we need another thread. Submit a piece on Saul and see if anyone rises to the bait. :)

---

Erin Dawson February 23, 2011 6:08 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry so how would you rate extremist Saul Alinsky for distractions? He certainly was no pacifist. He failed in actually doing anything constructive in his life other that proving himself to be peerless for constantly falling into rhetorical quagmires of his own making. Of course the simple-minded fell for his distractions, those were his only (gullible) followers. He left the areas he said he was improving in even worse shape than before he went down the food chain. That is usually what happens to the narcisisstic bellowers, don't you think?

---

Jerry West February 23, 2011 3:51 pm (Pacific time)

Erin wrote: "it's pretty obvious who the real extremists are, just add up the evidence, see below."

That evidence pales beside the stuff advocating shooting and such. Besides the issue is not who the "real" extremists are, you can find them on all sides, but that this extremism contributes to violence. Are you denying that extremist rhetoric contributes to violence? Is that your point here?

Quote: "I see you are still blaming others from the past about our deficit. How about the policies of the last two years? We need leadership, not glib fingerpointing. "

How about policy of the last two years? You can not isolate out the current situation from its roots in the past. Imagine if there had been no tax cut gifts to the rich and no criminal wars of aggression eating up our resources and wasting American lives? As for leadership, it has been lacking for decades as the politicians have sold out to the corporations.

If the Tea Party was truly serious about deficits their rallies would be a sea of anti-war placards. These wars are the most wasteful expense of all.

---

Jerry West February 23, 2011 11:51 am (Pacific time)

Charlene wrote: "I am just linking the data:"

Yes, but that proves nothing by itself. You need to provide the methodology, and what institutes a violent crime in each jurisdiction, and the incident rate for each type of violent crime.

For real violence the best comparison is the murder rate.

Quote: "Not far (relatively) from you Jerry: "

Check the map, Prince George is slightly closer by air than Portland, and definitely a lot farther by road. The fact that the crime rate is so high there is not surprising, but what does that prove? It is more of a reactionary Tea Party type of place than a progressive one. Of course the incidence of violence indexed to red or blue areas (PG would be red) is not a very accurate measure of why crimes are committed. And who said that Tea Party members were causing all of the crime or were the bad people? Me thinks that you protest too much here. And why would progressives be bad people, either?

---

Erin Dawson February 23, 2011 7:40 am (Pacific time)

Jerry West, it's pretty obvious who the real extremists are, just add up the evidence, see below. Should this politician resign? {Dem lawmaker on labor protests: 'Get a little bloody when necessary'}: "Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) fired up a group of union members in Boston with a speech urging them to work down in the trenches to fend off limits to workers' rights like those proposed in Wisconsin. "I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going," Capuano said, according to the Dorchester Reporter. "Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary." http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/145627-dem-lawmaker-on-labor-protests-get-a-little-bloody-when-necessary I see you are still blaming others from the past about our deficit. How about the policies of the last two years? We need leadership, not glib fingerpointing.

---

Charlene Young February 22, 2011 6:24 pm (Pacific time)

Not far (relatively) from you Jerry: "Canada's reported hot spot for crime - climbing 90% higher than the national average - is a northern B.C. city whose population doesn't even break 100,000. Prince George, B.C., topped the list of Canadian cities with the highest crime rates, according to an annual survey released Thursday by Maclean's magazine." Comparing regional crime rates is a more accurate indicator of relative safety. Most of America's violence is in our cities, and they are politically best referenced as "Blue" political locations, while the "red" locations have essentially the lowest crime rates on the planet. Do not find very many Tea Party members causing all this crime, so who are the real bad people? The lefties like the clown who did all the killing in Tuscon. This was a crazy madman, but in the "blue" locations, that's where you find the lefties. http://www.topix.com/forum/world/north-america/TQQS5K14KGGBORD9G

---

Charlene Young February 22, 2011 6:16 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry and DJ: "Crime rates provide a measure of the prevalence and types of crime in Canada. Crimes are typically divided into two broad categories: crimes of violence that involve harm or threats of harm to people (including homicide), and property crimes that involve theft of goods or money without threat or harm to the victim." The above referenced categories were provided earlier at the below link. Canada's crimes of violence are "over twice" America's and their property crimes are also "much higher." "Research has shown that for various reasons [Canadian] victims may choose not to report their victimizations to the police. For example, according to the 2009 GSS 69% of violent victimizations, 62% of household victimizations and 71% of personal property thefts were not reported to police." I am just linking the data: http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=57 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11340-eng.htm

---

Jerry West February 22, 2011 5:06 pm (Pacific time)

I am no fan of Obama's, but the deficit more rightly belongs to George Bush. In any event, deficits are unjustifiable in most cases and revenues should be raised to meet all expenditures. There is no debate that unnecessary spending should be cut, and the most unnecessary, even criminal, spending is that on needless wars of aggression like Iraq and Afghanistan. Once those expenses are eliminated then we can start looking other things. Bush should have never gone to war without first having the funds to pay for it already in the bank or taxes increased to get them, 100%.

Quote: Getting beyond that, how can the rich not be "paying their fair share" when we already have the 2nd highest corporate income tax in the world and "25% of income earners pay 86% of the income tax burden?"

So what? Meaningless statistics. Maybe all corporate income tax rates are too low? Maybe 25% of income earners control more than 86% of the wealth? Fair burden means everyone has access to enough to meet the basic requirements of life. Beyond that we can discuss how to divvy up the rest of the pie.

Some thoughts to ponder:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/rich-get-richer-poor-get-poorer-111907779.html

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/905536

http://toomuchonline.org/weeklies2011/feb142011.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/66809/20100929/income-gap-census-bureau-poverty.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3249/is_1_12/ai_n54800739/

---

Jerry West February 22, 2011 4:20 pm (Pacific time)

Erin wrote: "Canada is pretty violent, though Mexico is a tad bit worse,"

Which is why I found it necessary at times to carry a firearm in the US, but never in Canada? Without digging into all the stats, from experience I would guess that more things are considered violent in Canada than they are in the US. Again, for a real look a violence, I direct one to the murder rates. The place that I live in is so violent that some people even lock their doors.

Check out http://home.cablerocket.com/~zorq/current/ci.pdf

The last page is the local police report.

---

Erin Dawson February 22, 2011 3:43 pm (Pacific time)

The "Economist" is used by how many travel agencies? Pittsburg #44. You gotta be kidding! And why is not Gary Indiana number 0ne? Seems someone is desperate to create a distraction from documented crime data. I had no problem making the correlation, nor should anyone else. Canada is pretty violent, though Mexico is a tad bit worse, but not by much. Each has their serious drug problems. Canada is the biggest exporter of meth. Look it up.

Canada may be the biggest exporter of meth, but not user. Look it up.

Liveable cities is not about cities to travel to, but about cities to live in. Vancouver have been #1 for five years in a row. But then, you're an American, what would you know about the rest of the world? 

---

Jerry West February 22, 2011 3:22 pm (Pacific time)

Charlene wrote: "Especially considering Canada uses telephone surveys for some crimes while we use actual police incident reports. This certainly exposes the most likely inaccurate count of crimes in Canada when coupled with such an inferior accounting method."

You will need to explain yourself in detail here, with sources. The rates you quoted from Canada were based on police reports, not telephone interviews.

The differences in the violent crime rate is in part due to probably differences in what is considered a violent crime in each jurisdiction, and to the tendency of some crimes to be under reported in certain jurisdictions. For example, if the definition of rape were to be broader in Canada, and the tendency of Canadian women to report sexual assault greater than that of American women, then the number of reported crimes in Canada would be greater even if the actual number of crimes were less, applying the same standard to both countries.

Similar arguments could probably be made for property crimes.

Murder is pretty straight forward and more likely to be recorded, making it a better indicator.

"Canada's homicide rate (1.85 victims per 100,000 people) was less than half of that of the United States (5.69) but more than double that of Japan (0.64). "

Interesting to note that Japan, which has draconian anti-firearm laws compared to Canada, has the fewest homicides. Not something that I would base an argument against firearms on, but then neither would I be so silly as to base an argument for firearms on any statistic that shows areas with more firearms safer than those with fewer. Culture, far more than firearms, contributes to the problem, which is way laws focused on firearms for either pro or con purposes miss the point.

Quote: "as well as a medical system that is not all that it's cracked up to be for many of their citizens."

Except in reality with the exception of some rich people trying to avoid their fair share of taxes and some whiners, most Canadians support the public system. Of course if one listens to the whiners they will get a distorted view.

Quote: "My husband and our Canadian friends (and Canadian family members) feel far safer here in Oregon than in B.C., the Alberta province, or any urban location in Canada,"

So what? Just because you feel safer does not mean that you are, especially when feelings might be guided by political prejudices.

I can tell you many of the areas of the US that I have been in that do not feel safer than anywhere in Canada. On the other hand there are lots of places in both countries where I feel safe. I do find the general attitude in the US more belligerent than the one in Canada.

Quote: " but feel it is in need of tough love leadership."

I am beginning to wonder if you are a sadist? :)

---

Charlene Young February 22, 2011 2:16 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry and DJ, reflecting on many of your earlier posts: Five things I question: 1) The rich aren't paying their fair share: To begin with, no matter how much the Left envies, hates, and vilifies the rich, taxing them into oblivion still won't fix our problems. Closing the trillions of deficit Obama’s spending would produce in 2020 as per his current budget proposal, by taxing only the rich, would require a top income tax rate of 134 percent. Of course it is impossible to tax more than 100 percent of any taxpayer’s income. In other words, even if we turn liberalism all the way up to the Karl Marx setting, we're not going to fix our budget problems by taxing the rich. Getting beyond that, how can the rich not be "paying their fair share" when we already have the 2nd highest corporate income tax in the world and "25% of income earners pay 86% of the income tax burden?" As you're pondering that, consider that roughly 47% of Americans pay no income tax at all. So whatever else you want to say about the rich, they're paying more of their "fair share" than at least 47% of Americans. It's the spending! 2) It's for the children. 3) We have to pay for those tax cuts. 4) It’ll be paid for with the Social Security trust fund. 5) We want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. It is so easy to cut through the spin, except of course by those that actually have no real life experience. Note: Income Tax defined: "A tax levied on net personal or business income." This is after payroll taxes like social security, etc. Think the difference between getting a tax refund and those who send an additional amount to the IRS after normal withholding taxes. Of course maybe Charles Rangel has another definition?

The Forbes 400 have total assets of about $1.4 trillion. How much of that did they earn? 

---

Charlene February 22, 2011 2:15 pm (Pacific time)

DJ I "DID" provide you sources that all lead back to "primary" criminal databases for both America and Canada. Possibly you are fixated on murder, and not grasping my earlier assertions that deal with overall ACCUMLATIVE violence rates? These rate comparisons clearly show that when it comes to all violence on a per capital level, Canada has over twice our "violence" rate. Have you not looked at those links? Think what my posts stated, not how you desire to interpret them. Maybe that would help clear it up for you, maybe not? I'm sorry I did not make it more clear for you, so sorry.

What I asked you to do was point me to one source that would answer the question. Your posts are so long and convoluted that it's difficult to make sense of them. 

 Late breaking news. The Economist has just released a list of the most livable cities in the world. The top ten are: Vancouver, BC, Melbourne, Au, Vienna, Austria, Toronto, Calgary, Helsinki, Finland, Sydney, Au, Perth, Au, Adelaide, Au, Auckland, Nz. The top American city was Pittsburgh at #44.

---

Charlene Young February 22, 2011 11:22 am (Pacific time)

Jerry West, obviously comparing two countries that have different methodologies of measuring crime makes comparisons difficult. Especialy considering Canada uses telephone surveys for some crimes while we use actual police incident reports. This certainly exposes the most likely inaccurate count of crimes in Canada when coupled with such an inferior accounting method.
The U.S. violent crime rate in 2009 was 429.4 per 100,000 (see below Canadian violent rate at "951" per 100,000, over "TWICE" ours). The property crime rate in 2009 was 3,036 compared to Canada's "3,588", the latter is much higher. Regarding the U.S. murder rate, please compare and contrast those area's, including urban, where firearm ownership is not met with unfriendly (and questionable) laws (also include illegal alien violent crimes) and CHL's are common; crime is significantly lower when citizens are armed. Note: My earlier post was referencing the "overall violent crime rates," my post was accurate. Certainly we can take any criminal category and augment, but Canada has a serious problem with violence on a per capita basis, as well as a medical system that is not all that it's cracked up to be for many of their citizens. What other reason brings Canadians down here by the droves for prompt care? Our accents? Certainly our medical care is far more expensive. My husband and our Canadian friends (and Canadian family members) feel far safer here in Oregon than in B.C., the Alberta province, or any urban location in Canada, a country we absolutely love, but feel it is in need of tough love leadership. Jerry do you travel throughout Canada as I do, or do you just hang around where you live?
National Picture — In 2006, the rate of violent crime in Canada remained relatively stable at 951 incidents per 100,000 people, having reached a post-1990 low of 945 in 2004. The rate of property crime declined to 3,588 incidents 100,000 people, the lowest rate since 1970. http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=57 - http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm P.S. Daniel glad to see you are getting exposed to some excellent reading material. Did you notice how Coulter documents her writings? Only if more of my former students had done that. APA format works well in most research.

Charlene: The U.S. is unraveling around you and you think pointing fingers at Canada will help?

The only way you will convince me that Canada is more violent than the U.S. is if you give me an authoritative source that actually says that, or the equivalent. Otherwise all the statistics I've ever seen support my assertion.

Here's my source, citing references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate What's yours? DJ 

 

---

Daniel Johnson February 21, 2011 10:04 pm (Pacific time)

Conservative historian Paul Johnson wrote in his book Enemies of Society: “A man who deliberately inflicts violence on the language will almost certainly inflict violence on human beings if he acquires the power. Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honorable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilization.”

An interesting thing about this quote is that I pulled it from Ann Coulter's book Treason. I wonder if she actually read the quote considering the violence she commits in her books against language.

---

Jerry West February 21, 2011 7:36 pm (Pacific time)

Charlene wrote: "From what I've read about Canada, especially in your urban areas, the data shows violence is far worse in Canada than in the states."

Makes me wonder what you have been reading. I have a foot in both countries and your impressions of Canada do not match what I observe.

This might be of interest: "Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. For example, in 2000 the United States' rate for robberies was 65 percent higher, its rate for aggravated assault was more than double and its murder rate was triple that of Canada."

You can read the whole piece here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

Quote: "In reference to your article, the evidence is overwhelming that those that are acting out in the "extreme" are not the Tea Party members."

So? The point wasn't that, but that extreme violent rhetoric contributes to violence.

Quote: "We will see government shrink and become more efficient as the conservative movement continues to win future elections, reversing the horrible restrictions on freedom that a constantly growing government has caused."

Like the freedom to have an abortion or be free from any religion in government, or free to burn the flag? The problem with the corporate owned and operated conservative movement is that the freedoms that will be enhanced will be those that let the private sector loot and plunder, and destroy the environment to the detriment of us all.

____________________ 

DJ: Charlene might also read (but not like to read) Charles Blow in Saturday's NYT: "Empire at the end of decadence":  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/opinion/19blow.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss  He begins by saying: "It's time for us to stop lying to ourselves about this country."

BTW, Jerry: I was through all this about a year ago from some ideologue commentators to my stories  who continued to maintain, against all presented evidence, that Canada was more violent than the U.S., in particular that we had both higher gun crime and homicide rates per capita. So, if Charlene comes back saying that the U.S. is more peaceful, just ignore it. It's a no-win "conversation". 

---

Charlene Young February 21, 2011 6:27 pm (Pacific time)

My point regarding Mike Shore's post and DJ's response was accurate. Yes Jerry, Canadian's have an endless list of reasons to be disappointed, and Chief Blair and alledged instigator's are small potatoes overall. But am hopeful the lean towards the right may be taking hold quicker than many thought it would up there. We can always hope. I have several Canadian friends my age (well over 60) who come down to Oregon for their MRI's and knee surgeries, and a list of many other different ailments that take too long for them to get appropriate medical care up there. Maybe it's their age, and statistically they go to the end of the line for those types of medical procedures? The same thing is happening to our veterans at the VA here in Oregon where I volunteer 3 days a week. Some very sad stories up there and the media is not doing their job and investigating. In reference to your article, the evidence is overwhelming that those that are acting out in the "extreme" are not the Tea Party members. In fact just the opposite. Recalling some incidents by their opposites, an elderly man in the Tea Party in California had one of his fingers bit off, a young African-American was jumped on by union members, beaten up and taken to the hospital. Last October in Nevada a Tea Party bus coming into a rally was egged by Harry Reid supporters. Here in Oregon we had a teacher who was fired for using a school computer while organizing people to go to Tea Party functions with racist and other hateful signs and pretend to be Tea Party members. In fact the last mentioned act has been done countless times and has been documented, many got on "Youtube." There has been an ongoing assault on Tea Party people, and someday it may get an intense, but lawful response. I know if anyone attacked me, they will indeed have my response. Which leads me to your comments on guns. There is an ongoing surge in buying firearms and people getting CHL's and more laws are being enacted to allow for more freedom. It will continue, and crime will go down. Regarding the Wisconsin melodrama: Governor Walker ran on doing exactly what he is doing, there is no surprise. Nor should there be any negotiation, for that was done at the ballot box. As a retired teacher, both in the public system and private, the vast majority of teachers are fed up with the unions. In my opinion, which is held by millions of voters, even including FDR, unions do not belong in government, on any level. It is inevitable that these public unions will be dissolved and the employees will still be protected. We will see government shrink and become more efficient as the conservative movement continues to win future elections, reversing the horrible restrictions on freedom that a constantly growing government has caused. You mentioned referendums Jerry, how many of these have been overturned by activist judges (always on the left)?

DJ: So much disinformation/distraction in your long post. If you can document any of it, me and all the SN readers following this story would be interested in seeing it. America is falling apart at an increasing rate and I see people like yourself trying to change the topic by pointing out how much "worse" they are in Canada. It's pretty obvious that the American social fabric is fraying as workers are pitted against workers and the rich stand on the sidelines grinning as they continue to increase their plutocratic rule.

I refer you to George Lakoff's piece currently on the site: http://salem-news.com/articles/february212011/conservative-wishes-gl.php Read it, if you dare! 

 

---

Jerry West February 21, 2011 2:03 pm (Pacific time)

Charlene, it is also worth noting that it has come to light that a lot of the violence at the protests in Canada in both Toronto and Quebec City, was the result of police instigators.

Canadians have good reason to be disappointed with Chief Blair.

The summit held in Alberta a few years back was held in a remote location with restricted access.

---

Charlene Young February 21, 2011 10:42 am (Pacific time)

DJ on Feb. 18(@8:36am) you posted an addendum response to a Mike Shore:  "As for violence in Canada is concerned, your memory is not serving you correctly. The G8 (poster you were reponded to did not name summit number!) Summit here had no noticeable violence because the event, as has become common, is held as far as possible away from populated centres which makes it hard for protesters to get there and stay there." Seems your memory is "not serving you correctly" sir:  "G20 protest violence prompts over 400 arrests"“I am profoundly disappointed in the criminal acts which have taken place,” Toronto police Chief Bill Blair said at a news conference.
"We have seen windows broken and police cars burned. It is very regrettable that such vandalism and violence could not be prevented. I want to assure you that the persons responsible will be held accountable.”
Four police vehicles were set ablaze, store and bank windows were smashed and much of the area was put under security lockdowns. The Integrated Security Unit said 412 people were arrested.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/06/26/g20-saturday-protests.html  / From what I've read about Canada, especially in your urban areas, the data shows  violence is far worse in Canada than in the states. Facts to live by I guess.

---

Jerry West February 21, 2011 10:58 am (Pacific time)

Worth considering in relation to what is happening in Wisconsin:

http://georgelakoff.com/2011/02/19/what-conservatives-really-want/

A superior summation. DJ 

---

Randall Montgomery February 21, 2011 10:11 am (Pacific time)

Jerry, Daniel or Kevin, are any of you long term experienced teachers? Have any of you constructed a state-level budget for educational costs? How about just on a district level? Any of you involved in teacher assessment methods? How about designing and implementing negotiation procedures? The collective bargaining provision of the projected Wisconsin bill helps give the state (and municipalities) the ability to set the beginning costs of employment. In the private sector, management bargains with what it knows are its resources (in other words, give up too much, and we go out of business). That is not true in the public sector. The government doesn’t go out of business, so the cards are unfairly stacked in the unions favor. Additionally, and especially with teachers, a union contract sets a MINIMUM level of expectations. Right from the get go, we are defining what is the minimum you can do and keep a job. That is the wrong precedent to set with education. Lastly, unions always ask for more. If you only accept concessions now, you are simply kicking the can down the road. On a personal note, just a philosophical point, “Why is it ok to compel someone to join a union?” What has happened is that the voters elected a new Republican government in Wisconsin, throwing out the Democrats. The unions who control the "Flee-Baggers," didn’t like the new gov’t and have essentially ‘overthrown the duly elected government’ by occupying the state house with their supporters and grinding everything to a halt. The Democrat minority of course did their part by subverting the legislative process by fleeing. Folks, this is what tyranny looks like. Note: Daniel your reference to the article in Newsweek story (September 24, 1984) titled: "Why Teachers Fail" (pp. 64-70) is quite dated, and demonstrates your level of understanding, which at best is also dated as per your posts.

DJ: Of course the article is dated, I pointed that out myself. But I also suggested that I don't feel the situation has improved in 25+ years. Do you have latest or more recent SAT scores to make the actual comparison?

Before you go on with your union bashing--isn't the U.S. based on the concept of "United we stand, divided we fall"? If so, why is that not okay for teachers, or any group with something in common. After all, capitalists band together and act in unison to further their own interests. On this point see Stephen Millies piece on the Ludlow Massacre and why unions are so essential to civilized life. It also, I believe, addresses your "philosophical point": http://salem-news.com/articles/february192011/ludlow-massacre-sm.php  

Question: If unions are weakened further or even disbanded, how long will it take to return to the days of Ludlow Coal and Iron? 

---

Jerry West February 20, 2011 10:17 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel wrote: "it's the quality of the lumber that makes the difference. "

And quality lumber costs more. Higher standards for teachers, and higher salaries to attract them away from other fields would be the answer. Having said that, I have known quite a few sharp teachers and a number of ignorant managers and executives.

What the power behind the right wing wants is cheap teachers, with no concern for educational quality other than to use lack of it to justify cutting budgets. What the followers on the right want are cheaper teachers and better education, they won't get it in the end and if they can not afford the best private schools their kids will have little chance.

Jerry: The problem is at the school board level. Look at any school board and you will find it top heavy with lawyers, realtors and small business people.  It's simply not possible for teachers to be offered enough money to attract top notch people. Even if it happened it would be another generation before it made a difference.  DJ

---

Daniel Johnson February 20, 2011 7:53 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry and Kevin: The two of you are now arguing about money going into education. I think money is, in a fundamental sense, the least important factor. I refer you to a Newsweek story (September 24, 1984) titled: "Why Teachers Fail" (pp. 64-70)

Kevin cites a report saying that teachers tend to be more conservative. The Newsweek article supports that thesis because those who go into education are the least intellectually capable of all post-secondary students.

The article says: "The combined Scholastic Aptitude Test score of college-bound high-school seniors intending to major in education is only 812 (1600 is a perfect score), compared with 987 for intended engineering majors and 893 for all students taking the test." (p. 64)

In a telling graph the decline is clear. From 1973 to 1983, Education SATS dropped from about 860 to 812.
The National average fell from about 940 to about 900.
Math, Engineering and English all ranged from about 950 to about 1,040 through the same years.

The conclusion I draw is that teachers are drawn from the least intellectually capable members of society. (There are outliers, of course. Some who have gone into education are brilliant, but they stick out like sore thumbs and I can't imagine them being much challenged by their more intellectually conservative workmates). When I first went to university in 1970, education students were widely derided as Arts and Science rejects. Another common saying was: Those who can, do; those who can't, teach; and those who can't teach, teach teachers. Pretty harsh assessment.

Putting it in the vernacular: It's like building a house; it doesn't matter how much you paid for the lumber, it's the quality of the lumber that makes the difference. 

This article is nearly thirty years old but, in my observations, I think things have gotten worse rather than better, since then. If anyone has a more current analysis, I, for one, would love to see it.

---

Kevin February 20, 2011 7:06 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry you wrote "...point out that we are not providing enough in the public education system in some places?" May I suggest a review done by the NEA on "How The States Rank In Public Education." It shows nearly across the board that significantly more money spent in some school districts (mainly urban) and considerably less in other districts, that those receiving less financial input scored higher in all testing in reading, science and math across the age spectrum. Maybe what we're really talking about is not just finances, but something else? You can also take schools within the same school districts where all financial input is equal and still have significantly different test results. No Jerry, it is not money that needs to be increased, it's many things, and one of them is making sure we have teachers who are really qualified and who have gotten their positions for pedegogical expertise, not for some other reason. The unions have gotten too much power in our public school system and need to be removed from anything to do with evaluations, hiring and terminating for cause. Here is a survey that presents some insight into union membership ideological views. I have no doubt the majority of teachers agree with me about what needs to be done about unions and their inappropriate intrusiveness. Please keep in mind that in many states, for one to work, they have to join a union. That should be outlawed throughout all 50 states. "The surveys also asked both members and local presidents to self-identify their political philosophies. This may well be the most controversial finding of the surveys, although it is consistent with previous surveys of NEA members. Respondents were asked if they were conservative, tend conservative, liberal, tend liberal, or don't know. Fifty percent of NEA members said they were conservative or tend conservative (an amazing 61 percent of education support employees lean to the right). Only 40 percent described themselves as liberal or tend liberal." See page #6/ http://www.eiaonline.com/neapyramid.pdf

---

Daniel Johnson February 20, 2011 3:14 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin writes: "Those who want a massive redistribution of income beyond what we now have, may want to revise that goal, not going to happen in the forseeable future."

"Beyond what we now have."???  What you talkin' about, Willis? The U.S. is the most economically inequitable country in the developed world which just goes to show that relatively unrestrained capitalism does work. 

---

Jerry West February 20, 2011 3:00 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin wrote: "Regardless of Tea Party, Unions, or other influences, the ballot box is the ultimate agent of change. If it becomes subordinate to some other power, then we are in big trouble in my opinion."

We are in big trouble, Kevin, concentrations of wealth are the agent of change. The ballot box is bought and sold with voters receiving only a very limited view and controlled discussion of options. The choice at the polls is more often a choice between who you want to harm you and how, rather than whether you want to be harmed or not.

Quote: "Those who want a massive redistribution of income beyond what we now have, may want to revise that goal, not going to happen in the forseeable future."

Which is too bad, because the wealth disparity is one of the big problems that we have to deal with and is at the root of many of those that we debate, yet we do not go near the real cause.

Quote: ""Nationwide, public school teachers are almost twice as likely as other parents to choose private schools for their own children,...."

So? What is the point? First, just to put it in a better perspective, what is the total percentage of parents choosing private schools that the 28% represents a percentage of? Second, what does this have to do with spending more on education other than to point out that we are not providing enough in the public education system in some places? Perhaps spending more on education (not necessarily wages) and slapping a fat tax on private education facilities with the money being directed to public education would help correct this problem.

Quote: "The above trend for teachers sending their kids to private schools is quite similar to those in power who are getting a pass on national healthcare guidelines. "

So, let's address the inequalities in the system so that everyone has equal access to every public service including education and healthcare regardless of their financial status. The healthcare and education that the richest person gets should also be available to the poorest at a cost that they can afford to pay, or with a public subsidy is necessary.

What the Tea Party stands for, even if most members and supporters can not see it, is the suppression of the poor and middle class to benefit the rich.

---

Kevin February 20, 2011 9:37 am (Pacific time)

Jerry I came across the below study which pretty well spells out the "possible" need to make some major alterations in public education, which would entail, most likely, significant personnel changes. Please notice below Milwaukee, Wis. stat regarding public teachers who send their kids to private schools! Regardless of Tea Party, Unions, or other influences, the ballot box is the ultimate agent of change. If it becomes subordinate to some other power, then we are in big trouble in my opinion. Those who want a massive redistribution of income beyond what we now have, may want to revise that goal, not going to happen in the forseeable future. "Nationwide, public school teachers are almost twice as likely as other parents to choose private schools for their own children, the study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute found. In Washington (28 percent), Baltimore (35 percent) and 16 other major cities, the figure is more than 1 in 4. In some cities, nearly half of the children of public school teachers have abandoned public schools. In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and "29 percent in Milwaukee" and New Orleans. "Michael Pons", spokesman for the National Education Association, the 2.7-million-member public school union, declined a request for comment on the study’s findings. The American Federation of Teachers also declined to comment. “Teachers, it is reasonable to assume, care about education, are reasonably expert about it and possess quite a lot of information about the schools in which they teach. We can assume that no one knows the condition and quality of public schools better than teachers who work in them every day.” “They know from personal experience that many of their colleagues make such a choice [for private vs. public schools], and do so for good and sufficient reasons." http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/_fordham_study.pdf // http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/22/20040922-122847-5968r/?page=2 /Note: The above trend for teachers sending their kids to private schools is quite similar to those in power who are getting a pass on national healthcare guidelines. Ummm.

---

Jerry West February 19, 2011 8:17 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin wrote: "Yes I do believe in some cases, weak-minded and/or disturbed people allow rhetoric to cause them to act out violently,...."

Rhetoric gets them to fall for the God and Country BS and volunteer to fight in wars that are against their own best interest and the interest of society. Rhetoric moves mobs, history is full of examples. Would you consider all of these people disturbed and weak minded, or just deluded? Any how, the point remains, violent rhetoric can lead to increased violence.

Quote: "I also believe it's highly unlikely that taxes (income, fees, or any other method) are going to be raised to cover current and future costs for public union employees, or most any other government-related costs at this time."

True, but that does not mean that they should not be, nor that a fairer tax system that targets concentrated pools of private wealth is not in order. Of course profits are a form of tax, too. It is just that private interests collect it.

Quote: "Your remark about the percentage of voters in Wisconsin that elected Governor Walker sounds like you are pretty unhappy with the voting system. You have any ideas how it could be improved, constitutionally?"

States could limit significant change to that passed in a referendum requiring a 2/3 majority vote. Just one way.

But my issue isn't with the voting system so much as the common sense one that a smart politician who cares about the citizens does not use squeaker mandates to institute radical change.

---

Kevin February 19, 2011 6:27 pm (Pacific time)

Hi Jerry. Yes I do believe in some cases, weak-minded and/or disturbed people allow rhetoric to cause them to act out violently, but it's such a small minority that it may be difficult to measure. Have you some particular personality traits in mind? Assessing all the violent rhetoric people are exposed to in our country on a day by day basis, seems that the evidence shows very few act out like that idiot did in Tuscon. I also believe it's highly unlikely that taxes (income, fees, or any other method) are going to be raised to cover current and future costs for public union employees, or most any other government-related costs at this time. The evidence is clear that tax increases will just worsen our economic downturn. Your remark about the percentage of voters in Wisconsin that elected Governor Walker sounds like you are pretty unhappy with the voting system. You have any ideas how it could be improved, constitutionally? It is what it is, and there's always the next election to attempt at changing something the majority does not like. That majority, by the way, are those who actually take the time to participate and vote. Of course a recall election would work and I read where some are going to begin that process with some "runaway" legislators who can't deal with the kitchen heat.

---

Jerry West February 19, 2011 3:24 pm (Pacific time)

Steve wrote: "The bottom line is that large financial spending for students, teachers, staff and equipment does not correlate with educational success."

Not unless you can compare expenditures in examples that are equal in all respects except for expenditures adjusted to the local economy. Are you arguing that providing more to students does not improve their ability to get an education? Are you arguing that better libraries, more equipment lik computers, and so on has no effect on the quality of education possible? One could use the expense argument to say that you could expect to get an equal an education in a community college as at Harvard.

Quote: "Meanwhile, Wisconsin is facing bankruptcy and the new governor has proposed that teachers make a modest contribution to their own benefits packages."

Of course the cause of that bankruptcy is debatable and may well be a tool used by the rich to get even further tax concessions and promote their agenda of eliminating the middle class. It is also being claimed that a modest income adjustment is not the issue, but ending collective bargaining and breaking unions is.

** Gov. Scott Walker on Saturday rejected an overture from a Democratic state senator that public employee unions had agreed to make financial sacrifices contained in the budget-repair bill in return for the right to bargain collectively. **

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116519738.html

Quote: "His proposal has nearly caused riots and there are mass demonstrations. "

I guess thousands of people are pissed off. He may have ignited a backlash that can not be controlled and could spread. Kind of like the civil rights movement did.

Quote: "Most of the taxpayers who fund these salaries earn far less and many in the recession are unemployed."

The problem isn't public sector workers. People should be going after those who have the real wealth. People's envy and jealousy are being exploited to deflect them from the real causes of their predicament.

Something else to consider is perhaps Walker is not justified in taking such radically extreme action given that he received just over 50% of the vote from about 50% of eligible voters. 75% of the eligible voters did not vote for him.

Something here to think about:

http://toomuchonline.org/weeklies2011/feb142011.html

PS: we have wandered away from the topic of the original article that violent rhetoric contributes to violence.

---

Steve Jacobson February 19, 2011 1:23 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry West I used Salt Lake City as a comparative example with DC, but I also said "You can also continue these comparisons all over the country and you will see that money does not correlate with better test scores and low school dropout rates." The bottom line is that large financial spending for students, teachers, staff and equipment does not correlate with educational success. As far as teacher salaries, or any publically paid salary for that matter, future employees know that going into the job, or they should. In Wisconsin The Salaries average $56,500 and benefits are $43,505. They get ten weeks off in the summer, 1 week at Christmas, 1 week for mid-winter break, 1 week for spring break, and 11 holidays. That leaves 1472 hours for work and turns out to be $68 per hour. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is facing bankruptcy and the new governor has proposed that teachers make a modest contribution to their own benefits packages. His proposal has nearly caused riots and there are mass demonstrations. Most of the taxpayers who fund these salaries earn far less and many in the recession are unemployed. The teachers unions are using the same tired old mantra that "it's all for the children." In fact these pupils, many dragged to the mass demonstrations, have no idea what issues are involved and they are the real victims, being totally exploited and used as propaganda props by their teachers.

---

Daniel Johnson February 19, 2011 12:47 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry: Race to the bottom is exactly right. Couple that with the philosophy of divide and conquer which is at the basis of American society. (Here in Canada, too, just not as obvious or as socially destructive.) In particular I like your bringing up the idea of salaries in the business world. There is not much internal logic to the whole conservative worldview.

Many years ago I worked as a social worker and I realized that in our society the fields that are least paid and least valued in our society are those occupations that work to help people. Teachers are only as well paid as they are because they are unionized. United we stand, etc.

In fact, one other point to remember is this: A common saying is "you get what you pay for." (At the extremes of high finance, Wall Street, etc., this rule breaks down) 

---

Jerry West February 19, 2011 12:08 pm (Pacific time)

Steve wrote: "You can also continue these comparisons all over the country and you will see that money does not correlate with better test scores and low school dropout rates. "

Not money alone. I laugh when you compare DC with Utah, two totally different societies.

Quote: "Well what you may not be aware of is that on average over 90% of educational-related costs are earmarked for teacher salary and benefits. That percentage continues to go up as resources for students declines, as does their perfomances."

Which tells us that insufficient spending increases for resources has not gone up as it should along with teacher salaries.

Quote: "In Wisconsin, teachers now have a combined taxpayer costs of salary and other benefits that exceed $100,000 ..... To ask them to pay for more of their healthcare and retirement costs will still be below what the average citizen has to pay for the same."

Who makes more than teachers, and why isn't the focus on them and their truly excessive incomes? For years we have heard the BS about how you have to pay higher salaries and wages to get the best people, and for corporate executives that line of malarky has been gobbled up. Using the same logic, to get the best teachers perhaps we need to offer compensation packages comparable to those in the higher levels of industry. What is happening now is the lower paid workers are being turned against the moderate paid ones to the benefit of the rich. The TP should be protesting all wages and salaries above a couple hundred K and demanding that this excess wealth be returned to society.

Also, perhaps all citizens deserve the same health benefits and retirement packages that they do not want the teachers to have. Except they protested against that when they opposed universal single payer health care. What we see here is the TP leading a race to the bottom, egged on by rich supporters who will be the only beneficiaries.

http://robertreich.org/post/3353591266

---

Steve Jacobson February 19, 2011 9:40 am (Pacific time)

Jerry West wrote: "Quote: "There are millions of us parents who pay to have our kids and grandkids educated outside of the public school system, which is getting constantly worse." Well, you can blame not enough money spent on education for that...snip." Mr. West have you ever had the opprotunity to review the national database that lists different educational related data? Briefly, look at Washington DC in terms of money spent per pupil, student-teacher ratio,teacher salary, etc. and then the various national test scores they have. Then take say Salt Lake City, which has a much smaller amount of resources available that DC schools consumes, and compare the test scores. DC has literally the lowest test scores for an urban area in the country, but the most resources spent per pupil as well as staff and equipment. You can also continue these comparisons all over the country and you will see that money does not correlate with better test scores and low school dropout rates. Teacher unions have always opined for more money, claiming that would improve student performance. Well what you may not be aware of is that on average over 90% of educational-related costs are earmarked for teacher salary and benefits. That percentage continues to go up as resources for students declines, as does their perfomances. In Wisconsin, teachers now have a combined taxpayer costs of salary and other benefits that exceed $100,000. So yeah, private citizens desire to rein in these costs is appropriate, and will happen. Probably mass layoffs are coming, and the majority of the voters in that state and around the country will not feel bad about that happening. To ask them to pay for more of their healthcare and retirement costs will still be below what the average citizen has to pay for the same. Cue the violins.

---

Jerry West February 18, 2011 7:59 pm (Pacific time)

Someone said: "By the way "income tax" is much different than payroll taxes." So, prove it. Are you saying that income with holding taxes that are deducted by the employer are not income taxes? Even SSI is based on income to a point. As far as very few people paying income tax, I find that amazing, and if true it tells us that very few people have much of an income, or that the tax is way too low. Even when I was making only a few thousand a year in the US I paid income tax, most of it deducted by the employer out of each paycheck.

Quote: "There are millions of us parents who pay to have our kids and grandkids educated outside of the public school system, which is getting constantly worse." Well, you can blame not enough money spent on education for that. Too bad they waste so much on needless wars of aggression and corporate welfare.

Quote: "Yeah, time to get the unions out of the teaching profession." Yes, and go back to 12 hour days, six days a week with no overtime, and fewer holidays and no vacation time, among many of the other things that unions have gained for far more than their membership. People have a right to organize and the only ones who have a right to take unions out of education are the teachers.

Quote: "The times are changing, and the country will be far better off because of the coming change."

That remains to be seen. The direction that the TP is being channeled in indicates that those that will be better off will be the rich at the expense of everyone else.

Some more Wisconsin:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0218/Wisconsin-anti-union-bill-is-a-shameful-attack-on-workers-basic-rights

---

Anonymous February 18, 2011 6:42 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry West you take a lefty newspaper source and run with that as evidence? The last state (democrat) administration warned about the fiscal train wreck coming down the line. By the way "income tax" is much different than payroll taxes. The latter group generally gets a refund and other welfare-like payments. Very few of us actually pay income taxes. Also many of us pay all those other taxes, which include paying revenue for the failed public school system (in most locations, especially in urban areas). There are millions of us parents who pay to have our kids and grandkids educated outside of the public school system, which is getting constantly worse. Yeah, time to get the unions out of the teaching profession. Governor Walker most certainly does have an agenda, and he was voted into office because of it. The times are changing, and the country will be far better off because of the coming change. The brutality of the union thugs is being documented, and it's going to be getting massive ditribution, which is only right. I will be in Madison tommorrow with other Tea Party members, and if any thugs attempt to interfere with our 1st Amendment rights, they'll have some intense response, and it will be on video as a self-defense response. I like you Mr. West am also a combat veteran. I have respect for most everyone, until they cause me to think otherwise.

Editor: You are a combat vet and yet you use the name Meyers on one story and leave it off the next?  That is a bit strange, you definitely weren't in the Marine Corps were you?  This 'lefty' newspaper has a Hell of a decent audience and I wonder why it is gaining?

---

Jerry West February 18, 2011 3:00 pm (Pacific time)

** Although Gov. Walker claims Wisconsin is in desperate financial straits, the state had been coping better than most and, according to Madison’s Capital Times newspaper "has managed so well, in fact, that the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau recently released a memo detailing how the state will end the 2009-2011 budget biennium with a budget surplus." ....

If the Legislature were simply to rescind Walker’s new spending schemes -- or delay their implementation until they are offset by fresh revenues -- the 'crisis' would not exist. ... Unfortunately, Walker has a political agenda that relies on the fantasy that Wisconsin is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy." **

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/021811c.html

---

Jerry West February 18, 2011 2:52 pm (Pacific time)

Speaking of Wisconsin: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/021811b.html

Mike wrote: "A quick review of the federal and Wisconsin tax code will show you that those in that income level already pay more in income taxes." That review shows that more isn't very much, not even close to what it should be. In Wisconsin the spread between top and bottom is barely more than 2%. The federal spread is only about 25% which is hardly enough considering at one time it was around 70%. Plainly a big part of the deficit problem is reduction in tax rates.

Mike wrote: "In fact in Wisconsin the vast majority, like the rest of the country, do "not" pay income taxes, but do pay payroll taxes." So, payroll or with holding taxes are not taxes on income? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withholding_tax

Mike wrote: "What may be fair to you simply does not register to the majority, that's why we have elections, to engage in self-governance, not let a minority dictate to us." But a minority does dictate to us, the rich minority through their control of information, entertainment and education and force.

Mike wrote: "The state has a major deficit, do you understand that? Same on a national level,we all have to cut back on spending." Or raise taxes on those with above average incomes (which be higher than the median income).

Maddie: two wrongs do not make a right. The video was disabled when I tried to play it, but the comments to it were indicative of how people are being mislead and played off against one another to keep the focus off of the wealthy who are the root of the problem here.

---

Maddie February 18, 2011 1:13 pm (Pacific time)

Below link is to a video that shows how lovingly patient the left is being during this Wisconsin bump in the road, just about a minute long. Super photography and editing. Really shows the hypocrisy of the Republicans: http://www.breitbart.tv/liberals-ignore-hitler-imagery-and-violent-rhetoric-from-union-thug-protesters-in-wisconsin/ /Wait... as per President Obama, weren't we supposed to "tone down the rhetoric"? Speak more kindly? Be more careful with our words?

---

Mike Shore February 18, 2011 8:36 am (Pacific time)

Daniel Johnson your below comparison of countries, who are essentially dictatorships with a zero background in democracy, with the United States simply does not apply. The spirited events happening in Wisconsin, and now spreading to other states, has not gotten "injury" violent yet, though that may happen. If memory serves me right, didn't Canada have some violence at a summit meeting last year? Seems that was worse than what is happening in Wisconsin in terms of injuries and arrests. Jerry West, you suggest a "referendum" for an increase on taxes for those who earn above the median "income." A quick review of the federal and Wisconsin tax code will show you that those in that income level already pay more in income taxes. In fact in Wisconsin the vast majority, like the rest of the country, do "not" pay income taxes, but do pay payroll taxes. Are you suggesting a redistribtion of wealth where all people will earn the same income? What may be fair to you simply does not register to the majority, that's why we have elections, to engage in self-governance, not let a minority dictate to us. Bottom line is that the election last November was a "referendrum," and the sitting governor campaigned on the actions he and the legislature are pursuing. The state has a major deficit, do you understand that? Same on a national level,we all have to cut back on spending. Some people it appears just do not comprehend what is going on. The union members in Wisconsin will be far better off financially with the projected legislation, otherwise many will be layed off (some fired no doubt), and if they do get violent, there will be serious consequences. Recall a few years ago when Obama met with republicans about the pending "Stimulus Bill" (which has failed)? He told these people that elections have consequences and "I won." Well now we have a similar situation, and it is to correct the damage of that stimulus bill and other failed policies of the past from both parties.

DJ: You missed my point which was simply that weapons in the hands of the citizenry are demonstrably not necessary to overthrow a government, the possession of which is the theoretical  raison d'etre of the Second Amendment.  As for violence in Canada is concerned, your memory is not serving you correctly. The G8 Summit here had no noticeable violence because the event, as has become common, is held as far as possible away from populated centres which makes it hard for protesters to get there and stay there.

---

Jerry West February 17, 2011 8:26 pm (Pacific time)

As I have said, Kevin, extremism is not a left-right thing, and one does not justify the other. Perhaps in Wisconsin they should test the people's will on these cuts by putting them to referendum, along with a plan to raise taxes on those who make far more than the median income.

This article discusses the situation in Wisconsin: http://www.thenation.com/blog/158636/green-bay-packers-sound-against-gov-scott-hosni-walker

Speaking of self protection, I remember the Black Panthers arming to protect their communities against the police in line with their Second Amendment rights. In fact I remember quite a bit of discussion about armed struggle in the left during the 60s and 70s. I do believe that we have a right to protect ourselves, the question is, where is the line between legitimate protection and an unreasonable threat to society. None of which addresses my premise that the knee jerk reactions by both sides leads away from sensible solutions.

As for the divide between workers and some remaining unscathed, what we have is a ploy by the criminally rich to play workers off against each other. Workers whose real wages have been dropping as the richest get progressively richer. That is the bummer that must be dealt with.

---

Daniel Johnson February 17, 2011 6:32 pm (Pacific time)

Has anyone noticed that "the people" have overthrown the autocratic/dictatorial  governments of both Egypt and Tunisia (with more dictatorships likely still to fall) without the use of arms? Only Americans (and dictators) seem to believe that violence is the only way to solve political differences--(Bahrain is a particularly egregious example as I write this.)

---

Kevin February 17, 2011 6:12 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry,regarding "extremism", have you been following the unrest happening in Wisconsin over the elected people's representatives need to cut the budget to match their revenue? I’ve been watching some of the news and I’m seeing some signs that say things like “Kill the tyrants;” another shows the Governor with a Hitler mustache, etc. This behavior is coming from a wide variety of state employees, including teachers. Many of these teacher's called in sick and have had many of their students accompany them to the different protests. I wonder if this call of violence will impact the protestors, including our children, the students? Then there have been reports of union members going to the private homes of legislative members creating some potentially threatening encounters with them and their families. I don't know how you would handle a mob coming to your home, but I would certainly protect my family and property, and having firearms at least gives one a chance with an unruly mob, because obviously the police are outmanned. As they say when seconds count, the police will be there in minutes, with their chalk. This is a horrible situation and provides ample evidence on who is dialing up the hate rhteoric, don't you think? Plenty of documented history. How the local media reports on this matter v.s. outside news groups should show how and why much of the mainstream media is losing market share. Also how a very liberal state like Wisconsin had a significant political change last November to a majority conservative leadership. Obviously the "silent majority" are the people who wanted a change of leadership. Maybe the Tea Party movement is the vocal arm of this "silent majority?" Jerry it is kind of interesting regarding the union divide that is developing: The public sector union employees want their jobs, pay, and benefits to stay status quo (cannot blame them actually), while the private sector union employees pay their tax funded salary as they see their jobs disappear. So whose doing the real sacrifice out there? The bottom line is that there will be some significant layoffs coming, and/or a reduction of work hours and benefits for all non-federal employees. Of course federal employees will most likely remain unscathed, causing further resentment. Bummer.

---

Jerry West February 16, 2011 3:36 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin, you wrote: "The current laws are there to essentially regulate your concerns about automatic weapons and other military-type armaments." However, those are not my concerns which is why we may be talking past each other here. My concerns are that extremist rhetoric and in the case of gun laws, extremist reactionary opposition (both pro and con), marginalizes rational positions on the issue. The fact (with which I agree) that we already have too many gun laws does not mean that we have the right ones, or that everything that should be covered, is.

You wrote: "So in terms of the hate rhetoric you mentioned coming from the right, it appears that there is no overwhelming evidence to support your view that people are acting out criminally based on conservative speech influences in a statistically significant manner." So, prove that it does not influence people, which is my point that it could. If you create a violent atmosphere, violence is likely to happen, and it is not a left-right thing, though the rightwing stuff is more prevalent these days.

You wrote: "the following link is nearly a year old, but provides many examples for your review that deals with hate rhetoric coming from non-conservatives. Have you an opinion?" I found Clabough desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to make a case and Max down there with him trying to twist facts to fit their view. In fact I found some of the responses pretty mindless and juvenile. I found Patterico's site, which was linked, more intelligent, but still spinning a bit. Trying to justify rightwing hate mongering with leftwing hate mongering is idiotic at best. Promoting violence from any position is a problem.

Looking at some of the comments illustrates how ignorant so many people are, a condition that crosses all lines. :)

---

Kevin February 15, 2011 5:56 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry I am not intentionally skirting around your point on firearms, but possibly your point is unintentionally skirting the firearm issues as per the gun laws currently on the books, and recent court decisions? The current laws are there to essentially regulate your concerns about automatic weapons and other military-type armaments. I must admit I don't have much time to listen to the radio nor television, so I generally listen to friends discuss this type of programming to see what their opinions are. My friends come from literally all types of political backgrounds along with different party loyalties. Though I have found that the majority around me are pretty much fiscal conservatives. Running your own business does that to most people I believe. So in terms of the hate rhetoric you mentioned coming from the right, it appears that there is no overwhelming evidence to support your view that people are acting out criminally based on conservative speech influences in a statistically significant manner. Just a lot of opinions, but no evidence. As I requested earlier Jerry, do you have actual court proven evidence to support your opinion? It does appear that just the opposite criminal acting out is coming from the left, do you agree? There is considerable evidence to support the latter. Just for the heck of it I googled "leftist hate speech" and came up with many references. Needless to say many of the sites are not going to be very objective, so one needs to evaluate the actual evidence over the rhetoric. I did that, and it does not support your opinion. Jerry the following link is nearly a year old, but provides many examples for your review that deals with hate rhetoric coming from non-conservatives. Have you an opinion? http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3233-leftist-hate-speech-ignored -"Under the comment section of link, see what Max wrote" 4th one // Yes there are some "nice sticks in Oregon", and in my boyhood home in Canada. I just love the Northwest. (P.S. I have also been handling firearms before my teens. We load most of our own ammo, and I maintain a constant proficiency in firearm use, it comes with my lifestyle, and a military-retired father who lives and breathes tactics and strategy, now focused on predators and vermin).

---

Jerry West February 14, 2011 9:38 am (Pacific time)

Well, Kevin, you still skirt around my point on firearms, so I guess that we are not going there. (PS: been handling firearms since before my teens). As for the rest, it is not about all criminals, or who contributes how much to the problem. It is about what contributes to the problem. Are you denying that all of the hate rhetoric coming from the right wing fringe (like Beck and that ilk, and all of those idiot sign carriers at the TP and other right wing rallies) does not contribute to anything here?

BTW: how far out in the sticks are you? Some nice sticks in Oregon.

---

Kevin February 13, 2011 7:07 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry as I wrote previously I have little free time available, live out in the sticks, so do not belong to any political organizations. The Second Amendment, like all the other Amendments are quite important to my family and all those around us, as I am sure they are to you. My father was career military who after graduating from college went into the military and started out as a platoon leader in the Korean War, and left a few years later as a company commander. He retired after he had several tours in Vietnam, early 70's. When I came onto the scene, firearm training began at a very young age, something I am now teaching two of my children who are now old enough to grasp the seriousness of gun safety. They will be supplemented with age appropriate information as time goes by. Suffice, we have more than ample gun laws on the books now (approx. 20,000, not counting individual state laws), and the reducing gun crime rate over the last few years, even during a time of record gun sales, as per the FBI, is the basis of that opinion. Actually it is the knee jerk reaction every time a gun crime happens by people unhappy with firearm ownership that causes all the problems because of their manipulation of quasi-facts based on emotional rhetoric of little substance. Gun crimes are stopped far more times by private citizens, but that really gets very little news covergage, but the data is available. Bottom line, the law of the land has been recently codified by our Supreme Court via the Heller and McDonald Decisions. No doubt many more will follow. Even if the court majority switches to a majority liberal court, congress will not attempt to thwart 100 million plus voters (gun owners) on this issue. Think Electoral College in this matter, as well as future elections. Things, politically, have changed. Jerry I wrote below "As far as people acting out in a criminal way because of external influences, have you made a tally of who they are and their ideological backgrounds?" I have investigated this matter, and you will find that it is not groups like the Tea Party that have ginned up the "extreme rhetoric", but their polar opposites. Just compare and contrast the violent criminals over the years regarding their ideological backgrounds, it's pretty clear whose had the most influence on the "nut cases", and they are not who you suggest they are. Where's your court quality proven evidence to suggest otherwise?

---

Jerry West February 13, 2011 1:58 pm (Pacific time)

Stephen, you wrote: "Canada just passed legislation, that no warrants are needed to go into their houses,...." Actually, that was passed some years ago, and I have been a public and published critic of the legislation which pertains specifically to the firearms registration law, not to other issues.

You wrote: "And I dont care what war anyone faught in... that is their problem, not mine." It is more of a problem than that as long as people continue to regurgitate the blatant BS about the US defending democracy and fighting around the world for freedom and, gasp, human rights.

And you wrote: "Jerry and Daniels complete ignorance on what the 2nd ammendment really meant to the founding fathers, needed to be exposed. " But, so far you have failed to expose them. Got anything you can provide that shows unequivocally what the Founding Fathers "really meant?" As for the rest, G20, deficit,what's the point? Sounds like a kindergarten rant. :)

---

Jerry West February 13, 2011 1:10 pm (Pacific time)

Bill, you wrote: "Needless to say there are no members in our group that would agree with Mr. West's 2nd Amendment interpretation, ...." Are you saying that there are no members in your group that believe in responsible possession and use of firearms? I am willing to bet that the members in your groups (unless they are the Nazi, survivalist, militia types) and I have things in common, even when it comes to firearms. Where we may differ is in degree. Also, I do not doubt that most members of the Tea Party are decent, hardworking people, but that does not mean that they serve decent leaders and support decent causes. One can say much the same about most Germans who supported Hitler in the 1930s, and any number of examples from history. Even the KKK probably has many members who are decent and hardworking for the most part. It really isn't about the rank and file membership of the Tea Party, and they are not the only ones supporting good fiscal management, something that neither the Republicans or Democrats seem to do.

---

Jerry West February 13, 2011 12:59 pm (Pacific time)

Kevin: I agree with much of what you say and am aware of most of the facts, and none of it really addresses my points that you are responding to. It is like two separate conversations. My points are 1) that prudent, reasonable regulations on firearms are not violations of the Second Amendment (like restrictions on machine guns), and that knee jerk reaction to every regulation, regardless of whether it is reasonable or not, does more harm than good to those like myself who support the Second Amendment right to responsible possession of firearms. And 2) Whether individual TP members and others are decent, law abiding persons, the extreme rhetoric that is being tossed around by some of their members, or by people allegedly associated with them and their thoughts on government, feeds the nut cases and helps lead to the violence that we see. It matters not what organization nut cases belong to.

---

stephen February 11, 2011 2:05 pm (Pacific time)

Tim...its interesting how the writers can attack in any way possible, but those who choose to disagree need to be complacent. This is Stephen, I will use the name from now on if its that important. But making a mockery of the second ammendment, in ways it was not intended, does attack me personally. And I dont care what war anyone faught in...if they were stupid enough to go fight wars of aggression/globalization/corporate domination/and lies so the corporations could get resources, thats their problem, not mine. They were lied to, and now that the facts are out they cant accept it? that is their problem, not mine.
And yes, Canada just passed legislation, that no warrants are needed to go into their houses, maybe the canadians should focus on Canada. Did you see the G20 meeting in canada? Did jerry see the military say (on video)to protestors, 'this is not canada anymore"?? do you people not do your homework before writing?
canada has a central bank that is robbing them blind, and Canada's deficit is skyrocketing. Jerry and Daniels complete ignorance on what the 2nd ammendment really meant to the founding fathers, needed to be exposed. If you dont like me exposing deception, then, i am sure you can just ban me from making statements. Anyone with half a brain knows what the 2nd ammendment meant. dear lord

Editor: Our writers are me, I am our writers.  An insult toward them is an insult toward me  We do not always agree but we put information out there. If you feel you are exposing something then good, perhaps you are, but you have a set of values that are your own and whether you find a match or not every time is not something I am in control of.  Attacks are generally not tolerated, you are right, the next one probably won't be, so try to be level and in control of what you express here, thanks.

---

Kevin February 11, 2011 10:37 am (Pacific time)

Jerry with approximately twenty thousand gun laws in place (google-based #), it is almost certain many of them are being broken. Guns are sold illegally with their serial numbers scraped off, or are illegal simply because of the features they have, the so-called "assault weapon ban" was promulgated by appearance, not their actual function by many of the Brady-like folks and some in congress. Also no uptick in crime when the ban sunsetted nearly 7 years ago, no doubt providing another cry wolf moment for the ban's supporters. Automatics, aka machine guns are illegal. Jerry your use of some child showing up with an automatic (an "Uzi"), or others carrying military-grade weapons is similar to the rhetoric we all so often hear from the anti-2nd Amendment crowd, and I'm not suggesting you are one, but you do not seem to fully grasp the salient fact that as per government data, people who own firearms are safer than those who do not. These people just don't break the law very often, ergo, law-abiding citizens. Have you seen the federal laws on the books? Also the different state gun laws? All these laws help frame the argument often used to support gun rights, since existing laws are not being enforced. Many current laws are reasonable and un-controversial. However, many of them are being broken, with no consequence. In my opinion I believe that stricter enforcement of existing laws would go much further in reducing gun-related crimes than simply passing new, un-enforceable laws. As far as people acting out in a criminal way because of external influences, have you made a tally of who they are and their ideological backgrounds? I live in a very rural area and also have no time to get involved in political organizations, but do know several people who are in the Tea Party movement and pro-Obama movements. None of the former have ever mentioned Obama's religious orientation nor his place of birth. No doubt in all groups you are going to have people with different views, that's what America is about. Unfortunately some people tar an entire group based on a few extremists. This "tarring" appears not to have hampered the Tea Party movement, in fact maybe just the opposite. All in all I think that anything that helps to create healthy debate is excellent for our democratic process. The losers and winners are illuminated after every election, and the "beat goes on..." with new tactics and strategies. That is a superb process.

---

Jerry West February 10, 2011 10:22 pm (Pacific time)

Jerry West: Doug, you miss the point, this is not about taking away firearms, it is about responsible use and possession. Do you think that anyone should be able to have whatever weapon they want and carry it and use it anywhere? If not, then some sort of regulation is necessary and the issue becomes what level of regulation. Extremist, all regulation is to be opposed, viewpoints only make the situation worse for responsible people who wish to have firearms. As for our military willing to fight and die ideas around the world, what a crock. Been there, done that, know better. Anyone believing this is deluded, our military fights and dies to prop up an empire which feeds on the blood of other societies. Those who are not deluded do it for money and/or adventure.

Bill, the point is not about how many TP members have records or not, or whether the nut who shot Giffords was a TP member, it is about the rhetoric that is prevalent among TP types and other right-wing nuts. Rhetoric that has been a part of the society for a long time, but recently has been ramped up considerably by those mentioned above. It would stretch credibility to claim that an environment filled with such rhetoric does not affect the mentally deranged and contribute to their tendency to carry out said violence. I would have more respect for the TP if those who brought the violence promoting signs and spewed violent rhetoric were driven from the meetings and disowned. The Obama is a Muslim bunch and the Birthers are so ridiculous you could just laugh at them and publicly embarrass them. :)

Bill, all of your guns this and guns that rambling aside, do you think a six year old first grader has the right to show up at school with an Uzi and 500 rounds in his bag? If not, then you open the door for some sort of control on firearms and we become on the same page with maybe a few differences over where you draw the line. That, of course, is my point, responsible firearm possession and use. To go with the anti-regulation position the rules on automatic weapons, mortars, rockets, you name it, would all be gone. No rules in a society with only blades and clubs or even flintlocks is one thing, but in one where a single pull of the trigger can have immediate effects up to miles away is quite another. And that is compounded by the fact that a single pull of some triggers can release multiple rounds. Now, if you confuse me with the gun grabbing crowd, you are mistaken. Usually when I write on this issue it is in opposition to one silly gun law or another. You can check it with google if you like, it goes back years, even beyond the appearance of the net.. But, being a supporter of firearms possession does not mean that I can not see the need for prudent, rational regulation of firearms and their possession. It is the knee jerk opposition to such that really imperils firearm ownership by giving the anti-gun groupies ammunition to paint gun owners as demented nut cases.

Anonymous (person afraid of taking responsibility for what they say), where did you study them? Which university? You certainly do not have enough informed information to make the statements that you have made about what I know. I suggest that you go far beyond the Gulf of Tonkin and learn about the history of Vietnam and its struggle to be independent (like the US) if you haven't. Some of my background on the war comes not only from having been in it for 19 months, and from historical research, but also from reading reams of Secret and Top Secret reports during the war. Now, tell me, did the Founding Fathers mean that everyone could carry around an M-79 grenade launcher or an M-60 machine gun? If not, where do you think they drew the line, and why?

---

Amanda February 10, 2011 5:59 pm (Pacific time)

No one needs firearms but the military and police.Some of the people in this country are obsessed with gun ownership, from the thugs, and the wealthy, to moderate well off citizens, who can afford guns . The rest of the population is too busy to make a living and staying alive - than to worry about being a Big-Shot owning a firearm.

---

Bill Griffith February 10, 2011 2:34 pm (Pacific time)

Editor I am also a Vietnam veteran like Jerry West, and am service-connected from that war. My undergradute degree was in Political Science with a History minor, and my graduate degee was an MBA. It has been my observational experience over the years that our history books have been undergoing an ongoing revision, especially that period of history I actually lived through during the 1960's and early 70's. I also belong to a couple of Vietnam Vet organizations and most of us were in combat infantry, both Army and Marines. Needless to say there are no members in our group that would agree with Mr. West's 2nd Amendment interpretation, and that's just fine that we can have these different opinions. In our case, contrary to Mr. West, we have the rule of law on our side coupled with a U.S. Justice Department database that provides undeniable evidence that firearm owners are far safer than those who are not gun owners. This ongoing divisiveness re: the 2nd Amendment issue has been going on long before the oldest member of the Tea Party's great grandparents were born. Though I am not part of the Tea Party movement, I know many who are. These are just hard working people, from all backgrounds, and many are veterans, who just want to see some fiscal restraint. The movement has been undergoing misleading criticism since it began, and it just continues to gain in both membership and strength.

Editor: Thanks for your comment Bill.

---

Jerry West February 10, 2011 2:01 pm (Pacific time)

Tim wrote: "he grew up in southern California like I did"

Ieeeooow! I grew up in Central California, though some would say Northern California since a lot of people from Santa Barbara north consider themselves in Northern California. :)

Tim King: Oh no, not this old argument!  I'm sure you lived in northern Cal as long as you don't involve a map!  LOL I know what you mean and all that stuff, I moved to the central coast at the age of 16.  Of course that is central between LA and SF but who's looking, right?  Here's how it was taught to me Jerry; the world hates Americans, Americans hate Californians, Californians hate Southern Californians and Southern Californians hate people from LA.  People from LA hate boogeyboarders.  There, do we have it?  I think of places like Crecent City, Arcata, now that is the north!  Coming from an Oregonian, in all seriousness a surfer on Facebook told me just today that I should "go back to LA if I like it so much".  I guess it't just a day for that stuff,  They say you can take the guy out of LA, but you can't always take LA out of the guy.  

---

Anonymous February 10, 2011 9:14 am (Pacific time)

Both Mr West and Daniel have no clue what the founding fathers referred to. Because neither of you have studied them. I know what they meant, because I have studied them. Mr West does not even know how/why the vietnam war started, altho he fought in it. Research "the gulf of tonkin" Mr West, then research the founding fathers before making judgements. And a suggestion to Tim King, if you are going to have writers on your website, they should at least have a clue what is going on in the world. Anyone, and everyone, who has actually studied history and the founding fathers, know EXACTLY what they meant. Mr West, does not. Obviously.

Tim King: Honestly I'm hesitant to approve comments from people who don't use a name and yet choose to assault character.  No doubt you would not agree, but you still know that a large proportion of people believe LBJ used the incident with the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin simply as an excuse to move the war forward and they actually believe it never happened.  I am not qualified to talk about it as I was too young for Vietnam, but Jerry was not only in country but he was a Marine.  So,  that means he and I are like blood relatives, and I respect he and the other Veteran writers so much that there aren't adequate words.  I have had a small taste of war from covering stories in the two current war theaters, but people like Jerry who actually had to fight in a large scale military conflict simply do not emerge from these experiences without a great degree of knowledge, particularly when they went on to a life of journalism.  And don't let Jerry's present location throw you off track, he grew up in southern California like I did, and he knows US history's presentation in US history books as well as anyone.  I think sometimes it pays to take a step back.  I know many people who are offended when our Canadian writers offer their views on American subjects but they are affected by what happens here too, it is good to remember that.  Thanks for your comment, please keep the personal aspect in check.  

---

Bill Griffith February 10, 2011 8:52 am (Pacific time)

Jerry it would be interesting to get a good sample size of the TP population and check for criminal backgrounds and then compare that with an equal sample of those who are opposite them in ideological priorities. In terms of guns, permits and their distribution, the data out there simply shows that those who have firearms have a lower gun crime rate. As far as having guns in school, let's take Utah for example, they have allowed carrying guns on campuses for years, how many gun crimes? Zero. How many murders and gun crimes in those schools who do not allow guns? Many. How many gun slaughters have been stopped in schools and other public locations by lawful use of guns by private citizens? Just one would be enough, but there have millions of crimes stopped over the years by law abiding armed citizens throughout our society as per available research. The Founders did not need to be able to see into the future regarding technological changes, for they were quite simply codifying "natural rights." And over two centuries later the highest court of America has legally backed the Founders "natural foresight." Jerry what do you call an assault weapon? Most with experience know that to be an automatic, so we have laws against those, unless you have a special license from the Feds. Ditto for your use of other weapons not being gun firearms. The gun grabbing crowd uses emotional rhetoric, never facts incorporating the big picture. That is why they will fail in the end, no matter what a future court may say, because it's the voters who will have the final word. Over 100 million gun owners who know the real facts. We make the laws.

---

Vic February 10, 2011 7:14 am (Pacific time)

I am surprised to see a link to The Southern Poverty Law Center. The name is misleading, and so is the organization led by Zionist Morris Dees. His real name is Morris Seligman Dees. Their "Hate Map" should start at their own front door. Here is just one of many links re Dees.. http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/morris-dees-pathological-narcissist-and-ultra-creep/

---

Douglas Benson February 10, 2011 6:32 am (Pacific time)

Firearms are the teeth of liberty .This was not the action of a rational citizen .The real threat is that an organized rational person or group of persons will use weapons against the goverment not some crazy that wants to go out in a blaze of glory . There is a little thing that the founding fathers brought to the table called un-conventional warfare .You dont need tanks and planes and if they use them inside our country on our citizens thats the end of our goverment .Just how long do you think our millitary will fire on its own citizens, be willing to die to impose tyranny and destroy the very freedoms they are sworn to uphold ? The very ideas that they are willing to fight and die for around the world . I think you wouldnt truly be able to give that order and have it carried out for any period of time . This is why they want to take away the weapons from citizens .Its one thing to do mass population control if they arent armed but when you are forced to kill your own its a whole new ballgame. We have a much better weapon though its called the vote .Im out Peace

---

Jerry West February 9, 2011 9:09 pm (Pacific time)

Hanging a someone in effigy is a far cry from calling for them to be shot and advocating violent insurrection. Not that others haven't advocated it also in the past, which does not make it right, no matter who does it. Those who preach violence, and they are most prevalent among the TP crowd and the idiots who call in to the Limbaugh/Savage etc. shows, certainly bear some responsibility for the toxic atmosphere. In fact there is a long history of violence in the US from which this current anti-government mania springs. You can see it in the McCarthy era, the Red Scares at the end of WWI, the KKK and so on. As for Craig's point on the First Amendment, not quite the same, it guarantees not only freedom of the press, but freedom of speech, among other things. I suppose if we assume that the Founding Fathers meant all arms, regardless of development, then we all have a right to have our own battery of nuclear armed cruise missles? If not, then reasonable regulation is in order, and we can debate where to draw the line. The knee jerk opposition to any form of control that has become so predictable does more harm to firearm rights in the long run than it does good. It is no better than the knee jerk opposition to firearms that pops up every time someone gets shot.

---

Daniel Johnson February 9, 2011 7:57 pm (Pacific time)

Your last two sentences: Ya got that right, Jerry.

---

Craig February 9, 2011 6:02 pm (Pacific time)

Ludicrous at best. There has been no evidence that the AZ shooter listened to talk radio or anything else of the kind. Blaming the relatively recent Tea Party movement for the "toxic" atmosphere in poltics also completely ignores the last 10 years in this county. No one was worried about where this might take us when anti-war protesters were hanging President Bush in effigy. Further, to argue that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the firearms that were in existence at the time is like saying that the 1st likewise only applies to media available at the time. After all, the Founders had no idea of the reach and power of TV, radio and the internet, so you could argue that they clearly only meant Freedom of the Press to apply to the safe confines of the printed page.

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.