"The wealthy, not only by private fraud but also by common laws, do every day pluck and snatch away from the people some part of their daily living. Therefore, when I consider and weigh in my mind these commonwealths which nowadays do flourish, I perceive nothing but a certain conspiracy of rich men in procuring their own commodities under the name and authority of the commonwealth.

They invent and devise all means and crafts, first how to keep safely without fear of losing that which they have unjustly gathered together, and next how to hire and abuse the work and labor of the people for as little money and effort as possible."

Thomas More, Utopia

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Barockstar Dreams

Senator Barack Obama recently descended upon the University of Iowa campus in Iowa City on gilded wings before an audience of worshipful supporters, whereupon he thrilled the crowd with empty platitudes. One member of the crowd, however, was not so thrilled. Present among the multitude was one Paul Street, who long ago helped expose the Barockstar as a progressive poseur. Here now is his take on those proceedings.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

When "Lib-Tards" Strike Back...

…The “He-Men” cry foul. It seems that the moderators over at the Second City Cop blog have their panties all tied up in knots over some responses I posted in the “Slapping A Lib-Tard” thread from 17 April 2007. They can dish it out but when it comes to taking it…well you know the rest. I’ve taken the liberty of reposting my censored responses as well as the SCC moderator’s final snit-fit wherein he justifies his decision to censor them.

Let’s first enjoy the SCC moderator’s penetrating “analysis” of my first response on the thread:

Ah, our favorite softball returns, spouting the tired liberal cliches:

coldtype said...SCC I haven't researched the matter thoroughly but I'm convinced that the above words are your most ridiculous to date.

and yet, you make the blanket accusation. how very typically liberal - no research, and yet an opinion. nice to see you haven't changed.

So your answer to the case of a single madman going on shooting spree on campus is to arm college freshmen. Listen, the days of the six-shooter on every hip are long over and shall never return--for good reason. Americans of the 19th century had the good sense to begin the process of disarmament after witnessing some of their communities dissolve into chaos and terror.

we didn't advocate arming freshmen - we advocated a sensible Concealed Carry policy as duly authorized by state law - if you qualify, you can carry. and actually, the days of the six shooter on the hip are retuning with a vengence. as of today, FORTY states have some form of concealed carry permitted within their boundaries. upwards of a dozen have reciprocal agreements that permit their qualified citizens to carry firearms across state lines. so not only are you way off base, you're completely wrong - again. and we'd really like to see which communities you describe as "dissolv[ing] into chaos." we can't find any. in fact, in most frontier towns, firearms were expected to be owned. all that Hollywood BS you see about the outlaws riding into town to shoot it up? never happened. most times homesteaders and townspeople were civil war vets who weren't about to take any shit from outlaws. so until you can come up with some actual historical evidence, we'll assume the rest of your argument is bullshit, too.

I didn't think it would be necessary to point this out here of all places but oh well: POLICING IS A STATE FUNCTION! We agree as members of a CIVILISATION to not presume to take the law into our own hands--which possession of a concealed weapon both implies and encourages.

and the state was where in this case? minutes away? hours? how long does it take to kill 30+ and wound another 20+? we enter into a social contract to abide by laws and rules. but what happens when the rules are disregarded? how long is the state allowed to respond? what is the acceptable threshhold of dead bodies for you liberals? the state failed, not only by not responding instantaneously, but by preventing citizens from defending themselves in an appropriate and legal manner.

Every citizen does not qualify as a police officer (for this is surely what you imply) and cannot be expected to possess the training and decision making skills that constitues a police officer.

BWAHAHAHAHA. find where we said everyone has to be a police officer. you are so full of shit you have to present an "argument" we never made. every citizen doesn't have to qualify as a police officer, just as a MARKSMAN - or at the bare minimum, a qualified user of a firearm. and what the hell decision has to be made in this case? to return fire or not? to protect the lives of fellow students, teachers and self or let everyone be slaughtered? you want to talk about ridiculous words? read your last paragraph - you are truly softer than baby shit.

The Virginia Tech tragidy was a random, isolated incident, something analogous to the crash of an airliner--not a pandemic. We don't seriously consider banning air travel when a plane goes down and, for the same reason, we shouldn't give way to the chimerial hysteria of the gun-nut lobby on those rare occasions when a madman with a gun makes himself known.

ah, but when an airliner goes down, there are hearings to determine where the error lies or cause of crash originated. in this case, VT officials declared the campus a gun free zone and in 2005, actually initiated disciplinary proceedings against a student who was authorized by the state to carry a weapon and did so on a state supported campus. so the obvious error in this case is that gun bans didn't work and the offender disregarded signs to that effect. as to your "isolated incident" argument, tornadoes are isolated incidents, yet we still have sirens, run drills and people build storm shelters. again we ask, what is the acceptable level of dead bodies for you when the state fails in its "duty" to the citizenry?

Stay safe.

we will - we're armed - all the time.

To which I responded…

Research complete. They WERE the most ridiculous words you’ve ever published, surpassing even your claim that the US never sought imperial possessions abroad (to which my response prompted the TLC Rule).

“you know what your problem is? You and your ilk are too willing to surrender your individual rights and liberties to the nanny state. you expect the state to solve all your problems. you fail to realize that the state is subservient to the citizen, not the other way around. we are the state. the state gains its power from the CONSENT of the governed. and we maintain that consent by remaining armed, plain and simple”-SCC (aka “The Wild Bunch”)

“Wow! Where do I begin with this classic? Really SCC, you’ve outdone yourselves. Let’s see…

You and your ilk are too willing to surrender your individual rights and liberties to the nanny state”-SCC

We are? I thought it was the Left leading the charge against Team Bush’s warrantless wiretaps of American citizens and the suspension of Habeas Corpus for “enemy combatants”? [You walked into that one and I just couldn’t resist]

“you fail to realize that the state is subservient to the citizen, not the other way around. we are the state. the state gains its power from the CONSENT of the governed.”-SCC

Could have fooled me. The last time I checked 70% of the citizens of this country wished to see US forces withdrawn from Iraq yet Congress just approved—with bipartisan support—a supplemental bill increasing funding for the Team Bush “surge” to the tune of 124 billion dollars. This amount by the way was MORE than Bush asked for. Furthermore, most Americans by an overwhelming margin would like to see our disastrously inefficient health care system overhauled and replaced by a socialized system more in line with that of Canada, Cuba, and many countries of Western Europe. Not likely to happen anytime soon, something about it being…”politically unfeasible”.

So it would appear that the so called “democracy deficit” (the disconnect between public policy and public opinion) in this country is as broad as ever. Our government most certainly operates with the consent of elites, but of THE PEOPLE I’m not so sure.

What was that? OOOOOH! You weren’t referring to issues of ACTUAL democracy, just the “crisis” facing gun nuts and their “right” to carry assault weapons! My bad.

“ah, but when an airliner goes down, there are hearings to determine where the error lies or cause of crash originated”-SCC

Thanks for stealing my line. Yes, airline disasters, tornadoes, and such are isolated incidents that require RATIONAL responses SCC, thus no one in a position of real influence will seriously consider the “insights” from the gun nut lobby when drafting a response to the Virginia Tech tragedy.

Stay safe.

I then followed up with a response to some of the other posters (we’ll call them minnows) on the thread who were mighty offended as well:

Now for the minnows…

“F*** Y*** Coldtype! I'm sure you would feel differently if it was one of your loved ones. Go change your name to Coldfuckface!” -4/17/2007 12:45:00 PM

No. My opinion wouldn’t change in the least. There is nothing that will convince me that we would be a safer society if MORE of us were armed. This is already the most violent society in the industrialized world. Sorry simple one, but more guns is not the answer. And I happen to like my name.

“This guy just shot up your school killing 32 innocent people and based on fuking ethics you won't realese his grades and journals, typical liberal bullshit” -4/17/2007 01:16:00 PM

Not “liberal bullshit”, just ethics and the right to privacy—the same ones that you and I enjoy (for now). So, for example, if you were to confide in a mental health professional you’d have every right to expect those conversations to be kept private. There are of course exceptions to these rules.

“Add a crazy Korean kook to this soup and you get spontaneous combustion” -4/17/2007 02:06:00 PM

Hmmm. I wonder what his race had to do with it. Perhaps Koreans have a proclivity for madness that I was unaware of.

“Instead of gun control issues, how about shutting down our borders completely. This goof moved to the U.S. in 1992 from South Korea. Now he is responsible for the biggest masacre in history!” -4/17/2007 02:10:00 PM

Ahhh! There’s the answer…xenophobia. Your last statement would no doubt come as a profound shock to Native Americans, European Jews, and the natives of East Timor.

“Another immigrant has fucked up this country” -4/17/2007 02:12:00 PM

No. That responsibility lies with a guy living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Washington, DC. I believe he’s from Texas.

“Because there are bad people in the world”-Murphy40pct

I know that Murph, and while the random nutjob with a gun is disturbing I’m far MORE concerned with the truly dangerous among us—in Washington—where the nuclear annihilation of millions of Iranian people who pose no threat to us is “on the table”.

“Hey Mr. Soft-As-Shit
Not every policeman qualifies as police material-just ask the family of Rondayle White”
-4/17/2007 04:23:00 PM

Hi Dip-Shit. Demonstrate that you actually know something about the Rondayle White incident before you presume to comment upon it. That’s all folks.

Stay safe.

To these responses from me the SCC moderator huffed and puffed:

Sorry coldtype, but we aren't publishing your drivel today. You fail to address any of our arguments save the conclusion and take up too much space doing that. We addressed (and destroyed) your entire response piece by piece. We pointed out your specious claims and requested you back them with facts - you failed miserably and declined to cite even a single example to back your assertions. You insist on tying in your Bush Derangement Syndrome to every single post. You continue to attribute the argument that you want to defend to our posts rather than address the facts we actually present. Frankly, we're sick of it. And as you have no expectation of actually being published here, we're going to fulfill that expectation. You can go cry about censorship all you want and whine to the universe at large, but congratulations on being part of the 3% of comments that never make it to the site.
4/18/2007 01:33:00 AM


Sunday, April 01, 2007

Not Fit To Print

Recently, Edward S. Herman and David Peterson penned a brief essay outlining the latest UN resolution (essentially authored by the US) which denies Iran the means (thus the right) of defending itself from the depredations of aggressor nations, in this instance the US, UK, and Israel—not only the resolution’s chief sponsors but, paradoxically, the only nations that have launched attacks and maintain occupations in the Mid-East region. Not coincidentally, these three nations also threaten Iran with destruction.

What makes the Herman/Peterson essay remarkable, however, are not necessarily its contents which merely retraces some of the steps leading to the present “crisis”, but the peculiar reactions to it among newspaper editors across the nation. You see Herman and Peterson can’t seem to get it published anywhere in the mainstream.

Although they have submitted this piece to editors at all of the mainline newspapers for space on their op-ed pages, none to date have deemed it worthy of further dissemination. This circumstance is most curious given the fact that Herman and Peterson’s voices were among the most prescient detractors during the lead-up to the criminal assault on Iraq. This during a period, I remind you, when the corporate mainstream media served as a bullhorn for the Team Bush fabrications of the Iraqi “threat” to the US—indeed the world. One would think given the mainstream media’s appalling performance four years ago that it would leap at the opportunity to present the warnings of those who got it right back then, but such is not to be for it seems that some things are just not fit to print.