Hollywood Spree Killer

Yet another senseless loss of life thanks to another young underdeveloped male spree killer.

The perpetrator, Elliot Rodger, is the son of filmmaker Peter Rodger.  The elder Rodger is being linked to the "Hunger Games" series but he also recently made a film about God, going around the world challenging people to tell him the meaning of God, playing some moral equivalency games between Bush 43 and the 9/11 bombers, then later telling humanist Eldon Taylor in an interview:

We are primitive organisms on a big rock in a scary vacuum, driven by fear and desperately trying to find something to hold onto.

The son expressed a similar, albeit more grisly view in the bizarre evidence springing forth about his background.  The stuff on YouTube and in his writings is certainly chilling beyond belief, but there's almost a weird quality about it that reads more like a screenplay for the next slasher movie on the Chiller channel.  Most of the manifestos written by crazy people tend to be rambling streams of consciousness, often poorly written without attention to grammar, but his stuff doesn't read that way. He also hit on some hot button issues, inadvertently perhaps, or not.

For instance, readers of his manifesto will not doubt come away hearing what they want in certain areas. Those opposed to violent movies and video games will point to his blaming high-speed internet and an XBox for taking away his social life, which made him an empty shell.  Obviously the gamers won't like that.  That he used the internet not for good, but as a tool to research and plan his crime will disappoint internet freedom advocates but provide fodder for those who think the net is too open.  He even used the term "War on Women" in his manifesto, capitalizing it, as if a reality play off the political meme of the same name, maybe a sarcastic message.  

His description of the police 'welfare check' intervention and how he nervously fooled them reads like a how-to for future interventions in some kind of half-hearted advocacy for a bigger police state.  In other words, "whew, had they just searched my room and found the guns and manuscripts it would have been ov er" kind of thing, which some will use to advocate for searches of people suspected of being violent.  Others will see a rational-thinking person smart enough to fool the police and certainly smart enough to fool the gun dealers without a police record or history of mental illness. 

He also made it a point to stress that his day of retribution would not just be guns and ammo, but knives and hammers and other sharp weapons, and even automobiles used as weapons, almost as if answering the gun control advocates before they started.  A kind of "evil will be done, regardless" sentiment. 

In his 'attack plan', which reads more like a blog post, he mentions his intention to avoid responsibility at the end by not only killing himself with two handguns, but swallowing a bunch of Vicoden and Xanax along with an ample amount of 'hard liquor' to dull the pain.   So he was either prescribed such pills or getting them somewhere.  In other words, therapy won't work.    

Don't know what it is, but something seems weird about this event. It could just be the harsh spectacle of the cold, calculating, confused and twisted mind of a young delayed adolescent living in a privileged bubble with a destabilized family life (divorce, step mother, etc) with a propensity for violence enabled by the entertainment field in which his father made a living.  The TV shrinks will no doubt have it figured out soon.

Maybe the strangeness comes from the fact he's the educated son of a filmmaker so his writing is different than other crazed killers.  But it brings up the biggest question of all--are people sometimes just overtaken by evil alone?  Does calling them 'mentally ill' make everyone else feel better?  Along those lines, are evil people who don't believe in God nor a final judgment more likely to go out in a blaze of violence if they have no fear of eternal damnation? 

MORE  5/26/14

A few more items to ponder.   Having read most of the 'manifesto', which was more a life history/personal eulogy, it's clear this kid was giving off warning signs all along.  It's likely he suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which prevented him from feeling empathy for anyone else but himself, which caused him to externalize his failures and fears on other people instead of himself.  This seems to be a trait more seen with males than females.  His visions of grandeur eventually consumed his biography and allowed him to justify in his mind the death and horror he was going to produce.   Interestingly, he fought with himself over it in the narrative, 'hoping' to avoid it.  But his hopes were centered around getting instantly rich, which is why he became a compulsive lottery player.

His family did try to intercede.  In fairness, nobody really thinks their own flesh and blood could be capable of doing such horrible things.  But he was taken to several therapists/life coaches/counselors/psychologists and psychiatrists, without much effect.   As he fooled the police a few weeks before the massacre, he likely fooled the shrinks in the same manner.

Reading the biography is like a form of torture itself, but it's interesting to note what he DID NOT mention.  He didn't mention anything about external events in the country causing him any grief.  Nothing was mentioned about 9/11 to any significance, despite his mother and step-mother coming from Islamic countries and despite him traveling to both countries several times.  This could be an indication of the self-centered bubble he was living in, whether created by his family or himself.   He mentioned almost nothing of politics other than an offhand quote about the cool kids not understanding his politics.  As Powerline and others have pointed out, he 'liked' former Air America/MSNBC host Cenk Ugyur on his Facebook page.  But I'm reluctant to assign a political motive or cast aspersions on liberals/Democrats based on the actions of a crazed person who was all about himself.

Another odd thing is his lack of any mention of the hereafter.  As he was building up towards his 'Day of Retribution' he offhandedly mentioned his fear of death, but never made any comments on what he might experience in that realm.  Perhaps he dismissed any thinking about an afterlife to rationalize his act but it's clear from his story he was not brought up to have any religious beliefs whatsoever.  Unless he was leaving that chapter out on purpose.  He certainly didn't express any fear of 'retribution' in hereafter, which is similar to Islamic suicide bombers rationalizing that Allah would favor them for killing innocents, even rewarding them with heavenly sex.  Many are what can be called losers with women, which is no doubt part of the appeal (along with giving them an excuse for their earthly failures).  

He made no connection to that kind of sexual justice in any worlds beyond, but it's an interesting parallel nonetheless.  Surely his mother and stepmother had some opinion of Islam and passed it along during his upbringing, whether good or bad, especially after 9/11 and the Iraq war, but such is speculation.  Many Islamic fundamentalist males have a similar mindset when it comes to the power of women, which led early leaders of the faith to invent burkas and other rules that reduced sex appeal, so who knows what he was exposed to as to that philosophy.  It certainly appears he committed the act out of selfishness and not religion.

Finally, the gun control thing.  On the surface it does seem strange that such a nut could buy three handguns.  The facts say he was in control of his madness when it counted, such as buying the weapons and dealing with the police welfare check, and that's what makes this such a vexing problem.  Nobody, not the NRA or Sarah Palin or Ted Nugent or the late Charlton Heston would be in favor of his maniac getting access to guns, but the 'solution' might be worse than the problem, ie. having government psychiatric doctors determining who gets to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights and who doesn't.   So here we are.     

  

 

The Real Story of Arapahoe?

No, not the fact the kid appeared to be a liberal ideologue.  Nobody expects the mainstreamers to make a story out of that.  Obviously if the kid was even rumored to be a rapid Tea Party fan with pictures of Sarah Palin on his bedroom wall--or they had found similar writings on the web from an innocent person with the same name--it would be the number one story bullet on every alphabet network.  The best guess is that he was a disturbed kid and likely not martyring himself for the Democratic Party. 

Actually, the real story could be the length of time he was engaged in shooting/bombing.  CNN and others are saying it was 80 seconds.  They quote local law enforcement of saying he could have killed or injured many others:

"His intent was evil, and his evil intent was to harm multiple individuals," Robinson said about Pierson, whose entrance into the school was documented on security cameras, as was the bulk of the one minute, 20 seconds of violence that ensued.

So he had enough ammo to kill many people, yet he only killed himself after 80 seconds. Why? Well...

The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school, Robinson said. Once he learned of the threat, he ran -- accompanied by an unarmed school security officer and two administrators -- from the cafeteria to the library, Robinson said.

"It's a fairly long hallway, but the deputy sheriff got there very quickly." The deputy was yelling for people to get down and identified himself as a county deputy sheriff, Robinson said. "We know for a fact that the shooter knew that the deputy was in the immediate area and, while the deputy was containing the shooter, the shooter took his own life."

He praised the deputy's response as "a critical element to the shooter's decision" to kill himself, and lauded his response to hearing gunshots. "He went to the thunder," he said. "He heard the noise of gunshot and, when many would run away from it, he ran toward it to make other people safe."

Wait--doesn't that sound like it should be the HEADLINE here? A good guy with a gun prevents a tragedy? Yeah, it doesn't sound as hopeychangy as the government solving all these problems, but it certainly sounds like the press might be downplaying a hero, or at least a narrative.

LA Shooting

Another senseless tragedy in America. Once again the media tripped on itself in reporting the facts in the initial rush for breaking news, but it seems they are getting better.  Which means they are learning from their mistakes due to the frequency of such events.  Which is grotesque.

Surely there will be a healthy (or unhealthy) level of conspiracy theories over this, if nothing else due to the alleged shooter's own last name, which includes the words "cia" twice.  But if feels more like another young man who was probably a loser with women, possibly suicidal, who wanted to end it all in a blaze of glory as if living the ending of a video game.  Most probably not very religious or even conservative for that matter.  But that's just speculation. Which is OK for a blog, but not for CNN or the LA Times.

The media is harping on material  found in his possession that they claim indicates "strong anti-government views", which means everyone knows where the discussion is going next.  Specifically they claim it said he wanted to "kill TSA and pigs".  Hmm, is the slander term 'pig' still widely used to describe the police?   It's not in my circles. 
 

What About..

A picture is beginning to emerge of the Navy Yard shooter, including some anger at white people and for America in general:

"He felt a lot of discrimination and and racism with white people especially," she said. There was also a growing sense of entitlement and disrespect, she said. "He did have the tendency to feel like people owed him something all the time."

At least that's the picture today.  It will be interesting to see how the gun control zealots might play this kind of a victim angle.  Chances are they are still confused.  

But notice something missing?

The man was in his mid 30s but so far hardly any stories mention girlfriends, ex-girlfriends, ex-wives or anything of a romantic nature. They have quoted a female "friend", but not identified her a girlfriend. Was he a loser with women? If so that would certainly fit the profile of almost all of spree killers, a pattern that seems to cross racial, religious and cultural boundaries (to include suicide bombers and other jihadies).

Very Imaginable, Unfortunately

Here's the CinC's short message today about the Navy Yard shooting..



Notice his phrasing (after lamenting about 'another mass shooting')..

"..they know the dangers of serving abroad, but today they faced the unimaginable violence that they wouldn't have expected here at home"

Well yes, had they no knowledge of what happened at Fort Hood. or LITTLE ROCK.   Sort of like this CNN anchorette.  There was certainly precedence, regardless of how both events have been spun. 

Also, in saying we would 'do everything we can to try to prevent them', ie, mass shootings or whatever this turns out to be, he seems to be hinting that something can be done to stop crazed jihadies or lunatics bent on murder-suicide or just plain mass murder.  Ironically he used the same language after Benghazi over a year ago--how we were going to investigate to prevent such events from ever happening again--and nobody is currently in custody.   But it's pretty clear what he means. 

Props and other Things..

Rand Paul might as well be on the FBI's terrorist watch list for this outrage.   Sadly, he's correct.  Sometimes the truth is very controversial.

Some pundits are starting to blame Obama for getting too far out ahead on the gun issue or gasp, even making a mistake.  They are not paying close enough attention.   Here's the seminal quote from the president yesterday:

“To change Washington, you, the American people will have to sustain some passion about this, and when necessary, you have to send the right people to Washington, and that requires strength and persistence and that’s one thing these families should have inspired in al of us,” he said during an emotional late afternoon speech from a podium in the Rose Garden.

He's no dope. He knew the Congress couldn't pass any new gun control measures. Many Democrats still remember what happened after the 1994 weapons ban and how things changed in 1995. So this was likely expected. 

And that's why Paul is right--the Newtown families were indeed being used as props for a lost cause to inject the maximum guilt and punish the enemies to set up a meme for 2014.  The bold above is Obama basically admitting it outright, and the link shows Axelrod doing the same.  Brazen.  But right now little else matters, because if they lose the mid-terms their Utopian dream might be over forever.  The 60s radicals are a dying breed. 

Newtown Questions

Let's see, yesterday the president was out west shilling for gun control and uttered the following:

but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.

Whoa, bold added to highlight that comment, which Obama actually stopped and corrected himself to make.  Assuming he wasn't just lying for politics sake, or isn't an idiot (he said he shoots skeet all the time), does this mean he has been keeping things from the public?  For instance, CBS has this story today:

A Connecticut shop that sold a gun to Nancy Lanza, the Newtown school shooter's mother, has lost its federal firearms license. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives revoked the license of Riverview Gun Sales in East Windsor in December 2012. The agency didn't say why.

While there are many reasons the Feds might pull a firearms license it becomes a little weird considering it was the shop Nancy Lanza visited with the action being announced immediately before the president makes a trip to Hartford (with the ink not yet dry on Connecticut's new gun laws) just as he told a crowd that Lanza used a machine gun at Sandy Hook.  It begs some explanation.

Newtown: Give the Media Another Award

Is there any news story in modern history that has been as hacked up by the press as the Sandy Hook school shooting?  Not even the Trayon Martin case, although some elements of that one come close, oddly also involving a gun.

Within the past 24 hours the Connecticut State Police has released details about the case, which amazingly just happen to coincide with Obama's media speechifying on gun control (the timing is questionable, but it's hard to say which side was orchestrating things--probably Obama's, knowing the release was coming).

Many stories today characterized the guns found in the home as an 'arsenal'.  Our local paper calls it a 'huge weapons cache".  These nitwits just can't help themselves.  Joe Biden's gun collection would probably qualify.  Or Harry Reid's.  When someone says arsenal people tend to think of David Koresh's compound or the local National Guard depot.   

And no, the NRA isn't denying any evidence.  Lanza was not a member.  Having an NRA 'certificate' doesn't mean one is a dues-paying member. Even if he was, so what?  Unless they've recently put out guides on how to mass murder school children it's irrelevant and the worse kind of guilt by association.

It's almost as if America is in the process of being taken over by a band of ignorant, drooling commies.  

CNN's Erin Burnett- Skeet Birther?

With the photo release of Obama shooting at a clay target yesterday the White House and their faithful servants in the reality-based community are attempting to create another set of 'birthers'-- 'skeet birthers'.

Do they not remember who in the press corpse first asked about it during the White House daily briefing?  Yes, it was that radical nutball Jessica Yellin of CNN, whose report showed up on a skeptical segment of Erin Burnett's show:



That was followed by the WaPo's Glenn Kessler in his 'fact-checker' column, to which he labeled it "undetermined".   The Times followed up yesterday by informing readers that the New Republic's new owner is Chris Hughes, a former Obama aide.  They asked the original question.

It's completely predictable that administration staff would try to turn this into a new birtherism--they certainly need the distraction in their hip pocket as the economy teeters, Menendez is investigated, the Middle East rages while the gun control mandate appears to be waning.   And there will be a contingent of those who don't believe. 

The interesting thing to watch is how the mainstreamers cover this going forward.  Notice how CNN followed up yesterday with this report, which tried to pretend Erin Burnett wasn't right there alongside Marsha Blackburn in questioning the notion.  Recall that the initial stories coming out about the TNR interview were gushing about Obama's comments about hunters, ie, he's not a loony liberal gun-hating commie pinko fag who wants to disarm tough guys with scary assault weapons.  He's just a regular guy who wants to ban some guns not used for hunting, skeet, and photo-ops. Tomorrow he will be using Minneapolis as a photo-op for his gun control 'package' so let's see where things lead.  One can guess.  

GAGGLING  2/4/13

Press Sec Carney had a gaggle aboard the aircraft heading to the Minneapolis gun control photo op (starring Al Franken) and of course, skeet shooting came up:

Q Actually I have one more -- on skeet shooting. Why did the White House --

MR. CARNEY: I was wondering. (Laughter.)

Q Why did the White House decide to release the skeet shooting photo two days before this trip, particularly when the press corps had requested any photos of skeet shooting days earlier? And will you now release a list of friends or family or guests with whom the President has skeet shot, since you do that with golf partners? Thank you.

MR. CARNEY: Let me say this. I thought the question was going to be, why did we wait five days. The fact is the President was asked a question -- did not volunteer, but was asked a question -- about whether or not he had ever shot a weapon. He answered with the truth, which is that he has enjoyed shooting competitively with friends at Camp David on multiple occasions.

I think it's fair to say that we believed that would have been answer enough. And when I said from the podium that as a rule we don’t treat his private time at Camp David with friends and family as matters for public consumption, that's the truth, as you know. But there were persistent questions about this, so we decided to release a photo of the President shooting at Camp David. The timing of that I think is explained by what I just said.

Bold to point out that nobody should challenge anything the president says, ever.   That's what this entire thing was about, trust in the assertions of a president currently jetting around trying to get gun bans through Congress and threatening that if they won't act, he will.   Yes, this is all about isolating and freezing then ridiculing the Tea Party, not guns. 

But such is what passes for transparently answering questions these days. The reporter's first question about timing was adroitly dodged.  Another about his guest list of fellow competitors was also discarded.  Might Harry Reid be on that guest list?  Another pertinent question was why White House aides were Tweeting about 'skeet birthers' right after the pic was released when it was CNN who asked the first question. Finally is there any video? After all, there was video of JFK from 50 years ago.

What He Really Said..

The AP has a strange summary story on the wires this morning about an interview the president gave to The New Republic. Here's the general premise:

President Barack Obama says gun-control advocates should be better listeners in the debate over firearms in America.

That's the overtone--Obama reaching out to his own zealots. And oh yeah, he's fired a gun before.  Most outlets are printing this summary, except Fox, who added more.

But what really happened?  Well, the entire interview is available on TNR website. It's title is "Barack Obama is not Pleased".  Sound strange?  Not when the article is read.  Here are a few excerpts...

On the GOP House victory:

That does not mean that you don't have some real big differences. The House Republican majority is made up mostly of members who are in sharply gerrymandered districts that are very safely Republican and may not feel compelled to pay attention to broad-based public opinion, because what they're really concerned about is the opinions of their specific Republican constituencies. There are going to be a whole bunch of initiatives where I can get more than fifty percent support of the country, but I can't get enough votes out of the House of Representatives to actually get something passed.

On Boehner and McConnell versus the Tea Party, versus Reid, Pelosi and the president:

I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama. The same dynamic happens on the Democratic side. I think the difference is just that the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word. And I think at least leaders like myself—and I include Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in this—are willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.

Interestingly, Fox News was perhaps the only major news outlet to include the last quote (most outlets just printed the AP summary, which pretended the divisiveness wasn't in there), but Fox removed "leaders like myself" from their extended summary.

Here's a question about 'getting along with the other side' and apportioning blame:

And I want to be very clear here that Democrats, we've got a lot of warts, and some of the bad habits here in Washington when it comes to lobbyists and money and access really goes to the political system generally. It's not unique to one party. But when it comes to certain positions on issues, when it comes to trying to do what's best for the country, when it comes to really trying to make decisions based on fact as opposed to ideology, when it comes to being willing to compromise, the Democrats, not just here in this White House, but I would say in Congress also, have shown themselves consistently to be willing to do tough things even when it's not convenient, because it's the right thing to do. And we haven't seen that same kind of attitude on the other side.

Until Republicans feel that there's a real price to pay for them just saying no and being obstructionist, you'll probably see at least a number of them arguing that we should keep on doing it. It worked for them in the 2010 election cycle, and I think there are those who believe that it can work again. I disagree with them, and I think the cost to the country has been enormous.

Doesn't sound very bi-partisan. Finally, the bit about Obama and skeet-shooting, bringing to mind visions of Teddy Roosevelt. Here's how TNR actually reported it:

Have you ever fired a gun?

Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.

The whole family?

Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there. And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake.

Carefully notice he really didn't say "he" fires guns, he said "we". That's why TNR asked about the kids, to which he replied "guests". Vague enough to do the trick.  Perhaps that was the only headline in the interview, though.  Most of it was garden variety Obama. 

Newtown Reality

This was clipped from the Ed Schultz comedy hour tonight, a dose of reality from one of the mothers of a Sandy Hook victim in advance of tomorrow"s big announcement.  It's plainly evident that all the political BS that spewed out after the event has clouded some of the pain:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Notice Schultz tried and probably hoped she would lay into gun rights or GOP lawmakers or nut jobs like Alex Jones, but she didn't, she simply cut right to the chase--Adam Lanza.  What caused this young man to snap?  It wasn't guns.  We still don't know.  And nothing the president says or does tomorrow will solve that riddle or prevent another event, as sad as that sounds.  

THE BIG ANNOUNCEMENT  1/16/13  

So the Decider Guy, with audience (and basically an applause track) announced his decisions today.  You'll read it elsewhere but if you're here to this point you're interesting in my two cents, so here it is-- two things: 

One, doctors.  The idea that the government wants physicians to quiz their patients about access to guns might sound good but it sets them up with what seems to be an incredible level of liability.  Consider this--they have a patient and don't ask about gun access, and said patient goes on a rampage.  Who gets part of the blame?   If the doctors do ask and the patient confesses they have access, what condition determines the reporting?  Would depression?  

Two, Obama is right, no laws will prevent violence completely.  None of what was mentioned today would have prevented the Columbine massacre, for instance.  None of it would have prevented Major Hasan--a shrink--from engaging in 'workplace violence'.   Studying the genesis of such violence is fine but any pastor could explain it--evil.   None of these murder-suicide nuts are afraid of the after-life.  How could they be?  

So isn't the problem perhaps a lack of moral teachings or faith?

How about family life--Lanza's dad was a no-show.  Shouldn't Obama have signed an executive order banning divorce?  Studies have already shown that all things being equal, children are worse off with only one parent.  Surely children die as a result of these broken families, so banning divorce might save one child.

Bottom line, there's not much we can do about evil other than fight it.  The reason AQ suicide terror tactics are so effective is because the perps are willing to die for the cause, they aren't around to go through the legal system.   Hey, Obama should have banned suicide, too.     

The Gift that keeps on Giving

Obama's gun control czar..



Just don't mess with Joe while he gets this malarky together.   Meanwhile, we heard more about mental health in this debate than we have in the aftermath of Sandy Hook.

Guns and the Media

Yesterday Instapundit pointed to an Ed Driscoll column regarding the major media's apparent advocacy for gun control and other big issues, as opposed to simply reporting on them--like reporters.

Bias comes in many forms, from the outright advocacy Driscoll mentions to simply not covering stories that shine a poor light on the cause.  Most conservatives are convinced of this, however many on the left disagree and say there is no media bias whatsoever aside from Fox News.

So here's something from the MRC archives on media bias circa 2005, taken from a University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy survey of 300 print and TV media figures on a variety of topics. Not only did it confirm that a large majority voted for Kerry over Bush, it also contained this nugget:

When asked about the Bill of Rights, nearly all journalists deemed “essential” the right of a fair trial (97%), a free press (96%), freedom of religion (95%) and free speech (92%), and 80 percent called “essential” the judicially-derived “right to privacy.” But only 25 percent of the journalists termed the “right to own firearms” essential, while 42 percent called that right “important but not essential,” and 31 percent of journalists rejected the Second Amendment as “not important.”

Bold added to confirm that our advocacy media is just continuing to do what they do best.

American Jihadist

Face it, that's basically what Adam Lanza was--a jihadist.   AQ (what's left of them, and while they are running) must have been jealous in watching reports of this because it's right out of their playbook.  He had the element of surprise just like they had on 9/11.

Meanwhile many liberals/politicians/luminaries are demanding a national conversation on guns.  Townhall writer Kurt Schlichter eloquently explains what that's likely to mean:

Wait, we can’t have that conversation. In fact, we’re not supposed to have what people might commonly describe as a “conversation” at all. We’re supposed to shut-up and listen as liberals, barely masking their unseemly delight at the opportunity, try to pin the murder rampage of one degenerate creep on millions of law-abiding Americans who did nothing wrong. The conversation is then supposed to end with us waiving our fundamental right to self-defense.

Because that is what the goal is – a total ban on the private ownership of firearms. There’s always another “common sense” gun law which fails because it is targeted at law-abiding citizens and not criminals, thereby inviting another round of onerous new restrictions until finally no citizen is keeping or bearing anything more than a dull butter knife.

Not a total ban on firearms of course--the rich elites, including Hollywood hypocrites and politicians would get to keep theirs 'for protection'. The real goal is to disarm the bitter clingers.  It's almost a certainty that we'll be hearing about the Tea Party and other GOP entities in regards to blame for Newtown if only the tiniest of links can be established, probably during the 'discussion' phase in the weeks ahead.  If anyone is expecting much out of this national discussion aside from liberals trying to heap guilt on conservatives in order to foist more 'change' they are fooling themselves.

What about the jiadist parallel (unlikely to be part of the national discussion).  Let's assume Lanza was a jihadist.  Let's say he was heard screaming Allahu Akbar while gunning down those children.  Would it change anything?  Would gun control be in the forefront of the national conversation right now or would the urgent question be about how the FBI, NSA, somebody should have had access to his computer to intercept his planning?   Would the president have been shedding a tear on TV or would he have come on in stern tone urging everyone not to jump to conclusions?   Even if the same guns were used in the attack? 

So far religion has been relegated to the unfortunate utterings of Mike Huckabee, ie, this was caused by a lack of God in the schools.  Actually, one could make the argument it was about a lack of God in Mr. Lanza's life.  Religious beliefs--or a lack thereof--most certainly played a role.  Nobody who walks into a school and murders first graders then kills himself has any worry about the afterlife.  Lanza, even if he was off mentally, could not have believed in a literal hell.  He likely had a nihilistic vision of simply pulling the trigger and going to sleep for eternity, ie, relief from his hellish existence on Earth.

On the contrary, Islamic suicide attackers believe in an after-life complete with a 72 virgin sex orgy.  Both views allow nuts to kill themselves and almost look forward to it.  As we've seen over the years it's very hard to stop someone unafraid to die.  What good is a law when someone won't be around for prosecution?

MORE  12/18/12

While this story has featured more misinformation from the authorities--passed on by the media--than any in recent memory (and the cops had the balls to threaten people with prosecution for passing on false info)  there are a few loose ends that need tying up.  One, what happened to the other guy caught in the nearby woods wearing camo?  Was that real or fantasy?   Two, what about the supposed altercation the shooter had with someone in the school a day before the attack?  

Now we find that Lanza's hard drive has been destroyed.  That's a little strange since just a few days ago the authorities were saying they had real hopes of finding a motive based on what they were discovering in the home.   But it's hard to tell the information from the misinformation.  

Cultural Quick Fix

Once again unspeakable, mindless violence has visited the American psyche.  Evil manifested itself in a nerdy white guy to whom few paid much attention to--until the end.  It's been a common theme for awhile now but one few seem interested in exploring. 

Instead, everyone wants an instant blame and an instant cure.  We are an instant society.  In his first message on the event the president wept while wasting no time stealthily advocating more firearm restrictions.  In today's weekly address he reiterated this call, without giving specifics.  Protests are occurring outside the White House along with online petitions calling for tighter gun laws.  The evil perpetrator--the gun--has been fully charged and convicted. 

But while it's true we have easy access to firearms and a culture of violence in this country, where does this culture originate?  Is it coming from southern rednecks riding around with shotguns in their pickup trucks down here in Jesusland?  If one looks at the mass shootings this past year there are only a few in the rural south, one being a domestic issue, one being a process server and the other a racially motivated event.  Yet if there's anywhere in the nation people associate guns with culture, it's the south.   But if not the south, where?

Maybe if guns are going to get blamed and restricted they should also take a look at violent video games, online videos, and rap music permeating society, along with bounties in pro football, ultimate fighting, and ruthless reality-TV shows about competition and survival.    

Terrorist or Hate Crime?

The LGBT volunteer who made political remarks before opening fire on a security guard at the FRC in DC was variously described as "mentally disturbed" or "kind, gentle and unassuming".   Early stories (at least from Fox) said the authorities were considering it a domestic terrorism case; updates are now suggesting hate crimes charges.  But as Alex Jones' site correctly asks, can there be a hate crime against an organization considered to be a hate group?  We'll have to wait for word from the Southern Poverty Center for Blaming Terrorism on Right Wingers. 

Otherwise, it has been an interesting afternoon watching the mainstreamers slowly gravitate to a story they otherwise would have been super-glued to had the roles been reversed.  Had some guy carrying a bag of Chick-fil-A's walked into an LGBT research center and opened fire after condemning gays it would have been saturation coverage.  Brian Ross would be finding the teabagger association.  But yawn, just another day. No OWS suspects to be found.   

Meanwhile in the land of real terrorists 18 American troops have been killed this month fighting in Afghanistan after 41 were lost in July.  Ever since Obama went to Dover and saluted it seems the media has lost interest in such things. 

Calderon, Assault Weapons, and West Memphis

No sooner had the Mexican president stood in front of Congress and blamed his country's recent drug violence on America's lifting of the assault weapons ban (and received a standing-o from some Congressmen for bashing the Arizona immigration law) a terrible event unfolded here in the mid-south, blamed on assault weapons:

A short time later and about a mile away, in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart, two deputies searching for the suspects came across a white minivan and were shot and wounded as they approached the vehicle, Shelton said.

"The suspects were using an assault rifle," he said.

How utterly horrible. Assault rifle or not, the thoughts of two murdered police officers left lying in the middle of the interstate for doing their jobs is haunting, tragic, and maddening. I've been to that Wal-Mart a few times. It's right off I-40, a particular stretch long known as a hot spot for police searching for dope runners and speeders.

As to the suspects, lots of speculation because they haven't released names or motive yet, or as AP asks, "why they were pulled over". This grisly picture posted in the local Commercial Appeal doesn't shine much light on anything but the fact one of them is a young man, although in the back of the vehicle is what appears to be a blue plastic storage bin. Maybe that's why they pulled them over, or maybe the police now profile young white scruffy guys driving mini-vans. Or maybe they were just speeding.

Details will come but right now there are some discrepancies per usual, such as what guns they had (reports now say a long rifle and handgun, not AK-47s) and how the traffic stop occurred (first officer pulled them over, second arrived, first officer was knocked the ground and the shooting started versus they just opened fire). And who tipped police to their final destination.

What has been released is the van's registration was to a "House of God's Prayer" in New Vienna, Ohio, a defunct church that according to reports was linked to the Ayrian nation in the 90s. We'll see if that makes the story take off.

MORE 5/21/10

Details coming in. Suspect sounds fairly paranoid, talking about bankruptcy of the US in '33, the moneychangers and such. Comment from their webpage:

Let's face it. If there wasn't a "traffic stop" no one would be dead!

Yeah, that's logical. In a crazyass kind of way. The police dash cam likely won't be released out of respect and sensitivity to the officers' families but it probably tells the story.

Speaking of respect for the deceased, did the Commercial Appeal go too far in showing the picture of the 16 year old lying on the ground beside the vehicle? It was such a grisly attack they probably figured people wanted to see, but there are murders in this city all the time and they hardly ever show crime scene photos on the front page.

The Samson Spree

Evidently there was a Memphis couple involved in the Samson, Alabama killing spree. They had stopped at the gas station where deranged shooter Michael McClendon was spraying bullets and both fortunately ducked at the right time. They were quite lucky.

Every time one of these tragedies occurs people grope for the whys and hows. It seems unthinkable to most of us. Even more bizarrely, almost every event involves a nice "quiet" young man whom nobody would ever suspect. That's probably because they weren't paying close enough attention.

James Allen Fox had a pretty decent overview of this phenomenon today on CNN, although his argument about a lack of family support doesn't seem to jibe with McClendon killing most of his family support. Maybe family doesn't really count because those relationships are built-in--it's the outside societal success that leaves most as embittered lonesome losers. The police may well prove most of this as poppycock as they've hinted there is a general motive in play (but will not tell us what it is yet). Meanwhile, Mr. Fox included this rather prescient observation:

In the wake of extraordinary shooting sprees like the Alabama tragedy, calls for tighter gun control typically surface as a possible policy response for prevention.

Yet the mass shooting just hours later and thousands of miles away in rural Germany, where gun limits are stricter than in the United States, reminds us that any debate must confront questions broader than just guns, even if the use of a high-powered firearm tends to increase the victim toll.

That's the thing about someone approaching a mental meltdown--a lack of guns won't stop them. Bomb instructions are available on the net and there's always sharp instruments or at last resort, getting in the car and running people over. Yet our liberal friends think controlling access to firearms will lead these troubled folk to self-confesional visits to the nearest mental hospital. Our local paper has been busy of late waging a personal war on carry permit holders, presumably thinking they can rid Memphis of street crime by taking away a citizen's right to protect themselves against the local hooddom, not to mention nutcakes like McClendon.

Perhaps next they'll also find a way to prove that tires should be outlawed due to that West Memphis bombing. In reality, incidents like Samson (and West Memphis) point out the starkness of good and evil in our world and how we're all fighting the battle in various stages. It's as old as time itself and will never change, regardless of the fanciness or availability of our weaponry.

Applying for Change

Those seeking a job working for team Obama better be prepared to rummage a bit:

A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.

More than a little irony here--Obama spoke frequently about sunshine in government yet we never saw his Columbia or Harvard transcripts. But this morsel might get more attention:

Applicants are asked whether they or anyone in their family owns a gun.

It's easy to let the imagination run wild as to the purpose of this question. Will gun ownership be a disqualifying factor for applicants? If so--and that's a big if--does it say anything about future policy initiatives whereupon an aid owning a gun would become an embarrassment?

One man's liberty

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It's pretty clear--the Founders wanted militias to crimp government tyranny but it's kinda hard to gather one if the government is safeguarding all the guns when revolt time comes.

Yes, liberals will say Thursday's ruling actually hinged on the type of arm rather than the right to bear it, although everyone knows it was really about the right itself. Had the SCOTUS come down supporting the ban it would have been a giant step towards more banning, just as this ruling will do the reverse. Not surprisingly, ABC put it thusly:

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia, a once-vital, now-archaic grouping of citizens. That's been the heart of the gun control debate for decades.

Emphasis added. Jefferson's head would explode reading that populist drivel. While ABC might think of militias as quaint anachronisms the framers would hardly agree, pointing out that the concept of a militia was meant to instill fear and respect into the minds of our elected officials and would-be robbers. That's the point so many of the pointy heads miss. And not just about men. The ladies deserve every right to protect themselves, especially in this sick age in which we live.

Will this now open the door for personal ownership of tanks, rockets, or RPGs? Well, it seems some already have them! Besides, we pay the police, FBI and other federal agents to enforce laws and when weapons are used inappropriately people should go to jail. And there's nothing wrong with restrictions in public places due to safety concerns, which was mentioned in the ruling.

But this was really more about preserving a citizen's fundamental right to protect their home and family without undue restriction (and yes, if the crooks have handguns and the homeowner is fumbling with a long rifle it's unfair).

So hip hooray for liberty on this one. Surely those protectors of the Constitution who believe Bush has systematically destroyed our privacy and personal freedoms by going after head-chopping terrorists must be agog with glee over this ruling, clinking glasses and high-fiving and such. Right?