Arrant Nonsense

In a story today about Trump's press room, the nation's birdcage liner, oh, wait, I mean, "Newspaper of Record," the New York Times, said:

Mr. Trump’s unconventional, sometimes hostile, relationship with the news media and his penchant for communicating through unfiltered Twitter posts threaten to upend a decades-old Washington tradition that relies almost entirely on protocol. The result, reporters and editors say, could be a loss of transparency that would hinder the press’s role as a conduit for information to the people.

No, you idiots. The word you're looking for is not "transparency." Trump's unfiltered tweets are wholly transparent. The word you're looking for is "spin." Or perhaps "control." Trump's "unfiltered tweets" are actually exactly transparent, because there they are for everyone to see. You're just mad because you can't twist his words, though I'm sure you'll still try to tell us what he really meant.

The Times complains about not being allowed to come on the plane with Trump to meet President Obama. And about the infamous "dinner incident" where he went to have dinner with his family and *gasp* didn't invite them, leaving them "scrambling for information," the poor lambs. Of course he didn't invite the press to dinner. Who wants a bunch of yapping purse dogs along when you're trying to eat?

Answer me this, New York Times, and all you other press outlets crying about all of this: Why the hell should he cater to you people? You have been mocking, incredulous, hostile, fear-mongering name-callers since the day he announced he was running. Be happy he's giving you any access. I hope he sticks you in the back of the room and puts Infowars, Breitbart, and WorldNetDaily on the front row, and only takes questions from Milo Yiannopoulos, since I can't have Milo as actual Press Secretary.

KIDDING. (Mostly.)

I said it before and I'll say it again: Everything should be turned upside down on occasion. It lets in air and light.

But press advocates say these traditions, even in the age of Twitter, ensure fundamental tenets of democracy: historical record and access to information.

Twitter is right there for everyone to see. Anything you post on the internet is forever. You cannot get more "historical record" and "access to information" than that. You people see your power and prestige slipping away, even more than it already has been, and it scares you to death.

Some former press secretaries suggested that Mr. Trump’s administration should rethink the tradition of broadcasting press briefings on live television, which many say has led to posturing and performance.

And Ari Fleisher thinks they should take the press briefings off live television altogether. Oh. So that's a "protocol" and a "tradition" you're perfectly willing to jettison because it suits your agenda, meaning you really do want it to be less transparent. You are positively terrified that you won't be able to filter things your way, that the American people will be able to see for themselves the raw quotes, and make up their own minds.

Well. Good. We're tired of your fake news, and your spin, and your fatuous arrogance, and your oblivious disconnect. Those of us in flyover country haven't been buying what you've been selling for a long time now, and maybe this will be the final nail in your well-deserved coffin.

Seriously, do you people even listen to yourselves?

Senators Strike Compromise to Ban Suspected Terrorists from Buying Guns.

Considering the fact that you can be placed on the no-fly list without even knowing it, and having violated no law, I don't see how it's in Congress's power to deny someone a Constitutional right without any due process whatsoever. Are you going to deny them free speech? How about unreasonable search and seizure? How about the Fifth Amendment?

I do not trust this Administration to not abuse the power of the no-fly list. And if you do trust them, well, good for you, but... what about future Administrations? Would you trust Donald Trump not to abuse it? Oh, he won't win, you say. Are you sure? If you wouldn't trust an Administration you oppose to abuse a power, then it's a bad idea.

Not to mention the fact that the Orlando Asshole wasn't on a no-fly list. He passed more than one FBI background check. It's super cute that the CBS article says at the end: The FBI had investigated the gunman, Omar Mateen, in 2013 and 2014 and interviewed him several times. He was still able to purchase and use in the shooting an AR-15-style rifle and a semi-automatic pistol.

That's because he hadn't actually done anything actually wrong yet. Idiots. "Investigation" is not the same as "convicted of an actual fucking crime." It's not even the same as "indicted."

I realize that we would all like to be "safe" (whatever that means) from terrorists, but this is the world we live in: a world where someone can be a total law-abiding citizen until they go off the rails and do something completely terrible.

The last thing we need to do is hamstring other law-abiding citizens. Or fly into a hoplophobic panic and start up with "presumed guilty (and on our List) until proven innocent." Due Process should come before the fact, not after it.

You know, I get that I will not like every story that every publication puts out. That is a given, considering taste and all. Even a publication that has the good sense to publish one of my own stories will have a clunker on occasion.

But I just had the misfortune of listening to a story that is so over-the-top egregiously paranoid that it reads like a parody of itself. It's one of those hand-waving "oh my God, what if those gun nuts got their way and everyone had to carry a *gasp, huff, case of the vapors* weapon" stories. And it's written by someone who has apparently never even talked to a concealed-carry permit holder, who thinks if carrying a gun became "ordinary," we would suddenly forget that a gun is a deadly weapon that you can kill someone with if you handle it carelessly.

As every. Single. Idiot. In this story. Proceeds to do. With predictable results, because DUH.

Okay, look. I live in a state that has issued over a million concealed-carry permits. Granted, some of those are for folks who don't live here. But this is a state with a population of a little over two million people. We also have open carry, which means that you don't even need a permit to carry a gun in a hip holster where everyone can see it, so long as it's two actions from firing.

And hey, stunningly enough, it's not the Wild West around here. (Even the Wild West wasn't, not really. An armed society is a polite society.) I don't know anyone who treats their guns with the casual disdain the utter morons in this story do. We treat them like the deadly weapons they fucking are, because we are not fucking stupid. They're not water pistols, for God's sake.

So, please. If you want to write a "cautionary tale" about how GUNS ARE BAD OMG, at least do a modicum of research before you start your self-righteous lecture so that I don't get a headache from rolling my eyes that hard.

You know what they say about the road to Hell? That being said, at this point, I don't even think I can credit you with good intentions. You once again touted the "2 million people who shouldn't have had guns were stopped with background checks, huzzah!" statistic, but when you drill down into the actual numbers, you get this for the first two years of your administration:

2009: Total denials: 67,324. Referred for prosecution: 140. Guilty Plea or Conviction: 32.

2010: Total denials: 76,142. Referred for prosecution: 62. Guilty Plea or Conviction: 13.

That's right. 143,466 denied. 202 prosecuted. 43 either pled out or convicted. .0014%. Notice that the raw number of denials in 2010 was nearly 9,000 higher than in 2009, but the number referred for prosecution was less than half.

Are you seriously positing that your justice department--the same justice department that "masterminded" an international gun-walking scheme for which no one has received so much as a slap on the wrist--is going to suddenly start enforcing NICS violations because you've got a bug up your ass and issued an executive order about it?

WHY? Shouldn't they already be enforcing the fucking law? Oh, wait, I forgot. Your administration would rather flout our laws (See: the border) than enforce them.

I'm not going to take this point by point because it's tiresome and I'm sure other people will address it better than I can. But I'm going to get a few salient things off my chest.

1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. We already have that in place. I've purchased guns at gunbroker.com. They had to go through an FFL before they got into my hands. I had to fill out your four-page form. We don't need you to lecture us about it.

Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present. (bolding mine)

What other factors? Are you kidding me with this? If I buy a gun, keep the packaging, and then a month later decide that I found one I like better and thus sell it (perhaps at a profit because I'm not stupid, and, hey, you're creating demand, so thanks for that!) with the packaging and instructions (because I do tend to keep stuff like that even for my electronics), this makes me an ex post facto "dealer" who's "engaged in business"? What?

And, no, I do not trust you to differentiate between a drug dealer thug who runs guns to his friends, and me, when you have shown absolutely no inclination to differentiate between a violent thug and a cop doing his duty--and, in fact, treated the cop far worse than you would have the thug. You haven't earned that much trust, and never will at this point.

Ensure smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws. In a call earlier today, the Attorney General discussed the importance of today’s announcements and directed the Nation’s 93 U.S. Attorneys across the country to continue to focus their resources—as they have for the past several years under the Department’s Smart on Crime initiative—on the most impactful cases, including those targeting violent offenders, illegal firearms traffickers, and dangerous individuals who bypass the background check system to acquire weapons illegally.

Oh, puh-lease. See above. Show me some more recent numbers to prove this is actually true. Until then, I call bullshit. Start enforcing the laws we already have (which might actually prove effective) before you throw up a bunch of new laws that you will then proceed not to enforce--and then bray about how we need yet more laws... which you will then also not enforce. Then you will use the lack of enforcement to "prove" that we should just ban guns altogether. You think we don't know how this works?

In the event of an emergency, victims of domestic violence should call 911 or otherwise contact state or local law enforcement officials, who have a broader range of options for responding to these crimes.

Right. Because when seconds count, law enforcement is minutes away, and will arrive in time to bag my dead body. But, hey, at least I didn't shoot anyone while they were beating me to death!

I will never, God willing, be the victim of domestic violence. My husband is one of the Good Guys. But if I were in danger of such, the last thing I would need is some fatuous prick in the White House who is surrounded by armed guards 24/7 telling me to "just call 911."

We must continue to remove the stigma around mental illness and its treatment...

Sounds good, until you drop down and see:

Although States generally report criminal history information to NICS, many continue to report little information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons. Some State officials raised concerns about whether such reporting would be precluded by the Privacy Rule issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Today, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule expressly permitting certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about these individuals.

Oh, so we can violate HIPAA on your whim. Got it.

Look, if someone is actually adjudicated mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others, they should not have a firearm. I am wholly behind that, because Due Process has been met. But if I talk to a therapist while I'm going through some shit and idly bring up suicidal ideation, that is between me and my therapist. You are not going to get people to seek the help they need if they think they're going to be reported to law enforcement over it. So, congrats, you've just made it so that people look at this and go "ha, no, not going to therapy." Awesome.

I will give you this: At least there's nothing in this press release about your stupid, stupid statement about people on no-fly lists being able to buy guns. Considering the fact that a person can be placed the no-fly list without even knowing it until they show up at the airport, and having violated no law, I don't see how it's in your or Congress's power to deny those people a Constitutional right. I mean, you wouldn't tell them they couldn't, say, write a blog post, or go to church... would you? Would you break into their house without a warrant?

Well, maybe you would. Because, after all, this is an administration that has weaponized the IRS against its perceived political enemies, lied repeatedly to the American people about all manner of things, sucked up to our enemies and shat on our friends, and can't seem to keep its big fat Federal nose out of things that should by all rights be local law enforcement issues.

Because I homeschool and it doesn't really affect me. But I just got a call from someone running for the state school board. Since it was an 801 area code (local to me), I went ahead and picked up, only to be greeted by dead air.

Strike One: If you're going to call me, at least have the damn courtesy to be there when I, by some wild chance, pick up when I see an unfamiliar number on my caller ID, especially during silly season.

So, I googled the number (as one does), and found a Facebook page.

Strikes Two through Six:
Retired teacher
Public School Advocate
Former UEA President
Board Member - Inclusion Center of Utah
Board Member - NAACP Salt Lake Branch

I can guess, just from that, what someone like her thinks of someone like me. I'm fairly certain that a retired teacher who is a former Utah Education Association president and current "public school advocate" wouldn't think that a homeschooler should get any kind of tax break, and probably thinks it should be even harder than it already is to homeschool.

Not only that, but any place with a name like "Inclusion Center" is probably deliberately designed to exclude people like me, a white conservative pro-life pro-gun woman whom they probably consider a Traitor to the Sisterhood. I won't even get into the NAACP, which has been awfully silent on the fourth district race here in Utah pitting a conservative black woman against a "fourth generation Utahn" white dude. GEE I WONDER WHY. The Utah NAACP also opposes private school vouchers.

So. Thank you, Ms. Rusk, for making it dead easy for me to decide, at least, who I'm not voting for tomorrow.

Yeah, language warning ahead. I don't suffer assholes lightly.

So, apparently, Michelle Malkin "can't be conservative, because she is a minority."

Now, I don't know if this guy thought he was revoking her permission to be a conservative, or just couldn't believe that she is. Either way, it's a prime piece of idiocy. He is not the boss of her, and she has no obligation to conform to his (stupid) stereotypes. When she rightly told him "Watch me," he had a bit of a minor meltdown. Perhaps he couldn't believe that this *gasp* minority woman dared to stand up to him and form her own opinions.

First, he called her a foreigner, because, I guess, someone with that particular shade of melanin and those particular facial features couldn't possibly have been born in, you know, Pennsylvania. (She was, in case you're wondering.) Not content to run away with his tail between his legs when called out on his blatant racist fuckery, he instead doubled down and declared that there was "something off" about her, without elaborating on what it was. He also stated that "conservatism has nothing to offer minorities."

Well, golly gee willikers, dudebro, thank you so much for whitesplaining that to the poor dumb little minority gal who can't possibly be as smart as the guy with giant arms that probably aren't his and no head for an avatar! We have all seen the light and will be better sheeple presently! We will baa along behind you while you spread your generous and benevolent 5% largesse for us all!

Or, you know... spread something for us all. Something that smells remarkably like bullshit. I realize that it's difficult to form a cogent argument in 140 characters, but he seemed to think that we should all treat his flat declaration as Word of God without backing up his opinion one iota. So, thanks for your arrogant and... did I already say racist? It bears repeating. ...racist stereotypical opinions, pal, but I think I'll decide for myself if conservatism has anything to offer me as a woman if not a minority.

Of course, once he had his head handed to him on that particular issue, he deflected to the old mainstay, "Bush's war!" Nevermind that Hillary and Biden voted for it, and that every single other intelligence apparatus in the world thought that Saddam had WMDs... or that he had already used WMDs on his own fucking people. BUSH. BECAUSE. CONSERVATIVES BAD.

If I didn't know better, I'd think this guy was a caricature. Unfortunately, a glance at his Twitter timeline reveals that he regularly takes oh-so-intelligent shots at Rush Limbaugh in between tweeting incomprehensibly about sports or... something. Hell if I know.

As the immortal Bugs Bunny used to say: What a maroon.

I've hesitated to weigh in on this "debate."

Yes, I just used scare quotes because all I see is a bunch of people yelling at each other. It's not a debate, it's a fight.

And it's stupid.

The Old Guard has said some dumb things, it's true. But guess what? The people I'm seeing saying those dumb things are not the ones with any actual power in the genre. They're writers--not editors, not publishers, not agents.

The New Guard is frankly scaring me. Because they're the ones with the keys to the pursestrings. And what I'm hearing (maybe not intentionally, but this is the Message I'm getting) is that if you dare to raise your hand and say "but I don't particularly want to read or write Check-Box Message Fic"--they will come after you with torches and pitchforks, because How Dare You not walk in lockstep with the current fashion and Embrace Diversity Wholeheartedly By Writing What We Say!!!11!!

How about this: we all write what we want to write and read what we want to read and let the chips fall where they may, huh? Because at this point, what I'm seeing is that the current gatekeepers of the genre--Every. Last. One. Of them--are falling all over themselves to be "inclusive." So, hey, diversity champions? You've won. Congratulations. I don't care what color, sex, political persuasion, or sexual orientation the people writing my fiction are--I care that they write stories I enjoy. THAT'S IT.

And that's all I've ever cared about. My parents taught me well, it seems. But apparently I can't say that either, because saying that means I'm "privileged." Even though I'm one of those Icky Girls.

So, hey, in your hunt for Diversity, if you'd leave a tiny corner for people like me? A female conservative Christian who enjoys writing male protagonists doing male protagonist things (like blowing shit up instead of navel-gazing about their White Male Guilt) instead of Check-Box Message Fic? That'd be peachy.

Or is there not enough room in the Diversity Tent for that? Because you know what? I'm feeling excluded by both sides. I'm one of the Women Destroying SF With My Girl Cooties--but I'm also conservative and Christian and enjoy writing straight male protags, so I'm not destroying it enough. Or some damn thing, hell if I know anymore.

Actually, I feel more excluded by the Diversity Police than I do by the people hollering about Girl Cooties.

Isn't that backwards?

Warning: language ahead. I'm letting this clown have it with (heh) both barrels. And no, I'm not cutting it or locking it because I have had it up to here with these arrogant, clueless assholes telling me what I "need." Deal.

Just how fucking stupid are you?

You know what, wait, don't answer that, because it's on display for all and sundry this week and we can answer it for ourselves.

You said: "We live in an area that's wooded and secluded," Biden said. "I said, Jill, if there's ever a problem just walk out on the balcony here ... put that double-barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."

There are so many things wrong with this. First of all, you also state that you keep your shotguns in a locked safe. So, not only does Jill have to get to the safe (is it in your bedroom? Because ours is in the basement down two flights of stairs), she has to remember the combination, get the thing open, find the ammo (which, according to "gun safety" "experts," should be kept in a separate location from the gun), and load the thing, all while being in fear of her life. Then she should go out on the balcony and expend all her ammo in fucking warning shots.

Which, unless she's pocketed some extra shells, will now leave her helpless. That shotgun is nothing better than a club, at that point.

Not only that, but in every jurisdiction I can think of, doing that is illegal as hell. You don't shoot at something that you don't intend to kill dead. I mean, whoopdedoo, I'm so fucking glad that you live on an estate or some such shit where you don't have to worry about stray pellets hitting innocent people, but the rest of us don't have that luxury--we live in the Real World where our neighbors and their pets are right next door.

Have you ever taken a gun safety course? EVER? I just did, for my Concealed Carry Permit. And in that class, one of the first things they told us was "don't fire warning shots." Not only does it waste ammo, but bystanders can be a Thing, and firing into the air is also fucking stupid because you don't know where that round will fall. If you were paying any attention at all, you would know that. Hell, how many times do we hear in the news around the 4th of July where some drunk dumbass decided to celebrate by firing his hogleg into the air and accidentally hurt someone?

And then there's this: "You don't need an AR-15 (assault rifle). It's harder to aim. It's harder to use and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself."

Don't tell me what I fucking need. That, sir, is not up to you. Again, maybe you live in Rich Dude LaLa Land where home invasions with multiple intruders aren't a Thing, but if I've got four people busting in through my door, I want more than two rounds that I've already expended in fucking warning shots. While it's true that your little scattergun has a wider pattern than an AR-15, this doesn't make the AR-15 any "harder to aim or to use." It is certainly easier to load if you've got a full mag right there. I would rather have 30 rounds and not need them than need them and not have them.

And guess what? Police and SWAT teams use AR-15s for... wait for it! SELF DEFENSE. And they're not walking around with fucking ten-round magazines either. So, if it's good enough for the police, it's good enough for me--because when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. With their AR-15s.

So. Take your fucking stupid "advice" and shove it up your ass. I certainly hope that your wife is smarter than you are and doesn't actually follow it if she ever is (God forbid) confronted by armed intruders in your home.

Hugs and kisses,
agilebrit

This is the second time I've gotten embroiled in a discussion with someone who thinks that gun owners need to be licensed and registered and insured, "just like car owners." The insurance is in case someone breaks into my house, steals my gun (you know, the one I lost in that terrible volcano accident), and uses it in a criminal act.

In other words, it's my fault if a bad guy steals my stuff and then uses it to hurt someone. At least, according to these people. They bring up the fact that cars are licensed and regulated and insured.

But the fact is, not all cars are. We own a drag-racing car. It is not licensed, registered, or insured. We trailer it to the track and trailer it home. It's a powerful beast that does a quarter mile in under ten seconds at sea level. Hell, it doesn't even need a key to start it.

What if someone broke into my garage, stole it, and used it to mow down a bunch of kids in a crosswalk by a school? Would the same people who would howl for my head if someone stole my gun and used it to mow down a bunch of kids also howl for my head if someone used my racecar for the same purpose?

For that matter, what if someone steals my (licensed, registered, insured) PT Cruiser and does something terrible with it? In the eyes of the gun-grabbers, am I liable then? Would they come after me and my insurance company for damages?

How about my chainsaw? It's covered the same way my gun is, but it could do terrible things in the wrong hands. Or, what if I collected swords? A sword, arguably, is also only used to "take human life," more so than a gun, even, because when was the last time you took a sword to the range and used it to slash at paper?

Or are guns just special? I mean, they talk about the fact that we license and insure cars, but that's not so, not necessarily, not in every case--I'm a member of an off-roading culture that also doesn't license and insure all its vehicles. My homeowners policy covers the theft of my guns and any injury sustained on my property. Why should I have additional insurance that covers me in the event that someone commits a criminal act using my property that they stole, off my property?

I thought we were done blaming victims. Guess not, if the victims are evil gun owners.

And you know what? My personal long-term happiness is not dependent on who sits in the White House. I may end up raging and screaming at my TV tonight. Or I may not. But that will be a temporary state. I still have to live my life going forward, and I will be happy, dammit.

Because I'm not going to allow outside influences to determine my internal state.