A friend from college and a friend from grad school both made the same point about my homicide insurance post this afternoon … and they’re right. Everyone who wants to own a gun should have to buy insurance.
Should it be prohibitively expensive? For some guns and for some people, yes.
Insurance: It’s all about personal responsibility.
Lots of great comments today in response to my post from this morning about the immigration ordinance in Fremont, Nebraska.
Tumblr blogger MDL Unit writes:
Wow. They should have called it the “Intimidate the Latinos Out of Town Act”
Mike Gruz says:
May the chances of absolutely zero economic development forever be in their favor.
Brian Shreck chimes in with the voice of experience:
Having been to Fremont many times, I’m not quite sure what they’re trying to protect.
Two different readers, though, wisely take Nebraska fiscals conservatives to task for their support of this legislation:
- Nothing screams small government like red tape and bureaucracy.
- Plus it’s so fiscally responsible to allocate $1.5 million to chase away a portion of the local tax base.
No comment yet from State Senator Charlie Janssen, the ordinance’s biggest cheerleader, about exactly how this bill is good for Fremont or why it’s worth discrimination lawsuits, alienating Latinos, and spending a ton of taxpayer money on the off chance that a couple hundred undocumented workers won’t be able to rent apartments. He’s probably still too excited about yesterday’s anti-immigrant vote to spend any time online; perhaps he’s out there right now himself, issuing housing permits to anyone with $5 who solemnly attests that they’re in this country legally …
Today’s Comment of the Day is really nothing more than naked not-at-all-humblebragging.
At first I thought this comment came from my grandmother … but then I remembered that my grandmother’s so not into Beyoncé’s new album.
All of these Facebook comments on my post this morning about Dennis Prager’s ridiculous National Review piece are today’s Comments of the Day.
Slightly (but not totally) unrelated: a senior in one of my writing classes revealed to me that he has only read 4 books in his lifetime. How did he pass any Lit classes? Ever? Astounding. Kids these days.
I’ve read two novels in the past two weeks. They weren’t great works of literature or anything, just a couple of fun books between reading student essays and starting in on all the political theory I’m going to read to start my new book project. But, man, I love reading. It’s pretty much what I do all the time.
In all seriousness, how is it even possible to have read only four books ever?! Good lord, what sort of a life is that?!
Today’s Comment of the Day comes from our new friend Shelley Broadway, who isn’t used to people disagreeing with her.
She went on a little rant over on her Facebook page about how I didn’t link to her post and how I twisted her words by not quoting her entire blog post about how she convinced her 10 year old child that Obamcare was bad based on a poorly-constructed analogy designed to convince her child that Obamacare was bad.
When I pointed out to her that, in fact, the entire title of my blog post was a link to her post and that there was another link to her post within my post, her reply was:
Clearly, you can read. Go read the original blog post and you’ll have your answers. I haven’t time to waste on you - repeating - repeatedly - what I’ve already said. I refuse to waste any more of my time on you, when you’ve CLEARLY got your fingers in your ears going “Not listening! I can’t hear you!”
I have the masses to entertain - not you - and the last three days spent riding the merry-go-round with self-entitled whiney people who think they should be handed everything on a silver platter has me quite dizzy. As I said before - I didn’t order waffles.
The “I refuse to waste any more of my time on you” was, incidentally, her first reply to my first comment on the subject. So, in other words, “I don’t appreciate being told that I’m wrong so I simply ignore anyone with information that proves me wrong.”
Several really great comments on last night’s post about the ridiculousness of thinking that Objectivism is a philosophy and how I hope to be known as a Lord of the Rings philosopher since I like Tolkien.
And then I would just write software to turn off this “feature” because i’m a mature enough adult to know not to use a phone while driving. Also, there is no way for the software to determine if you’re the driver, or a passenger…
Let’s follow that logic:
I’m mature enough not to use my phone while I’m driving, so I would immediately work hard to get around any software that prevents me from using my phone while driving, which is something I don’t do anyway because I’m very mature.
Some person who doesn’t like my blog (but who apparently tends to read it with some frequency) approved of my previous post, despite his obvious desire to hate everything I write.
So, that’s today’s Comment of the Day.
I see… you chatter about the definition of a hero, while some of us, should we be in such a position, rescue cats from trees. Do you have the balls to climb the tree? I bet you do not. Heroes are not born; they are made. You either get it, dude, or you don’t.
Dude, I admit I don’t get it.
This comment was written by a Steve Hutchins in response to my blog post from about two weeks ago, “Heroism as an Emergent Property?,” in which I argued against the claim (made by Rick Hutchins, who just might be Steve’s brother) that rescuing a cat from a tree is an example of heroism just like pulling someone from a burning building is an example of heroism.
So your cat is stuck in a tree. What can you do?
Don’t panic, cats are excellent climbers and will rarely fall out of a tree. Most cats might come down on their own, if given some time to calm down. In my experience cats are very tough and hardy animals. If yours has to spend the night in a tree it should be fine. Some cats may come down during the night after things have calmed down and when it begins to feel confident again.
Dan Kraus — the guy who runs the website and who has rescued nearly 1000 cats from trees — says, “I don’t really consider myself a hero hero, you know. I’m not running into a burning building. I’m not getting shot at. I’m just rescuring a cat.”
My favorite young anonymous GOP Tumblr troll provides today’s Comment of the Day, in response to my most recent post about wingnut Fox commentator Todd Starnes:
I like your lack of argument against any of his statements.
Those statements that I neglected to argue against included the following gems:
"Obama’s comments today justify what I said on Hannity earlier this week. He truly is trying to tear our country apart."
"His remarks today on the Trayvon Martin tragedy are beyond reprehensible."
"President Obama is now our Race-Baiter in Chief."
It is truly amazing that I didn’t make arguments against such cogent statements!
Here’s the problem with the wingnut who wrote these inane things in the first place and with the wingnut who thinks I need to make arguments about why President Obama isn’t “trying to tear our country apart” or “reprehensible” or “our Race-Baiter in Chief”:
President Obama says that we have something of a problem in this country having to do with race. He says, I understand the pain felt by black families in America today.
Then white people say, “We’re pretty sure we don’t have a problem with race today; in fact, we think you’re creating any race problem we have.”
President Obama says, “Well, how about the fact that a young black kid gets stalked in his own neighborhood because some other guy thinks he looks suspicious, then he gets shot to death by that guy and there’s no penalty for that homicide because the guy was defending himself in a situation that he himelf created by following the kid who wasn’t doing anything to arouse suspicion apart from being a black kid walking around in the neighborhood?”
Then white people say, “You can’t bring up those kinds of examples. That’s race-baiting! You’re creating the race problem by talking about this case or any other case in which black people are treated differently from white people. We should all just say we’re equal in every way because then we will be.”
In other words, some white people are absolutely positive that the only race problems in this country are being created by black people … even as they express this opinion while calling those black people every imaginable racial slur.
Or, here’s a slightly less charitable way to put my response:
Anyone who actively believes that the President of the United States is a race-baiter who is trying to tear this country apart and whose personal comments on the Trayvon Martin killing were beyond reprehensible, and anyone who believes that this nonsense needs to be disproved, is either desperately fearful of anyone challenging his own extreme privilege as a white man in this country or is a moron of the absolute highest order.
This is an absolute refusal to see the world from anyone else’s perspective or to try to empathize in any way with someone who isn’t just like you.
I can’t think of a nicer way to say this. And I’ve actually been trying.
"Squeak squeak little mouse, don’t shoot bottle rockets at my house" is today’s Comment of the Day, in response to my post about the poor parenting choices in Curious George and The Cat in the Hat.
There’s pretty much no chance you’re going to beat Alec MacGillis for Comment of the Day today.
Today’s Commenter of the Day woke up early!
We want to make it more difficult to commit voter fraud. Kohenari is implying that people of color commit voter fraud.
Because I can’t leave well enough alone, I sent a note to the blogger in which I wrote:
There is pretty much zero voter fraud of the sort the GOP seems to think there is. You should read up on this. Go to Google, type in “how much voter fraud is there in the us”, and you’ll find a whole bunch of articles. Enjoy.
And the Comment of the Day? Well, it’s the blogger’s response:
Not all instances of crime are reported. A low number of reported voter fraud does not necessarily mean there is not much voter fraud. It could mean the authorities suck at detecting or reporting voter fraud.
Apparently, since there’s almost no evidence of the sort of voter fraud the GOP or Fox News has been talking about incessantly, the best evidence of said voter fraud is no evidence of said voter fraud.
Because, no matter what the evidence tells you, an amazingly high amount of voter fraud must exist and it’s thus necessary to impose new voting restrictions that make it more difficult for people of color to vote.
Proving once again that old chestnut: When you don’t like what the facts tell you, it’s best to come up with ways that will allow you to simply ignore them. Whatever you do, don’t pay attention to the facts or you might have to change your mind.