I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

YramAL

Facebook, twitter and other social media, along with cell phones and texting are a huge issue with bullying these days. I work at an elementary school, and we can only control what goes on in the building, for the most part, though we do intervene if the other types of bullying come to our attention. I am so glad none of these things were available when I was a kid. It was bad enough trying to avoid the bully on the way home from school-now bullies reach hundreds of people with their message. 

Mary

IllinoisLady

So very true Mary.

Something I just read:

SEQUESTER?
IT JUST AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN

The "party of growth" has announced that it's looking to cut 0.7 percentage points off our GDP growth rate. "I think the sequester isgoing to happen," Paul Ryan said on Meet the Press, referring to the set of spending cuts scheduled to hit March 1—cuts that would mainly target defense spending, but also the EPA and other public services. The Washington Post's Ezra Klein finds Paul Ryan less than credible, writing that Republicans "are so desperate for a hostage they can actually shoot, that they’re willing to point the gun at their own head and threaten to pull the trigger."

Sensationalist metaphors aside, we prefer to think of the GOP as an angry old man firing pistol shots at the sky in an abandoned parking lot—that is, Klein is right and the GOP threats are mostly bluster. So while it seems like nobody's going to get hurt over the upcoming sequester showdown (except possibly the Republicans), it's also important for progressives to pay attention and help ensure major cuts don't happen—just like they did in the recent round of debt-ceiling negotiations. Then maybe everyone can come out of this thing unscathed.

Another form of bullying...pretty much everywher you look.

Jackie

and adding as well.  I would probably not have given a death sentence to anyone either, in the above cases.  I do think there is something to be said for having your liberty taken away if you can't  'manage' in civilized society.  I also know that depending on some of the crimes ( usually having to do with kids ) being in a facility is probably the quickest way to lose your life. 

There are no easy answers sometimes. 

Jackie

spell checker missing in action again.

crazy4carrots

About the death penalty:  It used to be that the argument FOR it was as a deterrence.  But that didn't stop the killings.  Now the argument seems to be for it as a punishment.

Frankly, I could never see/understand either argument.  What I did see was that the state was doing the exact same thing as the convicted killer did -- an eye for an eye, as it were.

Like Leslie, I am also thankful that the death penalty was abolished in Canada in the early 1960's.  We have had several cases of wrongful conviction, mostly due to lazy police investigation -- as in, we're pretty sure he's the killer, so let's build our case around him -- without training their investigative eyes on any other potential suspect.

There are so many, many things in a criminal case that can go either very wrong for the innocent suspect, or incredibly favourable for the real criminal....

Wabbit

Some bullying has always gone on but it seems to be so much more vicious these days.  It never got that out of hand in the small town school I went to.  Most everybody was related to each other in some way and you knew their parents, aunts and uncles and grandparents ... and they knew your parents.  Kept those so inclined in check I think.

I think all schools can do is to act every time an incident happens ... and in a way that makes it inconvenient for the bully's parents.  Make them drop everything and come get their kid.  Because it is parents who can make the bully's life so unpleasant that it won't be worth it to them.  Instead of cracking down on their little darlings though we seem to have too many parents screaming about their brats 'rights' instead.  That's not what my folks would have done.

   

pupmom

I only saw bullying first hand one time as a child. It was against a very fat little girl, who probably suffered from thyroid problems. Hardly any child was fat in the days before fast food proliferation.

Wabbit

A lot of the Republican politicians are 'owned' by defense contractors.  Which makes it hard for me to believe that they would let massive cuts to defense dry up the contractor's business.   

I used to be in favor of the death penalty.  And in some cases it is still hard not to be.  What changed my mind is the number of cases where it has now been proven (usually by DNA) that the wrong person was convicted. 

crazy4carrots

Thanks to Sens McConnell, Hatch and Baucus, Amgen gets a gift from Congress (speaking of politicians being "owned"):

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/opinion/amgen-gets-a-gift-from-congress.html?_r=0

I watched Bill Moyers' Journal the other night; his guest was Rep. Peter Welch (D) from Vermont, who is trying to get this "gift" overturned.

Wabbit

In our local 'makes you want to spit nails' news ... our new GOP governor is trying to get political points by proposing to reduce our state income tax rate by 10%.  10% of 3.4% is chicken feed.  How about doing away with that 1% increase in sales tax that Mitch hit us with.  That would put a whole lot more money back in normal people's pockets.  But of course helping middle and low income people is not the goal.  Blah.     

1Athena1

This makes me want to spit my claws:

In America, if your little child is shot, you'd better not say anything about guns. To wit:

"Neil Heslin, the father of a 6-year-old boy who was slain in the Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, stoically faced down pro-gun activists last night.

More than 1,000 people attended a hearing before the Gun Violence Prevention Working Group at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford on Monday to share their views on gun control, USA Today reported. Among them was Heslin, who held a large framed picture of himself and his son Jesse as he urged officials to consider strengthening gun laws in Connecticut.

But as he gave his emotional testimony, pleading with lawmakers to improve mental health options and to ban assault weapons like the one Adam Lanza used to murder his child and 25 other people, his speech was interrupted by dozens of audience members, The Connecticut Post reported.

“I still can't see why any civilian, anybody in this room in fact, needs weapons of that sort. You're not going to use them for hunting, even for home protection," Heslin said.

Pro-gun activists responded by calling out: "Second Amendment!"

Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/29/neil-heslin-father-of-newtown-victim-heckled_n_2572503.html

This reminds me of the outrage of pro-no-gun-copntrol people after the massacre. They cared more about THEIR position and THEIR weapons than about human children, it seemed.

It really feels as though we are in a battle against defenders of "sepoarate but equal" - the infamous supreme court dictum upholding segregation. In 2013, we have to conbtend with some stupid justices who caved in to the NRA and skewed the interpretation of the second amendment. I wish the supreme court would overturn itself.

bluedahlia

Those pro-gunners stink!

alexandria58

But the Supreme Court didn't say that the second amendment allowed assault weapons.  In fact, it was Scalia who stated that certain types of weapons or ammo could be banned or that you can regulate gun ownership, require registration etc.  The Supreme court just stated that all gun ownership can't be totally banned.  What we need is not a Supreme Court that changes its rulings, but a Congress that doesn't cave to the demands of the few and the crazy for unlimited guns and unlimited ammo.

But I agree with you about the despictable conduct of the gun nuts towards a father who'd lost a little child.  Only comfort is how much their conduct will hurt them in the minds of reasonable Americans. 

pupmom

I have no words to express my disgust! Yet this behavior will come back to bite them in their swarmy butts. 

1Athena1

Oh, agree, Sandy - the SCOTUS never said guns couldn't be regulated. THe BIG problem came when they discussed individual gun ownership in light of the Second Amendment. That "penumbra" interpretation was finally out in the open and that is the real sin by the court, IMO. Once that link was "certified" the cat was out of the bag. IMO.

crazy4carrots

I've been struggling to understand why so many gun owners are against background checks.  I thought perhaps it was because those checks would bring to light some "infractions" or bad behaviour (recorded) that the owners wish to stay buried.

 Today I was listening to NPR in the car, and someone said that the real reason is the "fear" that background checks would be the first step in stripping the gun owners of their right to own any guns.  That entirely groundless fear has been instilled by the NRA and other organizations. Shades of the infamous "death panels" fear.  It's so, so disgusting, and what happened to Mr. Heslin at the town meeting is truly disheartening.

1Athena1

Linda: People LOVE to use "rights" as an excuse for their positions. I say many of these people may oppose background checks simply because they ARE afraid that more potential owners will be weeded out. Gun manufacturers do not want sales restricted like that. Almost one percent of our population is incarcerated at any time. A check would likely cause a dent on revenues.

What I don't understand is law abiding citizens taking such umbrage at this. Traffic infractions aside, I have never violated the law. Let's say I own a semi-automatic. Why, oh, why, would I be so resistant to giving it up? Maybe only if I believed those who were telling me that my rights are at stake. If I was only interested in using guns for hunting why, oh why would I be so resistant to regulations on storage? There is no reason - unless you believe the tripe about rights that the NRA is selling - tripe that half of these NRA cynics themselves know to be pure bunkum.

gardengumby

We went to a local Sportsmen's show last week.  The NRA was in full regalia with multiple booths signing people up.  One "gentleman" stepped in front of me - completely blocking my path - and said to us "Are you folks members?"  I simply shook my head (but I know very well that I had a pretty disgusted look on my face...), my husband said "Not now."  (we never have been).  My husband later thanked me for not unleashing on him, as that has not been unheard of in the past.....  

But my gawd, people are so weirdly gullible.  They only hear the things that validate their preconceived ideas.  I really thought people were smarter than they seem to be.....

pupmom

I gave IQ tests for 20 years, yet the concept of intelligence still eludes me. Some of the most intelligent students were completely incompetent when it came to managing social situations or their own emotions and impulses. Some who were in the Low Average to Borderline range became quite successful, even through hard work and determination, getting into community college and graduating. Some went on to 4 year colleges. Common sense reasoning, although briefly measured on the WISC-IV (the most common IQ test when I was practicing), is a much underappreciated aspect of intelligence. When you get right down to it, intelligence should reflect how well one can navigate through life and make good choices for oneself and one's community.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think gun nuts would fail on the common sense portion of intelligence. They just don't get the obvious: guns kill and more guns kill more.

lassie11

Yorkie - I quite agree with you. Somehow critical thinking is just missing with or without academic intelligence.  The thing about "guns don't kill people; people do" is absolute nonsense. It might make sense to those who are immersed in hearing that spouted from all fronts.   A smidgen of critical thinking would reveal the nonsense.

I think being immersed in a culture that agrees with nonsense helps perpetuate the nonsense.

edited because I accidentally deleted a whole bunch and made no sense!

IllinoisLady

You said it Alexandria......those people looked and sounded so despicable and are doing nothing for the NRA and other "gun nuts" from other areas.  They still don't seem to recognize they trample on every right those children ever had when they behave in such disrespectful ways.

Jackie

pupmom

I know when I was practicing in schools a common complaint was that critical thinking was not being taught. Everybody agreed it should be taught. The problem was how to fit it in when teachers were spending all their time desperately teaching to state and district tests, so they (the teachers) wouldn't be cited and possibly lose their jobs. It's all about priorities.

Wabbit

Me too gumby ... the internet and comment sections especially have taught me things about the public that I wish I didn't know.  We have to quit having our schools teach to the test and get back to working on teaching our kids critical thinking skills and problem solving.

I can't find it right now but an article I read a week ago mentioned that the number of guns already out there have reduced the sales market for them.  The contention of the article was that the NRA opposition to a ban on assault weapons was mostly because the gun manufacturers needed that product for continuing sales.  Wouldn't surprise me.  Seems like most everything gets back to being about money.  

I'm not religious but that 'the love of money is the root of all evil' stuff was correct.   

alexandria58

Wabbit, I think you're on the right track.  The NRA does NOT speak for average gun owners; it is a lobbying group for gun manufacturers.  As such, they are against ANY restriction, background checks etc., because it might lose sales.  After all, 40 percent of all guns are sold without background checks - and there's probably quite a number of people who buy without checks who shouldn't be. The NRA then incites paranoia into the more gullible of its members to try to keep them from supporting even the most mild and common sense of gun regulations, ie background checks and data bases, because doing so would lose money for the gun manufacturers.  Too many guns out there?  Incite people with fear of totalitarian governments so that they think they need more guns, bigger guns, bigger magazines, because now they'll have to fight the US Army.

It's about money, money for gun manufacturers.  It's like a magic trick,  the NRA tries to divert us, but that's why they do this.  It's the money.

bluedahlia

Did anyone watch "Killing Them Softly"????? Listen to Brad Pitt's final lines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V6GHnxEJjg

1Athena1

Funny how political debates over "rights" are often about money. With the exception of abortion rights which, if people interpreted R v. W properly, is really about privacy. And privacy is a right we don't pay as much heed to as we should.

Diminutive Tuesday Brain Droppings.

ETA to add italics. :-)

1Athena1

In feline news, domestic litties are apparently causing more havoc than previously thought:

From the NYT:

That Cuddly Kitty Is Deadlier Than You Think

"....scientists from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and the Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that domestic cats in the United States — both the pet Fluffies that spend part of the day outdoors and the unnamed strays and ferals that never leave it — kill a median of 2.4 billion birds and 12.3 billion mammals a year, most of them native mammals like shrews, chipmunks and voles rather than introduced pests like the Norway rat.

"The estimated kill rates are two to four times higher than mortality figures previously bandied about, and position the domestic cat as one of the single greatest human-linked threats to wildlife in the nation. More birds and mammals die at the mouths of cats, the report said, than from automobile strikes, pesticides and poisons, collisions with skyscrapers and windmills and other so-called anthropogenic causes."

More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/30/science/that-cuddly-kitty-of-yours-is-a-killer.html?hp

Belinda44

 

 

1Athena1

Belinda, excellent, as usual!

Belinda44

No surprise that Kerry was confirmed.  I wonder why those three senators voted against .....

"The United States Senate voted today to confirm Sen. John Kerry as the next secretary of state.

Just five days ago, Kerry, a democratic senator from Massachusetts, testified before the committee he chaired. As NPR's Michele Kelemen reported at the time, the hearing was a love fest.

Kerry is decorated Vietnam war veteran and the son of a diplomat. He has served in the Senate since 1985.

"As the ranking Republican, Bob Corker of Tennessee, was quick to point out, Kerry seems to have been grooming himself to become secretary of state all his life," Michele reported.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, the vote was in favor of Kerry 94 to 3.

The Boston Globe reported Monday that Gov. Deval ­Patrick was set to announce an interim senator on Wednesday and that he had settled on a special election to take place June 25 after an April 30 primary. That is expected to be a tough-fought election.

Kerry will succeed Hillary Clinton.

Sen. Jim Inhofe, a Republican of Oklahoma, as well as Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz voted against the nomination. Kerry voted present."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/29/170590783/senate-confirms-john-kerry-as-next-secretary-of-state

pupmom

They voted against because, he was a DEMOCRAT! 

Wabbit

And Obama nominated him ... it has to be an evil plot ... danger, danger