Feeds:
Posts
Comments

No, I’m not joking. He claimed to be an “incel” who was a victim of feminism because he can’t get laid. He’s one of those toxic MRA dudes who think that women should be their property to be raped at will. Talk about an overweening sense of entitlement. Dude should have gotten a sex toy, since that apparently was all he was interested in when it came to women — sex.

Dude’s not bad looking, so his looks are no reason he’s a virgin. Might it have something to do with his obnoxious personality, his sense of entitlement, his view of women as sex toys rather than people? He’s lucky he did this in Canada. Here in the US, he wouldn’t stay a virgin long once he got to serving life in prison for murder.

And to cap it all off, others in the odious MRA community he was a member of are hailing him as a hero and promising to do attacks of their own upon women they view as “Stacys”, i.e., uppity women who won’t have sex with them and view them with disdain. Their obnoxious personality is never the reason why women disdain them, it’s always the woman’s fault.

Jesus, the sense of self-entitlement just never stops…

– Badtux the Disgusted Penguin

Advertisements

Especially when the one is Bob Dorough, jazz musician and musical director for Schoolhouse Rock. Dead at 94 years of age, likely from complications of cancer.

I learned more grammar and social studies from Schoolhouse Rock than I learned in school. I could never forget what a conjunction was after this, for example:

You done good, Bob. You made the world better.

– Badtux the Obituaries Penguin

Again.

Spree shooter armed with an AR-15 style rifle shoots up a Waffle House.

Most murders are pretty easy to solve because they’re either before a lot of witnesses or they’re between people known to each other. Most murders are an abusive husband killing a wife, a gang banger killing a rival gang member, a drunken man outside a bar lying in wait for another drunken man that he feels wronged him, a neighbor shooting another neighbor who he feels wronged him. Those kinds of murders, which are spur of the moment murders for the most part, are on the decline as the population ages and the new generation of young men isn’t so touchy about their masculinity that they’ll just gun down anybody they think threatens their masculinity. Thus the overall murder rate is going down.

These spree shooting murders, however, are on the rise. The frightening thing about these is that they’re not avoidable. You can avoid being shot by your neighbor if you just ignore your neighbor’s meth lab rather than call the cops on it every other day. You can avoid being shot by your abusive husband by, well, just not going for the “bad boys” like so many women do (even women who should know better seem to go for the “bad boys” when they’re young, and find out that, well, living with those boys is dangerous). You can avoid being shot by a drunken bar-goer by not going to bars where that kind of thing happens. But if someone decides to shoot random strangers at the Waffle House where you’re eating breakfast, there’s no way to avoid that.

That’s why these spree shootings scare the bleep out of people despite the decrease in the murder rate — sure, murders are declining, but this *specific* class of murder, where a stranger just murders strangers for no reason at all, just keep going up and up and up. And scared people demand action. Sooner or later, the NRA’s ability to head off those demands is going to fail, and you’re going to see draconian gun laws that basically outlaw everything but single-shot shotguns and bolt action rifles. You’d think that, given this, the NRA would be floating some realistic proposals to do something about this increase of spree shooters. Instead, they just keep whining about mental health — even though it’d be unconstitutional to force people to accept mental health treatment (the Supreme Court has ruled that people have a right to be as crazy as they want to be) and so their whining about mental health isn’t a solution to anything at all.

— Badtux the Murder Penguin

So that happened 243 years ago. You’ve probably heard all the silliness about Paul Revere and so forth. The most stupid silliness I’ve heard today, however, was that the British went to those two places in order to disarm the colonials.

Uhm, no. The British mission was to confiscate military weapons and munitions *STORED IN THE TOWN MILITIA ARSENALS*. Not to confiscate firearms in the possession of individuals. They were especially concerned with some brass cannon that the colonial militia had assembled. They could have cared less about the rifles and fowling pieces that were owned by individuals, they were after military weapons.

Which is a point I keep making about those who claim that personally owned and possessed firearms were a Big Deal in colonial Massachusetts militias: they weren’t. Massachusetts had always had a collectivist streak when it came to firearms, likely because of their Puritan underpinnings where early Massachusetts communities were run more like cults than like anything we have today. Their militias were heavily armed, but the muskets and cannon were kept in town arsenals along with sufficient gunpowder and shot to make them of use, not in individual homes. Individuals may have owned rifles or fowling pieces (shotguns), but they did not have a musket at home because for personal use, muskets were basically useless. They were too inaccurate and too long and heavy to make good hunting weapons.

I’ve written long discourses on Colonial era military weapons and tactics elsewhere, but suffice it to say that most of what we “know” about the era is wrong when you study the actual military weapons, tactics, and science of the era. For example, there were no battles that were settled by colonials sniping from behind trees. Even Lexington and Concord wasn’t settled by that, the British soldiers achieved their objectives, then headed home. The sniping was misery, but the sniping was because they hadn’t brought their own skirmishers with them to counter-snipe — the British knew very well (having defeated the French and Indians) how to deal with that kind of thing. They just hadn’t realized they were going to war that day, rather than a modest police action to disarm some people who had illegal cannon.

And militia… there was a single (one) battle after that initial clash where militia made an impact. That was it, in the entire war. Everywhere else they were utterly useless, thus why George Washington inserted the militia clauses into the Constitution in some hope of getting militia that was actually useful (which turned out to be wishful thinking — in the War of 1812, the militia once *again* were useless). Yet this mystique about the militia somehow winning the war remains, when the actual cause of the British basically surrendering was that they ran out of money. Seriously. The British Crown was bankrupt by 1784. Couldn’t even meet interest payments on their national debt or pay the soldiers already on American soil, much less replace those surrendered at Yorktown. And the French and Spanish were threatening India, which was far more valuable than sparsely-settled American colonies. The British could have perhaps fought on by raising taxes but to do so threatened the loss of India. They ended the war to protect India, they didn’t get defeated militarily — even the forces at Yorktown were less than 1/10th of the British forces on American soil. Granted, most of those forces were in Canada or New York City, but there they were.

None of which is taught to American students in American K-12 schools, which instead are replete with jingoistic nonsense with no basis in fact. So it goes.

– Badtux the History Penguin

At least, that’s what an NRA dick sucker told me today.

So I was reading another one of those stories where a toddler “finds” mommy or daddy’s gun and shoots someone with it. It’s a common story. More Americans have been killed by toddlers “finding” guns this year than have been killed by terrorists. That has been true of most years all the way back to 2002. (2001 breaks that string for obvious reasons). And sometimes it isn’t even a family member who gets shot and killed, it’s someone else entirely, like the time that a neighbor’s kid got killed by a toddler who “found” a gun.

Furthermore, nearly half of guns confiscated by police when they arrest criminals are stolen. The “black market” for illegal guns used by criminals is apparently fueled by stolen guns or perhaps by legal guns purchased by “straw buyers” who then later claim the gun was stolen. Clearly there is a problem where guns are not being responsibly stored. My response: We should have a law requiring responsible gun storage. If the gun is not on your person under your direct control, it should be responsibly stored in a gun safe or other locked storage.

Response of NRA and their dick suckers: Gun storage laws make criminals out of normal Americans! And wouldn’t stop these shootings because criminals don’t obey laws! And you’re a tyrant and want to take all our guns by wanting these laws forcing us to store our guns safely when they’re not on our person!

WTF? By that logic, we should have no laws about murder, because laws about murder make criminals out of normal Americans and wouldn’t stop murder anyhow because criminals don’t obey laws. For realz? These people are basically claiming that laws against murder are useless? I mean, look. Sometimes people piss me off. Piss me off to the point where I wish I could kill them. But it *stays* at a wish, not an action, because I value my bunghole. I want it to stay its normal size, which ain’t happening in prison.

To say that laws are useless because they’re not universally obeyed is ridiculous. Most people do obey laws, because they don’t want the consequences. Sure, there’s some small percentage that doesn’t. But should we repeal the law against murder because 1% of the people who wish they could murder someone actually do so? Or should we keep it because of the 99% of other people with such a desire who actually do obey the law and don’t murder because they fear the consequences?

I’m old enough to remember when the NRA was an organization based on hunter education and gun education. But that was then, and this is now. Today a significant percentage of their membership is not there to support hunter education and gun education. They’re there to support being irresponsible. I mean, proper gun storage is part of their basic gun education package. Why in the world would they want to prevent legislation to enforce a practice that they themselves say is proper gun handling? But I guess that’s what happens when you have an organization whose main purpose for existence today is to support the right to be irresponsible.

I mean, c’mon. Mandating safe gun storage is tyranny? Me not wanting to be shot by a toddler who “found” Daddy’s gun is tyranny? For realz? Yeesh. These NRA dick suckers have sucked too many gunpowder fumes, methinks….

— Badtux the Sane Gun Owning Penguin

Pleasant dream

A dream I had.

I was in a college dormitory, down on the bottom floor where the lobby and break room and storage room were, and a girl comes up to me. She has shoulder-length blond hair and is wearing a t-shirt and jeans and sneakers, she looks like a youth triathlon athlete that I encountered once when I was young actually ie. not obviously buff but tanned from outdoors activities and clearly not a couch potato, and she says “Some of us were wondering if you’d like to go bike riding with us.”

And I’m like, “okay. But my bike is in storage.”
“That’s okay, we have a spare bike.”
“Sure,” I say, and I run up to my room real quick and grab a bike helmet and run down and she and three or four other people have assembled in front of the dorm and sure enough there’s a spare bike waiting for me.

So we ride and the others get ahead as I’m struggling on this old heavy POS bike and she’s falling behind to ride beside me and we talk about various stuff, and eventually after an hour or so we end up back at the dorm. And I did something that I didn’t do back when things like this actually happened, which was say “I’m sort of Aspie, I don’t pick up on social cues, you’re going to have to tell me what this was all about and what you’d like to do next.”

And that was the end of the dream as the alarm clock went off.

All in all, a far more pleasant one than my usual ones, which tend to involve zombies or robotic terminators out to exterminate humanity as a society of time travelers attempts to foil the robot apocalypse or etc.

Barbara Bush, wife of former President George H.W. Bush, dies at age 92.

Barbara Bush was the kind of woman who could stab you in the back while exhibiting the best of manners and grace. She famously didn’t want to waste her beautiful mind thinking about dead Iraqis when her son started his most excellent adventure in Iraq, and had the patrician’s sneer about those who were less than her, famously stating about the Katrina evacuees crammed into the Astrodome, “underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them.”.

She had the patrician’s gift of ignoring the suffering of others. Unless it happened to someone of her social class, such as when her child Robin died of leukemia, setting off a lifelong quest to cure cancer. Or her child Neil was diagnosed with dyslexia, resulting in her donating large sums of money and advertising to literacy programs. Other than that, she had the typical American habit of being able to ignore the pain and suffering of anybody who was not of her patrician class, whether it was soldiers being sent into Iraq, the Iraqis themselves, or the Katrina survivors in the Astrodome. That pain and suffering was apparently what was due them because of not being born to wealthy parents like she herself. Like most well born patricians of her era she could be gracious and generous towards individual little people who came to her attention. But actually thinking about the plight of the “little people” in general… why would she bother her beautiful mind about things like that, anyhow?

The best I can say about Barbara Bush is that, unlike her son George W., she never made decisions that resulted in hundreds of thousands of people dying.

The worst thing is that, like most Americans, she simply didn’t care. Why bother her beautiful mind worrying about the deaths of people who were, well, not like her?

And so another patrician is dead. A more polite and well mannered patrician than the recent crop of arrogant assholes who will stab you in your stomach while sneering at you, but still, whether stabbed in the front or stabbed in the back, you’re still dead in the end. Her kind of evil may have been hidden underneath a glove of the finest velvet, but the result, in the end, was the same: a disregard for the plight of the “little people” that led to the sort of pain and suffering that we saw in the Astrodome in 2005, and which Barbara Bush, like most Americans, waved off as irrelevant while making sure her beautiful mind was never bothered with any unsettling thoughts about the plight of those gathered there.

– Badtux the Obituary Penguin