return of the dimwitted sheriffs

A few weeks ago I nattered on about a group of dimwit sheriffs who hold a rather flawed understanding of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (their understanding of the Supremacy Clause, essentially, is this: What? There’s a Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution?). When I wrote about them, these folks claimed to have more than sixty county sheriffs who supported the belief that they are the final arbiters of the law in their county. Now they claim there are more than 200 sheriffs who support that position.

An organization called the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association recently held their first conference (in Las Vegas, of course, because where else would ultra right wing Christianists hold a meeting?). The CSPOA conference was organized by this jamoke:

Former sheriff Richard Mack

Former sheriff Richard Mack locked in mortal combat against Imaginary Obama

That’s Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona (population: 37,220). Mack was the National Rifle Association Law Enforcement Officer of the Year for 1994; he’s been inducted into the NRA Hall of Fame. He’s also the author of From My Cold Dead Fingers: Why America Needs Guns and THE NAKED SPY: His Mission Began the Day He Died. 

The CSPOA conference was sponsored by the Gun Owners of America, the Front Sight Firearms Training Institute, and the John Birch Society. And before you ask, I swear I’m not making that up — it was sponsored by the fucking John Birch Society. The folks best known for claiming the fluoridation of drinking water was a communist plot, the folks who claimed President Eisenhower was a “communist tool.”

But be assured, former-sheriff Mack also has support from equally reputable sources. Like has-been, draft dodging rock musicians with tendencies toward pedophilia.

Former sheriff Mack, former rocker Nugent, former deer

Former sheriff Mack, former rocker Nugent, former deer

The purpose of the CSPOA conference was to instruct county law enforcement officers  about their alleged constitutional powers. They maintain the Constitution of the United States and the 10th Amendment grant sheriffs supreme law enforcement power within their counties. This, by the way, is the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

According to former-sheriff Mack and his lunatic companions of the CSPOA, the Constitution essentially limits federal law enforcement powers to policing matters of treason, piracy, treaty violations and counterfeiting. That’s it — counterfeiters, traitors and pirates, that’s all the Feds can do. Therefore, the 10th Amendment necessarily confers all primary law enforcement power on the county sheriff. Seriously, that’s their claim. I’m not making this up. The CSPOA folks maintain the following:

The sheriff’s position overrides any federal agents or even the arrogant FBI agents who attempt to assume jurisdiction in our cases.

Yes, they claim the locally elected sheriff has more authority than the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They can only believe that if they ignore that pesky Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. That clause prevents States (and therefore the individual counties of those States) from enforcing their local laws in a way that interferes with federal law. That’s why it’s illegal to own a bazooka in, say, Big Horn County, Wyoming.

Sheriff Dave Mattis, who just happens to be from Big Horn County, Wyoming (population: 11,668), attended the CSPOA conference. He told the other attendees that he’s issued an edict (an edict!) forbidding Federal agents from entering Big Horn County without his approval. Not only that, Mattis also told the conference the Wyoming District Court agreed with him.

Dave Mattis, dimwit liar and sheriff

Dave Mattis, dimwit liar and sheriff

But the court didn’t actually agree with him. In fact, after they learned of Mattis’ claim, the Wyoming District Court issued a statement (and note the court wouldn’t even agree that Mattis issued an edict; they dismissed it as a mere policy and even then they even put policy in quotes — that’s a tough court):

Big Horn County Sheriff, David M. Mattis, issued a “Policy.” In the “Policy,” the Sheriff purports to impose conditions upon federal law enforcement operations in the County. We have learned that it has been reported, erroneously, that the court made a legal ruling in the Castaneda case regarding the authority of federal law enforcement officials to conduct operations in the County. There was no such ruling or decision.

This Court has never issued an order which would serve to limit the lawful activities and duties of federal law enforcement officers and other federal employees in the District of Wyoming. Furthermore, this Court has never made the comments attributed to it which purports to advise state officers they can prohibit federal law enforcement officers or agents from entering a Wyoming County. Those alleged quotations are utterly false.

Any person who interferes with federal officers in performance of their duties subjects themselves to the risk of criminal prosecution.

In less legalistic terms, the court is saying Big Horn County Sheriff Dave Mattis is full of shit. So is Sheriff Denny Peyman of Jackson County, Kentucky (population: 13,494). Peyman held a news conference in which he said this:

I am the highest elected official in this county…I can ask federal people to leave, they have to leave. I can ask state people to leave, they have to leave. [I]t doesn’t matter what [new laws] Obama passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.

Dimwit Sheriff Denny Peyman

Dimwit Sheriff Denny Peyman and all of his deputies

It probably ought to be noted, though, that due to Sheriff Peyman’s misuse of county funds (County judge William Smith says the Sheriff’s Department owes the county nearly $300,000) county officials have formed an alternate Jackson County Police Department comprised of Peyman’s former deputies. Sheriff Peyman is now the entire Jackson County Sheriff’s Department; his staff is gone, his policing duties are gone, and he has nothing to do but call dimwitted news conferences. The FBI has apparently been called in to investigate the case. I guess Peyman forgot to ask them to leave.

Despite what these dimwitted sheriffs say, the law on this matter is pretty clear. Federal officers can’t be subjected to state criminal sanctions for carrying out their appointed duties. It doesn’t mean federal agents are above the law; but it does mean no dimwit sheriff can prevent them from fulfilling their lawful duty just because that dimwit sheriff disagrees with the laws written by Congress.

But don’t be too hard on these sheriffs for being dimwitted or telling lies. Lying seems to be part and parcel of the CSPOA approach. Earlier I mentioned that the organization is claiming to have more than 200 sheriffs as members. The operative term there is claiming. I noticed one of the sheriffs listed as members is Bill McCarthy, the sheriff of Polk County, Iowa.

I live in Polk County. I voted for Sheriff McCarthy. I based my vote on comments he made during a debate. McCarthy actually brought up the subject of the so-called constitutional sheriffs movement. His opponent in the election had demanded he join the Oath Keepers — another group of law enforcement officers who believe they get to define the Constitution. This is what McCarthy said:

“I had him and others come in my office and demand that I sign an Oath Keepers promise which is a sign that you support the Constitution.  That would be the last thing I’d ever do is sign a Constitution for people like that. I took an oath when I joined the Marine Corps. I took an oath that caused me to do two terms in Vietnam.  I took an oath in 69 when I joined the Sheriff’s office, and again in 70 with the Police Department, and then again when I was elected Sheriff.  I’m not taking an oath for people who define ‘We the People’ [as those] who look exactly like them and think exactly like them.”

McCarthy won with nearly 60% of the vote. He’s not a member of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. Claiming him as a member is a lie. But that’s how groups like the CSPOA operate.

Trial lawyers have a maxim: When the facts are against you, bang on the law; when the law is against you, bang on the facts; when both the law and the facts are against you, bang on the table.

These dimwits are banging on the table. They hope that by banging loudly enough, it’ll distract folks from the facts and the law. But the fact is, nobody in the government is planning to confiscate everybody’s guns. But there’s a chance the laws will change to require some minimal restrictions on firearms. If the law changes, all law enforcement officers — including sheriffs — will have a duty to uphold it.

Then former sheriff Richard Mack can resume his badly neglected writing career.

the naked spy

we’re still at war

It’s common knowledge that liberals hate America, right? We don’t support the troops, and the only reason we’re not burning the flag right this very minute is because we’re too busy queuing up in disorderly socialist lines for the privilege of spitting on wounded veterans.

At least that’s the litany we hear every fifteen minutes from conservative Republican outlets like FOX News. But thankfully, there exists a courageous news venue that unflaggingly keeps the troops in mind, that regularly reminds us that there are still men and women in uniform serving in a combat zone.

Spc. Andrew Harvey, a 1st Infantry Soldier, patrols along steep cliffs of the Korengal Valley's surrounding mountains during Operation Viper Shake, Afghanistan, April 21, 2009. Photo courtesy army.mil.

Spc. Andrew Harvey, a 1st Infantry Soldier, patrols along steep cliffs of the Korengal Valley’s surrounding mountains during Operation Viper Shake, Afghanistan, April 21, 2009. Photo courtesy army.mil.

Is it FOX News? No, it’s not. Is it the New York Times? Sadly, no. Maybe it’s TIME magazine? Nope.

It’s Mother Jones. That’s right, Mother Jones — the notoriously left-wing muckraking magazine. Since June of 2009, MoJo has been publishing We’re Still at War: Photo of the Day. It’s not published every single day, but several times a week they print a photograph of U.S. military forces either in a combat zone or training for deployment to a combat zone. It’s a small thing, but it serves as a constant reminder.

The sad thing is that the American public actually needs reminding.

COMBAT OUTPOST MIZAN, Afghanistan—US Army 1st Lt. Troy Peterson, right, platoon commander for 3rd Platoon, Fox Company, 2nd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, assists his radio operator, US Army Pfc. Justin Cobbs, across a ravine during a dismounted patrol near Combat Outpost Mizan, Mizan District, Zabul Province, on Aug. 16, 2010. Photo via the US Army by Senior Airman Nathanael Callon.

COMBAT OUTPOST MIZAN, Afghanistan—US Army 1st Lt. Troy Peterson, right, platoon commander for 3rd Platoon, Fox Company, 2nd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, assists his radio operator, US Army Pfc. Justin Cobbs, across a ravine during a dismounted patrol near Combat Outpost Mizan, Mizan District, Zabul Province, on Aug. 16, 2010. Photo via the US Army by Senior Airman Nathanael Callon.

It’s become shockingly easy to forget that we’re still at war. While we’re immersed in our daily lives–buying groceries, watching Downton Abbey, making fun of Justin Bieber–men and women are still fighting and killing and dying in Afghanistan. It’s easy to forget because most folks don’t have any meaningful connection to the war or the people fighting it.

There are about a million and a half active duty personnel serving in the U.S. military–the Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard. That sounds like a lot of people to have in military harness, but it’s less than half of one percent of our population. Of that million and a half troops, around 70,000 are currently serving in Afghanistan. That’s still a lot of people, but the odds are you don’t know any of them.

There’s never been a point in U.S. history in which the American public has been so separate from its military. There’s a fairly good chance you (whoever you are) have a family member who served in the military at some point in the past–probably World War II, maybe Korea, maybe Vietnam. But the odds of you knowing somebody currently on active duty are pretty slim. The odds of you knowing somebody who has served in Afghanistan or Iraq are even more slim. The odds of you knowing somebody who is currently stationed in Afghanistan are remote.

The sun sets behind U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Jamie R. Johnson, a platoon sergeant from Bayonet Company, 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, Task Force No Slack, in Afghanistan's Kunar Province March 17. Photo by U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Mark Burrell, 210th MPAD

The sun sets behind U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Jamie R. Johnson, a platoon sergeant from Bayonet Company, 2nd Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, Task Force No Slack, in Afghanistan’s Kunar Province March 17. Photo by U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Mark Burrell, 210th MPAD

Last year 301 U.S. troops were killed in Afghanistan. In 2011, 412 troops were killed there, and 496 were killed the year before that. That’s averaging more than one death a day for the last three years.

Unless one of those dead troops was a member of your family, it’s easy to ignore them. Their deaths were almost certainly not reported on the national news. They might have been given a solemn moment in the local news. But let’s face it–they were strangers. They are as distant from us as the murder of a drug dealer in Newark or the accidental shooting of a 13 year old girl in Ovid Township, Michigan. They are, in a very real and very sad way, nobody at all.

Spc. Jon Saladin, a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team, walks past an Afghan graveyard during a US–Afghan patrol on April 30, 2012, Ghazni province, Afghanistan. Saladin serves with Company A, 2nd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. US Army photo by Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod.

Spc. Jon Saladin, a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, walks past an Afghan graveyard during a US–Afghan patrol on April 30, 2012, Ghazni province, Afghanistan. Saladin serves with Company A, 2nd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. US Army photo by Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod.

Except these nobodies volunteered to put on a uniform and take risks in the service of their country. Well, our country. It’s our country too, right? We pay taxes after all (though let’s be honest, we try to pay as little as we can). But the troops sometimes have to pay in a more fundamental way.

So they deserve our support and our attention. They deserve more than we give them. Much more. Mother Jones publishes a photo of the troops a few times a week–it’s not much. It’s not much at all. But MoJo’s We’re Still at War: Photo of the Day is more attention than most news organizations give to the troops. And Mother Jones gives them a name.

Lance Cpl. Cassidy Zacharyasz provides overwatch for International Security Assistance Forces as they conduct a district transition assessment visit with Nawa District officials at the Nawa District Government Headquarters, Helmand province, Afghanistan, Jan. 29, 2013. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. John R. Rohrer

Lance Cpl. Cassidy Zacharyasz provides overwatch for International Security Assistance Forces as they conduct a district transition assessment visit with Nawa District officials at the Nawa District Government Headquarters, Helmand province, Afghanistan, Jan. 29, 2013. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. John R. Rohrer

Thanks to Mother Jones we know this:

In April of 2009, Spc. Andrew Harvey served in the Korengal Valley.
In August of 2010, 1st Lt. Troy Peterson and Pfc. Justin Cobbs served in Zabul Province.
In March of 2011, Sgt. 1st Class Jamie R. Johnson served in Kunar Province.
In April of 2012, Spc. Jon Saladin served in Ghazni province.
And just a few weeks ago Lance Cpl. Cassidy Zacharyasz was on duty in Helman Province.

These are real people. They have real families. They’re making real sacrifices. And we need to remember that, like it or not, we’re still at war.

jackassery

I’m a big believer in academic freedom. I’ve managed to acquire a handful of degrees from various colleges and universities, and for a brief time I was actually an academic my ownself. When I heard the State of Oklahoma was considering legislation promoting academic freedom, I was understandably pleased.

I said to myself, “Yay Oklahoma!” I started to read HR1674, the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, with a song in my heart. The legislation begins like this:

[A]n important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive, and scientifically informed citizens.

Who could argue against that? We totally want our students to develop mad critical thinking skillz. Yay Oklahoma! Yay critical thinking skills! The proposed legislation acknowledges that encouraging the development of those critical thinking skills can lead to controversy.

[T]he teaching of some scientific concepts including but not limited to premises in the areas of biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics and physics can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on some subjects such as, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

So far, so good, right? Yay Oklahoma! Yay critical thinking skills! Yay controversy! Controversy is good. Controversy makes you think. Controversy requires you to…wait. Wait a minute. Wait just one fucking minute here, buddy. Biological evolution? The chemical origins of life? Global warming?

Are you crazy? There’s no scientific controversy about evolution. There’s no scientific controversy about the origin of life or anthropogenic climate change. Those are established scientific facts. What jackass wrote this proposed legislation?

This jackass.

gus blackwell and a mallet

Gus Blackwell (Jackass – Oklahoma)

This is Oklahoma state legislator Gus Blackwell. Would you be surprised to discover Blackwell is a Republican? Or that he’s a Baptist minister? Or that he’s spent the last two decades employed by the Oklahoma Baptist General Convention?

I’m not suggesting Blackwell is a jackass because he’s a Republican or a Baptist. There are lots of Republicans and Baptists who go through life without engaging in jackassery. No, Blackwell is a jackass because he’s introduced legislation that would give his Baptist theology the same credibility as science. Blackwell is a jackass because his proposed legislation goes on to say this:

[N]o student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories.

What does that mean? In effect, it means if students were to write a report claiming climate change is a hoax or arguing that the Earth is only 6000 years old and women were created from the rib of Adam, they couldn’t be ‘penalized’ with a bad grade. In an interview, Blackwell said,

“I proposed this bill because there are teachers and students who may be afraid of going against what they see in their textbooks. A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations.”

Blackburn is a jackass, but he’s right about that. A certainly student does have the freedom to write a paper arguing against evolution. But if that paper was written for a science class, then the student should expect a failing grade. Not because the teacher may disagree with the student’s belief system, but because that student would be what we academics call ‘wrong.’

Blackwell and his ilk (yes, there is an entire ilk of jackasses like Gus Blackwell) propose this sort of legislation under the guise of promoting ‘academic freedom.’ I’m sorry to say they know as much about academic freedom as they know about science.

Academic freedom, like evolution or gravity or anthropomorphic climate change, is an actual thing. It has an actual meaning. It’s not a matter of opinion. And it’s got nothing to do with students having the freedom to write papers about humans cavorting with dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden.

creation museum

Academic freedom doesn’t apply to students representing a personal point of view. Legally, it doesn’t even apply to teachers or college professors. In the United States, the courts have ruled that academic freedom resides in the university. Academic freedom gives the university the power to appoint faculty and set standards for their behavior.

All major universities in the U.S. abide by the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which insures that:

  • Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties.
  • Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.
  • College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

It was academic freedom that enabled Blackwell to attend Oklahoma Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theology Seminary and study Baptist theology. Yay academic freedom! But academic freedom doesn’t mean he can legislate that his theology be given equal credibility as science. Boo jackassery!

Happily for Gus Blackwell, though, nobody has proposed legislation limiting his freedom to be a jackass.

a sad and shabby sort of patriotism

This week’s display of squalid politics by Congressman Steve Stockman just makes me sad. I’ve written about Stockman before. It wasn’t so much that he chose to invite Ted Nugent to President Obama’s State of the Union address. That was certainly shabby behavior. But what I find most sad is this line from Stockman’s press release:

“I am excited to have a patriot like Ted Nugent joining me in the House Chamber to hear from President Obama.”

A patriot. Stockman considers Ted Nugent a patriot. What sort of patriot wonders if the United States would be better off if the Confederacy had won the U.S. Civil War? Here’s what Nugent wrote in a Washington Times column:

Because our legislative, judicial and executive branches of government hold the 10th Amendment in contempt, I’m beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War.

Nugent is certainly free to disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court. I often disagree with them my ownself. But it would never occur to me to wonder if maybe the Confederacy should have prevailed in the Civil War. Steve Stockman has some odd ideas about what constitutes patriotism.

Congressman Steve Stockman (Republican Lunatic - Texas)

Congressman Steve Stockman (Republican Lunatic – Texas)

And what sort of patriot dodges the draft, brags about it, but encourages others to enlist in military service and fight in our wars? In a 1977 interview in High Times magazine, Nugent discussed how he evaded the draft.

So I got my notice to be in the draft. Do you think I was gonna lay down my guitar and go play army? Give me a break!

To prepare for his draft physical, Nugent described how he stopped bathing, how he ate nothing but a junk food diet, how he urinated and defecated in his pants. He told the interviewer he smoked meth before reporting for the physical, apparently to be sure he was in the right frame of mind. And, of course, Nugent was declared unfit for military service.

I may disagree with folks who avoided military service during the Vietnam War, but I respect those who were forthright about it — the men who went to prison for refusing to report, even the ones who chose to leave the country rather than fight for a war they didn’t believe in. Those people made principled decisions and they accepted the consequences. I have no respect for people who supported the war but chose to game the system because they simply couldn’t be bothered to serve in the military. In that same High Times interview, Nugent went on to say this:

But you know the funny thing about it? I’d make an incredible army man. I’d be a colonel before you knew what hit you, and I’d have the baddest bunch of motherfuckin’ killers you’d ever seen in my platoon. But I just wasn’t into it. I was too busy doin’ my own thing, you know?

Here’s another ‘funny’ thing about it: Steve Stockman considers this hypocritical braggart to be a patriot.

Ted Nugent (woman-hating, gun nut, coward, pedophile Republican - Michigan)

Ted Nugent (woman-hating, gun nut, coward, pedophile Republican – Michigan)

I don’t think Nugent’s sex life has anything to do with patriotism — you can, I suppose, be a pedophile and still love your country — but I’m going to mention it here anyway, just as an indication of exactly how much bad behavior Stockman is willing to overlook when he’s inviting guests to the State of the Union speech.

Nugent is a self-confessed pedophile. He’s admitted to numerous sexual relationships with underage girls and young women. One of them was Courtney Love, who has publicly stated she gave Nugent a blow job when she was twelve (which would have made Nugent around 28 years old).

A lot of rockers in those days probably did the same thing — and also got away with it. But Congressman Stockman professes to be concerned about young girls. In fact, he opposes immigration reform because he claims it will result in the sexual abuse of girls.

Our failure to secure our border has led to horrific, tragic stories of innocents brutally smuggled into the United States to serve as slave labor, and thousands of young girls forced into prostitution.

Apparently he’s less concerned about the welfare of young girls who voluntarily give blow jobs to rock musicians. Maybe he thinks that’s an example of entrepreneurial spirit?

Still, I admit Nugent’s sexual kinks have nothing to do with his qualities as a patriot — only his qualities as a human being. Stockman, to my knowledge, never claimed Ted Nugent was a decent human being; he only said Nugent was a patriot. So what makes this aging rock musician a patriot in Stockman’s eyes?

I can only assume it’s Nugent’s passionate hatred of President Obama and women Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein.

In case the audio is unclear, here’s what Nugent said:

“I was in Chicago and I said ‘Hey Obama, you might want to suck on one of these you punk.’ Obama, he’s a piece of shit, and I told him to suck on my machine gun. Then I was in New York and I said, ‘Hey Hillary you might want to ride one of these into the sunset you worthless bitch.’ Then I was out in California and I thought, Barbara Boxer, she might want to suck on my machine gun. Hey Dianne Feinstein, ride one of these you worthless whore.”

Imagine the reaction from Republicans if a Democrat had invited a guest who called President George W. Bush ‘a piece of shit’ to the State of the Union address.

I’m a fan of the First Amendment. I’m pretty close to being a free speech absolutist. I’m proud to live in a nation where pathetic asswipes like Ted Nugent feel free to say any hateful thing they want. But it’s shameful for an elected official of our government to consider Nugent a patriot.

Ted Nugent is no patriot. He’s a coward and a bully. He had an opportunity to serve his country in a war he supported; he chose, instead, to shit his pants. Like every other American, Steve Stockman also had an opportunity to express his patriotism and join the military when he turned eighteen. Did he? No.

Stockman, however, had a unique opportunity to demonstrate his patriotism. On 19 April, 1995 Timothy McVeigh detonated a bomb at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, including 19 children under the age of six. Stockman, an arch-conservative serving his first term in Congress, received an anonymous fax shortly after the explosion, containing information about the terrorist event. It says something about Stockman’s politics that domestic terrorists felt he was enough of a kindred spirit that they’d send him a fax about the explosion. But even more revealing is what Stockman did with that fax.

He sent it to the headquarters of the National Rifle Association. Sometime later he also forwarded it to the Justice Department.

So maybe it’s not so odd that Steve Stockman considers Ted Nugent a patriot after all.

deserved better

Chris Kyle was murdered yesterday. There’s a good chance you’ve never heard of Kyle, though he was famous in some circles.

Kyle was one of those guys — the ones they make American movies about. He was the son of a church deacon who became a cowboy, then joined the military at the age of 24, and eventually found himself as a sniper in a SEAL unit. And because he was one of those guys they make American movies about, he became the most lethal sniper in the history of US military.

The Department of Defense credited him with more than 150 confirmed kills. His own count put him at more than 250 kills.

Chris Kyle

Chris Kyle

How you personally feel about somebody who’s killed a couple hundred people during war — well, that really doesn’t matter. These facts matter: he was decorated half a dozen times, he was wounded in action a couple of times, he protected a lot of US troops during the decade he was on active duty, as a civilian he participated in a program to help veterans with PTSD recover, and yesterday Chris Kyle was shot at close range and killed.

The extreme right wing immediately exploded with conspiracy theories. The following are quotes taken verbatim from various contributors to FreeRepublic.com:

“I think mooslims are responsible.”

“Islam, Democrat, it’s all the same. Enemies of a free America.”

“It’s a hit, period. We are at war and the president is on the wrong side.”

“Don’t forget Breitbart. And, yes, I think he was offed.”

“Obama is offing his enemies one by one..nothing would surprise me about this Administration, absolutely nothing.”

“They should be offed first. A worthless opposition party is our hugest obstacle. So yes, they should be afraid. The war will be on them. They are pushing it that way. A biased state media its also a problem.”

“Think of it. A ‘civil war’ is eminent, being pushed by a radical leader to boil and explode. He knows that a good portion of his army will split, and that the most dangerous among them, a sharpshooter, someone who could take out this said radical leader. Would it not be in his best interest to take the sharpshooter down before the civil war broke out?”

“Chris Kyle is one of the latest who I believe to have been killed by this Administration.”

“The moment the seals helicopter went down in the Afghanistan ambush, weeks after the Bin-laden raid, I thought it was suspicious, and every Seal death since has been suspicious to me. There is a massive cover-up going on and those that are a threat are being killed.”

“After Obama had our Ambassador killed(YES I believe that was a hit..it was an attempt to swap the Blind Sheihk for Stevens, that was the original plan) I believe Obama is capable of ANYTHING.”

“There is a theory circulating around the Internet that all the recent shootings that are receiving widespread attention are not coincidences and that it is being coordinated at the highest levels to push the anti-gun agenda. So far it’s only a theory but if even one of the shooters can be captured and linked to the Obama administration it would stop them dead in their tracks and expose them for what they really are. O’s not getting away with anything; the hens will be coming home to roost soon.”

It quickly became known that the suspect alleged to have murdered Kyle was a former Marine with PTSD — one of the people Kyle was attempting to help. You might reasonably think that information would mute some of the conspiracy comments.

It didn’t.

“[S]uspects name is Eddie Routh, former Marine, arrested for DWI. Take it with a grain of salt, it’s early yet.”

“Allegedly murdered by a ‘veteran with PTSD’ who Chris was mentoring as a volunteer. Probably just a BS story we’re being fed.”

“[T]his POS is/was in the Marines.” He’s a pawn…he’s either being paid, having his family threatened, or in some other way coerced. Maybe he’s dying of cancer and he was promised his family will be taken care of, if he just “does this little thing” for Barry. After all, Barry’s ruled that he can kill ANY American ANYTIME he wants. Too damned many SEALs have been assassinated recently.”

It must be horrible, to be so afraid all the time. These people must live in a constant state of anxiety and suspicion. They feel so threatened by so many things on so many different fronts. The scenarios they concoct are so removed from reality that it must be exhausting to maintain them. I sort of feel sorry for these people.

Maybe they find some strange comfort in thinking of themselves as being on the same ‘team’ as Chris Kyle. If so, it makes it all the more shameful for them to drag him into their deranged conspiracies.

I suspect I’d have disagreed with Chris Kyle’s politics. Since I never met him, I’ve no idea what I’d think about him as a person. He is said to have decked Jessie Ventura in a bar after Ventura said something disrespectful following the wake of a SEAL member who died in combat — and I’d guess anybody who’s ever heard Jessie Ventura speak has wanted to deck him at some point. By all accounts, Chris Kyle was a nice guy. A nice guy who killed a couple hundred people. I haven’t a clue whether I’d have liked him or not, but I can guarantee you this: I’d have loved to have a beer with him. This was a guy with stories to tell.

Chris Kyle

Chris Kyle

This is what I know: for a decade this guy put on a uniform and put his own ass on the line. I have nothing but respect for that.

Chris Kyle deserved better than this — better than to have been shot down on a gun range in Texas. Better than to be used as a hook for conspiracy theorists.

scary-looking guns

So I watched yesterday’s Senate hearing on gun safety (or as Wayne LaPierre would call it, Gun-Grabber-Palooza). I was pleased to see a woman on the panel of experts. Yes, Gayle Trotter is a gun rights advocate, but at least it was a break from the usual panel of white middle-aged men. I was looking forward to what she had to say.

Here’s a true thing: I generally expect women to be more reasonable than men. More practical, more thoughtful, more grounded in reality. I think that’s true much of the time. Not yesterday. Yesterday Gayle Trotter’s testimony was misleading at best; at worst it was irrational and — there’s no nice way to say this — stupid.

gayle trotter

gayle trotter

Much of her testimony was an impassioned defense of assault-style weapons. She testified,

[W]omen are speaking out as to why AR-15 weapons are their weapon of choice. The guns are accurate. They have good handling. They’re light. They’re easy for women to hold. And most importantly, their appearance. An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon. And the peace of mind that a woman has as she’s facing three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home, with her children screaming in the background, the peace of mind that she has knowing that she has a scary-looking gun gives her more courage when she’s fighting hardened, violent criminals.

That’s her argument. A woman needs a scary-looking gun when she and her children are being attacked in their home by multiple hardened, violent criminals. Trotter even told the story of Sarah McKinley:

Home alone with her baby, she called 911 when two violent intruders began to break down her front door. The men wanted to force their way into her home so they could steal the prescription medication of her deceased husband, who had recently died of cancer. Before the police could arrive, while Ms. McKinley was on the line with the 911 operator, these violent intruders broke down her door. One of the men brandished a foot-long hunting knife. As the intruders forced their way into her home, Ms. McKinley fired her weapon, fatally wounding one of the violent attackers and causing the other to flee the scene.

That’s a sad and scary story. And it actually happened. But not quite in the way Trotter suggests. The fact is, Sarah McKinley didn’t use a scary-looking assault rifle to protect herself. She used a Remington 12 gauge shotgun — a weapon that wouldn’t be regulated under the new proposed gun control laws. Although Trotter didn’t actually state McKinley used an AR-15 to defend herself, she certainly suggested it. Her testimony was deliberately misleading.

But it was her irrational and stupid testimony that was, in my opinion, more deleterious. She argued that women need firearms to counter the superior strength and size of a male attacker. That sounds logical, doesn’t it. After all, men do tend to be bigger and stronger than women. Men do tend to be the aggressor in domestic disputes. So surely a woman having access to a firearm would make her less vulnerable. Right?

No. Not right. This is where being trained as a criminologist comes in handy. Here are some actual facts:

  • Relatively few incidents of violence against women involve strangers; their attackers are almost always men with whom they are close: boyfriends, husbands, fathers, etc.
  • Research shows men who batter women frequently use firearms to scare them, threatening to shoot them, or shoot their children, or shoot their pets. In other words, abusive situations often begin with men already holding a firearm.
  • Most incidents of domestic violence occur under circumstances in which women are attempting to reduce the tension; they’re trying to avoid a fight. When somebody does reach for a weapon, it’s almost always the man.
  • In the last wide-ranging study that looked at the use of firearms in domestic violence, the data revealed that for every instance in which a woman used a gun to successfully defend herself there were more than eighty instances in which a woman was murdered by her abuser.

By the way, that study was done in the late 1990s. It was the last such study because in 1996 NRA-supported Republican Members of Congress passed a law banning the use of federal funds for research that promoted gun control — and since any research that might suggest guns were a hazard could be interpreted as promoting gun control, all such federal research was halted.

Once you actually unpack Gayle Trotter’s argument that guns make women safer, once you look at real world data, it becomes clear her argument is…well, irrational and stupid. In her testimony, Trotter cites ‘research’ which she claims supports her argument. The work she cites is a book called More Guns, Less Crime, by John Lott. A panel of sixteen scholars under the aegis of the National Research Council examined the claims made by Lott; fifteen of them found his claims to be either invalid or unconvincing. It’s also worth noting that Lott, when his findings were criticized on several websites, used ‘sockpuppet identities’ to support his claims.

john lott

john lott

In other words, John Lott is perhaps not the most reliable of sources when it comes to firearm statistics.

Let me also say this: there ARE some valid and logical arguments that can be made against the suggested ban on assault-style weapons. It’s true some weapons that would be affected under the proposed ban are on the list for no other reason than because they’re scary-looking. But any valid arguments are undermined when gun rights advocates present testimony that is deliberately misleading or simply stupid.

a quick response…

…to the guy (I assume it’s a guy) who sent me an email me saying

[T]here’s nothing paranoid about standing up against tyranny. obama is paranoid about an armed citizenry and wants us disarmed.

Dude, look up ‘tyranny’ in the dictionary. The fact that you can, without fear of reprisal, publicly call the President of the United States a tyrant is confirmation that you’re NOT living under tyranny. The fact that on Gun Appreciation Day groups of people all over the United States were able to peaceably assemble in public and openly denounce the elected leader of the nation in the most objectionable terms is a testament to the fact that you’re not living under tyranny.

james yeagerThe fact that THIS guy is still free to walk the streets and continue to post videos and own firearms (even if he’s not legally allowed to carry them concealed at the moment) is verification that you’re not living under tyranny.

And another thing — the fact that you think you’re living under tyranny is evidence that you’re paranoid.

 

paranoia and romantic defiance

It was an odd day, to be sure. It certainly highlighted the centrality of guns in the minds of many US citizens. Even the name of the event — Gun Appreciation Day — struck a strange chord. These are the folks who tell us guns are tools — and you can’t blame the tool, they say, for how a person uses it. But we’ve never had a Drill Press Appreciation Day, or a Chainsaws Across America rally. The name itself is evidence that guns are different. They’re not just tools. Not even close.

My cousin and I attended the local Gun Appreciation Day event, which was held on the grounds of the State Capitol building. We arrived about half an hour early and joined the crowd that had already gathered. It wasn’t quite what we’d expected — mostly white, middle-class families with young kids. Even more surprising, the gender distribution was about equally divided — nearly as many women as men. Everybody was dressed neatly in a style I think of as ‘conservative casual.’

lost fatherhoodIt was the Pro-Life rally demonstrating on the anniversary of the passage of Roe v. Wade. The Pro-gun rally was a wee bit farther away, on a different terrace.

There was no crowd at the pro-gun rally — not at first. There were a few men sort of scattered about the area, standing alone or in pairs. I wandered around until I found one of the event organizers, who pointed out the designated assembly spot. I then played border collie for a bit, herding some of the early arrivals to the rally point.

old guy with flagA sizable crowd did eventually gather. I estimated the crowd to be maybe three hundred people. The organizers have claimed an attendance of over six hundred. Maybe more showed up after I left.

These were the people I’d been expecting to find at Gun Appreciation Day. Almost exclusively male, almost exclusively white (though to be fair, this is Iowa — so ‘almost exclusively white’ is sort of redundant). Lots of camouflage jackets, lots of ball caps with NRA logos or the icons of sports teams. Lots of beards. Lots of stoic faces. Lots of flags. Several American flags, a scattering of Naval jacks, and lots of Gadsden flags (the yellow Don’t Tread on Me flag designed during the American Revolution by Christopher Gadsden).

dont tread times threeFor the most part, people were awfully quiet waiting for the rally to begin. These were the sort of men who are reluctant to start a conversation with another guy — a guy they don’t know. Once you got them talking, though, they were uniformly cheerful and friendly. In a way, these guys weren’t very different from, say, collectors of Beanie Babies or Star Trek memorabilia. If you engaged them in a conversation about guns, they were positively chatty. At the merest mention of black powder muzzle loaders or the relative merits of a 16 inch upper barrel receiver for an AR-15, these guys would happily natter away for hours.

You expect peculiarities at any gathering of people with esoteric interests. On one level, these guys were no more eccentric than a gathering of the Society for Creative Anachronism or the Baker Street Irregulars. On another level, of course, these folks are radically different. And that difference, in my opinion, lies in a strange mixture of paranoia and romanticism.

tricornFrom the comments I heard from the people in the crowd, and from the speeches given by the organizers, it seems clear many of these folks are driven in large measure by the romantic mythos of the ‘frontiersman.’ The mythos is rather contradictory — it involves a lone man, but one with a family that requires protection from savages. It’s all about self-sufficiency, but self-sufficiency within a network of similar ‘lone men with families’ who all bond together in times of need.

In this mythos, the frontiersman acts as both a stepping-stone and a bulwark between the wilderness and civilization. The uncivilized frontier is dark and full of danger, but the frontiersman manfully shoulders the burden of protecting civilization while being partially shunned by it. Whether it’s Natty Bumppo in The Last of the Mohicans or Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings or the Jack Nicholson character in A Few Good Men, the frontiersman stands at the border of a dangerous world and defends those who can’t or won’t defend themselves — women, children, and men who aren’t suited or capable of doing a man’s job.

There’s also the romance of defiance at work here. The concept of standing up against tyranny is very attractive, of course. But the rallying cry of “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands” is only meaningful if somebody is actually trying to take your gun. If not, then it’s just sad and pathetic blustering.

There was a great deal of bluster in the speeches yesterday. There they stood, those gallant speakers, on the grounds of the State Capitol, having been issued a permit by the government to hold a rally in which they could give speeches describing their courageous stance against governmental tyranny. They were, in effect, exercising their Constitutional rights by freely and publicly stating they were being denied their Constitutional rights.

pro life pro god pro gunAlthough I’m convinced a deep strain of heroic romanticism influenced a lot of the folks at Gun Appreciation Day, there was also a more disturbing facet — paranoia. There was a pervasive sense of fear among many of these people. They seem to truly believe they are under attack — that somebody is actively seeking to do them harm, that somebody is out to get them in some way. There was a stone-solid conviction among the people at the rally that they absolutely needed multiple firearms with high capacity magazines to protect themselves from…well, from lots of things. Despite all their protestations of courage, the heart of their argument is grounded in fear.

They’re afraid somebody will attack them in their homes. Not just somebody, but several somebodies. One woman at the rally said limiting ammunition magazines to ten rounds would would make it difficult to defend her family against multiple intruders. They’re also afraid somebody will attack them on the street, so they need to be armed all the time.

greatest dangerThey’re afraid in their homes, they’re afraid on the streets, and they’re afraid of their own government. Those fears seem primarily grounded in wild suppositions about what the government might do and incorrect information about what the government has actually done.

They carried signs proclaiming Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make armed revolution inevitable. They carried signs with fictional quotations by Thomas JeffersonThe strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Paranoia combined with romantic defiance against a threat that doesn’t exist — it’s an unhealthy but intoxicating mix.

But perhaps the strangest thing about the day is this: I was certain that many of the people at the rally were carrying concealed weapons. The organizers think as many as half of the people there were armed. That’s probably an exaggeration, but even if only a quarter of them were carrying, that’s a LOT of guns.

red white blueAnd yet I didn’t feel particularly safe. To be fair, I didn’t feel particularly at risk either. I’m pretty sure, though, that if a shot was fired at that rally, an awful lot of innocent people would have been wounded — and possibly killed — in the chaos of the returning fire.

It was an odd but instructive day. I rather doubt I learned what the organizers of Gun Appreciation Day would have wanted me to learn, but I left the rally feeling all the more convinced of the need for sensible gun control legislation.