Author: Spocko

Daily Show Exposes Pro-Gun Activist To C**ks Not Glocks Protest 

by Spocko

The Daily Show did a segment about the University of Texas students protesting the new law allowing students to carry concealed handguns on campus.

Correspondent Roy Wood Jr. talks to Jessica Jin, the creator of the protest. The goal was to strap dildos to their backpacks as a protest, but it turns out that it is illegal to openly brandish a dildo in Texas.

The students went ahead with the protest and the clip shows a number of creative uses of the dildos in the protest, including a nice juggling bit.

Animated juggling version

Jin says they are “fighting absurdity with absurdity.” Then she talks about how the gun nuts handled the absurdity of the protest–by issuing death threats to her. Wood describes the seriousness of the threats and shows some of the footage from the film that a pro-gun person released of someone murdering a dildo protester.

I wrote about that violent film here Gun Nuts Can’t Handle Cocks Not Glocks Protest and put together a clip with the graphic scenes the Daily Show included.

The clip opens with Woods talking to open carry gun nut C. J. Grisham. Grisham talks about the immaturity of college students, who used dildos to protest the state law that allows guns on campus, then describes the maturity of college students, who can now carry guns on campus. The piece ends with Woods giving Grisham a dildo while he talks about how uncomfortable it makes him. (Animated brandishing version)

I’m really glad that this story aired because it’s a way to keep the issue in the public eye without a mass shooting. In an article in the Dallas Morning News, one of the other protestors, Ann Lopez talks about the point of the protest. “The end game is to get this law repealed,” Lopez said. 

Ultimately, Lopez hopes people take Jin’s movement seriously. Jin hopes the silliness of her protests lends credence to the ongoing legislative and legal fight against campus carry. But that’s an uphill battle at the state Republican-dominated Legislature, which is likely to push to allow guns in more places next year.

That made me wonder. “What would it take to repeal campus carry in Texas?” I’ve reached out to a few people in the community to see if they have any ideas or how the efforts to repeal the laws are going.

Meanwhile, I’m enjoying the protest. It makes me want to dig into my closet and find my juggling balls.

Remember The Last Time The MSM Didn’t Do Their Job?

By Spocko

I’ve noticed some serious anger at the mainstream media coming from multiple sources lately. It reminds me of 2003, during the build up to the Iraq war. I, like many people, were thinking, “The mainstream media is going to do their job, right? They will ask the tough questions, sort out the BS from the truth, hold power accountable, you know, the stuff from the movies.” But they didn’t.

Some of us started blogging during that time as an alternative to screaming at the TV.  The MSM didn’t want me helping them be better, so I chose to defund the right-wing media, who were making the world worse. (They still are, but are getting a lot less money for it.)

After the disaster of the Matt Lauer interviews, I got the same sick feeling about the MSM as I had in 2003. “Wait, what? Are you KIDDING ME?” I suppose in the spring and summer people could forgive the MSM for going with the most entertaining candidate. I mean, would you want to cover the unctuous Ted Cruz for 9 months? I couldn’t take enough showers every day.

But this isn’t Dancing with the Stars, the winner of this contest gets the power of life and death over millions.

I think the mainstream media are still assuming that “cooler heads will prevail” and/or Trump will self immolate so they won’t have to call him on his BS. They also expect the Hillary people to do the heavy lifting for them, so they can continue to look “objective.”  Maybe that will work, but as the old saying goes,”It’s all fun and games until a maniac gets the nuclear codes.”

Cliff Schecter and Sam Seder talked about this last Friday on the Majority Report. Cliff was angry at the mainstream media in general and furious at NBC for the Matt Lauer debacle specifically. You can hear the frustration in Cliff’s voice when he says he doesn’t know how to solve this problem.

In this clip Sam points out some of the pressures on the media that most people didn’t know about that led mainstream journalists to their defensive crouch in the first place. They also discuss what has changed with the rise of blogs and social media.

An increase of voices from the left has helped, but the bad news is that journalists are still being punished, not rewarded, for doing the job we expect them to do.  Especially when it comes to coverage of right wing politicians. But this isn’t anything new.

Eric Boehlert wrote a book, Lapdogs, How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, about how the Bush/Cheney White House treated the press like dirt and how well it worked for them.

I remember the story of how Dick Cheney kicked an ABC reporter off the Vice President’s plane. Her bosses and others in the media didn’t stand up for her. Sounds just like how Trump treats the media who challenged him. And the Breitbart editor who didn’t stand up for his own reporter? He’s Trump’s campaign CEO now.

Why so serious Spocko? Trump is funny! 

If you want some humor with your media criticism and miss Jon Stewart’s smart, funny take on the Matt Lauer interview, listen to Jimmy Dore’s political comedy podcast. “Matt Lauer failed at journalism during the town hall with Trump & Clinton, we break it down.”

I’m happy that there are so many people who are pounding on the mainstream media to be better. They aren’t going to get better on their own. The need to be pushed to do their job, especially when they are punished for it.

Joel Silberman wrote a piece, The Media Should Be Put on Trial for Its 2016 Election Coverage that has some good suggestions on what to do.

So, what can we do? Demand better media. Write to the station managers of corporate TV stations/cable operators and tell them you are not satisfied. Tweet about it. Call out CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX in all forms of social media. It’s time to demand that media live up to the vision of the founders of our democracy.

If that seems too old school, how about using technology better and faster to do the job the MSM journalists won’t. Jordan Hoffner, Salon Media’s CEO, had an interesting proposal, fact-check the candidates’ statements in real time. What a great idea! We can act as if Google exists and people have memories! Woo hoo!

In the past if networks didn’t treat Trump special, he would cut them off. But imagine the ratings bonanza for the first real journalist to demand the truth and hold his feet to the fire. What if instead of arresting Amy Goodman for doing journalism, she is rewarded for it? Imagine her Trump/Clinton interviews and debates.  I’d also love to see Sam Seder call Trump out during an interview.

But frankly, having to beat up the main stream media again to try to get them to do their job makes me weary. If you feel the same way there is another option. Support blogs like this and other progressive voices.

We are asking the tough questions and pointing out the BS, shouldn’t that be rewarded? 

by Spocko

It seems like everyone’s talking about angry white men (AWM) these days. Who are they? What are they angry about and why do we have to get off their lawns?

Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The politicians want to know the answers to these questions so they can get their votes. The mainstream media want to talk about them to help the non-angry white men understand why they must be appeased–instead of all others.

Fox News and right-wing radio just straight up pander to them. They also need to create more, since their viewers are dying off.

(Speaking of dying off, fun fact: If you compare two people with equivalent schooling and income, the Trump supporter will be the sick fat one. I’m not making this up. See WaPo study under the health subhead.)

I was listening to Micheal Kimmel on Marketplace talking about his book, “Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era, which came out in 2013. He has talked to several hundred of these guys and described them as having, “aggrieved entitlement.” (Doesn’t that sound like a joint problem? “Uncle Joe has traveling lumbago–with aggrieved entitlement.”)

“They were right to be angry, they had been badly done by.” What he wanted to say to them–but couldn’t because he was the interviewer–was, “Do you really think that it was immigrants who issued those predatory loans that forced you to sell your house or leave it in the middle of the night? Do you think it was feminist women who are responsible for climate change? Do you think it was LGBT people who outsourced your job?’ So, I feel that they have a right to be angry but they are delivering their mail to the wrong address.”

Too bad he couldn’t ask the question. But if he had, and they believed him, would he have been able to convince them to direct their angry “mail” to the right address? A great idea, but it’s based on a biased premise.

Kimmel is approaching the men and their opinions about the targets of their anger like a good liberal, which is, “People are basically good. If they knew the truth they would direct their anger at the real villains, not scapegoats!” vs the conservative view which is, “People are no damn good. Take care of yourself and family. Only suckers help others. Don’t let “those” people get something for nothing.”

When Trump loses in November, angry white men are going to take it out on people they believe stopped Trump: Progressives, Democrats and women. They will also go after the people they believe made America crappy for them: immigrants, Muslims, people of color, the LGBT community and of course, the “liberal media.”

They will be angrier than ever. They will feel more “voiceless” since Trump has been saying what they all have been thinking. What form will their attacks take? I expect the usual incoherent rants, bumper stickers and comments in “liberal newspapers.” Of course some will go too far.

The good news is that when these threats go beyond the blowhard scale, we have a mechanism in place to address the issue.

Angry White Thugs With Guns Get Busted

Yesterday I wrote a piece for Crooks and Liars. 2 Bundy Ranch Thugs Who Threatened Feds Going To Jail, about how two of Bundy’s militia buddies didn’t get away with their threats.

I think Cooper’s case is an important one for people to know about. The DoJ got Cooper to roll on all his buddies, thus strengthening the government’s case for the main trials in 2017. The government isn’t the ineffective, incompetent group of lazy idiots the Bundy boosters think they are.

If these militia mooks spent more time on the 1st Amendment vs. the 2nd, they would know that threatening speech isn’t protected speech. They might also know social media can be used against them. Here is Sean Anderson broadcasting from the Bundy Oregon stand-off. Link

When the angry white men with guns start with their violent threats after the Trump loss, we have a plan to follow. It involves evidence, arrests, and public trials. There will be convictions and appropriate punishment. They won’t get to go down as noble, patriotic martyrs –but as bullies and criminals.

What is ironic is that for years they said Obama was going to arbitrarily take their guns. When they finally lose them, as well as their freedom of movement, it will all have been done legally and after due process.

Who’s the Trump Immigration Pivot For? 

by Spocko

August 20, 2016 BuzzFeed News:

In Reversal, Trump Indicates To Hispanic Leaders Openness To Legalization For Immigrants

In a Saturday meeting with his newly announced Hispanic advisory council, Donald Trump suggested he is interested in figuring out a “humane and efficient” manner to deal with immigrants in the country illegally, according to three sources. — BuzzFeed News Adrian Carrasquillo

This was exciting news since it seemed to indicate the pivot the mainstream media has been looking for since the primaries ended. So of course they jumped on it:

But before the pixels on the MSM’s story were even dry, the right-wing news outlets were reassuring their audience that those stories are all liberal media lies. And we know this since their new house organ, Breitbart News, told them so explicitly.

The Problem With The Media’s ‘Trump Is Pivoting’ Narrative by Tyler Cherry. Media Matters Image by Dayanita Ramesh and Sarah Wasko

Trump’s comment on immigration to his Hispanic advisory council was designed for two groups of people.

1) The GOP establishment base. Now they can pretend that Trump is a “reasonable” human being, as least that will be their rationalization for why they voted/supported him.

2) The mainstream media. The mainstream media really want this story for multiple reasons. They finally get to prove they were right: “Just as we predicted, Trump is moving toward the center! Because of this softening of his rhetoric Trump will get the moderate undecided swing voters that might have gone to Hillary.” They can now justify taking Trump seriously. Monday morning on NPR Cokie Roberts gave credit to New Donald Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway for this move.

Here’s the deal, the media need to take Trump  seriously, because if they don’t then it shows how outrageous Trump’s comments are to rational people. I was watching Trevor Noah on the Daily Show saying multiple times. “Trump’s a joke!”  He doesn’t have to pretend Trump sounds like cartoon character.  Also the mainstream media likes a 50/50 horse race, one-sided blowouts are boring to them. Trump gives them three things: conflict, novelty and entertainment.  Add in some blood, and he would lead the local evening news too.

What perplexes some people is why this “reasonable Trump” isn’t pissing off his base more. It’s because Trump’s base doesn’t believe anything the MSM says. They don’t read them or watch them.  If they do hear of anything, their own publications explain why the MSM’s stories should be ignored.

Dance Instructions for Hillary: It’s a jump to the left, not a step to the right! 

I think Trump’s pivot left is a huge opportunity for Hillary to move further left, not right. Imagine that! Actually I can, since I’m reading a facinating book, Trekonomics: The Economics of Star Trek by Manu Saadia and I’ve been listening to Mission Log podcasts about the optimistic future Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek postulated.

If Trump moves left and loses, his reluctant GOP supporters can breathe a sigh of relief. They can say, “He wasn’t conservative enough!” His true believers can scream, “KAAAAHHHHNNN!!” and then go on to attack Hillary 24/7 with the same kind of violent threats that Trump normalized during the campaign.

If Clinton moves right and wins, conventional wisdom will be proven correct–even if that wasn’t the reason she won. If she moves left and wins, conventional wisdom will be proven wrong, but the media and pundits won’t acknowledge it. The conventional wisdom will be about how Trump was never going to win anyway.

“To everything, there is a reason. And a time for every pivot, under heaven.” -Trump’s new campaign staff

The sane comments Trump is making are really for the establishment media. They will report them diligently and bring them up every time a previous conflicting statement is mentioned. You will know when you hear the phrase,  “To be fair, Trump recently said..” Or they will credit his campaign hoping that Trump is listening to the “very smart people” Trump promises will advise him.

Tyler Cherry of Media Matters did a great piece in June about the problems with the media accepting this pivot narrative.

I think many of the media want to turn to the camera after an especially egregious ridiculous Trump comment and say, “Can you believe this? Trump actually said this — with a straight face.”

But this is not the Daily Show, and they can’t throw back to the studio saying, “Reporting from Washington, I’m Luke Potato, Jon?”

Trump Supporters Want To Cage And Ship Out Mexicans

by Spocko

I just saw part of the Triumph’s Summer Election Special 2016 for Hulu on YouTube. In this segment a focus group of Trump supporters watch fake new Trump commercials and then give their take on them. It’s funny, clever—and scary.

The fake ads range from the ridiculous to the horrific. What is astonishing is how many of the members agreed with the ideas expressed, and wanted to help The Donald implement them.

I’ve run and participated in focus groups before. People knew they were being recorded. If the group was going to be shown or broadcast, releases had to be signed. I would have been fine if my opinion on garlic-flavored Pepsi was released to the world on YouTube. (Note: I’m against it!) But after watching the participants in this focus group video, my first thought was,”They can’t be serious. They don’t REALLY believe that.” But what if they do?

When I first heard the violent rhetoric, bigotry, sexism, homophobia and hate coming out of right-wing talk radio I believed what a lot of people did. “It’s just an act to get ratings.” I thought that if you had a serious conversation with these people they would admit it. “Of course I don’t believe that stuff! I’m not a monster! This is just entertainment.” Back in 2004 I confirmed that the local right-wing talk radio hosts weren’t joking. That’s when I took action to alert their advertisers and defund them. Talk of killing people wasn’t funny then and it isn’t funny now. Threatening speech is not protected speech.

So what is our response when we see, hear or read Trump supporters who are serious about harming others? What should we do? Dismiss it as a joke? Assume they were being sarcastic? Change the channel?

Also, it’s one thing for people to make their racism or bigotry known to the world, it’s quite another when they talk about capturing large groups of people and shipping them off in trucks as casually as we ship heads of lettuce.

How Trump gets away with murder threats

When Politicians say something horrible, and are challenged about it, the media often gives them a “second bite of the apple.” They are given the opportunity to “walk the comment back.” Some have surrogates who “clarify their meaning.” The surrogates demand that the public “understand it in context” or explain how they define words differently than the rest of the world.

All this is designed to help a politician pull back from the abyss of self-immolation. Politicians and their staff know this and take advantage of this process all the time. It’s a good practice for journalists to follow, since it can clear up misunderstandings and one-sided attacks. Regular people should be given this chance too. I say this because many of us have said or written things in haste or anger. However, if after discussion and analysis, the intent is clear, there should be consequences.

Welcome to NaziTown. Population: You

The writers for the special obviously set up the fake ads to have parallels with Jews in Germany. It’s clearly, “Can we get Trump supporters to admit they would act like Nazis?” I mean, come on, “Ethnic group goes into a small space, the doors are locked from the outside and they are hauled away.” Sound familiar? I would think most people could see the connection, maybe they did, but it was cut out of the clip. (I added the Schindler’s List footage with the Trump supporters voice over. It gave me the creeps, too damn close to reality!)

Later in the segment they suggest abortion clinics be put in poor neighborhoods and women be paid to have abortions (but with a cap, otherwise they’ll just get pregnant for the free casino chips!) Another segment, not shown, sounded like a Dr. Mengele experiment. “I agree with Donald Trump that the only way to compete with the Chinese is by lowering their IQ by injecting their water with various paints and solvents.” WTF?

I asked David Feldman, one of the writers on this special, to have Robert Smigel on his podcast to talk about this segment. Were the participants all actors in on the gag? If not, who got the sign off from the focus group participants who were in the clip? What did they tell them about the piece? I’d also love to hear from the participants. Will they say, ‘I knew it was a joke!” or will they “double down” on their comments?

If they are serious, that Trump’s horrible ideas are the best, I’ll quote Triumph “Yes they are. For me to poop on!

Cross posted to Spocko’s Brain and Crooks and Liars

Trump & 2nd Amendment People: Stop The Violent Rhetoric

by Spocko

Many many people have said that Donald Trump talks like a right wing talk radio host. His comments appeal to people’s anger and fear. As Janeane Garofalo used to say about the RWNJ radio hosts, “They talk to people’s inner Archie Bunker.” or put less politely, their inner asshole.

These radio hosts can also be funny, they call themselves “entertainers.” This combo gets good ratings for a certain audience.  If they say something that goes too far and get called out on it, they can use the “It’s just a joke!” line.
(My favorite response to this dodge came from Ted Rall at EschaCon 08 in Philadelphia. “If an actual joke had happened, laughter would ensue.”)

But death threats aren’t funny.

As Digby pointed out today,

“we have a Republican presidential nominee whose message encourages paranoia, violence and anger among his followers directed generally at various “others” and specifically toward his opponent who he characterizes as a criminal and an illegitimate tyrant who plans to abolish the Second Amendment.

        What could go wrong?”

Oh, I don’t know, the Rwandan genocide?

Of course what happened in Rwandan could never happen here. People don’t make decisions about an entire group of people from listening to media!

The media regularly allow political figures chances to “walk the statement back” The clever politician will call it “hyperbole, out of context, misunderstood, not intended. misspoke, etc.” They even give themselves the same out when they are busted.

Americans certainly aren’t going to listen to a old white man who goes on radio to identify a specific person, gives them a nickname and just wonders what some people would do. Not that Bill would do anything. He’s just sayin..

“In fact, O’Reilly himself repeatedly referred to Dr. Tiller in his own words as “Tiller the baby killer,” and as “Dr. Killer,” a fact he later denied. In a 2006 anti-Tiller rant on his radio show, O’Reilly said, “And if I could get my hands on Tiller — well, you know. Can’t be vigilantes. Can’t do that. It’s just a figure of speech. But despicable? Oh, my God. Oh, it doesn’t get worse.”

These kind of comments get through to the intended audience. Message received. And, when there are no consequences for the speakers, they keep saying them.  The people who watch the speakers get away with this kind of talk are then “emboldened” (like we used to say about the terrorists) and engage in it themselves.

These people might bring up the 1st Amendment as a shield for the horrible things they say, so I remind them, threatening speech is not protected speech. 
This isn’t Rwanda. Stop the violent rhetoric. 

Murdoch Replacing Ailes at Fox Lets Him Hide, Settle and Seal Lawsuits

By Spocko

The temporary replacement of Roger Ailes by Rupert Murdoch as CEO and Chairman of Fox News is designed to calm shareholders and viewers, but it is also a strategy to shut down exposing information from the Gretchen Carlson sexual harrassment lawsuit and any other lawsuits that might spring up.

News Corporation International has a history of covering up internal dirty dealings in the UK. And the way they went about it there is very similar to what we are seeing now here.

First they hired an outside law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, to investigate the allegations. When non-lawyers like me hear a company is hiring a law firm for an internal investigation we might think, “Well, good for them, maybe they will weed out all the bad apples!”

But that is not really what those firms are hired for. The are usually hired to manage or head off future lawsuits. Their job is to figure out if anyone is lying about what happened, and if not, then it becomes a CYA “How can we minimize the liability?” issue.

During the hacking scandle News International hired a law firm, Harbottle and Lewis, to do an internal investigation at News of the World regarding the practice of paying for hacks of phones and computers of celebrities, politicians and royalty. I read about this in a great book called Dial M for Murdoch. I hosted a Book Salon at FireDogLake with one of the authors, Martin Hickman.

It turns out that the law firm didn’t actually do a thorough investigation on the hacking, they just looked at one person. During that investigation that person referred to many others who either knew about or participated in the hacking. This person was later set up by News International as the scapegoat.

A version of the email was edited by News International before it was turned over to regulators to make it appear that there was only one person, the scapegoat, who was using services for hacking phones and computers.

When Ailes Is Out, Will Murdoch’s Sons Clean the Fox House?
by Spocko

One of the things that I’ve learned is that corporations don’t like to associate their brands with certain repugnant behaviors and activities.

When these behaviors are brought to the attention of the public, the corporation needs to distance themselves from the person or persons engaged in them.

How a corporation goes about showing their investors they are “taking actions” varies depending on how little they believe they can get away with.

“Alies is out. No more sexual harassing here! Problem solved. Let’s talk about Bill Clinton and the woman who stood by him while he was in the White House! What does that say about her?”

And the show in show business goes on. As in “show me the money.” If the NewsCorp shareholders believe that canning Ailes is enough to stop the bad PR they won’t demand more action.

So how do we convince the shareholders it’s not enough?  By encouraging more stories from the survivors, and then not attacking them for failing to speak up sooner.
 
We could also ask other media outlets to do some research, Gawker has nothing more to lose. But maybe they won’t. Then we should look for stories of repugnant activities, since that door is now cracked open. I suggest that we also look for people engaging in criminal acts at Fox News.

Because dollars to doughnuts, when you turn over the rock of Fox News you will find illegal acts.

Let the dirt digging begin!

Open Carry Rules For RNC: Black & White Versions
 by Spocko

It’s only called ‘open carry’ when the man is white. It he’s black it’s ‘oh shit, he’s got a gun!’ #PhilandoCastile pic.twitter.com/cgjSCWvd7L

— Bipartisan Report (@Bipartisanism) July 7, 2016

The Wall Street Journal gives the rundown of what is allowed in the area of the RNC.

Considering all open carriers: Who is going to be in more danger of being arrested for suspicious behavior before the event? During? After?

White men 

Black men

I think many of the black men considering open carry will be arrested before the event on some trumped up charge, just to keep them out of the picture.  The ones who make it through will be fine, unless there is a panic. We all know what happened to the last black guy who open carried at a protest and there was a panic.

I believe many of the white men considering open carry won’t be arrested before the event. The government treats the white Republican men differently, even if they have a previous criminal history of protesting with guns. (See Bundy Ranch and Malheur refuge stories below)

I do predict that some open carriers will be arrested at the event. They want to show how peaceful they are and how they aren’t afraid of the police. They want to prove average people shouldn’t be afraid of them.

In my experience the people who open carry work closely with local law enforcement in advance of events. They tell them who they are, where they will be, and what they will be doing at what time. They know the state and local laws cold (which they will happily gunsplain to you). The also know which public locations are safe as well as which private businesses welcome them.

After the protect any arrested open carriers will sue for false arrest and declare that their 2nd Amendment and 1st Amendment rights were infringed. (They might even get the ACLU to help them!)


Win or lose, the image of an open carrier being peacefully arrested by big government will be used to fuel their righteous anger. Photos will show the open carriers are the real victims and their rights are under siege at all times, everywhere, by everyone.

Do we use trumped up charges or just old ones? 


The government will use trumped up or old charges for white Oath Keepers too. But the government won’t try as hard to arrest them as they will to arrest peaceful democratic protesters. I think that is a mistake and a waste of resources, but arresting dirty hippies is always on the to do list. But why won’t they arrest more in advance?

I think it’s because the police expect the RW white gun guys to follow the rules. Of course if they don’t, it they screw up and have an accident, they are given a pass because they have “good intentions.” They also believe that in a tense situation RW white guys will comply with their orders.

The idea that is pushed by the gun carriers is that protestors with guns will help the police in a shoot out. Do police believe white open carriers are automatically on the side of police? Do they feel the same about open carriers of other colors?

One thing we do know is that some white people who protest with guns aren’t on the side of government law enforcement–at all.

The Bundy Gang’s White Gun Privilege: 
Feds: “We’ll give you two years to stop pointing your guns at us!”

Eric Parker near Bundy Ranch NV,   April 12, 2014 Photo credit: Reuters/Jim Urquhart

Remember this guy, Eric Parker? Here he is in April of 2014 aiming his rifle at federal agents near the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. He also went up to Burns Oregon to protest, but wasn’t on site at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in December 2015.

Eric Parker April 12, 2014 Photo credit: Reuters/Jim Urquhart

The government treated Parker and his buddies,white men pointing guns at the feds, with fear and respect.

The government didn’t arrest them at the time because they didn’t want to have an incident. This is a perfectly rational thing to do, since it avoids bloodshed. After the event is over, the arrests begin at a time and place of the government’s choosing. (I love this phrase by the way, it sounds so badass.)

However, instead of arresting and prosecuting those people right away, I believe deals were cut in exchange for no further protesting, or for turning state’s evidence on others in the group.  You will note that people who stopped going armed to protests made statements in the media saying that what happened in Malheur was wrong.

However, in a big group, not everyone gets the memo to stop poking the tiger.
I think these are the people who will be showing up at RNC to protest while openly carrying. They want to give the impression to the public that they are good people to be trusted. But whatever happened to that group of white men who protested with guns?

It turns out that the government shouldn’t have trusted them. Some didn’t honor their agreements, others ignored the conditions they got in exchange for not being arrested. Imagine that, an anti-government group going back on their word with the government! So now the government gets to arrest them with stronger evidence. Yay for justice, but it took two years too long.

In March of 2016, in the state of Idaho, the government acted:

FBI Raids Going Down: More Bundys Arrested, Eric Parker And Other Militants 

— Story from Freak Out Nation: Making Tea Partiers Cry Since 2009

The Gun Business Is Making A Killing by Making it Personal
by Spocko

We know the stages of how the media cover mass shootings. One stage we are hitting now is “the business of guns.” Where reporters duly note how much the gun stock prices rise after shootings. They talk to industry analysts, talk about projected earnings as if they were selling abstract widgets.

Yesterday the New York Times did a piece about how the gun industry is growing via assault rifles and handguns.

Today I listened to Evan Osnos who wrote the piece Making,a Killing, The business and politics of selling guns. by Evan Osnos for the New Yorker.  Osnos was on Fresh Air with Terry Gross

Fresh Air interview with Osnos.
I really encourage people to listen to the entire interview or read the story. Osnos talks about a number of things that I have been writing about and that I’ve heard about from listening to Cliff Schecter and my friends at various non-profits who are working on this issue.

What I and others have noted is how the gun industry grows. Osnos talks about the conceal carry “lifestyle” and how it uses fear to constantly sell guns as the answer. They tell men and women,

“The world is dangerous, look at this mass shooting! You must protect your family! What kind of man would you be if you were powerless to protect them! Now watch and read these carefully chosen examples that prove you are doing the right thing.”

What the interview also shows is that any talk about smart guns that might stop toddlers from blowing their brains out will be stopped. It might get in the way of selling more guns.

He gives the example of when Smith & Wesson tried to do something in this area they were punished financially. Their stock price dropped by 95 %. But that really wasn’t good enough. The CEO also got death threats.

A gun maker CEO who tried to make things safer, is punished in one of the only ways that really counts in the US, falling stock prices. They gave him death threats instead of a golden parachute.

This is what people who would like less gun violence in America are up against. This is an industry that would rather block actions that would save the lives of thousand of kids every single year than risk slowing market growth.

What I take away from the Osnos piece and the many, “business of guns” stories  is the industries’ focus on making money at any cost is becoming a weakness Especially when someone like Donald Trump takes them at their word.
The last half of the interview covers that.

If the gun industry sells more guns after every tragic shooting is there a time when they don’t make money? What can activists do that gets in the way of their revenue stream? And if they do, how will the industry react?

Sam Seder pointed out the other day that the market caps on the gun companies are small. Maybe Bloomberg could buy one?
But also, who else makes money by supporting the gun industry? Who loses money?

If you can’t cost the gun industry money, can you cost the buyers money?

There are ways, but as I found out when I started the process of defunding Right Wing radio that when you get in the way of a revenue stream people get pissed off. They may talk about how important their rights are, but it’s not about the industries’ great desire to help men defend their families or defend our freedoms, it’s about making a buck.