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.
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.
In Reversal, TrumpIndicates 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:
A Trump Deportation Reversal
Hints emerge that he is rethinking one of his worst policies.
–Opinion Wall Street Journal Aug 21, 2016
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.
Exclusive – RNC Official at Trump’s Hispanic Meeting Debunks False BuzzFeed, Univision Reports that Donald Succumbed to Amnesty Activists
“The Trump campaign’s and RNC’s swift dismissal of the inaccurate reports that he would back amnesty for illegal aliens comes after BuzzFeed and Univision falsely reported that Trump told Hispanic activists he would.”—Breitbart News, August 21, 2016
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.
I love to make predictions since, like all the right-wing pundits on the war, there are no consequences for being wrong. And, like the dirty hippies regarding the war, there are no rewards for being right.
So I confidently predict– with 112% accuracy–that the mainstream media will be asking when Hillary will start her move right to “the center” where the “Very Serious People Who Know How The Economy Really Works” live. Of course they have been wrong 100% of the time but they still have the ear of the MSM, who represent the .01%. So keep an eye out for any hippy punching or Bernie bashing.
It would be nice to see someone in the media question this conventional wisdom of movement. Why does Trump pivoting to centrist views mean Hillary will move right? Because that is what we have seen happen multiple times in the past? But isn’t this election different?
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.
I’m no Very Serious Person, but wouldn’t Hillary get more votes moving to the left than the right? My thought is more votes are available on the left than the right. I know that for Trump there are more votes available for him to move left–to the far right center. (I don’t think there is even room for Trump to move Führer further right.)
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!)
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!
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.
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.
It wasn’t until the investigating law firm was allowed to turn over the emails found in the internal investigation that the government regulators found out how wide spread the hacking was. (Note the words allowed, vs. compelled and government regulators vs. government rubber stampers.)
This is what News Corp execs are doing now: They started an “internal investigation” to find out who knows what and are looking to find and possibly lock up evidence for future cases.
Rupert Murdoch stepping in as Fox News CEO/Chairman, rather than one of Ailes underlings, lets him decide to not investigate Ailes further. He also can decide not to look into other cases of sexual harassment in the company. Finally, he can sign off on settlements without having to answer to the parent company’s concerns about the costs.
Hide, Settle and Seal: The Stop, Drop and Roll of Lawsuits
As part of any settlements Murdoch’s lawyers will seek to have the cases sealed with agreed upon non-disparagement clauses included by all participants.
These lawsuits against Ailes were/are a huge opportunity for discovery, that is why Fox agreed to pay for Ailes’ legal fees. They need the most powerful lawyers they have to help prevent other dirt from getting out.
I believe that Murdoch learned from his last experience, he can’t shut down Fox News like he did News of the World. But he can shut down, settle and seal any lawsuits that come up. Then he will set up “sexual harassment awareness training sessions” which focus mostly on legal liability (These have been shown to be ineffective, since they don’t deal with changing the workplace culture already in place.)
Celebrities In the Press And Women In the Workplace
During the News of the World hacking scandal it became clear that earlier stories of celebrities’ privacy being breached didn’t get a lot of sympathy from the public.
Illegal hacking and privacy breaches had been going on for years at News of the World. Hugh Grant had the money to pay a lawyer to sue them. During the discovery process some damning information about other nasty acts at News Of the World were found, but they couldn’t easily be shared with the media.
It took the revelation an operative working for a tabloid who hacked into the voicemail box of a kidnapped girl to really piss people off. Because this interfered with an active kidnapping case (later murder investigation) the police and politicians got involved. The problem was some of the police were aiding the hackers.
Most politicians were afraid to get involved because of Murdoch’s history of using his papers to attack and smear anyone who got in his way.
One thing I noted when rereading the story of the hacking scandal was the attitude toward celebrity privacy then and celebrity sexual harassment now.
“Hugh Grant wanted to be a celebrity and giving up your privacy is just part of the price of fame. He knew what he was getting into. If he didn’t like it he should have quit making movies.”
“Gretchen Carlson wanted to be a news reader and chose to work for Fox News. She knew what she was getting into. If she didn’t like it, she should have left.”
What the Grant lawsuit did, and what I believe the Carlson lawsuit could do, is open a window into the Fox News organization and reveal the extent of their wrong doings.
When your opponent is drowning…
My plan to weaken right wing media was to reduce their revenue. I’ve found that when something costs a company money, they take steps to change things. If they don’t, then they have to eat the costs of maintaining the status quo.
Costing corporations money can force change when other methods can’t. Especially when an old attitude, like sexism, doesn’t make money like it used to.
The number of normal corporations advertising on right wing radio has changed dramatically since I started alerting advertisers to the violent rhetoric on KSFO in 2005. There is still sexism, bigotry and violent rhetoric on right wing talk radio, but people aren’t getting as rich off of it as before.
The distributors of right wing radio no longer get the 100’s of millions of dollars from selling ads on the Rush Limbaugh show because it is no longer safe to advertise on the Limbaugh show.
If I was part of group looking to reform the media, I would start looking into the details and participants in any lawsuits filed right now, before Murdoch’s money shuts them up. There might even be some people who don’t care about the money, but are sick and tired of being treated as a sexual object in the workplace. Maybe they are mad as hell and don’t want to take it anymore.
And, if I wanted to make the story bigger, I’d look for stories of politicians who were witnesses–or participants–in sexual harassment at Fox News.
I’m sure all the Republican guests were perfect gentlemen when they came to the studio. If only someone had documented what happened in an email, or had video…
That might make for some interesting stories during this election season.
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.
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.
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/crime/article63878682.html#storylink=cpy
Eric Parker April 12, 2014Photo 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
I’m actually an optimist, not an alarmist. All this open carry might go smoothly for both black and white open carriers. Everyone might remain calm and there might not be any “bad apples” who didn’t get the memo to be chill.
If all goes swimmingly the difference between the two groups will be how law enforcement treats them and tracks them after the event.
Based on this history of white men with guns protesting, after the event law enforcement might contact them. “Hey, we know who you are. What you did was stupid and dangerous, just don’t do it again.” This is another example of white gun privilege.
After the event law enforcement will contact the black men. “You are a troublemaker and a pot stirrer. We have our eyes on you. One slip up and bam, you are a felon with no gun rights. Stop doing this. Don’t be stupid, you are just putting yourself in danger.”
Protectors Vs. Thugs on Fox News
A safe open carry event will be positioned by the media (especially the RW media) differently depending on the color of the group that successfully does it.
For the white guys, photos of their restrain while armed will be praised. “See? Nothing happened. Nobody got shot. Everyone got scared for nothing. They are the good guys.”
For the black guys photos of their restrain while armed will be used to show they are violent extremists waiting to riot.
I point to the time one unarmed New Black Panther at a polling place door made Sean Hannity lose his mind. “He is intimidating voters! People feared for their lives!”
Now I could describe what would happen if there is an incident, but I have to spend some time fixing my engines before I can slingshot around the Sun for a look at the future. Maybe next week.
But here’s a question. What if we don’t “dodge a bullet” and something bad happens with all these open carriers? Would it get people in Ohio to say, “Hey, we should CHANGE THIS LAW! Why are we putting ourselves in this stupid position?”
And if they do, what can be done to get their wish fulfilled before the NRA kills any change? Why don’t we prepare for that future?
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.
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.
What if we pushed body armor like the NRA pushes guns?
by Spocko
I’ve marveled before at the multiple strategies the NRA uses to sell more guns. They make money after ever mass shooting. They have created an environment where the answer to any question about guns is more guns It’s clever in its twistedness. It makes sense that Donald Trump is happy to be part of this selling scheme.
I’ve been talking to people at several groups lately about what strategies can be used to make changes in how we tackle the gun problem in our society. I’m looking at multiple ways from legal to financial to cultural. I’ve wanted to know what worked, what didn’t and why.
As part of the exercise I looked at what the NRA did to get where they are today and wondered how a group could do the same, only with a different product, one that could prevent deaths.
What if that group had the same willingness the NRA has shown to use every technique in their bag of tricks to sell more products–no matter the consequences?
I picked a product–body armor. I created a group with three initials, BAA, for the Body Armor Association. What if they sold body armor the way NRA sells guns?
1) Provide easy availability at multiple price points
First they would make bullet proof clothing and helmets as easy to get and as cheap to buy as a handgun. There would be no requirements on people to buy them or laws to block its sale. Restrictions that make sense (like not selling to felons or bigger criminal charges for people who use them in committing a crime) would be dismissed as unnecessary and a hindrance. “People have a right to feel safe, in their home and out in public, their past criminal history shouldn’t infringe on their right to feel safe!”
2) Pay state lawmakers to fix the laws in body armor’s favor on a state by state basis
Currently in the United States it is legal to purchase and possess body armor, apart from a few exceptions: From Safe Guard Armor
In Connecticut, body armor can only be purchased face-to-face, and cannot be purchased online, over the phone, or by mail;
In New York, the ban of body armor for private citizens is being debated;
In some states such as Kentucky, committing a crime while wearing or even possessing body armor is a crime in and of itself;
In Louisiana, it is illegal to wear body armor on school property.
The legislative arm of the group would write bills like ALEC did for the NRA to repealing any laws that put restrictions on the purchase of body armor and open up new markets for body armor. If lawmakers didn’t support the bills, they would not get endorsements and donations would be withheld. This would require money, but buying influence at the state level is surprisingly cheap. Also be positioned as ‘bi-partisan,’ as a a pro-life bill.
3) Make the owning of body armor part of a higher law or ideal, maybe even a right
Like how the NRA uses the 2nd Amendment laws to sell more guns, the Body Armor Association BAA might use the preamble of the constitution as their foundational argument. After all, it is before the 2nd Amendment.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Constitutional scholars and homegrown experts can argue on what it all means. Pay a couple of historians to write some books. The important thing is to “start a conversation” even if you have to jump through some flaming hoops with blindfolds to make the case.
“What part of insure domestic Tranquility don’t people understand? Guy with a gun shoots at you, are you going to feel more tranquil with a vest or without one? Also, note that the Framers used the phrase “provide for the common defense.” If they wanted to provide for the common offensive they would have said so and named it in the document. Remember, the USA was not the aggressor in the war.”
4) Bring religion into the picture
Getting Jesus on board is easy, what with the whole “turn the other cheek” story Matthew 5:38-39. Also, always tie it to sales. “It’s easier to turn the other cheek when wearing this GM-IIIA glass visor mask and ballistic helmet!”
5) No liability for manufacturers, ever.
Laws would be passed so the manufacturers of the clothing were immune from all product liability cases, ever, even if they are defective. Liability lawsuits cost money, it’s cheaper to pay some lawmakers to grant immunity. The manufacturers will show their gratitude to the BAA leaders.
6) Sell body armor into fashion markets for men, women and children
The BAA would enlist the United States Fashion Industry Association to boost sales. Seed money would be given to the industry to make more lightweight, fashionable kevlar clothing for everyday wear.
They would enlist fashion designers to make them look cool. Since styles change every year for adults, people will buy new body armor in multiple styles depending on their mood and activity.
Get celebrities on board!
From left, designer of #BabyYeezy BulletProofVest, unidentified man, unidentified woman one, mother of child model (North West), unidentified woman two. Photo Reuters
Growing children will need new sizes every year. Parents will need to buy new Back To School body armor. This all increases revenue for manufacturers. Here’s North West the son of Kanye West wearing a bulletproof vest designed by his father.
Kim Kardashian’s actual tweet. Look at my little cutie!!!
#DaddysMuse #BabyYeezy
BulletProofVest. Photos Brian Prahl Splash News
The BAA would also accept kickbacks (I mean donations) from the clothing industry for every single item of clothing sold, just like they do with the gun makers.
7) Get the government to buy body armor for all employees
Government unions are powerful. Who is in more danger than a government office worker? New contracts would demand workers get free body armor. Office workers would be required to wear them as part of their job. The body armor would have to meet government specifications. A cost plus model would be implemented for the resellers in the government market.
8) Get the government to pay for school children’s body armor
School board members would be lobbied by BAA to send new requirements to state and federal governments for all children to wear body armor while in school. The BAA would provide the school board with statistics for why it’s necessary. If the government hesitates, the BAA would ask private donors to provide body armor.
What about schools with no sponsors? Schools where parents can’t afford body armor? To put more pressure on the government to provide body armor, start pointing out racial differences. Who needs the body armor more? Rich white suburban kids or “urban” kids?
REMINDER: A part of all profits from government sales goes to BAA for government lobbying, advertising and PR campaigns to sell more body armor and helmets.
9) Absorb attacks from body armor haters
Just like they do for the gun manufacturers, the BAA would also absorb any of the attacks on the body armor makers when a bulletproof vest didn’t work correctly. The focus would always be on user failure, not manufacturer failure.
“The injured party wasn’t wearing the clothing properly. We suggest that everyone wearing body armor attend a BAA class on proper fit and use. Instructors can help users select the vest size and type that are effective for the kind of threat each individual faces”
10) Redefine how people talk about the body armor– direct this to journalists
Start with a popular phrase like bullet proof. Redefine it and use it as a club if it is used generically. A group that redefines a term starts owning it.
Journalists will be constantly corrected via multiple channels, tweets, Facebook, emails and phone calls. Even good old letters to the editors will be enlisted.
“Dear Sirs/ladies: In your recent article “Bullet Proof Vest Saves Child’s Life” you referred to the body armor the child was wearing as “bullet proof.” That is incorrect. Technically the body armor in question should have properly been called bullet resistant. This is just sloppy journalism.
In the future do your homework before throwing out generalizations about body armor.
Complaints in on-line forums would look like this, “Why should I listen to any “journalists” who don’t know the difference between Kevlar 29 and Kevlar Correctional? He probably still thinks we use metal plates instead of UHMWPE for ballistic panels!” The point is to let the journalists know they will hear from you whenever they write about body armor. Good or bad.
11) Change the culture of wearing body armor by appealing to the desired self image of users
One of the most important roles of the Body Armor Association would be to change the image of body armor wearing people. This is part of a broader cultural change. Use of tv and movies is essential.
The NRA has spent decades pushing the idea that masculinity is tied up with using a gun. But there is a difference between pushing it as protection and pushing it for payback, revenge and instant “justice”
Separate someone who is smart about protection from guns and someone who is dumb with a gun.
12) Call people who don’t like body armor sick
People who complain they feel uncomfortable around people wearing bullet resistant vests, would be told they suffer from a made up ailment Vestiphobia
13) Make wearing body armor a duty
Wearing concealed body armor would be pushed as a duty that people accepted as part of being American and protecting one’s family. Since nothing can be done about guns, this is the best step that can be taken.
Fathers would be especially targeted for this tactic. The BAA would would run ads and send letters to fathers appealing to their desire to be protectors.
“We know you would take a bullet for your child, but you can’t stand over her every day. That’s why it’s a man’s duty to protect their child when they aren’t there.
If your child is at a school and was NOT wearing her vest, you failed her! Bullet resistant body armor and helmets must be worn everyday!”
13) Shame people who didn’t wear body armor
After every shooting death and injury, instead of calls for more guns, which would not have stopped the bullets, there would be a call for more bulletproof vests and helmets. People who own bulletproof vest and helmets come forward and shame the victims for failure to wear. “If I was there, wearing my vest, I would have been fine. It’s their own fault they didn’t wear body armor, hopefully this will wake people up and they will start wearing body armor everywhere.”
14) Make wearing body armor routine
Parents would join groups that encouraged them to wear the bullet proof clothing in case of a home invasion. “Brush your teeth, put on your PJs and vest and daddy will come and read you a story.”
Every morning they would dress up their children in kevlar vests and fashionable bulletproof backpacks.
15) Set one group of customers against another for more sales
If sales start flagging, up the ante to get old customers to add more gear or more expensive gear. For example, in states that have started allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, parents will need to get more than just vests for the children, since their heads are exposed during class.
Lobby school board for more funds to pay for this gap in body armor coverage.
Feeling protected?
The whole idea of a group pushing body armor like the NRA pushes guns might seem ridiculous. “People would never do all that.” But the gun lobby has taken these kind of actions and more. They have changed laws, customs, definitions, attitudes and have created an entire culture. It’s pretty damn impressive and can be disheartening when it appears nothing will ever changes.
But… they are not a force of nature. They do not have supernatural powers.
They are just men and women whose greed has systematically gone about making America this way.
If things don’t change is it because they care more? They are smarter? More ruthless? Better funded? Better organized?
I don’t think so.
There are more of us who can and will work systematically to make changes to reduce gun violence in America. Until that day comes I’m looking into this.
..a federal appeals court said Thursday people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense. — AP Mercury News
I’m sure this ruling will bring out gun carrying commenters from around the country to demand to know, “What part of SHALL NOT INFRINGE don’t these people understand!” Followed by how happy they are they don’t live in California. (I’m happy you don’t live here too.)
Walk for Gun Safety at Golden Gate Bridge
#WearOrange Moms Demand Action – CA
photo by Spocko
One of the arguments that pro-guns everywhere people made was that when there were “permissive standards” for carrying a gun, it didn’t lead to more crime.
“..there was no evidence that crime went up in counties such as Fresno and Sacramento that had more permissive “good cause” standards. — Paul Clement, an attorney for the residents.
I’ve seen this argument before, it’s crap. It can mean several things: “Lots of under qualified people started carrying and there were no problems –if we measured crime rates as a whole. ” Or “Under-qualified people carried guns in these places, if they hadn’t, crime rates would have been higher. They tell us they stopped crimes.”
The state points to why allowing just about anyone to carry guns in public is a bad idea because it, “threatens law enforcement officials and endangers the public.”
The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to possess a weapon in their home. Thursday’s ruling centers on the next frontier in the gun-control debate.
“Probably the most important battleground of the Second Amendment has been whether there is a right to carry guns outside the home, and if there is, to what extent can states and localities regulate that right,” said Jonathan E. Lowy, the director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
The gun lobby has been trying to turn the entire country into their home, starting with extending castle laws in places like Florida. In some states legislators have abdicated their duty to protect the public.
With the removal of any standards the “Good Guy with a Gun” becomes based on faith. Faith that people will expend time and energy to be trained and educated. That they have good intentions, and aren’t incompetent when it comes to using a “tool” that can kill multiple people in a second.
The stories that the NRA wants to tell are all the ones where having a gun outside the home heroically saved the day. But while waiting for this day that may never come, what happens?
We know about accidents with guns in homes, what about accidents with guns out in public? How should they be treated? Just because they are no longer criminal offences, doesn’t mean they can’t be civil offences.
It’s time to start looking what removing standards for conceal carrying guns have meant in gun accidents–outside the home.
“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.”
