if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Pimp Out Yer Dead!
by Lee
Virginia Governor Tim Kaine gets it exactly right when it comes to the immediate explosion of calls for expanded or restricted gun control measures.
“People who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and make it their political hobby horse to ride, I’ve got nothing but loathing for them,” Kaine said at a Tuesday evening news conference.
“To those who want to try to make this into some little crusade, I say: Take that elsewhere. Let this community deal with grieving individuals and be sensitive to those needs.”
Don’t get me wrong, I think this is an issue that needs to be talked about. I’ve been talking about it almost non-stop for two days. But I’m a blogger, we’re just private citizens talking. This seems to be an issue that, no matter what your position on gun control before yesterday, you can use it to support what you already believed. Let the politicians argue the merits of increased CCW or gun prohibition laws later, after the families have had time to grieve and bury their dead.
Now, with that in mind, let’s discuss Obama for a second. I’d almost assuredly never vote for Obama, but I’ve always had a reasonably favorable view of him, until I read this disgusting speech he made yesterday. The bodies weren’t even cool before he was exploiting them for political purposes. The really sick thing is that he wasn’t discussing gun control or school violence or something related to the massacre. While it might be a little early for anything other than a statement of sympathy (and I think Bush’s statement yesterday was absolutely perfect), Obama has gone full-tilt batshit.
But while Obama mourns the slain students, he takes the massacre more as a theme than as a point of discussion.
“Maybe nothing could have been done to prevent it,” he says toward the end.
So he moves quickly to the abstract: Violence, and the general place of violence in American life.
“There’s also another kind of violence that we’re going to have to think about. It’s not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways,” he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of “violence.”
There’s the “verbal violence” of Imus.
There’s “the violence of men and women who have worked all their lives and suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them because their job is moved to another country.”
There’s “the violence of children whose voices are not heard in communities that are ignored,”
And so, Obama says, “there’s a lot of different forms of violence in our society, and so much of it is rooted in our incapacity to recognize ourselves in each other.”
Many politicians would avoid, I think, suggesting that outsourcing and mass-murder belong in the same category.
Obama has always struck me as a genuine, decent, likable guy. I think he’d probably make a good president, despite the fact that I’d disagree with most of his policies. But comparing outsourcing with the bloodbath at VT is beyond the pale.
It’s not that talking about VT is outside of legitimate discussion, especially for a political candidate. But I wonder if the parents of one of those slain students, whose corpse lay cooling on a morgue slab, would agree that a guy who loses a manufacturing job has suffered the same degree of “violence” as their dead child.
Exploiting this tragedy as some kind of twisted metaphor for the “violence” of outsourcing is absolutely despicable.
Comments
The bodies weren’t even cool before he was exploiting them for political purposes.
That shouldn’t be a surprise. Democrats have been known to turn funeral services into pep rallies.
I think he’d be no better or worse than Clinton. Like most candidates he’ll say things to appeal to his party base. The basic impression I get from the guy is that he’s trying too hard to be all things to all people and he’s making rookie mistakes.
I don’t want to go on the cart!
Illinois SB 1195 - a few years back…
A bill proposed by a henchman of of his Eminence - The Omnipotent Lord God Richie Daley - that would have banned any semi-automatic that fired over 5 rounds. (So my uncle would’ve had 90 days to surrender his Korean era M1 Carbine. Me - I would’ve been a felon umpteen times over just for the magazines that I own.)
I was there at the IL Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. After pretending to look somewhat interested; even troubled by the mandated confiscation, The Messiah Obama didn’t hesitate a nanosecond before he voted yes.
From that point on I knew not to trust him..
The analogies Obama used in this speech are so ridiculous… I mean, if you can compare the VT massacre to Don Imus and outsourcing, then you could relate the tragedy to basically anything else. More than anything else, I think this was just a stupid move on his part, but can you imagine the outrage if George Bush used the shootings at Virginia Tech in a speech to rally support for the Iraq War?
If Obama was white, he’d have the same level of support as Dennis Kucinich. In fact, he is just as silly as Kucinich, except he has a better sounding voice. Truth be told, Obama is an empty of a suit as it gets. Just read one part of what he said above, the “verbal violence of Imus.” Please. Only a leftist dope says something like that.
I think he’s a socialist asshole, barely better than Hillary.
That shouldn’t be a surprise. Democrats have been known to turn funeral services into pep rallies.
Republicans managed to do the same with 911. Of course New York still didn’t vote for them.
If you are going to throw these sort of insults around, better to check you have double glazed the glass in your greenhouse.
If you are going to throw these sort of insults around, better to check you have double glazed the glass in your greenhouse.
Comparing 911 to a funeral is completely asinine. So an attack on a nation of that magnitude doesn’t justify rallying your citizens?
If you honestly believe that, then you are a bigger idiot then your posts indicate.
justify rallying your citizens?
If you think the references Republicans make to 911, including hosting a political convention in New York, amount to rallying your citizens then you are a bigger idiot than your posts indicate.
But I wonder if the parents of one of those slain students, whose corpse lay cooling on a morgue slab, would agree that a guy who loses a manufacturing job has suffered the same degree of “violence” as their dead child
Actually this form of violence has a name: structural violence.
And in the situation you described above, it would depend entirely on the circumstances, and no, you can’t compare it - no single incident of violence is comparible to any other as far as the victims are concerned.
Whether Obama should have raised this issue on such a day is another matter entirely.
If you think the references Republicans make to 911, including hosting a political convention in New York, amount to rallying your citizens then you are a bigger idiot than your posts indicate.
I’m sure some sort of “appeasement” type of response would have been much more to your liking. The next time an atrocity of that magnitude, or for that matter the July 05 bombings in London, occurs in your country why don’t you suggest that as a “proper” course of action?
Actually this form of violence has a name: structural violence.
What a hoot!!!!!! This junk probably originated by Karl Marx, later adopted as a major platform for the Democratic party.
I have a need for a latte right now but nobody is bringing it to me (latte violence), and could use a new computer chair (butt ache violence).
I’m really tired of being socially dominated, politically oppressed, or economically exploited.
Where’s my Maya Angelou poetry book?
structural violence.
Here we go with ruining the meanings of words again. What the fuck is wrong with people?
So racism means nothing.
So violence means nothing.
Way to go!
could use a new computer chair (butt ache violence).
If it’s killing (and I mean, really killing you) by other means than direct violence, then yes, it’s a form of violence.
Your lack of latte, on the other hand, might not be fatal....
So racism means nothing.
So violence means nothing.
Er...where did you get that from?
If it’s killing (and I mean, really killing you) by other means than direct violence, then yes, it’s a form of violence.
This must be a new personal best for you, Stogy. I’m experiencing laughing violence.
This must be a new personal best for you, Stogy. I’m experiencing laughing violence.
Did you actually click on the link??
Let’s make it a bit easier for you:
Structural violence, a term which was first used in the 1970s and which has commonly been ascribed to Johan Galtung, denotes a form of violence which corresponds with the systematic ways in which a given social structure or social institution kills people slowly by preventing them from meeting their basic needs.
Alas, it appears that your ‘laughing violence’ doesn’t actually measure up. Unless it kills you, and it’s caused by the systematic actions of someone else, that is.
Did you actually click on the link??
I read every word of that silly psycho-babble. Your repeating it doesn’t make it any less amusing.
Er...where did you get that from?
When someone tells and ethnic joke, people lob accusations of racism. It’s nothing of the sort. Racism is a belief that one race is superior to another and telling a joke (even a bad one) does not a racist make.
Now we have a violent shooting rampage and people are are calling the Don Imus comment “verbal violence” and you’re referring to some made up bullshit about “structural violence”. Give me a break.
It’s about diluting the meanings of words. It’s all part of the politcal correctness culture and I won’t have any of it. I’m going to call bullshit everytime. Oh, I’m sorry. Is that “blog violence”?
I read every word of that silly psycho-babble. Your repeating it doesn’t make it any less amusing.
Psychobabble? So far, you’ve haven’t actually made a critique - just a bit of babble of your own. I’d like to hear something a bit more substantial. Don’t hold back, mind.
stogy, this kind of supercillious moral capitulation crap might play better at moveon.org, here you will just get ridicule.
kills people slowly
What? You mean like when I guy dies at 65 after years of hard labor as a janitor, where he was unable to afford health insurance to pay for a quadruple bypass? Let’s not forget the 3 pack a day habit and the greasy pork sandwiches. Ya, the violence is appalling. Something clearly must be done.
What you’ve just witnessed is “sarcastic violence”.
Ya, I know. Because I’m not sending all of my disposable income to Africa, I’m engaging in “structural violence”. It ranks right up there with the genocide that seems so prevalent on that continent.
It’s about diluting the meanings of words.
Actually, I think you’ll find it’s a fairly widely accepted term in development studies (including the World Bank). It’s not a made-up feel-good name by pinko lefties who had too much exposure to the local flora…
stogy, this kind of supercillious moral capitulation crap might play better at moveon.org, here you will just get ridicule.
That’s OK. Structural violence is taken as pretty much fact in the area I work in, so it’s actually refreshing to see criticism of it. But I am actually looking for intelligent as opposed to derisory criticism.
Ya, I know. Because I’m not sending all of my disposable income to Africa, I’m engaging in “structural violence”
Um, no.
It ranks right up there with the genocide that seems so prevalent on that continent.
That would be direct violence, not structural. The US and EU farm subsidies would be a form of structural violence
Let’s not forget the 3 pack a day habit and the greasy pork sandwiches. Ya, the violence is appalling. Something clearly must be done.
And the award for the person who misses the point goes to…
OK, how’s this,
Benjamin Franklin said something to the effect of “the D.O.I. provides ALL men the pursuit of happiness........whether its caught or not is up to the individual”.
Translation, no government or no individual owes you anything. You want prosperity, you want to succeed in life, do it.
Everybody has a story about some adversity, some wrong that was done to them (life is not fair, get over it)
The successful people learn from it and perservere, the unsuccessful whine about and make up some bullshit syndrome to coddle their discomfort.
The choice is yours.
Stogy, “structural violence” is simply not violence. I don’t care how many people use the word. All that proves is there are a bunch of dipshits diluting the meanings of words. I get what they’re trying to say, I just think it’s bullshit to call it violence. Call it something else. M’kay?
My other comments were clearly sarcasm. Even the “sarcastic violence” comment.
The successful people learn from it and perservere, the unsuccessful whine about and make up some bullshit syndrome to coddle their discomfort. The choice is yours.
Yeah - it’s all so easy, isn’t it? Ever read one of the World Bank poverty reports? It’s not. Most people living in poverty in the developing world don’t whine about their circumstances (no-one listens anyway), they work harder than you ever will in your entire life, and most of their family die before they reach the age of fourty. Just how well do you think your little lecture about perseverence would go over??
Stogy, “structural violence” is simply not violence. I don’t care how many people use the word. All that proves is there are a bunch of dipshits diluting the meanings of words. I get what they’re trying to say, I just think it’s bullshit to call it violence. Call it something else. M’kay?
OK - the reason why it’s called structural violence (and it has quite a long history now) is because hunger and poverty are states of being, but structural violence actually looks at the process by which they happen. It says that very often, hunger and poverty are used as weapons against political opponents (one look at Zimbabwe should be all it takes to show this is true). It says that without justice, you can’t have peace. Injustice through poverty and hunger is a form of violence. Whether you like the word or not is pretty much immaterial now.
You asked for some “intelligent” critiscism, how about some quid pro quo.
Your link said “ Institutionalized elitism, ethnocentricism, classism, racism, sexism, adultism, nationalism, heterosexism and ageism are just some examples of structural violence.”
This is the kind or moral capitulation that I was referring to. World hunger and the problems of starvation is NOT structural violence.
I am sympathetic, as most people are, to the problems of the poor, and do what I can with the charities that I provide for, but the term you use in the context you are using it in is an insult to the genuine needy.
Most people living in poverty in the developing world don’t whine about their circumstances (no-one listens anyway), they work harder than you ever will in your entire life, and most of their family die before they reach the age of fourty.
So the words they should be using are “reality” and “tough luck.” But those words don’t imply blame to the evil successful societies. So we have to invent poppycock like “structural violence” to make people feel guilty enough to buy some crappy “We Are The World” single.
Stogy, “structural violence” is simply not violence. I don’t care how many people use the word. All that proves is there are a bunch of dipshits diluting the meanings of words. I get what they’re trying to say, I just think it’s bullshit to call it violence.
BINGO.
I’ll agree ag subsidies are doing no one any good. But it isn’t violence.
World hunger and the problems of starvation is NOT structural violence.
So if one of the causes of poverty is low crop prices caused by US and EU trade and farm subsidies, how is this not a problem caused by structure? If it results in deprivation and death in countries which can no longer afford to meet their basic needs, how is that not violence?
but the term you use in the context you are using it in is an insult to the genuine needy.
That’s quite something from someone who just delivered a patronising lecture to the poor on how they need to work harder. And then went on to say that charity is the answer.
So the words they should be using are “reality” and “tough luck.” But those words don’t imply blame to the evil successful societies. So we have to invent poppycock like “structural violence” to make people feel guilty enough to buy some crappy “We Are The World” single.
Actually no. Structural violence implies that we need to change he structures in society that cause violence - not simply give our money away to help the poor find temporary relief. It really is a term that should be claimed by the right. It emphasises responsibility and fairness: Everyone should have an equal chance to succeed if they are prepared to work hard (not everyone is equal), instead of the richest nations using their financial strength to make sure there are no challengers. It’s not that poor people don’t try - it’s that the whole system - the structure - is weighed against them from the beginning.
So if one of the causes of poverty is low crop prices caused by US and EU trade and farm subsidies
Are you honestly blaming the US and its trade policies for the starvation problems of the world’s poor?
That’s quite something from someone who just delivered a patronising lecture to the poor on how they need to work harder. And then went on to say that charity is the answer.
You obviously missed where that “patronising lecture” was targeted to.
Are you honestly blaming the US and its trade policies for the starvation problems of the world’s poor?
I notice you left out the EU (which I included every time). Yes, they are a factor in world poverty - not the only one, mind.
You obviously missed where that “patronising lecture” was targeted to.
Umm...I wasn’t the one telling the poor that they had to persevere. I, on the other hand, didn’t feel at all patronized.
Stogy, how’s that promotion going? Did you get your own minions like you’d hoped?
Stogy, how’s that promotion going? Did you get your own minions like you’d hoped?
Quite well. I have more time for research, which is nice. And I have a new office, overlooking a large section of ...er..pavement, and a concrete wall. And I was hoping for underlings, not minions. Minions never get anything right!
How’s the War Czar gig going?
Can’t complain. Oppressing indigent peoples suites me.
Just one last comment on structural violence before I hit the hay.
Two way sof killing someone. You can assault them physically in some way. Or you can lock them in a cupboard and give them nothing to eat until they are dead. Both are forms of violence, one is directm the other less so. That woud structural violence.
[/day]
+s_ -s -m +l +be
PIMF :p
Still not buying it. Goodnight. It’s off to lunch with me.
You obviously missed where that “patronising lecture” was targeted to.
Umm...I wasn’t the one telling the poor that they had to persevere. I, on the other hand, didn’t feel at all patronized.
You didn’t get it. My “lecture” was not targeted to you. I assume you are successful and do not blame silly pseudo syndromes and their silly ism’s for your plight. I was speaking to the losers in this country (hence the Franklin referrence) who use all these silly ism’s you speak of as an excuse for their own indolence or lack of initiative.
But thanks for the civics lesson. I always thought the people of Darfur or North Korea were being starved by their own governments to systematically exterminate them. I had no idea it was the fault of the US and the EU.
You didn’t get it. My “lecture” was not targeted to you. I assume you are successful and do not blame silly pseudo syndromes and their silly ism’s for your plight.
So how do you feel about “food security”? Instead of hunger. Wasn’t that switch made by this administration?
Structural violence isn’t a ‘silly ism’ at all. It’s also not an attempt by the poor to find an easy way out of their predicament. It’s an attempt to look at the structures which prevent the poor from being able to help themselves. I am not even advocating charity as a solution (as a stop-gap it has its uses).
I always thought the people of Darfur or North Korea were being starved by their own governments to systematically exterminate them. I had no idea it was the fault of the US and the EU.
Let’s take your example: You say that people are being ‘starved to death’ in an attempt to ‘exterminate’ people. Hunger is being used as a weapon, instead of a bomb. How is this not a form of violence?
And the reference to US and EU trade policies? It was an example of how the systems work (not the sole explanation). I am not blaming the US - I know that there are domestic political reasons for subsidies. But the US has been and continues to be part of the reasons why poor people in developing countries are poor.
Let’s take your example: You say that people are being ‘starved to death’ in an attempt to ‘exterminate’ people. Hunger is being used as a weapon, instead of a bomb. How is this not a form of violence?
DUH, of course this is violence, where did I say it wasn’t? The disconnect I’m getting is laying this violence on our doorstep.
It sounds like the killer had a history of mental illness and possible violence. As usual, he has to kill someone - make that 32 someones - before anyone pays attention.
Sad. And disgusting.
The disconnect I’m getting is laying this violence on our doorstep.
correction: partly on your doorstep.
Here’s another way to look at it. Professor Younis, of the Grameen Bank, wins the Nobel Prize for peace for extending micro-credit into places where people have no access to loans. In doing so, he addresses a structure which is keeping people poor - structural violence. Another structure which keeps people poor is the absence of trained medical staff - many of whom are trained in the developing world, and then recruited by wealthier countries to look after our elderly. This represents a huge loss in social capital - we are not to “blame” for this, but we are part of the problem. At the same time, we send expensive temporary workers to those countries to look after their immediate healthcare needs. Trade subsidies are another, as they lock developing countries out of world markets, and at times they keep the price of staples lower than the cost of production.
So when we look at the structures which cause poverty (and violence), we need to account for this. Global systems are causes of poverty (including, but certainly not exclusively the west) - by changing them we help people help themselves.
stogy, your good points are diluted by where you put the blame.
Another structure which keeps people poor is the absence of trained medical staff - many of whom are trained in the developing world, and then recruited by wealthier countries to look after our elderly.
You come off like a socialist with this example. It is not the fault of the worker who wants a better wage any more than it is the employer who has the wealth to attract said worker.
The plight of the poor is a tragedy but where you lose me is blaming institutionalized elitism, ethnocentricism, classism, racism, sexism, adultism, nationalism, heterosexism and ageism for keeping people in poverty.
That poor farmer in Darfur who is eking out a meager living would be amused that some rich guy made up an ism to describe his poverty, he just looking to feed his family.
You come off like a socialist with this example. It is not the fault of the worker who wants a better wage any more than it is the employer who has the wealth to attract said worker.
Ah. Now I understand. I am not trying to say that it’s anyone’s fault. The behavior of the worker and the employer are completely understandable. But if the cycle continues, then healthcare in the developing world will never improve. Hence we look at the systems with a view to some kind of structural adjustment. Maybe we do something to make working in the home country more attractive, 5 year bonds for graduates in return for free education in selected services. It’s not about blame, it’s not about forcing people to do something - it’s about looking at a structural problem and finding a solution. And actually healthcare was a good example, because in every country that has had a significant advance in quality of life, income - whatever indicator you like - a significant advance in health has predated the other changes.
The plight of the poor is a tragedy but where you lose me is blaming institutionalized elitism, ethnocentricism, classism, racism, sexism, adultism, nationalism, heterosexism and ageism for keeping people in poverty.
Hey, there’s plenty of literature on it. Men and women experience poverty differently. Take HIV. Women in countries where they have few sexual rights are much more likely to become infected. They are much more likely to be socially excluded if they become infected, or be burdened with care if their spouse gets it. If their spouse dies and they live on, having been infected, then how are they going to look after the children - whilst sick? HIV widows in Zimbabwe have been kicked off their proprty by angry relatives, and the police and courts have done nothing. Wouldn’t it be easy and cheaper to start an education program about HIV and sexual rights?
And no, I’m not blaming - I am looking at the causes and working out how structural change might help alleviate them. Long term - honestly - how is charity going to solve any of these problems?
That poor farmer in Darfur who is eking out a meager living would be amused that some rich guy made up an ism to describe his poverty, he just looking to feed his family.
Just as he would by your little lecture on perseverence.
Long term - honestly - how is charity going to solve any of these problems?
Well, it will keep him alive long enough for your solutions (admitted long term in efficacy).
Just as he would by your little lecture on perseverence.
Maybe you didn’t eat your wheaties this morning. I told you 3 times, this lecture was not directed at the poor farmer in Darfur.
You make some fairly intelligent comments, show some genuine concern, then your short term memory loss kicks in and dilutes your argument.
Next entry: You Can See My Junket
Previous entry: Gun Control Realities
What about him makes you think that?