Category: Psycho News

Posted on

Time for journalistic responsibility.

NewImage

I couldn’t resist the Reagan poster. But you have to admit if anyone aside from James Brady could speak to the subject it’s Reagan. 

CBSNews Is reporting the New York paper responsible for publishing a map showing the addresses of registered gun owners in two NY counties has added to their grandstanding by hiring armed security guards to protect one of their offices.

The so called “journalists” are kinda missing the point.

I love the irony in that they’ve turned to armed security to protect them.

Registered gun owners are law abiding citizens which by default means that these people aren’t likely to go to the newspaper to exact revenge.

Law abiding citizens are going to choose weapons of mass destruction…. LAWYERS!

The Lawyers will be far more devastating to the newspaper than anyone with a gun.

If I were one of the people affected I’d be seriously pissed off. Not because now the world knows I have guns, but because of the invasion of privacy for no good purpose other than headlines.

Essentially this newspaper has stigmatized the gun owners of these counties. What they’ve done is tried to equate gun owners to sex offenders. “Who are the gun owners in your neighborhood?”, Who are the sex offenders in your neighborhood?”

I’m sure that the editors of the newspaper have gotten some really negative mail and deservedly so.

The gun owners affected have committed no crime, they’ve done absolutely nothing that should have resulted in the forfeiture of their privacy and yet… They’ve lost their privacy. Their homes may be targeted for potential break-ins by criminals who would like to steal guns and resell them to other criminals.

Now the newspaper is trying to look like the victim, and spin the story that they’re scared of the gun owners. 

I have a few things to say to that;

1 Buck up. You published the piece, you must have thought about the invasion of privacy you were enabling and if you didn’t well you’re not very good journalists. You need to accept the consequences and responsibility for your actions.

2 You have nothing to fear from the registered gun owners. You need to fear their attorneys.

3 In the years to come you need to fear the criminal element that breaks into these houses and manages to steal the weapons. They’re the people that are going to mug you, rape you, and shoot you. The blood of innocent victims, and the blood of the home owners occupying these houses will be on your hands.

In my opinion, a single injury or god forbid a death caused because a criminal targeted these homes should result in prosecution of the journalists involved in the story.

I’m for freedom of the press, but with that freedom also comes responsibility. 

There’s a quote from one of the Star Trek movies. “Just because we can do a thing, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we should do a thing.”

Yes, it wasn’t said by a statesman, or a scientist, or a politician. But it’s nonetheless a wonderful cautionary statement.

I suspect that the movie quote is based on something Robert Oppenheimer said;

“When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb. – J. Robert Oppenheimer”

The point is, sometimes it’s important to take a step back to look beyond your ability to act and decide if the ends are really justified. 

How many wars, how much harm would have been avoided if people had simply considered the ramifications of their actions?

Posted on

This has to be a major WTF???

18961899 BG1

I heard of an instance a couple of months ago where a brave young life guard was fired from his lifeguard job because he saved someone that was drowning.

The problem is… The drowning person was beyond the area the young lifeguard was supposed to be tending to. 

This occurred in Hallandale Beach FL, and the young heroes name is Thomas Lopez

So the message is Save a life, as you’ve been trained to… BUT ONLY in your area! 

I suppose that if during the save, the lifeguard and the drowning victim had drifted out of bounds that young Mr. Lopez was supposed to let go of the victim, commending his soul to Poseidon’s mercy. 

What the hell is wrong with our society you may ask… Well here is one example of litigation and liability taken to it’s insanely logical conclusion.

382854 lifeguard t640

I just heard of another instance where someone saving a life was penalized for their trouble.

In this case it was a young man In Oregon. Seventeen year old off duty lifeguard John Clark jumped into rough surf to save a 12 year old that was being swept out to sea. 

How did the ambulance company hospitals and doctors tell him he’d done the right thing? They sent him a bill for nearly $2600

When Johns story appeared on the local news the good people in his local area began donating to cover the bill. You see, Johns family doesn’t have health insurance or the cash to cover the cost. 

Johns bill will be paid I’m sure of that, any extra cash from the donations, John is putting into a college fund or donating to help cover the medical bills of the victim, because he’s a good kid.

It’s exactly this kind of selfless people we need more of in our society. And yet… we punish them indirectly for doing the right thing.

I suspect that the trouble is just beginning. I’m sure that John or his family will be taxed on the donations he’s received to pay for the hospital charges that he never should have been billed for!

Hospitals go through $2600 bucks of toilet paper in the emergency room lobby every day just due to illegal aliens.

The ambulance company should have waived their bill to say;

“Good Job, Well Done, you’re a hero and made of the right stuff” 

The hospital and the doctor that checked him out should have done the same.

Instead they’ve sent a message not only to this heroic young man but to everyone nationwide.

The message is Human life is worth $2600 or in the case of Mr. Lopez… Your Job!

Sadly, this is one of the reasons I no longer have a current CPR or first aid card.

It works like this… If I have the card and don’t help I’m liable and If I do help and something bad happens once I’ve accepted the responsibility to help someone I’m liable.

I don’t have 8 Million in liability insurance and couldn’t afford the premiums even if I wanted to.

So If you’re bleeding out, or have a heart attack around me, and you’re not my best friend or a member of my immediate family… well YOUR’E GOING TO DIE. Sorry about that, Can’t be helped but you will have the joy of actually seeing all the ambulance chasing  attorneys in a special circle of hell reserved JUST for them…

I figure that my best friend and immediate family members aren’t likely to sue me for trying to save their lives.

Our overly litigious and greedy society is unfortunately filled with tons of people looking for an angle… A way to get rich quick, even if it’s on the back of a Good Samaritan whose only sin is that they tried to help.

After reading articles like these… It’s obvious that a value has already been set. A human life is worth $2600. If it costs more than $2600 to treat you then you’re dead! Obamacare take note!

I suppose that the converse is also true… As a Good Samaritan I could only be sued for $2600.

Hmmm, maybe I could go get that CPR/First Aid card renewed. I could afford to be sued for that amount….

Nahhhh, I’m a white guy I’ll be sued for millions, especially if I happen to help a lawyer. I can see it now…

“Is it true that you prevented me from bleeding out from a gunshot wound? ‘Uhh Yes.’ But you weren’t trained to deal with gunshot wound were you? ‘Uhh No.’ Your honor, the prosecution rests it’s case. The defendant wasn’t qualified to save my life and therefore should pay restitution for bruising me with the tourniquet that saved my life in the amount of 20 million dollars.”

The Obscene part is that I and millions of other people just like me will hesitate for a second or two to consider the ramifications of getting involved.

That second or two could mean the difference between someone living and dying. Is this really the society that you want to live in?

Something to think about…

Posted on

I saw this little jewel on TOWLEROAD a while back

I’ve let this one steep a while since I wasn’t really sure that I wanted to be quite this out there. But I’m thinking aww what the hell?

I’ve gotta file this one under the WTF category…

Friend of Norwegian Mass Murderer Anders Behring Breivik Thought He Was Gay, Closeted

Read more: TOWLEROAD

I have to ask what does this guys sexuality have to do with the fact that he’s on trial for killing 77 people?

This guy has confessed to committing the murders but claims that he did so to protect his beloved homeland and culture.

The piece also comments on the fact that Breivik had a nose job “so he could have a more “Aryan” nose”. So what?

I’m not sure what the attorneys in Norway are trying to prove.

Breivik, had he been the leader of a revolution that won… would be described as a liberator and hero to his people for protecting the purity of Norwegian culture.

However since Breivik was acting alone he’s perceived as a nutcase and murderer. Now it looks as if the Norwegian court is trying to marginalize the crime and his stated reasons for committing it by painting him as a vain, closeted homosexual who acted out.

This suggests to me that perhaps Norwegian society isn’t ready to consider that they may have a larger problem…

They’re hoping that the Breivik case is a “one-off“.  Perhaps it is.

Images

But what if it’s not?

Lets look at this another way…

What kind of social pressure, cultural change, and abuse does it take for a vain, closeted homosexual to make, plant and detonate a bomb, or pick up a rifle and start shooting people?

The Norwegians had a bit of civil unrest several years ago because one of their cartoonists drew a picture. That picture while protected under Norwegian free speech rights still had to be apologized for. The artist still had to flee his home. The Norwegian government, instead of expelling those who sought to deny the artist his rights made concessions to a radical minority.

The imposition of foreign cultural taboos on a society will inevitably result in unrest. 

Vivid examples include Palastine, and Iran.

The Shah of Iran was deposed at least in part because his policies were too progressive, and  too Western. Apparently the religious infrastructure of the country perceiving a threat to their tradition, power and culture incited a coup. The ruling government then exiled all foreigners, nationalized all the resources and descended into an almost isolationist (from the West except for oil sales) period.

The Palestinians resented in 1947 and do to this day control being imposed on them by the West in the creation of the State of Israel.

I’m not suggesting that Breivik was in any way correct in what he did.

What I’m saying is that perhaps Norway should look more carefully at it’s rising nationalism and the factors that are contributing to it.

Otherwise the next  Breivik will organize an insurgent movement. Such a movement could easily be aimed at focusing Norways’ rising nationalism against the Norwegian government and all people that are perceived as a threat to Norwegian cultural values.