I “borrowed” the above image from Politifact to demonstrate this rant. It is in response to something a pro-NRA guy sent to me in response to my anti-NRA and pro-gun regulation posts on Twitter and I suppose this Blog over the past few days. He cited an NRA myth about how gun control leads to mass murder. Here’s the link to what he sent me:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/ifhj78

I of course responded the only way I could to get the attention of this gentleman. I called this for what it is, a False Equivalence and called him an idiot for bringing it up. Our conversation did not end on a happy note. This exchange also reminded me of what Samuel Wurzelbacher, more commonly known as “Joe the Plumber” who’s running for Congress cited in June. It was in fact the same talking point from the NRA of how regimes take guns away from their citizens then annihilate them ie The Soviet Union, Turkey, Nazi Germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia. Impressive list of heinous acts, but still sorry to say, a False Equivalence.

For those who don’t know, a False Equivalence is “a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.”

So, what’s the problem here. First of all and the most obvious is that no one in the government in this nation is proposing or for my knowledge have ever proposed taking “all the guns away.” There have been calls from the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence for better written, and enforced gun control laws designed to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally insane. Not a total ban of guns at all. There have also been calls for bans on Assault Rifles. In fact, we once had one in existence, but it expired. But again, what need does a law-abiding, sane, rational man have for an assault rifle?

So the first part of the argument is false, now to the second. What happened when these regimes “took the guns away”? Well, there is a difference between those regimes and our current government. I say current government because there are many on the right I fear would like to change this. Currently, our government does not stifle free speech, party affiliation, has no discrimination against any persons based on religion, race, sexual orientation, disability, etc. At least on paper as of today, our government is not out to eliminate those they do not like with extreme prejudice like the Communists, Nazis, etc.

So, no one is asking to take the guns away, just keep them from those inclined to use them in a harmful way to innocent people and the government is not predisposed to kill off in huge numbers those they do not tolerate. Our current government I caution to add.

So to emphasize my point in my Twitter exchange earlier today to that gentleman or anyone wanting to cite that gun control leads to mass murder. You’re idiots

Above for those of you who don’t know, this is a picture of JT Ready on the left with Former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce. In my humble opinion, this represents the problem with NRA “liberal” gun access position. JT Ready was a self avowed Neo-Nazi in Arizona. a war veteran with some severe mental health issues that were becoming more and more apparent leading up to him murdering his girlfriend, her daughter, her 15-month old granddaughter, the daughter’s fiancée, and himself. He had been Court Martialed twice by the Marines and received a bad conduct discharge from the Corps. He was also running for Sheriff in Pinal County. In the home, police found weaponry to include 6 live hand grenades. All weapons recovered were lawfully purchased.

Now for Russell Pearce. He’s the father of SB1070 that he wrote on behalf of the American Legislative Exchange Council at behest of the Private Prison Industry to round-up and lock up people suspected of being here illegally. You know, brown folks who Russell has always had a problem with. Due to his racist views and disgrace he brought to Arizona, his district, a very conservative one at that, recalled him. Today, Russell posted on his Facebook how he blames gun purchase enforcement laws (that really don’t exist anymore) and the victims in Aurora for not fighting back at a man dressed in Kevlar blasting away with an automatic assault rifle (legally purchased) after igniting tear gas canisters in an enclosed theatre.

This picture is emblematic of the goals of the NRA.

As of the time of this post, despite the speculations on both sides of the political aisle, the true motivation behind the Aurora shooting remains unknown. However, whatever the reason, the problem is that a man of apparent mental instability had an assault rifle and used it indiscriminately against unarmed men, women and children and some of the victims were in fact trained military personnel. For those who have followed me on Twitter and this blog know, I have little love or respect for the National Rifle Association while at the same time I do support gun rights in this nation. So, in the aftermath of this tragedy, let’s get some facts out that we can consider in a rational way, assuming you are willing to do so.

Guns are the instruments that people, so inclined, use to kill other people more than anything else. They are very effective in taking the life of whoever it is pointed at when that trigger is pulled. That is what they are designed for, the destruction of whatever is in front of that barrel. So, it’s not exactly true that guns don’t kill people, because without a person pressing their finger on that trigger, the gun pretty much is useless. And I cannot emphasize this more, guns serve no other purpose than to kill, that includes animals and people, target practice not withstanding.

The National Rifle Association was originally created to expand hunting rights for a still young nation where hunting was much more prevalent and necessary than it is today. Somehow they started latching on to 2nd Amendment rights that never, in the history of this nation, were ever in jeopardy. This happened around the time they became lobbyists for gun manufacturers. Coincidence? Possibly, but that is for the individual to decide. Since the 2nd Amendment is always the rallying cry of the NRA, and people take different interpretations of what it means, let me cite my belief. I’m no constitutional scholar, of course few people who speak of this really are, but here goes.

In the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights people need to understand that this nation did not have a standing army nor any police force of any kind. At best, there were some Sheriff’s, Marshals, and possibly some deputies. So no real law enforcement out there. This country and her citizens were under threat of invasion from European nations, like in 1812, or from Canada, Mexico, or from the Native Americans still a bit sore about having their lands stolen from them by these illegal immigrants from across the Ocean. So the need of a “Well Regulated Militia” was seen as a necessity of the day. It is noted that Thomas Jefferson opposed any standing army for the country knowing from history that such armies have been known to usurp power and take over so he advocated a citizen’s militia to counter that possibility.

From my perspective, the key term is “Well Regulated” which would imply, and is proven from historical accounts of the time that those who were part of those “Citizen’s Militias” actually had to train with their fellows on a regular basis to be allowed to be part of the ranks. It made sense then, and makes sense now. If you are going to give a weapon to someone to use that can easily kill others, you want them trained technically and emotionally how to use it. Today our military and police personnel must undergo a battery of psychological evaluations, technical training on how to use a weapon, and must qualify on a range before being issued a weapon. Those not in the military or work for law enforcement have no such requirement at all in this nation. So people paid to protect us must undergo far more to be allowed to use a gun to protect us than others who can carry and yet feel qualified to defend others without the assessments or training.

That being said, you would think that I’m opposed to private citizenship ownership of weapons. That is far from the truth. Even though I do not believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee gun ownership, I do believe that there is nothing inherently wrong in owning a gun for the average person. However, considering the nature of what guns are used for, I do strongly believe that safeguards must be in place to thwart as much harm as reasonable possible.

The NRA love to cite that there are too many gun regulations out there. Well, there’s stuff on the books under the category of “guns” but thanks to the NRA very few actual regulations out there. Those imposed have expired. The issue of Fast and Furious actually did demonstrate that both State and Federal Gun laws have become so lax and are so poorly regulated, straw purchasers with no criminal records were able to buy assault weapons at licensed gun shows for Drug Lords in Mexico, they couldn’t be arrested per the rulings of the prosecutors reviewing the laws. (See my previous rant on this topic)

So all I ask for is that as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence advocates, that there be a waiting period before anyone can buy a weapon to be properly evaluated to make sure that they have no criminal records or possibly even criminal associates and that they are mentally sound to have a weapon of destruction in their midst. I also agree as did Mitt Romney who signed into law in Massachusetts, that there should be a permanent ban on assault rifles and expanded magazines to carry more ammunition. These are clearly only designed to cause more harm, more quickly without having to reload. Not needed for hunting deer.

Now the NRA would argue that if you have these regulations and these bans, then only criminals will have these weapons. Really? Think about it. By not having them, you make it easier for criminals to get these weapons without raising a single eyebrow from anyone. Lawful and sane people can wait a reasonable amount of time before getting a weapon.

Another talking point from the NRA over issues like these is that if more people were armed in the Theatre, if there was concealed carry laws in effect everywhere, this wouldn’t have happened. Well two things. One, the study saying that “Conceal Carry” reduces crime is bogus. It was poor statistical science making an improper correlation of gun ownership and crime rates and has been since refuted. See this article for an explanation:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2011/07/29/concealed-carry-laws-do-not-reduce-crime.html

Also, “Friendly Fire” incidents from well-trained professionals is one of the leading cause for injuries on the battlefield, or even with police shoot-outs. You want a bunch of untrained, unprepared, emotional scared armed people shooting at everything that moves. The carnage would have grown exponentially.

In my opinion, the NRA only exists as a lobbying organization for the gun manufacturers. They use the guise of “2nd Amendment Rights” to con people into providing them money that they use to manipulate government to place into law, or remove from law regulations that can reduce the possibility of incidents like Aurora, Virgina Tech, Columbine, Gabby Giffords, from happening so that the gun manufacturers that they advocate for can sell more weapons and more ammunition out of unfounded fear and trepidation and get richer. We are the most armed and dangerous society because of that uncontrolled arming. I blame the NRA.

As I’ve tweeted many a time, whenever there is a call for gun control measures to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and mentally insane, it is the NRA and their supporters who speak the loudest against it, and the reason is obvious from each time they open their mouths.

Get tough against unregulated gun ownership, tell your representatives they must serve us, not the NRA Gun Lobby.

I’ve got some good news and some bad news for you. The good news is that the United States remains the wealthiest country in the world and has been since at least the end of World War II. Now the bad news, very few of you enjoy a portion of that wealth and that number continues to fall.

If you are truly concerned about people, the statistic that means the most is the “median wealth” rate. For those who either slept through, forgot or never really pay attention to math and economics, the median rate is simply where the exact middle of the population stands. Half are either above it or below it. The higher the median rate the more people are enjoying the overall wealth of the nation, the lower the rate, the fewer people who have control of the wealth.

I posted some links on Twitter earlier today and I’ll post them here now for you all to peruse at your leisure:

http://middleclasspoliticaleconomist.blogspot.com/  This link summarizes recent data that shows we are behind 15 other nations in terms of median wealth. Damn European Socialist States!!!!

http://www.getinthehotspot.com/10-richest-countries-in-world/  This link lists the 10 richest countries in terms of median wealth, we ain’t among them anymore.

https://infocus.credit-suisse.com/data/_product_documents/_shop/323525/2011_global_wealth_report.pdf This is for you brainiacs out there who are far better with interpreting economic data than I and have even less of a life than I do. But it’s the basis of this rant for those wanting to check the figures and concepts cited here.

The common refrain from conservatives and especially those conservatives in the 1% and especially those conservatives who make up the 17 billionaires who are trying to buy this election for Mitt Romney is that big government, regulations and high taxes stunt growth, keep entrepreneurial innovations from being created and keeps people from becoming part of the 1%. Just heard a talking head spout that off today on the radio.

Well, if that is true then all of these people need to explain some indisputable facts of history involving this nation’s history and what’s happening in the world today and how we compare to those lousy socialist state ideologues in Europe who are so damn Unamerican.

First of all, the greatest growth in terms on innovation, business, and wealth not only for the 1% but for the middle-class was after World War II. Now it helped that we were just about the only industrial nation left unscathed by war, but we did build up a huge debt to fight that war, higher in relationship to GDP than we have today. Top marginal tax rates for the upper class was 95%, regulations in terms of banking and business were at their highest in history, and the growth was continual. We led the free world, we were the worlds largest creditor nation. They came to us and we had the money to loan out. Things were going so well that you know what? Those European Nations out there not under the control of the Soviet Union began to adapt our policies in terms of regulations, unions and taxation. The only thing they added was universal healthcare for all their citizens.

Then came Ronald Reagan, Reaganomics and the dismantling of the New Deal in this country. We began to deregulate banks and businesses and something started to happen. entrepreneurial growth began to sputter, other nations picked up where we left off. Fewer people were becoming members of the 1%, but those already there were doing very well, thank you very much. Their wealth continues to expand. Where did that wealth come from, it came from the ever shrinking middle-class. While this was going on, the median wealth rate for the nation began to fall. And now today, instead of the worlds largest creditor nation, we are now the world’s largest debtor nation. Imagine that. A lot of that money is owed to China, but an even larger amount is owed to those damned evil Socialist State Europeans who maintained the regulations and tax rates they took from us after World War II.

Now many will point out that Europe isn’t doing all that well under the current economic environment. That is true. But here’s the thing, they are faltering because they are going full force austerity with their people while we are still just getting started. And we’re doing better than Europe right now because we haven’t gone full austerity. What’s more is even though the European Nations are suffering in the depression worse than the United States on most terms, their median wealth rates still far surpasses us. So they may have fewer billionaires than we do, but they have far many more secured middle-class people who also happen to still have a social safety net and universal healthcare, paid for by their higher tax rates. And people in Europe are more likely to end up in a higher income bracket than anyone in the United States even though Europe has more regulations and taxes than we do.

The economic fact here is that the more equal income distribution is in any country, the higher the median wealth rate and the better the nation does as a whole. More people live better, healthier and secured lives. The more unequal that distribution, the harder it becomes to enter a higher income bracket and the more people who end up in poverty for reasons not of their doing. This is where we have been moving under 30 years of Reaganomics.

Many in the middle-class and even the working poor see themselves as conservatives and will work on behalf of the 1% to make sure they aren’t regulated and taxed out of existence. It’s a shame that the weaker among us are more willing to help out the greater among us than vice versa.

We are still the richest nation on the planet, it’s just more of that money is with fewer and fewer people who continue to hoard it and not reinvest it back in the country. Worse yet, many of them are keeping that money in European banks who in turn, are rebuilding the European infrastructure and keeping things just peachy keen for them Godless, socialist state European heathens.

Though he later apologized, John Sununu followed up on a common talking point from the right these days that can be heard on MSM, read on the internet, face-book, twitter, etc by saying that President Obama “needs to learn how to be an American.”

Now I’m no fancy, big city politician with MSM access, but I have read my Constitution. After all, isn’t the Constitution the document that determines what is and what isn’t American? The strict constructionist would have you believe that. So what does the Constitution and law say about this?

Well it would appear that as it stands today, there are only three requirements for being an American. Either be born here, be born to American parent(s) outside the country, or be nationalized. I’ve read more and couldn’t for the life of me find anything regarding thought, political affiliation, party preference, sexual orientation, sex, religion, or race that disqualifies anyone from being American. Imagine that.

People of both sides of the political aisle like to think they speak for what is or isn’t American. The truth of the matter is, neither side has that ability. In fact, going to the constructionist point of view and regarding political parties; well, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the 1790’s created a political party known as the Democratic-Republicans known today as the Democratic Party. The party began with many of the founders who wrote and enacted the Constitution. The Republican Party was founded in 1854, long after all of the founders were dead. Though it’s true that both parties over time, have swayed their political leanings back and forth. And by the way, the founders were made up of liberals, conservatives, Christians, Jews, Deists, those of no faith, capitalists and socialists (though those terms had yet to come into vogue at the time) all working and arguing with each other to come up with compromise to get things started here.

Early Republicans were actually more Progressive than what you have today. Early Democrats were more racially bigoted that we have today. But throughout our history, no matter the party, no matter the political leanings, they were all Americans, providing they were born or naturalized here.

The issue of race was cleared up after the civil war and you cannot seriously say someone who isn’t white isn’t American anymore. Sorry Rush Limbaugh, I know this really upsets you.

The history of this nation is a history of differing views, orientations, races, religions, political parties, sexual orientation, debating with each other about what we should be as a nation. That is what America is about. Doesn’t matter what side of an issue you take, both sides are American, providing you were born or naturalized here.

There never has been a religious test. In fact, the Constitution expressly forbids using a religious test for public office. So all people of all faiths, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Scientology, Deist, Atheists, LDS or no faith at all are American, providing they were born or naturalized here.

There is no thought test for being American. So whether you are right or left of the political divide, capitalist, socialist, progressive, fascist, communist, Maoist, Independent, you are American providing you were born or naturalized in this country.

Enough of this crap on both sides that so and so isn’t an American. In my humble opinion, the only kind of thinking that would disqualify you from being American is applying the view that if they think different from you, they’re not American. That is the closest thing to a thought requirement that I can think of. Though admittedly, not even that, is in the Constitution or law. You don’t have to agree, and people can clearly be wrong either economically, ethically, socially, whatever, they’re still American.

Fact is, like it or not, regardless of our views, parties, religion, sexual orientation, sex, race, what have you, as long as we are born here, born to American parent(s) or have been nationalized, we are all Americans and no one has the right to say otherwise.

Okay, that is pure hyperbole. It is of course a take off of Ben’s 2010 campaign ad and his recent 2012 update regarding what he thinks of President Obama. I would say more, but honestly, this man offers little to deserve being quoted and has even less in his background to justify quoting. Let’s take a look at his record representing the people of Arizona in the House of Representatives.

Ben’s greatest accomplishment to propel him into national office was being born to Dan and Marilyn Quayle. You remember Dan, former veep to the first George Bush. I honestly thought it was a good choice for George, it kept him safe from all assassination plots. Ben had no experience in any political office prior to running for Congress in 2010 but was experienced as a contributor to a rumor and gossip site known as “TheDirty.Com” a website that featured pictures of scantily clad women that Ben could only get his hands on because of his father’s name and/or the money he paid them to be near him, and chronicled the night life in Scottsdale, Arizona. As you can see from his picture, Ben was destined to be the next Hugh Hefner, but he decided to go the political route instead.

In an election year where most independents and liberals stayed home, only the solidly conservatives who only vote as they are told came out, Ben won District #3, where yours truly happens to reside. Of note during his campaign was a poster he had out of him and his wife with some children. He failed to mention that the kids shown weren’t his. In Arizona, it really doesn’t matter to the conservatives to ask questions like that, again, most of them only do as they are told. It should also be pointed out that it was a four-way race. He won as the tallest midget of candidates in the district.

Ben told us he was going to Washington to knock thing around. So, what has he done since winning? Actually I’m asking you guys because from what I can find, he’s done nothing of his own. Like many of the conservatives from Arizona, he has done what he’s been told, but hasn’t authored any important legislation, hasn’t gathered any coalition of Representatives on any important matter of national importance, hasn’t chaired any committees, hasn’t distinguished himself at all in nearly two years. He’s really done nothing. Seriously, nothing.

Well, I’ll take that back. He actually has his own child now for his 2012 campaign ads that he literally has in front of him. I suspect he has Evie there in front of him to keep people from defacing the posters. But honestly, they don’t have to, his face is already on them. Ben did also manage to get himself involved in a bit of a controversy. His district was redrawn and he is now up against another freshman Conservative Congressman,  David Schweikert. The problem is that David actually has a political career in Arizona. He actually has a record and has some accomplishments. So, Ben’s mom Marilyn went to Governor Brewer to complain and Jan went to the Arizona Legislature and forced them to impeach the Chairwoman of the State’s Independent Redistricting Commission, Colleen Coyle Mathis. Forget that she laid out no specific reason to justify the impeachment, no law cited that she broke, no actual misconduct other than pissing off Marilyn Quayle. Did I mention that Conservatives in Arizona do what they are told. The State Senate did impeach Mathis without cause at Jan’s direction.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/11/01/20111101arizona-redistricting-brewer-wants-chair-Mathis-removed.html

In a rare move for the State of Arizona, the rule of law actually won out and Mathis kept her seat and the redistricting remained. So Ben is up against Dave. Ben is trying to repeat his line from 2010 regarding Obama. He’s voted as told including recently voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with nothing. That same day he also voted down a rider that would have also removed tax payer supported Healthcare for Members of Congress. Hey, Ben’s got a new baby to raise and has a right to healthcare because he’s Dan’s and Marilyn’s little boy and he’s in Congress playing tough even though I suspect many a time, somebody’s putting the “kick me” sign on his back.

No, Ben is not the Worst Congressman in History. He’s done nothing to rate as anything in the history of Congress. However, I think it would be nice to replace him with someone who would actually work and try to accomplish something on their own rather than take orders from Grover Norquist, Karl Rove and the NRA.

For the 33rd time on July 12th, 2012, but for the first time after the Supreme Court decision that the Affordable Care Act was Constitutional, House Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor placed before the House a bill to completely repeal the Act. They offered nothing to replace it with, just a bill to repeal it completely. Forget that this vote actually cost the American Tax Payer $48 million dollars, for something that would never be heard in the Senate. And even if it was and somehow passed, would never be signed by the President.  There was something else about this bill that has gotten little attention in the mainstream media.

Prior to this vote that would in effect: eliminate healthcare for 30 million Americans, allow insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions again, rescind coverage for getting sick again, remove children under 26 from coverage again, allow more than 20% of premiums collected to go for things outside of healthcare again, make it legal to overcharge women for coverage again, etc etc etc, there was a rider that was voted on for the bill that was presented by the Democrats. It was a rider that was voted down completely along party lines. It was a rider that would remove Members of Congress from getting tax payer paid-for healthcare. It would have denied Members of Congress the same thing they were trying to deny 30 million Americans for.

Seems only fair. The argument from the Tea Party Controlled House of Representatives is that tax payers shouldn’t be held to pay for the healthcare of others. It should be the individual’s responsibility. Government paid healthcare is after all “Socialism”. It’s bad, evil, must be eliminated, unless you are a Member of Congress.

Once elected to the House of Representatives or Senate, you have access to the best healthcare plan the tax-payers can provide. What’s more, it’s inexpensive to the user and the user’s family, and it’s there for them for life.

The thinking on the Right regarding “socialized” medicine is mind-blowing. Even though Republican President Theodore Roosevelt first proposed universal healthcare over 100 years ago, it took a Democratic President to finally pass it under the provisions pushed by the conservative members of the GOP and Heritage Foundation (though it would now appear that they never supported these ideas “retroactively” to cite Ed Gillespie).

During the Medicare Debate, the GOP harped on how this was Socialized Medicine and cannot be allowed to pass. But it did pass, and during the Tea Party shouting matches at ACA town hall meetings, many carried the sign “Keep Government Hands off my Medicare.” It is but to laugh.

A country and a people are only as strong as their weakest links. If you want to call it “Socialized medicine”, go ahead. I don’t really care. The rest of the industrialized world realize that government supported healthcare for all keeps their people healthier and medical care less expensive. If you deny coverage the way the GOP say you must, healthcare is far more expensive, available to far too few people and the entire nation suffers, except for those in Congress who have healthcare for life at our expense.

If you are a Veteran, you support “socialize medicine”, if you are a senior, you support “socialize medicine”, if you are a member of the United States Congress, you support “socialize medicine” because you use it and you are all very unlikely to give it up. Let the rest of us have it and keep it too. Michelle Bachmann, Jean Schmidt, Ben Quayle, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, et al voted to keep their socialized medicine because they think they have a right to it.

Now about the Jobs Mr. Speaker…..

This morning on Twitter, I saw a post with a link that I read, felt sick to my stomach and retweeted for those who follow my tweets. Here it is for you all to read and to understand the basis of my next rant:

“Sickening: Obama staffer dies tragically in Chicago OFA office, right wingers dance on his grave”

http://eclectablog.com/2012/07/sickening-obama-staffer-dies-tragically-in-chicago-ofa-office-right-wingers-dance-on-his-grave.html#.UAGxeNeOKC9.twitter

I did not agree with Andrew Breitbart, I found his style of journalism vile and misleading from using Timothy McVeigh look-a-like James O’Keefe performing a “60 Minutes” parody piece to take down ACORN and his purposefully mis-editing of the speech Shirley Sherrod gave that ended up with her suing him, up to the events just prior to his tragic (yes I said tragic) death. His apparently “drunken” rants against OWS protesters and how he bullied those on Twitter with the assistance of his followers. I thought the man was vile. After his death, I found it interesting to hear from those on the left who knew Breitbart personally say that when the cameras weren’t around, when people weren’t tweeting, he was actually a kind, reasonable man with a good sense of humor. The man actually advocated for gay marriage rights. He was conservative no doubt and he saw himself as a messenger of that position and he knew that the style he used grabbed at the base anger of many who felt the same way and galvanized them into action. It was his job as he saw it, and he did it effectively, Rest In Peace Andrew.

This being said, when he died, there was Twitter traffic out there, similar to what the Right Wing has done with Alex Okrent, some of it just as vile. Even before hearing more about Breitbart post-mortem, and even though his death happened just a couple of days after I was a victim of his bullying attacks on Twitter, I called out some of the more vile people on the left with their rhetoric. Although Andrew Breitbart personally attacked people who believed outside his belief system, had personally caused harm to many in this country, in death, he did not deserve the angry attacks. The fact of the matter is, being dead, he had no idea what was being said, but his family was very much alive and if only for that reason, caution and respectful comments should have been the rule of the day. His family loved him and did not deserve to be made a part of the people’s anger.

Many felt that in their attacks and insults on Andrew Breitbart following his death, they were exercising their Freedom of Speech. I whole heartedly agree, they were. In fact the people Tweeting the vile stuff regarding Alex Okrent are also exercising their Freedom of Speech. But there’s something else. Speech can never, ever, be one-sided. Though I agree with the maxim, “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” there is still more to this concept. It’s where Responsible Speech comes into play. When you hear or read people telling lies, insulting the personhood of others because of their political views, race, sexual orientation, socio-economic situation, etc, as Americans we have a RESPONSIBILITY to counter that speech, to correct that speech, to give those listening/reading both sides of the argument. The attacks on Breitbart were there from the left, but so were the calls from the left to the people of like-minds to calm it down. To not have done so would have been clearly Irresponsible.

I have yet to read or hear from people on the Right, from the Romney Camp, calling out on those who maliciously bully a poor dead young man who’s only crime was believing the way he did and working for that belief. That’s all Andrew Breitbart was doing, it albeit in a more vocal and obvious way.

To not call out these people on either side of the political divide is ultimately very dangerous. As someone tweeted back to me this morning:

“RW often does that kind of despicable behavior. Look at Germany & Italy in the 1930s, 40s. There’s no place 4 Fascism in the USA”

He was of course referring to the deafening silence from the German and Italian people to the written and vocal attacks of those considered to be the domestic enemies of the State. They did very little to counter it and we all know what happened in the end.

On the left, we need to be responsible, if the right truly believe in a Free America and the rights of all Americans to do what they see fit to make this country better for themselves and others, then there should be universal condemnation from both sides for this vile, unchristian, un-American attack on a poor dead boy and his family for committing the grievance crime of trying to help his country. Those who attack him need to be called out to defend their words, that is Responsible Speech

I’ve only recently started blogging in order to be able to explain more fully certain points of view I may have that 140 characters just isn’t enough for. That being said, I still prefer Twitter for quick responses, often with tongue planted firmly in cheek, or to send out links to good articles regarding the issues of the day. The one issue of Twitter that remains, and that depending on your level of tolerance, good humor or sense of humor can be a problem is dealing with Trolls.

Trolls are those who love to insert themselves into your time-line to cause trouble, annoy and disturb what you’re trying to say, and oddly are not open to any intellectual discussion or compromise. Some have speculated that they are like the RWNJs who call in on Left Wing Radio Call-In shows to spout off Frank Luntz Talking points. They are easily spotted in Twitterland.

Ordinarily they have either no true Avatar, or a very colorful, American Flag on full display with pieces of artwork with all the Patriotic Trappings you would expect if you did acid on the 4th of July. Then there is the Bio. Again, either non existent, or something “glorious” with the key catch phrases “Conservative Christian” “2nd Amendment” “Tea Party Patriot” “NoBama” “Father” “Veteran”, etc, usually citing some oxymoron. Finally, they usually have very few followers, less than a few hundred at best.

You can be involved in your own Time Line when they will sneak in with something insulting (or what they deem as insulting) to you. They’ll call you a liberal, socialist, communist, Maoist, fascist or some combination of the above, or even all of the above. Did I forget to mention these people aren’t all that bright? They want to engage you and hopefully irritate you so much, you end up blocking them. Then they cheer that they were so obnoxious, stupid and clearly so out of touch with reality, you blocked them. I wonder if they don’t get paid by the Koch’s for the number of times they are blocked.

So how to deal with these people? Well, the simple course of action is to simply ignore them. Keep in mind, they enter your Time-Line and you respond, they now are known to your followers and get a wider audience. I believe that is part of what they want. It’s obvious that they are not interested in trying to engage you to try to sway you to a new way of thinking. Insults and lack of anything remotely considered a fact does little to accomplish that goal. Oh, did I mention that there are some Trolls out there who do truly believe in their rhetoric and still throw out the same crap mentioned earlier. These are the mentally insane folks. These are the guys who wait for the Public Library Computer to free up so they take off the tin foil caps and rant their rants.

Now if you want to have some fun, you can engage these folks. I’ve been known to do this from time to time. Unfortunately, as a former supervisor of mine once told me, “He doesn’t suffer fools” and I usually just say the hell with it and hit the block. You can do that, no harm, no foul, but you give them a victory. There have been times when I will re-tweet their stuff to my followers in much the same way Andrew Breitbart and his folks would do. I was part of many such exchanges before he died and actually had some fun because even though they entered my Time Line, by bringing me in, I was able to annoy the hell out of a lot of these folks resulting in me being blocked. Often I will see some of my Twitter family being attacked by these trolls and I will move in to take some of the heat off of them. I’m familiar with their line of reasoning, their lines of attacks and have become adept in turning it around on them.

One thing they cannot stand is for when they call you an Obama Supporter and/or Liberal Socialist, say proudly that you are, and why aren’t you. Get them to try to justify their positions. It’s usually lame reasoning that you can retweet to others and you end up being blocked.

However, if you just want to tweet among like-minded friends, enjoy time telling jokes about the other side, making your observations, sharing your knowledge and suddenly a troll inserts him or herself into your time-line, just ignore them. Don’t respond at all. They usually move on to others who do enjoy playing with their food.

Happy Tweeting!