Yes, But...

A musicology professor once told a class I was in that every intelligent statement is a "Yes, but..." statement.  So let me start with this op-ed at the Tribune-Review and then proceed from there:

Colorado voters have recalled two heavily funded Democrat state legislators over stricter gun-control laws. Out are Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron. The good news is that you can mess with the Second Amendment only so much. The bad news is that Democrats still control the Centennial State's House and Senate. [Bolding in original.]

This is the story Scaife's braintrust finds so enthralling:

An epic national debate over gun rights in Colorado on Tuesday saw two Democratic state senators ousted for their support for stricter laws, a "ready, aim, fired" message intended to stop other politicians for pushing for firearms restrictions. Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron will be replaced in office with Republican candidates who petitioned onto the recall ballot.

But did you know that the recall effort itself was unpopular?  Take a look at this poll data from KWIN- uh-pe-ack University:

By wide margins, Colorado voters oppose efforts to recall two state legislators and say 2-1 that efforts to remove legislators when people don't agree with their vote should be when they face reelection, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Voters say 54 - 35 percent that State Senate President John Morse should not be removed from office because of his support for stricter gun control, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN- uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Voters also say 52 - 36 percent that State Sen. Angela Giron should not be recalled because of her support for stricter gun control.

Colorado voters say 60 - 31 percent that when people don't agree with a legislator, they should wait for reelection, rather than attempt a recall.

While Republicans support both recall efforts by margins of 2 - 1, only 47 percent support the overall concept of recall, while 42 percent say wait for reelection.

All voters oppose 54 - 40 percent the stricter new gun control laws which led to the recall effort. Democrats support the stricter laws 78 - 16 percent, while opposition is 89 - 7 percent among Republicans and 56 - 39 percent among independent voters. Women are divided on the stricter laws 48 - 45 percent, with men opposed 64 - 33 percent.

"With wide partisan and gender divisions, Colorado voters oppose the state's stricter new gun control laws, but they don't want to recall State Senate President John Morse or Sen. Angela Giron because they supported these laws," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Philosophically, voters don't want a recall election every time they disagree with a legislator. They'd rather deal with it every four years."

Mediamatters has two more things to ponder:

The Recall Turnout Was Extremely Low. A very small number of voters determined the recall election. In fact, voter turnout in Morse and Giron's districts were both substantially lower in the recall election compared to the 2010 state senate elections. Only 21 percent of 84,029 registered voters in Morse's district voted in the recall election. A mere 9,094 people voted in favor of recall; he lost his seat by a margin of 343 votes. Turnout was about 11,000 voters higher in Morse's 2010 senate election. Turnout in Giron's district was only 36 percent; 10,000 more people voted in her 2010 Senate election. Deriving national trends from low-turnout recall elections seems unwise.

Efforts To Recall Other Members Who Supported Stronger Gun Laws Failed. Opponents of stronger gun laws didn't intend to recall just Giron and Morse; they originally targeted two other lawmakers as well. But an effort to recall Sen. Evie Hudak was suspended by organizers three weeks before the deadline. And an effort to recall Rep. Mike McLachlan also failed when the Colorado Secretary of State reported that no signatures were turned in before a deadline. [Bolding in original.]

So yes, the two were recalled but I am not sure it all means what the braintrust wants you to think it means.

Just sayin'

The Trib's Got ANOTHER Thing Wrong

It's been recently reported that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using some of his significant wealth to buy some air time to push for gun control.

A recent ad has gotten him into trouble with the editorial board of the Tribune-Review.  Too bad they get some very important details wrong.  Details that completely undermine their argument.

First let's see what the braintrust wrote:

In one of the ads, a supposed common guy outfitted in a flannel shirt, seated on the tailgate of a pickup truck and touting “responsible” gun ownership, violates three fundamental rules of safe gun handling.

As Emily Miller of The Washington Times first reported, the man, with children playing in the background, holds a shotgun in an unsafe position — to his side, when it should be either straight up or down.

Additionally, his finger appears to be on the trigger. Gun safety rules long promoted by that dastardly lobby known as the National Rifle Association (and every other safety group) call for the forefinger — the trigger finger — to point straight ahead, placed above the trigger guard, to prevent accidental firing.

Just as bad, the bolt, or “action,” of the pump-action shotgun being held is closed. Safety demands that a gun not ready to be fired not be loaded. And that's signified by an open action.

Now...let's take a look at that ad (what, didn't they think anyone would check?)

Luckily, Mediamatters has done all the work here.  Here's the image that's so offended Scaife's braintrust.


Mediamatters, doing the reporting work that should have been done at the Trib (I guess they decided not to do it - gee, I wonder why), found another image of the same weapon and the same guy.  Here it is:


You might have to dl the images to see them clearer.  But see that?  You can see there the trigger is in that second image.  Note where it is in relation to the rest of the weapon.  Now take a look at the man's index finger in the top image.

Point being, it's no where near the trigger.

And yet, our friends in the Braintrust said "it appears to be" there.

They must not have checked for themselves.  OR THEY DID and decided to lie to you anyway.

So which is it?  Incompetence or dishonesty?

There's another part of the story that Mediamatters tells us (but Braintrust doesn't).  Here's the Washingtontimes article that's the source of this "story."

And here's what the author says about that weapon being loaded:

The third NRA safety rule is always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use. This means a situation in which the gun is available for immediate use — such as when hunting and a deer could step out at any time or when the firearm is safely stored but ready for quick self-defense as needed.

In the ad called “Family,” the man says that, “My dad taught me to hunt, and I’ll teach my kids. I’ve owned a gun all my life, and I’ll fight for my right to keep it.”

While saying this, he holds the pump-action shotgun with the action (bolt) closed, so it is impossible to know if it is loaded. [Emphasis added.]

Now go back and read what the Braintrust said about this "loaded" weapon.  They certainly want you to think that it's loaded, don't they?  And yet the very same article they're sourcing tells us that there's no way to know whether it is.

Didn't they check?  And if they did, why didn't they tell you?

Again, which is it - incompetence or dishonesty?

Colin McNickle Left Something Out

Hardly surprising, considering that he writes for the Tribune-Review.

Take a look at this:

Lots of people were making lots of U-turns here Saturday on southbound Route 19 just past Ace Sporting Goods. And lots more northbounders were parking on the wide berm just waiting to get into the parking lot of the popular gun shop.

It was another afternoon of what‘s become the new norm at Ace, known for its wide selection of handguns and rifles...

Know what else this Ace Sporting Goods store is known (or should be known) for?

Take a look at this from September 7, 2001:

First of all, we know Mr. Baumhammers traveled to Ace Sporting Goods in Washington, Pa., April 30, 1999 and for $528 purchased a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum Revolver, the murder weapon.

Nine days later, just nine days after buying a handgun, Richard Scott Baumhammers was voluntarily mentally committed to St. Clair Hospital, agreeing he was mentally disabled and in need of treatment.

And then almost exactly a year after that (on April 28, 2000) he took that Smith and Wesson and went on an "unhurried, methodical" shooting spree - killing five and maiming one.

So I am wondering how many in the crowd McNickle described knew that they were frequenting the very same establishment where Baumhammers plunked down his five twenty-eight for his three fifty seven.

And if they knew, would it make any difference?

Because the price of this "freedom" to stockpile firearms (out of a "paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future") will be that eventually some nutcase will shoot up yet another school yard or shopping mall - and someone else's kids or siblings or loved ones or parents will die horribly because of it.

It's as simple as that.  Yay, 2nd Amendment.  Yay, NRA.

NRA makes ad out of your cousin's Facebook post

Yeah, this is what it's come to -- the NRA is making the same goofy argument that your cousin/old high school classmate made on Facebook a couple of weeks ago. You know, the ridiculous one that goes, "Obama's kids get armed protection! Why can't mine?"

You can see the ad here (but Lawrence O'Donnell announced on his show tonight that it's already been disappeared from the NRA website).

And, then there's this...

One more thing

When writing this post about Ka'Sandra Wade, I specifically did not want to get too political, but it is impossible for me not to think about her murder and the friends I know who knew her without remembering that her death occurred during at time when Congress has let the Violence Against Women Act expire and when the NRA's answer to gun violence is MORE GUNS.

I'm eternally grateful that when women that I have known have suffered from domestic abuse, there wasn't also a gun in the house...

Massacre at CT Grade School

Photo via http://newtownbee.com/

As reports come in that 18 children and 8 adults were killed today in a tragic mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school, we know these things to be facts:

Gunmakers are seeing record sales and mass shootings are good business for the NRA in terms of fundraising.

Sick.

Public Action and March to Reduce Gun Violence

(Click to enlarge)

Post-Gazette Responds to "Defeat Obama" Ad Bag Complaints

The P-G's Early Returns blog takes up the subject here where they link to my sad and pathetic comment.

Blog posts on the ad bag:

2 Political Junkies: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to Wrap Monday's Papers in "Vote for Freedom...Defeat Obama" Bags

Daily Kos diary (by me): Pittsburgh liberal paper to be delivered in 'Defeat Obama' ad bag Monday

Pam's House Blend diary: Pittsburgh Paper Accepts Anti-Obama Ad for Monday's delivery bags

Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents: Post-Gazette Accepts Anti-Obama Ad for Monday's newspaper bags

Democratic Underground diary: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to Wrap Monday's Papers in "Vote for Freedom...Defeat Obama" Bags

Froth Slosh B'Gosh: Gimmie That Money!! Gimmie Gimmie Gimmie!!!

Progress Pittsburgh: Clippings from October 31st - November 3rd

The Burgh Report: Thank you for selling out, Post-Gazette

Sue's Place: Selling Defeat Ads

Early Returns: The P-G & NRA

.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to Wrap Monday's Papers in "Vote for Freedom...Defeat Obama" Bags

I know times are tough for the print media, but this is just sad and pathetic. Tomorrow's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette -- a newspaper which has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president -- will be delivered in a bag which has printed on it:

"Vote for Freedom...Defeat Obama"
Yes, they will literally wrap themselves in deceptive -- as if voting for Obama was voting against freedom and, of course, playing into the whole "communist/socialist" meme -- anti Obama speech.

It's a paid advertisement sponsored by the National Rifle Association.

The Post-Gazette will undoubtedly try to explain to us poor, dumb schlubs that there's a difference between editorial and advertising. I'm sure that's the stance they took when they distributed the extreme anti Muslim "Obsession" DVD earlier this month.

But the truth is that the Post-Gazette -- like any other newspaper -- can, and I'm certain, does reject advertisements.

At least two newspapers in Virginia -- The Richmond Times-Dispatch and The Virginian Pilot -- rejected this very same "Defeat Obama" bag.

What does The Virginian Pilot say about newspapers accepting ads like this? They say this about their decision to reject the ad:

The risk for a newspaper that runs the plastic bag ad, according to media ethicist Kelly McBride, is that it may give readers a reason to question its objectivity.

"If your wrap on Election Day is portraying one particular point of view, that's going to be pretty damaging to your credibility," said McBride, ethics group leader for the Poynter Institute, a school for professional journalists in St. Petersburg, Fla.

"I think it would be hard for voters, in that moment, to discern whether this is the paper's point of view or someone else's," she added. "You don't want to do something on Election Day that essentially alienates your readers."

Similar considerations factored into The Pilot's decision to reject the ad, said company business development manager Alan Levenstein.

Because it takes about six weeks to print the plastic bags, permitting a group with one view to purchase that space could deny a group with an opposing view a chance to buy the same space before the election, Levenstein said.

"We want to make sure that we provide equity for all sides, make sure that there is a level playing field," he said. "We want to make sure that we don't look, as a newspaper, that we're endorsing one viewpoint or another."

As a matter of policy, The Pilot would sell space to candidates and interest groups of all persuasions in its print pages, which unlike the plastic bags can accommodate multiple ads in one edition.

Bravo to The Pilot.

If you have a problem with the Post-Gazette's decision I would highly suggest that you take IMMEDIATE ACTION (you can speak to a live person NOW).

Call 412-263-1100
You can ask to leave a message on their Advertising Comment line.

More importantly, since it would seem that $$$ is all they're thinking about, you can choose to call that same number and suspend or cancel your subscription.

They have the right to take whatever filthy lucre they want and wrap themselves in anti Obama muck and you have the right to respond to their oh-so-wrongly calculated decision.

UPDATE: Other suggestions I've seen in comments, on list servs and at Daily Kos:

Call these folks to complain:

"David Shribman, executive editor, 412-263-1890

You all might want to do the same and if the voice mail is full, work your way down to these:
Susan Smith, managing editor, 412-263-1858
Mary Leonard, deputy managing editor, 412-263-0443 "

Use the ad bag for your scooped dog poop/used cat litter
.