Comments on: This state sucks. History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:24:08 +0000 hourly 1 By: cgeye Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:46:05 +0000 It’s the third rail that could change the discourse regarding healthcare and gun violence: Why do the victims pay more than the perp, even if he gets the death penalty?

Why do we have to triage, the innocent and the guilty, in giving them the physical *and* mental healthcare they need, or preventing such harm, in the first place?

Why can’t we ask for Medicare for All, or at least hold the fucking line regarding Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and welfare programs, at least until we are quantitatively out of this recession?

And, of course, why is no national politician brave enough to say, this is one thing we can fix, instead of fum-fuhing over weak gun control legislation? (Prohibiting mail-order gun sales, and leave the gun show loophole open? Really?)

(And Dr. H., there’s one comment I made with two links that’s in approval limbo — it’s not much, but it does provide context to my “damaged neighborhood” analogy….)

By: Historiann Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:53:57 +0000 I’m entirely with you, cgeye. I don’t understand why people insist that a political response is either inappropriate “at this time of grieving,” or pre-judged as ineffective, when of course the deaths in Aurora & in every other mass shooting were the result of political decisions made over the course of the last several years.

The point you make about the personal debt that the survivors and their families may incur is spot on. If we were a civilized country that offered health care as a citizenship right, rather than firearms ownership, it would make things so much easier for those who survive to focus on healing rather than internet fund drives to fund their medical care.

(Children’s Hospital has promised to waive the costs of medical care beyond what’s covered by insurance, I believe. Maybe all of the CU hospitals made this promise?)

By: cgeye Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:48:03 +0000 I promise, the last link:

First, I’d agree with her stance on decompressing from the hype seen on social media networks, except that her commentary syndicating as a Denver Post blog entry *is part of the problem* — one personal opinion writ large on the Internet, decrying the Internet letting writers lesser than a Washington Post commentator speak. Sheesh.

This commentator makes a plea for an apolitical public response, one that reduces a nation built on laws and a desire for justice into sobbing, helpless children. I thought we were supposed to be better than passive consumers of media sentimentalization:

“It takes little time to progress from waves of people expressing shock, sadness and spiritual solidarity to those: (a) proclaiming their violent hatred of the alleged suspect or his methods, (b) posting a position statement on why their political party has the right solution to the issue, (c) making a request for some sort of supposedly meaningful action and (d) expressing outrage at any innocently coincidental thing that might be seen as insensitive.”

And since when is a movie theatre considered sacred? It’s a business that was attacked, not a frikkin’ church…. If one must beef, I’d take issue with the fuzzy, blue-sky-and-clouds funeral program graphics used to “remember the victims”. Some victims might not have believed in Heaven, so who are we to blanket them with our properly vague Christian iconography?

By: cgeye Fri, 27 Jul 2012 06:29:46 +0000 I know everyone’s moved on, but at least I wanted to note one more, angry, but very sensible post:

“I can understand why, for the families of the victims, their therapists or priests may ask them to accept this fatalistically – they can’t get their loved one back. But as a nation, we should not be willing to be so passive in the face of what is obviously a fucked up system. We can imagine, I hope, a culture where it’s a wee bit more difficult to massacre innocent people if and when you decide that’s a good idea.

If you’re in doubt that this system is skewed towards the madman, keep in mind that the uninsured Aurora shooting victims are at risk of debtor’s prison in this country.

It begs the question of why we’ve become so inured to bad politicians. Notice I’m not saying inured to violence and random shootings, because we’re not, actually. We are all horrified, but in the face of such tragedy we shrug our shoulders and say stuff about the fact that there’s nothing we can do. Because that’s what our politicians say.”

By: cgeye Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:29:21 +0000 One more link, to fight smartasses with:

By: cgeye Thu, 26 Jul 2012 17:51:30 +0000 And, this is the damaged neighborhood’s strategy:

“Supporters of gun rights have countered that the days after a shooting is not the time to talk about changes in laws, saying instead that the focus should be on victims.”

In short, they’re a bunch of chickens hiding behind a pile of the dead and injured. When does one talk about changing an urgent situation — months after memories have faded? Years?

Why, if this strategy were implemented after 9/11, we wouldn’t have gone to war with a country that did *not* harbor or fund those suicide terrorists. How silly would that have been?

By: Ellie Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:44:37 +0000 2nd amendment, that is.

By: Ellie Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:44:00 +0000 @TR(8:43), this is my question: how is it that the American public is willing to ditch most of the Bill of Rights in the name of the “war on terrorism,” but go to the mat, allowing thousands to die annually, for the “integrity” of the 2nd?

@Jonathon Booth: on your last point, a number of people have been reminding us that there was someone with a concealed weapon at the Gabby Giffords shooting in Arizona, but he(?) didn’t act because he didn’t want police to mistake him for a second shooter.

By: koshembos Wed, 25 Jul 2012 01:20:55 +0000 A drunk drinks some more and then some more. My do we expect logic to be involved on gun massacres? Guns is the addiction of the American 19th century mindset. Most of us are still there.

When will we sober up? May be never.

By: Historiann Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:46:37 +0000 Yes–Johanna Justin-Jinich. I wrote about that at the time. So very sad.

I take CC’s point about the highway deaths in Texas, but I think there is legitimate interest in the Colorado mass-murders because the victims weren’t doing anything they should have understood as dangerous. They weren’t taking risks–they were just going about their lives. Also: there are other uses for pickup trucks than homocide. Glocks and military-style assault rifles? not so much.