NYT Editors: ‘End The Gun Epidemic’

‘End the Gun Epidemic in America,’ they write, in the strongest terms an editorial board can get away with in today's gun-crazed America. I agree, unreservedly. Please read what they wrote. The subhed will do as a sample:

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

Indeed. You need a hunting rifle, or even two of them? fine. You need a couple dozen military-style assault weapons and extra-large clips? I don't think so. My thanks to the NYT editorial board for saying so.

---

NOTE 12/6/2015 9:14PM CT: Some sort of problem afflicted Blogger for at least an hour that I know about. The service itself and comments appear to be restarting now; viewing is intermittent. Patience, please, and apologies for any trouble you experience(d).

RWNJ Kentucky County Clerk Ordered Jailed For Contempt Of Court Over Refusal To Issue Gay Marriage Licenses

Katherine Krueger and Tierney Sneed at TPM:

Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses, has been found in contempt of court and taken into federal custody.

According to AP, U.S. District Judge David Bunning said Thursday that Davis would be held in jail until she complied with the previous court orders to begin granting the marriage licenses.

...

And thus it must be in a society where the rule of law prevails over the rule of wo/man. If people start choosing which judges' orders they obey and which they do not, the required balance between freedom and order in society will quickly collapse in favor of wanton freedom, and the laws of the land will become utterly unenforceable.

Someone could do Kim Davis a favor by explaining the workings of civil disobedience to her: the person engaging in civil disobedience expects to go to jail for what s/he does; it cannot be otherwise, because s/he is violating the law. If Ms. Davis wants to decide in her own mind what the law means and act accordingly, but not be jailed for her lawbreaking, then she is asserting that she is some kind of queen, or at least a princess: not in America, baby, not in America.

Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz had some interesting things to say in Krueger and Sneed's article (which you really should read before proceeding)...

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) also rushed to Davis' defense: "I think it’s absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberties," he said on CNN.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) issued a statement calling for "every lover of liberty to stand for Kim Davis." “Kim Davis should not be in jail. We are a country founded on Judeo-Christian values, founded by those fleeing religious oppression and seeking a land where we could worship God and live according to our faith, without being imprisoned for doing so," he said.

(Sigh! the RWNJs always require explanation of the simplest matters of rights and responsibilities.)

Sen. Paul, it's not for exercising her religious liberties that Davis is being jailed: those are liberties of belief and expression, not of action in contravention to the law, especially as in this case where the law couldn't possibly be clearer after the Supreme Court's refusal to support Ms. Davis's position.

And Sen. Cruz, I am at least as American as you are, and the nation I fight for is NOT "founded on Judeo-Christian values" because though I am religious, I am not a Christian, whether you like that fact or not. And I'm pretty sure you don't, you un-American bastard.

Just for good measure, Mike Huckabee chimed in:

... former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said, "Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country."

No, ex-Gov. Huckabee, it "removes all doubts about the criminalization of" criminal behavior, and most of us don't have any problem with that. Sit down and STFU!

M.D. Anti-Vaxx Nut-Job Doesn't Care If His Kids Endanger Your Kids: ‘Not My Responsibility’

Brendan James at TPM:

An Arizona cardiologist told CNN in an interview that went online Monday that he doesn't care if his refusal to vaccinate his kids gives other children grave, preventable diseases.

“I’m not going to sacrifice the well-being of my child. My child is pure,” Dr. Jack Wolfson said in the interview. “It’s not my responsibility to be protecting their child.”

...

[/sigh] Dr. Wolfson, put aside your Hippocratic Oath for a moment. Put aside every physician's minimal commitment to do no harm.

Rather, place yourself simply in the role of a responsible parent, and then apply the Golden Rule.

Finally, think about the consequences if you follow through with your threat NOT to apply the mutual do‑unto‑others rule... what will another parent whose child becomes gravely or terminally ill because of your indifference be justified in doing in response?

How about... PICKING UP A SHOVEL AND BASHING YOUR GOD‑DAMNED BRAINS OUT, DOCTOR? I'd probably vote to acquit if I were on that jury...

I'm not arguing for that action and I certainly would not undertake it myself; people who know me well think I am a pretty peaceable guy... but that possible consequence is very real. Does it change anything for you? If you don't care about the other parent's kids' wellbeing, do you at least care about that possible outcome?

I've occasionally run across the anti-vaxx argument that not vaccinating kids is actually better for the kids. (Dr. Wolfson offers a version of the same argument.) This changes nothing. People have a right in America to believe things that are merely incorrect, things that are flagrantly in contradiction of well‑established facts, even things that are full‑blown bat‑sh!t crazy... but their right to act against other people based on those beliefs is still limited by law. Get over it, folks; we live under a government of laws, not a government of (possibly crack‑brained) individuals.