agilebrit: (Urge to bitchslap)
In a story today about Trump's press room, the nation's birdcage liner, oh, wait, I mean, "Newspaper of Record," the New York Times, said:

Mr. Trump’s unconventional, sometimes hostile, relationship with the news media and his penchant for communicating through unfiltered Twitter posts threaten to upend a decades-old Washington tradition that relies almost entirely on protocol. The result, reporters and editors say, could be a loss of transparency that would hinder the press’s role as a conduit for information to the people.

No, you idiots. The word you're looking for is not "transparency." Trump's unfiltered tweets are wholly transparent. The word you're looking for is "spin." Or perhaps "control." Trump's "unfiltered tweets" are actually exactly transparent, because there they are for everyone to see. You're just mad because you can't twist his words, though I'm sure you'll still try to tell us what he really meant.

The Times complains about not being allowed to come on the plane with Trump to meet President Obama. And about the infamous "dinner incident" where he went to have dinner with his family and *gasp* didn't invite them, leaving them "scrambling for information," the poor lambs. Of course he didn't invite the press to dinner. Who wants a bunch of yapping purse dogs along when you're trying to eat?

Answer me this, New York Times, and all you other press outlets crying about all of this: Why the hell should he cater to you people? You have been mocking, incredulous, hostile, fear-mongering name-callers since the day he announced he was running. Be happy he's giving you any access. I hope he sticks you in the back of the room and puts Infowars, Breitbart, and WorldNetDaily on the front row, and only takes questions from Milo Yiannopoulos, since I can't have Milo as actual Press Secretary.

KIDDING. (Mostly.)

I said it before and I'll say it again: Everything should be turned upside down on occasion. It lets in air and light.

But press advocates say these traditions, even in the age of Twitter, ensure fundamental tenets of democracy: historical record and access to information.

Twitter is right there for everyone to see. Anything you post on the internet is forever. You cannot get more "historical record" and "access to information" than that. You people see your power and prestige slipping away, even more than it already has been, and it scares you to death.

Some former press secretaries suggested that Mr. Trump’s administration should rethink the tradition of broadcasting press briefings on live television, which many say has led to posturing and performance.

And Ari Fleisher thinks they should take the press briefings off live television altogether. Oh. So that's a "protocol" and a "tradition" you're perfectly willing to jettison because it suits your agenda, meaning you really do want it to be less transparent. You are positively terrified that you won't be able to filter things your way, that the American people will be able to see for themselves the raw quotes, and make up their own minds.

Well. Good. We're tired of your fake news, and your spin, and your fatuous arrogance, and your oblivious disconnect. Those of us in flyover country haven't been buying what you've been selling for a long time now, and maybe this will be the final nail in your well-deserved coffin.

Seriously, do you people even listen to yourselves?
agilebrit: (Don't make me beat you in the name of gr)
Disclaimer: Everyone here knows I'm conservative, right? I'm pretty sure this is not a secret.

Well. I'm not happy about this election. Obviously. I haven't been happy since Trump won the GOP nomination. That being said, while I don't trust him to do what he said he'd do, I certainly did trust Hillary to do exactly what she said she'd do, to wit: open borders, dismantling the 2nd Amendment, and shitting all over the rest of the Constitution via her Supreme Court picks.

So I'm a lot less unhappy than I would have been if Hillary had been elected. Mainly because of the Supreme Court (so long as he does what he said he'd do, which is a laughably open question, especially since I'm not sure he's even read the Constitution, which he might want to at least scan before he takes the Oath of Office), but also because it will be nice to have someone in high office who actually respects at least one of our laws--the border.

I am fairly certain that Trump's nomination and subsequent win was Middle America lifting a giant middle finger to the political Elites who think they Know Better. It was a protest vote of massive proportions. Whether said Elites will actually listen... well. I have my doubts. Because why should they start being actually sensible?

Please remember that we just elected a President. Not a King, and not a Dictator. In order for Trump to get most anything he wants, he will have to run it past a Congress wherein Establishment Republicans hate his guts and won't give him a pass just because he has an R after his name. Also, the press might actually start doing its damn job as watchdogs. Won't that be refreshing.

He is not going to round everyone up (not even everyone who's here illegally, because that's physically impossible) and send them off to concentration camps. At worst, illegal aliens will have to go back where they came from and actually jump through the hoops that their legal-immigrant brethren did. The horror. No, it's not nice, but, you know, neither is breaking the law. Don't do the crime, and all that.

The Syrian refugee situation is sad, but I fail to see how it's our problem. I would have more sympathy if we were bringing in Syrian Christians, because they're the ones whose lives are really on the line in places like that, and they have nowhere to go in the Islamic Middle East that's actually safe for them, but that's not what's happening here.

Our vetting system sucks, and Europe is most certainly not benefiting by the flood of refugees crossing their borders. Just ask Swedish and Danish women how that's working out for them. Hint: not well. And it amazes me how Hillary somehow gets a pass on her misogyny (after staying married to a serial rapist/sexual predator and then attempting to destroy the lives of her husband's many accusers), while Trump is, I guess, Satan Incarnate for saying "Hey, maybe these folks who belong to a religion that sees women as far less than equal and likes to throw gay people off buildings should be more closely examined before we let them in." But no, that's "racist," even though Islam is not a "race" and never has been.

I'm cautiously optimistic, at this point. Ask me in a year how I feel what I think about this.
agilebrit: (not amused)
Senators Strike Compromise to Ban Suspected Terrorists from Buying Guns.

Considering the fact that you can be placed on the no-fly list without even knowing it, and having violated no law, I don't see how it's in Congress's power to deny someone a Constitutional right without any due process whatsoever. Are you going to deny them free speech? How about unreasonable search and seizure? How about the Fifth Amendment?

I do not trust this Administration to not abuse the power of the no-fly list. And if you do trust them, well, good for you, but... what about future Administrations? Would you trust Donald Trump not to abuse it? Oh, he won't win, you say. Are you sure? If you wouldn't trust an Administration you oppose to abuse a power, then it's a bad idea.

Not to mention the fact that the Orlando Asshole wasn't on a no-fly list. He passed more than one FBI background check. It's super cute that the CBS article says at the end: The FBI had investigated the gunman, Omar Mateen, in 2013 and 2014 and interviewed him several times. He was still able to purchase and use in the shooting an AR-15-style rifle and a semi-automatic pistol.

That's because he hadn't actually done anything actually wrong yet. Idiots. "Investigation" is not the same as "convicted of an actual fucking crime." It's not even the same as "indicted."

I realize that we would all like to be "safe" (whatever that means) from terrorists, but this is the world we live in: a world where someone can be a total law-abiding citizen until they go off the rails and do something completely terrible.

The last thing we need to do is hamstring other law-abiding citizens. Or fly into a hoplophobic panic and start up with "presumed guilty (and on our List) until proven innocent." Due Process should come before the fact, not after it.
agilebrit: (not amused)
We'll just pass a law that says that people who plan to go on an ideologically-driven shooting rampage are prohibited from owning guns! BOOM, problem sol--

Wait, you say that won't help? You think that's ridiculous? You say that people who are going to go on a shooting rampage won't follow a law like that?

Well, genius, what the everlivin' fuck makes you think that they're going to follow any other law you pass concerning mag capacity, type of firearm, or background checks?

I saw an article the other day from an AR15 owner saying that "oh, if we just limited mags to ten rounds, it would fix everything because they'd have to reload and it would maybe give people time to charge him and disarm him." And I realize that this has been proposed and shot down more times than I can count, but, uh, in this specific case? The Orlando shooter was texting his wife and posting to Facebook during his rampage. I am pretty damned sure that having to reload a few extra times would not have fazed him. This guy's naivete was super cute but ultimately dangerous and not helpful.

This is assuming that if you suddenly pass a law saying "ten-round mags only!" that the high-cap ones people already own will just suddenly disappear like fucking magic or something. Basically, you're going to hamstring the law-abiding while the criminals and terrorists laugh up their sleeves at your stupid, stupid, knee-jerk Do-Something-Itis.
agilebrit: (Well shit.)
You know, I get that I will not like every story that every publication puts out. That is a given, considering taste and all. Even a publication that has the good sense to publish one of my own stories will have a clunker on occasion.

But I just had the misfortune of listening to a story that is so over-the-top egregiously paranoid that it reads like a parody of itself. It's one of those hand-waving "oh my God, what if those gun nuts got their way and everyone had to carry a *gasp, huff, case of the vapors* weapon" stories. And it's written by someone who has apparently never even talked to a concealed-carry permit holder, who thinks if carrying a gun became "ordinary," we would suddenly forget that a gun is a deadly weapon that you can kill someone with if you handle it carelessly.

As every. Single. Idiot. In this story. Proceeds to do. With predictable results, because DUH.

Okay, look. I live in a state that has issued over a million concealed-carry permits. Granted, some of those are for folks who don't live here. But this is a state with a population of a little over two million people. We also have open carry, which means that you don't even need a permit to carry a gun in a hip holster where everyone can see it, so long as it's two actions from firing.

And hey, stunningly enough, it's not the Wild West around here. (Even the Wild West wasn't, not really. An armed society is a polite society.) I don't know anyone who treats their guns with the casual disdain the utter morons in this story do. We treat them like the deadly weapons they fucking are, because we are not fucking stupid. They're not water pistols, for God's sake.

So, please. If you want to write a "cautionary tale" about how GUNS ARE BAD OMG, at least do a modicum of research before you start your self-righteous lecture so that I don't get a headache from rolling my eyes that hard.
agilebrit: (NOT a smile)
Because for someone who used to be a "Constitutional scholar," he sure doesn't seem to know what the Fourth Amendment says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

President Obama sez: "The question we now have to ask is: If technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong that there is no key, there's no door at all, then how do we apprehend the child pornographer, how do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?"

Well, the same way you've always done it, Mr. President. You prove probable cause and you get a damn warrant.

But this is awfully funny coming from the guy who won't even allow his law enforcement departments to look at public posts on social media. If a cop pulls you over for a traffic stop and sees drug paraphernalia sitting right there on your front seat in plain sight and arrests you for it, that's not an illegal search, that's out where God and everyone can see it. Same thing with public posts.

And this is the same Administration who thinks they should just be able to comb through the metadata of every American and have a haystack of immense proportions, rather than looking through the stack of needles they already have and going on a terrorist hunt there.

Not only that, but this same President is refusing to enforce our immigration laws, thereby allowing a massive leak of terrorists and MS13 gang members--along with murderers, rapists, and the pedophiles he's suddenly so concerned about--across our borders, with no end in sight--and now he's saying that he should get to break the law because "you cannot take an absolutist view"?

The law is the law, Mr. President. You are not a monarch, an emperor, or a dictator. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you enforce and which ones you ignore. Or which ones you outright break.
agilebrit: (OMG MATH)
You know what they say about the road to Hell? That being said, at this point, I don't even think I can credit you with good intentions. You once again touted the "2 million people who shouldn't have had guns were stopped with background checks, huzzah!" statistic, but when you drill down into the actual numbers, you get this for the first two years of your administration:

2009: Total denials: 67,324. Referred for prosecution: 140. Guilty Plea or Conviction: 32.

2010: Total denials: 76,142. Referred for prosecution: 62. Guilty Plea or Conviction: 13.

That's right. 143,466 denied. 202 prosecuted. 43 either pled out or convicted. .0014%. Notice that the raw number of denials in 2010 was nearly 9,000 higher than in 2009, but the number referred for prosecution was less than half.

Are you seriously positing that your justice department--the same justice department that "masterminded" an international gun-walking scheme for which no one has received so much as a slap on the wrist--is going to suddenly start enforcing NICS violations because you've got a bug up your ass and issued an executive order about it?

WHY? Shouldn't they already be enforcing the fucking law? Oh, wait, I forgot. Your administration would rather flout our laws (See: the border) than enforce them.

I'm not going to take this point by point because it's tiresome and I'm sure other people will address it better than I can. But I'm going to get a few salient things off my chest.

1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.

Well, no shit, Sherlock. We already have that in place. I've purchased guns at They had to go through an FFL before they got into my hands. I had to fill out your four-page form. We don't need you to lecture us about it.

Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present. (bolding mine)

What other factors? Are you kidding me with this? If I buy a gun, keep the packaging, and then a month later decide that I found one I like better and thus sell it (perhaps at a profit because I'm not stupid, and, hey, you're creating demand, so thanks for that!) with the packaging and instructions (because I do tend to keep stuff like that even for my electronics), this makes me an ex post facto "dealer" who's "engaged in business"? What?

And, no, I do not trust you to differentiate between a drug dealer thug who runs guns to his friends, and me, when you have shown absolutely no inclination to differentiate between a violent thug and a cop doing his duty--and, in fact, treated the cop far worse than you would have the thug. You haven't earned that much trust, and never will at this point.

Ensure smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws. In a call earlier today, the Attorney General discussed the importance of today’s announcements and directed the Nation’s 93 U.S. Attorneys across the country to continue to focus their resources—as they have for the past several years under the Department’s Smart on Crime initiative—on the most impactful cases, including those targeting violent offenders, illegal firearms traffickers, and dangerous individuals who bypass the background check system to acquire weapons illegally.

Oh, puh-lease. See above. Show me some more recent numbers to prove this is actually true. Until then, I call bullshit. Start enforcing the laws we already have (which might actually prove effective) before you throw up a bunch of new laws that you will then proceed not to enforce--and then bray about how we need yet more laws... which you will then also not enforce. Then you will use the lack of enforcement to "prove" that we should just ban guns altogether. You think we don't know how this works?

In the event of an emergency, victims of domestic violence should call 911 or otherwise contact state or local law enforcement officials, who have a broader range of options for responding to these crimes.

Right. Because when seconds count, law enforcement is minutes away, and will arrive in time to bag my dead body. But, hey, at least I didn't shoot anyone while they were beating me to death!

I will never, God willing, be the victim of domestic violence. My husband is one of the Good Guys. But if I were in danger of such, the last thing I would need is some fatuous prick in the White House who is surrounded by armed guards 24/7 telling me to "just call 911."

We must continue to remove the stigma around mental illness and its treatment...

Sounds good, until you drop down and see:

Although States generally report criminal history information to NICS, many continue to report little information about individuals who are prohibited by Federal law from possessing or receiving a gun for specific mental health reasons. Some State officials raised concerns about whether such reporting would be precluded by the Privacy Rule issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Today, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a final rule expressly permitting certain HIPAA covered entities to provide to the NICS limited demographic and other necessary information about these individuals.

Oh, so we can violate HIPAA on your whim. Got it.

Look, if someone is actually adjudicated mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others, they should not have a firearm. I am wholly behind that, because Due Process has been met. But if I talk to a therapist while I'm going through some shit and idly bring up suicidal ideation, that is between me and my therapist. You are not going to get people to seek the help they need if they think they're going to be reported to law enforcement over it. So, congrats, you've just made it so that people look at this and go "ha, no, not going to therapy." Awesome.

I will give you this: At least there's nothing in this press release about your stupid, stupid statement about people on no-fly lists being able to buy guns. Considering the fact that a person can be placed the no-fly list without even knowing it until they show up at the airport, and having violated no law, I don't see how it's in your or Congress's power to deny those people a Constitutional right. I mean, you wouldn't tell them they couldn't, say, write a blog post, or go to church... would you? Would you break into their house without a warrant?

Well, maybe you would. Because, after all, this is an administration that has weaponized the IRS against its perceived political enemies, lied repeatedly to the American people about all manner of things, sucked up to our enemies and shat on our friends, and can't seem to keep its big fat Federal nose out of things that should by all rights be local law enforcement issues.
agilebrit: (Urge to bitchslap)
Because, let's face it, a single tweet is not enough to contain my absolute gobsmacked-ness at what you said tonight.

Which was, and I quote from CNN: "The message from voters is clear: they want us to work together," Reid said. "I look forward to working with Senator McConnell to get things done for the middle class."

If that's your takeaway from the absolute shellacking you just received at the hands of the American people, you are engaging in wishful thinking on the magnitude of that of a child who wishes for a pony every time she blows out her birthday candles.

The takeaway from is is not that we want Republicans to "work with you." Everyone knows that "work with you" is Democrat code-speak for "cave in to everything we want and get called nasty names anyway." The American people want to stop this lawless Administration in its gorram tracks, stop getting shit we don't want shoved down our throats, and stop the hemorrhaging at our borders.

If you want to "get things done for the middle class," then sit the hell down, shut the hell up, and leave us the hell alone. If you want to "get things done for the middle class," then how about starting with a complete and total overhaul of our utterly friggin' stupid tax code that it takes a team of friggin' accountants to understand? If you want to "get things done for the middle class," then how about curbing the rampant over-regulation we're faced with every time we turn around and find ourselves confronted with a new edict from Washington when we want to do stuff on our own damn property?

The message from voters is perfectly clear, because President Obama said it himself: Make no mistake, his agenda was on the ballot tonight. And it lost. Overwhelmingly, and under no uncertain terms.

So how about, for once, you actually listen to the American people and do what we want rather than what you think is best.

I don't elect nannies. I elect representatives. And you suck at representation.


PS: You had a chance to work with the GOP for the past two years, and all you did was block them at every turn. So I'm not super confident you actually mean what you're giving lip service to right now.

Dear Nevada:

Next time this inept excuse for a Senator comes up for re-election, would you please toss him out on his ear? Surely you can do better than this.

Your neighbors to the east.
agilebrit: (NOT a smile)
Because I homeschool and it doesn't really affect me. But I just got a call from someone running for the state school board. Since it was an 801 area code (local to me), I went ahead and picked up, only to be greeted by dead air.

Strike One: If you're going to call me, at least have the damn courtesy to be there when I, by some wild chance, pick up when I see an unfamiliar number on my caller ID, especially during silly season.

So, I googled the number (as one does), and found a Facebook page.

Strikes Two through Six:
Retired teacher
Public School Advocate
Former UEA President
Board Member - Inclusion Center of Utah
Board Member - NAACP Salt Lake Branch

I can guess, just from that, what someone like her thinks of someone like me. I'm fairly certain that a retired teacher who is a former Utah Education Association president and current "public school advocate" wouldn't think that a homeschooler should get any kind of tax break, and probably thinks it should be even harder than it already is to homeschool.

Not only that, but any place with a name like "Inclusion Center" is probably deliberately designed to exclude people like me, a white conservative pro-life pro-gun woman whom they probably consider a Traitor to the Sisterhood. I won't even get into the NAACP, which has been awfully silent on the fourth district race here in Utah pitting a conservative black woman against a "fourth generation Utahn" white dude. GEE I WONDER WHY. The Utah NAACP also opposes private school vouchers.

So. Thank you, Ms. Rusk, for making it dead easy for me to decide, at least, who I'm not voting for tomorrow.
agilebrit: (Schlock Overkill)
Well, I guess I don't need to eat at Panera.

“Within our company, we strive to create Panera Warmth. This warmth means bakery-cafes where customers and associates feel comfortable and welcome,” said the statement released by the company. “We ask that guns not be brought into this environment unless carried by an authorized law enforcement officer. Panera respects the rights of gun owners, but asks our customers to help preserve the environment we are working to create for our guests and associates.”

So I guess they want an atmosphere where customers and associates feel comfortable and welcome unless they are one of those icky concealed-carry permit holders, in which case we are not welcome in their stores. NO PANERA WARMTH FOR YOU.

And that's fine. They're a private company, they can do what they want. And I will take my disposable income elsewhere--and pray to God that they don't become a magnet for mass-murdering psychopaths, because I'm nice like that.

These companies forget that gun owners are a significant segment of the population and that someone who can afford to drop as much annually as my husband and I do on ammo might be a customer base they want to cultivate, not alienate. Especially in this economy.
agilebrit: (Urge to bitchslap)
Yeah, language warning ahead. I don't suffer assholes lightly.

So, apparently, Michelle Malkin "can't be conservative, because she is a minority."

Now, I don't know if this guy thought he was revoking her permission to be a conservative, or just couldn't believe that she is. Either way, it's a prime piece of idiocy. He is not the boss of her, and she has no obligation to conform to his (stupid) stereotypes. When she rightly told him "Watch me," he had a bit of a minor meltdown. Perhaps he couldn't believe that this *gasp* minority woman dared to stand up to him and form her own opinions.

First, he called her a foreigner, because, I guess, someone with that particular shade of melanin and those particular facial features couldn't possibly have been born in, you know, Pennsylvania. (She was, in case you're wondering.) Not content to run away with his tail between his legs when called out on his blatant racist fuckery, he instead doubled down and declared that there was "something off" about her, without elaborating on what it was. He also stated that "conservatism has nothing to offer minorities."

Well, golly gee willikers, dudebro, thank you so much for whitesplaining that to the poor dumb little minority gal who can't possibly be as smart as the guy with giant arms that probably aren't his and no head for an avatar! We have all seen the light and will be better sheeple presently! We will baa along behind you while you spread your generous and benevolent 5% largesse for us all!

Or, you know... spread something for us all. Something that smells remarkably like bullshit. I realize that it's difficult to form a cogent argument in 140 characters, but he seemed to think that we should all treat his flat declaration as Word of God without backing up his opinion one iota. So, thanks for your arrogant and... did I already say racist? It bears repeating. ...racist stereotypical opinions, pal, but I think I'll decide for myself if conservatism has anything to offer me as a woman if not a minority.

Of course, once he had his head handed to him on that particular issue, he deflected to the old mainstay, "Bush's war!" Nevermind that Hillary and Biden voted for it, and that every single other intelligence apparatus in the world thought that Saddam had WMDs... or that he had already used WMDs on his own fucking people. BUSH. BECAUSE. CONSERVATIVES BAD.

If I didn't know better, I'd think this guy was a caricature. Unfortunately, a glance at his Twitter timeline reveals that he regularly takes oh-so-intelligent shots at Rush Limbaugh in between tweeting incomprehensibly about sports or... something. Hell if I know.

As the immortal Bugs Bunny used to say: What a maroon.
agilebrit: (Tired & Long-suffering)
You know, I spend a lot of time in grocery stores, and I don't see a whole lot of moms standing there scratching their heads over labels in the aisles. Frankly, it doesn't happen.

That's because most of us don't actually look too hard at the damn labels. Most of us use common fucking sense when it comes to feeding our families. And for you to think that we need your help in deciding what to buy is not only a disconnect with reality, but an act of supreme hubris on your part--

Especially since I'm pretty sure you haven't actually had to feed your family yourself for at least six years.

You said, "So this is a huge deal, which is why everybody is here. (Laughter.) And it's going to make a big difference for families across this country."

No. Bullshit. The only "huge difference" it's going to make is that my damn grocery budget will shrink as prices rise because the manufacturers have to scramble to comply with your new regulations. The "huge deal" is that, hey, now my food is going to cost more.

So, you know, thanks for that.

How about you and your husband get the hell out of my way and let me take care of myself? I don't need my hand held by clueless, arrogant bureaucrats who think they know better. And neither do the moms of America, who are far smarter than you give us credit for--and smarter than you.
agilebrit: (Secret Cabal of Unicorn Fundies)
I've hesitated to weigh in on this "debate."

Yes, I just used scare quotes because all I see is a bunch of people yelling at each other. It's not a debate, it's a fight.

And it's stupid.

The Old Guard has said some dumb things, it's true. But guess what? The people I'm seeing saying those dumb things are not the ones with any actual power in the genre. They're writers--not editors, not publishers, not agents.

The New Guard is frankly scaring me. Because they're the ones with the keys to the pursestrings. And what I'm hearing (maybe not intentionally, but this is the Message I'm getting) is that if you dare to raise your hand and say "but I don't particularly want to read or write Check-Box Message Fic"--they will come after you with torches and pitchforks, because How Dare You not walk in lockstep with the current fashion and Embrace Diversity Wholeheartedly By Writing What We Say!!!11!!

How about this: we all write what we want to write and read what we want to read and let the chips fall where they may, huh? Because at this point, what I'm seeing is that the current gatekeepers of the genre--Every. Last. One. Of them--are falling all over themselves to be "inclusive." So, hey, diversity champions? You've won. Congratulations. I don't care what color, sex, political persuasion, or sexual orientation the people writing my fiction are--I care that they write stories I enjoy. THAT'S IT.

And that's all I've ever cared about. My parents taught me well, it seems. But apparently I can't say that either, because saying that means I'm "privileged." Even though I'm one of those Icky Girls.

So, hey, in your hunt for Diversity, if you'd leave a tiny corner for people like me? A female conservative Christian who enjoys writing male protagonists doing male protagonist things (like blowing shit up instead of navel-gazing about their White Male Guilt) instead of Check-Box Message Fic? That'd be peachy.

Or is there not enough room in the Diversity Tent for that? Because you know what? I'm feeling excluded by both sides. I'm one of the Women Destroying SF With My Girl Cooties--but I'm also conservative and Christian and enjoy writing straight male protags, so I'm not destroying it enough. Or some damn thing, hell if I know anymore.

Actually, I feel more excluded by the Diversity Police than I do by the people hollering about Girl Cooties.

Isn't that backwards?
agilebrit: (That which does not kill me)
Never one to back down from shitty advice, VP Joe Biden has, instead, decided to double down on it instead:

" want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."


First of all, you are apparently unaware of the fact that you should never ever shoot at something if you don't know what it is. I mean, I guess I could just fire blindly and hope, and I'm sure the parents of the cookie-peddling Girl Scouts will forgive me if I make an innocent mistake. Right?

Second of all, my front door is made of steel. I'm not sure a shotgun blast would actually penetrate it. So not only have I expended half my ammo in a fucking useless gesture, but now I have a bunch of shot on the floor of my foyer. And, I guess if they come in, there might be a comical marble effect and they'll end up on their asses on the floor in a Home Alone scenario, but that's really not what I'm going for here. But, hey, at least, I haven't blown away the UPS guy! So I guess that's a good thing!

Holy crap, but I am sick and fucking tired of clueless elitists who barely know which end of the tube the round comes out of telling me what I should do for my own safety--and giving actively dangerous "advice" on top of it. And not getting called on their bullshit by a fawning lapdog press. Dan Quayle never said something that egregiously fucking stupid, but he misspelled "potato" and it was outraged front-page headlines for days. This asshole says "fire blindly through the door" and is met with dead silence from the non-Fox media when they should be howling for his head.

Apparently "sheer fucking stupidity" is not an impeachable offense.
agilebrit: (Schlock Overkill)
Warning: language ahead. I'm letting this clown have it with (heh) both barrels. And no, I'm not cutting it or locking it because I have had it up to here with these arrogant, clueless assholes telling me what I "need." Deal.

Just how fucking stupid are you?

You know what, wait, don't answer that, because it's on display for all and sundry this week and we can answer it for ourselves.

You said: "We live in an area that's wooded and secluded," Biden said. "I said, Jill, if there's ever a problem just walk out on the balcony here ... put that double-barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."

There are so many things wrong with this. First of all, you also state that you keep your shotguns in a locked safe. So, not only does Jill have to get to the safe (is it in your bedroom? Because ours is in the basement down two flights of stairs), she has to remember the combination, get the thing open, find the ammo (which, according to "gun safety" "experts," should be kept in a separate location from the gun), and load the thing, all while being in fear of her life. Then she should go out on the balcony and expend all her ammo in fucking warning shots.

Which, unless she's pocketed some extra shells, will now leave her helpless. That shotgun is nothing better than a club, at that point.

Not only that, but in every jurisdiction I can think of, doing that is illegal as hell. You don't shoot at something that you don't intend to kill dead. I mean, whoopdedoo, I'm so fucking glad that you live on an estate or some such shit where you don't have to worry about stray pellets hitting innocent people, but the rest of us don't have that luxury--we live in the Real World where our neighbors and their pets are right next door.

Have you ever taken a gun safety course? EVER? I just did, for my Concealed Carry Permit. And in that class, one of the first things they told us was "don't fire warning shots." Not only does it waste ammo, but bystanders can be a Thing, and firing into the air is also fucking stupid because you don't know where that round will fall. If you were paying any attention at all, you would know that. Hell, how many times do we hear in the news around the 4th of July where some drunk dumbass decided to celebrate by firing his hogleg into the air and accidentally hurt someone?

And then there's this: "You don't need an AR-15 (assault rifle). It's harder to aim. It's harder to use and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself."

Don't tell me what I fucking need. That, sir, is not up to you. Again, maybe you live in Rich Dude LaLa Land where home invasions with multiple intruders aren't a Thing, but if I've got four people busting in through my door, I want more than two rounds that I've already expended in fucking warning shots. While it's true that your little scattergun has a wider pattern than an AR-15, this doesn't make the AR-15 any "harder to aim or to use." It is certainly easier to load if you've got a full mag right there. I would rather have 30 rounds and not need them than need them and not have them.

And guess what? Police and SWAT teams use AR-15s for... wait for it! SELF DEFENSE. And they're not walking around with fucking ten-round magazines either. So, if it's good enough for the police, it's good enough for me--because when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. With their AR-15s.

So. Take your fucking stupid "advice" and shove it up your ass. I certainly hope that your wife is smarter than you are and doesn't actually follow it if she ever is (God forbid) confronted by armed intruders in your home.

Hugs and kisses,
[ profile] agilebrit
agilebrit: (Guri praying)
Last time was bad enough. There is no sense thwacking myself with a brick in the head again and I do not need to be sent into another frothing rage. Praying for my country, at this point, is all I can do.

So, I will write today. I will do something I enjoy, in blatant defiance of... well. Everything. As I have said before, my happiness is not dependent on who sits in the White House. My life will go serenely on, with perhaps a few hiccups along the way. As it does.

Which is not to say I will be avoiding TV tonight. After all, I have been looking forward to "The Following" for as long as I've been aware of it. Kevin Bacon hooked me in the first ad--and then when I found out James Purefoy was the villain, my squee-age knew no bounds. And there are Poe references. I'll reserve judgment until we're four eps in, but it looks amazing, from the previews. *bounces*

And, of course, Castle is also on tonight, and H50 (which we will DVR). So, really, there's no bad there.

Meanwhile, I write. I cracked 40,000 words in the Project o'Doom last night. Let's see if I can stick an END at the bottom of this story today and start the next one, shall we?
agilebrit: (That which does not kill me)
This is the second time I've gotten embroiled in a discussion with someone who thinks that gun owners need to be licensed and registered and insured, "just like car owners." The insurance is in case someone breaks into my house, steals my gun (you know, the one I lost in that terrible volcano accident), and uses it in a criminal act.

In other words, it's my fault if a bad guy steals my stuff and then uses it to hurt someone. At least, according to these people. They bring up the fact that cars are licensed and regulated and insured.

But the fact is, not all cars are. We own a drag-racing car. It is not licensed, registered, or insured. We trailer it to the track and trailer it home. It's a powerful beast that does a quarter mile in under ten seconds at sea level. Hell, it doesn't even need a key to start it.

What if someone broke into my garage, stole it, and used it to mow down a bunch of kids in a crosswalk by a school? Would the same people who would howl for my head if someone stole my gun and used it to mow down a bunch of kids also howl for my head if someone used my racecar for the same purpose?

For that matter, what if someone steals my (licensed, registered, insured) PT Cruiser and does something terrible with it? In the eyes of the gun-grabbers, am I liable then? Would they come after me and my insurance company for damages?

How about my chainsaw? It's covered the same way my gun is, but it could do terrible things in the wrong hands. Or, what if I collected swords? A sword, arguably, is also only used to "take human life," more so than a gun, even, because when was the last time you took a sword to the range and used it to slash at paper?

Or are guns just special? I mean, they talk about the fact that we license and insure cars, but that's not so, not necessarily, not in every case--I'm a member of an off-roading culture that also doesn't license and insure all its vehicles. My homeowners policy covers the theft of my guns and any injury sustained on my property. Why should I have additional insurance that covers me in the event that someone commits a criminal act using my property that they stole, off my property?

I thought we were done blaming victims. Guess not, if the victims are evil gun owners.
agilebrit: (kill you with my brain)
for everyone who thinks we need to ban guns in America. Or ban certain kinds of guns. Or ban high-capacity magazines. The handsome and hard-working Larry Correia lays out his credentials, and why all of that is a very bad idea, in a calm and thoughtful manner.

Yes, it's long. And everybody should read every single word. I'm not kidding.
agilebrit: (Prayer)
And you know what? My personal long-term happiness is not dependent on who sits in the White House. I may end up raging and screaming at my TV tonight. Or I may not. But that will be a temporary state. I still have to live my life going forward, and I will be happy, dammit.

Because I'm not going to allow outside influences to determine my internal state.
agilebrit: (Urge to bitchslap)
Dear Mr. Prothero:

I'm electing a President, not a pastor. And I would a hell of a lot rather vote for someone who's been going to the Mormon church all his life than someone who's been going to Rev. Wright's church. At least the Mormon church is not going to scream "God damn America" at me. The LDS people may not share a few tenets of my faith (and yes, I have major problems with major points of their theology, so what), but they share my actual values.

The current occupant of the White House has proven over the last four years that he does not share my values. Therefore, he will not get my vote. And I'm not a "hypocrite" because you suddenly realized that your stupid paradigm was wrong. No, Mr. Prothero, rather, you have just proved that you know absolutely nothing about the people you're purporting to blog about. Of course, you work for CNN, so any credibility you thought you had was shot anyway, but this just puts the final nail in the coffin. "Your Take" is... well. Idiotic. Enjoy your wake-up call.

[ profile] agilebrit

I am amused by the fact that the liberal "wisdom" was that evangelicals would sit this one out because an OMG MORMON!*gasp* was running for President. Turns out, not so much, which I am just pleased as punch by. And now they're flailing all over themselves trying to figure out why.

Maybe if they, you know, actually talked to a few of us, they could figure it out. But that would involve getting icky Christian cooties all over them. Instead, they'll remain puzzled and rail about "hypocrisy" when it's really no such thing. It's just us voting our values.

PS: I really don't want to hear how my values are wrong, okay. I know that the vast majority of LJ and probably my flist disagrees with me on them. I don't feel like having the argument, so let's not.

April 2017

2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 1415


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 06:23 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios