Open Forum: What’s on your mind? Boston, Obama, et al.

I meant to get this out earlier in the week. I usually want to avoid writing about topical news until enough time has lapsed. That’s because there’s always more information forthcoming.

Well, even with the little I do know, I don’t have much to say with regards to the Boston Marathon tragedies. Why? I am a low energy person. Some people are energized by outpourings of grief, anxiety – all these strong emotions or the theatrical pretence of it. However, I am drained by it. And looking at gory photos does nothing, but make me queasy.

I almost feel like if I don’t have this overwrought emotional response demanded by social media or the news – I am missing something. Like I am not compassionate somehow, like I must show some sort of empathetic response. But really, what does it matter and who cares what I feel? The only important people are those directly involved or injured.

To be frank, I am numb. Maybe disasters in the news isn’t happening every other day, but goodness knows one has to dial back abit. Cause lately it’s beginning to feel like everything is a disaster – even when the winds blow during a run-of-the-mill rainy day. I want real disasters treated like disasters.

By the way, in case I am misconstrued – all I mean is that what happened in Boston truly was horrible. Unfortunately, it will be overshadowed by narcissists who need to make it about themselves.

And must every event turn into social media candle light vigils? Does everyone need to show one was there? Do we immediately need to see who the deceased are, especially when they are children?

Must everything turn into an appearance by a politican who, as usual, will work in some distateful, unclassy policy position that has nothing to do with the event?

Anyway, what’s on your mind? The floor is yours.


16 thoughts on “Open Forum: What’s on your mind? Boston, Obama, et al.”

  1. I did not cry when 9/11 happened, I do not get emotional over flag draped coffins, or things like the boston marathon. I tend to see it bad things that happen.

    I cried during the Muppet movie, I got teary eyed during the Sandlot and my heart was deeply moved during Aragorn’s Men of the West speech. I simply seem to have a different set of values, maybes it my own faith, maybe its I am more moved by grand gestures of faith and love then hate and anger.

    Obama’s speeches regardless of the topic come off the same, he is not a genuine person, kind of like some weird robot that took it into his head to be human. Frankly I dislike almost every politco ever.

    Gun Control is bad its very bad, the Police take took long to show, if they even do. I could sit here and name dates, times and places where guns have saved lives, and police failed to do it. I have many firearms ( all but two are semi-auto), and I carry concealed as well. I do not leave home without my gun.

    I suggest you learn to shoot from the NRA, join a gun club, learn, practice, learn, carry. Learn to use a knife, learn to use a pool stick, a broken bottle, your teeth and nails. Do not live in fear, do not like terrorist or the govt tell you otherwise.

    We are trading the founding and purpose of America for the illusion of security.

    GoldenAh: I’m not sure what makes me cry. Sometimes I could be dry-eyed at heart rendering events and cry over trivial things.

    Dreadnaught, I agree with you wholeheartedly about self-defense and learning all the proper techniques. I don’t know why there are crazy people in the media and those calling themselves leaders encouraging folks to be helpless sitting ducks. It’s ridiculous and irresponsible.

    I don’t care for the police state. Yes, I want stability, and local crime taken care of, but the idea of the country devolving into lock down mode every time they have a manhunt is silly. This notion of “Homeland Security” is a joke. They’ve proven incapable of preventing terrorists attacks, but every failure is an excuse to get more funding and expand their reach – to suspend the Constitution. This country has had periods of domestic terrorism before: anarchists that bombed many places in the 1920’s, and the government handled it without the expense and overbearing stupidity that goes on today.

  2. About a month ago, during the height of the gun control debate, when relatives of the Newtown victims were speaking in congress, some idiots in the Colorado State legislature really revealed that women are at great risk if they are deprived of any real ability to defend themselves. When several women argued that they would like to have the ability to arm themselves for protection in situations such as rape, they were informed (by a ‘study’ from the Univ. of Colorado no less), that instead of shooting your attacker, the best thing to do would be to urinate, vomit, or tell the attacker that you have an STD or that you are on your period, as these would all, apparently, turn off a rapist.

    One male legislator even argued that it would be unfair on the supposed rapist, because they could get shot, by mistaken identity, as some women might assume that the individual wanted to rape them, even though that might not really be his intention. He said that it would be better to use a ‘pen’ as a weapon, so that just in case the fellow isn’t really a rapist, he wouldn’t be too hurt. That’s all fair enough, except for one thing; how does a woman get the wrong idea that someone is trying to rape her? At what point between the unwanted advances and forced physical contact, your clothes being ripped off, them hitting/threatening you, etc., is one supposed to say…..hmmm, okay, now I know that this guy really is trying to commit rape? Is she supposed to wait till he actually pulls his pants down?

    There was a discussion that recently took place on WAOD about the hypocritical response to the Steubenville case by certain folks, specifically, one Zerlina Maxwell. I remember seeing her on the t.v, arguing in support of strict gun controls. Even though I might not have fully agreed, I partly understood her viewpoints, until, of course, the discussion turned to how women are put at risk if they aren’t allowed to legally own a weapon. What annoys me about folks like her is that it is not enough that they choose to not protect themselves, we all have that choice. They also want to make the decision for others. It is easy for someone that can afford private (armed) security to find it strange that others want to own guns. This Miss. Maxwell said that it is wrong for women to be ‘put under pressure’ to shoot their rapist, as some of them might feel guilty or reluctant, especially if they know their attacker, which is what happened in her case. So because she (and some other women) feel unable to pull a trigger at someone who wants to violate them, they don’t want any other woman to have that option. It’s as if to say: “well since I wasn’t able to protect myself/prevent the rape, why should you be able to?”

    What many people don’t know is that the police is under no obligation to respond to a crime. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, it really is your responsibility to protect yourself. If anyone is still in doubt, see the Warren v. District of Columbia case.

    GoldenAh: I had to look up this woman, because I had never heard of her. She bares a strong resemblance to reporter Rehema Ellis (she’s way older). She could pass for her daughter.



    And that means what? Oh nothing, I thought she looked familiar. 😀

    Well, it was never about the safety of people. You have to look at it from the point of the gun-grabbers: How much harder would it be for them to rape, steal and kill if folks were willing and quite able to protect themselves? I would not be surprised if these learned professors and activists had quite a criminal record. Columbia recently hired a “former” terrorist, bomber or radical. A few other universities have their share of esteemed, immoral and violent nut jobs. Once someone talks about how I don’t have the right to protect myself in any manner I see fit, they have no credibility. They all need to be mocked, dismissed and ignored.

    An attacker uses an element of surprise on his victim. So there wouldn’t be any opportunity to have a discussion about what ails a victim to make them an undesirable target. Having a conversation is nonsensical. This is like hostage negotiation. What people discovered from 9/11 after being told by “experts” to comply with hijackers is that all bets are off. Rapists, terrorists, hijacks and all criminals want to do deadly damage. Time for people to respond in kind. The hug-a-thug philosophy only belongs to those living in an alternative “safe” universe, away from reality or with 24/7 protection.

    I have a hard time paying attention or giving any credence to a “professional victim” who makes a career out of it. I don’t discount her experience. It’s just that her viewpoint is distorted beyond recognition or common sense. On some level, she’s already been beaten down and defeated. She’s like someone who’s brain damaged, her thinking is going to be all screwed up.

    Yes, most women are likely to be attacked by someone they know. And so what difference does it make if she puts one between the eyes or a couple in the chest? If she doesn’t defend herself, she will most likely end up dead. It is a choice between the assailant or herself. Now, like you say, if ZM is satisfied with her domestic violence acceptance mindset – that’s her business. The rest of us like ourselves too much to be endangered in that fashion.

    I used to ride the NYC subways at 3 am in the morning, before the days of Mayor Giuliani putting a cop on nearly every train. I never carried any weapons, not even in school. Oy, do I have stories to tell about what people carried to school! Anyway, I didn’t have a purse, I only wore a jacket and pants. So, whenever some guy would bust into the car trying to act crazy and look my way, I’d put my hand into my jacket. There was a distinct bulge there: that was my “gun bluff.” It never failed. They’d keep walking, keep their distance and never bothered me. And yeah, I often wish I had a real one.

  3. IMO, many of the perpetrators of these types of attacks have these three emotions that when a person has them together, they can be lethal. Resentment, self pity and feelings of difference.

    It’s hating something, a government, a people, anything so much, and playing it again and again in your head, then feeling sorry for yourself, and topping it off with, “you just don’t understand.” Lethal because that combination of emotions can justify anything.

    Gun control is a good thing, but something needs to be done about mental health. I’ve always believed that people should get a mental health check up every year, the same way they get a physical health check up.

    GoldenAh: It is definitely a mental illness. And I don’t believe there is any country or organization in the world that would be able to prevent or cure these kinds of ailments. I notice everybody always has some theory or excuse as to why folks do the things they do. I don’t even believe the perpetrators even know.

    For a lunatic, it could be as simple as, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”

    I don’t believe in gun control. It’s about as effective as all these drug laws. Our government hasn’t learned anything from Prohibition. Sometimes it’s best to let people own / smoke / drug / consume what they want and pay the consequences for their actions. Until they hurt others, then they can be punished by society.

    I look at what happened in Norway, where that guy was able to kill over 90 defenseless people, because no one else had a gun. People gotta remember that criminals don’t care about being law abiding.

  4. “And if the anti-gun people manage to get some kind of gun-prohibition going. Well, you can see how successful the “war on drugs” has been.”

    That is one of the many things that annoys me about the whole gun debate. The same folks who are arguing for heavy gun control are the very same people who always go on about how the government banning/restricting drugs doesn’t work.

    Also, the vast majority of gun murders/violence are committed using handguns, and most gun crimes involve illegal weapons, yet most of the legislation being proposed centers around restricting legally owned/obtained rifles. The reason for this is that most of the victims of these handgun murders are poorer and predominantly black. Hence, these white liberals don’t care too much about it. They figure that as long as their kids stay in their safe neighbourhoods, then they’re fine. Their only worry is when folks who look like them (and hence, stand out less) go on some shooting spree.

    The sad thing is that black folks, particularly those who live in dangerous areas are the ones most likely to support severe gun restrictions. This is despite the fact that they are at the greatest risk, criminals don’t care about laws, and the police probably isn’t going to be in any rush to respond to a call from these neighbourhoods.

    GoldenAh: There are two sections of museums that I love to visit, unless it’s about technology then I love all of that, and it’s the armory / munitions / weapons / war with the other being paintings. What makes the war section so interesting is that guns go back so far in history, especially after the Chinese made gunpowder and it made its way into the west.

    Anyone who thinks that all these restrictive gun laws will have some affect are kidding themselves. Newtown / Sandy Hook happened in a state with the most restrictive gun laws. Boston is in another state with the same. And Chicago, Detroit and all those other isles of gun-control Utopia run rampant with gun violence. The reason why NYC has low rates of gun violence isn’t because of the gun laws, it is due to “stop and frisk”. And the good white liberals of the city want it stopped.

    Honestly, sometimes I think these people love mass murders and depressive conditions among black folks and do everything they can to make it happen.

    As you say, it depends on who the victims / perpetrators are that people start clamoring for gun control laws.

    Here’s the thing though, in a lot of southern rural areas where a lot of black folks live (I think the majority of the black population resides in the south), everybody has a rifle / shotgun and there isn’t anything that matches the kind of gun violence in urban centers. And southern states have the least restrictive gun laws.

    Overall, I don’t believe there much anything can be done when folks want to go on killing sprees, unless they are caught in advance, which could happen due to dumb luck.

  5. “JaliliMaster, you have more patience than I do. I stopped listening to BO about 2/3 through his first term. I realized in big corporations it takes about roughly 3 years to conclude if a CEO, executive or manager is incompetent, although in these times it’s probably down by half. BO has been given a lot of lag time, a lot of slack, a lot of protection, but the clock is finally striking 12 again – even though it’s broken.”

    I was amused by his (BO’s) little rant after the gun control legislation failed in the Senate. He had done little real work for it, and left the heavy lifting to others (i.e actually coming up with real solutions that would (1) go a good way to solving/reducing gun violence, and (2) actually having a chance of passing through congress).

    Everyone makes jokes about how Biden is a buffoon (he is), but when it comes down to it, he seems far more capable of actually doing his job. When it was time to negotiate a tax deal at the end of 2012, so that the country did not go off the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’, it was Biden, not Obama, who actually sat down with the leaders in Congress to work something out. When asked why, given that Obama is the President, the White House said that it was because Biden had been a senator, so had a good working relationship with members of congress. That is an approach that is only ever used when the current president was previously a governor, so never had any real working relationship with congress (and one of the reasons why if a candidate for the presidency is coming from executive office, they usually pick someone from congress as a running mate). However, that does not apply in this case seeing as Obama was a Senator prior to becoming president. Are they saying that he formed no relationships/partnerships with his fellow senators, or did they just never think too highly of him in the first place?

    Every time he tries to do anything that faces opposition, his response is always the same. He whines to the general public, goes on a nationwide tour telling everyone to call their elected officials in congress to pressure them to support whatever Obama wants them to support. Basically, he gets the American public to do the nitty gritty of the work for him. Yet he expects the praise. People don’t seem to realise that there is something wrong with the fact that the man just doesn’t like to work. They think that because he is the president, it is okay for him to not get involved. Well, try looking back at previous occupants of the Oval office, and see whether or not they had the same approach. When Bush was trying to get the first stimulus bill passed, at the very start of the recession, he actually went to Capitol Hill to meet with them face-to-face, because he recognised that he needed their votes. When his party refused to support him, he tried, successfully, to get Democrats on board. That meant taking on some of their own provisions. Did he moan about it? No. It’s called being an adult. When Clinton was in office, was it ideal that he had to deal with a Republican opposition led by Newt Gingrich? Obviously not. However, he had to accept that they are a co-equal, elected branch of government. Today, he gets the credit for balancing the budget, and rightfully so, even though the only reason that happened is because the Republicans forced him to. Obama wants the credit when things go right, but none of the blame when things go wrong. He cannot have it both ways!

    He keeps on saying “ the buck stops with me, I take full responsibility ” blah, blah, blah, whenever there is another government shambles, yet, I have noticed that he always seems to have a fall ‘guy’. More often than not a bw. He is always too eager to throw ’em under the bus, in a way that he just isn’t for anyone else!

    I am waiting for the day, that Obama’s first response to a crisis/problem is “ hmm, now how can we solve this issue ” instead of “ Mommy, mommy (i.e. the media), so-and-so (i.e any of his political opponents), won’t let me……..(insert whatever he is trying to do)…..“. He is like the spoilt child whose parents (the media) told him that he was special, then went out in the world (i.e when it is time to actually get down to doing stuff) and was surprised and incensed that his ‘specialness’ doesn’t get him a pass from everybody. The reason that a lot of black folks only see racism as the sole reason for any opposition to any of his policies is because they see this guy, well educated, talks well and, let’s be real, so superior to most black males, they too buy into his ‘specialness’. They don’t see that many other people also think they are special and that Obama isn’t.

    I am so sure that Obama is going to leave office having achieved very little. History will judge him as the first ‘black’ president and that is about it. Such a shame for someone who had so much promise.

    P.S: Sorry for the long post, I didn’t start out intending to go on so much. Also, I just read it over, it seems somewhat off topic. Ah well, it is an ‘open forum’ post.

    GoldenAh: On my goodness, do not apologize for this comment. I love it. This is such an astute, comprehensive review and evaluation of the man. If someone wanted me to write about what I think of him – I must give you props and include this.

    ‘Cause I’m on the same page, “Okay, he’s the first black President. Wonderful. When is he going to start WORKING?” Whoop, there it is.

    I really enjoy and appreciate your thoughts. Thank you, JaliliMaster. 🙂

  6. People make the mistake of thinking that if you’re not invested in what happened in Boston, you’re a heartless, uncaring person.

    I am very saddened by what happened in Boston, it’s the media coverage that makes me sick. I felt the same way on 9/11 (and I live in NYC!), so much so that I had to turn off the TV and find a radio station that was still playing music (thank God I found one).

    I think the problem is that the media thinks there is only one acceptable response to a tragedy like this one and if you’re not responding in the way that they think you should, then you’re heartless and not a real American or something.

    GoldenAh: I care. Yet, I refuse to be manipulated. I tuned out the Newtown coverage. I know about it, but I don’t know the details. I don’t want to know. My psyche is not served by this. When I used to read historical books, and could handle the gore, it was chilling. People were so blood thirsty and vicious.

    Honestly, we are living in good times (at least in the Western world) right now. And I do not want the media and this government turning me into a frightened, nervous paranoid wreck hiding out in my house. It’s bad enough that’s extremely expensive just to drive, take mass transit and eat now-a-days.

  7. “Unfortunately, it will be overshadowed by narcissists who need to make it about themselves.”

    So true! Another thing that annoys me is the media coverage of celebrity reactions to these events, or anything. Like, seriously?

    I expressed my low interest in keeping minute by minute updates on the gory details of what happened and I almost got my head chewed off. Never expressing that again!

    GoldenAh: You know they are desperate (for viewers) when they want to hear what celebritards think.

    I’m glad it was sorta resolved in a week. Like you, I wasn’t following it closely. I didn’t know there was a chase / shootout / manhunt going on until Friday evening.

  8. I feel sad but I get sick and tired of politicians and misleaders are using the sequester as this is the reason. They were trying to blame people of color because they have been trained in their small minds to look at any outsider before they look at home grown sociopaths. First it was gun control. But here is where this problem becomes complex. You can not control other peoples action. Only thing you do is put the law in place and enforce it. When those babies,because that what they were , were massacred then there is the uproar. Remember these laws were in place but now everything has a tipping point and now this is on your doorstep and in your neighborhood, then let us get help for the mental disabled. Sociopaths think they are normal and everyone else is the problem so first they have to admit they have a problem to get help. This was the first the NRA said anything on anything. You can background check,but the person who committed the crime is not the same person the gun is registered under. We will get through this with prayer and more safeguards will in place. America is a very strong and moving forward nation and God will strengthen and see us through this.

    GoldenAh: There are two kinds of general response whenever a disaster strikes: people who run like hell, which is okay and acceptable, and those that run towards the danger. It’s generally not the government, which makes me feel “safe”. It is knowing and believing that there are a good number of decent Americans who are able to make split second truly heroic decisions and save lives. Yeah, they may be wearing a badge, but they may be a regular guy on the street. As long as we still have so many more people like that around, much more than the hateful lunatics, I will continue to feel good about this country.

    I’ve been around people with guns. I’ve held a rifle or shotgun (not sure what they were). I wouldn’t be surprised if over 3/4 of the country had one. Banning them hasn’t made some areas safer, it’s only disarmed people who have to pray the police get there on time. And if the anti-gun people manage to get some kind of gun-prohibition going. Well, you can see how successful the “war on drugs” has been.

    As you say, Nysee, no one can control people. Just enforce the laws we have now. Congress and many legislative bodies across the country probably churn out more than 50,000 laws a year.

  9. “Must everything turn into an appearance by a politican who, as usual, will work in some distateful, unclassy policy position that has nothing to do with the event?”

    Former Rep. Barney Frank somehow managed to link budget cuts to the marathon bombinngs???!!! He is a strange individual!

    Also, I will confess that when I saw a newsclip of Obama giving yet another soaring speech at the Boston memorial, I found myself getting somewhat irritated, but cannot put my finger on why. It seems to be the only thing he can do well, whnever there is some tragedy/disaster/national mourning moment etc, out comes Obama to ‘do his thing’. He emotes, alters his vocal timbre, and puts on this fake black preacher voice, it’s all a bit too obvious. I guess he can no longer boast that there hasn’t been a successful terrorist attack (via bombing) on his watch.

    GoldenAh: Barney Frank is the ultimate welfare Queen idiot. He doesn’t appreciate that the “government funding” comes from us or is borrowed from other countries. I bet he thinks it’s that magic printing press down in Washington that will cure all our problems.

    JaliliMaster, you have more patience than I do. I stopped listening to BO about 2/3 through his first term. I realized in big corporations it takes about roughly 3 years to conclude if a CEO, executive or manager is incompetent, although in these times it’s probably down by half. BO has been given a lot of lag time, a lot of slack, a lot of protection, but the clock is finally striking 12 again – even though it’s broken.

    And you make an excellent point about the terrorist attack, I hadn’t looked at it from that angle.

  10. (Standing on my chair): BRAVO! DITTO! AND AMEN! to everything you expressed in this post.

    GoldenAh: Thank you, Kimmie! 🙂

Comments are closed.