Update on Westboro Protest

Image by Robb Allen

Updating the situation:

There will be a counter-protest.

About 30 people circled together inside Owens Dining Hall Saturday afternoon to discuss a unified response. The meeting, led by Student Government Association president Brandon Carroll, tossed around several ideas in handling the church.

“We want everybody on the same page,” Carroll said.

[...]

The group voted, agreeing that a counter-protest will be formed.

It looks like the main victim of their protest will be Morgan Harrington.

Church officials said they were not protesting the 2007 shootings, saying they were “coming for the event that happened last month,” referencing slain student Morgan Harrington. A 20-year-old education major, Harrington was found in late January 2010 after going missing in October 2009 while attending a Metallica concert in Charlottesville, Va.

I still find it strikingly coincidental that this will be exactly one week before April 16.

Tech's LGBTA community has taken the opposite approach - ignore them and don't give them the reaction they're looking for.

The LGBTA community has also shown outrage about the church’s protest. Aimee Kanode, a senior humanities, science, and environment major at Tech and president of Tech’s LGBTA said she would not attend the protest, as she has work on the day of the protest.

“These people are awful, appalling, despicable,” Kanode said. “My method is to just ignore them. Me wasting energy on those people is not worth my time.” Kanode said that while the group would not officially organize for the protest, several members and officers would be in attendance. Kanode said she advised her members to “be smart about it.”

The bastards are probably hoping to distract from other events, too.

Another concern for community members is the potential for the protest to take away from other events for the day. Among the events scheduled for April 9 include a memorial for David Seth Mitchell, a US Marine killed in Afghanistan and Tech’s Relay for Life event, which is a fundraiser for cancer research.

They're trying to get their money's worth out of this trip, it seems. Scum.

My Rage-O-Meter is Pegged

Image by Robb Allen

The Westboro Bastards (I refuse to call them Baptist, or a church) are (supposedly*) coming to Blacksburg on April 9 to protest.

Phelps' followers notified town officials in a letter Monday that the group planned demonstrations at three locations around town, including the Blacksburg Jewish Community Center and Blacksburg High School.

Another location, near the Virginia Tech campus, was also identified.

Demonstrating near the high school seems pointless - it's been closed since the gym roof collapsed in February.

After the April 16, 2007, shootings at Tech, Phelps threatened to protest at the funerals of the 32 students and faculty slain that day. Then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell, now the governor, issued a warning that anyone willfully disrupting funerals in Virginia could face charges. Those protests never materialized.

As I remember it, a radio station bought them off with an interview - giving them airtime in exchange for them canceling the protests. While I despise the idea of giving scum like that airtime, it was probably the best thing to do for the sake of the families. (I also think that if they had tried to protest those funerals, someone would have been killed. The pain and grief in town then was a hair's breadth from flashing over to rage as it was - there's a good possibility these bastards would have started a riot just by being there.)

It looks like one protest is planned to be across the street from a gift shop operated by a gay couple. I wonder if that's deliberate (they may not know)?

This warms my heart, though:

A Facebook page advertising a counterprotest organized by Tech students and others had drawn more than 4,500 members by Thursday afternoon. More than 1,500 of those members indicated they would attend a counter-rally.

To those planning to attend: Be careful. They have a history of provoking people and then suing anyone who acts out against them, and they carry video recorders.

(* They have a history of announcing protests and then not showing up. Looking at their schedule, I think they do plan on being here - their schedule (I won't link to them. If you want to see it, you'll need to Google it.) puts them in Charleston, WV in the morning, Lawrence, KS from 1130 to 1200, then three separate protests in Blacksburg starting at 1300. I doubt they would go from WV to KS for just a 30 minute protest and fake the 2 1/2 hours planned here. Also, it doesn't leave them enough time to get from WV to KS - it's a 12+ hour drive, and I doubt that group could get through airport security and fly there within the roughly 4 hours the schedule allows. Charleston to Blacksburg, on the other hand, is only about a 2 1/2 hour drive. It's much more likely the Charleston and Blacksburg protests are real, and the KS one is a red herring.)

Health "Care" Roundup

Well, they did it. The Democrat Party bucked the voters, opposed public opinion, and inflicted a massive socialist health insurance system on us.

This story warms my heart. The media is already talking about how this will hurt the Dems.

The initial blush of President Barack Obama's health care triumph immediately gives way to a sober political reality — he must sell the landmark legislation to an angry and unpredictable electorate, still reeling from the recession.

Voters may not buy it.

And that could mean a disastrous midterm election year for Obama and his fellow Democrats.

Some are saying that after the Repubs get control of Congress back, they can repeal this insanity. While I agree that they could, I think pigs growing wings and joining the avian family is far more likely. Obama will never sign a repeal, and I doubt they'll get the numbers to override a veto. By the time we have a President who may be receptive, there will be a massive bureaucracy in place, working against repeal in order to protect itself. Let's face it - when was the last time the government made itself smaller?

And now, here's a quick roundup of coverage by the bloggers I frequent. They'll probably say anything I could, and do it much better.

Nicki at The Liberty Zone is rightfully furious.

Robb at Sharp as a Marble has a simple reminder for us.

Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell has several posts, reminding us that there should be consequences for those who voted for this monstrosity, that it's not completely over yet, and starts looking to what the next steps should be. He shows us that some are looking to present a united fight against this even after it's signed.

Another rightfully angry post, this one by Atom Smasher at Men Are Not Potatoes.

A Conservative Shemale reminds us that it's not the end of the world, or even the country, and offers us some comfort. I'm not quite as confident about this as the person she quotes, but that's more due to some of the specifics of the bill than the principle that is quoted.

Brigid at Home on the Range has a simple message that we should all remember eight months from now.

Tam at View From the Porch give us a little (but only a little, in my opinion) hyperbole.

Michael Bane posts a quote that shows that wisdom can come from any source, and gives us some other words of wisdom.

That's all I have for the moment, but it's still early this morning. I may do an update later, if I have time.

Another reason DADT should be repealed

She followed the rules and stayed in the closet - and someone else outed her to the military, so now she's been discharged under DADT.

Jene Newsome played by the rules as an Air Force sergeant: She never told anyone in the military she was a lesbian. The 28-year-old's honorable discharge under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came only after police officers in Rapid City, S.D., saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base.

[...]

Newsome was at work at the base at the time and refused to immediately come home and assist the officers in finding her partner, whom she married in Iowa — where gay marriage is legal — in October.

Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome's home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP. The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said.

[...]

In the complaint filed last month with the department, ACLU South Dakota said police had no legal reason to tell the military Newsome was a lesbian and that officers knew if they did, it would jeopardize her military career.

Newsome, who was discharged in January, said she didn't know where the marriage license was in her home when police came to her house on Nov. 20 and claims the officers were retaliating because she wouldn't help with her partner's arrest.

This was blatant retaliation, despite the police department's claims that once they knew they "had" to tell the military. They knew that giving that information to her superiors would destroy her career - it's not like DADT is a secret. Telling the military she's a lesbian could do nothing to help them bring in her partner, the only possible goal was to hurt Newsome for not cooperating.

This is another example of why DADT is just wrong. You can follow the rules, staying deep in the closet and keeping any relationships a deep, dark secret, but if someone else outs you to the military, your career is destroyed anyway.

We already make gays and lesbians hide who they are for their entire military careers. Should we also make them take a vow of celibacy and eschew all romantic relationships for as long as they serve? I might support that - but only if we require heterosexuals to do the same thing.

Update: A little research prompted by a debate going on over at A Conservative Shemale has revealed that we actually do effectively make gays and lesbians take a vow of celibacy when they join the military. From the actual DADT law (10 U.S.C. 654)

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:

(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts

[...]

(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

[omitted sections deal with exceptions to the law]

So gays who join the military can't have a romantic relationship (after all, even kissing or holding hands by two men can be considered "a homosexual act or acts"). I stand by my original conclusion: I might support that - but only if we apply it to heterosexuals, too.

Holy Bullshit!

This fills me with a sick rage.

They ride around seeking out girls who they feel sinned by wearing revealing clothing (anyone who isn't dressed in an ankle-length skirt with a shirt buttoned up all the way and a kerchief covering her hair, apparently), and pass out repugnant pamphlets blaming rape victims for the actions of deranged lunatics who seek power by sexually violating women!

One passage from the pamphlet reads:

“Scripture tells us that when a man looks on a woman to lust for her he has already committed adultery in his heart. If you are dressed in a way that tempts a men to do this secret (or not so secret) sin, you are a participant in the sin,” the leaflet states.“By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?” [emphasis mine]

Nicki hits the nail on the head:

The only difference between these drooling, frothing zealots and their Taliban counterparts is that they haven't gained enough power to start stoning women to death for provocative dress yet.

I hope I never run into one of these idiots. Testing the limits of my self-control is not a good thing, and I really don't need to deal with an assault trial - but someone who tries to tell me a rape victim brought it on herself because of the way she was dressed stands a good chance of losing many teeth. Though I would push for a jury trial if I lost that battle, since I doubt the jury selection process could find 12 people around here who would vote to convict.

Oh, and on a separate note (from the same post at Nicki's) - Pat Robertson, you really need to drink a big tall glass of STFU, you evil piece of revolting buzzard excrement.

A School Shooting, and a Heroic Teacher

There was a school shooting in Colorado today:

One male and one female were shot at about 3:30 p.m. outside Deer Creek Middle School in Littleton, Jefferson County Sheriff's office spokeswoman Jacki Kelley said. Both students were taken to a nearby hospital and were expected to survive.

Student Steven Seagraves said he was about 10 feet away when an adult approached students and asked them: "Do you guys go to this school?"

When the students said they did, he shot them, Seagraves said.

Seventh-grade math teacher David Benke, a 6-foot-5 inch former college basketball player who oversees the school's track team, tackled the suspect as he was trying to reload his weapon.

Nobody could have blamed Mr. Benke for running for cover. He was unarmed, against someone with a rifle. He saw an opening and took it - at great risk to his own life - to protect his students.

"He was trying to rack another round. He couldn't get another round in before I got to him so I grabbed him," Benke said, recalling that he didn't have time to fear for his life.

They don't say what kind of rifle it was, other than "high-powered" - of course, to the MSM, any rifle is "high-powered." The story says he was reloading, but it sounds more like it may have jammed. I suppose we'll find out later, though I don't expect the media to get it right without getting it wrong at least three different times.

[Update Feb. 24, 2010: NPR says this morning that it was a bolt-action rifle.]

At this time, the shooter appears to have no connection to the school, and no motive has been released.

Good job Mr. Benke, it sounds like you prevented a massacre. Any praise I can offer will fall infinitely short of what you deserve for your courage and quick thinking. Don't beat yourself up because you couldn't stop the first shots - when you have no reason to expect an attack, the attacker will always have the initiative, and the advantage of surprise. You overcame that, and took advantage of a single moment pure, blind luck to save many children.

Bill further restricts sex offenders

From the Roanoke Times:

Legislation that would further limit where sex offenders can live and expand the list of convictions that activate those restrictions has drawn the ire of civil libertarians and advocates of reforming those laws.

[...]

If enacted, Athey's House Bill 1004 would bar individuals ordered to register as sex offenders for crimes involving a juvenile victim from living within 500 feet of multiple places children are known to frequent.

It would add school bus stops, community parks, playgrounds, recreation centers, public pools and private, parochial and Christian schools to state law, which applies to day care centers, public schools and adjoining public parks.

I have just two comments on this right now:

1) In addition to my next objection, I would have to object to adding school bus stops to the list. They can change from year to year without notice (unless it affects your own kids). What happens to a sex offender who wakes up one morning and finds out they've moved a school bus stop in front of his house? Does he have to move? Can he be charged with a violation immediately even though he wasn't notified? If he does have to move, how long does he have before he can be charged?

2) This objection is actually the most important - even beyond Constitutional considerations. It is, of course, the perennial objection to sex offender registration/restriction laws: If they're so dangerous we have to continually track where they live, and restrict where they can live, work, and travel,

WHY ARE WE LETTING THEM OUT OF JAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

The mind boggles...

at this insanity.

But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime. [emphasis mine]

I have my doubts as to whether that attitude would withstand the test of reality, but the fact that this waste of carbon would even spout such insanity means it's possible. In fact, it seems like he's a True Believer in the "Progressive" agenda:

An alternative to lockdown is immediate exodus via announcement. Although this removes potential hostages and makes it nearly impossible for the shooter to acquire preselected targets, it unfairly rewards resourceful children who move to safety off-site more shrewdly and efficiently than others.

Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful. A level barrel is fair to all fish.

So, not only would he rather see his own children dead than sully himself by using an evil gun to defend them, but he would also follow the "Progressive" doctrine of "equal opportunity must mean equal outcomes" and see all the children dead rather than allow any who can to "unfairly" use their resourcefulness to survive when others might not be able to.

Why is this idiot allowed to teach? Has anyone looked at how he grades his students? If he believes this strongly that "Schools should level playing fields, not intrinsically reward those more resourceful," does he give every student the same grade? Does he grade based on performance, or based on his own little "Progressive" agenda? After all, it's not "fair" for students who work harder or are innately more talented in whatever subject he teaches to be rewarded for their work/ability when the less motivated or less gifted don't do as well.

If this twit had his way, we'd still be reading by candlelight because Edison would have learned as a child that hard work and resourcefulness shouldn't be rewarded, and he would never have bothered trying.

Any teacher who states his belief that resourcefulness and intelligence shouldn't be rewarded because it's not "fair" should immediately be banned from teaching anything for life.

(h/t SayUncle)

Update 2009-12-29:

It's been opined, at Uncle's, at comments in the original source, and by Jenn at A Conservative Shemale (thanks for reading!) that the letter was actually intended as satire. On reflection, I think there's a good chance that they're right. A comment at Uncle's actually links to another letter by the same person

Satire or not, I think the main points of my post here still stand on their own, and anyone who that seems to support that idea. On the other hand, I've actually met people who think like that, and it's written believably enough that I just can't bring myself to dismiss the possibility that it's real.does think like that still should be banned from teaching for life.

SCOTUS Watch

No Heller today. Should be tomorrow.

They also ruled the death penalty unconstitutional for child-rape. My initial opinion is strongly opposed to that ruling, but I haven't read it for details yet. It appears to have been a 5-4 vote split right across conservative/liberal lines. I'm disappointed, but not surprised. I'll probably do a more detailed post about this one later.

Why didn't they FIGHT??!!! (Part 2)

Since I posted on this yesterday, I've had a chance to distance myself from my anger a bit. I've also found some more complete stories about it here (thanks to David Codrea at The War on Guns) and here (by a Yahoo! search). There are a couple of points the original story didn't make clear. I'll be mixing quotes from the two stories linked to above.

At least one tried to stop the 27-year-old attacker, who swung and slammed the toddler into the asphalt and stomped on him behind his parked four-door Toyota pickup.

"One (person) tried to intervene, and the suspect pushed him off and continued assaulting the baby," Singh said.


By the time the ambulance had left the scene, Singh said, almost a dozen people had witnessed some part of the incident, with at least two trying to physically stop the suspect.

So, contrary to my prior belief, "at least" two people did try to physically intervene. This was not made clear in the earlier story I read, and I stand corrected on that point.

But...

Out of almost a dozen people, only two tried to do anything. And it doesn't look like they tried very hard. If being "pushed off" is enough to keep you from stopping something like this, then you're not really trying. If you're not beaten to the ground, unable to move, and you didn't stop him, you didn't try hard enough. I stand by my original assessment of these worthless cowards.

On a more positive note, the officer and his pilot are to be commended. The officer made the immediate decision to set down in a field by the road so he could get out and intervene, and the pilot did it. Let me emphasize, this is not something that is done lightly. This happened at 10:00 at night. Helicopter pilots are justifiably paranoid about things like power lines, because they are hard to see, hard to gauge distance to from the air, and they can kill a helicopter before anyone on board knows what's going on. At night they're practically invisible. As an EMS provider, I know for a fact that most pilots won't land in a field at night unless it's a regularly used LZ (landing zone) that they know has been used in daylight where such hazards can be easily seen. They also won't land in a field at night if it's not marked off, (usually done with fire or rescue vehicles), so they can see where the edges are. I have, in fact, seen some pilots refuse a known LZ because they weren't comfortable with it at night.
This pilot landed in an unmarked, unscouted, presumably unknown field, at night. If he had missed seeing a power line, or a tree, or anything, he could have killed himself and the officer with him. Seeing the situation, he took the risk.

That's the kind of courage every one of the bystanders should have shown. Instead, they let him "push" them off.

Cowards.

Why didn't they FIGHT??!!!

This is just sick. (Please note that due to the nature of this story, I will break my usual rule of no profanity. And there will be yelling. Lots of yelling. There is just no other way to accurately get my feelings about this, and my point, across.)

Officials said Monday that 27-year-old Sergio Casian Aguilar parked his car on the country road Saturday night and proceeded to stomp, kick and punch a 2-year-old officials believe to be his son.
and
Passers-by called 911 and attempted to intervene. Dan Robinson, the chief of a local volunteer fire department, says he got out of his car and tried to stop Aguilar, whom he described as having a "total hollowness in his eyes."

He was finally shot at the scene by an officer responding to calls from bystanders. The original version from this morning is gone, and Yahoo! news doesn't seem to have a way to find it, but it mentioned that the first witnesses were an elderly couple who called 911, and that 2 or 3 other cars stopped with people calling 911. Although both stories mentioned people trying to stop him, neither mentioned any physical altercation, or anyone getting hurt trying to stop him.

The first thing I thought when I saw this was: Why the hell are you bothering to call 911?! When yelling at him to stop didn't work, why the fuck did nobody try to FIGHT him. He's beating the shit out of a 2 YEAR OLD CHILD for God's sake!! I know this is Kalifornia, so shooting him was probably not an option for these people, but even the elderly couple, if they can drive, they can swing a tire iron at his head from behind! There were 3 or 4 cars there, meaning at least 3 or 4 people. Dogpile the son of a bitch! Don't just stand there with your thumbs up your asses waiting for the police and watching a 2 year old child get beaten to death!! STOP HIM!!!!!

What's worse is the fire chief. Dan Robinson, you are a worthless piece of SHIT! You didn't "try to stop him," you tried to talk to him. He was beating this kid bloody. The story this morning said the child was so badly beaten that they were going to have to use DNA to identify him! If you're an active fire chief, you are not a 90 pound weakling. If you are? You're in the business of saving lives. As a volunteer. GRAB A TIRE IRON!! Hit him with a fire extinguisher!! Do something, DON'T JUST FUCKING STAND THERE!!!!

Even if he beats you senseless, even if he breaks every bone in your body, even if he kills you, protecting an innocent child is worth it. When he's beating you, he's not beating the child. If you last long enough, the police that the other useless cowards called will get there. Even if he finishes with you, you've bought the child some time.

There are some things worth fighting for. There are some things worth being injured for. There are some things worth dying for.

Stopping something like this is one of them.

Shedding the Light on Concealed Handguns - Again

The same post at The War on Guns that prompted the rant below also reminded me of this. For those who don't remember, or aren't from here in the Blacksburg/Roanoke area, Christian Trejbal wrote a column on March 11, 2007 called Shedding Light On Concealed Handguns, in which, as part of "reflect[ing] on the importance of open government and public records" he used the process of obtaining a statewide list of concealed handgun permit holders to demonstrate how open government is beneficial. Then he published the entire list on the paper's website, complete with addresses!

Needless to say, a great public outcry followed. (The paper's blog comments are here.) One of the loudest outcries was that many of the people on the list had a permit because of an abusive ex-spouse or ex-significant other, who now had access to their most recent address. The outcry was such that the Roanoke Times removed the list the next day. They claim they did so because:

“When we posted the information, we had every reason to believe that the data the State Police had supplied would comply with the statutes. But people have notified us that the list includes names that should not have been released,” said Debbie Meade, president and publisher of The Roanoke Times. “Out of a sense of caution and concern for the public we have decided to take the database off of our website.”

Probably just to avoid lawsuits when some ex-spouse goes to his ex's home and attacks her because he got the address from their site.

It looks like the Medford Mail Tribune is getting ready to do the same thing, and they've won the court case to get the list. For the whole story, go to The War on Guns.

This Just Makes Me Mad

I stumbled on this old editorial (from the Medford Mail Tribune, 12 Sept 07) from the blog The War on Guns. There are so many things about this that make me mad, it's hard to figure out where to begin. A quick summary:

The teacher reportedly is afraid of her ex-husband, whom she has served with a restraining order. After district officials reminded the teacher of district policy and told her not to bring a gun to school, she contacted the Oregon Firearms Federation and a Portland attorney, who says he will ask a Jackson County judge to declare the district's policy illegal. He says state law specifically declares that only the Legislature has the power to regulate firearms.

The Legislature also both banned guns from schools, and exempted concealed carry permit holders from that ban.

Many of the usual anti-gunner "guns don't belong in schools" arguments follow. What really makes me mad though, is this:

The chances of an accidental shooting — or a gun making its way into the wrong hands, with tragic consequences — are far greater than the chances of an intruder bent on mayhem. And let's not forget — this isn't just about teachers. If the loophole remains, any person with a concealed handgun license could bring their gun to the next football game or parent-teacher conference. Is that a good thing?

He seems to ignore the fact that she's not afraid of just a random intruder. She's afraid of a specific person, namely her ex-husband. Although the article doesn't mention that he's made any specific threats against her, the fact that she's gotten a restraining order means it's very likely that he has.

He also ignores the fact that an "accidental" shooting, or the gun "making it's way into the wrong hands" can only happen if she takes the gun out. It's not going to "go off" in the holster. It's concealed. Even if, because of this idiot's article, someone knows she has it and wants to take it away, they won't know where she has it.

But what really, really pisses me off is this:

In the meantime, there is the question of the Medford teacher's situation and what risks it may pose to students, regardless of whether she is armed. If she is so afraid of her former husband that she feels the need to carry a gun at school, what threat might he pose to her students? Parents would be justified in asking that question, and school officials should be prepared to answer it.

He suddenly remembered that she's afraid of a specific person, and uses that to call for parents to complain as a way to try to get her fired for someone else's actions! There is no reason for this except sheer damned vindictiveness. She hasn't done anything herself except to dare to challenge the "holy writ" that "guns don't belong in schools."

I don't know how this story turned out, or how it stands today. But if this bastard succeded in getting her fired, every teacher in the country should be worried. If someone threatens you, whether you did anything or not, you may find your self out of a job!