The duality and hypocrisy of the gun's rights movement

A few days ago I read this slate article about the rise of the open carry movement and the new pattern of having open carry demonstrations. All of the comments in it from the open carry group immediately indicated the contradiction in my mind with another angle of gun rights advocates, that of stand your ground laws. This post is a look at how the gun rights advocacy groups want to have it both ways.

In the slate article we find some explanations that these gun rights activists are not "threatening" or "intimidating" anyone by bringing their guns for all to see in full view but rather just to educate and raise awareness:

"we are very clear that our objective is to educate, not alarm. In other words, we are only KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY engaging in conduct meant to raise awareness and educate. "

It is an interesting position based on the mental effects the sight of a gun brings to mind. I wonder if when a bookie comes to collect on what he is owed he brings a large muscular man "not to alarm you but just to raise awareness"? Of course not. He brings a large muscular man along to visually intimidate you into paying, and of course to use that large muscular man in the event you don't. The chilling effect is the same with these counter-demonstrations.

Whilst reading this article the recent stories of  Reshina McBride, Trayvon Martin, and many others came to mind. What is the connection you may ask? The connection is with the rise of new "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground laws" being implemented with money from gun rights advocates like the NRA across the United States. In the two cases I specifically mention two unarmed teenagers were perceived as such a threat that they were shot to death. Let me repeat the key words there: unarmed teenagers and shot to death. In one case the shooter invoked stand your ground as a defense and in the other a man clearly felt his "castle" was in jeopardy. If you do a google search you will find 168,000 hits for "castle doctrine cases". People who were so afraid of "others" that they felt the immediate need to shoot them with a gun, real threat or not.

So this is where we have come as a society, one in which 5 supreme court justices turned the 2nd amendment on it's head, a place where the Wild Wild West no longer exists just in movies. It exists out there in our streets, playgrounds, schools, parks, and malls. And the people with the guns want it both ways. Come near my house and I have the right to shoot you because FEAR! However don't mind if I am walking around your local mall with a rifle slung over my back, you have nothing to fear. See how that works? People without guns are the ones to fear, not me and my good ole six shooter. This is 'Merica now. Here's hoping we can turn back.

How the NCAA claims due process exclusively to itself

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet.

On September 26th 2013 the NCAA and it's lawyers filed a response to the Paterno motion not to dismiss their lawsuit. In this document virtually every argument the NCAA makes is both contradictory to the facts, and in essence makes the case of why they should have given PSU due process. What follows is a piece by piece look at some of the arguments.

You can find the full NCAA response document here.


NCAA argument #1: "Plaintiffs cannot simply invent their own self-serving interpretation of the Bylaws - a contract to which they are not even a party - and the unilaterally assert the NCAA breached it."

The blatant hypocrisy in this statement is galling. In the history of the NCAA prior to this case no school had ever been sanctioned without first having been found in direct violation of an actual rule regarding athletic competition. Ever.

On the morning of July 23, 2012 Mark Emmert also stated the following. "We cannot look to NCAA history to determine how to handle circumstances so disturbing, shocking and disappointing. As the individuals charged with governing college sports, we have a responsibility to act. These events should serve as a call to every single school and athletics department to take an honest look at its campus environment and eradicate the ‘sports are king’ mindset that can so dramatically cloud the judgment of educators.”

If you look at the "rule violations" that the NCAA states in the Binding Consent Decree you will not find any that deal with actual rules violations related to a sport (go here to see the Bylaws and Articles quoted). What they list is all general "morals" and "ethics" clauses. Needless to say if questionable morals and ethics are now the standard then almost every college football team is in serious trouble along with the NCAA itself (Miami case? UNC case? UMD case? ND case?, etc).

Additionally since there has never been a precedent (Emmert said it himself) for such acts, including the consent decree, then perhaps it might be fair to litigate the response to the acts at PSU? 

So what we have here is the statement of Mark Emmert on how there was no historical precedent for the sanctions, and so they found a way to twist the language of the Bylaws and Constitution in order to impose sanctions. Then the NCAA turns around and argues that those whose rights were violated are prohibited from interpreting any possible bylaws in their favor. Then they make the opposite argument in the lawsuit. "You can't use unprecedented methods to rectify our unprecedented actions".

NCAA Argument #2: "Indeed the very existence of the reports the plaintiffs point to that purportedly critique the Freeh Report demonstrate that the public was able to evaluate the facts in the Freeh report themselves. "

This argument is a reference to expert reports (see www.paterno.com, www.sanduskyreports.com, & www.notpsu.blogspot.com) that have been very critical of the initial conclusions and findings in the Freeh Report. What the NCAA fails to mention here is that it has taken months and months to complete an exhaustive analysis of the Freeh report in it's entirety (indeed this is still occurring as we speak). This argument additionally ignores that the NCAA sanctions were handed down less than two weeks after the release of the Freeh report which, clearly not ample time to properly check and source the entire document. So more than a year after the fact, as several highly critical reports have shed light on just how bad the Freeh report is, the NCAA tells us it's fair that they handed down punishments before any of those reports because now after the fact those reports exist!


NCAA Argument #3: "The university would always have to endure a lengthy investigation and hearings, with the attendant discussion of unflattering facts and a hit to its recruiting and alumni support due to the negative publicity and uncertainty of the infractions process.

The argument that it is better to get the bad stuff out of the way now compared to possibly worse (or of course better) outcomes in the future. Here the NCAA is telling us we should be grateful because a long investigation (even if it proved PSU correct and "not guilty") would have been worse. First if you refer to the last argument you will see that any delay would possibly remove the momentum, ability, or reasoning for the unprecedented sanctions in the first place, based on the tremendous amount of additional evidence brought to light by other reports. In particular we would now know that the so-called "Janitor incident" could not have possibly taken place as claimed by the state of PA or Freeh based on Ray Blehar's work. Considering this incident was described as "the most horrific rape" by Louis Freeh it surely was the basis of the NCAA being so harsh. What happens when you remove "the most horrific" crime? In this case, with such a complicated web of politics, money, and access time could only possibly help PSU.

NCAA Argument 4: "Such supporting necessary to permit it to fairly defend itself."

Here the NCAA demands more evidence and more information to "fairly defend itself". This despite the fact that the NCAA itself used a horribly flawed report and no official due process, as required by it's own bylaws, in levying the sanctions in the first place.


Conclusion:


The NCAA is not holding itself to the same standards it wishes to hold the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They are admitting, on record, that they deserve due process of the rule of law while steadfastly ignoring due process and the rule of law in levying the sanctions on Penn State. This is what the NCAA has become. This is why it must be disbanded.

Cynicism

"I pooped!" OK hear me out, we will get back to that.

At the age of 35 I had become very cynical of the world. After living a relatively privileged young life and going to a top tier public high school I had the world on a platter. I attended a world class public university where you have to be ok with "just being a number" due to the 40,000+ students on campus.

Very quickly out of school I joined a large multinational corporation. After 12 years or so in the business world (even in science) you become jaded. Things move slowly. People don't listen. Everyone has an agenda. It's all about next week's share price. I developed this outlook even though I had what were roundly considered to be the best managers in our various groups.

At the same time I had gone through some life-altering medical problems. They made me question my future and what kind of life lie ahead for me. They terrified me and broke me down mentally in a way that I had never experienced.

The world seems like it's getting scarier every day. Government's gridlocked. Corporations just out to exploit us. People getting less and less tolerant of each other in our fast paced world. It's all so chaotic. So depressing to watch. 

Then he was born. Brayden Mitchell Yonchuk, a beautiful healthy, happy, bouncy little boy. He was cute, loud (duh look at his dad), and it seemed perfect in every way. Sure for the first few months he didn't do much except stare at you and fill his diaper but he was still perfect. As he grew I realized things about my self. You learn very early as a dad that no matter what kind of day you are having it is all erased by that scream when you walk in the house. "Daddy!"

As he grows in those toddler years he looks at everything with wonderment. "Look at that stick daddy!" I see it buddy. "Look at this playdough dot I made! " Wow that's awesome pal. "Check out this weed I just picked!" Boy that's one awesome weed buster! There is nothing that doesn't excite him. Be it nature, sports, arts, or sometimes his family and the time we have together. It's an amazing perspective. It can change your own perspective.

So that's how we get to poop. He is learning to use the potty. He went number 2 for the first time on the big potty and you would have thought he judt got into Harvard the way Melissa and I reacted. We cheered and high-fived. Hugged him and kissed him. For poop. I guess if you can cheer for poop, everything else is put in perspective.

Gay Marriage, Bigots, and Joe Paterno

Afternoon everyone. I had an entirely different post about my son in mind for my first real post but events of the last few days have changed that. Now knowing me you know how I feel about the Jerry Sandusky (not PSU or Paterno) scandal, but ironically that topic is not what triggered this blog post despite the title. What triggered this blog post is this week's Supreme Court decisions revolving around gay marriage and this hysterical article. Yes you read that correctly. The "real bigots" in the world are the people who are supporting the extension of homosexual rights to include marriage, a "right" (yup, the SC has held so since Chief Justice Earl Warren) already given to heterosexuals.

This story led me to debate Mr. Pollak on twitter. Mr. Pollak did some equivocating: "Prefer civil unions but ok with gay marriage"; and did some twisting wordplay: "marriage is not a right it's a social convention with benefits". Of course his understanding of what a right really is goes lacking as it would invalidate many other rights we enjoy. I have seen these tactics before. Use legalese and drape your argument in terms that attempt to obfuscate what your real intent is, to keep those "others" from having the same opportunities you already do.

Now what had to be the most hysterical part of the debate, occurring early, is that he went immediately to the issue of Joe Paterno. It's a clear attempt at an ad hominem argument to attempt to discredit any point I might make. It bears no relevance to the topic at hand, and if I were a betting man I would certainly bet he has most of the major items of the Sandusky story wrong in the first place.

Then this morning I was directed to a new story by Mr. Pollak, titled "Debating a Joe Paterno Fan on Gay Marriage" . Once again Mr. Pollak uses an ad hominem attack in his title to deflect the conversation from the facts (you know, the people who deny classes of people rights being the bigots). That man over there shouldn't be taken seriously on any topic because he supports Paterno!!! I suppose this is some attempt by Mr. Pollak to shame me? Well nice try sir. I stand proudly and strongly behind a man with more moral fiber than you could dream of.

So once again we have a man who posits that it is not he, the one supporting a denial of basic rights to an entire class of humans, who is the bigot but rather the people on the opposing side. However you see, it is always the other people who are bigots, plus they support someone who did everything legally required, demanded the truth from day one, and led an exemplary life!

Granted, this guy writes for Breitbart.com so I knew there wouldn't be much there there, but the levels of absurdity and idiocy he took it to shocked even me. 

P.S. Mr. Pollak even a conservative court disagreed with you, but I know facts are irrelevant to you so carry on.

Welcome to The Lion Roars for my initial blog post. Up to now I have used Facebook and Twitter mostly for my rantings but wanted to get a place where I can put some more advanced thoughts and posts down. They will be my thoughts, my visions, some pictures hopefully, and just anything coming out of my head. A lot of it will revolve around "IT", and if you know me you know what that will be. Some of it won't. Maybe it will be book reviews, movie reviews, or lots of other stuff. I hope you join me for the ride. Maybe you will enjoy it!

-John