I sometimes wonder how folks can come relatively close to what I think is the right conclusion in one aspect of freedom and be so blindingly, painfully off-base in another.

Robert Jamieson of the Seattle PI bloviates:

But anyone who truly values democracy doesn’t want safety if it comes attached to a troubling string: Big Brother-like surveillance.

Video eyes threaten civil liberties. And if we are not careful, we might end up like a frog in a pot of water that slowly warms up. We won’t realize the worst has occurred until we’re cooked.

Funny, Mr. Jamieson, but you didn’t think civil liberties were all that important when it came to the right of self-defense through firearms ownership. You were more than happy to leave us at the mercy of all those downtown thugs who you now think the equally thuggish police need to do something about.

Just how much bullshit do you think they’d try if they suspected even HALF the workers downtown were armed and trained? Do you really think we’d need cops and cameras on every block if these little aggressive shits knew there was a 50/50 chance the next person they fucked with had the means to defend himself?

Oh, I suppose THOSE civil liberties don’t matter. But just one last question… if and when free speech is obliterated, and the time comes to defend your civil liberties with something mightier than the pen, precisely what weapons will be left for you to pick up in your world free of private firearms?

I’ve deliberately held off on commenting on the Virginia Tech shootings, mostly because the incident’s relation to gun control (both current and future), has been aptly covered by bloggers far more talented than me. I particularly enjoyed LawDog’s commentary on the fact that not only are we denying people the most effective weapons for self defense, but the very mind-set required for it. Excellent point, that.

But what really has me irritated in this and other deadly attacks is the time and energy devoted to public wallowing. People who can be linked to the victims only in some Six-Degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon way are plastered by photojournalists on every television, newspaper, and website, sobbing uncontrollably in shameful displays of psychologically conditioned sorrow. They’re rewarded by writers who quote them extensively, telling us all how they’ll NEVER be the same, never feel safe, never get past their grief. Strangers leave mountains of candles and teddy bears and flowers and signs as some sick, clichéd memorial. Students across the nation are encouraged to visit with grief counselors and hold vigils and talk about their feelings. What an effective way to trivialize the dead.

And next year, on April 16th, we’ll be inundated with the same vomitous bullshit all over again. Reopening wounds. Reminding the victims’ families of their absence (as if they need it). Public wailing and gnashing of teeth. Grief counselors. Vigils.

The media have conditioned this ridiculous over-the-top response to tragedy in much the same way faith healers condition their followers to fall down during the laying on of hands. Followers see that everyone else falls down, so they fall down when their turn to be healed comes. We see the overwhelming public grief, and we’re convinced that we must be hard-hearted and unhuman if we aren’t as incapacitated by undiluted grief as all these other folks. And when we’ve been summarily duped by our emotions, we’re paralized by inaction.

T.G. Browning of the Revised Devil’s Dictionary, writes:

It’s a peculiar, self-absorbed kind of mental masturbation to stand out in a courtyard with a bunch of people you don’t know, holding a candlelight vigil for the slain students of Virginia Tech. None of the people there know any of the slain personally. The odds are extremely good that not one bloody person in such a crowd knows anyone who actually knows any of the murdered students. The odds are darn good that only a handful of people, at most, know anyone who knows anyone who is acquainted with the dead. If you’re a betting person, it a good bet that no one there, does….

If there is one thing about the VT massacre that should stand out and be talked about, it’s this: There was one person there who knew tragedy first hand, having survived a true holocaust: Liviu Librescu, the teacher who was killed protecting his students’ backs, giving them time to escape. Like the passengers who prevented the terrorists from crashing their plane into their target, Librescu knew what he truly valued, in his case the students who depended upon him and looked to him for knowledge and leadership.

I can’t see that teaching kids to manufacture grief is likely to produce many Liviu Librescu. Nor is it likely that fear will. There are, after all, all too many reasons to fear as it is. Don’t weep for strangers for the sole purpose of grieving. Unless of course, you think reality shows on TV have any basis in reality whatsoever. If that’s the case, weep on, my friend, great times will surely be yours.

Very few people are taking the time, like lewlew and her husband, to talk to their kids about formulating a plan to deal with violence BEFORE it happens. To think about potential havens, possible weapons for defense, what scenarios might make hiding or playing dead more viable than fighting back. No, most folks are still so paralized by grief (and will remain so) that little will be learned from any of this. And that, to me, is the most offensive waste.

If you really want to honor the dead, shed a few tears if you must, but above all, utilize their deaths as a learning experience rather than a grief competition.

Activist contends passport stall tied to anti-war efforts

Thomas Hays, 38, says he applied for a passport with his birth certificate, Social Security card and Washington state identification card in February. He then received a surprise in the mail at the end of the month when the government said it needed much more documentation — some of which is difficult to quickly obtain — to give him a passport.

The State Department says it wanted Hays to provide “school transcripts, high school yearbook pages showing your name and photograph, religious records, medical records, (and) tax/employment records.”

(Thanks to lewlew, who tipped me off about this article.)

Something sure sounds fishy here, and of course the State Department thugs will never give a reason for requesting all this additional information.

For a couple of reasons, I bit the bullet and got a passport early last year.

My mother and I were planning a long weekend to Canada, and though a passport still isn’t needed for a trip to Canada and back (the requirement is coming), we both figured it’d be a little easier than bringing along an original birth certificate.

I also wanted to get a passport before they became “enhanced” with RFID. The state department offices here were due to start issuing RFID-enabled passports by the summer of 2006, so I beat that deadline by a few months.

The decision to get a passport wasn’t an easy one, and because of the RFID deadline, I felt a bit pressured to make a choice. Though the idea of having to produce citizenship papers on demand is morally repugnant to me in every possible way, I’d still rather have one more tool at my disposal if the shit ever hits the fan. I can choose whether or not to show it, and having one might make a few situations easier than if I didn’t have anything to produce.

Now I’m glad I didn’t wait. With situations such as Mr. Hays’, and Homeland Security now sharing available personal information with the Canadian border guards, I can only think obtaining passport approval is bound to become increasingly difficult.

It comes as no surprise, but Mr. Jamieson, who I’ve written about before, misses the final fucking piece that might have saved a life.

Remember these names the next time someone suggests that women seek restraining orders just to get a leg up in custody battles, or when law enforcement is slow to take seriously the cries of battered women.

Griego had done everything to escape the mad love of her ex-boyfriend. She got a protection order in March. She ignored the phone calls he made to her job. She told friends to be on the lookout because he was psycho. She even moved a couple of times, changing her phone number. None of it worked.

Yes, she tried to avoid him by rearranging her life. But no, she HADN’T done everything she could have done. She could have armed herself against someone obviously an aggressive, threatening stalker and the high probability he would seek her out for some kind of confrontation. (And by “armed” I don’t just mean that she could have run to the nearest gunshop and bought a handgun. I mean obtaining a firearm AND practiced with it, gaining both skill and accuracy.)

For these reasons, women need a safety plan, according to domestic violence advocates. They can make arrangements to stay with family or friends whose addresses the stalker doesn’t know. They can alert their employers so police or security will be notified when the batterer comes to the workplace. They can change their phone numbers, their route to work, their schedule — anything to make them more difficult to find.

A scared woman can turn everything upside down — as Griego did. She even had the restraining order sitting on her desk in case Rowan showed up.

Nothing short of dropping everything — quitting her livelihood or leaving town — could stop the man whose warped and angry love stole her precious life.

A scared woman can also turn the tables around, learn how to use a gun defensively in an attack. Again, Mr. Jamieson, she could have successfully ARMED HERSELF. Why is it you continue to ignore the possibility that, had a gun been part of that necessary “safety plan”, she might well be standing here today to tell reporters like you how she fought off a dangerous stalker hell-bent on preventing her escape?

The title of your commentary “A piece of paper alone can’t stop abuse,” and indeed the entire piece, are screaming “so what DOES stop abuse?” Running and hiding sure didn’t in this case. And I have to wonder why people like you think victims like Ms. Griego should have to go to ridiculous lengths in disrupting their lives in order to prevent any confrontation (or resolution) in the matter. By not arming herself, the statement is made that her attacker’s life was more important than her own.

Responsible gun owners don’t relish the idea of shooting someone, even in self-defense. It can be a long process involving police, lawyers, and perhaps the family of the person shot. But they do at least recognize that their lives are far more valuable–and worth defending–than that of any would-be attacker. It’s sad people like you continue to refuse to do the same, and it’s upsetting that you continue to argue that she has no legitimate right to pick up the one weapon her attacker is almost certain to have.

I made my first ever batch of homemade raspberry freezer jam today.

In the past, my wonderful mother has always provided me with jam, even sending it to me express while I was in college. But, as much as I can wish she’d live - and make jam - forever, I figure this is one thing I must know how to make for myself. Storebought jams and jellies have never held much appeal to me, primarily because the cooking dramatically alters the taste of the fruit. Freezer jam, on the other hand, tastes like fresh fruit. Yes, it doesn’t have the longevity of cooked jam, but it can stay frozen for 18 months or so and still be edible. And freezer jam requires much less effort.

One thing that drives me nuts about making any new recipe is that I don’t have the fluid kitchen motions down. I’m constantly shifting and maneuvering and balancing to grab and poor and stir. I must have poured the raspberry puree back and forth between bowls at least three times because I couldn’t decide which bowl would be better.

And I’m always messier those first few times. Even as I’ve typed this, I’ve found spots of rasberry puree on my arms. It’s like sand after a beach outting - I’m finding it everywhere (okay, how did I get jam on the bathroom mirror???).

But the jam appears to be setting up nicely, and if it comes out well, I may take some to a few friends (I certainly won’t subject them to feeling obligated to compliment me on the jam if it comes out poorly). The sense of accomplishment provides my drive for these endeavors.

(K. - I wish I could give you a pint for bringing me these canning jars, but sadly, freezer jam doesn’t ship that well in 100+ degree heat, either. So get your behind in gear and move already!)

I wrote about this before, but here’s an update.

Dispatchers Charged After Boy’s 911 Call Ignored, Mom Dies

DETROIT — Two 911 dispatchers who authorities say failed to respond when a 5-year-old boy called the emergency line to say his mother had collapsed have been charged with willful neglect of duty, the county prosecutor said Wednesday.

Sharon Nichols, 43, and Terri Sutton, 47, face up to a year in jail if convicted of the misdemeanor.

It says they were both suspended less than a week and have since returned to work. Who wants to bet that if they’re both convicted, they’ll still be working the 911 call center?

Family Lives Throwback Life in Modern Setting
(link to NPR audio, no transcript)

May 24, 2006 · Reverting to a lifestyle of living off the land isn’t so unusual. But one Massachusetts family is living that ideal in a less-than-bucolic setting. The family of four is gardening, living by candlelight and forgoing most modern conveniences in a low-income, inner-city neighborhood in Springfield. Karen Brown of member station WFCR reports.

Definitely worth a listen. Honey from bees, avoiding the washer and dryer, growing their own vegetables - much of interest to the modern gulcher who’s still living in an urban center.

Lawyer: Response to Boy’s 911 Call Not Isolated Case

In a series of calls in January 2005, a 911 operator questioned the sanity of a Detroit woman who reported she had been shot in the head. An emergency crew didn’t arrive until after the woman called her son and got him to call for help, attorney Geoffrey Fieger said….

In her first call, Lorraine Hayes calmly asked for an ambulance, gave her address and said she had been shot in the head. The operator asked if she was male or female and Hayes stumbled, first saying she was male and then correcting herself.

After some more questions, the operator asked: “Are you a mental patient?”

“My body is numb. I’m getting ready to die,” Hayes said at one point.

The operator said she did not believe Hayes would be able to call if she was shot in the head and told her she would get in trouble if she was making a false report.

I’m speechless.

911 Operater Tells Boy Not to Play With Phone as His Mother Dies

The Detroit Police Department promised a thorough investigation Friday after coming under intense scrutiny both locally and across the nation for an incident in which a woman died after her 5-year-old son’s calls to 911 were dismissed as a prank.

Robert Turner, now 6, called 911 twice after his mother collapsed Feb. 20 in her bedroom on Detroit’s west side. A recording of the calls, which family members gave the Free Press on Friday, revealed that the boy’s pleas for help weren’t taken seriously.

Having listened to the calls, once the kid said “my mom passed out” that should have been enough to take the calls seriously. Instead, the operator(s) were almost immediately confrontational, demanding to talk to either an adult or the kid’s mom, and then threatening to report him to the police for making prank calls.

I realize 911 operators handle plenty of time-wasting calls, but had either operator (and it may have been the same operator on both calls) attempted to elicit more information from the boy, perhaps he would have provided a more coherent plea for help.

Teaching her son to call 911 wasn’t wrong - in fact, it’s much more problem-solving than some parents teach - but this just reinforces my beliefs on the importance of knowing your neighbors, and making sure your kids know at least one trusted neighbor or family member they can call upon in an emergency. It certainly appears that this boy didn’t what else to do when 911 failed him, that he thought after he dialed 911, everything else would fall into place. And none of that is his fault.

Keep emergency numbers written near the phone. Make sure your children know their full names, address, and phone number for use in an emergency, and be sure to discuss with them the times it’s appropriate to share that information with a stranger. The simplicity in remembering “911″ isn’t sufficient; kids can be taught more than that.

The bodies of six partygoers up on Seattle’s Capitol Hill had not yet been taken to the morgue, the blood not yet dry on the porch, and the predictable calls for more gun control were off and running.

In today’s Seattle P-I, columnist Robert Jamieson has taken an all-too-familiar position - blaming the gun culture. He writes:

Don’t blame the rave scene for the Seattle’s worst mass murder in more than two decades.

Blame the guns — and a culture that celebrates firepower.

Blame the murdering madness on a country that has seen Columbine, Kip Kinkel and bullets at the Tacoma Mall, but lacks the common sense to clamp down on weapons of mass carnage.

Blame the gun lobby on the other Capitol Hill — not the rave crowd on Seattle’s Capitol Hill.

I can’t begin to express how detestable this position is to me, especially after an incident such as this.

First, it smacks of an outrage that has bothered me since my school-age years: the idea that everyone should pay for one person’s sins. It suggests we all should give up something - our right to self defense - because Kyle Huff was an irresponsible, immature criminal. Excuse me, but I didn’t run amok, killing indiscriminately, so stay the hell out of my life.

Second, it’s condescending as hell. I’m sorry, but you can’t be trusted with a gun. You can’t be trusted with more ammunition than we believe is acceptable. Here, we’ll protect you. Pardon me, but who the fuck are you, Mr. Jamieson, to determine who can and can’t be trusted with a gun?

And if your justification for de-arming the public is solely that quandary - the fact that you can’t tell who is trustworthy - then perhaps you have no place in this discussion. Those who’ve chosen to arm and protect themselves don’t worry about making that distinction; to them, it’s irrelevant who can and cannot be trusted. The defensive playing field is equal for them, and people like you want to upend it, giving home advantage to the thugs and making criminals out of otherwise peaceful citizens.

Lastly, Mr. Jamieson, what do you think might have happened if just one person in that house had reached for their own firearm rather than a phone? Comparatively, what might the body count have been if the policeman who confronted Huff hadn’t happened by? It was sheer luck that the death toll stopped at seven, and overwhelming tragedy that it wasn’t stopped sooner by those with the potential to respond the quickest - the people still in the house.

Contrary to what you propose, Mr. Jamieson, I don’t love guns. I’m not a member of the Rambo shoot-’em-up culture you suggest is dominating and plaguing America. Most gun owners I know pray they are never forced into the cusp of deciding to fire. But they are also the most pragmatic, realistic side of this debate, valuing and protecting their own lives and correct in their assessment that criminals will always have guns, no matter how many laws people like you pass. You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but the gun-related crime rates in cities such as San Francisco and Washington D.C. don’t support your claims.

While you’re welcome to devalue your own life, Mr. Jamieson, it’s insulting to insist that everyone else devalue theirs. Because really what you’re trying to force-feed us is the idea that our lives aren’t worth defending, that your fear of guns is more important. Sorry, but I suspect even Linda Lovelace would have a hard time swallowing a lie that big.