This week, Bob gives us a timely and topical essay entitled "Are the BATMAN Movies Evil?"  It's an interesting, albeit misguided and misinformed piece of writing.  In it, our man with the Creative Insight (wink wink nudge nudge) addresses the recent shooting in Aurora, Colorado.  His piece here is about personal responsibility, and while I understand the point he's trying to make and do agree that we are and should be held accountable for our own actions, his logic and method of argument is deeply flawed and thoroughly short sighted.

     We begin with a complaint about the fact that the news media has covered this event too thoroughly.  Bob compares this tragedy to a car accident that killed fourteen people the same week, complaining that that tragedy got no news coverage at all while a shooting in a movie theatre was all anyone could talk about.  Let me say that again: a shooting in a movie theatre, where a man willfully and with intent to harm others entered a building and opened fire on a crowd of people is comparable to a car wreck, where a truck flipped over.  I'm not too sure about how these things compare. Maybe the people in the truck willfully entered it knowing it was dangerous, but I don't see how that equates to entering a movie theatre. Certainly no one in the truck intended to harm anyone, but it ended up that way. Anyway, apparently the shooting has become too personal, too real.  We've gotten to know the victims and survivors of the Aurora shooting, and we feel their tragedy to be our tragedy.  Why should these people's pain be any more important than the pain of other people suffering this week?  Why does the media feel the need to cover this event so closely when there are other tragedies happening out there?

     Well, to answer this question, I would point to the fact that people generally don't die in movie theatres.  It's not a place where one expects death to find them.  Sure, people die in car accidents all the time.  Sometimes, people get shot or stabbed walking down the street.  It sucks, but it happens.  But in a movie theatre?  Watching a summer blockbuster is not really going to put me on my guard, you know what I mean?  It's shocking that someone would do this, and it's difficult for most normal people to comprehend why something like this might happen.  A man gets stabbed on the street for his wallet, sure, it's tragic, but there's a logic there, a reasoning we can understand if not necessarily relate to.  But this?  It's just senseless and violent.  We can't begin to understand why it happened, because there is no logic to it.  That's why we're talking about it so much.

     Now, I don't think anyone out there would find it reasonable or logical to blame the film for the tragedy.  This could have happened at a showing of Ice Age or Tyler Perry's Medea or even Katie Perry's movie.  Why did he pick Batman?  Well, the shooter seemed to have a fixation on the Joker.  OK.  So a character that has existed for over 60 years, and has always been portrayed as a brutal, diabolical, homicidal lunatic (ok, maybe not always) is suddenly inspiring people to murder?  Is Bob seriously making this argument, that if Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy never existed, those people would still be alive?  I thoroughly and completely can deny that, Bob, and here's why: it's been pretty widely publicized that the shooter in question was mentally unstable, and was leaning towards a violent outburst, so much so that his psychiatrist warned the police about him.  Sure, if Batman never existed, those exact people in that exact theatre may still be alive and well today, but odds are this kid would have shot somebody somewhere.  So to blame Batman as the cause of this tragedy is simply nonsensical.  Correlation does not imply causation, Bob.

     The real discussion that needs to happen here is about the assault weapon (sorry, semi-automatic rifle) and very ridiculously stupidly large capacity magazine he used.  Maybe, just maybe, if there could be a reasonable discussion about firearms in this country, this tragedy could have been mitigated, if not prevented.  Sure, the shooter would still have had to make a choice to enter the theatre and open fire, but at least there would have been a chance that some people could escape while he's reloading.  These weapons really only have one purpose and it isn't killing deer.  And before you say target practice, I need to point out a few things: first, semi-automatic weapons are not as accurate as bolt action, so why would you use a substandard weapon if your goal is to be as accurate as possible?  Second, why do you need 100 rounds in your magazine when you're shooting at a paper target that doesn't shoot back?  Is it really such a burden to have to reload?  When you can satisfactorily answer these questions with something other than "2nd Amendment," we can have a reasonable discussion about firearms.  Until then, you're just a bonehead.

     Getting back to the "essay," there's a great deal of discussion here about "evil."   I'm not really sure what Bob is getting at, but I can tell you that the world is not this black and white, good and evil construct he's talking about.  Sometimes, people do things that are out and out cruel, they intentionally go out of their way to cause harm to other humans.  It happens, and we need good people who are willing to stand up and say "this will not happen while I'm here."  Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on who we're talking about), most of those people only exist in comic books.

     More often, that evil happens as a result of other factors, and requires us to use our brains and not our instinct when reacting.  When a person has an imbalance, when they're just crazy and do something so bizarre and violent and inhumane that it makes the rest of us stop and take notice, we need to keep our own humanity and react as civilized and intelligent creatures, not like a group of animals running on instinct and fear.  That's why we have a judicial system, it's why we have amendments to the Constitution other than the first two (you know, like 4 through 8).  Evil may come in many forms, like Bob says, but evil is also relative.  One man's butcher could be another man's savior, one man's soldier is another man's terrorist.  I feel sorry for people who cannot or will not see this.  Their world must be a very dismal and dreary place, full of shadows with "evil" waiting to spring out at them at any moment.  What they don't realize is that you cannot have good without evil, they are one and the same, which is the lesson that the Joker taught us in Christopher Nolan's Batman movies.

     Bob ended his essay with a quote, so I'm going to end mine with one as well:

You take the good, you take the bad,
you take them both and there you have
The Facts of Life, the Facts of Life. 

     This week in an Our Town Special Edition: get your own copy of the Declaration of Independence! That's right, Bob Beierle, of the not at all satirically named Creative Insight, is attempting to co-opt one of the greatest pieces of American history to push his anti-government agenda.  Bob really does most of the work for me here, starting his rant off by telling us about how hard the founding fathers had it, reminding us that they literally put everything on the line, and some even lost everything, to give us the freedoms we enjoy and take for granted today.  Then he goes on about how our government today is so evil because they have things like eminent domain (at least, I think he means eminent domain.  He says public domain, but then rants about government "taking our lands in the name of what serves the better good of the state," which sounds an awful lot like eminent domain and not intellectual property rights) and different sets of laws for the rich and famous and illegal (no, really, he equates being an illegal immigrant to being the same as rich and famous in the eyes of the law) than for us regular, working class folk.  How can one even begin to compare the tyranny being committed by the British to the American government of today? 

     Now, I'm guessing Bob isn't really a student of history.  In fact, I would bet he got D's at best, because if he knew anything about history and the American Revolution in particular, he would know that the things he's complaining about are little piddling nothings compared to what the British were doing to the American colonists in the 1760s.  He would know that the concept of eminent domain dates back to 14th century England, and did not generally merit compensation.  That's right: the crown took what they wanted, because it was already theirs, you were just leasing it from them, so get out and be happy we don't just throw you in jail because we can. So be happy that the Fifth Amendment actually protects your right to not be derived of property without due process and provides for just compensation.

     Bob thinks our government overrides the will of the people and regularly invalidates elections and referendums.  I'm sure Al Gore would have some things to say about this.  Not only that, but I'm pretty sure that our founding fathers might have a few things to say about it too.  Probably something to the effect of "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."  Yeah.  When was the last time the American government used force and jail to silence it's people?  How many people have they killed to suppress dissenting opinions?  Bob makes a great many accusations against the government, claiming they are illegally searching and seizing property, levying illegal taxes, and waging war against it's own citizens without offering a scrap of evidence or a whit of proof.  If you're going to make ridiculous and outrageous claims, the least you can do is offer some evidence.  Or is that the "creative" part of Creative Insight?

Finally, I want to leave you with this thought, from Mr. Jefferson:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"

These are light and transient causes, Bob.  You can wrap yourself in as many flags as you can carry, but you're not fooling anyone.  Your un-American ideals and selfish outrage will not help anything.  Your divisive and accusatory and confrontational rhetoric is not making anything better.  The founding fathers suffered to gain their freedom, our freedom.  Their homes were burned, their families terrorized and murdered.  All so that you could exercise your "god given right" to bitch and complain about paying taxes and how oppressed you are.  Show a little respect and shut the hell up.

    

             A new screed this week from Robert "Bob" Beierle of Creative Insight.  This time, it's something about a dog.  I'm really not sure why he spends over a page going on about Lassie and barking, but I guess there's some kind of theme where he thinks he's Lassie, warning America that bad people are coming or Timmy's fallen down a well or something.  It's not until page two where Bob starts his real article, claiming that politicians are attacking the Constitution.  While I have to agree that there's some real screwed up things going on in Washington right now, I think Bob really should get out of his basement and look around once in a while.  Reality will shock him.
            First off, one might notice that the weather has been a bit weird lately.  In my town, we suffered flooding last year worse than any on record.  Homes that had never flooded were suddenly under water, destroyed.  People were left without their most valued possession, lives ruined in one single, terrible night.  Not for nothing, but those people have been and are being helped by an organization I know Bob loves, FEMA.  That's right: the Federal Government is actually helping Americans who need it.
            Later in the year, on Halloween, we had a freak snowstorm.  Almost 30" in some parts of NJ.  My parents were without power for nearly a week, because a tree branch was overloaded with ice and took down the power lines on their street.  Now, we're being told that we may suffer a drought this summer.  In 6 months, we've gone from record floods and snow to drought.  How could this happen if the climate is not changing?
             Why am I talking about this?  Maybe it's because Bob spends so much time railing on educators and "BS Hollywood movies" for trying to teach children that we only have one planet to live on, and we need to take care of it.  Yes, buying fluorescent light bulbs will make a difference.  Yes, planting trees will make a difference.  I don't know why he can't see that, I know he can read.  The facts (yes, Bob, facts.  Not Fox, facts) are out there, in black and white, for anyone with enough sense to open their eyes and see it.  You don't need fancy science to see that there are more tornadoes and hurricanes, more destructive storms, fires, and droughts than there have been in the past.  All you need to do is open your eyes and see it. 
              Moving on: we jump (literally.  This is a bigger segue than his article) from climate change to the idea that the problems in this country are all caused by the politicians.  They're the "big evil boogie men who are trying to destroy and gobble up our freedoms," right?  Except, who controls the politicians, Bob?  Who bankrolls their campaigns?  Who spends millions on a SuperPAC that ensures they'll beat that recall election and continue to fight against unions and other groups that try to protect the rights of the middle class?  Could it be the 1%, those wealthy "job creators" that seem to need tax breaks so much?  The guys that are making record profits while unemployment soars?
               "We are told that prosperity and the desire to create and to build is mean and cruel and evil."  Who told us this, Bob?  Where, in America, does anyone believe this, except in your brain?  Whoever said that is lying.  Everyone in America wants to prosper.  Everyone in America wants to create, we all want to build a better life.  That's why we're here.  But some people believe that once they achieve that better life, they need to protect it at all costs, even going so far as to deny it to others.  They value greed and avarice over equality and prosperity.  Instead of using their money to help others (you know, like Jesus said to), they use it to protect their position and ensure their own profit.  They make "contributions" to politicians who then rewrite the laws making it harder for people who don't have money to prosper and create and build.  You want to bark at someone, Bob, start barking at Wall Street. Start barking at the Koch brothers. Bark at Restore Our Future, American Bridge, and Americans for Prosperity. You complain about the symptom (politicians attacking our freedoms) and completely ignore the cause.  Nobody wants a free ride, all they're asking for is a level playing field and a fair chance. 
           

A new rant from our good friend, Robert "Bob" Beierle. This one is a theme episode, starting off with a letter he "received" from a faithful Our Town reader, 8 year old Virginia. She's in the 4th grade, and even though her grammar and spelling aren't that great, she's perceptive enough to know how great Bob and Our Town is and how evil those people protesting Wall Street are. Her daddy calls them "free loading blasterds" and mommy and daddy fight with mommy's brother who is sleeping on their couch because the "fastest pigs" chased him out of the park he was camping in. Isn't she just the cutest?

Well, Bob goes on to explain to her about Never Never Land, a subject on which he is singularly qualified to speak, since he is the sole resident. He blathers on about how Never Never Land is actually Washington DC and that it is filled with Lost Boys who are led by Peter Pan. I'm not sure just who these people are allusions to, but I think John Boehner is supposed to be Peter Pan, and these guys and these guys must be the pirates he's talking about, since they're so intent on taking things that are valuable to us.

There's an entire paragraph here bashing the Occupy Wall Street protestors, though not directly. It's a fantastic example of passive aggression, really. He says that if we were living in "olden times," these "lazy, dumb and stupid" (but not redundant, no never that) protestors would have died off because of natural selection (this in the same paragraph that espouses creationism, no less). Since they are too lazy to hunt or scavenge for themselves, they rely on others to do it for them. Way to really showcase your intelligence, Bob. For the record, I'm rubber and you're glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you. Trying to keep the discourse at your level, hope it's working. Maybe you should turn off Fox News for a bit and actually read something about who OWS is and why they're protesting. You might find you actually have some things in common.

What kind of things, you ask? Well, there are three paragraphs here about how much you hate the government, how government stifles creativity and prevents innovation. Ironic that the examples you use (doctors curing diseases, advanced methods of communication, (can't forget ARPANET!) and high speed travel, also here) are great examples of how government has spent money to improve the lives of the people. Sure, many of those things were invented by private citizens, but they would be useless without the government funded development of the technology. But, hey, don't let me rain on your parade. You just keep on bitching about how horrible the government is and how evil everything they do is because they make you pay taxes (you do pay your taxes, don't you Bob? Wouldn't want anything bad to happen to you.)

Anyway, the point is, OWS is about frustration with the government as well. Despite what Fox News and Rush have told you, they don't want to institute a socialist government. They don't want to take all the money from Wall Street brokers. They don't even think that the wealthy should be paying for them to live. What they do want is a fair and equal government, one where having obscene amounts of money does not give you a greater voice than the working class. One where the people regulating our banking industry are not members of said industry. One where millionaires don't pay less taxes than people making $50k /year. And if a couple of the jerks on Wall Street who took our retirements and homes and gambled with them and lost, or the ones on K Street who facilitated it, or in the Federal Reserve who looked the other way and let it happen, gets prosecuted in the meantime (not one, as of this writing, BTW), that wouldn't be so bad either.

I'm sorry if you're against these things, Bob. I'm sorry if you can't understand how the system works and how broken it is. I'm sorry you're so angry that you will side against people trying to help you (I assume you're not a millionaire, but anything is possible) and make things a bit more equal for everyone, not just the wealthy. Please, Bob, for the love of reality, do a little research. Get a fact or two before you start ranting and raving. You're not helping anything by publishing this crap, you're only making people less informed and more angry. Either get a clue or go away.