From this week's issue of The New Yorker:


Shouts & Murmurs February 16, 2015 Issue
Diary of the Left Shark
By Kelly Stout




A remarkable feat of agility was performed on Sunday night, and it had nothing to do with football. It was the sharks. . . . The dancing sharks at Katy Perry’s Super Bowl halftime show . . . danced in unison. But soon, one of the sharks, specifically Left Shark, said enough of that, and began to do his own thing frenetically on national television.

—Washington Post.

First rehearsal went great. Katy says to just call her “Katy”—very down-to-earth move. Happy to see Eric! Grateful he got me this gig, as not a lot of work out there for us sharks.

Second rehearsal O.K. Eric picking up dance moves faster than me, which is no biggie, since I’m still getting over quad injury. Still, resolving to work harder. Went for a beer afterward with dancing Blue Surfboard, named Jeremy. He’s worked with Miley Cyrus!

Eric texted wanting to know if I could use some “extra practice.” Didn’t think I needed “extra practice,” but Eric = good buddy, so I value his input. Couldn’t meet him, though, had book club.

Eric acting high and mighty in rehearsal—keeps referring to himself as “old veteran.” Feel he should turn it down a notch. Super Bowl halftime show is not a combat situation, and metaphor makes no sense.

Rehearsal rough tonight. Eric called my grasp of choreography “amateurish.” Said he did big favor by recommending me, and now worried Katy won’t hire him again. Said work must be “on a professional level” with “zero tolerance for mistakes.” I told him I was sorry to have disappointed, that my work will be “professional level” from here on out. Went to bathroom and cried into fins, but no one saw except Jeremy, who was very understanding. J says Katy makes a lot of people crazy—just ask Russell Brand! Found joke to be a little sexist—and, besides, Katy not really the problem—but appreciated support.

Katy took me aside after rehearsal. Uh-oh. But no! Said she likes seeing my extra effort! On verge of major breakthrough vis-à-vis choreography!

Happy to have long weekend off from rehearsal to regroup. Guy at brunch overheard me talking about current gig and asked if I am a real shark! Of course I’m a real shark! Tried not to be offended, but people can be so ignorant.

Back at rehearsal. Things steadily better, but sometimes feel Eric = competitive with me, since so few of us sharks in the industry. But shouldn’t that bring us closer? (Rising tide lifts all sharks!)

Big day almost here. Grandma and Mom both called to say everyone back home’s rooting for me. Pressure, but in a good way.

Eric recommended some changes to choreography today. Katy considers Eric “genius,” so took recommendations. Feel my success with old choreography hard won, so am disappointed. This time, Eric didn’t offer any “extra help.”

More dance changes today! Can’t keep up, and Eric can tell. Hate to sound paranoid, but worry that Eric’s trying to sabotage me! Going to have a glass of Shiraz to relax before practicing new moves.

Regret drinking entire bottle of wine last night. Skipped rehearsal, which I realize is not “professional level” behavior, but Eric and his “zero-tolerance policy” can suck it.

Embarrassed by last diary entry. Eric is not sabotaging me. Am letting my insecurities get in way of friendship.

NOPE. ERIC’S DEFINITELY TRYING TO SABOTAGE ME. Super Bowl is tomorrow and he changed dance moves AGAIN. Trying to make a fool of me. Unsure which makes me sadder, potential end of dance career or potential end of friendship.

Super Bowl over. Grandma and Mom called to remind me that my personal best was all they ever asked for. Am laughingstock of Internet. Gained hundreds of Twitter followers, but suspect most are “joke” follows. Katy sweet about it.

Jeremy invited me to have a beer with him and other Surfboard. Frankly, feel that other Surfboard’s kind of a blowhard, so declined.

Got voice mail from Mom this morning asking if I’m considering going back for teaching degree. Said I’m “good with kids” and not end of world that dancing didn’t work out. Ouch.

Jeremy brought over falafel last night and made me forget Super Bowl debacle with impression of Taylor Swift. Didn’t know Jeremy = T.S. fan! Promised I wouldn’t tell Katy. Not that I’ll be working with Katy again anytime soon.

Text from Eric wanting to know how I’m “holding up.” Chose not to say anything, as had nothing nice to say.

Jeremy joining book club! Silver lining of Super Bowl ordeal.

Downloaded application to Columbia Teachers College. Think I could maybe make a difference in lives of youth, plus get mind off Super Bowl. Jeremy, Mom, and Grandma all supportive. Mom asked if Jeremy just a friend or what. Her ideas re male friendship pretty “stone age,” but appreciate her interest.

Feeling O.K. about future. Dance world maybe too toxic for shark like me. Perhaps whole episode not humiliation but wake-up call! Considering move to Austin. ♦

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

They reported on the news tonight that the 'imposter' was also arrested for impersonating a police officer in (I think) 2003. He may be prosecuted for this impersonation, according to the news.
I wish they could change the law to force those convicted of impersonating a veteran for gain to become one (as in draft them) instead of jail.

This is a very "limited" presentation on this topic. The only reason we aren't on Mars right now is (surprise!) money.

Would you like to know more?



A few points to consider:
Total cost of the USA war in Iraq:

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said."

TOTAL cost of NASA's budget over the last 50 years since its inception and adjusted for inflation:

$790 billion

To be fair about being fair there are a lot of assumptions in your post. One they did not arrest him on the spot. That leaves a little dignity for the World War 2 veteran. Although the State picking it up at all is a douche move. Two, he probably will not go to jail at all. They say "Up to 60 days" which really means "We just like to give round numbers that won't ever fucking happen because it's sensational."

You could in theory be sentenced to a year in county time for trespassing, but that will not happen the first 40 times or so. (I have seen people sentenced to that much time. And by people I mean "person".)

Off that subject, if law officers obsessed over every immoral law out there then in no world system would there be any law. The laws against crack rock? Extremely, blatantly racist. Pot laws? I think a bit immoral. Laws against effective protest measures, gay marriage, fuck, even public nudity. All these laws are someone else's bullshit of how things ought to be.

The next problem is that of cause and effect. We have banned child molesters from most of the city areas in an attempt to get them away from "our" children. The side effect is that we really haven't solved the issue. The chronically homeless (Not to be confused with the majority of homeless who actually get out of being homeless) are mentally ill and or on drugs. Although not particularly dangerous or volatile, this is Florida, and even our homeless are more dangerous than other parts of the county.

Lastly, there are no moral jobs out there. If you work for a hospital, business, restaurant, power company, phone company, agricultural etc you are working for an evil, evil place. This is America--money keeps us running. And the homeless have no money.

The only thing that I think is not getting enough air time, is the other officer that was shot during this. Const. Samearn Son.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-shooting-gunman-s-movements-caught-on-video-but-security-questions-remain-1.2810673

"Const. Samearn Son, a 10-year veteran of the Commons security team, was the first person to try to stop him, sources have told CBC News.

Son immediately noticed the long rifle in Zehaf-Bibeau's hand.

Although he was unarmed, Son lunged at the shooter, grabbing the gun and pulling it toward the floor, screaming "Gun! Gun! Gun!"

That alerted the plainclothes officers inside the building, who have weapons. During the ensuing struggle, Son was shot in the foot. He was taken to hospital later in the day, and released that night, but with a permanent souvenir — the bullet will stay in his foot, sources say, as it would do more damage to remove it."

Totally proud of Kevin Vickers, but it takes a lot of balls to jump on an armed suspect bare handed.

Three in a row, if I may.

- Washington Post cranks the propaganda up to 11 in its editorial: Putin’s propoganda keeps Russians in the dark about Ukraine and more

- Robert Parry gives a quick overview of the desolate state of media affairs vis-a-vis Ukraine: Who’s Telling the ‘Big Lie’ on Ukraine?

- US intelligence veterans go public with a warning about the ongoing propaganda war: Memorandum For: Angela Merkel: Beware of Fixed Intelligence on Ukraine-- Think WMDs

Something like this?

http://LMFAHS.com

(I'm glad you like it so much and feel it's not broken. But I think most other veterans would disagree with you.)

@ChaosEngine

A bit off-topic, but you can get access to Netflix in pretty much any country that has internet access if you use the Hola unblocker extension for either Firefox or Chrome. We use it here in Japan with my old PC hooked up to our HDTV via HDMI and love it.

More on-topic, this video is specifically addressing news--no one is willing to pay for news because thanks to the Internet and all the ways we can interact with it (Twitter, Facebook, etc.), "news"--as in just the facts--is freely available in seconds moments after it occurs.

Of course, really good reporters don't just provide the facts but also provide background, context, and sometimes insightful analysis of the situation. But I'm not sure the majority of people care about that stuff which is why hiding it behind a paywall just isn't profitable.

I don't know what the solution to this problem is. We need veteran reporters who are free to report on the happenings in the world without external pressure to change or hide facts. Someone has to pay their salary. Right now it's corporate sponsors that are ponying up. Even NPR receives a pretty hefty chunk of its funding from corporate sponsors. Like John is saying in this video, it's not really a problem if there's a wall between the sponsors and the news.

Maybe publicly funded news is the way to go? Something akin to BBC but that's legally insulated from government influence and provides "free" (you'd technically be paying for it with your taxes) news reporting.

You seem to think that eliminating guns will somehow eliminate mass shootings. However, there is zero correlation to the number of legal gun ownerships with the number of homicides. In fact, here are some statistics for you:

At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes. And, as it happens, where gun ownership per capita increases, violent crime is known to decrease. In other words, Caucasians tend to own more guns than African Americans, middle aged folks own more guns than young people, wealthy people own more guns than poor people, rural families own more guns than urbanites --> But the exact opposite is true for violent behavior (i.e., African Americans tend to be more violent than Caucasians, young people more violent than middle aged people, poor people more violent than wealthy people, and urbanites more violent than rural people). So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least. This is, in large part, due to the cultural divide in the U.S. around gun ownership whereby most gun owners own guns for recreational sports (including the Southern Caucasian rural hunting culture, the likes of which aren't found in Australia or the UK or Europe, etc.); and about half of gun owners own guns for self-defense (usually as the result of living in a dangerous environment). Most of the widespread gun ownership in the U.S. predates any gun control legislation and gun ownership tends to generally rise as a response to an increase in violent crime (not the other way around).

There were about 350,000 crimes in 2009 in which a gun was present (but may not have been used), 24% of robberies, 5% of assaults, and about 66% of homicides. By contrast, guns are used as self-defense as many as 2 and a half million times every year (according to criminologist Gary Kleck at Florida State University), thereby decreasing the potential loss of life or property (i.e., those with guns are less likely to be injured in a violent crime than those who use another defensive strategy or simply comply).

Interestingly, violent crimes tend to decrease in those areas where there have been highly publicized instances of victims arming themselves or defending themselves against violent criminals. (In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home, whereas only 9% of home burglaries in the U.S. occur when people are in the home, presumably as a result of criminals' fear of being shot by the homeowner.) In short, gun ownership reduces the likelihood of harm.

So, for example, Boston has the strictest gun control and the most school shootings. The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings. The worst mass homicide in a school in the U.S. took place in Michigan in 1927, killing 38 children. The perpetrator used (illegal) bombs, not guns in this case.

1/3 of legal gun owners obtain their guns (a total of about 200,000 guns) privately, outside the reach of government regulation. So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed.

Out of a sample of 943 felon handgun owners, 44% had obtained the gun privately, 32% stole it, 9% rented/borrowed it, and 16% bought it from a retailer. (Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. Stricter legislation would likely therefore change the statistics of how felon handgun owners obtain the gun towards less legal, more violent ways.) Less than 3% obtain guns on the 'black market' (probably due, in part, to how many legal guns are already easily obtained).

600,000 guns are stolen every year and millions of guns circulate among criminals (outside the reach of the regulators), so the elimination of all new handgun purchases/sales, the guns would still be in the hands of the criminals (and few others).

The common gun controls have been shown to have no effect on the reduction of violent crime, however, according to the Dept. of Justice, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate. A 2003 CDC report found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence. This conclusion was echoed in an exhaustive National Academy of Sciences study a year later.

General gun ownership has no net positive effect on total violence rates.

Of almost 200,000 CCP holders in Florida, only 8 were revoked as a result of a crime.

The high-water mark of mass killings in the U.S. was back in 1929, and has not increased since then. In fact, it's declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. The murder rate and violent crime in the U.S. is less than half of what it was in the late 1980s (the reason for which is most certainly multimodal and multifaceted).

Regarding Gun-Free Zones, many mass shooters select their venues because there are signs there explicitly banning concealed handguns (i.e., where the likelihood is higher that interference will be minimal). "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns," says John Lott.

In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens, when a study has shown that private owners are convicted of firearms violations at the same rate as police officers? How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns? Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns? Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else? Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?

From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary. Do they really want to deprive those who are culturally acclimatized to gun-ownership, who may be less fortunate than they are, to have the means to protect themselves (e.g., women who carry guns to protect themselves from assault or rape)? Sounds more like a lack of empathy and understanding of those realities to me.

There are many generational issues worth mentioning here. For example, the rise in gun ownership coincided with the war on drugs and the war on poverty. There are also nearly 24 million combat veterans living in the U.S. and they constitute a significant proportion of the U.S.' prison population as a result of sex offenses or violent crime. Male combat veterans are four times as likely to engage violent crime as non-veteran men; and are 4.4 times more likely to have abused a spouse/partner, and 6.4 times more likely to suffer from PTSD, and 2-3 times more likely to suffer from depression, substance abuse, unemployment, divorce/separation. Vietnam veterans with PTSD tend to have higher rates of childhood abuse (26%) than Vietnam veterans without PTSD (7%). Iraq/Afghanistan vets are 75% more likely to die in car crashes. Sex crimes by active duty soldiers have tripled since 2003. In 2007, 700,000 U.S. children had at least one parent in a warzone. In a July 2010 report, child abuse in Army families was 3 times higher if a parent was deployed in combat. From 2001 - 2011, alcohol use associated with domestic violence in Army families increased by 54%, and child abuse increased by 40%. What effect do you think that's going to have, regardless of "gun controls?"
("The War Comes Home" or as William Golding, the author of Lord of the Flies said, "A spear is a stick sharpened at both ends.")

In addition, families in the U.S. continue to break down. Single parent households have a high correlation to violence among children. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to married women. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women (a rate that rises to 53% for women under the age of 30). By age 30, 1/3 of American women have spent time as a single mother (a rate that is halved in European countries like France, Sweden, & Germany). Less than 9% of married couples are in poverty, but more than 40% of single-parent families are in poverty. Much of child poverty would be ameliorated if parents were marrying at 1970s rates. 85% of incarcerated youth grew up without fathers.

Since the implementation of the war on drugs, there's a drug arrest in the U.S. every 19 seconds, 82% of which were for possession alone (destroying homes and families in the process). The Dept. of Justice says that illegal drug market in the U.S. is dominated by 900,000 criminally active gang members affiliated with 20,000 street gangs in more than 2,500 cities, many of which have direct ties to Mexican drug cartels in at least 230 American cities. The drug control spending, however, has grown by 69.7% over the past 9 years. The criminal justice system is so overburdened as a result that nearly four out of every ten murders, and six out of every ten rapes, and nine out of ten burglaries go unsolved (and 90% of the "solved" cases are the result of plea-bargains, resulting in non-definitive guilt). Only 8.5% of federal prisoners have committed violent offenses. 75% of Detroit's state budget can be traced back to the war on drugs.

Point being, a government program is unlikely to solve any issues with regards to guns and the whole notion of gun control legislation is severely misguided in light of all that I've pointed out above. In fact, a lot of the violence is the direct or indirect result of government programs (war on drugs and the war on poverty).

(And, you'll note, I made no mention of the recent spike in the polypharmacy medicating of a significant proportion of American children -- including most of the "school shooters" -- the combinations of which have not been studied, but have -- at least in part -- been correlated to homicidal and/or suicidal behaviors.)

Yes this doesn't look good for NPC. Pulling a veteran reporter because he tweeted something critical of the US government speaks to how the entire corporate media industry is, as Yogi stated, subservient to power. Keep kissing the asses of powerful politicians NBC, it helps to show just how fucked our 'free media' is here in the US.

Your video, Democracy Now!: Why did NBC pull veteran reporter from Gaza?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

You seem to be implying that this somehow makes it less of a threat. I disagree, simply quoting another persons threat does not make the statement un-threatening.
I'm still flabbergasted by the "no evidence he ever owned a gun" comment...he's a veteran, so he defiantly owned a gun (while on active duty if not afterwards).

I noted he's a veteran but his attorney actually said there's no evidence he ever owned a firearm...um...WHAT?!?
I must agree with @Fairbs, without the actual comments and charges this is an inflammatory fluff piece with little actual information.

I think there is a lot missing. They present what happened, but they don't say what the comments were. They also have the defense side represented, but nothing from the police. It's not even clear what the charges are. Anyway something seems a bit fishy here to me or at a minimum contrived. I don't think veterans should be persecuted as a group nor any other type of group for that matter. I'm not convinced by this video that they are.