<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">

    <channel>

<title>Shots Across the Bow</title>
    <link>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/</link>
    <description>A Reality Based Blog</description>
    <dc:language>en</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>rhailey@shotsacrossthebow.com</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights>Copyright 2012</dc:rights>
    <dc:date>2012-02-03T22:18:45-05:00</dc:date>
    <admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://expressionengine.com/" />
    

    <item>
      <title>Speaking of Labor</title>
      <link>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/speaking_of_labor/</link>
      <guid>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/speaking_of_labor/</guid>      <description><![CDATA[ A couple of days ago, I linked to a story that showed that the narrowest gaps in economic opportunity for African Americans and Latinos were in the South and the West, while the worst gaps were in the North East and Upper MidWest.  If you remember, the map looked like this: <br />
<img src="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/images/uploads/Top100GradesBlack.png" style="border: 0;" alt="image" width="977" height="599" /><br />
<br />
Well, I've got a new map for you today, this time from the National Right To Work Committee, showing the states where Right to Work isn't just a good idea; it's the law!<br />
<img src="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/images/uploads/usmap.png" style="border: 0;" alt="image" width="571" height="337" /><br />
<br />
Notice anything?  Let's make it more obvious.<br />
<img src="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/images/uploads/Top100plusrtw.gif" style="border: 0;" alt="image" width="977" height="599" /><br />
<br />
Once again, the states with the most economic freedom are the states with the greatest economic opportunity for minorities.<br />...<br />Link to <a href="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/speaking_of_labor/">post</a>]]></description>
      <dc:subject>News</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-02-03T22:18:45-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>How to Reduce Unemployment Without Even Trying</title>
      <link>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/how_to_reduce_unemployment_without_even_trying/</link>
      <guid>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/how_to_reduce_unemployment_without_even_trying/</guid>      <description><![CDATA[ Reduce the workforce.<br />
<br />
All day today I heard the news trumpeting that the unemployment rate fell to a new low and that the recovery must be really getting underway, just in time for Obama's re-election.<br />
<br />
Well, not so much.  It turns out that the reason the unemployment rate went down is not because more people are working, but because the BLS, Bureau of Labor Statistics <a href="http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-million-people-fall-out-labor-force-one-month-labor-force-participation-rate-tumbles-" title="removed just over <em>one million people from the workforce!</em>">removed just over <em>one million people from the workforce!</em></a><br />
<blockquote>A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55%. Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that's not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! </blockquote><br />
<br />
Charts:<br />
<img src="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/images/uploads/People_Not_In_Labor_Force.jpg" style="border: 0;" alt="image" width="1000" height="554" /><br />
<img src="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/images/uploads/Participation_Rate.jpg" style="border: 0;" alt="image" width="1000" height="584" /><br />
<br />
This is just sad.  Fewer people with jobs, but in order to re-elect a President, we are being told that unemployment is actually going down.<br />
<br />
Even sadder is the number of people who will buy into the lie because they desperately want to believe it.<br />...<br />Link to <a href="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/how_to_reduce_unemployment_without_even_trying/">post</a>]]></description>
      <dc:subject>Politics</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-02-03T22:01:30-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>We Found Those Missing Busts!</title>
      <link>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/we_found_those_missing_busts/</link>
      <guid>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/we_found_those_missing_busts/</guid>      <description><![CDATA[ Presented without comment for your entertainment.<br />
<b><a href="http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/feb/02/kpd-knox-da-raid-padlock-head-shops/" title="KPD, Knox DA raid, padlock four 'head shops">KPD, Knox DA raid, padlock four 'head shops</a>'</b><br />
On the other hand:<br />
<b><a href="http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/feb/02/knox-county-sheriff-reveals-puppy-mill-raid/" title="Knox County sheriff reveals 'puppy mill' raid ">Knox County sheriff reveals 'puppy mill' raid </a></b><br />...<br />Link to <a href="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/we_found_those_missing_busts/">post</a>]]></description>
      <dc:subject>News</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-02-03T03:28:06-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Equality is a Bitch!</title>
      <link>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/equality_is_a_bitch/</link>
      <guid>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/equality_is_a_bitch/</guid>      <description><![CDATA[ Via <a href="http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2012/02/microcosmic-observations.html" title="Microscopic Observations">Linoge</a><br />
<br />
At Vox Populi, <a href="http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/01/youve-come-long-way-baby.html" title="a different slant">a different slant</a> on the capsized cruise ship:<br />
<blockquote>Women have methodically attacked the concept of male duty and honor through every possible means for the past ninety years, and now they are whining that they don't get special treatment simply because a ship happens to be sinking. Why, exactly, should any man "prioritise women, expectant mothers and children"? On what grounds can they be reasonably expected to do so, those outdated traditional grounds that the schools teach is hateful, sexist, and bigoted?<br />
<br />
Those big, burly crewmen shoving aside women as they prioritized their own escape should have been wearing t-shirts that said "this is what a feminist looks like".</blockquote><br />
Personally, I'm old school, raised in the South and "women and children first" is in my blood.  However, that is not politically correct in today's world.  "I am woman; hear me roar!" leads directly to "Every man for himself!"<br />
<br />
Equality has a downside; you no longer merit special treatment or consideration.<br />
<br />
<br />...<br />Link to <a href="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/equality_is_a_bitch/">post</a>]]></description>
      <dc:subject>Commentary</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-02-02T13:23:50-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>A Little Good News for a Change: Knoxville Makes the Top 25, and You&#8217;ll Never Guess for What</title>
      <link>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/a_little_good_news_for_a_change_knoxville_makes_the_top_25_and_youll_never_/</link>
      <guid>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/a_little_good_news_for_a_change_knoxville_makes_the_top_25_and_youll_never_/</guid>      <description><![CDATA[ With all the negative press we've been getting lately, not to mention our own contentiousness, we sometimes forget that Knoxville isn't that bad a place to live.  And <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-01/racial-equality-opportunity-gap/52923362/1?csp=YahooModule_News" title="in a story posted today in USA Today">in a story posted today in USA Today</a>, the Urban Institute ranked the largest 100 cities for their racial opportunity gap, and Knoxville is ranked as having the 21st smallest "opportunity gap" for Latinos.  We're in the middle of the pack for African American opportunity gap at 56th, but the biggest surprise was that overall, the southern states, you know, the Republican dominated strongholds where we cling bitterly to guns, religions, and racism, were actually the places where African Americans and Latinos saw the most opportunity and the least disparity between them and their neighbors.<br />
<br />
Imagine that.<br />
<br />
The worst areas?<br />
<br />
The Democrat dominated North East and the union dominated states of Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  AKA Obama's base.<br />
<br />
These numbers come out of the Urban Institute and are based on 2010 Census data.<br />
<br />
A while back, I wrote about a theory I had about the two political parties.  Back in school, I was taught that the Republicans used to be all about freeing the slaves and bringing civil rights to minorities and that Democrats, particularly the Southern variety, were dyed in the wool slaveholders and racists, until suddenly, for no particular reason, they switched sides in the 1960s.  Republicans became the evil racists while Democrats burned their Klan robes and became the minority man's best advocate. My theory was that they never really switched sides, that Republicans held tight to their values while Democrats mounted the biggest con job in the history of the world, building a new system of slavery called welfare and affirmative action.<br />
<br />
Everybody laughed at me.<br />
<br />
Look at the map below the fold and see if you still want to laugh.  Who is providing economic freedom, and who is maintaining economic slavery?<br />...<br />Link to <a href="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/a_little_good_news_for_a_change_knoxville_makes_the_top_25_and_youll_never_/">post</a>]]></description>
      <dc:subject>Politics</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-02-02T03:55:04-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Martha Boggs: Hero of Tolerance</title>
      <link>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/martha_boggs_hero_of_tolerance/</link>
      <guid>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/martha_boggs_hero_of_tolerance/</guid>      <description><![CDATA[ Ms. Boggs was <a href="http://rope.woki-fm.fimc.net/hhh/hhh900.mp3" title="on the radio this morning">on the radio this morning</a> explaining all about why she threw Sen. Campfield out of her restaurant on Sunday.<br />
<br />
Here is some of what she had to say:<br />
<blockquote>He’s passing legislation that is restricting the rights of an entire segment of our society and obviously exercising my freedom of right for refusing him service to make a point that his actions are not acceptable.</blockquote><br />
First, Campfield can't pass legislation.  He can only write, sponsor, or cosponsor it.  And according to the State Senate Website, Campfield has sponsored 139 bills this session, only 1 of which has anything to do with homosexuality, and that one, SB 0049, or the "Don't Teach Gay" bill, is, according to Ms. Boggs,  "pretty much a non-issue."<br />
<blockquote>It was just that I didn’t want a man with that much hate and that has tried to legislate hate in my restaurant.</blockquote><br />
Again, one bill that's a non issue out of 139. Where does she get the "legislate hate"?<br />
<blockquote>We live in a community where people just vote that straight party line.  You’ll have someone who runs for mayor, deserves to win but people went into that voting booth and just pressed straight ‘R’s down on their ballot without knowing anything about the people they were voting for.</blockquote><br />
Is Ms Boggs aware that Knoxville mayoral elections are non partisan?  And that both candidates in the run off were Democrats?  I'm not entirely certain what people's voting habits have to do with this, but I'm beginning to suspect that her problem with Sen Campfield begins and ends with the "R" after his name.  Or do Democrat voters not vote the straight party line?  Isn't that where the phrase "yellow dog Democrat" came from?<br />
<blockquote>It’s a sad fact that Tennessee has the worst voting record of people going out to vote; We’re second worst to Texas on the amount of registered voters that actually vote.  And that is why idiots like Stacey Campfield get put into office.</blockquote><br />
Those stupid R voters!  And those darn lazy D voters!<br />
<blockquote>And it’s not just about the “don’t say gay” thing, teaching homosexuality in school, which is pretty much a non issue.</blockquote><br />
So, she's thinks Campfield's bill is pretty much a non issue.  So why is she so mad at him?<br />
<br />
Radio host Hallerin Hilton Hill read SB 0049, the "Don't Teach Gay" bill to her and she had no objections to it at all, since it is a fairly reasonable bill.  Instead,  she spoke out against another bill:<br />
<blockquote>Well, why don’t you read the license to billy bull[sic]?</blockquote><br />
<br />
The bill she referred to is HB 1153 SB 0760.  This bill was not sponsored or co-sponsored by Campfield and is dead in the State Senate.  So what does that have to do with her hatred of Campfield?  Not much, but it sure sounds good.<br />
<br />
By the way, the Bill does not make it permissible to bully gay students.  Instead it puts the emphasis on preventing all bullying, regardless of target.<br />
<br />
Oh the horror!<br />
<br />
Ms. Boggs go on to demonstrate her tolerance:<br />
<blockquote>If there was a group of people, it would be discrimination if it was a group of people.  But he is an individual.  There was a Ku Klux Klan rally outside my front door last year.  I had both sides of those people in here.</blockquote><br />
The KKK?  And "those people!" We know what "those people " is a code word for!<br />
So Fred Phelps and his church would be welcome because they are a group of people.  Campfield isn't because he's an individual.  Something tells me that her grasp of the law is about on par for a cook.<br />
<blockquote>If he thinks his rights are violated, he can come see me about it.  I‘ve only got about 50 lawyers in here that come to eat lunch here every day...they will be glad to represent me.  He can bring it.</blockquote><br />
Wow.  Now she's quoting George W. Bush.<br />
<br />
So, crusader for the downtrodden or hateful old biddy....you make the call.<br />
<br />
For me, that's the last I'll post on this.  Either you get it or you don't.  Either we are all equal under the law, or we aren't.  If we offer special protection to certain groups, we are saying that equal protection no longer exists.  We go from being a nation of laws to a nation ruled by special interests and protected groups.<br />
<br />
I know which I prefer and I'll cling to that even if I have to defend a grandstanding boob like Campfield.<br />
<br />
<br />...<br />Link to <a href="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/martha_boggs_hero_of_tolerance/">post</a>]]></description>
      <dc:subject>News</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-02-01T22:37:00-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Facts from the Racist Homophobes at the CDC</title>
      <link>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/facts_from_the_racist_homophobes_at_the_cdc/</link>
      <guid>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/facts_from_the_racist_homophobes_at_the_cdc/</guid>      <description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5739a2.htm" title="A few statistics">A few statistics</a><br />
<br />
<img src="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/images/uploads/HIV1.gif" style="border: 0;" alt="image" width="641" height="417" /><br />
<br />
The data shows that 53% of all HIV cases involve male to male sex.  <br />
Three times as many men have HIV as women, even though it is much easier to transmit the virus from male to female.<br />
More  <a href="http://www.cdcnpin.org/scripts/hiv/hiv.asp" title="'statistics">statistics</a>":<br />
<blockquote>MSM (Men who have sex with men) represent 2% of the population; however, their HIV diagnosis rate is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. MSM is the only risk group with increasing numbers of new HIV infections annually, and they account for more than half of all new infections in the United States each year</blockquote><br />
<blockquote>Blacks/African Americans are the racial/ethnic group most affected by HIV. They represent about 12% of the population but are almost half of all new HIV infections.</blockquote><br />
The CDC issued an updated "<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf" title="fact sheet">fact sheet</a>" covering new information in 2008.<br />
<blockquote>MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300 infections).<br />
While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522 – 989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men).</blockquote><br />
In their chart of the most affected groups, straight white males aren't included at all.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309909700210" title="Lancet published a study">Lancet published a study</a> in 2009 that calculated the per exposure risk for transmitting HIV based on 25 different groups and found that the risk of transmitting HIV during heterosexual contact as .04% male to female and .08% male to female. The risk for receptive anal sex was 34 times higher at 1.7%.  Let's break that number down a bit.  On average, it takes over 50 unprotected sex acts with a known infected partner to transmit HIV.<br />
<br />
50.<br />
<br />
Are the folks at the CDC are a bunch of ignorant, racist homophobes who don't understand or care about the truth?  Is the Lancet part of a conservative conspiracy to bully and marginalize homosexuals?<br />
<br />
Or is the truth somewhat different than we have been led to believe?  Do we completely ostracize these organizations for speaking the uncomfortable truth, that HIV is a disease which strikes mostly at gay men and is a result of their lifestyle?<br />
<br />
What are the high risk activities?<br />
<ul><li>Unprotected sex? Check</li><br />
<li>Multiple partners? Check</li><br />
<li>Anal or rough sex? Check</li></ul><br />
<br />
Folks these are the facts and getting angry at the folks who present them doesn't change them.<br />
<br />
Yes, there are straight people who get HIV, but they represent a distinct minority, and, if you discount IV drug abusers, almost vanish from the charts completely.  We talk about how HIV is a critical health issue.  How many people died with HIV last year?<br />
<br />
Just over 9,000, making it the 22nd leading cause of death in the US.  For comparison, 600,000 people died of heart disease and another 567,000 of cancer.<br />
<br />
Seriously folks, Campfield is a publicity hound and he does say some ridiculous stuff, but from listening to his interview, (Anybody else bother to listen to what he actually said?) Mike Signorile's Huff Po article was a smear job from the get go.  <br />
<br />
When did speech become a reason to deny people their rights?  Not too long ago, the left was in an uproar because their protestors weren't allowed to disrupt the Republican Convention or speeches by a President they detested.  They were herded into "Free Speech Zones" and not allowed to get close enough to be heard.  They were outraged, and rightly so.  Free speech is often times disruptive and unpleasant.  The OWS idiots camping on public property in DC in defiance of the law are being allowed to stay there because in some peoples' opinions, their free speech rights trump federal law.<br />
<br />
But it seems the left is only a champion of free speech when they agree with it.  When they don't, they shout down opposing speakers.  They use bull horns to prevent others from being heard.  They stage protests designed to prevent speakers from appearing.<br />
<br />
And they are taking their lead from the President.  He's willing to imprison Americans without charge, trial, or representation, indefinitely, for nothing more than speech.  Even more, he's already assassinated an American citizen just for his speech.<br />
<br />
With that attitude, it's no wonder the folks back home are following his lead.  Today, a State Senator can't buy a meal in a restaurant, and 'the people' applaud wildly.  What comes tomorrow?  Fundamental Christians believe that homosexuality is both a sin and punishment for sin.  Are we going to force them to abandon their religion in order to buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks?<br />
<br />
Not to get unnecessarily Apocalyptic on you or anything, but there is a <a href="http://www.esvbible.org/Revelation%2013:16-17" title="passage in the Bible">passage in the Bible</a> that speaks directly to that.  Now I'm not saying the Ms. Boggs is the Anti-Christ, or carries the Mark of the Beast, but her actions fall very neatly into the predicted events of the Bible.  With the widespread approval Boggs has gained from her action, it doesn't take a whole lot of foresight to see a trend emerging that could fulfill that prophesy. <br />
<br />
Armageddon aside, we're creating an environment where all pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others.  In comments on the various news sites, folks are saying that what Boggs did was legal because Sen. Campfield does not fall into one of the protected groups mentioned in civil rights legislation.  Given that Campfield is a Catholic, and last time I checked, Catholicism is still considered a religion, it appears that he was discriminated against based on his religious beliefs, and that he is a member of a protected group.  But even if he wasn't, do you remember that whole thing about "equal treatment under the law"?<br />
<br />
By creating special classes with special protections, we've automatically diminished the protections for those not in the special class.  That has been my primary objection to much of the civil rights legislation over the last couple of decades.  If bullying is bad, then it is bad no matter who the target is.  If bigotry is bad, it's bad no matter who the object is.  If discrimination is bad, then...you get the point. By singling out specific groups, we are saying that it is okay to bully, or discriminate, against others.<br />
<br />
And that's crap.<br />
<br />
Enough with the name calling already.  If you don't like what Campfield stands for, fine.  Run against him. Deprive him of the bully pulpit.  <br />
<br />
That's the American way.<br />
<br />
<br />...<br />Link to <a href="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/facts_from_the_racist_homophobes_at_the_cdc/">post</a>]]></description>
      <dc:subject>News</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-01-31T13:26:51-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>We Don&#8217;t Serve Your Kind Here!</title>
      <link>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/we/</link>
      <guid>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/we/</guid>      <description><![CDATA[ So, a State Senator walks into a bar.  Because he doesn't support special rights for a politically powerful special interest group, <a href="http://nosilencehere.com/?p=332" title="he is denied service and told to leave the bar.">he is denied service and told to leave the bar.</a><br />
<br />
And there was <a href="http://seanbraisted.blogspot.com/2012/01/customer-isnt-always-right.html" title="much">much</a> <a href="http://newscoma.com/2012/01/30/knoxville-business-denies-senator-service/" title="rejoicing">rejoicing</a>.<br />
<br />
I'm in the minority on this one.<br />
<br />
First, a little background.  State Senator Stacy Campfield has been pushing a bill for several years now regarding teaching about homosexuality is grade school.  The text of the <a href="http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB0049.pdf" title="current bill">current bill</a> is:<br />
<blockquote>The general assembly recognizes the sensitivity of particular subjects that are best explained and discussed in the home. Human sexuality is a complex subject with societal, scientific, psychological, and historical<br />
implications; those implications are best understood by children with sufficient maturity to grasp their complexity.<br />
(2) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Recently, Campfield was <a href="http://www.signorile.com/2012/01/interview-with-tn-sen-stacey-campfield.html" title="invited onto The Gist">invited onto The Gist</a>, a radio show by Mike Signorile to discuss the bill.  During that interview, Campfield made some statements about the origin and transmission of AIDS that are not politically correct, including observing, correctly, that transmitting AIDS through heterosexual contact is much more unlikely than transmission through homosexual activity.  Following the contentious interview, Mr. Signorile chose some of the more incendiary quotes and highlighted them <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/stacey-campfield-tennessee-senator-dont-say-gay-bill_n_1233697.html?ref=gay-voices" title="in a blog post.">in a blog post.</a><br />
<br />
The blog post is a beautiful example of taking quotes out of context to make the subject look bad.  For example, when Signorile asked Campfield why heterosexuality should be discussed in classrooms and not homosexuality, Campfield's answer was :<br />
<blockquote>"The only reason well, natural reproduction. If you’re talking in science classes you need to be able to talk about how natural reproduction works XY chromosomes and that sort of thing.  If you didn’t talk about heterosexuality, you would not be able to talk about natural reproduction."</blockquote><br />
Certainly not a controversial answer.  Sexuality should only be discussed in a classroom when it is directly related to the science of the reproductive processes.  The social aspects should be left to the family.  You may disagree with that, but it isn't hateful by any means.<br />
<br />
But in his blog post, Signorile substitute's this quote from a couple of minutes later in the interview as Campfield's answer:<br />
<blockquote>"I just think there are situations where some kids maybe sexually unsecure [sic] in themselves or sexually confused and don't necessarily know clearly what direction they are. If someone, a person of influence, says maybe you're gay, maybe you should explore those things -- maybe the child, who is young and impressionable, says maybe I am gay."</blockquote><br />
Then juxtaposes this quote, also from another part of the interview:<br />
<blockquote>"[Homosexuals] do not naturally reproduce. It has not been proven that it is nature. It happens in nature, but so does beastiality That does not make it right or something we should be teaching in school."</blockquote><br />
<br />
The two quotes above come from different sections of the interview, but Signorile uses them to try and make Campfield look hateful.  Additionally, he misquotes Campfield in the second quote, in my opinion deliberately, to make him look like he's comparing homosexuality to bestiality.  In fact, what Campbell said was <br />
<blockquote>"It happens in nature, but so does bestiality That does not make it naturally, necessarily something we need to talk about with children."</blockquote><br />
Now that is quite a difference.  Signorile not only repositions a quote, he changes it from a simple statement of fact (There are some aspects of sexuality we don't need to discuss with children) to a value judgment on homosexuality.<br />
<br />
I'm not going to go through the rest of the blog post.  It's more of the same and Campfield does get some facts wrong.  But the post is a hit piece plain and simple.  Of course, it got widespread attention, and I'm willing to bet almost nobody went back to the original interview and listened.  They just believed what they already prejudged about Campfield.<br />
<br />
So, fast forward to yesterday.  Martha Boggs, owner of The Bistro at the Bijou, reacting to the Huffington Post article, refused to serve Campfield, and asked him to leave the restaurant.  She then posted on the <a href="http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150631803994283&id=68978679282" title="restaurant's Facebook page">restaurant's Facebook page</a>, "I hope that Stacy Campfield now knows what if feels like to be unfairly discrimanted[sic] against."<br />
<br />
The irony of using unfair discrimination to protest unfair discrimination is amazingly obvious.<br />
<br />
And amazingly stupid.  <br />
<br />
As the day has gone by, I've watched more and more people weigh in on this one, and they all seem to say the same thing.  "Way to go Martha!  That'll show 'em!"<br />
<br />
Show them what?  That prejudice and intolerance are okay, as long as the target is unpopular?  How do we get to a point where we have people can say, and with a straight face, "Discrimination is evil, bad, hurtful, and ignorant.  Unless I agree with it; then it's okay!"<br />
<br />
After all, what Boggs did is no different than a bar owner throwing out a (insert minority of your choice here) and saying "We don't serve your kind here!"  Does anybody think that this episode is going to do anything to cause Campfield to change his mind?  Did it do anything to educate him?  Did it show tolerance or acceptance?  Or did it show that narrow minded jerks exist on both sides of the ideological divide?<br />
<br />
Suppose a restaurant refused to serve the head of Planned Parenthood, or any of their supporters.  Would that be okay?<br />
<br />
Folks, tolerance isn't worth a flip if you only tolerate the folks you agree with.  That's just good old high school conformity dressed up in flashier clothes.<br />
<br />
Martha Boggs' actions were flashy, and drew a lot of attention, but ultimately petty, childish, and potentially actionable.  I doubt Campfield will pursue it; <a href="http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2012/01/more-fun-then-barrel-of-monkeys.html" title="his post on the matter">his post on the matter</a> is fairly simple and straight forward; certainly far more mature than Ms. Boggs.<br />
<br />
I don't agree with everything Campfield says, and certainly not all of the legislation he produces.  I do, however, believe that he should enjoy the exact same amount of protection under the law as everybody else.<br />
<br />
And no less.<br />...<br />Link to <a href="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/we/">post</a>]]></description>
      <dc:subject>Blogging</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-01-30T21:42:12-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Knox County Sheriff&#8217;s Department Comes Up Short on Drug Busts</title>
      <link>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/knox_county_sheriffs_department_comes_up_short_on_drug_busts/</link>
      <guid>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/knox_county_sheriffs_department_comes_up_short_on_drug_busts/</guid>      <description><![CDATA[ <b>Lags Behind Surrounding Counties as well as Similarly Sized Counties</b><br />
<br />
<br />
According to records kept by the <a href="http://www.tennesseecrimeonline.com/" title="Tennessee Bureau of Investigation's Crime Statistic's Unit">Tennessee Bureau of Investigation's Crime Statistic's Unit</a>, the Knox County Sheriff's Office has the lowest arrest rates for narcotics in the Knoxville Metropolitan area, and falls far behind the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department, a similarly sized county in East Tennessee.  The KCSO has a lower proportion of total drug arrests when compared to the Knoxville Police Department than any of the other city/county groups in our region.<br />
<br />
Last month, a grieving mother asked a simple questions.  "<a href="http://justiceforhenry.com/2011/12/how-often-does-kcso-actually-arrest-charge-drug-dealers/#comments" title="How Often Does KCSO Actually Arrest, Charge Drug Dealers?">How Often Does KCSO Actually Arrest, Charge Drug Dealers?</a>"<br />
<br />
Katie Granju's oldest son, Henry, died of a drug overdose two years ago.  Tennessee Law states that anyone who gives drugs illegally to another person is guilty of Homicide in the Second Degree if that person dies from those drugs.  Yet the Knox County Sheriff's Department closed the investigation into Henry's death without any arrests or charges being filed.  Coincidentally, on the day Henry died, another Knoxville teenager, Amber Blizard, also died of a drug overdose.  While her death was within a different jurisdiction, her mother received the same result.  No arrests, no charges, no justice.<br />
<br />
As Ms. Granju fought for <a href="http://justiceforhenry.com/" title="Justice for Henry">Justice for Henry</a>, the KPD responded.  They looked into her allegations, and as a result, launched an investigation that resulted in felony indictments against the three adults involved with Henry's overdose.  While those indictments were not specific to Henry's death, they did involve drug trafficking, including sales within protected areas, such as school zones. Additionally, the KPD is re-examining Amber Blizard's case, in the hopes of finally finding justice for her, and closure for her mother.<br />
<br />
The KCSO, on the other hand, continued to insist that they did a thorough job, that there was no prosecutable crime, and that the folks who were present when Henry died were simple "Good Samaritans," trying to help a young man in trouble.  Their arrests last September, combined with their criminal histories, put the lie to that claim.  But the reluctance of the KCSO to conduct a truly thorough investigation led Ms. Granu to ask if Henry's case was unique, or if the way the KCSO handled Henry's case was standard operating procedure.<br />
<br />
That question is now answered.<br />
<br />
The records show a total of 276 Drug/Narcotics violations for the KCSO for 2010, while the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department notched 480 violations over the same time period.  That difference is made more stark by the fact that roughly 250,000 Knox County residents are subject to KCSO jurisdiction while only 103,000 Hamilton County residents are outside city limits and subject to the County Sheriff's jurisdiction.  Additionally, the budget for the Hamilton County Sheriff's Office was just under $30 million in 2010; while the KCSO spent over $70 million. With twice the number of residents, and over twice the budget, the KCSO recorded roughly half the violations.<br />
<br />
A survey of other crimes do not show this same level of disparity.  Hamilton County and Knox County show comparable rates for Murder, Rape, Aggravated Assault, and Burglary.  However, Knox County does show elevated levels of Robbery, Shoplifting, and Auto Theft.  In fact, the only major crime statistic surveyed that shows Knox County at a significantly lower level than Hamilton County is Drug/Narcotics violations.<br />
<br />
The KCSO shortfall becomes even more obvious when city statistics are examined.  In Hamilton County, the Sheriff's Department has jurisdiction over 31% of the county's total population and accounts for 23% of all Drug/Narcotics violations.  In contrast,  the KCSO has jurisdiction over 59% of the residents in the county, yet accounts for only 11% of the total Drug/Narcotic arrests.<br />
<br />
The KCSO fares just as poorly when compared to the eight surrounding counties.  The KCSO has the lowest Drug/Narcotic arrest rate (1.09) per 1000 residents of any of the contiguous eight counties.  The KCSO also has the highest disparity between city and county drug arrests with the KCSO notching only 9% of the KPD's arrest rate per 1000 residents.  <br />
<br />
The combination of the KPD/KCSO comparisons, the relative crime rates between similar jurisdictions, and the comparison with other counties in the region make it clear that there is a drug enforcement problem within the KCSO.  The numbers discount the possibility that drug traffic within Knox County is exceptionally low, especially since Knox County's position on the I-75 corridor tends to suggest a higher level of drug activity when compared to similarly sized communities away from the Interstate.<br />
<br />
The traffic is there; it is the enforcement that is missing.<br />
<br />
DISCLOSURE: I am a friend/acquaintance of Ms. Granju.  While we have met in person less than five or six times, we have spoken extensively about this case, both professionally, as writers, and personally, as friends.  It was this relationship that inspire me to dig into the records to find the answer to her question; however, the numbers come directly from state sources and are linked for easy verification.  Statistics for this article came from the <a href="http://www.tennesseecrimeonline.com/" title="Tennessee Bureau of Investigation's Crime Statistic's Unit">Tennessee Bureau of Investigation's Crime Statistic's Unit</a> and the <a href="http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/47000.html" title="US Census Quick Facts">US Census Quick Facts</a> page.  This article is available for reposting or reprinting in its entirety as long as authorship (Rich and Lissa Hailey) is acknowledged.  An image of the spreadsheet used is available<a href="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/images/uploads/KCSO_comparison.png" onclick="window.open('http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/images/uploads/KCSO_comparison.png','popup','width=1706,height=1085,scrollbars=no,resizable=yes,toolbar=no,directories=no,location=no,menubar=no,status=no,left=0,top=0'); return false"> here.</a><br />...<br />Link to <a href="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/knox_county_sheriffs_department_comes_up_short_on_drug_busts/">post</a>]]></description>
      <dc:subject>Blogging</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-01-25T21:09:56-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
      <title>Bartholomew Sullivan Gets One Right</title>
      <link>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/bartholomew_sullivan_gets_one_right/</link>
      <guid>http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/bartholomew_sullivan_gets_one_right/</guid>      <description><![CDATA[ I just reviewed the current crop of PolitiFact Tennessee claims, and these are much better.  Even Bartholomew Sullivan's contribution, <a href="http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/jan/23/charlotte-bergmann/another-republican-claims-martin-luther-king-jr-wa/" title="Bartholomew Sullivan's contribution">Another Republican Claims Martin Luther King Jr was a Republican</a>, is well reasoned, accurately assessed, and logically sound.  I could quibble that the evidence might call for a Mostly False rating, since there are some hints that Dr. King had some connection with the Republican Party, but that association was certainly a very loose one, and not enough to warrant claiming he was a Republican.  <br />
<br />
The choices are all Tennessee centric, and are based on statements actually made by Tennessee politicians.<br />
<br />
Cool.<br />
<br />
UPDATE:  Another PolitiFact Tennessee article came out shortly after I wrote the above.  This one has to do with <a href="http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/jan/25/steve-cohen/steve-cohen-pushes-democratic-claim-us-has-fallen-/" title="US infrastructure and our global ranking">US infrastructure and our global ranking</a> and while the conclusion is justifiable, the language used to get there, on a site devote to objective analysis, is a problem.<br />
Our ruling<br />
<br />
<blockquote>So Cohen is off by a notch in the current overall rankings, while for roads and bridges, the U.S. actually ranks slightly lower, providing more evidence for his point. That's close enough to earn a True.</blockquote><br />
<br />
Close enough?  Sounds to me like a "Mostly True" rating here.  Like the above example, it's kind of a quibble, but once is a quibble, twice becomes a trend.  I'm not talking about bias here, even though both instances the shade is given to the liberal side; I'm talking about sloppiness.  IS the claim fully true, or just mostly true?  Call it straight every time and you'll develop a reputation for objectivity.  Shade it too often, and you'll be accused of bias no matter which way you call it.<br />...<br />Link to <a href="http://www.shotsacrossthebow.com/index.php/site/comments/bartholomew_sullivan_gets_one_right/">post</a>]]></description>
      <dc:subject>Politics</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-01-25T17:08:00-05:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    
    </channel>
</rss>
