Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Experts cite microphone in Bob Costas' gun control controversy

(Dissociated Press) T.V. football viewers were shocked Sunday night when sportscaster Bob Costas  unexpectedly made a 90 second statement endorsing gun control in the wake of the murder-suicide committed by Kansas City Chiefs player Jovan Belcher.

Experts attributed the highly controversial jeremiad to the easy availability of microphones.

Microphone-control advocate Gerry Kerzowicz explains:

"It's a scandal that in our nation any blow-dried-botoxed-jock-wanna-be sportscaster can get get a hold of a microphone and subject millions of innocent victims to tedious illogical arguments. The First Amendment isn't a murder-suicide pact. How many tragedies like this do we need until we get serious about microphone control. Only responsible people should have microphones. "

In related news, weight loss advocates attribute the the obesity epidemic in America to the widespread availability of unlicensed refrigerators...


  1. Michael,

    You're not funny. This is a tragedy. How can you attempt to make 'fun' of a murder-suicide? You're a disgrace as a medical practitioner and a human being.

    1. I mock the idiotic attribution of the crime to inadequate gun control.

      Spare me the faux-indignation. Sounds pretty funny coming from a population-control-pro-abortion-anti-DDT crank.

    2. Michael,

      I'll leave it to your other readers whether you've overstepped the bounds of decency.

      Trish? CrusadeRex? JQ? Joey? Anyone else I haven't thought of. From what I have read he was suffering the effects of repeated concussions, a common problem in professional footballers, even Australian ones (in a different code, but equally physical).

      I still regard you as a disgrace.

    3. "I still regard you as a disgrace."

      You flatter me.

    4. Egnor plays a tuff guy on the internets. What else can you do when your political views are so off kilter that they make him entirely irrelevant. All he can do is rant and troll passers-by.


    5. I see you keep pressing the bar, Dr Science.

      Either Egnor has you trained like a Norway rat in a Skinner box, or you're on some selfless, morally superior quest to ensure that the Dark Side never triumphs over the Legions of the Lightworker.

      Tell us, which is it?

    6. I'm here strictly for entertainment purposes, George. You don't see nuts like Egnor and you everyday in my environment.


    7. Calling Egnor a disgrace is unjustified, in my view. In order to be a disgrace, he would have to have grace to begin with. He never did. He was an angry atheist back then, he is an angry Catholic now. All he knows is how to cheer for his own team, whatever it may be. And his current team has been losing much lately. So, so sorry.


    8. I'm sure you don't, Dr Science. These days, the antonym of "diversity" is "university". At least when it comes to thought.

      "College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says." (WaPo, 2005)

      But don't worry. What ideological purity can't filter out gets prohibited:

      "USC’s policy on 'Advertising, Promotion, and Literature Distribution' prohibits the posting or distribution of any printed materials that contain 'derogatory language or material that is aimed at harming a specific person or an organization’s reputation.' This policy prohibits a large amount of expression protected by the First Amendment, including the kind of core political expression that lies at the heart of the First Amendment’s protections." (FIRE Speech Code of the Month, 1/2012)

      Bastions of free thought, eh?

    9. I think your problem goes deeper than that. Conservatives simply aren't interested in academic careers. There is no political bias in hard sciences, yet conservative scientists are few and far between. Not because they are run out of town on a rail, but because they never show up to begin with.

      Conservatives freely choose not to go into academia. Then they blame liberals for that. Keep whining, guys, and see if that gets you any points.


    10. What problem is that? I was an academic (still teach grad math, adjunct status). I also made a lot of money (enough to retire comfortably at 55) from the private sector and consulting with govt entities like DoD, NIH, and NATO.

      So don't get defensive, Doctor Science. I know how it works. Liberals accuse conservatives of not "wanting" to teach then go on to make the environment as oppressive as humanly possible.

      Your comment about "points" was right on, though. I know lefties are interested in "points"...

      "'Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo [aka Detroit bailout] and you ought to exercise leadership on that," said Watson [Detroit councilwoman]. 'Of course, not just that, but why not?'"

      Waaaah! Gimme my points!

    11. I am not being defensive, you are. You keep blaming "lefties" for a hostile environment, yet you can't dispute the simple fact that a lack of conservatives in hard sciences has nothing to do with political bias. I have no idea about a faculty candidate's political orientation when I look through his or her CV and publications. Their political orientation is completely irrelevant. And 90 percent of the science faculty are liberals. And those conservatives who live alongside us are doing well and not feeling oppressed. My own postdoc advisor was (and remains) a conservative. At an Ivy-league school.

      Conservatives are, by and large, not interested in higher learning. Nothing wrong with that. Likewise, builders and plumbers tend to be conservatives. I don't whine about that. Maybe you shouldn't whine about academia being more liberal.


    12. Great reply. Perfect, in fact. Blame conservatives for the egregious imbalance.

      I thought lefties called that "blaming the victim".

      "Blaming the victim" didn't work for Larry Summers before he got his butt booted from the President's Office at Harvard for speculating about why there weren't more women in science. Why, women academics across America were seized with a bad case of the vapours, and faculty lounges were forced to buy fainting sofas. So why should it work for you against people you love to disparage as "nuts" and "off kilter"? Even ol' Larry didn't say it was because of monthly hormone storms.

      And it doesn't work in Title IX, either, does it? Oh yes, we needed those scholarships in women's field hockey so Fox Sports can broadcast the Big 10 games to an audience smaller than the security cam in the Hilton parking building. Why, it can't be women's fault that women are underrepresented in sports. I blame Bush. And he was a Conservative, so it's OK.

      You say "Conservatives are, by and large, not interested in higher learning", and you apparently know this because "You don't see nuts like Egnor and you everyday in my environment."

      In other words:

      I know very few of those lunatics first hand, but I know what they want out of life and it's not higher education. So it must be their fault.
      --- Dr Science (Bigotry on Parade,2012)

      If it's logic you teach, Dr Hoo, it must be at Boogaloo University.

      By the way, one of my best grad school buddies became a real Dr Hu. But no relation to you, I'm sure. He was a really smart guy. Brains ran in the family.

    13. Bach,
      On order for me to concede that Mike has overstepped the bounds of decency, it would be would be imperative to see the broadcast as legitimate, and not overstepping the bounds of decency himself.
      Politicizing a murder/suicide is doing just that.
      That is precisely what Mr Costas did.
      The line was already crossed. Mike is simply returning fire.
      I am sure Mr Costas feels he is well intentioned, but that is where the boundary was crossed.

      Gun control is absolutely irrelevant to this issue. Murder and suicide were commonplace LONG before the first projectile was ever fired, never mind before the advent of the gun. Murder and suicide are the acts of evil and/or mad determination.
      All they require is the WILL to do so.
      The tools/weapon of choice is a matter of convenience.

      Perhaps what you are really asking me if I would make light of this situation? If I would return fire in this manner?
      No. I don't think I would. Just not my style.
      But, for some, humour is the best release. For some, satire speaks louder than sombreness.
      I do not see that as indecent. Calling for disarming the public because a famous sportsman commits a horrible crime? That is indecent.
      Way over the line.

  2. Fabulous post, Egnor. Apparently, some sportscasters agree:

    "NBC Sports announcer Bob Costas said Tuesday that he made a 'mistake' when he talked about gun control during halftime of Sunday’s Eagles-Cowboys game in the wake of the Jovan Belcher murder-suicide in Kansas City." (NY Daily News, 12/5/12)


    Mockery is the sunshine of sanity in a world infected with fatuous left-wing moral preening.

  3. Twice I’ve been attacked with knives and survived, once by a strung-out mugger and once by a crazy jealous girlfriend. In both cases I walked away without a scratch. If either of them had a gun at the time I might not be alive today.

    Conservatives conjecture that if there was more gun control people would just use other methods to murder and commit suicide. Bullshit. Perhaps that’s true in some cases, but there’s no doubt that guns make violence much easier and more deadly, and of course the spate of mass shootings that we’ve seen recently would be impossible without guns.

    All of these deaths so the people who can maintain their fantasies of shooting bad guys and armed resistance against the country they claim to love.


    1. Riiight. So you think you can bring down a black helicopter with a knife?

    2. Your cute theories of gun violence are entertaining, but, like your cute theories of evolution, bear little relation to reality.

      The fact is that there is no correlation between gun control and gun violence, except some studies that show that allowing greater conceal-carry reduces gun crime.

      Moral preening doesn't save lives. Prudent policy based on facts does.

    3. KW-san, Internet ninja love god.

      If you're still on your Dad's medical insurance, I suggest you seek therapy.

    4. ... a crazy jealous girlfriend...

      I guess you have a knack for making people very angry.!

  4. @Hoo:

    [Conservatives are, by and large, not interested in higher learning.]

    There are innumerable pressures and fads in academia. That does not mean that individuals who do not choose to live under the pressures nor participate in the fads are "not interested in higher learning". Bright people sort themselves, and in many fields infested by the Left (history, english, biology, etc) a conservative student understands that a career in that field will involve either a lifetime of painful reticence or a lifetime of career-threatening conflict.

    Lefties are a profoundly intolerant bunch, and students contemplating a career in a field infested by the Left know that.

    It's pretty damn arrogant of you to describe the people who you intimidate and destroy as "not interested in higher learning" just because they decide not to be your roadkill.

  5. Bright people sort themselves, and in many fields infested by the Left (history, english, biology, etc) a conservative student understands that a career in that field will involve either a lifetime of painful reticence or a lifetime of career-threatening conflict.

    The fact that you think that fields like history and biology are "fields infested by the Left" indicates that you have driven past left field into the weeds of conspiranoia.

    1. "Infested by the Left" is merely a statement of fact, by common sense and a variety of surveys that have been done of ideological fads in various disciplines.

      And when I use the word "infested", I understand that it understates the impact Leftism has on these fields.

    2. "Infested by the Left" is merely a statement of fact, by common sense

      And yet conservative historians abound. As do conservative biologists. Something here suggests that your conspiranoia is just the result of your tinfoil hat malfunctioning.

    3. The fields of math, physics, chemistry, and biology are populated almost entirely by liberals. Why is it so? Is it because we practice some sort of liberal science and conservatives feel threatened by it?


    4. That's plain stupid. Try again.


    5. Another stupid answer.

      Explain how Gresham's law applies to a topic it has nothing to do. You have not offered any argument there so far.


  6. What I find remarkable about the whole 'conspiracy card' that political minded people pull all the time (tinfoil hats etc), is that is exhibits an inherent PRONOIA.
    Conspiracies happen all the time. Look up the meaning of the word for goodness sake.
    I have conspired with some friends to have a doomsday movie-fest on the 21st, for example. It is a more or less (considerably so now) a secret conspiracy, as my wife has not yet been informed and it will take place in our living room.
    Conspiracies are as real as you and me. Calling someone paranoid for suspecting the existence of one is simply to discount their points without argumentation. It is PRONOIA.
    Conspiracies are what civilization are made of. Some are exclusive and ill intentioned, others are open ended and well intended. None the less, they are groups of people conspiring to an end.

    1. crus:

      I had to look up pronoia. Fascinating. And true.

    2. There are some real conspiracies, crus, but there are also imagined conspiracies. The existence of real conspiracies does not invalidate the notion that some people are paranoid.

      Lots of nuts think there is a conspiracy to form some sort of new world order. It isn't a real conspiracy.


    3. Hoo,

      That is a very poor example of paranoia. Especially when you're conversing with an officer in NATO.
      Globalism is real.

      Call it what you like, but if you spend a few minutes researching it you will find the proponents of globalism boastfully refer to it as a 'New World Order'.
      On the other hand, it is an excellent example of pronoia (on your part).

      I will gladly concede there are paranoid people who take these ideas to the extreme, but to suggest the actual movement does not exist because it somehow upsets or excites you is the polar opposite - not a reasonable or realistic position. It is an extreme reaction. Just as extreme and unrealistic as the paranoid approach.
      Maybe your hat is made of aluminium foil, rather than tin?

      I personally oppose globalism and any form of world governance. Treaties and trade negotiations, fine.
      Our rights and economy dictated by some faceless lawyers in Zurich or New York? No thanks.

      I believe in my country. She's far from perfect, but she is ours.

      None of that makes me a paranoid. I am simply aware of current trends and movements.
      Nor do I imagine that I see black helicopters in the sky - I have quite often FLOWN in them. Also blue ones, orange ones, scary old red ones, and even really nice green ones too. Some of them even have twin rotors.

    4. crus, I know what globalization is, I am not sure I understand what globalism is. But that's perhaps beside the point. There is no real conspiracy that is trying to impose some sort of a "new world order" on the United States (or Canada, for that matter).


    5. Globalism is the political extension of market globalization.
      It is a movement to create new federal and bloc unions out of existing states (ie nations).
      It is exactly the kind of union we see in Europe today. You vote in the economic treaty, and 40 years later you have your laws and rights dictated to you by an unelected body. You'll even have that cartel telling WHEN you can have an election and who you can elect (see Ireland & Greece).
      It's real. It's alive and well.
      I stand against it. So do the vast majority of Canadians - especially in the forces. Thankfully, so does our current parliament and senate.
      So you're right about us. No drones or UN imposed gun laws here. Looks like Mexico has decided to take a similar path. That's good news for you folks, too.
      As such, we have become the darlings of the UN. (That's a little sarcasm, btw).

      What's alarming from my perspective is how little the folks in the States seem to be even aware that it is going on. You seem to be split between people who think there is some sort of army of redcoats poised to invade and impose an absolute monarchy, and people who blissfully continue on thinking there is no danger ever possible to your nations sovereign (even super power) status.
      That somehow you have inherited your freedoms and need do nothing but enjoy them.
      I am sure that if Americans had better media coverage of this movement there would be an outcry and a general reversal in policy.
      A conspiracy of silence, or simply incompetence?
      I don't know.
      Keep your eyes on that dollar, Hoo.
      Tell me there is no conspiracy to deflate American interests in 2 years time, and I'll happily admit error.
      Till then I will stay attentive to the issue.

    6. Globalism is the political extension of market globalization.
      It is a movement to create new federal and bloc unions out of existing states (ie nations).
      It is exactly the kind of union we see in Europe today.

      Umm, no. The Europe Union is an economic and political union, and the latter is a crucial difference. No US president, including Barack Obama, has a goal of establishing a political union with any country in the world. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is a crazy conspiracy theorist.

  7. So far, only George Boggs and CrusadeRex have agreed with Michael.

    I suppose I could possibly take some consolation that many of Michael's supporters are too embarrassed to comment supporting him.

    Perhaps. Maybe.

    Anyway, I'm not a 'population control, pro-abortion, anti-DDT crank'.

    I think reducing the rate of global population growth and eventually stabilizing it at a sustainable level is a very good idea, provided its done by voluntary means. Such as making contraception freely available at affordable prices. By educating girls in the Third World. By having economic development, so women can earn an independent income by having their own businesses. By reducing child mortality and improving social support, so people don't feel they need a lot of children to ensure their support in their old age.

    I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice. I think women have the right to choose, within limits. Abortion shouldn't be encouraged.

    I think DDT spraying of internal walls of huts in malarial areas is the best current method of malaria control.

    Michael, you're the crank. Your plan for malaria eradication includes use of DDT and other insecticides in malarial areas 'with abandon'. Aggressive detection and treatment of all cases of malaria. Massive research into malaria and vaccines.

    All to be fully funded by the West. I'm not certain how your conservative and libertarian supporters would think. One trillion dollars would probably be a minimum cost, so America would need to find at least 500 billion dollars.

    Undoubtedly, if you used insecticides in malarial areas 'with abandon', it would certainly eliminate malaria, if all mosquitoes are eradicated. It would have unintended consequences too. A lot of fish eat mosquito larvae, so as a knock on effect, eliminating mosquitoes would also eliminate a lot of fish on which humans in many regions rely as a source of protein.

    Besides eliminating pollinating bees.

    1. "... Besides eliminating pollinating bees."

      Yea. Bees disappear, etc. All that stuff happened when we used DDT with abandon for 30 years to eliminate malaria in the West. Bees are extinct now. Spring is silent...

    2. Bach,
      You mischaracterize my response and the whole issue in general.
      I did not say I agreed with Mike's approach, and that was the question you asked.
      You asked whether I felt he had crossed some line of decency. I responded that the line had already been crossed by Mr Costas when he politicized the death of the athlete and his family.
      I think the whole discussion is morbid and in bad taste, actually - including your attack on Mike's personal character and morality as a physician.

      I can't lay blame on people for responding and reacting to Mr Costas rant, even if I would have used a different style/form of criticism myself.

      Apparently that is where we (you and I) differ.
      You see this as a one sided conversation. Mr Costas is allowed to speak on it, but no one else is permitted an opinion or even to lampoon his gross misuse of his influence.

      It was Mr Costas that turned the family tragedy into a media event and put his spin on it. Mike was responding to that spin. Many people have and will do the same. If they have crossed a line, it is simply in pursuit of Mr Costas distasteful behaviour.
      It is HE who reduces the horror of this episode to a political stunt. It is he who attempts to USE this event for his own ideological gain.

      Assuming that Mike believes in the right to arms (safe bet), then I do agree with him on that central issue, and also with the law of this land I live in and into which my children have been born.
      The constitution and charter which I am sworn to defend.
      But, again, this is NOT what you queried me on, rather what I volunteered.
      Why do I volunteer this position?
      To refocus the conversation.
      I do so, because THAT is the real issue at hand, not whether or not the humour of the above post is in bad taste.

    3. Michael,

      And my other points? Anyway, malaria had already largely been eliminated in the West before DDT. By environmental methods, such as draining swamps and marshes. Not something that's possible in subsaharan African jungles. So DDT and other insecticides would have to do most of the heavy lifting.


      My objection was Michael trying to make it 'funny', as he often does in his 'Dissociated Press' items. Mostly, they're not funny, and in this case I consider that he overstepped common decency in a tragedy

      It would have been OK if he'd done one of his usual pro-gun threads. Or discussed why this tragedy happened. I suspect that this footballer had neurological damage owing to repeated concussions. Which could have led to a discussion as to the responsibility of professional sport to ensure the health of its players. It's a concern in Australia too. The Australian Football League is attempting to rest players after episodes of concussion to allow the chance of recovery.

    4. Bach,
      Your objection is noted.
      You should consider, however, that he is not mocking the death of the athlete and his family member. He is, in fact, mocking the idiot that attempted to turn the issue into one of ARMS CONTROL.
      You yourself note this tragedy could be the result of some head trauma or disorder caused by impact, and do not seem to blame the gun/weapon - but rather the physiology of the man who committed the crime.
      Don't you find it objectionable that this Costas fellow is hanging his political narrative on the coffin of two dead people?
      Could he, as a sports reporter, not have made the same connections with injury as you? Could he have not spent his moments expressing condolences to the family of the murder victim?
      Sure he could have.
      He didn't.
      But instead Costas capitalized on a tragedy. He injected his politics (and the network's?) into a commentary on the deaths.
      Costas is the vulture here, not Mike.
      That, in my opinion, is where the line was crossed.
      Making fun of that bozo doesn't effect me one way or the other.

      The real focus here should be on why sports network personalities feel they have a mandate/warrant to push for gun controls. Nobody elected these guys. They are not constitutional lawyers or public officials.
      Nobody has asked their opinion on anything but BALL GAMES. So why do they volunteer their opinions at such a sensitive time?
      These are the issues at hand.

    5. Maybe they volunteer their opinion because they feel that it is an important topic and they have something to say about it? Who asked your opinion about the US? No one did. You came here and gave it. And you are welcome to state your opinion. I may not like it, but I won't tell you to shut up.


    6. "I suspect that this footballer had neurological damage owing to repeated concussions. "

      Since when does neurological damage make you shoot people? What do you think the murder rate is among people with cerebral palsy or strokes, compared with the general population.

      In the US, being a Democrat correlates much more highly with shooting people than having neurological damage, although there may well be quite a bit of overlap between the two groups...

    7. That's a really stupid retort, Dr. Egnor. Neurological damage is not limited to cerebral palsy, obviously. You have chosen to make a straw man out of your opponent's argument and boldly proceeded to kill it. Congratulations!


    8. Michael,

      You're an idiot. 'neurological damage owing to repeated concussions'. Sequelae following concussion is an increasingly recognized phenomenon. Including footballers. Where did I suggest that stroke victims or people with cerebral palsy are prone to murder? Actually, I suspect it's probably lower than the general population because they are less able to overpower a victim.

    9. Hoo,
      "Who asked your opinion about the US?"
      This is a blog that has a running commentary on the issues posted, not a televised sports network.
      If I was hired to speak at a military sporting event in the US (lets say a hockey game) where a player had just lost a child, I would NOT launch into politics. I would NOT use the tragedy as a platform to offer my opinion on US abortion laws and the value of the life of children.
      It would not be my job to do so. I would comment on the game, and perhaps offer my condolences if asked to do so.
      Further, I have often been invited to share my opinion on this blog by the AUTHOR. He seems to value it, as do some of the readers.
      That's why I comment.

    10. You are entitled to your opinion, crus. And so is Bob Costas.

      Whether it was a wise move on Costas' part to speak out in favor of gun control remains to be seen. I suspect that football fans tend to hold more conservative positions on this issue, so this may actually hurt him.

      But he should be able to speak his mind, I think. Censorship is not exactly many of us support.


    11. "Censorship is not exactly many of us support. "
      Nor do I.
      He had the right to say what he felt, and Mike has the right to respond to his sentiments with his own and in whatever style he feels comfortable with.
      Take my comments in context of the conversation with Bach.
      I do not suggest the man should be silenced. I simply question the MEANS by which he made them and the reasoning behind giving him the platform to do so.
      If he had written them on his blog, or expressed them while being interviewed on a talk show I would be totally unaffected (and disinterested) in the whole matter.

      Freedom of speech? Maybe.
      Will it hurt his career in sports? Maybe.
      Will it get him a position on some 'liberal' talk show? Maybe.
      But if anyone crossed a line, it was Costas stepping out of his role. Not Mike.
      Mike is posting on his own blog, not spouting off about the second amendment at a neuroscience convention.

    12. Hoo:

      "But he should be able to speak his mind, I think. Censorship is not exactly many of us support."

      If Costas had spoken out about his belief in Creationism, you would have been calling for his head.

      For you atheists, censorship is your oxygen.

    13. @bach:

      [Where did I suggest that stroke victims or people with cerebral palsy are prone to murder? Actually, I suspect it's probably lower than the general population because they are less able to overpower a victim.]

      Right. Lots of those brain damaged kids in wheelchairs and old folks in nursing homes are just dyin' to shoot somebody, but they just can't load the bullets in the chamber. Foiled!

      Junk science.

    14. If Costas had spoken out about his belief in Creationism, you would have been calling for his head.

      I'd like to see some evidence backing up this accusation. Show us the list of people whose heads were called for by Prof. Hoo. Or admit that you are making this up as you go, stupid.

      When someone peddles creationism, there is no point in calling for his head. He has no functioning brain.


    15. "When someone peddles creationism, there is no point in calling for his head. He has no functioning brain."

      So it's just the microphone doing the talkin', huh? Maybe we need... microphone control!