Thou Shalt
The Republicans' record on putting forth candidates for high office doesn't always conform to common standards of morality. Joseph McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, the second George Bush, Dan Quayle, Dick Cheney, Paul Ryan, and now Roy Moore of Alabama, called "a great guy" by fellow Republican Donald Trump, all lacked or lack, for various reasons, the human thing that prevents most people from committing horrible acts against other human beings.
I don't believe one has to be a degenerate to be a politician, but an inability to do right on behalf of the less powerful characterizes the above-mentioned men, as it also characterizes many Democrats, like Barack Obama, who slaughtered civilians in the Middle East and Africa, made the big banks bigger, deported more illegal immigrants than any other president, prided himself as an assassin, and strengthened government secrecy even as he claimed transparency.
Obama's example represents, for some, the dubious maxim that as president, one's job is very difficult, the most difficult in the world; therefore, some unintended consequences, like blowing up the wrong people, is just part of the job. I stopped buying into this idea many years ago when I realized that I never heard a president, Democratic or Republican, demonstrate remorse for committing what would normally be regarded in our civil society as mass manslaughter. If someone accidentally kills dozens of people, including children, there's a legal investigation, at least. Obama and every other president will never be investigated for their epic number of acts of "collateral damage." Powerful people in our country and elsewhere get away with casual killing so often and so predictably that it's become something most citizens shrug their shoulders at.
Not me.
An Alabama politician, Roy Moore, runs for the U.S. Senate. His background as a district attorney, judge, and during the Vietnam War, as a military policeman, qualifies him as a law and order candidate who happens to love God, the Ten Commandments, and guns. In recent weeks it's also been revealed that he loves having sex with teenaged girls. In the 1970s he (allegedly) molested a fourteen year old girl. He was assistant district attorney at the time, an authority figure with power, especially over a kid. In his thirties then, according to numerous reports, he regularly "dated" girls aged sixteen, seventeen, eighteen. Age of consent in Alabama is sixteen, but one sixteen year old girl was violated by him in his car, then pushed out onto the pavement by a dumpster before he drove away. About half a dozen women have shared their painful Moore stories, but the Republicans in both houses of Congress have been slow to condemn him without sounding like uncomfortable cowards.
Mitch McConnell, Jeff Sessions (now the Attorney General and formerly the holder of the Senate seat in Alabama sought by Moore), Jeff Flake, John McCain, and several other Republicans have stated their belief in the women's stories about Roy Moore. Even Paul Ryan, one of the most prominent Republican sociopaths, has expressed, in his usual insipid way, condemnation of the child molester. It could be, and I believe this is the case, that some of these condemnations from the Right are politically motivated. Republicans, generally, care so much about women's rights that they want to defund Planned Parenthood, thus denying millions of women healthcare. Moore is an embarrassment to them on a moral ground, and also his association with them as their fellow Senator would taint their own images as defenders of family values, Christian style.
Moore says he's a Christian, but his behavior is antichrist. I imagine him as a military cop in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. Did he violate Vietnamese girls? He wouldn't be the only sexual predator in the U.S. military back then, or now. Are we to believe that his predatory behavior began in Alabama after he returned from the war zone? I suggest, based on human psychology, that Roy Moore has been a criminal most of his life.
Or, as Trump put it in a tweet, "a great guy."
Trump hasn't commented publicly about the Moore issue. The President is most definitely preoccupied with the Mueller investigation (Donald Trump, Jr. is in the news again, having spoken with Wikileaks last year regarding Clinton) and also with his just completed Asia trip. By the time this is read by anyone, it could be that we'll know what Trump has to say about his "great" Alabama guy.
While all this goes on, seven million people in Yemen are on the verge of starvation due to the Saudi-enforced blockade and the now two and a half year old war supported logistically by the United States and by many of the same politicians here who find Moore so offensive. Yemen's infrastructure is broken by the relentless bombing enabled by in-flight fueling by American airplanes, by cluster bombs supplied by the U.S., by fighter bombers the sale of which was enabled by former Secretary of State Clinton. A cholera epidemic in Yemen resulted from the infrastructure destruction, potable water increasingly rare. It's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse time in the world's poorest Arab country and seven million possibly impending deaths will top the six million Jews killed by Hitler, so can we just say it? The United States of America may soon be a party to genocide, and the major news networks aren't even talking about it.
Is that because we're so used to our leaders being killers, liars, suppressors of basic human rights, and, even on occasion, child molesters? In other words, it's not even a story that the United States government will gladly aid and abet genocide committed by the Saudi government, but Donald Trump, Jr. making contact with Wikileaks to find damning information on his father's chief political opponent somehow merits anyone's surprise?
Vic Neptune
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
Friday, November 3, 2017
The Light At the End of the Gun Barrel
In this essay, I will quote from an Associated Press article published November 3, 2017, by McClatchy DC Bureau. The piece is headlined, "Assembly eliminates Wisconsin's minimum hunting age"
The word "eliminates" can mean remove or get rid of, but it can also mean to murder someone. An atmosphere of eventual probable human deaths suffuses the bill passed by the Republican majority Wisconsin state Assembly.
"Residents of any age, no matter how young, could legally hunt in Wisconsin..." As if to pound the idea into our heads with a hammer, the article's author wrote, redundantly, "...of any age, no matter how young..." as if to write, "Do you understand what this means? Do you perceive the lunacy of this bill?"
The current law allows twelve year olds to purchase hunting licenses "or hunt with a gun unless they're participating in a mentored hunt. Children as young as 10 can hunt under that program."
Ten. Is that not irresponsible enough? Apparently not.
"The Republican-authored bill would allow people of any age to participate in a mentored hunt, effectively letting anyone hunt. The measure also would eliminate [that word again] the requirement that a hunter and mentor have only one weapon between them."
More guns, of course, will mean less chances of bloody accidents.
Here's something I didn't know: "Thirty-four other states already have no minimum hunting age, according to the Wisconsin Hunters' Rights Coalition."
In a country politically warped by the NRA, it's fitting that there are hunters who felt the need to put together an organization called the Wisconsin Hunters' Rights Coalition. Didn't they realize that American gun owners are already untouched by moral justice? It's similar to how White men feel like their rights as American citizens are constantly threatened by Affirmative Action, illegal immigration, feminism, the Black Lives Matter movement, and political correctness.
The bill passed 57-32, with three Republicans voting against it, while four dipshit Democrats voted in favor.
Sensible arguments against the bill included the idea that little kids armed with guns would put other hunters at risk of being shot.
Democratic Representative Katrina Shankland "warned Republicans that younger children can't pay attention to their mentors. 'To allow...a toddler, a two-year-old (to carry a gun), and I'm not being hyperbolic because someone will allow it, is dangerous...Other hunters in the woods are not going to choose to get hurt by a child with a rifle.'"
Her statement, strange as it is--the idea of someone not choosing to be shot is a weird way of putting it--reflects the reasonable idea that letting a small child have a gun is akin to letting a small child drive a car, or vote, or join the Army. The last case, actually, is practiced in many parts of the world, with its hundreds of thousands of child soldiers, all armed with various weapons, so far along in violent experience, beyond Representative Shankland's hand-wringing about little Wisconsin kids using adult killing tools.
Who is the bill's author?
"[Republican] Rep. Rob Stafsholt of New Richmond, told reporters...that not every hunter uses high-powered rifles and he believed he was capable of handling a .22 caliber rifle when he was eight years old."
Therefore, logically, every eight year old can handle a .22! What's the problem?
During the Assembly floor debate, Stafsholt said "...that his daughter killed a bear at age 11 but [he] held her back from bear hunting when she was 10 because she wasn't ready...We're returning the choice to the parent."
The bill goes to the state Senate, it will probably be voted on next Tuesday, and if it passes, Governor Scott Walker must sign the bill to make it law. I wonder what the Governor, a man well-known for his idiotic, destructive, bone-headed choices will do if the Baby Face Killers bill comes to his desk?
That thirty-four states already have no minimum hunting age means that a majority of Americans probably don't even think this kind of legislation is batshit crazy.
Representative Rob Stafsholt argues disingenuously that "not every hunter uses high-powered rifles," making it seem as if every "responsible" parent, or mentor, will have their child or charge use small caliber weapons (which also kill and maim). He apparently assumes that Wisconsin parents who love the shit out of their guns and who endlessly defend their misunderstanding of the Second Amendment will never supply their children under the age of ten with high-powered weaponry. I recall footage of a young Texas girl receiving instructions at a shooting range. Her teacher was (note the past tense) a former soldier with a typical crewcut and camo outfit, showing the girl how to fire a machine gun. Being a kid lacking the proper strength to use such a weapon, the gun's kick aimed it upwards at the man's head, killing him instantly. Lesson over.
I realize I'm spoiling the fun of imagining children under the age of ten stalking around in the Wisconsin woods, armed with weapons legally bestowed upon them by Assemblymen and -women who work on behalf of the National Rifle Association, an organization that corrupts our willfully greedy leaders in state capitals and in Washington, D.C. The lesson of the dead children in Newtown, Connecticut, the gun massacre that so moved President Obama that he insisted a moral turning point had been reached and then proceeded to do nothing about it, is that politicians in America, generally, don't really give a shit about all the children killed by guns every year. They don't care about children in the Middle East killed in American drone strikes, either. President Trump doesn't care about all the children drinking unsafe water in Puerto Rico as I write this.
This bill heading to the state Senate on Tuesday and possibly to Governor Walker's desk, offers further proof, to me at least, that Republicans are stupid.
Vic Neptune
In this essay, I will quote from an Associated Press article published November 3, 2017, by McClatchy DC Bureau. The piece is headlined, "Assembly eliminates Wisconsin's minimum hunting age"
The word "eliminates" can mean remove or get rid of, but it can also mean to murder someone. An atmosphere of eventual probable human deaths suffuses the bill passed by the Republican majority Wisconsin state Assembly.
"Residents of any age, no matter how young, could legally hunt in Wisconsin..." As if to pound the idea into our heads with a hammer, the article's author wrote, redundantly, "...of any age, no matter how young..." as if to write, "Do you understand what this means? Do you perceive the lunacy of this bill?"
The current law allows twelve year olds to purchase hunting licenses "or hunt with a gun unless they're participating in a mentored hunt. Children as young as 10 can hunt under that program."
Ten. Is that not irresponsible enough? Apparently not.
"The Republican-authored bill would allow people of any age to participate in a mentored hunt, effectively letting anyone hunt. The measure also would eliminate [that word again] the requirement that a hunter and mentor have only one weapon between them."
More guns, of course, will mean less chances of bloody accidents.
Here's something I didn't know: "Thirty-four other states already have no minimum hunting age, according to the Wisconsin Hunters' Rights Coalition."
In a country politically warped by the NRA, it's fitting that there are hunters who felt the need to put together an organization called the Wisconsin Hunters' Rights Coalition. Didn't they realize that American gun owners are already untouched by moral justice? It's similar to how White men feel like their rights as American citizens are constantly threatened by Affirmative Action, illegal immigration, feminism, the Black Lives Matter movement, and political correctness.
The bill passed 57-32, with three Republicans voting against it, while four dipshit Democrats voted in favor.
Sensible arguments against the bill included the idea that little kids armed with guns would put other hunters at risk of being shot.
Democratic Representative Katrina Shankland "warned Republicans that younger children can't pay attention to their mentors. 'To allow...a toddler, a two-year-old (to carry a gun), and I'm not being hyperbolic because someone will allow it, is dangerous...Other hunters in the woods are not going to choose to get hurt by a child with a rifle.'"
Her statement, strange as it is--the idea of someone not choosing to be shot is a weird way of putting it--reflects the reasonable idea that letting a small child have a gun is akin to letting a small child drive a car, or vote, or join the Army. The last case, actually, is practiced in many parts of the world, with its hundreds of thousands of child soldiers, all armed with various weapons, so far along in violent experience, beyond Representative Shankland's hand-wringing about little Wisconsin kids using adult killing tools.
Who is the bill's author?
"[Republican] Rep. Rob Stafsholt of New Richmond, told reporters...that not every hunter uses high-powered rifles and he believed he was capable of handling a .22 caliber rifle when he was eight years old."
Therefore, logically, every eight year old can handle a .22! What's the problem?
During the Assembly floor debate, Stafsholt said "...that his daughter killed a bear at age 11 but [he] held her back from bear hunting when she was 10 because she wasn't ready...We're returning the choice to the parent."
The bill goes to the state Senate, it will probably be voted on next Tuesday, and if it passes, Governor Scott Walker must sign the bill to make it law. I wonder what the Governor, a man well-known for his idiotic, destructive, bone-headed choices will do if the Baby Face Killers bill comes to his desk?
That thirty-four states already have no minimum hunting age means that a majority of Americans probably don't even think this kind of legislation is batshit crazy.
Representative Rob Stafsholt argues disingenuously that "not every hunter uses high-powered rifles," making it seem as if every "responsible" parent, or mentor, will have their child or charge use small caliber weapons (which also kill and maim). He apparently assumes that Wisconsin parents who love the shit out of their guns and who endlessly defend their misunderstanding of the Second Amendment will never supply their children under the age of ten with high-powered weaponry. I recall footage of a young Texas girl receiving instructions at a shooting range. Her teacher was (note the past tense) a former soldier with a typical crewcut and camo outfit, showing the girl how to fire a machine gun. Being a kid lacking the proper strength to use such a weapon, the gun's kick aimed it upwards at the man's head, killing him instantly. Lesson over.
I realize I'm spoiling the fun of imagining children under the age of ten stalking around in the Wisconsin woods, armed with weapons legally bestowed upon them by Assemblymen and -women who work on behalf of the National Rifle Association, an organization that corrupts our willfully greedy leaders in state capitals and in Washington, D.C. The lesson of the dead children in Newtown, Connecticut, the gun massacre that so moved President Obama that he insisted a moral turning point had been reached and then proceeded to do nothing about it, is that politicians in America, generally, don't really give a shit about all the children killed by guns every year. They don't care about children in the Middle East killed in American drone strikes, either. President Trump doesn't care about all the children drinking unsafe water in Puerto Rico as I write this.
This bill heading to the state Senate on Tuesday and possibly to Governor Walker's desk, offers further proof, to me at least, that Republicans are stupid.
Vic Neptune
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)