Senate Cowards fuck us again.

The shameful spectacle that is our United States Senate hit another new low. After being arm-twisted into pretending to consider modest gun-law reforms, four bills were proposed and all four died like a child facing an armed madman with an AK.  Were they voted down? No. Not exactly. None of them even came to a vote because they couldn't get 60 votes for cloture.

Is there any more pathetic scene than the party which holds the majority filibustering their own bills?
You're in the majority, any bill you don't like you can vote down. The majority party should NEVER have to filibuster anything!

The only possible reason for the majority to filibuster a bill is that they know good and damn well that their constituents want this and they want to reject it without having to stand up and vote nay on the record. These craven, crawling cowards know that the American people want sensible restrictions on gun ownership but they are too afraid of losing their A+ scores from the vile NRA to actually represent the people who elected them. And they don't have the balls to stand up, look their constituents in the eye and say "here's why we're fucking you over. Here's why we would rather let mass murders continue to happen on a daily basis than make any effort to try and stem the flow of blood in our nation's streets."

There is a list of the sick cowards here: http://iammyfather.tumblr.com/post/146259409823/vote-these-fuckers-out ifyou have any doubt whether your Senator was among them. (Hint: If there is an R after their name, then yes.) But how about some recognition for two Senators in particular who saw the epidemic of senseless slaughter and said "hmm. . .what if I could come up with a way to make it worse?"

First: Chuck Grassley. When I saw that one of the gun control bills had been proposed by Grassley, I had a glimmer of hope. Stupid, stupid hope. I thought for a second "have we maybe finally reached such a tipping point that even a kook like Grassley is finally acknowledging that we need some restrictions on guns?" Haha, no.
Here's what Grassley proposes.

SEC. _01. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Protecting Communities and 
     Preserving the Second Amendment Act of 2016''.

So right away you know this is bullshit, because can you really do both? Protect communities AND preserve the right-wing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Probably not.

Then there's a whole bunch of mind-numbing legal crap, but the wonderful Igor Volsky sums up the effects of the amendment as:

"It would allow an individual to regain the ability to buy a gun immediately upon release from a period of INVOLUNTARY PSYCHIATRIC TREATMENT. It would also allow veterans who suffer from serious mental illness and are at risk of suicide to legally buy guns (emphasis added. By me.)

So, sure, why should having been locked up in a god damn insane asylum keep you from owning weapons of death? And if our brave young men and women who were damaged in the service of their country want to kill themselves, who are we to try and stop them? All in all, a real piece of shit amendment from a real piece of shit excuse for a human being.

Then there's Jon Cornyn. Volsky sums up Cornyn's amanedment thusly:

"A suspected terrorist will be able to purchase a gun unless the Attorney General can prove in court that the suspect has already or will actually commit an act of terrorism. The accused individual must have an opportunity to contest the evidence against him/her and present their own. All this must occur within 3 business days."

Jeezus, where to even begin?
First of all, it's nice to see a right-wing Republican suddenly concerned with due process for terrorism suspects. Although, not those being held in indefinite detention in Guantanamo, or being tortured in CIA black sites, or popping up on the "okay to kill with drone strike" list. No, only for those who want to buy guns. Then suddenly, Cornyn is some kind of civil libertarian.
Also, if the Attorney General could prove that the person HAD committed an act of terrorism, that person would be in some prison we've never heard of being waterboarded and God knows what else. And it is of course completely impossible to prove that someone WILL commit an act of terrorism. Or any act. It's not possible to prove that I'm going to finish typing this sentence. So basically, anyone who in in the US and outside of prison walls can have any gun they want. Because Freedom, I guess?

And this is what is being proposed NOW. In the wake of our nation's worst ever mass shooting. This is what those fuckers came up with, more guns in the hands of the mentally disturbed and terrorism suspects. That's the response. To make things even worse.

 Apparently, even the Senate Republicans, a vile and loathsome group that includes such walking nightmares as Ted Cruz and James Inhofe, couldn't bring themselves to vote on these, that's how disgusting these two amendments are.

So, we're back to what is somehow, inexplicably, miserably, heartbreakingly considered "normal" in the US. Innocent people being mowed down like Australians at Galipoli  is just considered one of those unavoidable unpleasantries by the people who are actually in a position to do something about it. While the rest of us plead for some, any, effort to mitigate the epidemic, our "leaders" kowtow to the death merchants, send "thoughts and prayers" to the victims and shout FREEDOMMMM!!! all the way to the bank. It's sick and disgusting and it doesn't look to be changing anytime soon.

Dick Of The Day

Congressman Steven Palazzo (R- Miss)

It all started out very nicely. US Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announce that the Navy would be naming a ship after my Congressman, civil rights icon John Lewis.

 Not the most flattering picture, but you get the idea how respected this man is in our district.

At a ship-naming ceremony in January, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced, "Naming this ship after John Lewis is a fitting tribute to a man who has, from his youth, been at the forefront of progressive social and human rights movements in the U.S., directly shaping both the past and future of our nation."

So nobody could possibly have any problem with this, right?


Bill would strip John Lewis of naval ship namesake

June 15, 2016 | Filed in: John Lewis. 

 

 Wait, what? 

Who could possibly object to this?

It doesn't cost anything, we're building the damn ship anyway. 

Who is  trying to stop this?

Sponsored by Mississippi Republican Steven Palazzo, the legislation would bar the Navy from naming vessels after lawmakers who have not served as president or in the military.

 You know, I could maybe, MAYBE believe that this bill was something other than a huge piece of racist dickestry had it limited ships to being named after people who had served in the Navy, or in the military at all, but no. He has to include "or they were president" so we don't have to re-name the SS Gipper.

 

 So, basically ships can only be named after guys that the right-wing considers admirable. And civil rights heroes are definitely not showing up in that category.


According to WaPo:

The ship naming process has been a hot-button issue in some GOP circles in the recent past. (Secretary of the Navy Ray) Mabus, who was appointed by President Obama in 2009, has been criticized for bending traditions to name ships for figures including civil rights activist Cesar Chavez and former Rep. Gabriel Giffords (D-Ariz.), who survived an assassination attempt at a 2011 event in her district.

But of course, Palazzo's bill has nothing to do with his being offended by the idea of honoring Civil Rights Legends like Chavez or Lewis, or someone whose name has become synonymous with the need to do something to prevent gun violence.

Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.) said believes the naming of ships should be reserved for former presidents, war heroes and people who have served in the military, which neither Lewis (D-Ga.) nor Levin (D-Mich.) did.
“My amendment has nothing — absolutely zero — to do with John Lewis or any other member of Congress,” Palazzo said in a statement.

"It's nothing personal against John Lewis,"  he probably did not add, "it's just the idea of honoring a black person. . .ooogh! Am I right?"

So congratulations, Mississippi Congressman Steven Palazzo,

What I Should've Said

Some idiot actually sent me this message on the Twitter.

The guns do not Kill it's People That Kill. What part of that don't you understand? https://t.co/0gIKokFUKg

— DR. Greene / ROHK (@MistervDanny) June 13, 2016

At the time I couldn't think of a more clever response than "you're an idiot," also I would have only had 140 characters, but here's what I should have said.


Guns don't kill? Then why do we give them to soldiers? Why don't we send our troops into battle with knives and clubs instead of automatic rifles? Hell, why not just send them out into battle empty-handed and tell them to strangle the enemy?

Could it possibly be because guns, and especially assault rifles, are the easiest away to kill people? Especially large numbers of people? Because maybe if someone attacks another person with a knife or a stick or a rock that person could either defend himself or run away? And you can't outrun a bullet? Or a barrage of bullets? Is it maybe because automatic and/or semi-automatic assault rifles  make it possible to kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time, even if those people are trying desperately to flee?



Oh, and also -- You're an idiot.

This Man could be Vice-President

I mean, he won't be.
But he could.
It is actually possible.

“NEWT GINGRICH: Let me go a step further, because remember, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Orlando involve American citizens. We’re going to ultimately declare a war on Islamic supremacists and we’re going to say, if you pledge allegiance to ISIS, you are a traitor and you have lost your citizenship. And we’re going take much tougher positions. In the late 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt was faced with Nazi penetration in the United States. We originally created the House Un-American Activities Committee to go after Nazis. We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis and we made it illegal to help the Nazis. We’re going to presently have to go take the similar steps here.”

Yes, Newt Gingrich thinks the House UnAmerican Activities Committee should be resurrected.  One of the most shameful chapters in our nation's history, Joe McCarthy's institutional witch hunt, is something that the man who was recently Speaker of the God Damn House of Representatives of the United States of America thinks of as some sort of positive.

have you no shame, Newt? At long last, have you no shame?

Ha! Just kidding. Of course you don't!

No Thoughts, No Prayers

I have nothing. There are no words. What could anyone say that wasn't said after the last mass shooting, or the one before, or the one before. There is nothing to be said.


Except that we all have blood on our hands. Because we, as a society, have opted to accept mass murder as just one of those things that happen every so often and can't be avoided. Like hurricanes or earthquakes. And it's not just the obvious offenders. Not just the slavering jackals of the NRA and its sister gun fetish groups.
And it's not just the politicians who cravenly cower before the gun lobby lest they lose the votes of the supposed "moderates."
Not even the right-wing politicians who wholly, eagerly embrace the insanity of gun culture. Who decided that a military-grade assault rifle was the new flag lapel pin, the new de rigueur accessory for proving one's "real America" bona fides.

Not even the supposedly pro-gun-control President Obama who proposed no meaningful gun regulations after Aurora, or Virginia Tech, not even after a sitting Congresswoman from his own party was shot in the head. It took the slaughter of small children in Connecticut for him to even propose the weak tea gun laws that he did, which of course died on Capitol Hill.

No, it's all of us, because we allowed it. When our state governments expanded open carry "rights," we did not vote them out. When Congress refused to close the gun show loophole, we did not start recall proceedings. When Washington allowed the assault rifle ban to expire, we did not take to the streets demanding its reinstatement.

Every time some monster mows down innocent Americans, we take too Facebook and change our profile pic. We log on to Twitter and re-tweet the hashtag naming the latest city to suffer beedless bloodshed. And we send "thoughts and prayers," which do nothing. Why are we not flooding into the National Mall? Why are we not surrounding the Capitol building demanding change? We now change is possible. Australia gave us the blueprint twenty years ago. But instead, we've learned to numb ourselves, to shrug it off, to accept the spectre of looming violence as inevitable. No other country in the world does this. THESE SLAUGHTERS ONLY HAPPEN IN THE USA. And, as a society, we've chosen to do nothing.

So I don't want to hear any more "thoughts and prayers." They do nothing. It's worse than nothing, because it's a way of pretending that you've done something. And I especially don't want to hear "thoughts and prayers" from Congressmen and Senators and governors and other people who are in a position to actually do something. It's the worst kind of hypocrisy. It's like spitting in the face of the victims and their families if you personally had a chance to vote to keep lunatics from having the ability to slaughter large numbers of people and you chose to side with the grim reaper.
So fuck you, Paul Ryan. Fuck you, Marco Rubio, Fuck you Gov. Rick Scott and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. There's a special place in Hell for all of you, right next to Omar Mateen.