Thursday, March 31, 2016

Insane Law of the Day

Senate OKs church, concealed carry, nullification bill

Senate OK's the what, now?

The Senate on Tuesday passed the "Mississippi Church Protection Act" to allow armed security in churches. . .

. . . Concealed carry without a permit. . .

. . . and to provide for attempts to nullify federal regulations and executive orders that would limit gun rights.

You know, it started out seeming sorta semi-sane. If churches want to have security guards, that doesn't seem so weird. I mean what with all the crimes that take place in Mississippi churches these days. Like, for instance. . . um. . . I'm sure there are many examples. But, this being Mississippi, it got baboon-ass crazy pretty damn quick there.

But I'm sure that before passing this bill, there was probably a lot of reasoned debate.

There was much debate. Sen. Hillman Frazier, D-Jackson, waved a sheathed sword and quoted Bible Scripture as he argued against passage of the bill. Proponents also quoted Scripture, and even the Five Man Electrical Band — "signs, signs, everywhere signs" — as they fended off an amendment to require churches with armed security to post signs.

Quoting Scripture.

Quoting Scripture and waving around swords. Seriously. Mississippi state senators make laws for their state using the same methods as a rabbinical Talmudic debate. Plus with swords!

Anyway, what all does this law do?

The bill would allow churches to create security programs and designate and train members to carry concealed weapons. It would provide criminal and legal protections to those serving as church security.

Okay. So if a church wants to have a member be an armed security guard, instead of having that person go through a whole training/licensing procedure, Reverend Snakehandler can just authorize him?

Say, Bob, you're our most responsible member. How'd you like to start packing heat during Sunday Vespers?

And why shouldn't a member of the clergy be allowed to start issuing gun permits? Why shouldn't a man of the cloth stand in place of a government official?  I don't see how any harm could possibly come from merging religious and governmental functions. 

You get a gun! And you get a gun! Look under your pews, everybody! Everyone gets a gun!

Oh, and if Cletus thinks that the guy passing the offering plate might be holding it in a threatening way and opens fire, he's got "criminal and legal protections" just like a real police! Because, after all, he's been deputized by Rev. Hornswaggle and that's just as good as being a for-real cop.

The bill also would allow concealed carry in a holster without a permit in Mississippi, expanding a measure passed last year that allowed concealed carry without a permit in a purse, satchel or briefcase, and another recent law that allows open carry in public.

Of course. Because these assholes won't be satisfied until every part of this country looks like the fucking OK Corral.

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Bullshit of the Day

So, in response to something awful that Donald Trump said yesterday, a group called "March for Life" issued this press release.
Which is bullshit.

No Pro-Life American Advocates Punishment for Abortion

Um, since when?

“Mr. Trump’s comment today is completely out of touch with the pro-life movement and even more with women who have chosen such a sad thing as abortion,” said Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund. “Being pro-life means wanting what is best for the mother and the baby. Women who choose abortion often do so in desperation and then deeply regret such a decision. No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion.

Okay, I don't know you and I don't know anything about your organization, so I will assume that what you say in the above paragraph is an honest representation of your particular stance on abortion and punishment. But you are honestly going to sit there and say that "No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion?"

Have you met any other "pro-lifers?"

It seems to be the position of the "pro-life" movement in general that abortion is the moral equivalent of infanticide.

They make no moral distinction between aborting a zygote and murdering a toddler.

And you're going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that people who believe that a woman has just murdered her own child would not want to see that woman punished? None of them would? Really?

Here's a discussion I found on some website called IGN or something:

What should the punishment be for getting an abortion if it's outlawed nationwide?

Discussion in 'The Vestibule' started by vegas133, Today at 12:40 PM.
Should the woman pay a fine? Go to jail? Get charged with first degree murder? What sort of punishment fits the crime moving foward to you if abortion suddenly becomes illegal?

First response:

An eye for an eye muthafucka

Other responses included:

Death or life imprisonment, obviously.

Same as murder 1. And miscarriage should be charged as negligent homicide.

So, obviously your press release is a bunch of bullshit. Of course many "pro-lifers" want women who have abortions to be jailed or executed. Of course they do. How could they not? How could you possibly say "abortion is murder," and then turn around and say "that murderer should not be punished at all." It makes no sense.

Hell, this comment was posted on your own website as a response to this press release:

Well, I am American, I am pro life with 12 kids to prove it, and I think some type of punishment for abortion is a good thing. Abortion is murder. To say that no pro lifer supports punishment for murder is beyond ludicrous.

Maybe you don't support punishment for abortions, maybe your organization doesn't. But you are a small part of the "pro-life community" or whatever. It's like me saying "I hate walnuts. No middle-aged white male doesn't hate walnuts." It's total bullshit.

Thursday, March 24, 2016

What Happened?

I saw this at the grocery store checkout line the other day:

And all I could think was "you answered your own question. HE happened to this party."

All the insanity, all the facts-optional, post-reason nonsense of today's Republican Party begins with Ronald Reagan.

He's the one who told people that math and logic and common sense be damned, you could cut taxes, increase military spending, and balance the budget. Did it make sense? No. Did it work? Not even close. Do they still believe it? They sure seem to. And they seem to believe it not because they really think it to be true, but because they really would like it to be true. The disdain for basic facts, information and knowledge is the baby birthed by Ronald Reagan.

As is the demonizing of the weak and powerless as the true source of the nation's ills. Now it's Muslims and Latino immigrants, in the 1980's it was the "welfare queen." The myth of the "queen" who pulled up to the welfare office in her Cadillac and that of the "young buck" buying steak on the taxpayers' dime were powerful images that Reagan used to vilify the poor. How different is today's image of the Muslim "radical jihadists" or the Mexican "rapists" swarming across our defenseless borders? Both are equally cynical attempts to point at the most vulnerable segments of society and shout "It's all their fault!"

Anyone who was alive in the 1980's should recognize this. Apparently, Time magazine reporter Peter Wehner  must not have been around back then.

The Party of Reagan Is No More

Once known for common sense, the GOP gives way to Donald Trump

With the death on March 6 of a dignified First Lady. . .

Pictured: The most dignified way of mocking poor people

Once know for common sense? Not since Ike left the White House!

. . . both Ronald and Nancy Reagan have now passed into history. Increasingly, it appears, the same can be said of the party they took such care in shaping.
The most obvious evidence of this is the rise of Donald Trump, a man who is the antithesis of so much that Ronald Reagan stood for: intellectual depth and philosophical consistency, respect for ideas and elevated rhetoric, civility and personal grace. The fact that Trump is the favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination shows how far the GOP has drifted from the animating spirit of the most consequential and revered Republican since Abraham Lincoln. 
I'm sorry. Remind me again which of us is on Mount Rushmore?

For those of us open to such self-examination–to understanding what conditions gave rise to Trump and Trumpism–the explanation starts with certain harmful habits. These include employing apocalyptic rhetoric, like the assertion that America is on the verge of becoming Nazi Germany. Such reckless language is evidence of fevered and disordered minds and paves the way for Trump’s incendiary rhetoric.

 Yes, sensible Republicans have always warned that we were on the verge of becoming Soviet Russia! Totally different!

There’s another explanation as well–political and intellectual sclerosis, by which I mean the failure to apply enduring principles to changing circumstances. This is something that Reagan did quite well. He developed a policy agenda–on taxes, monetary policy and regulations–that addressed the problems of his era, including high inflation, high interest rates and high unemployment.

Reagan's enduring principle on taxes was to cut them. Then raise them. Every year after 1981. Never back to the levels where they needed to be to avoid enormous deficits, but still. 
But, sure, on other issues, Reagan stuck doggedly to his principles. Like, for instance, anti-Communism. This admirable stance led him to admirably arm the Mujahidin (better known as the Taliban and al Queda), admirably support the brutal, murderous dictatorship in Guatemala, and admirably sell missles to Iran in order to fund Central American terrorists because they were in opposition to a government deemed too "leftist."

Ronald Reagan’s heirs have been decidedly less skilled at doing so.
One reason for this is that Reagan was so successful.

Successful? Mr. "fiscal responsibility" left us up to our ears in debt. His blood-soaked foreign policy made the world much less stable. How do you define success?

Anyway, let's just skip ahead to the ending.

And just as important, it means recapturing the spirit of Reagan–making our Republican Party a welcoming party once again, inclusive and open, united in its commitment to American ideals, hopeful about the future and attractive to working-class Americans.

Inclusive and open? You really think that under Reagan, the Republican Party was "inclusive and open?" Reagan was so hostile to the LGBT community that he wouldn't lift a finger, spend a dime, or even say a word about the AIDS epidemic. Reagan began his campaign in  Mississippi with a speech touting "states' rights," a term well understood in Mississippi and the rest of the old Confederacy as meaning "we can treat our blacks however we want and no damn federal guv'mint is gunna tell us otherwise." As previously mentioned, Reagan often invoked the stereotype of black folks growing fat and lazy on welfare. Do you think African Americans found the GOP particularly "inclusive and open" in the 1980's?

Look, I get it. You're scared of Trump. You're scared that he's going to bring your party down in flames. And he might. But don't pretend that Trump sprung fully formed from the forehead of Rupert Murdoch. He's a direct descendant of your sainted Ronald Reagan. You own this, all of you.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

She's Back!

This can't possibly be true, can it?


Angle to make another bid for Reid’s Senate seat

Not Sharon Angle?
Sharon "2nd Amendment remedies" Angle?


Reno conservative Sharron Angle, who lost a high-profile bid to oust Democratic Sen. Harry Reid in 2010, filed paperwork Friday to make an encore run for his soon-to-be-vacant U.S. Senate seat.

What in the world would make Sharon Angle, the world's most obtuse angle, think that she should run for Senate again?

"It was the clamor of the people," Angle told The Associated Press on Friday about why she decided to run. 

 Oh, the clamor! Of course, the clamor. The clamor was deafening. We hadn't seen this kind of clamor since Beatlemania!

"People would walk up to me in the grocery store. People would say, 'I sure hope you run.' People all over the U.S."

All over the US? What are you doing in grocery stores all over the US?
But anyway, sure. People all over the US were clamoring for Sharon Angle to make another quixotic run at the Senate. Well, mostly these people:

God, I miss Jon Stewart!

Anyway. . .

Angle tweeted her announcement Friday afternoon just after 4 p.m., writing that “2nd Amendment remedies will be my solution to EVERYTHING."

No, she did not!
This is the Onion, right?

Okay, I searched for this tweet and did finally find it. It's from an account called "Angle's Bunker" which I think is probably a parody account, so it looks like the Las Vegas Sun might have gotten fooled this time. There are no fact-checkers anymore.

But anyway, the important thing to know here is that Sharon's back, baby! And just as nutty as ever!

"The people know who I am — they know I am the anti-establishment candidate," she told AP on Friday. "I'm counting on the grassroots one more time."

Yeah, that's the problem. People know who you are.