Gun Nuts win again. Normal people can suck it, apparently.

President Obama better get it in gear. He only has about 6 months left to seize everyone's guns and send gun nuts to re-education camps, and he is really falling behind.

News Politics

Campus carry takes effect today

Texas college campuses are now going to be required to allow students to carry concealed firearms on campus. Because no one could be trusted more to handle weapons responsibly than college students.

 

Quick! Someone get this man a 9 mil!

 I've been in a college classroom where the professor had to eject a student for being disruptive. I can't imagine how that would have ended if that student had been packing. 

No, YER kicked out of MY class!

(Pro tip: Google image search for "Drunk Fratboys" gets you a lot of gay porn!)

Oh, and the law goes into effect on August 1, the anniversary of the infamous Texas University Tower shooting.

Remember me. . . with more guns! On campus. . . in Texas. . .

But, according to Texas State representative Allen Fletcher, that's really no big thing.

Allen Fletcher is sick of people bringing up the fact that campus carry becomes law on the 50th anniversary of the UT Tower shooting. 
This wasn't some conspiracy to rub a new gun law in survivors' faces, he says. Aug. 1 is the effective date of many laws, and the implementation of campus carry was even delayed to that day to give schools more time to work on their plans.
"I'm like, 'Are you kidding me?'

You can always tell a true statesman by the use of phrases like "I'm like, 'Are you kidding me?'"

"I'm like, 'Are you kidding me?' We've been working on this for years, and for the implementation to fall on that day — that had never even crossed somebody's mind," Fletcher says. "I'm not a young man, but it's a long, long time since that happened, and I haven't thought about it for a long time."

"I haven't thought about that since the last time I needed a little help jerking off!" he did not add.

 

I'm guessing this lady has thought about it more recently.

For professors worried about the new law, says Fletcher, they're just going to have to deal with it. UT-Austin's campus carry plans allow professors to ban guns in their offices, a deal Fletcher said will not stand.
"A private citizen will say, 'You can't tell me I can't have my gun in your office.' And then that student will win, because the law is very clear," he said.

The law is very clear in its prioritizing the hurt feelings of inadequate gun-toters over the safety concerns of professors who just would like to do their jobs without having to constantly wonder "is this the one?  Is this the guy whose going to kill me because he doesn't like his grade?"

But a handful of UT professors have sued for even more control over gun-free zones, in the hopes that a court will say educators can ban them from classrooms, too. The worries, Fletcher said, are "much ado about nothing."

"Hell, I'm like sixty years old, I won't be setting foot on any college campuses, I'm not worried at all!"

If anyone is capable of blowing this, it's Hillary!

You know, it should be a no-brainer. Any Democrat with a pulse should be able to mop up the floor with Donald Trump. But if there is any politician capable of blowing this, it's Hillary Clinton.

At some point in our recent history, the two parties absorbed opposite lessons. The Republicans learned to play to their base. keep 'em all wound up and scared, whether it's the fear of dirty hippies with their sex and drugs,

I don't know what that stuff is, but I bet it's smokable! 

or fear of Commies in our midst,

or this terrifying scene,

you keep your base scared to death and tell them that you're coming to save them if only they vote those darn liberals out of the way.

Democrats somehow learned the opposite lesson. Ignore your base. Hell, actively distance yourself from your base. Deny them thrice before the cock crows twice and "triangulate" by staking out a position just a bit to the left of wherever the GOP is at the moment and try to capture that elusive "moderate voter."

Look, a soccer mom!

And no one has internalized this lesson more than Hillary Clinton. At a time when she needs to try to appease Bernie supporters and show the progressive wing of the party that she shares at least some of their values and concerns, she extends to them, not an open hand, but a middle finger in the form of Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Fairly or not (fairly, I think), Wasserman Schultz is seen as public enemy #1 by a lot of Berners, who are furious that she (allegedly) colluded with HRC to defeat Senator Sanders. Schultz became such a distraction that she was forced to step down as head of the DNC. And was IMMEDIATELY hired by Hillary Rodham Clinton. She might as well have said to Bernie's supporters "oh, you hate Debbie? You see her as the personification of corruption? Then I'm with her! Fuck all y'all!"

She has clearly staked out the position that she neither needs nor wants the votes of real progressives because she's confident that enough Republican voters will desert their party because of Trump and vote for her that she can win without us.

Then, as if to drive home the point, she invites Democrat/ Republican/whatever he is now  weasel Mike Bloomberg to speak on her behalf at the convention, trying to lure more centrist conservatives to her campaign.

Is this going to work? It might. Only because Donald Trump is the most loathsome and frightening nominee of a major party we've ever seen. And it god damn well better work, because she god damn well needs to win this thing.

Which means that we need to vote for her. Because she is the lesser of two evils. And no one wants to vote for the lesser of two evils, but when your only legitimate choices are greater evil and lesser evil, you have a moral obligation to choose the lesser. And just a common sense interest in having the lesser evil.

If you are given the choice of a punch in the stomach or a knife in the heart, you choose the punch in the stomach. And no, you're not going to enjoy the punch in the stomach, and no, you didn't deserve a punch in the stomach, but the alternative was so much worse that you'd be a fool not to choose the stomach punch.

Thank you, sir may I have another?

Okay, here's a better analogy. Suppose you are convicted of a crime which you did not commit. And the judge offers you a choice of prison time or community service. And you say "well, I don't deserve any punishment, having been falsely convicted, and I won't dignify this miscarriage of  justice by choosing either undeserved penalty. I'll just let you decide, Judge!" You'd have to be an idiot to do that, right?

Tell us again about how you stood up to that lousy judge! Then we're both gonna fuck you.

So, yes, you do have to vote for Hillary. At least if you live in a swing state. And not because she "deserves" your vote or should be "rewarded" for various misdeeds by receiving your vote. It's not about her. It's about you. And me. It's about us and whether or not wee have to spend the next four years being governed by a childish buffoon with fascist leanings. We're going to have to put up with Hillary for at least four years to avoid that fate. And if we have any sense,  we'll have four years of grassroots organizing to find a primary challenger for 2020. But for now, we have to get behind Hillary, because she's pursuing a really dumb strategy. And if there's one politician capable of losing to Trump, it's Hillary Rodham Clinton.

whiny baby of the day

Michelle Obama said a thing. So naturally, conservative morons are finding a reason to be all butthurt about it.

Home Talk John Gibson

THE HOUSE THAT SLAVES BUILT

Michelle Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention has been widely praised as the highlight (so far) of the convention.
No mention of ISIS, but no surprise. Why would she? After all, it’s the bloody handprint on her husband’s record.

Oh. I didn't realize Michelle Obama had married George W. Bush!

“Every morning I wake up in a house that was built by slaves.”
I’ll admit I find the line aggravating. But not for the first time; she has delivered the line before.
Why am I annoyed? Not because the statement doesn’t have some element of truth. Was the White House was built by slaves? Sort of. Yes.

But you're going to find a reason to complain about it anyway, right?

When Politifact came to this conclusion–“We rate it true”– it glossed over this from the White House Historical Association:
“Enslaved people quarried and cut the rough stone that was later dressed and laid by Scottish masons to erect the walls of the president’s house. The slaves joined a workforce that included local white laborers and artisans from Maryland and Virginia, as well as immigrants from Ireland, Scotland, and other European nations.”

So. . . . because not all of the labor was performed by slaves. . . . um. . . what is the objection exactly?

Pffft. Those white people hardly did anything. Slaves built the White House. At least, that’s the view of the First Lady.

Ohhhhhh, I get it now. The problem is that white people don't get enough credit.

Whenn the First Lady mentioned the FACT that slave labor was used in the construction of the White House, she should have said “Every morning I wake up in a house that was built by slaves, in part. Also by Irish and Scottish workers and local white folks." That would have made the point about how far America has come in dealing with its racism problem much more poignant!

A couple relevant facts: it was 1792. The land for the District of Columbia was ceded to the federal government by two slave states. Slaves lived in the area and were employed in building much of the capitol.
What, then, is the purpose of appropriating the construction of the White House to black slave workers, neglecting to mention other workers?

Um, maybe because the slave labor is the only relevant part of the story? It's like if I tell you the story about the time I met NFL star Dwight Clark and you say, "yes, but don't forget there were other people in that restaurant! What were the names of the other customers? Who were the restaurant employees? Why leave out all the non-football playing people in the story?' It's because the only two people that matter in the story are me and Dwight Clark (who could not have been nicer, by the way. Real class act!)





Why get bogged down in mentioning all the other people who are not pertinent to the epic tale of the time I met Dwight Clark?

Mrs. Obama’s obsession with pointing an accusing finger at the “slave built” White House looks as though it is intended to pour salt in the wound of slavery, to upset today’s African Americans. To remind black Americans today that two centuries ago people in this country were enslaved is to restate the obvious, and her aim to besmirch the image of the White House is callous and calculating.

Yes, if Michelle Obama hadn't mentioned it, everyone would totally have forgotten about slavery by now. And "today's African Americans" would have nothing to be upset about. Except maybe that they keep getting murdered by police who keep getting away with it, and maybe the fact that commenters on your website (and others) keep referring to our first black president as an ape, monkey, or worse.

And obviously, Mrs Obama's point in mentioning this totally true fact was not to point proudly to how far we've come in the last 2 centuries, but to "besmirch the image of the White House?" Whatever that means?

Also, how could it possibly be besmirched any more than it has been by some of its previous residents?

Weirdest Moment of the RNC

Of course there were a lot of weird moments at this years RNC shitshow. From "Doctor" Ben Carson trying to link Hillary Clinton with Lucifer to Melanoma Trump apparently getting pranked by her speechwriters, including ending her speech by getting Rick-Rolled. 

There was the duck dynasty idiot telling the assembled dullards dolts  and dunces  that Donald Trump would "have their back," which is one of those expressions that sounds nice but doesn't really mean anything, and what meaning it has doesn't really fit a guy who has made a career out of stiffing contractors and swindling investors.

There was some screamy minister leading the crowd in chanting "All Lives Matter!" even though he's black, then saying he dreamed of a society where education and good jobs replaced mass incarceration as if he had no idea whose convention he was addressing.


There was this creepiness:






 I didn't have the stomach to watch much of the debacl, but I think the oddest moment for me, of the odd moments I did see was the speech by Scott "Chachi" Baio.  I mean, first of all, what the hell was he even doing there? Do people even remember who he was? And it's not like he's some sort of activist or politically involved or intelligent or employable or anything. But he did manage the oddest line of the entire tiny part of the convention I managed to sit through. He said that Donald Trump was
 “a man doing this from the goodness of his heart and genuinely wants to help.”

Donald Trump and "the goodness of his heart," That's two phrases I never thought I'd hear in the same sentence. It's like one of those things that you just assume has never been spoken by human tongue like "No, that's too many French fries," or "boy, I can't get enough of that Katy Perry!" or "Madam, please! Remove your mouth from my genitalia at once!"

How did Scott Baio get invited to speak? From what I understand, not only were all the speaking slots filled, but there were dozens of prominent Republicans begging to be asked to appear. They even had to bump Tim Tebow after he said that he had never agreed to appear and would not do so if asked. So who didn't make the cut?
My sources tell me that the following prominent dignitaires who were bumped, including:


This Chair:




This inanimate carbon rod:








Jim Carrey's butt





Snidely Whiplash




Patrick Starr



And Cthulu





 

The Itchy and Scratchy School of Journalism

Whilst I was away, this headline appeared in the USA Today "newspaper."

Trump, Clinton both threaten free press: Column

Carol E. Lee and Jeff Mason 9:50 a.m. EDT July 14, 2016

I know Trump has stated that if elected he will loosen the libel laws to allow him to sue reporters who write negative stories about him. That seems like a pretty serious threat. But in what way has HRC threatened the Fourth Estate?

Well, let's see.
Oh, first of all, in the interests of full disclosure, let me once again state that I am no fan of Hillary Clinton. I have a lot of issues with her, but next to Trump, she looks like George Freaking Washington.

Anyway, let's see how the comparison shakes out.

The public’s right to know is infringed if certain reporters are banned from a candidate's events because the candidate doesn’t like a story they have written or broadcast, as Donald Trump has done.

Okay. You'll get no argument here.

Similarly, refusing to regularly answer questions from reporters in a press conference, as Hillary Clinton has, deprives the American people of hearing from their potential commander-in-chief in a format that is critical to ensuring he or she is accountable for policy positions and official acts.

Oh, sure because that's totally the same. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . wait, what?

"She doesn't hold enough press conferences" is the equivalent of "he bans reporters who dare criticize him?" In what universe?


This is just the latest example of what I like to call "Itchy and Scratchy journalism."

If you've never seen "Itchy and Scratchy," the cartoon-within-a-cartoon featured on the Simpsons, it goes something like this. There's a cat and a mouse. Each episode begins with the cat either minding his own business or trying to be friends with the mouse. Then the mouse murders the cat in some spectacularly gruesome and sadistic way.

 But the opening title sequence of each episode is this:






The lyrics to the theme song are:
They fight
And fight 
And fight and fight and fight.
Fight, fight, fight!
Fight, fight, fight!
The Itchy and Scratchy Shooooow!!!!!


And sure, it's funny. But it gives a completely false impression of what the show is all about. They don't fight and fight. The mouse just eviscerates the cat for no reason other than his own psychotic enjoyment. But if all you saw was the opening, you would think it was some sort of fair fight between equally-matched opponents, both of whom, hate the other.

Similarly, if , like most news consumers, you just glanced at the headline and maybe skimmed the article, you could be forgiven for thinking that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are equally villainous in their treatment of the press.

I remember the first time I noticed this phenomenon. It was during the 2000 Presidentiual campaign, after one of Bush and Gore's debates. The article listed any number of instances where G.W. Bush had lied, distorted, or otherwise told falsehoods. Then they tacked on a bit about Al Gore exaggerating some statistic and slapped on a headline that read something to the effect of  "Both Candidates Stray From the Truth" or something like that.


Anyway, this is why we can't have nice things. Because no one in the media has the nerve to stand up and say "hey, you know what? Both sides don't always do it! Sometimes it's just the one side."

So no one will say "by refusing to even consider a nominee for the Supreme Court, the Republicans have entered in an unprecedented level of partisanship, pointless obstruction, and politicizing of the court." When's the last time you heard Merrick Garland's name on the news? Today, he just broke the record for the longest time waiting to be confirmed, did you hear about that on the evening news? And not only has he broken that record, but he's broken it without a single hearing. It's completely unprecedented, but no reporters have the guts to poin it out. It's just "partisan gridlock," or "business as usual in Washington" and **shrug** what can you do? The two sides just can't get along!


And that's why Trump advisors can say things like this:

“This whole thing disgusts me, Hillary Clinton should be put in the firing line and shot for treason,”

or this:

@HillaryClinton You should be tried for treason, murder, and crimes against the US Constitution... then hung on the Mall in Washington, DC

— Michael Folk (@MichaelFolk34) July 16, 2016

Without it even being a story.

That's why people could keep getting beaten up at Trump rallies without it being a major scandal. They're so married to their supposed "objectivity," that they can't bring themselves to admit that the two parties are not the same, not mirror images of each other. One party has gone completely off the rails and the press stands by and says "Gosh, the emperor's suit is fantastic!"

Which is why it should be heartening to hear that Chris Cuomo actually said the following to Trump surrogate Paul Manafort:

“I can't move on,” Cuomo said. “Because you keep lying about it, so I can't move on from it.”

Hearing a journalist actually state the obvious, that someone is telling a lie, is about as rare as hearing Pavarotti covering Led Zeppelin. But, of course, the exchange took place during a discussion about Melanoma Trump's plagiarized speech. No journalist (no mainstream, corporate journalist, I should say) would ever call a lie a lie when it's about something important. All we're likely to get from them on issues on importance is " they fight. And fight. And fight and fight and fight. . ."