Whenever there was another mass shooting, I used to post about the “Gun Control Shuffle”:
1. Have a mass shooting.
2. Bury the dead and cry.
3. Politicians talk about the need for gun control so this never happens again.
4. Gun manufacturers, through their lobby group the NRA, warns that the government is out to take everyone’s guns.
5. Gun lovers buy lots of guns because they believe the NRA and the right-wing media.
6. Gun manufacturers’ income skyrockets.
7. Gun manufacturers use this money to bribe politicians through their lobby group, the NRA.
8. Despite overwhelming public support, no gun control passes.
9. Another mass shooting occurs.
Repeat every few months.
However, I found that instead of repeating the Shuffle post every few months, I was doing it every few weeks. And lately, it seems like I would have to be doing it every few days.
Have you noticed? Have you noticed how we’ve become so used to it that it hardly even makes the news? That everyone just says “Well, that’s it. There’s another shooting” and then walks away, as if there’s not a damn thing we can do about it?
I guess we as a society have decided that lives just aren’t as important to us as guns are; that there is no number of deaths that will make us do anything about the problem; that we just are giving up and letting the small percentage of gun nuts bully us all into letting them have their way.
“I am resigning even though I am not corrupt. I’m also not gay. I am not a crook. These are not the droids you are looking for.”
Corrupt Republican representative Aaron Schock resigned today, admitting no wrong doing.
The closeted anti-gay Schock was brought down not by his hypocrisy, but by numerous ethical violations which kept piling up so fast that he had to do something. Let’s see:
I’m assuming his resignation is part of some deal to not have charges brought against him or something similar, or perhaps there is more corruption out there that we just don’t know about that this deal will keep secret.
In any event, good riddance.
(thanks to Glenn Hauman for that terrible pun headline — it is St. Patrick’s Day, after all)
Me just caveman lawyer. Your modern world confuses and frightens me. But me know one thing: Obamacare bad because written by white women and minorities.
At least three of these people will probably disagree with the idea that women don’t understand the Constitution.
This, almost literally, is what the chief lawyer who argued recently before the Supreme Court about Obamacare said.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he said that this law was different because it was written by “white women and minorities.” If you can understand why that makes it different from any other law, please enlighten me, but apparently, to Attorney Michael Carvin, that makes it suspect and clearly unconstitutional. As we all know, we need white men making these decisions about our laws.
Hey, if nothing else, the fact that the people who hired him see nothing wrong with this statement tells you what kind of people are behind this latest attempt to overturn the will of the majority.
I didn’t have a sip of alcohol until I was way into my 20s. Even today, I’m not sure I’ve ever been “drunk” (although with legal alcohol levels so low for drunk drivers, I may have been). I’ve certainly never had a hangover. Mostly, when I drink, I fall asleep.
One of the reasons I didn’t drink when I was younger was because I saw people drunk and I was not impressed. They’d say things they’d later regret, they’d get into arguments, they’d become difficult, and then they’d throw up on the front lawn. I couldn’t see what was appealing about any of that. (Mind you, I was also a nerd who didn’t swear, either, so I guess that makes sense.)* 
From what I can see, alcohol doesn’t turn you into Mr. Hyde, with a completely new personality. Alcohol releases your inhibitions, and the part of your brain that says “Hey, maybe this isn’t a good idea” goes to sleep while you decide that skateboarding down the stairs nude would be a wonderful experience.
I bring this up because I’m tired of people saying terrible things and then blaming the alcohol. The latest involves those frat boys who were caught singing a racist song on the bus. Yeah, they’re sorry now — sorry they got caught doing it. And of course, they’re blaming the alcohol. If it hadn’t have been for the alcohol, they never would have done that!
Yeah, they just would have thought it, instead.
I am absolutely positive that if you got me drunk, you would never in a million years hear me say something racist. Oh, I’m sure I’d say other stupid things, because that’s what alcohol does, but I won’t all-of-a-sudden turn into someone I’m not. You won’t hear me insulting gays and minorities and women, but you will probably hear me insult conservatives, bigots, and religious leaders because hey, I do that now sober. I’ll just be louder and more obnoxious about it.
I mean, I’ve seen my friends get really drunk and curse and scream at racists, because that’s who they are. The alcohol allows them to say things they might have never said otherwise.
So to those kids on the bus: We should all thank the alcohol for allowing us to see you as you really are, you racist fratholes.
*Here’s where people say “What do you mean “was a nerd”?
“More Republicans supported civil rights in the ’60s than Democrats did!”
I hate that argument, and anyone who says it should be ignored. They clearly know nothing about history.
First and primarily, it wrongly assumes that the Democratic party and the Republican party are exactly like they are now.
The Republican party was originally the liberal party, fighting against slavery (with Lincoln) and income inequality (with Teddy Roosevelt). But that morphed, and we went through a long period where each party had liberals and conservatives. There were conservative Democrats (mostly in the south) and liberal Republicans (mostly in the north).
The civil rights movement in the ’60s was largely led (in our government) by President Lyndon Johnson (a Democrat) and mostly fought by George Wallace (a Democrat). There were people in both parties on both sides of the issue.
What you can say with certainty was that it was the liberals from both parties that supported civil rights in the ’60s while the conservatives from both parties fought against it.
Today, there is a parallel: liberals are the ones supporting gay rights and conservatives are the ones against it. It just so happens that our parties no longer look like they did 50 years ago — now all the liberals are in one party and all the conservatives are in another.
This is actually a very bad thing, because it discourages compromise. Our government would get a lot more accomplished if we had liberals, moderates, and conservatives in both parties. We can mostly blame gerrymandering for the divisiveness we now have in America.
But the other reason to ignore this comment is because it so stupidly tries to distract you from the real issue: What do Republicans support today? Usually, a conservative will use this argument when they’ve been attacked for supporting racist policies. “Oh yeah?” they reply. “Well, we were right 50 years ago!”
That certainly doesn’t mean you’re right now.
