Welcome!

Thanks for stopping by! If you like what you read, tell your friends! If you don't like what you read, tell your enemies! Either way, please post a comment, even if it's just to tell us how much we suck! (We're really needy!) You can even follow us @JasonBerner! Or don't! See if we care!







Wednesday, July 13, 2016

The Unbearable Weight of Stubbornness

So Bernie has endorsed Hillary, and now Democrats can happily shake hands, mend fences, and turn our attention completely to defeating the Great Orange Dumpster Fire that is Donald Drumpf.

Wouldn't it be pretty to think so?

Immediately after Bernie Sanders announced his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, the internet was predictably aflame with diehard Sandernistas, proclaiming Bernie a sellout--apparently even Bernie has it in for Bernie!  Apparently, passionate leftists are just as allergic to compromise as Tea Partiers, and would rather just watch the world burn than embrace a candidate who could, if her track record is any indication, actually get something done.  Sure, she won't address all of Bernie's priorities, but she could actually get Sanders' followers a decent portion of the things they claim to want.  Which is more than they'll get with a Drumpf presidency.  (It's probably more than they would have gotten from a Bernie presidency, too, considering that Hillary has demonstrated a greater ability to work with her political antagonists than Bernie ever has--but don't expect the Bernie Bros to admit to that any time soon.)

Many of Bernie's most vocal supporters have loudly proclaimed that they will never vote for Hillary.  When you point out that not voting for Hillary is at least passively supporting Drumpf, they wipe their hands of any responsibility, excusing their (in)action by saying it won't be their fault if Trump wins--it will be the fault of everybody who hurt their feelings by voting for Hillary over Bernie.

As a sports fan, I kind of understand: It's like people who hate Lebron James being upset about Cleveland winning the championship. "See, Oklahoma City was a better team than Golden State," they say.  "If the Thunder had gone up against Cleveland, no WAY the Cavaliers would have won."  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But the point is, Golden State went head to head against Oklahoma City, and Golden State won.  And where the sports analogy breaks down is this: Bernie Sanders supporters can actually do something to ensure that Donald Trump doesn't win: They could swallow their pride and vote for Hillary--the man their own hero has asked them to vote for!

It has been pointed out that many of the It'll-serve-'em-right-if-Trump-wins crowd are actually relatively affluent white people.  That these people, while not welcoming a Drumpf presidency, will likely not suffer overly much under such a regime--at least not directly.  They don't rely on the social services that will likely be gutted under a Republican regime, and their rights will not be directly threatened by an extreme rightward tilt of the Supreme Court.  And worst case, they have the means to follow through on their probably idle threats to pack up and move to Canada.

While I agree with this analysis, it loses some of its persuasive force when one considers that a huge proportion (perhaps a majority) of Trump's most passionate supporters actually are the people--low-income, poorly educated--whose lives will be decimated by a Drumpf presidency.  You look at the people attending Trump rallies, cheering his racist bullshit, and you can sympathize with the attitude of those who say, "You idiots want Trump so much.  Fine! You can have him, and you deserve whatever you get."

But then you have to remember that the vast majority of the country--the people who most need America to be the country that the likes of Trump will destroy--is not at these rallies, and that in many ways their very lives depend upon this country making the right choice.  Call it "the lesser of two evils" if it makes you feel better, but remember that the "worser" of two evils is really, really worse.

Monday, July 11, 2016

Open Carry Query

Texas is an "open-carry" state, meaning people can walk around freely with their beloved rifles and machine guns and other weapons of mass destruction without fear of being persecuted for their fetishistic attachment to firearms.  At last week's protest march in Dallas--the one that ended in mayhem as a sniper opened fire on police and marchers, killing five police officers and wounding several others--"20 to 30" of the marchers showed up at the protests carrying assault rifles, and several of them were further wearing fatigues and gas masks and bulletproof vests.  Because 'MURRICA!  When the shooting started, these people--correctly--ran for cover, but their presence predictably caused confusion for the police, who were trying to determine who was shooting and from where.

Now, these "patriots" exercising their constitutional rights, were presumably examples of the semi-mythical beast that the NRA and its enablers keep telling us about: "good guys with guns."  You know, the ones who are supposed to prevent mass casualties by coolly and calmly using deadly force against the enemies of law and order.  Now, as I say, these people undoubtedly did the right thing in running away--the last thing anybody needed at that time and place was even more bullets flying in random directions.  But my question is: If these passionate devotees of gun-culture had absolutely no intention of using their weapons for self-defense or defense of others--the very thing gun fetishists insist they need their weapons for--then why were they carrying them?  And why in God's name should any of us listen when the NRA insists that that is that the guns are for?