According to my pill caddy, it is a Thursday in the Realm and I am at home in my Hunker-Bunker at 0500 getting ready to crank out today’s news and stupid commentary to you ingrates. It’s been five whole days since my last ‘confession’ here — but I have an excuse: I really don’t care enough about y’all to be here every day. Contrary to what you might think, this isn’t my ‘job’. I’m a cranky middle-of-the-road, Libertarian-leaning idiot trying to fill the shoes of the Emperor.
Kinda like our leaders in BOTH parties and we all end up looking like cheap imitations.
But enough of me, here’s the headlines that caught my eye this morning:
And now for my stupid commentary:
The rules of my game here is that I haven’t actually read the stories connected to these headlines. That’s what makes this fun — I will probably get it all completely wrong.
1. I did actually hear this story on my NPR jazz station that I play as background noise while I am sleeping. I only heard that authorities were looking for a mass shooter in Maine who killed a lot of people in a bowling alley last night. I didn’t know the extent until I saw the bright red headlines on Drudge as I collected today’s headlines.
Twenty-two people. Fuck.
Some people shouldn’t have firearms. You can’t get any more basic than that. Robert Card would be one of those people. But that is all 20/20 hindsight. The problem is, who gets to decide who shouldn’t be allowed to have firearms and what is the criteria? This is where you hit the brick wall.
We already restrict eight percent of the population from owning or possessing firearms for life. If a felon is caught in possession of a firearm, it could be a five-year mandatory prison sentence. We restrict another 13.5 percent of the population from owning or possessing firearms if they’ve been using drugs in the past thirty days. That percentage could be a LOT higher if you consider the fact that marijuana is a Schedule I narcotic and is legal in twenty-three states.
Twenty-one states currently have “red flag laws”, where the state could take away someone’s firearms for mental health reasons. I believe that all have some form of due process in place that allows for the restoration of those firearms once the mental ’emergency’ has passed. I don’t kn0w of any jurisdiction that has a permanent ban on firearms for mental illness. And again, “mental illness” is defined by what criteria? Is it used exclusively for harm potential, or is it just a blanket term that can be defined by the agency applying it?
Would a “red flag law” prevented this shooting? I’ve always thought this was a stupid question. Being mentally ill doesn’t make a person ‘stupid’, or ‘incapable’. A determined person will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun. No amount of laws will prevent that. Especially if you already don’t give a fuck about the law. But there is no doubt that it would stop at least a few of them.
I have an extraordinary solution to all of this: Just execute anyone who commits any crime with a firearm. Right there on the spot, with no trial. It’s a consequence-based solution, related to “fuck-around and find out”. It will save a lot of money and will send a message that maybe a firearm isn’t the best thing to commit a crime with.
But it wouldn’t have stopped this shooting. NEXT…
2. Assuming that he “assumes office”. The last I looked, he still has 91 felony charges that he will be dealing with, and if his performance in his current civil trial has cost him $15,000 in two contempt charges, he’s going to be in an FDC while he waits for trial if he isn’t careful. The courts only have so much patience. If it were anyone else but Trump, the defendant would be behind bars right now, no question.
3. “bleat!” Mittens wrote a book? How cute.
4. I am sure that Seattle is somewhere near the top of any list, and there is a reason why: We elected idiots on our city council. But we are in the process of fixing that problem. I have a ballot right here on my desk that I will be dropping in the box at the library up the street in a few hours. There is a whole new slate of candidates, and none of them actually claim to be Socialists.
Each of them seem to have a better idea of what to do about our homeless problem. Or at least the free-for-all that it has become. All of them are running on the platform of reversing the laws that made it illegal to “sweep” homeless camps and either put them in a shelter or jail to be assessed for mandatory services.
The pendulum swings…
5. Well, that was embarrassing to watch. My question, is what was actually accomplished here? A minority in the House was able to grind everything to a halt while the entire party made a spectacle out of themselves? Shit-can one Speaker only to get another one who will end up being shit-canned for the same reasons?
The Republican Party is really two or even three parties in one, and at least one of them want a divorce from the other(s). Add to that the fact that the House is almost evenly split between Republican and Democrat, that there is no margin of error when you need to pass “have-to” legislation. So the Speaker would have to reach across the aisle to make a deal with the Democrats. Remember, whatever passes in the House, still has to make it through the Senate.
6. This one caught my eye because it sounds dystopian. Some states/counties have tried to make it illegal for a pregnant woman to leave the county to obtain an abortion. I’m picturing one of those checkpoints on roads leaving the county where a cop will check to see if you are not pregnant before being allowed to leave.
Texas does it different. They create the law that will allow anyone with no standing to sue anyone they suspect has gotten an abortion and anyone who has helped or facilitated. Now they want to expand the law to include potentially, any pregnant woman who leaves the county that they suspect may try to obtain an abortion?
Blessed by thy fruit…
7. Good. Pull a fire alarm for any reason other than an emergency, then you should expect to receive an infraction at the very least. Apparently they didn’t think he pulled it to disrupt a House session, or he’d be looking at a felony. Although I would want to know how they came to that determination, because it seemed clear to me that was exactly his intent when he pulled the alarm.
An Interesting Tidbit about why Hamas needs fuel:
Why is Hamas so stressed about the lack of fuel in the Gaza Strip?
It is crucial to understand what is happening in Gaza’s underground. This murderous terrorist organization has created an entire city underground with 1300 branched maze-like tunnels, Located 70 meters (230 feet) under the surface with a total length of 500 km (310 miles). These tunnels are made from the exact concrete that the Western World donated, that was actually meant for schools, hospitals, kindergartens and other civilian infrastructure and services. These tunnels protect high ranked Hamas officials, commanders and 30 thousand terrorists.
Now here’s why Hamas is so stressed about the fuel:
The air to the tunnels is supplied by a ventilation system. The System is operated by fuel powered engines. This is their only source of oxygen. No fuel means no air, no oxygen. If there is no air, it means they have to come out of the tunnels to breathe. Coming out of the tunnels means they will be annihilated by the IDF.
You can’t gas them — it’s a war crime. But what about cutting off their air and sealing the entrances?
Fresh from the Meme-field to the table:
Memes from my meme-box.
Well, that’s it. I purposely left out all the shooting memes.
Have a great day. Get your Shingles vaccination.