« November 2012 | Main | September 2013 »

December 19, 2012

But We Have to Do Something! And Apparently It Really Doesn’t Matter What.

Naturally, people were horrified at the unspeakable atrocity visited upon Sandy Hook Elementary School this past Friday and want to know what measures are being taken to see to it that such tragedies are avoided in the future:

Q: What should we do?

A: First, we need to act as swiftly as we can.

Q: Why?

A: It is commonly understood that the best decisions are usually made in the heat of the moment, when passions are highest and people are so blinded with grief or rage that they are willing to accept any solution no matter how pointless and ineffective.

Q: You mean like the Transportation Security Administration?

A: Exactly! For example, Senator Joe Lieberman has already carefully laid out his reasoning for the need for more gun control.  You’ll have to bear with us, it’s full of technocratic jargon (you know Joe!), but this is the kind level-headedness we need from our leaders at a time like this:

"We've got to continue to hear the screams of these children and see their blood until we do something?"

Q: That doesn’t sound that level headed. Does anybody have any specific proposals?

A: Well, University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis has put forth a detailed plan meant to address the root causes of the tragedy:

“[I] want Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick.”

Q: Now wait a second. There are important and profound arguments to be made for gun rights that can certainly be debated in an informed manner.

A: That may be true, but as Professor Loomis puts it so eloquently,

“[F]*ck the NRA."

Q: Okay, are there any serious legislative proposals being made?

A: Of course there are. For example, Senator Diane Feinstein has called for a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.

Q: The killer used one of the previously banned assault weapons?

A: No.

Q: That doesn’t seem very productive.

A: Well, the White House has also proposed to require background checks at gun shows.

Q: The killer purchased his firearms at a gun show?

A: No.

Q: Then how does it make any sense to propose a grab bag of gun control legislation most of which was already in place in Connecticut where the laws are among the toughest in the nation and did nothing to deter this?

A: What are you, some kind of monster?  There are dead kids out there!

Q: It’s just that there are reasonable arguments as to the role gun rights play in securing civil rights and actually saving lives.

A: Do you like dead kids?

Q: What? No! Of course not.

A: Because it’s starting to sound like you like dead kids.

Q: No, it’s just that mass murders are actually down.

A: Dead kids.

Q: Schools have never been safer.

A: Dead kids.

Q: And these massacres occur almost exclusively in areas where the government has specifically banned guns strongly suggesting…

A: Dead kids.

Q: You’re not even trying now.

A: Don’t have to.

J.

December 19, 2012 at 08:51 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack

December 12, 2012

Fighting for the Working Man. No, Literally…

There has been some controversy of late over a little tussle that occurred in Michigan where state legislators were voting on a “right to work” law that could potentially undermine union influence and power in the state.  Naturally, union members turned out to protest the law however some people have misinterpreted their enthusiasm and vigor. To help clear things up we thought we’d address the confusion with a quick Q&A:

Q: What happened? It appeared that union members physically attacked people engaging in constitutionally protected free speech.

A: No, no, nothing could be further from the truth.

Q: Look at the video, one guy just started laying in on Steven Crowder with left and right roundhouse punches.

A: That was just a metaphor.

Q: A metaphor?

A: Sure. The individual was simply expressing the essential conflict between left and right common in non-parliamentary democracies in which two dominant parties yptically “fight it out” if you will, in the field of ideas.

Q: But he was literally punching the guy in the face in an actual field.

A: Think of his face as a canvas on which the union member/interpretive artist was painting a picture.

Q: The guy punched him in the face! This is absolutely outrageous and under no circumstances can it be allowed to go unpunished.

A: Whoa, whoa, easy on the inflammatory rhetoric there. You wouldn’t want to incite some Tea Party nut into engaging in violence, such as criticizing Obamacare, or possibly creating a sign expressing disapproval of the current administration.

Q: That’s violent?

A: Absolutely. Violent to anyone’s sense of fairness.

Q: What about actual violence, like physically tearing down a tent with people still inside?

A: That was a misunderstanding.

Q: What about the Michigan legislator who promised “there will be blood?”

A: Hey, that could mean anything.

Q: And why isn’t the media paying any attention to this? They turned over rocks looking for signs of Tea Party violence but they can’t be bothered to report on this?

A: Report on what?

Q: The union violence and threats from elected Democrats?

A: There was union violence and threats from elected Democrats?

Q: Yes.

A: Well, we didn’t read anything about that in the papers…

J.

December 12, 2012 at 03:01 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack