« No Mo' Roe | Main | The Dead »

May 09, 2022


Thanks for the info Charles.

I've gotten hung up a couple times the past week. Shutting the tab and opening a new one seemed to help. Sometimes. Don't know if that's dispositive.

Same here. But this has happened occasionally in the past, so I did not think about it too much (and it was back to normal soon).

An appeals court panel ruled on Wednesday that California’s ban on the sale of semiautomatic weapons to adults under the age of 21 violated the right to bear arms found in the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Wasn't the original intent that the right of the people to keep and bear muzzle-loading muskets shall not be infringed?

And the text says nothing at all about armor despite arms&armor being a standard combo. So body armor is clearly not covered (pun not intended) by the 2nd Amendment. And since all clothing can serve as that, there must be a right to bare arms, so people do not run afoul of the armor ban.
On the other hand, how is the right to bear arms not infringed by bans on bear hunting?

Perhaps we maintain the right to bear arms as including anything, but ban ammunition. Including empty shells, for the benefit of home reloaders.

Iirc the supreme court has anticipated that move and declared it unconstitutional. It would be silly not to close loopholes on a right to shoot holes into things. Or - actually - natural persons. Shooting holes into things* could violate property rights.

* which used to include humans owned by other humans. I wonder if banks could claim shot (small**) debtors as damaged property.

**if you owe the bank enough you own the bank

Shooting holes into things* could violate property rights.

Years ago the company I worked for acquired the cable television franchise in the Atlanta, GA area from its former owner. We had to change the software that tracked trouble tickets to include "amplifier shot". Someone shooting an analog amplifier suspended on the aerial coaxial cable was the leading cause of service outages in Atlanta.

Not particularly serious query: does the "right to bear arms" invalidate all laws and regulations restricting the killing bears?

With this Supreme Court, who knows what their seances would reveal about the Founders original intent....

So if abortion is banned in FL, could a woman aborting a fetus claim self-defense under FL's stand your ground law?

So if abortion is banned in FL, could a woman aborting a fetus claim self-defense under FL's stand your ground law?

If it threatened her life, for example an ectopic pregnancy, she'd have a darn good case. Although, since they have a "life of the mother" exception (so far), they'd be unlikely to bring charges. Unless they decide they're in a competition for nastiest law, in which case they might remove all exceptions. (Wonder if, at the same time, they'll change the "stand your ground" law to explicitly block that defense.)

I've wondered before if women could defend abortion on those grounds in a state with castle doctrine laws. As property goes, there's not much more propre than one's own person.

Nope, to my knowledge that is explicitly not included. At least some Jews complained about that since in Jewish theology and law an unborn that threatens the life or health of the mother is classified as a 'rodef', a hostile persuer, that it is fully legitimate to defend oneself against with deadly force up to the moment of birth. Once the head is outside the body of the mother, the child is considered born and has equal rights to the mother.
Btw, during the one-child-only policy in China many kids were killed by state doctors at this very point (iirc by driving a spike into the emerging head of the 'illegal' baby). So, this is not just an academic question.
The Jews in question especially complained that the figleaf of 'Judaeo-Christian' was used to justify the abortion ban without even consulting Jews about their actual traditions and customs.
What they did not mention (to my knowledge at least) in this context is that the Jewish abortionist doctor is a traditional antisemitic trope. Btw, the Roman historian Tacitus accused the Jews of being fanatical anti-abortionists and came close to a 'great replacement' conspiracy theory.

When the Chinese Communists took power they encouraged having more children. Then, after killing 60 million people, they decided they still had too many people and set the one-child-only policy with its forced abortions and forced sterilizations.

Now that they decided there're not enough children, they're encouraging a higher birth rate. Which, in time, may lead to forced pregnancies and contraception and sterilization being illegal.

the Roman historian Tacitus accused the Jews of being fanatical anti-abortionists

Did he? My recollection, backed up by several seconds' online research, is that accused the Jews of being fanatically opposed to infanticide. Which, to be fair, they were.

backed up by several seconds' online research

LOL. And frankly, who could ask for more, in these troubled and demanding times? Although, on past experience, I wouldn't put it past Hartmut to come back with more, and more detailed, evidence!

The Chinese Communist Party has repeatedly demonstrated its ignorance of everything from basic demographics to human nature. Makes it hard to predict what idiocy they will come up with next.

My guess is that they will deal with their unfortunate population age distribution in the most straightforward way possible: killing off everyone (except senior Party officials, of course) past the age where they are productively employed. Or, perhaps more simple-minded and thus more likely, set some arbitrary maximum age.

With very little in the way of pensions and social programs for the elderly and too few children to support them, a lot of the elderly may just die prematurely of "natural causes."

Pro Bono, you're technically correct that Tacitus speaks of the killing of already born children.
But given the terms he uses and the reason he gives, it strongly implies that he is talking about spiritually the same thing as abortion (in this case the 'post-natal birth control' favored by Romans and Greeks). I see the main difference in that an abortion is usually on the female's initiative while the legal infanticide is decided on by the assumed father (with no input from the birthing female*). Again, technically any Roman kid not formally accepted by the father at birth was supposed to be done away with. The Roman and Greek patriarchy preferred infanticide over abortion because the men wanted control** (and additionally abortions could endanger the woman's fertility). But the actual purpose was the same. Roman law made kids that were accepted by their fathers sacrosanct up to the moment they donned the toga virilis. So, Tacitus can only mean infanticide directly after birth as a method of abortion/birth control/getting rid of an unwanted child, otherwise there would have been nothing 'immoral' to charge the Jews with.
I would have to look it up, if kids were considered legally as persons at all before the father lifted up the newborn that had been put before him on the ground for inspection followed by acceptance or rejection. If this was not the case, a distinction between abortion and infanticide (directly following birth) would have no meaning from the POV then.
What's absolutely clear is that Tacitus sees Jewish opposition to 'not having the kid' as part of a perfidious plan of outcompeting other peoples in population growth in order to gain power (while civilized people aimed for keeping the population numbers as constant as possible). That idea lays also at the base of modern 'great replacement' propaganda. Btw, it's interesting that Tacitus also reports that the Jews were not originally a people but a collection of unrelated humans kicked out of Egypt for suffering from a disfiguring disease (and were also habitually lazy, making up their whole religion to justify that fact). The guy would feel right at home ideologically with modern antisemites.

*as a purely technical term. Please do not confuse with the current culture war's talking points.

**according to Cicero the 'crime' of abortion was essentially theft of an heir from the father by the woman not the fact that a person was killed. The father had the undisputed right to decide over life and death, so he could order an abortion freely.

Thanks Hartmut, I'll settle for technically correct.

Tacitus may not have cared much about the difference between abortion and infanticide, but Jewish law, probably first written contemporaneously with Tacitus, makes an emphatic distinction - it allows abortion up to the point of birth to save the mother's life, but forbids infanticide once the greater part of the child has emerged (Mishnah Oholot 7).

a perfidious plan of outcompeting other peoples in population growth in order to gain power (while civilized people aimed for keeping the population numbers as constant as possible). That idea lays also at the base of modern 'great replacement' propaganda.

And possibly at the root of modern (as opposed to ancient) opposition to abortion.** Wouldn't want mere females deciding to constrain the population of Real Americans.

** And why contraception may be next.

When the Chinese Communists took power they encouraged having more children. Then, after killing 60 million people, they decided they still had too many people and set the one-child-only policy with its forced abortions and forced sterilizations.

Now that they decided there're not enough children, they're encouraging a higher birth rate. Which, in time, may lead to forced pregnancies and contraception and sterilization being illegal.

Jeez, that's bad, you mean it was exactly the same people who did that? Thank god all of our sins were done by other people in the past.

I'm re-reading Joyce's Ulysses, this time with lots of critical help, but never mind you that.

I came across this article ...


..... which reads like a pitch by Werner Herzog for a film about the obsessives HE obsesses over .. and which illustrates the critical rabbit holes Joyce scholars dive into headfirst, which Joyce himself arranged for them and predicted, but never mind you that either, though it is an entertaining tale.

No, my point is this passage in the article ...

"In that stretch when the original edition fell out of copyright in the mid-1990s, a lot of editors rushed to publish their own editions. Some have dots, some don’t. Some with “love,” some not. Some editors reversed a selection of Gabler’s changes, some didn’t. Other editions have gone off the rails, as the Joyce scholar Sam Slote told me: One “Ulysses,” currently available online, has a long, weird riff inserted on Page 160, announcing that you will now be reading “The Secret Confessions of a Conservative,” where the anonymous writer explains that his pro-life, pro-death-penalty positions are so consistent that “if an embryo or fetus commits murder, then he should be aborted.”

.... there you have it. A conservative libertarian crypto-religious death cult movement which has crawled up its own ass seeking a sociopathic, malign consistency and perverse fascist rationality beyond all satire and petition by the usual human methods and thinks it has recognized an ultimate perverted truth among the platonic shadows up its own shit caves and now lives there blinking in absolute certainty in the shit darkness, and the world and we are forced now to live there up conservatism's ass as well.

Just thought I'd share.



Hat tip LGM.

They are going to murder us.

I'm re-reading Joyce's Ulysses, this time with lots of critical help, but never mind you that.

I tried reading Ulysses one time in college. After being assigned Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man for a class. As I told my professor, both suffered from the same problem: "Joyce simple didn't know how to handle the English language." He did not take it well. (Perhaps he was in denial...?)

"(Perhaps he was in denial...?)"

Perhaps, but which one of you might one day suffer from Agenbite of Inwit at the beauty you missed?


"Yes, the newspapers were right: snow was general all over Ireland. It was falling softly upon the Bog of Allen and, further westwards, softly falling into the dark mutinous Shannon waves. It was falling too upon every part of the lonely churchyard where Michael Furey lay buried. It lay thickly drifted on the crooked crosses and headstones, on the spears of the little gate, on the barren thorns. His soul swooned slowly as he heard the snow falling faintly through the universe and faintly falling, like the descent of their last end, upon all the living and the dead."

The Dead
James Joyce

A passage from A Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man:

“The phrase and the day and the scene harmonized in a chord. Words. Was it their colours? He allowed them to glow and fade, hue after hue: sunrise gold, the russet and green of apple orchards, azure of waves, the greyfringed fleece of clouds. No it was not their colours: it was the poise and balance of the period itself. Did he then love the rhythmic rise and fall of words better than their associations of legend and colour? Or was it that, being as weak of sight as he was shy of mind, he drew less pleasure from the reflection of the glowing sensible world through the prism of a language manycoloured and richly storied than from the contemplation of an inner world of individual emotions mirrored perfectly in a lucid supple periodic prose?”
― James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

The final lines, quoted verbatim of Molly Bloom's soliloquy, from the movie version of "Ulysses" entitled "Bloom":


Briefly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL_rXp-T4tc

From the lips themselves:




A kidney for your thoughts:


Regarding guns, before we take them, it's not so much the absolute numbers of gun killings in America, it's that America is shooting the wrong people:


The real Bell Curve in America is the one that diagrams the utter full of shitness of the fucking cucks monopolizing the apex, while the rest of us are gunned down while grocery shopping and attending school:


@hsh -- You can put incarceration rates next to gun deaths. I'm too busy/lazy to do it, but I'd like to see both those numbers over, say, the last century.

@wj -- "Joyce simple didn't know how to handle the English language." ... I can't even. ;-)

So wj, what's your stance on Faulkner and the English language?

wj, drop by and have a pint:


Faulkner's birthday is September 24, for those perhaps into the heavy lifting required.


"Joyce simple didn't know how to handle the English language."

noone beat me to it with the last lines of The Dead, which was called by T S Eliot "one of the greatest short stories ever written". I would also add that John Huston's film of it, starring his daughter Anjelica, is very fine.

Janie, never tried Faulkner. Perhaps blame my college professor (the one who assigned Joyce, but not Faulkner).

Or are you suggesting that all the modern eriters of "Great Books" are equally poor,,,?

Also, on something of a foodie tangent, someone I knew once was writing a book on offal, and looking for literary references, so I pointed them to Leopold Bloom's breakfast kidney. Also Lampedusa's wonderful description in The Leopard of the towering macaroni pie, of which:

The burnished gold of the crusts, the fragrance of the sugar and cinnamon they exuded, were but preludes to the delights released from the interior when the knife broke the crust; first came a spice-laden haze, then chicken livers, hard boiled eggs, sliced ham, chicken and truffles in masses of piping hot, glistening macaroni to which the meat juice gave an exquisite hue of suede.

Stanley Tucci made a version of this dish, first in the movie Big Night, and more recently with Jay Rayner, one of our best restaurant reviewers.


Or are you suggesting that all the modern eriters of "Great Books" are equally poor,,,?

Not generalizing. Also, though I know you're joking, not suggesting that any of them are poor writers, never mind all of them.

Faulkner and Joyce are glorious, but they require some work, and some acclimatization.

I would throw in Dickens and George Eliot, who aren't modern, but whose books I open up sometimes just to rest in the beauty of those gorgeous, complex, well-structured sentences.

Embodying a complex thought train in well-structured prose: not entirely unlike writing an elegant bit of computer code.............

wj - I think you are confusing the job of the literature professor with the job of the librarian. A lit professor's job is to model how to be a better, more conscious reader. It's the librarian's job to be the literary matchmaker.

For which, gods bless librarians.

Perhaps this will help elucidate my taste in books: I think it is manifest, from reading both, that Archie Goodwin is a vastly better writer than Rex Stout. (Sorry if this is unhelpful to those who have never encountered Nero Wolfe.) Really. Read both and you'll see the difference.

@wj -- well, that accounts for a lot of the flavor and trajectory of some ObWi discussions. ;-)

... in the ships passing in the night sense....

That and the fact that I'm still the token (real) conservative here. Not a reactionary or a Trump cultist**, but still, I believe, a conservative. (Hey, it's a rough job, but somebody's got to do it!)

** And Charles has the libertarian angle covered.

And possibly at the root of modern (as opposed to ancient) opposition to abortion.

All the most successful religions discourage contraception and forbid abortion. Because a successful religion breeds more adherents than an unsuccessful one.

But Christianity had a mania about virginity and abstinence, ideally for life, and was still successful.
The Church was anti-abortion and anti-contraception because it was anti-sex. Even procreative sex was only tolerated (at least in theory).
St.Augustine prayed for a method of procreation without having sex. Ironically, these days this is possible but the RCC is opposed to it. And the only method of contraception the RCC allows is the one St.Augustine was most opposed to (likely because it failed him and his girlfriend* at the time bore him a child).

*I blame his mother St.Monica that they did not marry and lived happily ever after. I have an even stronger dislike towards her than towards her son.


William Faulkner's literature is relevant:


It will not stop until the entire American conservative movement, including the southern former Democrats it recruited and then mutually groomed to be racist and antisemitic and homophobic and anti-immigrant and misogynist, just fucking haters all the way around, are removed from the voting rolls and then from the face of the Earth.

I believe fully in the great replacement theory and want it to succeed completely by next Friday.

One million Somali goat herders can do Tucker Carlson's job and for less pay.

"But Christianity had a mania about virginity and abstinence, ideally for life ..."

But, not yet!

Thank you, Augie.

the entire American conservative movement, including the southern former Democrats it recruited . . . are removed . . . from the face of the Earth.

Well, so many seem to be anti-vaxxers that they may be taking care of that themselves. With an assist from covid, but also from various other "childhood" diseases -- which, if you get them as an adult, are far more serious than they are for kids. Evolution in action.

The attitudes of various individuals and groups on abortion have changed a lot over the decades since Roe v Wade.

"But that was before the great sorting. As late as 1976, it was possible for a Republican president's wife to be a socially liberal feminist while his Democratic challenger earned the endorsement of Pat Robertson. By 1980, the religious right was not just clearly anti-abortion but clearly aligning itself with the national Republican Party; organized feminism, meanwhile, was increasingly drawn to the Democrats. Over the course of the '80s, most politicians with national ambitions altered their stances accordingly. George H.W. Bush, who had started his political career as a population-control Republican, turned around and embraced the right-to-life movement. Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, and other Democrats who had once been on the right-to-life side joined Jesse Jackson in reinventing themselves as defenders of the right to choose."
When Ted Kennedy Was Pro-Life and Ronald Reagan Was Expanding Abortion Access: The forgotten abortion politics of the pre-Roe era

Yeah, America is fully full of crap.

I never fault someone for changing their opinion. Refusing to ever do so indicates imperviousness to learning. And probably imperviousness to reality.

But you ought to be able to articulate what new facts caused your opinion to evolve. Perhaps new facts (not previously know, at least to you) did the trick. Perhaps you became acquainted with people with characteristics that you disliked, and that turned the trick. Even "My audience changed, so what I said changed" -- that at least has the virtue of candor. If you admit it.

But to just flip without explanation? All that does is suggest that you actually have no real opinion, and never did. And hope your audience have poor memories, so they won't notice.

Yeah, the fake is usually the warning. Truer words have never been said, outside of Ben Franklin's, in soon to be dead dog shit America:


Does the sawed-off little trumpian twat Rogan think his muscled arm guns there are bullet-proof, as we hunt down and butcher fucking conservative ignorance?

Does the black dude with the dreads think I'm so racially politically correct that I won't take him down for what he is doing on behalf of the conservative movement who will lynch him after he has picked their cotton?

America is a dead piece of shit.

My home state just murdered the Jews:


Fascist crippled clown loses to subhuman genocidal, but competently so, republican vermin:


Things are looking up.

"Suddenly Pennsylvania Republicans Are OK With Counting Mail-In Ballots"



Suddenly Pennsylvania Republicans Are OK With Counting Mail-In Ballots

a) Only in primary elections, and
b) Only while primary results are in doubt.

Once the results are final, everybody but the winner will snap back to denouncing them. As the 3rd place finisher, Barnette, is already doing.

Stepping back to the big picture, has anyone seen speculation on how the general election results will be impacted by Republicans spending time and money contesting primary tesults, demanding (and perhaps getting) recounts, etc.? Not to mention supporters of the loser(s) potentially sitting out the general election in a pet.

For anyone who might care and hasn't seen it, the BJ home page now has a signup for email updates on the situation. Which has now gone on for more than four days. Wow. (It blinked out late Saturday morning as far as I can tell.)

No doubt reading this article will make him a fraction angrier...

I am right in thinking the approach o fit media in reporting the court has undergone something of a change ?
The default used to be a respect for the institution. That has (of necessity) been abandoned.

Of the...

Oh for an edit function, post posting.


A Bush vermin Judge:


The conservative movement, root and branch, must be eliminated from America by force.

Burn it to the ground.

Former President George W. Bush: “The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine.”

Well Dubya *did* "look into Putin's soul"...
...and found a kindred spirit.

... the approach [of the] media in reporting the court has undergone something of a change ?

This brings back a memory, not about the media, and anyhow there was no 24-hour cable, never mind the internet, and I was just a kid and didn't understand much about it, but....

My family took a driving trip to Florida in 1963, when I was 13. There were big signs all over the South saying, "Impeach Earl Warren."

That trip was at Easter time, so a few months before the March on Washington in 1963, which maybe, in retrospect, was a turning point in my understanding of the country I lived in.

Big topic.

... the approach [of the] media in reporting the court has undergone something of a change?

Reporters covering the Supreme Court tend to be, or become, quite knowledgeable of the law and the Constitution. From the mid-1950s (the earliest time I personally remember), the Court's decisions might be debatable or objectionable, but any educated person could see how they were rooted in those.**

These days, opinions by the "conservative" justices are visibly rooted in politics rather than what the Constitution, or previous decisions, actually says. Hence the contortions about "original intent". The reporters may not know as much about the Constitution as the Justices, but they know enough to recognize bullsh*t when they see it.

** Those "Impeach Earl Warren!" signs were more an objection to including blacks in the population covered by the Constitution's mandates about "persons". IIRC, there was much less argument about the substance of the decisions themselves.

... the approach [of the] media in reporting the court has undergone something of a change ?

It's amazing, and a bit depressing, how many typos I find using the Preview function. I still don't catch everything. But by posts would be far worse without my using it. Sometimes multiple times. (And they are worse when I'm rushed, so I skip that step.)

See the one above, where I quoted "... the approach [of the] media in reporting the court has undergone something of a change ?" instead of "Oh for an edit function, post posting."

Think Colorado is safe from subhuman facist republican vermin?

"In Colorado, a GOP candidate for governor has a plan to eliminate the concept of one person, one vote from state-level elections (9NEWS-KUSA):

Former Parker Mayor Greg Lopez, who holds the top line on the 2022 Republican primary ballot, says Colorado should create an electoral college system for electing candidates to statewide office.

The plan, which would be the first of its kind on the state level, would give far more voting power to Coloradans in rural, conservative counties and dilute the voting power of Coloradans in more populous urban and suburban areas. Even as turnout numbers vary over time, the sheer number of rural conservative counties would create a built-in advantage for Republicans.

9NEWS has audio.

“One of the things that I’m going to do, and I’ve already put this plan together, is, as governor, I’m going to introduce a conversation about doing away with the popular vote for statewide elected officials and doing an electoral college vote for statewide elected officials,” Lopez said.

Lopez said his electoral college plan would weight counties’ votes based on their voter turnout percentage to encourage turnout.

“I’ve already got the plan in place,” Lopez said. “The most that any county can get is 11 electoral college votes. The least that a county can get is three.”

Democrat Jared Polis won the last election for governor by double digits. Under Lopez’s plan, the race would have swung 30 points, handing the win to the Republican after winning a minority of votes.

Unconstitutional? Sure. Does Lopez care? No."

via Hullabaloo.

America will be a killing ground.

"introduce a conversation"?

Time to introduce a savage killing civil war.

The Second Amendment is just another form of free expression.

If I'm one man without one vote, then I'm a man with a million very noisy bullets.

Fuck elections. Fuck the Courts. Kill Republican Party government everywhere.

I repeat: they are going to kill all of us.

America is fucking dead.

By the way, Lopez has the foremost conservative movement qualification among his pussy subhuman conservative bonafides: An arrest for assaulting his pregnant wife.

What the fuck are the guns for, I would ask her?

What the fuck are the guns for, I would ask her?

You really, really don't want to raise that question! Because it might suggest using a gun to him. And, depending on how lunatic Colorado's gun laws are, that might get him off altogether -- i.e. not even arrested, because the police realize that assault with guns is OK. See Florida's laws on the subject -- assault and battery with fists may be illegal in Florida (I don't know), but kill someone with a gun and you're almost certain to get off.

the approach [of the] media in reporting the court has undergone something of a change?

I can't comment on the media, but I think I've mentioned before that many years ago, when I was briefly a law student (only one of many dodgy incidents in my past), decisions of the SCOTUS were treated with respect and often cited as at least persuasive precedent in the UK and other jurisdictions. But then, some years ago (during the Dubya regime I think, although it could have been Obama - certainly pre-Trump) when I was have having lunch with a very old friend who had become the Chief Justice of another jurisdiction, I mentioned this, and asked whether lawyers in other countries still had that kind of respect for the SCOTUS. The friend laughed ruefully, and said words to the effect of "only when their decisions have no conceivable political dimension".

Racist Christian anti-Commie Putin-licking, fascist Republicans have a decision to make:


He's white, and therefore by default, an honorary American citizen by birthright, but conservative subhumans may decide to send him back to Putin to be murdered and thereby help their cause of overthrowing the US government with Putin's timely assistance.

The Rule of Violence in America rushes in where the useless Rule of Law fears to tread:


Act accordingly.

The Rule of Violence rushes in where the useless pro-Trumpian Rule of Law pisses its pants:


Act accordingly.

Dr., do you believe in aborting a fetus/baby that is halfway delivered from the womb?

(Well, only if it's name is Newt Gingrich, as even his mother now believes should have been done.)


Because we subhuman genocidal conservatives
believe the entirely born human baby should be denied healthy baby formula and child tax credits upon the moment of birth and his or her mother denied the right to vote as well.

If the baby wishes to breastfeed instead, then it can suck on Marjorie Taylor Greene's dried up witch's tits, the business end of Boebert's semi-automatic pistol, or whatever it is Matt Gaetz proffers for sustenance to his under-aged dates.

Time to arm school children in red states, I mean besides the ones the Republican Party, the fascist Supreme Court, and the NRA already armed (and then consider as Republican candidates for political office) to murder kids and blacks and gays, and hispanics and teachers in their mass pogrom slaughters across America:


I forgot the Jews on that list.

Conservatives won't. They always get around to murdering the Jews.

The rest are just warm-up exercises for those killers.

I didn’t realize Murray and hernnstein’s Bell Curve for dumb white trash was mentioned in the Constitution as a requirement for conservatives running for President:


But, the dumb fucks must be permitted to vote and kill America:


It’s not like elderly black women with semi-automatic weapons might take a break from grocery shopping to redistribute bullets to the vermin conservative deserving selling Trumpian dogshit on beaches, given the former’s higher IQs and more devoted parents.

Apparently, the NRA and Amy armed America with only one-direction bullets.

Time to fire in the other direction.

Self-driving dick, low mileage:


Guess what I believe will happen to every murdering genocidal subhuman fascist conservative, one hundred million of the vermin monsters, in America, starting from the top:


.. the same savage sentence of ferocious brutal death the citizens of Ukraine are dealing out to murdering genocidal subhuman conservative Russian soldiers who are taking orders from their fascist, and soon to be butchered and nuked conservative movement leader Vladimir Putin.

In a separate vein, aimed at Janie's open thread above regarding writers, Roger Angell, former fiction editor of the New Yorker and peerless elegiacal chronicler of the sport of baseball had died at the age of 101.

Just as all the wrong people are shot dead in America, just so those who are taken from us by natural causes.

noone, I thought you might be interested in this:


Thanks, GftNC.

Those songs stand up just fine even in the most unpretentious presentations.

I found this:


Everyone doesn't like something.

Putin just banned 1000 Americans from entering Russia, including Biden and Harris.

Notable names absent on the banned list: Genocidal murderers Hitler, Trump, and top pro-Soviet-expansionist vermin in the Republican Party, who are about to be held personally responsible for causing a shortage of Covid vaccines and treatments this Fall in order to foment the overthrow of the US Government.

The Republican Party is killing America.

Our government needs to goddamned kill the traitorous, insurrectionist, murderous Republican Party.

That is why God gave us the fucking guns, which always seemed to me to be one of God's biggest fuck-ups, maybe it was a gaffe, but now I see that GOD knew in the beginning what was coming and designed the instruments required to kill the present Evil.

This is the vermin Nazi Republican Party and conservative movement, albeit fucking Christian:


Time is running out to kill it before it kills us.

David Frum:

'All of which reminds me of something else I said often in the first weeks of the Trump presidency: “The sunny American confidence that everything will turn out all right it itself the greatest threat to everything turning out all right.” '

Notable names absent on the banned list:

You really should have mentioned Senators Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul. Kentucky should be so proud!

You really should have mentioned Senators Moscow Mitch McConnell

I'll accept that friendly amendment.

Fuck Both Sides of America! Blow it the fuck up!


Democrats are Hindenburg at one end and Neville Chamberlain at the other.

Subhuman conservative fascism is all that's left to shoot at.

Would there be rape and abortion without the major religions?




Kill all American laws.

We can carry on this failed experiment by sheer, savage mob violence and save time and money.


One does wonder WHEN and WHAT it will take for armed conservatives and libertarians we all know and love, going all the way back to the Tacitus days, the Moe Lane original fake bipartisanship OBWI and extending into Hilzoy's truly bipartisan stewardship, the fever swamps of Redstate, and the few decent individuals who stuck around here until recently, Marty, McKinneyTexas, Slart, Sebastian (maybe not armed) and Von, are going to step up and use their guns and ammo to kill and slaughter this clear and present, domestic, fascist, and mortal danger to the American Republic?

When will the big swinging Second Amendment dicks finally do something to protect this country?

Or was all that gun talk just hot air and a pissing contest aimed in some other direction away from the sacred tree of liberty.

Or are all of you merely the satisfied godfathers and cackling midwives of this monstrous, sadistic horde of murderers because you just don't want to pay taxes or be regulated in any way?

States Rights is now just another name for the evil bedrock location for killing all of you RINOs first before these vermin come after the rest of us.

They hate you the most. Being a RINO in conservative Trump Republican is now identical to being (only) half Jewish in 1935 Nazi Germany.

Your open minded impurities doom you in the hateful eyes of a hundred million fascist Americans.

You might get a cheerful middle finger from them as the trains you are on pass by and head East.

You might kid yourselves that because I'm in a different boxcar and the train stops to take on fresh hay for only your boxcars that your ultimate fates will somehow differ from mine.

Putin and Trump and their malignant murderous conservative movements are collaborating to destroy Europe and NATO, cause widespread starvation across the globe and out-of-control refugee migration emergencies (thus boosting the chances of fascist conservatism and murderous regimes winning out across the once-civilized world), steal every American election for their evil ends from this day forward and kill all liberalism and the Democratic Party's legal access to governing, and all effective government, except for the bits that will be used to remove rights from and kill liberals and the Other.

At least Charles offers his dislike of the irritating noise of gunfire as reason to sit on his thumbs and drone on with arid, logical Mr Spock illogic.

This is not going to blow over. It's not going to go away.

It's going to blow up.

It's coming right at us.

Will Trump-wanna liar Elon Musk step up here:


He could at least shoot off his mouth?

What's it gonna take to light a fire under his Tesla ass?

I thought the perceived need to explicitly ban "explosives/bombs, missiles, cannons, flamethrowers" was particularly telling. After all, stuff doesn't make the list unless you think someone might. Hence no ban (this time) on tanks, fighter aircraft or nukes.

Corporations are people who finance hatred and violence against the Other by the subhuman fascist Christian Republican Party:


Corporations are the Other who finance hatred and violence against themselves by the subhuman fascist Christian Republican Party:


Money is political speech. Money is people.

Guns are people. Bullets are political speech.

On what page of Hitler's Mein Kampf does the U.S. Constitution withdraw its guaranteed protection of free speech?

Page January 27, 1945 was too fucking late the last time around.

The gun nuts may be nuts but they're largely not the ones killing being killed with guns.

Wrong thread.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad