Am I the only one who thinks that this waterfall might just be a metaphor for the way the world is going right now?
Back-asswards if you ask me. Which of course you didn’t.
You’ve all heard the news.
The Donald’s feelings are hurt and therefore, he stamped his feet, put his fingers in his ears and said “la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-.” “Not going to debate.”
Of course, that leaves Fox and the debate moderators with a problem: Too few folks on stage.
After reading this blog post from my home town, though, I’ve come up with a solution.
You didn’t click on the link, did you. You never click on the links.
So I guess I’ll have to give you a hint.
The story in that blog is about a resident of my hometown who works as a photojournalist who met The Donald on a job. The billionaire tried to sell JP Vellotti a suit.
The story, to me, is a metaphor for The Donald’s offering:
He’s a cheap huckster selling things that just don’t fit.
So in my mind, an empty suit, standing in Donald Trump’s 7th spot on the Fox dias tonight, would represent exactly what Trump has to offer the United States.
When he was a young man, Ted Cruz, aspired to “make ‘tit’ films” and sought “World Domination, you know rule everything.” Today he is a top contender for the GOP Presidential nomination.
Quick! Will somebody please get this guy a job in porno so we can get him out of politics?
(My thanks to Father Kane of The Last of the Millennials where I first saw this gem.)
Well, I’m way behind in blog writing, blog reading. Even way behind on watching the stuff I’ve stuffed onto my DVR.
So this clip is nearly two days old, and you might have seen it.
But if you haven’t you should. It’s Comedy Gold.
Stephen Colbert on Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Donald Trump.
Yes, I did watch some of it. Last night’s GOP debate.
I actually watched as these clowns stroked themselves and postured about who was more willing to kill innocent men women and children.
These men (sorry, Carly, but you’re not ready for prime time) are revolting. Jerks with Joysticks, fondling themselves while they play at war.
Only it’s not a game. And all their fear-mongering does is breed more fear. Well and hatred. It breeds that too. It’s a two-fer!
On the front page of today’s New York Times is an editorial I could easily have written. If I could write that well. If I worked for the NYTimes. If I had millions of readers who’d nod and say “Right On!”
Actually I’m mixing this image from an editorial published yesterday in the NY Times. Because like me, the NY Times believes that we need sensible gun laws. And so they, like me, keep beating that dead horse.
Here’s today’s front page editorial reproduced in full:
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD DEC. 4, 2015
But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.
Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.
But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?
It’s me again.
Yes I know that I keep beating this dead horse. I know that we are all feeling hopeless. But really, it is up to us. And the remedy can be found in the ballot box. Gun Control must be a make or break criteria for any vote we cast in 2016 and beyond. Because the folks in office today are cowards. They fear the retribution of citizens over gun control legislation. So let’s show them that they work for us. For the US. Not just for the NRA.
Yes, it is much better to give in to manufactured terror from folks we don’t know, than terror from the very same folks — the ones with guns and ‘God on their side’ who keep killing people. To donate to Planned Parenthood: https://secure.ppaction.org/site/Donation2?df_id=12913&12913.donation=form1
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.