Archive for liberal rant

Pedantic Yammering & Humungous Mammaries

Posted in erotic, fetish, FLICKR, photographers, PHOTOGRAPHY, politics, satire, Sexy, women with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 27, 2013 by cliffmichaels

..

titties1

Hope you bought national security companies’ stocks last week. Boston’s unfortunate 26.2 mile misadventure will be good for their businesses and likely bring you a handsome profit.

If you are a conservative pundit with your own radio, TV show  – or podcast – your ratings will soar as you excoriate the government and the liberal and medias elites for failing to protect America, giving that terrorist his miranda warnings, or refusing to send him to our tropical gulag. If you inhabit the conspiracy theory suburbs, you can raise cash by darkly impling it was all an Obama plot.

Of course, if you are xenophobic, you now have an explosive new argument t0 blow away immigration reform. If you are a staunch defender of the Glorious Second,  you can claim it would have been great if every Boston citizen had had an AR-15. Of course, Islamophobes are in hog heaven… It is sad for racists that those boys were white…

titties2

Then there’s West, Texas. Just a tragic accident. nonexistent inspections?  Please, this is Texas. Even the West victims don’t blame the company. Just one of those things. Could have happened anywhere. Who could have foreseen it wasn’t really such a good idea to store tons and tons of fertilizer in the plant – or build a school, houses and a nursing home within a stone’s throw of that plant?

Strengthen regulations?  That would only take away jobs. Jobs sorely needed by the folks in West. What they really need is fast federal funds to rebuild. I mean, unlike those whining folks in New York and Jersey who were hit by a little wind and rain then got greedy, the good Texans in West are true blue Americans and  are only asking for what they deserve – and to get back some of their tax money from the feds (and some more from Jersey, New York, and all those other liberal states where everyone has more money than patriotism).

titties3

Congress gets such a bum rap. Supposedly deadlocked, our brave and caring legislators rose up en mass and, in a magnificent show of bipartisanship, and did something about the senseless budget cuts mandated by the Sequester. With the across the board cuts crippling things like chemotherapy treatments for poor cancer patients, Head Start for poor kids, and nutrition programs for poor old folks, the Senate and House chose to give relief to the real victims of those draconian cuts: airlines and their customers. Who says  Congress doesn’t care…?

 Those cancer patients  are likely going to die anyway. Poor kids and seniors will always be with us (and besides, they’re just moochers). Businessmen – makers not takers   –  trapped in Duluth for three hours must be rescued from that near literal hell on earth…

titties4

I’m not going to mention gun control. What is there to say? 

SEXY GIRLS IN BLUE

Flickr Gallery: Beautifully Blue
Flickr All photo by Hannah Davies and remixed by me, all subject to this creative commons license

When the Devil Turns Round…

Posted in history with tags , , on April 21, 2013 by cliffmichaels

..

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

US CONSTITUTION, Article III

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger…

US CONSTITUTION, Amendment Five

 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

US CONSTITUTION, Amendment Six

An American citizen, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, on American soil, commits a myriad  of state and  federal crimes, including at least four counts of murder, hundreds of extremely aggravated assaults, and probably a score or more of other heinous acts. He faces a possible death sentence. At a minimum he faces multiple life sentences in  maximum security prison.

United States Senators, like virtually every other government office holders – state and federal  – take an oath to uphold the Constitution:

   I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Neither of the Constitutional Amendments – nor the oath – provide for any exceptions to the duties mandated (except for war in Amendment Five). There is no exception in Amendment Six for acts the President, or Congress choose to call “terrorist acts”.   There is no language in the Constitution providing for suspension of any of the rights granted to the people other than times of open rebellion.

In the 1866 case Ex Parte Milligan, 71 US 2, the Supreme Court ruled  – unanimously – that the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating. In essence, the Court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even when the military had been authorized to detain individuals without trial. It observed further that during the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, citizens may be only held without charges, not tried, and certainly not executed by military tribunals; the writ of habeas corpus is not the right itself but merely the ability to issue orders demanding the right’s enforcement. (Wikipedia)

No crime is more detrimental to the nation than treason. However, the Constitution not only doesn’t reduce the rights of a defendant charged with treason but requires a higher standard of proof:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

US Constitution, Article III, Section 3

Even during and after World War II Americans charged with treason were entitled to a jury trial. During World War II – when the very existence of our nation was threatened by Germany and Japan – no federal court ruled that American citizens acting on American soil could be summarily stripped of the Constitutional rights by executive fiat.

 Last week at least two Senators demanded that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev be denied the Constitutional rights set out above and that he be tried by a military tribunal. He should be denied the due process – including the most sacred, the right to trial by jury – afforded to every criminal defendant simply because his crimes are called “terrorist acts”.

Lindsey Graham and John McCain have violated their oaths to  the Constitution. It’s not a close question. There is no legal precedent denying a citizen charged with crime – including treason – due process protection and the right to indictment and trial by jury. Graham and McCain are willing to surrender the heart of the Bill of Rights to the dubious argument that stripping terrorists  of basic Constitutional rights will, somehow, Make America Safer.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s crimes did grievous harm to the people of Boston and hundreds of participants in the Boston Marathon. If convicted, he should face the full measure of the law. Boston will recover, however, and its citizens wounds will, in time, heal.

If Graham, McCain and their supporters have their way, the entire country will suffer grievous harm. Our nation’s very foundation – its heart of liberty – the Constitution,  will suffer an enduring wound. Once opened, from that wound the blood of freedom may bleed away.

..

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

A Man for All Seasons

NAKED REDHEAD & Ridiculous Rant

Posted in erotic, fashion, fetish, FLICKR, lingerie, photographers, PHOTOGRAPHY, pinup, Sexy, women with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 24, 2013 by cliffmichaels

..

nudie1

I read somewhere there’s fairly solid evidence there are actually brain differences between conservatives and liberals. I believe it. Forgive my obvious bias, but it seems to me conservatives have – at least now – a harder time connecting to reality. Not that we liberals don’t have a difficult time seeing past our preconceived notions as well. It’s a matter of degree and not in kind.

Still, for the most part liberals accept science as a guide to reality. The evidence for climate change and evolution is overwhelming. Many, if not most, conservatives are immune to scientific persuasion (unless, of course, they think some particular discovery supports their mindset) and claim both “theories” are merely products of left wing pseudo science created to deprive us of our freedoms.  Its all a conspiracy, don’t you know…

nudie2

This is a detour, but I wonder how people – conservatives, in this case –  can believe in a conspiracy that would require thousands  of evildoers to act in concert. Try to figure out just how such a massive deceit would work. It wouldn’t; it would be impossible to coordinate without leaving a massive paper trail, not to mention scores of  defectors who would expose the fraud. Of course, our more rational conservative  brothers would claim scientists are led astray by groupthink. Why such an overwhelming number of climate scientists believe in man made climate change, however, is never explained (or why the overwhelming majority of biologists, geneticists, geologists, etc., etc. accept evolution as a solid scientific answer to why animal and plant life – and we – are the way we are). Is it just coincidence? Each scientist one morning decided to believe in climate change despite the obviousness (conservatives say) of it being wrong. It always amazes me climate change deniers will take some obvious fact – there’s a glacier in South America that grew in size – and argue climate change therefore i wrong. As if scientists didn’t know about it, or willfully refused to believe it.

Years ago I was in Atlantic City and did a bit of gambling. I had a sudden brainstorm and came up with a surefire way to win at roulette. My idea was to double any red or black bet I lost but pocket my winnings. Say I bet ten dollars on each spin on black. If I win I put the sawbuck in my pocket, then bet another ten. Should I lose I next bet twenty. If I lose again I bet forty… My losing streak will end when I win and I’ll break even over the losing streak once I win. If I win my next bet I once more pocket my winnings.

Can’t lose! I’ll be rich!

nudie3

Well, no. I knew my theory had to be wrong. Surely someone – shortly after the invention of roulette – would have thought of my plan and bankrupted the casino and ended roulette as we know it. I was right. There is something called the law of large numbers which would eventually destroy me. Sooner or later I’d hit a long losing streak that would be impossible for me to survive. Suppose, for instance, I lost thirteen bets in a row with a starting bet of twenty dollars. On the fourteenth bet I’d have to wager $82,000 to break even. Run the losing streak to twenty-five and my break even bet must be approximately $168,000,000. I don’t know about you, but I don’t normally carry that kind of cash around.

Sure the odds of a twenty-five bet losing streak is quite low – but sooner or later a losing streak will come along that bankrupts you. Even a string of ten losses – betting ten bucks initially – will require an eleventh bet of more than ten thousand dollars (make the streak  eleven and now you need more than twenty grand to just break even – twelve requires forty).

This digression seems to me to have some relevance to the way conservatives think. When faced with something the want to disbelieve they latch onto some simple set of facts – true or false – they  claim proves the provocative theory false. It was warmer in the past. It’s just sunspots. Glaciers in Asia are actually growing. Carbon dating is wrong. The human eye is too complex to have been the product of  natural selection. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Manmade global warming is overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence and enjoys the support of a very high majority of climatologists and other scientists. More and more the theory is refined and alarming evidence continues to rolls in. The same is true of the theory of evolution. No major scientific study has proven Darwin’s original insights wrong. Tens of thousands of discoveries in the fields of biology, paleontology, genetics, geology, molecular biology, physics,  and countless  other scientific disciplines have been consistent with the theory.

nudie4

Conservatives, for the most part, are able to ignore the avalanche of evidence underpinning both scientific theories. They offer simplistic rebuttals: the planet was warmer in the past, the human eye is too complex to have evolved by random chance. Glaciers in Asia are getting bigger, carbon dating is wrong.

You can’t argue with them. Studies show the more educated a conservative is the more she believes the scientific consensus in climatology and biology is wrong. A little learning is a dangerous thing. The educated right winger more easily embraces the pseudosciences of  denial.

Another digression… You cannot convince a Indian shaman his rain dance doesn’t work. If he does the dance and it rains it proves, of course, his high steppin’ worked. If it doesn’t, and you say, “see, I told you it didn’t work!” he just smiles and assures you he just didn’t do the dance right. To the shaman his rain dance always works so long as h
e manages to gyrate in proper precision. How does he know he hoofed without fault? It rains, of course. See also superstition, random reinforcement and religion.

Sure, we lefties are not immune. We, too, see what we want to see all to often. We too easily favor public policies because their goals are, to us, noble and pure. We too easily forget government, particularly at the federal level, is horribly inefficient and subject to corruption and the rule of unintended consequences. Our guys are wonderful (he was set up – she seduced him – he didn’t really mean any harm…) Their guys are bastards (he set them up – he seduced her (him) – he meant to do real harm). We see our leaders virtues, we too often deny their faults. Obama’s embrace of most of Bush’s draconian security practices is too easily excused.

But we don’t do it as often. We are more willing to accept science even when it contradicts our beliefs. We are more willing to learn, to investigate facts that make us realize we have been wrong. As Andrew Sullivan quotes George Orwell: To see what’s in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle. “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,” attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, also comes to mind.

Anyway, that’s my opinion but I could be wrong…

nudie5

Photos by swo81, all subject to this creative commons license Click image for details

MORE OF CRIMSON BABY

FEMININA BRAZILEILA

Read all of VISIONS

Too Darn Hot!

Posted in erotic, FLICKR, lingerie, photographers, PHOTOGRAPHY, pinup, politics, sexual, Sexy, women with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 2, 2013 by cliffmichaels

..

According to the Kinsey Report
Ev’ry average man you know
Much prefers to play his favorite sport
When the temperature is low,
But when the thermometer goes ‘way up
And the weather is sizzling hot,
Mister Adam
For his madam.
Is not,
‘Cause it’s too, too 
Too darn hot,
It’s too darn hot,
It’s too darn hot.

Too Darn Hot, by Cole Porter, from Kiss Me Kate

.bikini

I caught Al Gore on the Daily Show last week. I’ve had a soft spot for Gore ever since I shook his hand during his last senate campaign back in the day. He would have been President in 2001 if he had only run an honest campaign – if he hadn’t treated Clinton, and his successful policies like radioactive shit and had paid no attention to the “experts” trying to rebrand him every other week. On the other hand, I think his loss allowed him to become an actual human being.

Anyway, he was talking on the show about global warming. I agreed with everything he said. Its staggeringly stupid we, as a nation, treat climate change as just below the lack of Washington parking as a problem. One political party pretends climate change is a hoax, the other barely mentions it.

bikini2

The less developed countries, particularly India and China, ignore the issue, too, in their frantic effort to modernize. Think Beijing smog and add  another million plus cars then add another million plus in India (oh, yes, add about another couple of thousand coal fired power plants). When the West’s industries came of age in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries no country did – or even thought to do – anything about climate change. When America barely preaches on the subject of climate how can we expect China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam, and the dozen other nations clawing themselves up the economic ladder with dirty carbon based fuels.

Not that it really matters.

It’s too damn late to do anything about the climate. Think about this: suppose we could wave a magic wand and reduce carbon emissions to 1985 levels and kept them there for a decade or so. 1985 levels would not reverse global warming, it would only slow it down a bit. Indeed, if we could eliminate all carbon emissions global warming would continue for decades.

bikini3

Perhaps in another decade or so there will be such a catastrophic climate event world leaders will finally realize the seriousness of the problem. But what will they do? More to the point, will they be willing to drastically reduce emissions? By that time will serious cuts do any good? I suspect every industrial nation will demand the others go first (or falsely claim they are cooperating).

I’m a pessimist. If we discovered a huge asteroid hurtling toward earth with the potential to destroy all life on our planet, I have no doubt world leaders would quickly coalesce around a massive effort to solve the problem, no matter the cost.

On the other hand, its not beyond the possible that the GOP would decry the vast astronomical conspiracy to further th UN’s goal of  world domination…

But with climate change, the evidence will accrue so slowly that it will be long past way too late by the time the world gets even semi-serious…

bikini4

All photos by Mario Mercea, and subject to this creative commons license

Read all of VISIONS

Cleavage on Senate Reform

Posted in fetish, FLICKR, photographers, PHOTOGRAPHY, politics, Sexy, women with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 25, 2013 by cliffmichaels

..

bluebikini4

Because of inclement weather I did not get the liberal talking points yesterday. If the following comments are not in step with current liberal doctrine I will profusely apologize, delete this post (replacing it with a hagiographic review of Joe Biden’s Vice-Presidency), and report to the nearest re-education camp with only my Streisand CDs, little red book of Paul Krugman’s sayings, and  my ragged biodegradable burlap bag of Arugula (and other green plant like material).

Many progressives are distraught Harry Reid bailed on real filibuster reform this week. The Senate will only make modest changes agreeable to the Republicans. In other words, it will be business as usual in the upper chamber of Congress for the next two years.

bbi7

Is the lack of real Senate reform a bad thing? Maybe, but I’m not so sure…

The Senate is – has always been – resistant to majority rule; it was crafted to be that way. North and South Dakota, Alaska,Wyoming, and Vermont – with a combined population of only 3.5 million, have the same combined representation – power – as New York, Illinois, Florida, Texas and California with a total of 115 million. Again, it was planned that way (the Constitution would surely never have been adopted otherwise). Senators representing a score plus one of lightly populated states can (and often have) thwart the legislative goals of those representing a vast majority of the population. The power of individual senators and the rules of the body also limit a majority’s ability to get its way, or at least get its way in anything like a hurry.

Of course, a Senate with “correct representation” and run like the House where a bare majority can do basically whatever it wants, might be a good thing; it would make America a parliamentary system. On an abstract level I support such a reform. State sovereignty is an anachronism. Any proposal to radically alter, or abolish, the Senate has no chance of happening. It would require a Constitutional amendment to make changes and none of the smaller states would ever agree.

bluebikini2

But, but, but… The sword cuts both ways. Better the devil you know. Look before you leap. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. 

Tampering with the Senate filibuster rules is a dangerous business for Democrats. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. This year the Republicans are frustrating the Democratic majority. In four years, however, there may be a Republican president, House of Representatives and Senate. Without the filibuster (and other nondemocratic measures (think holds), Democrats would then be powerless to prevent a disciplined conservative majority, even if it were only by a single vote, reforming erasing almost every progressive program.

If Democrats were to employ the nuclear option now and end the filibuster in whole or in serious part, should the Republicans capture the Senate they would surely retaliate in kind. In 2015 or 2017 Republicans, citing the reform of this year as justification, could strip power from minority Democrats. 

The Filibuster may limit saintly Democrats from enacting noble legislation, but it also prevents wicked Republicans from enacting devilish laws, too.

 bluebikini6

There is one area, however, where reform would be all for the good – confirmation of presidential appointments, and particularly judicial appointments. For the past decade or so each party has attempted to torpedo the judicial nominees of a president of the opposite party. This has resulted in a depleted federal judiciary and a reluctance of potential nominees to undergo the prolonged and rocky road to confirmation. It’s worst, of course, with Supreme Court nominees. Presidents increasingly name young  “stealth” candidates with little or no legal record to attack or bland middle oft the road lower judges with only their good confirmation prospects to commend them. Nominees have grown skillful at dodging questions about controversial legal matters.

Increasingly executive branch nominees are resisted by the opposing party simply because they share the President’s political views or are deemed too partisan (and, of course, Congress keeps expanding the number of executive branch officials subject to Senate confirmation). Carried to its logical extreme, this practice would literally prevent a President from controlling the highest level of government.

bbi5

All original photos by JACREWS7 and subject to this creative commons license (all photos adapted)

Read all of VISIONS

You’re Kidding Me, Right!?

Posted in FLICKR, history, photographers, PHOTOGRAPHY, politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 12, 2013 by cliffmichaels

..

Idiocy on Parade


tea

If only we’d known… Slavery could have been avoided in America if blacks had possessed firearms in 1776.

“We are looking for a peaceful protest,” Ward said. Continuing, “I think Martin Luther King, Jr. would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history.”  Larry Ward, gun nut

guns

Does Hobby Lobby go to church?

Hobby Lobby founder contests Obamacare contraception mandate claiming it violates he religious convictions. Somehow I doubt the company is a sole proprietorship or partnership. If I’m right then I’m at a loss to understand what the religious beliefs of  mere officers or stockholders have to do with the corporate “person” (hat tip to Mitt). On the other hand, the Supreme Court has ruled corporations have the First Amendment right to free speech so maybe they can have the right of religious liberty too.

Obama nixes Death Star

In yet another sign Obama is dangerously soft on national defense, his administration announced it would not build a Death Star despite the popular clamor. Even more shocking was the President’s rejection of destroying enemy planets, giving our other worldly enemies aid and comfort.

darth

Gun nut loses right to carry concealed weapon after exercising his right to free speech.

I don’t like gun nuts and I believe in strict regulation of firearms, including banning assault rifles and oversixed magazines. Despite those beliefs, I find it outrageous that my home state of Tennessee revoked James Yeager’s permit to cary a concealed weapon because of  his statement calling for other gun nuts to lcck & load to be ready to combat federal gun control. Its fashionable these days for gun advocates to claim one of the justifications for the Second Amendment is for citizens to be able to go to war with a tyrannical government. Tennessee has more than its share of such true believers. What Yeager said, while ugly, surely falls under the First Amendment’s protection. If I’m right then I don’t see how his right to carry can be curbed.

Update: It appears, from this blog post, that Yeager violated Tennessee’s constitutional ban on dueling.

Libertarian promises to have no contact with traitors who voted for Obama.

Eric Dondero, a passionate libertarian and Obama hater, is promising to shun forever all Democrats and Obama voters, even those who are part of his family:

  I’m choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who voted for Obama, or I even suspect may have Democrat leanings. I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt.

If only every wingnut would follow the same policy I wouldn’t be forced to listen to their harangues against Obama’s attempt to destroy America with Sharia law, gun bans, or the destruction of  Christianity.

obama

The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer – even in Monopoly. 

The iconic game is dumping one of its working class tokens – thimble, iron, boot or the wheelbarrow. The upper crust tokens – battleship, top hat, scottie dog, and the race car are untouchable. Next thing you know players will have to pass a credit check to get in the game.

boot

For photo credit click on each image – all subject to this creative commons license

Read all of VISIONS

Common Sense & Sleaze

Posted in erotic, FLICKR, photographers, PHOTOGRAPHY, politics, religion, Sexy, women with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on December 23, 2012 by cliffmichaels

..

sexy1

Thank God the National Rifle Association finally weighed in Friday with its tipically compassionate common sense! You can always count on the good old NRA in a  crises!

The much maligned NRA isn’t about guns at all; its a humane service organization. Its all about people – particularly our precious children – and protecting them from the bloody carnage of our cesspool society.

Friday the NRA brilliantly proposed to make our children safer by posting armed guards in every one of the one hundred thousand schools, from kindergarten to high school, in the country! The sages at the NRA know guns don’t kill people! Guns protect people!! It’s just common sense: the more guns around you the safer you are. The higher the caliber the lower your risk. Pistols are good. Rifles are better. Semi-automatic rifles are better still.  If only the wimps in congress would legalize fifty cal machine guns we’d live in the safest country in the world! Wayne Lapierre is a prophet (as was the saintly Chuck Heston).

***

But, you ask, what about the cost of the NRA Safer Schools proposal? While it may not be insignificant, its well worth it to keep our kids safe and sound.

OK, so let’s see…  Suppose we need to put three and a half guards in each school… Hmm… Lets say we have annual payroll for each guard of $20,000… Gotta buy the guns, too – thats another $150 per man (you can get a used Smith & Wesson for a song these days)… Insurance?  $1,000. Benefits? Throw in another $1,000. Training? Another grand.. A annual total per guard cost of $23,150; per school it’s $81,000. Eight billion for all schools…   Is that right?? Think so… Not as bad as I thought…

Total for all schools over ten years: 80 billion bucks. Yep. Math seems right. We could easily pay this cost by shaving a few percentage points off the budgets of Medicare, food stamps, unemployment compensation and Social Security.

sexy3

Oh, sure, I guess we ought to figure the cost of guards screwing up. Suppose five or six students, teachers or strangers get shot each year, with half dying. Over ten years that’s 55 total casualties with around thirty dead. Say $1,000,000 per settlement. Oh, that’s peanuts – just fifty plus million over ten years. A mere rounding error. A few guards will shoot themselves every year, too, incurring workers compensation. Toss in another five million over a decade. Again, peanuts.

I concede there might be a tiny bit of freedom lost and maybe an excess of criminal prosecution of students, teachers and school custodians. But its too hard to put a cost on that – so we’ll let it pass. Besides, giving up a few of the Bill of Rights’ protections (except, of course, for the Second amendment’s) to keep our little ones safe in school is a small price to pay.

On the other hand, there’ll be a big increase in gun sales (like having Obama elected every year!) The uniform, badge and boot trades will get a boost as well. Our whole economy will get a huge shot!

Although it wasn’t mentioned in the NRA presser, there’s an obvious – and huge – next step!!

Once our schools are protected by a wall of hot lead, those poor souls tortured and debauched by TV & movies, video games, media sensationalism, and – as always – Godless liberals, will naturally turn their murderous fury in other, more vulnerable directions. Churches, hospitals, museums, parks, sports stadiums, beaches, restaurants, golf courses, NASCAR races, bowling alleys, shopping malls, holiday parades, state Republican conventions, rodeos, “gentlemen’s clubs” and other public gathering places will all face an unacceptable increased risk.

We’ll need a lot more good men (and a few good women) with guns to protect us all from the ever surging tide of bad men with guns, men manufactured like so many defective toasters in the devilish factories spawned by our corrupt society –  men who will threaten to spill our loved ones’ blood in the years to come.

sexy4

Suppose ten million vulnerable spots… Five guards per spot…

Gosh!

We’ll need another FIFTY MILLION armed sentinels!! I guess we will need a whole bunch of volunteers. If we buy each of our volunteers a Bushmaster at about $1,400 per we can keep total costs under $77,000,000,000!

Wait!! OMG, the best answer to our problem is so obvious! I’m an idiot…

We can cut most of the cost by simply mandating that every able-bodied American citizen must purchase a semiautomatic firearm – with his own money! – and then must openly carry it whenever he’s in public. If we get rid of that background check nonsense (and relax the mental health restrictions  – most mentally ill folks still function reasonably well and would be helped by having an exciting outdoor job with police authority), we can put together our volunteer security force (hmmm, we could call it the GEneral Sentinel Tactical Organized Protective Order (GeSTOPO)  quicker than you can say JackBootedThug! 

Brilliant, isn’t it!? Just brilliant!

But don’t thank me. Thank Wayne LaPierre  and the National Rifle Association (and send them a check…)

Now if we are wise enough to just follow the NRA’s lead we will be nearer to ending gun violence in our nation. Don’t let lefty politicians and those do-gooder gun nuts who want to neuter our Second Amendment rights fool you. Just get yourself another gun or two (or four or twenty) and help us make America a safer place. Its just such common sense…

…I mean, what could possibly go wrong!??

sexy2

For photo credit, click on image. My remixes subject to this creative commons license

Flickr Groups

GURLZ WITH GUNS

SECOND AMENDMENT BLOG BASH

Read all of VISIONS