So it's like Batman riding a unicorn?

Look, I'm not always great with metaphors, but what I want to know is this just a "just power through it" thing? Like, is there an amount of armed people, a threshold beyond which mass shootings won't happen anymore? Is that their logic here?

"I mean, at some point there are so many guns that everyone's dead,
so I guess that would mean fewer shootings. You know, moving forward..."

-Some mathematician

More guns and fewer doors?
Wait, have I got that right?

I ask because I think the takeaway, the gist, if you will, from the Republican reaction to the Uvalde and Buffalo shootings is that more guns will make things better. They even had a whole NRA convention with Trump and Gregg Abbott and Ted Cruz where they complained about how the rest of us are politicizing mass shootings. Which, I mean, no. Of course they don't get the irony. They are beyond irony. Anyway, the idea is that if more people are armed, then random citizens hearing a mass shooting in progress, will lock and load and save the day.

Except no. There was an armed guard at the grocery store in Buffalo. He was shot and killed. And the cops in Uvalde didn't even go in for like forty minutes so, here we are. According to people who read the Second Amendment as some kind of divine carte blanc to own firearms, the only criteria should be being alive and American. But if the Second Amendment said everyone could own a plane--which was about as likely as James Madison thinking of automatic weapons--wouldn't we want everyone to get a pilot's license as well?

"What in God's name is an air-plane? Automatic weapons?
What...wha-Who are you people? Are you--are you a witch?"

-James Madison when pressed on the

intended scope of the Second Amendment 

Say it with me now: Owning a
cape doesn't make you Batman.

The point is owning a gun, or even the right to own a gun, doesn't make one qualified to handle the responsibility. Like we're seriously not even allowed to question why someone wants a gun? Because I think the answer is invariably going to lie somewhere between "they think they might need to use it to shoot someone" and "they're planning to use it to shoot someone." Unless we're talking about cops or people in the military where guns are sort of part of the job and there's training and accountability (in theory...), these are randos who just love the idea of gun ownership.

Which is weird, because most of
us only have the two hands.

Here, I did some research and--huh? Ok, fine, I did a couple of lazy internet searches and the number of households in the country that have one or more guns has been more or less stable over the years (about 42-ish%), but the number of guns has only gone up. There were twenty million guns sold in 2020. Twenty million. I'm not like a statistician, but that sounds like it's not so much that there are more gun owners every year, just that people who do own guns just buy more guns. 

More guns. And the number of mass shootings has only increased, so how have more guns helped? Which brings me back to my original question: is there some number of guns at which Republicans suspect that mass shootings will decline? And if so, what is it? Because again, I'm not great with numbers, but it still seems like having fewer guns would do more to reduce the number people getting shot than having more guns.

It's similar to how zero unicorns results in the zero instances of
unicorn stampede and horn-related fatalities every year.

It's only politicization when liberals do it...

Hmm...the freest, most prosperous, safest country on Earth? On Earth? I just...that's what Ted Cruz shot back with when a reporter questioned how it is that we have a mass shooting every single day in America while other countries, you know, don't. 

"Sorry, I couldn't hear you. I'm wearing ear plugs while I play with
this military-grade firearm that anyone in Texas, age eighteen and up 
is free to purchase without a permit. Because safety is important."

-Senator Ted Cruz

Pictured: Cruz, not answering the question.

The reporter, Mark Stone, from Sky News asked Cruz--huh? Yeah, Sky News. That's right, Stone isn't even American. And coming from not America, is perhaps somewhat more aware of how fucked up it is that this happens all the time here. Anyway, he asked Cruz if maybe now it would be a good time to talk about some reforms and Cruz lost his ever-loving mind accusing Stone of making it about politics and oh how the media loves politics and can't you vultures just be satisfied with expressions of sadness and vague promises that something should be done?

Oh. I get it. Never. We're never supposed
to call for gun law reform. How clever...

Ok, I'm paraphrasing, but I'm not wrong.  Every time a mass shooting happens and someone dares ask a Republican about gun-laws, they immediately accuses them of politicizing a tragedy. But how is it political to ask elected officials to help prevent something terrible from happening again? Is there some amount of time after a shooting in which we can ask them to do something? How much time? And with mass shootings happening every day, when are we supposed to--oh...

Yeah. It's almost like they have a vested interest in not doing anything. 

Pictured: a vested interest.

Above: basically the entire
Republican Party.

Sure it's easy to paint the Republicans as mustache twirling villains who put political donations ahead of people's lives...huh? What? Oh, you thought there was a "but" coming. There's not. They are actually putting political donations ahead of people's lives. And it's not just guns. Look at their decades-long struggle to overturn Roe v. Wade. Or their love of LBGTQ+ erasure. Or climate change denial. Or shouting "back the blue" while people of color are being murdered by cops. Sorry, I'm being a drag but there isn't a plank in the GOP platform right now that isn't demonstrably lethal to someone.

Sure, it might have been a little rude, but bear
in mind that Greg Abbott is a tremendous asshole.

What I'm getting at is that Mark Stone's questioning of Ted Cruz was great. Like, an example of what journalists are supposed to be. I think it's about not being polite anymore. Beto O'Rourke interrupted Greg Abbott's press conference the other day to ask him why he isn't doing more, and the Republicans dismissed it a political stunt and called O'Rourke a disgrace and had him thrown out, but I'm wondering if they just don't know what to do when people call them on their shit.

I mean, these people stormed the Capitol because they didn't like the outcome of the election (yup, bringing that up again), so they don't get to accuse anyone of politicizing anything ever again. Nor do they get to silence descent by pretending to be outraged by someone having the temerity to question them. 

"How dare you, a lowly journalist, ask me, a U.S. Senator, what I'm going
to do in my capacity as an elected official to address a serious issue that has
been killing tens of thousands of Americans every year. The impertinence!"

-Ted Cruz, evidently unclear as to his own job description

The Trojan Mulaney

Well that's disappointing. What's disappointing you may ask? Settle down, I'll tell you. I just like to start off my posts like this. It's called a hook. Are you hooked? No? Fine. Where I'm going with this is that I'm disappointed in John Mulaney.

Sorry, but booooo. Boooooo.

What? Don't look at me like that.
Stop being shitty towards trans people.

Who am I to be disappointed in John Mulany? Well that's a valid point. My opinion of Mulaney doesn't, objectively speaking, matter. Fine. Fair. But the reason I'm disappointed in him is that he--for reasons passing understanding--had Dave Chappelle warm up the crowd before he performed the other night. Chappelle, you might recall, has suddenly decided to turn his act into a bunch of jokes about how trans people are just faking it, or something. Who even knows? The point is he sucks now, and it seems like Mulaney does too.

It's the same reason we should all
avoid giving this woman money.

Yeah, guilt by association is a pretty awful attitude, I know, but hear me out. My issue isn't that John Mulany knows Dave Chappelle or even that he's friends with Dave Chappelle. My issue was that he gave Dave Chappelle a mic. He didn't have to do that, and even if he disagrees with Chappelle's dismissal of trans (and queer people in general), Mulaney provided a platform for him to make jokes about one of the most vulnerable and persecuted populations in America and the world right now. Which kind of just as bad.

And just on a cynical level (is there even a non-cynical level anymore?), what in the world would possess Mulaney to do this on the same weekend as his new movie came out? Yeah, he's the voice of Chip in Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers which I was totally going to watch because I'm of a certain nostalgia-prone age and snarky reboots of Disney Afternoon shows are aimed squarely at me. But now I feel gross about it, so thanks...

I'll start separating the art from the artists when the artists involved stop 
being transphobic, racist, misogynist, homophobi-huh? Yeah, so never...

Pictured: The Joke Poli-huh? Oh! Wait,
sorry, that's a British Police Officer.
I guess they really do wear those hats...

Look, I'm not the joke police but I just feel like there's a difference between jokes that critique culture or sensitive issues and then there are jokes premised on the idea that certain people are unworthy of respect or that the struggles they face aren't real. And that, according to some audience members who were at the show and sat through it, is who Dave Chappelle is now. Oh, and it was a surprise. Like, these people didn't buy tickets for the Dave Chappelle "punches down at trans people for fifteen minutes" act, but that's what they got.

And I mean, no one's trying to censor anyone here. This is about consequences. Dave Chappelle is entirely free to make his dumb, transphobic jokes just as we're entirely free to not listen to him anymore. But it's kind of hard to do that if other comedians are just going to sneak him in the back door.

John Mulaney is basically a Trojan horse except instead of being used to get Greek soldiers though
the gates of Troy, he's smuggling in a transphobic comedian. Oh, and also nobody blamed the horse,
but I'm going to blame Mulaney--and you know what? It's not a great analogy, but I'm committed so...

Today in leaning into super-villiany:

I'm sorry, does promising revenge against
political enemies not violate the user agreement?

I'm not telling anyone how to vote, but if someone you voted for starts saying things like "their days are numbered" and vowing revenge on their enemies, it might be time to start re-evaluating your party affiliation. I mention this because soon-to-be-former North Carolina Representative Madison Cawthorn did some classic super-villain vengeance-swearing on Instagram the other day in response to his primary defeat. Here, take a look at what has replaced "gracious in defeat" in American politics:

Just so I'm clear, does making up nonsense
about the edition being stolen and then storming the
Capitol fall under the category of genteel politics?

"The time for genteel politics has come to an end. It's time for the rise of the new right, it's time for Dark MAGA to truly take command. We have an enemy to defeat, but we will never be able to defeat them until we defeat the cowardly and weak members of our own party. Their days are numbered. We are coming."

-Madison Cawthorn, presumably while

 shaking a fist skyward in impotent rage

Cawthorn continued his Instascreed saying:

"On a mountain of skulls, in the castle of pain, I sat on a throne of blood!
What was will be! What is will be no more! Now is the season of evil!

-Madison Cawthorn's actual concession speech*

Yikes...I don't want to tell them how to
crazy, but where do you go after full Nazi?

So, a couple of things: now is the time for the rise of the new right? Is he suggesting there's an even shittier, more racist and misogynistic version of the political right out there? The right just used to just be the ones who were stingy with government spending and who called everyone they didn't agree with communists. Now they're tiki-torch carrying fascists trying to overthrow democracy. What exactly would be the new right? Also is Dark MAGA a thing? Who even calls themselves Dark Anything? Other than maybe Palpatine, I mean.

I'm not sure what bothers me more, Republicans who spew all the now standard hatred and horribleness of the right but lack the empathy to understand the harm they do, or the ones who do all the spewing but straight up refer to themselves as Dark MAGA and are just comfortable with it.

Pictured: Representative Cawthorn singing a song about how his
 enemies better watch out, while some hyenas goose-step past in formation.

*Ok fine, that's Vigo the Carpathian but the sentiment is the same...

Correlation something something causation?

I think we aught to go over the list of things that weren't contributing factors to the mass shootings over last weekend: violent video games, trans rights, the right to choose, illegal babies (whatever those are), Antifa, the Democratic Party, Critical Race Theory, acknowledging to children that LGBTQ+ people exist, and the concept of universal health care. Now, as for things that do contribute to mass shootings lets see...

"Wait, wait, don't tell me. It's on the tip of my gun...
uh, tongue...wait, is it student debt loan forgiveness?

Pokémon card stampedes, shootings, you know,
the only common element here is white dudes.

I mention this again because of this article on Kotaku, which links to a clip from a Fox News interview in which host Jon Scott suggests that shootings have gotten much worse because of violent video games. Which, sure, it's the traditional Right-wing deflection. Granted, there really is some seriously mess-up up content in video games but there has never been a credible link between video games and real-world violence. Unless you count grown ass adults trampling each other to buy Pokémon cards. And I really think we should...

"Why isn't everything like it was the 50's?"

-Boomers

But this is Fox News, the people that brought us such hard hitting exposés as their piece entitled "Sex Box?" in which they invited panelists to discuss how depraved all the sexual content that wasn't in Mass Effect was. Like, they actually sat around discussing things that were never in the game. Because Fox is basically a forum for old white guys to rage performatively about shit they didn't care about until they found a way to be racist about it. Remember when they lost their minds over a Miles Morales? 

Anyway, what really surprised me about Scott's "interview" was just how he asked Criminology Professor Bernard Zapor for his thoughts on how video games are to blame:

Yeah, but also guns? Because guns.

"I think of what must go though the minds of these people, like the guy yesterday who is accused of shooting up that super market. He's eighteen years old. His whole life was in front of him and now his life, essentially, is over because of what he decided to do...I wonder, you know, it seems these things have gotten so much worse since video games became so realistic and violent."

-Jon Scott, evidently for real with this

Which, not even a question, but whatever, couple of things: the shooter isn't so much accused of this crime as he 100% packed up his arsenal, put on his tactical gear and drove four hours to murder as many Black people as he could. Also, Scott seems to be casting the perpetrator--an avowed white supremacist mind you--as a victim. And while Scott is correct, this man will likely spend the rest of his life in prison, he murdered--actually murdered--ten people. So maybe we could all focus a little less on how the mass murder's life is over?

"He would have had his whole life in front of him, if it wasn't for violent
video games and all those people who got in the way of his bullets."

-Jon Scott, on the real victim in all of this

Next time on Space Adventure Show:

Couple of things: firstly, I know this is an opinion piece and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Secondly, the writer has some hutzpah prefacing something on Fox News with: Even our entertainment is awash in bitter partisanship.

No, really. This is David Marcus of Fox News complaining about
how partisan entertainment has become. I wonder if it's medically possible
to be born without the part of the brain responsible for recognizing irony...

He's also not to be confused with Dr. David
Marcus: Kirk's son and the guy who tried to make
the "sweater knotted about the neck" look happen.

And lastly, is there maybe some other thing called Star Trek he could be referring to? I ask because David Marcus of Fox News, noted bastion of even-handed reporting, has written an option piece entitled: "Star Trek writers take Starship Enterprise where it's never gone before--woke politics." Oh, and I should explain what "woke" means, because literally no one outside of raging Right-wing lunatics uses the term any more. To be "woke" just means that one is aware of, and disapproves of, injustice. So it's kind of weird that he uses it pejoratively.

To be clear, I'm referring to the coup attempt 
by Trump supporters. Star Trek: Insurrection
was so-so, but it's not going lead to WWIII.

Anyway, in Marcus's piece, he first complains about how Stacy Abrams cameoed in the season four finale of Discovery as the President of Earth. An appearance he calls "electioneering." And I just, I mean, he knows she isn't actually running for Earth President, right? Next he calls out a new piece of Star Trek lore established in Strange New Worlds. Specifically the bit about how the oft mentioned and canonically murky World War III was in fact sparked by a Second American Civil War which itself is linked to the insurrection. 

In the episode, Captain Pike beams down into the middle of a planet very much like contemporary Earth, and similarly on the verge of self-destruction. He then launches into a Ted Talk about how humans nearly destroyed themselves fighting over petty nonsense. It's a great episode, but it's also the same plot as like three or four hundred episodes of Star Trek's other incarnations, so I have to ask, is why is this guy watching Star Trek?

Pictured: Sisko explaining to Quark why his greed-driven
misogyny-based civilization is bullshit. Just, bullshit.

Yeah, I get that his beef is that Abrams
is a gubernatorial candidate and not that
she's Black, but is it though? Is it?

I know that's the obvious response here, but Star Trek is famously progressive in its politics. And it has always been political. I mean, music, television, film, and art in general is political on some level. Usually, and often only subtly. But Star Trek is explicitly so. The original series can feel pretty dated now in its portrayal of women and people of color, but for the time it was pretty edgy. I'm not sure that suggesting that maybe a Black women could hold political office is, you know, radical. And Marcus aggress. 

I can't believe the writers of Star Trek
didn't check with Marcus before advocating
agenda items on their space adventure show...

Well, briefly agrees. About the roll of art thing:

"Artist can, always have, and should use their work to hold a mirror up to their culture and society, even to advocate for broad agenda items. What they shouldn't do is beam the equivalent of a 30-second Democrat Party political ad into the middle of a space adventure."

-David Marcus, on what artists

should and shouldn't do

Above: That time Star Trek pandered to
the niche Left-wing idea that racism is bad.

So to be clear, art should challenge the status quo and advocate for change as long as it doesn't make David Marcus uncomfortable or interfere with his enjoyment of a "space adventure." Got it. But if Star Trek's writers speaking out against things like white nationalism, transphobia, and misogyny, read to him as a thirty-second ad for the Democratic Party (stop saying Democrat Party, just stop) then it seems to me that maybe David Marcus should re-evaluate his choices? Like, all of them, because c'mon.

I don't want to gatekeep here, but is his Star Trek head cannon that the Right ultimately wins the culture war they made up? Like that the utopia of the twenty-third and fourth centuries where everyone is equal, racism is a thing of the past and humans have abandoned the very concept of money in favor of a philosophy of self-improvement somehow evolved out of the politics of the Republican Party? Because, no...

That's not to say that Star Trek doesn't ever depict a
version of the future that aligns with the GOP's philosophy.

Never thought I'd miss the creepy clowns...

Could we just go a day? Like, a day? I ask because there were three shootings in Milwaukee last night that injured twenty-one people, and then today a kid put on his tactical bullshit, grabbed his arsenal, drove to a predominantly black neighborhood in Buffalo and shot thirteen people, killing ten of them.

Better dust off the old basket full of puppies again.

It's also basically the GOP platform right
now. No, really, it is. I submit as evidence
everything Marjory Taylor Greene says.

Why did this eighteen year old do this? Huh? Yeah, didn't I mention? He's eighteen. Oh, and he's white so he was taken into custody rather than shot. Speaking of how white he is, he's also a white supremacist and today's shooting--which he live streamed on goddamn twitch, until they cut him off--was motivated by "Replacement Theory." If you haven't heard of it, prepare to need a shower. It's the assertion that white people are being squeezed out by non-white people and so they are therefore justified in their use of violence. Told you you'd need a shower.

I know it sounds naive, but if it's "guns
for everybody" versus "no guns," there's
only one scenario where nobody gets shot.

So what I'm saying, and really what most Americans are saying, is could we maybe have some, I don't know, reasonable gun control laws? Because this doesn't happen anywhere else in the world. And yeah, I know there's a war going on in Ukraine right now, but wars are their own lunacy. I'm talking about regular people who just own military-style gear. Like, it's totally normal for so many people to just have automatic weapons lying around the house. And that's whatever, I'm not talking about the majority of them that haven't gone on murder-sprees.

21st century automatic weapons would
have been like phasers to James Madison.

I am however talking about the ones who do. And how maybe some people's hobby isn't worth the daily death toll we have to endure. Like, holy shit, take up stamp collecting. Is that still around? Probably not, but then the need to protect ourselves from the possibility of a bear attack or British troops trying to reconquer the colonies has also been on the wane since the early nineteenth century so let's talk maybe reigning in this already questionable right to own whatever military-grade firearms James Madison absolutely didn't have in mind when he wrote the Second Amendment.

"What Americans want to know is who leaked my
misogynistic, fundamentally flawed opinion that's
going to strip half the country of a basic right."

-Justice Alito, deflecting

But hey, do you know what defiantly didn't contribute to today's violence? Women exercising body autonomy. Nor did trans kids. Or teachers acknowledging the existence of either LGBTQ+ people, or slavery. Which is weird, because that's what the Right has been working themselves into a rabid-foam nutty over the past few years. Nope, it's all Planned Parenthood, who leaked the Supreme Court draft and the zero cases of voter fraud that somehow justify making it harder for people to vote. Especially if they're not white--which, hey, do you suppose there's a connection here? 

It's almost like a bunch of people who see their power eroding under the shifting attitudes and ever increasing diversity of the nation are just pandering to their base in a desperate, flailing bid to stay relevant in a country that's moved on.

Remember back in 2016, before everything went to hell? 
You know, when the only thing we had to worry about was idiots
dressing up like creepy clowns and skulking around at night?

We haven't not begun to go too far enough!

"Its my duty as a senator of a minor, under-
populated state to dictate national policy."

-Joe Manchin, President, apparently

But it's not like it failed failed right? The Women's Health Protection Act, I mean. Yeah, sure, Fifty-one Senate Republicans-well, fifty and Joe Manchin who's basically a Republican but whatever, voted against the bill which would have protected the right to an abortion once the Supreme Court gets through gutting Roe v Wade, but we knew this was going to happen. That wasn't the defeat. The defeat was when the GOP stole three seats on the Supreme Court--ok, two, but still. My point is Senate Democrats knew it wasn't going to pass. They're not great at a lot of things, but they can do math.

The idea was that everyone in the GOP and Joe Manchin, had to say to our collective face that they care more about pandering to shitty people and their horseshit GOP white victimhood narrative than they do about women. And they did. Because they do.

What? They attempted a coup. They're objectively shitty people. 

This, but with Republicans.

So I guess all I'm asking is that we stop calling this a defeat. Since the goal here was to put everyone in the Senate on record, it was, in that respect, a success. A few Senators, Manchin, Murkoski, and Collins, are all "we support codifying Roe v Wade but this bill went too far." Which, I mean, that's nonsense, right? Of course it doesn't go too far. Like, not to slippery slope here, but this is a slippery slope towards all kinds of right-wing wish-list bullshit.

A Federal abortion ban? Reversal of marriage equality? Mandatory Toby Keith concert attendance? Yeah, I know, it sounds crazy and alarmist, but so does letting three Supreme Court nominees lie to get confirmed and then strike down Roe v Wade. I have a hard time imagining what "going to far" looks like when it comes to protecting civil liberties. And besides, the one thing the current Democractic Party is not in any danger of is going to far.

Guys, seriously, we'll tell you when you've gone too far. 

Brett Kavanaugh's Lawn: The Real Victim

How dare these demonstrators approach Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts homes shouting slogans! How dare they. It's an unforgivable invasion of their personal space.

"And before you ask, no, I don't see the irony."

-The (alleged) sexual assault enthusiast 

who assured everyone that he believed

that Roe v. Wade was settled law

Besides, didn't we fight and win an entire
Civil War over the idea that some rights
should apply to everyone in all the States?

Sorry, I missed this because I was away for the weekend. And yes, I have a lovely time, thank you. But for real, protestors showed up at the homes of Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts homes on Saturday to protest the leaked draft of an upcoming court decision that would overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to ban abortion. Because something something, abortion should be left up to the people. Which is horseshit because it is up to the people. Specifically the people who, for the time being, are allowed to exercise control over their own bodies and choose to have an abortion or not.

"The Bill of Rights mentions guns, but it 
doesn't say anything about a right to a vagina.
It is therefore up to the States to decide."

-Uterus-less Justice Samuel Alito

That's why we're pro-choice and not, as Fox News loves to describe the overwhelming majority of Americans who support the freedom to choose, pro-abortion. No one is pro-abortion. Like, it's an invasive medical procedure and a decision I can't imagine any woman takes lightly. But whatever, the anti-choice people call themselves pro-life which is astounding given the Venn diagram of pro-life people who are also pro-capital punishment and accuse kids who survive our daily mass shootings crisis actors for calling for reasonable gun laws. Sorry, spiraling out a little here but for real. 

Holy shit, it's like putting Bill Clinton behind
 a podium that says "Marital Fidelity"or Trump
behind one that says "Coherent Sentences."

On the one hand I can see the dangerous implications of being cool with people just showing up to Supreme Court Justices' houses to protest decisions. It could have a ceiling effect on the rule of law. Sort of like appointing "Election Police" to make sure voters vote correctly. Florida, I'm looking at you. But on the other hand, this is a court packed by a guy most Americans voted against. A guy who filled--some might say stole--three seats on the Court with people who lied about how they regarded the status of Roe v. Wade just to pass the Senate confirmation. So what other recourse is there?

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that if Kavanaugh hadn't lied and then turned around to help rip a cherished and hard-won basic right from half the population, we wouldn't now be debating the rightness of people showing up to protest outside of his house. And before you ask, no, that's not victim blaming, that's consequences. He did, as I mention earlier, lie to the Senate to get appointed so in many ways he deserves it. And besides, it's not like they're protesting inside his vagina.

Hey, and not for nothing but have you ever noticed that when
"far-left" protesters show up, none of them bring guns?