Muddy Waters

They gun nuts are frenetically throwing out one thing after another to muddy the waters, and sow confusion. They are quite good at that, having much experience. It comes from constantly having to defend positions that are basically indefensible. This shooting in Aurora is about as clear-cut an argument for sane gun laws as you will ever find. Yet those opposed to reforming the laws refuse to recognize facts, or even reality. Hence, the widely-repeated comic-book scenario, involving an heroic armed theatergoer, who would have miraculously stopped James Holmes in his tracks. That is, if only the movie theater didn't force it's customers to disarm themselves before attending a show.

Such an appeal, as absurd as it might be, resonates strongly with a lot of Americans who grew up absorbing a popular culture diet chock-full of such nonsense. In particular, men are prone to fantasize about performing a deed so heroic that it would instantly erase all of their feelings of impotent rage. Feelings which stubbornly persist no matter how well-armed they become. All those guns and no place to go. And, as we now know, the only heroes in this colossal tragedy were the men who were themselves unarmed, but sacrificed their own lives to save the lives of those they loved.

Holy Habeas Corpus Batman!

The indications are that the first audience member to announce his intention to sue, is planning on suing the owners of the movie theater, the producers of the Batman movie, and a doctor who is alleged to have treated and medicated James Holmes' before the shooting.

No mention of any plans to sue the gun manufactures though. What about the people who sold Holmes' 6000 rounds of ammunition over the internet? How about suing the clerks at the two stores where he bought the guns? Why not sue the stores themselves? What about all of the accessories he purchased, and used during his killing spree? Shouldn't the people who sold him body armor, a gas mask, tear gas, etc. be held accountable?

Why not sue the state of Colorado, and the city of Aurora? Quite obviously, the respective governments failed miserably in preventing James Holmes from acquiring a deadly arsenal and using it to kill or wound 70 people. I would think a lawsuit against the federal government would be in order as well, on the same grounds.

Why not sue the fucking NRA? Has anyone tried that approach yet? You won't win, but the lawsuit would certainly have more merit then the ones actually being considered. And it would attract some very unwanted attention to the gun lobby. Why not file a class-action lawsuit against the NRA, on behalf of every American who has been impacted by gun violence? Something along the lines of the Tobacco lawsuits.

If the government is not going to protect us, then another approach is needed. And I'm not talking about going to Gander Mountain and buying out their inventory.

High Water Mark of the Confederacy

This reenactment is invaluable for the visual images it provides of the doomed Confederate assault on the third day of the Battle of Gettysburg. However, a reenactment is exactly what it is. Meaning the film used thousands of men whose hobby is reenacting the Civil War. They were quite convincing in the role of rebel soldiers, albeit perhaps a bit too-well fed looking. The tattered, and very "un-uniform", uniforms that they wore were historically accurate. In fact, their appearance made me think of the quote attributed to some European military theorist who dismissed the American Civil War as bring fought by "armed mobs". The Union troops, on the other hand, were smartly turned-out in their regulation blue uniforms.

I fully understand why the film's producers decided to go with a remarkably "bloodless" depiction of an event that was quite literally drenched in blood and gore. Graphic depictions of bodies being blown apart by cannon fire would have been a jarring counterpoint to the overall mood of the film. Still, that was the reality of the thing. All that metal flying through the air did horrible things to human bodies. But, in the film, all of those bodies hurled up into the air by exploding shells come down fully intact.

Reading the accounts of participants in the actual battle, conveys a much better impression of what was going on as those roughly 12,000 men moved across that field under withering fire, then does this visual presentation. In fact the buildup to the assault is much more effective then the engagement itself. The viewer has that awful feeling in the pit of his stomach, knowing what's about to happen to all of those men, but the charge itself is anti-climactic. In my opinion, it could have used a dose of realism.

HMS Romney

The only thing that would make this fascinating bit of history better, would be the HMS Romney having been a French, rather then a British, ship. Even so, there is some rich irony in the fact that the British dispatched the Romney to Boston in 1768 to help enforce the Townshend Acts, which were a series of laws passed by the British Parliament to raise revenue in the American Colonies. In other words, these were taxes.

The Colonists reacted very strongly to the passage of the Townshend Acts. All of that fiery rhetoric about "no taxation without representation" would eventually lead to the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and the American Revolution. The Romney was involved in such things as impressing local sailors into the Royal Navy, providing a refuge for tax commissioners who were fleeing the mob, and the Romney even seized a vessel belonging to John Hancock. Yes, that John Hancock.

The Obama campaign should commission a reproduction of the Romney, in the form of a parade float, and send it around the country. JFK's campaign did something similar with his famed boat the PT 109. Of course, the intention there was to celebrate the heroism of the commander and crew of the PT 109. In this case, it would be to draw attention to the fact that a British warship named HMS Romney was, in effect, a tax enforcer during the American Revolution. It would be a clever, and intelligent, way to educate the voters about their own history, and that of the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

NOT MILK

Ah, Monica Lewinsky. The raven-haired vixen who almost brought down a sitting president. Or, should that be "went down on a sitting president?" Either way, she represents an simpler, and more innocent time. Wait, scratch that last sentence. Let me try again. Monica the young lady who proved that even if you can't grow up to be president, if you play your cards right, maybe you will grow up to blow the president. Hmm. Don't think that last one would work in a Middle School Social Studies Textbook. Definitely not in Texas, anyway.

In all seriousness, I'm surprised more attention hasn't been paid to the possibility that Monica Lewinsky was a GOP plant. Remember that hideous woman who Monica confessed all to? Wasn't she a Republican? It just makes sense. The Republicans were desperate to destroy Bill Clinton ahead of the 2000 presidential election. They knew they couldn't run on the economy because it was running strong. The country was at peace, and Al Gore would have a solid record of accomplishment to run on.

But, Gore instead ran away from that record as fast as he could. Because that's what his harpy of a wife told him to do. Tipper Gore was oh so outraged at the Monica Lewinsky scandal that she told Al Gore to distance himself from Clinton during the campaign. As well, Gore picked someone who was quite possibly the worst running mate imaginable in the person of Joe Lieberman. Supposedly, the so-called "conscience of the Senate" would help erase the stains of the Clinton presidency from the voter's minds. What he ended up doing was costing Gore a half-dozen or more states.

Even with all of that, Al Gore still won the fucking election. But, it ended up being close enough for the bastards to steal it.