This is more dangerous and political than….
Update: Here’s a new article in the NYTimes about the candidates’ reluctance to talk about gun control. What I get from this is that both candidates think they have more to lose from pissing off the gun nuts than half of the voters in this country.
It’s the biggest slap in the face to women who have been bumped down to second class status by the relentless discussion of personal reproductive matters, as well as dismissive of anyone who cares about unregulated access to guns and ammunition. Do voters have ANY say at all in this country anymore about what is important to them?
I caught up with the Daily Show this morning and did you know that if we want to discuss regulating access to guns, even just sloooooooowing the process down so that murderous paranoid psychotics can’t get their hands on them without raising suspicion, that we are “politicizing” gun control?
Yep, not only that but it’s an “unpopular” position for a candidate to take. Really? And how do we know it’s unpopular if no one is allowed to discuss it publicly? Can we take a vote on that?
The New York Times is a master of understatement on the issue:
Responding to the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colo., Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York,called on the presidential nominees Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to come up with a comprehensive gun control policy.
That might require political courage. Despite feelings of outrage over the horrific loss of life from shootings like the one on Friday, support for gun control has declined. Can a politician, particularly a presidential candidate, buck conventional wisdom and show leadership by calling for an assault weapons ban, even if it might not be popular?
Ok, let me put it this way. The President is supposed to be a leader. Leaders lead. That means they persuade people to do things they might not otherwise do. So, if the presidential candidates do not want to talk about how families’ lives and finances have been ruined as a result of free access to guns no matter how crazy the buyer is, because it *might* make them unpopular, then maybe they should find another profession. They could become accountants or ceramic artists where leadership on public matters is not a desired characteristic.
But wait! There’s more.
While it is completely unacceptable for us to discuss gun control because congress is exhausted by the subject and the issue is now “settled”, it is perfectly fine to discuss and find ways to regulate lady parts because that is NOT settled, even after 50 years when we all thought it was.
So, to recap: Gun control- unpopular, exhausting subject that is so five minutes ago.
Your Reproductive Organs- perpetually pleasing topic of conversation, politically popular, never goes out of style, DESPERATELY IN NEED OF IMMEDIATE REGULATION!
this. These are not at all dangerous or political.
Guns- kill human beings with jobs, responsibilities, lovers, children, parents and friends.
Your Reproductive Organ- May contain human beings that might develop all the characteristics of a gun victim. Or it may not. Or may be waiting for a player to be named later. The people that potential human touches is limited to one- the bearer.
I don’t know about you but I think we could all stand to hear a lot less about the latter and a whole lot more on the former. Gun control needs to get as much attention as possible. You can call it politicizing if you like, like I give a f^&*.
I call it self-preservation, maturity and common sense.
We’ve got our priorities all wrong if it is so outre to talk about how gun access has changed people’s lives permanently and destroyed their futures but have verbal diarrhea every damn day about whether or not some coed should have unfettered access to Lo-Ovral. There’s something very wrong, tribal and unmodern with American society today if we think that somehow it’s OK to treat half the population as cattle that needs to be herded but the wannabee warriors in the crowd are allowed to be as violent as possible and no one is supposed to talk about these inconsistencies.
Will someone please tell me where the women’s orgs are? Why they f^&* are we putting up with this s^&* during election season and letting the candidates get away with it? This is outrageous. No piece of legislation on reproductive rights should go to the floor of any legislative body without a companion piece of legislation that keeps guns out of the hands of crazy people.
Let’s make a deal: We’ll stop politicizing gun control when politicians stop politicizing our vaginas.
Tana French, the only mystery/thriller writer I read, has a new book featuring more of her characters from her Dublin murder squad. The new title is Broken Harbor. I love the way French writes. Her characters are vivid and deep, the dialogue snappy and sharp. It’s hard not to like some of these people, even the flawed ones.
Three days until my Audible credits renew. I can barely stand it. If you’re looking for a good beach read that is not brainless chick lit and interested in diving into mystery a la French, start with In the Woods.
Totally off topic, this is Jack Van Impe and his dotty wife Rexella talking about The Rapture. These two are very clever. It feels like Van Impe uses rapid fire scripture citations to invoke some kind of trance state. There are people out there who think he has this stuff in instant access memory. I think he’s either reading it from the teleprompter or listening to the bluetooth in his ear. Or maybe he does have it all memorized because he’s done this schtick for so long. But to me, I hear “Oh, we got trouble, right here in River City” playing music in the background.
So, here’s Trouble in River City. Compare and contrast:
Filed under: General | Tagged: Barack Obama, birth control, Gun Control, Jack Van Impe, jon stewart, lady parts, Mitt Romney, settled, the Daily Show, The Rapture | 23 Comments »