Trump for King!

Watching the British royal funerary activities this morning gave me a good idea. I know many of my British friends are anti-monarchy but it’s always struck me that it actually made sense to separate the duties of ceremonial head of state and those of the chief executive. I never understood why the US President had to waste so much scarce management time hosting lavish dinners, attending funerals and inaugurations, and drawing weather charts. And don’t get me started on golf! The chief executive of the USA has lots of stuff to do and none of it is THAT!

So, I think the US could use a ceremonial, titular figurehead—a king, if you will—who does all that glad-handing, publicity stuff but stays out of the actual business of running the country. This person could be the subject of the nation’s obsessive leader-worship and free up the actual president to work doing boring things like fixing energy policy, staving off climate change and improving the criminal justice system. Of course, as per the British example, the new American king would have to be good with being the center of constant scrutiny and attention and not mind having the occasional (or frequent) scandal called out. And a large number of neer-do-well offspring and relatives would be a plus and ensure endless media attention and public entertainment. We just have to make sure (as with the British royalty) that the new American king isn’t allowed to get his fingers anywhere near the nuclear trigger, elections, judges, bridges, walls, or anything else whatsoever involving the actual running of the country. But he could have a fancy uniform with more stars and gold braid than anyone, ever.

And who do we know who fits these criteria and loves the trappings of royalty but has no interest in bothersome briefing papers and “policies” and “procedures” and “laws,” and always being reminded about not telling national secrets to our enemies or random passers-by? Who else but Donald Trump?

Think about it. Trump loves being worshipped, catered to and coddled, and being the center of attention—just like a king. Furthermore, his followers desperately want to keep worshiping him and as king, they wouldn’t have to worry about him not getting reelected since he’d be there till he died so they could just shut the fuck up about their election nonsense. And then when he did die, we could have a more entertaining Game of Thrones with Ivanka and Don jr maneuvering to take over—my money’s on Queen Ivanka I. And since Trump wouldn’t have to “run” for office, he wouldn’t have to constantly rile up the masses with his stupid, annoying lies and could just go back to ignoring them like he did his whole life. Do you think he’s really against abortion and cheap immigrant labor? He’s just making shit up to get votes, but as king he wouldn’t NEED any more votes. As king he could just bask in the worship of his followers and utilize his single, solitary actual skill—hospitality, shoveling tons of bullshit, and providing an endless source of squalid entertainment. But this time it would be of actual use to the country AND keep him occupied so he doesn’t screw up anything important. Win for him, win for his followers, and win for the country! Trump for king!

Although…he is a little weak on the “country before self” thing that Elizabeth II made the norm for royal attitude. So maybe not.

Hiring Season

So, I’ve been getting probably a dozen phone calls a day and half again that many texts from my many “friends” who are looking for money. Not that we don’t all keep an eye out for any stray cash that might be lying on the sidewalk or a check we forgot to deposit, but these particular “friends” are looking for me to give them cash money from my ever-dwindling post-retirement bank account.

You know what that means, folks. That’s right, it’s hiring season again! Yes, it’s time for the annual job recruitment effort for public employees that we call “elections.” And the resumes are pouring in! Get to reading them, everybody, we’ve got a lot of positions to fill and the deadline is coming right up! So who’s on the hiring team with me for this round? Oh, right, it’s you, me and everybody else over 17—at least anybody who wants to and has all their papers proving that they’re really them. Don’t miss your chance to help select our newest employees from entry level up to CEO, and say “you’re fired” to current employees who are lazy, liars, con-men or closet Nazis. Or, you can fire those who AREN’T lazy, lying Nazi cheaters—up to you! You can pick by gender, you can pick by religion or by who has the biggest boobs. Heck, you can refuse to even consider an applicant of the wrong race or who has a disability. That is, you can do all the things that pesky HR person at work keeps telling you aren’t allowed when you’re hiring at your day job. Gosh darn it, when it comes to elections, WE’RE the managers, HR, and the Board of Directors all rolled into one.  

You  know what’s even better? The job search doesn’t cost us anything! The job candidates themselves have to pay for everything! They even spend exorbitant sums of money just to try to get us to READ their job application and make sure we remember their name. And they spend even MORE money to make sure we hear plenty of bad things about all the other job applicants—some of which may even be true! Then they’ll also promise each of us lots of favors if we’ll hire them (take that HR! bribery my butt!). Of course they usually promise each of us different stuff but nobody really expects them to keep their promises—it’s the thought that counts!

So what’s wrong with this? I mean besides the hourly phone calls from my new friend “Spam Risk,” who seems to have confused me with someone he went to elementary school with.  

Well, would this be how you’d find the best candidate to be, say, assistant purchasing manager at your company? Is the best job candidate the one who can spend the most money promoting themself for the job? “Well, we’ll interview you but we’re holding the interview during a week-long stay at the Four Seasons (hotel, not landscaping business), which you’ll have to pay for on your own. Oh, and we also expect you to host a party for our hiring team. And don’t stint! You should know the last successful hire brought a magic show and trained elephants. Can’t afford all that? Well then, you’re clearly not the right person for the job!”

Does your business hire as corporate attorney the lawyer with the most tv ads? Do you pick the finance director based on how many lawn signs they have? Do you hire a techie to update your computer hardware who’s funded his campaign to get the job using money donated by companies trying to sell you equipment? No, in the private world, you choose people based on their actual capability to do the job AND you consciously design the hiring process to ELIMINATE the applicants’ money and connections as a factor—and you certainly screen out applicants who have a conflict of interest because they took money from your business competitors.

So if we want to hire (that is, elect) the best people for the job, we shouldn’t let their candidacy be weighted in favor of those who are best able to convince vested interests to give them money. Those vested interests always want something and it’s usually something that’s NOT in everyone else’s interest. Put job candidates on an equal financial footing by prohibiting private funding of political campaigns and politicians and fund them publicly. And if you’re one of those who’ll miss the robocalls, there’s still the extended car warranty people.

List of Laws that Do Not Apply to Trump

I understand the law-and-order-loving red hats are frothing at the mouth and planning to take to the streets, riot and burn, secede from the union, and hold their breath until they turn blue unless the FBI is disbanded—all because the DOJ thinks Trump needs to follow the same laws that apply to everyone else in the country and thus took government property out of his basement and put it back where it belongs.

You know, if you’re going to threaten to bomb and shoot a bunch of people whenever law enforcement tries to make Trump obey a law, you should at least do the rest of us the favor of telling us exactly WHICH laws Trump shouldn’t have to follow. That way we’ll know in advance what’s going to piss you off. And of course we wouldn’t want to do that, cuz we’re the people who’re concerned about other people’s feelings, right?

So to start things off, I’ll give you MY list of laws that apply to you and me but don’t apply to Trump.

My List: None.

That was quick. Now it’s your turn, MAGA hats. Since you probably have a pretty long list, let me start you off with a time-saver.

MAGA List: Whatever laws Trump doesn’t want to follow

Feel free to fill in specific laws that are REALLY important for Trump to be able to ignore. Like paying your taxes (US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, clause 1) and not putting your children to work for you in high government positions (5 U.S.C. § 3110). I’m sure you’ll come up with many more. If not, Don jr can help—unless his dad flushed the list down the toilet.

Whenever Trump is called out for not following the law, or rules, or common sense, he cries “not fair!” He’s said, “I’m being treated more unfairly than any other person!” In this case, “not fair” is really toddlerese for “I don’t like it and you’re a doo-doo head!”

But for the non-toddlers among us, “not fair” means that certain very special people get things, or get away with things, that YOU can’t. So, like who are all the people who’ve GOTTEN AWAY WITH, say, taking boxes of government documents home, sticking them in their basement and refusing to give them back when asked? Who are the people where law enforcement said, “Well, this person is too popular and important to be held accountable by the law!”  Oh, right, there’s only 1 such person—Donald J Trump. So it’s unfair, alright, it’s unfair that HE gets special favors and the American people get the shaft.

You know, we could make all these worries go away if we just dealt with all the pesky issues with elections, like which voting machines are controlled by which foreign countries using space lasers, whose truck of fake ballots will get to the county seat first, and why black people are even allowed to vote for crying out loud. Let’s solve this problem once and for all. We’ll have just one last election: “Who gets to be king?” Then the king will take over and appoint his friends (and his bodyguard, golf caddy, caterer, and masseuse) to run things and we won’t ever have to vote again (or be allowed to). Just think! No more puzzling over which reality tv star or celebrity blogger would make a handsomer senator, or whose lies about how low THEY’LL make taxes and gas prices are more believable (or more entertaining). Just let the king and the people who kiss his royal butt most worshipfully take care of everything. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Then we don’t have to bother our poor little heads over whether the king is obeying the law. The king MAKES the laws. Heck, the king IS the law! L’état, c’est moi! The Supreme Court will love it for sure. They’re always saying how important it is to do things like back in the day of the Founding Fathers, right? And back THEN we had a king and he did whatever he wanted. Oh, and don’t worry about the whole “taxation without representation” thing that give that old king so much trouble. We’ll still have the best representatives money can buy—provided they’ve proven their loyalty to the king. And of course our new king will be sure we still have the freedom of speech to praise the king as loudly as we want and the freedom to worship at the Christian church of our choice.

Make no mistake, if the “president” can’t be held accountable by law, then you don’t have a president, you have a king. And if you want a king, well, there are some other places you can go.

Mitch’s Idea?

Mitch McWeasel, never one to let a dirty deed go undone, may accidentally be doing something useful. His latest move, to delay Senate trial of the impeachment charge till after the Biden inauguration, of course is his knee jerk response to ANY Democratic plan—stall, delay, block. At first, I thought this was dreadful, but I think it actually may inadvertently be a good thing. How’s that you say? Why not try Trumpolini immediately so we can boot his butt out while still in office? Well, that WOULD be very rewarding, but, if as I suspect, there aren’t currently 17 Republican votes in favor, Trumpolini will have then survived another attempt at removal and he’ll go further off the rails during his last day or 2 in ways that will make his current corrupt trashing of democracy look statesmanlike. Among other things, There would be an unprecedented wave of pardons, the possibility of which his “friends” and their fellow bottom-feeders are already using to grift money from convicted felons who want them to “lobby” for (buy) pardons. And what’s stopping this? The delay in the Senate. SOMEONE has suggested to Trumpolini that if he does any more stupid or corrupt shit (like pardoning all the insurrectionists, thereby demonstrating his support for them and confirming the allegations of the articles of impeachment), then Mitch won’t be able to keep enough republican senators in line and he’ll be convicted. But if he does nothing and is a good little boy for another few days, then impeachment will die a lonely death in the seditionist jaws of Hawley and friends.  

Is this Mitch’s idea? An actual patriotic deed on the part of one of the most powerful anti-American forces in Congress? Nah. More likely the rat-like survival instincts of Trump’s few remaining “friends” kicked in and, since we know about rats and sinking ships, connected the dots and told him if he wants to avoid a lifetime ban from politics, he’d better cool his jets for a couple more days? Can Trump even DO this? One marshmallow now vs 2 marshmallows later? I guess will see.

So is it worth it? Putting up w pardons for waves of idiot minions and risking further idiot misbehavior vs the chance of seeing Trumpolini shown the door while still president? Hmm….On the whole, I think I’d like to give him enough rope to hang himself with—another couple days during which he can say and do enough stupid shit to induce a couple more republican senators to suddenly discover the locked storage facility where they’ve been parking their spines (hint, it’s probably the same one where you parked your brains, password Treason4$). Might be worth it.

“Let’s not bicker and argue about ‘oo killed ‘oo…”

“Let’s not bicker and argue about ‘oo killed ‘oo…” said the Scots Lord in Monty Python when his people were incensed with the brave but dangerous Sir Lancelot for STORMING HIS CASTLE AND KILLING HIS SECURITY GUARDS. Gee, what does that remind you of?

But unfortunately, there are rumblings that Joe Biden would rather move on and let bygones be bygones rather than pursue to the ends of the earth the traitors who attacked a sitting joint session of Congress in a (fortunately unsuccessful) attempt to disrupt the counting and recognition of the Electoral College vote—and to “Hang Mike Pence” (their words, not mine), shoot Nancy Pelosi and lynch as many supporters of democracy as they could get their zip ties around. I mean one of the insurrectionists was actually filmed carrying zip ties up the steps to the Senate chambers and you can’t have missed the scaffold and noose erected outside. This was not a “protest march,” whatever the most gullible dupes following along might’ve thought. This was an attempt to reverse the results of an election that the Dear Leader lost by 7 million votes. Will of the People? The will of the People was pretty clear and it involved Trumpolini leaving office without letting the door hit him in the ass on his way out.

So, should the incoming administration just smooth this over, forgive and forget and let bygones be bygones? Well, we don’t let bygones be bygones when somebody breaks into a house and steals a tv (“That won’t change the fact that the tv’s gone!”). Petty thieves get systematically arrested and punished. So why in the name of blind Lady Justice should Democrats be willing to just LET THIS GO?

Of course, a great many of us are not willing to whitewash this. But how about those with the power to actually follow up? Not so sure about them. Evidence for my concerns? After all, I can’t read Joe Biden’s mind (his microchip hasn’t been activated yet) but before the Capitol incident, Joe mentioned a number of times that he was not in favor of prosecution of Trump and his family (although if the Justice Department “wanted to” he wouldn’t try to stop them). Thanks. Also, “letting go” was his and president Obama’s reaction to the financial meltdown of ’08. Their administration made no attempt to hold ANYONE accountable for the financial chicanery behind a financial collapse that cost all of us a lot of money and nearly destroyed the economy. Yes, I know what went on was of dubious illegality (a problem in itself) but they should’ve tried. They should’ve done EVERYTHING within bounds of the law to hold the feet of the responsible parties to the fire. And, I think failure to do so may’ve been the camel-back-breaking straw that cost us the presidency in ’16. Not going after the financial evildoers convinced a LOT of people that Democrats are just as complicit in big business’ looting of America as anyone.  Don’t agree? Ever talk to a Bernie supporter?

Anyway, the radical right is irretrievably convinced the system is rigged against them (until told otherwise by the Fox Ministry of State Propaganda). But I think most of the rest of us are willing to be convinced that the System of our Constitution and Country are still capable of standing for justice. So convince us, Joe and Kamala.

Of course, this may all be academic as I strongly suspect that before he loses power, Trumpolini will issue blanket pardons for everyone involved. Can’t do that? They have to be caught and charged with crimes? Nope, George Washington issued blanket pardons for everyone involved in the Whisky Rebellion (read his speech and details of the proclamation issued in Washington’s name by Governor Henry Lee of Virginia). Although actually, no one knows this fact about pardons, so here’s a good idea. The FBI sets up a “” site where everybody who was in the Capitol just signs up (with name, address and email) to be put on the pardon list. Hah! Forget wasting time w facial recognition software.

Good luck to us all.

Let’s All Work Together!

We’re all excited now that there’s an actual human being going to be in the White House instead of a sociopathic, narcissistic greed monkey (quite the trifecta of character flaws). Now it’s the turn of Joe Biden, pretty much the anti-Trump, who campaigned on the idea, “We need to work together once more…”

Right. All this kumbaya, join hands across the aisle stuff sounds great, but you know what? That’s great only if your idea of working together is something like “Let’s agree on this. I’ll punch you in the face until you agree to give me your lunch money! Deal?” Of course, that’s a silly example. Republicans would never be satisfied with just lunch money—what they really want is our health insurance and social security; taking food aid away from the poor is small potatoes (or, even better, NO potatoes).

Working together isn’t logically possible unless both sides have a common goal and the dispute is only in regards to how to achieve it. But there’s no “working together” when two groups want completely different and mutually exclusive things. Genghis Khan wants to burn your village, kill the men, rape the women and sell the children into slavery. Your village just wants to be left alone. “Hey, Genghis, let’s see if we can work together on this?” How’s that go? Do you both compromise on killing and raping only HALF the people and the rest promise to scream louder so Genghis still feels satisfied?

Like I always say, you can’t plot your course until you know where you want to go. And right now, one side wants to go to that bad place where the rich get richer and everyone else…well, that’s really THEIR problem here in the land of the free-to-be-as poor-as-you-want as long as I’ve got mine. Don’t think that’s the Republican platform? Well, technically, you’d be correct because last August they decided they didn’t really need an actual platform and that “Whatever Donald Trump wants to do” was perfectly adequate for planning purposes.

BUT, if they were to write it down, minus the usual obfuscating language, the “rich-get-richer” Republican platform would be to:

  • Limit their contribution to the public good (lower taxes, more pollution, and fewer regulations on anything that makes gobs of money)
  • Limit the flow of resources down the economic ladder (cut public health care, keep minimum wages low, cut unemployment, divert public education funds to private, for-profit schools)
  • Plunder what’s left of our natural resources (drill, baby, drill)
  • Play casino games with the financial markets (credit default swaps, anyone?)
  • Sell off public and private assets (what was it that Mitt Romney used to do for a living?)
  • Distract the natural opponents of the above by name-calling (“socialism!”) and culture wars (gender issues, cancel culture) and when that fails, keep ‘em in line by police action (funny how plundering a business of a hundred dollar pair of shoes calls down the full wrath of the law, but plundering a business by buying it out, selling its assets and firing its employees is celebrated as the miracle of the market)

To do this, the Republicans need to ensure that political power and wealth are consolidated in the hands of a few people (our new word today, boys and girls, is “oligarchy”). Having a political process in which achieving high office is completely dependent on massive amounts of money guarantees that the bargain is “I’ll make you powerful, if you’ll make me rich.” Having power that is disconnected from wealth is an existential threat to oligarchs so it’s important to make money as important as possible in politics (Citizens United?) and to limit the ability of opponents of the oligarchy (w should be pretty much everyone else except for the culture war distractions) to access power—by gerrymandering, voter roll purges, disenfranchisement, and limiting access of certain groups to voting.

Right. So how, exactly, do you “work together” with this? With people whose goal is to put their knee on the neck of the country and keep it there until what we think of as “America” gasps its last breath? Hyperbole? I think not. In the last 2 months, I’ve heard calls for canceling voting results by legislative fiat, for martial law, and secession. And THAT’S from high public figures—forget about drunk uncle and that weirdo at the end of the bar. So, what’s the common ground here? The shared core goals? SOMETHING that we both want to achieve but just need to come to an agreement on how to accomplish it? I don’t see anything at all. Sometimes, Genghis Khan just needs to be driven off.

Casualties from Iranian Invasion Continue to Mount, Approach 150,000

What if the headline looked like this?
“The Iranian 3 and 4th Armies, aided by what experts believe to be the bulk of the troops in the Revolutionary Guard, have continue their attack on the Gulf Coast. Although no one could have predicted their surprise spring offensive, invading multiple Eastern seacoast ports on inflatable rafts believed to have been supplied by the Chinese, the Pentagon had issued many warnings that despite having their offensive halted in key Northern states such as New York, that they were likely to shift their attack to less protected states, such as in the Southeast.
Currently, Iranian troops have made Florida and Texas into strongholds, where they’ve been easily able to resist the typically feeble and uncoordinated counterassaults launched by a hodgepodge of Army, Marine and National Guard forces. The Iranians have killed a number of our front line troops, but they seem to be concentrating their particular ire on the civilian population, indiscriminately machine-gunning crowds and setting fire to every nursing home they encounter. To date, Iranian forces have killed over 140,000 Americans and wounded over a million. Hopes that they would find the oppressive humidity of the Gulf Coast uncongenial, causing them to lose heart and return home to their dry, desert climes have, to date, proved unfounded.
Troops attempting to stem the tide of highly-motivated and well-supported Iranian combat units have been asking for additional scout troops and drones to better determine the exact location of the enemy, but Washington has sent only a few, advising our generals that “If you don’t see any Iranians, they must not be there.” Local commanders state they are also running out of ammunition and flak vests and have been calling their West Point colleagues in other states to see if they’ve got any extras. Some enterprising local residents have taken to hiding in their basement and coming out only furtively while wearing their own flak vests and helmets and avoiding the large crowds that Iranian helicopters find tempting targets. Other residents scoff at such measures and have been gathering unprotected in public locations, where they are frequently on the receiving end of Iranian mortar attacks.
The White House, under an umbrella of air defenses, cybersecurity and the 82nd Airborne advises Gulf Coast commanders and citizens, “Sucks to be you.”
Most people are pinning their hopes on secret anti-Iranian weapons currently being developed.”

You betcha we’d all be running around with our hair on fire if Muslims with machine guns had invaded and killed 140,000 people with no signs of stopping. Our leaders would unite us in an all-out effort to eradicate the invaders. This would be Pearl Harbor on steroids AND crack. We really WOULD have some shock-and-awe. Even the anti-maskers would be dressed in full combat gear and not saying “whatsa matter, pansy, can’t take a bullet?”
However, instead of large (and brown skinned) people with automatic weapons, we have an invisible enemy of no particular religion. And, so, even though the casualties and consequences are equal, we instead have dithering, buck-passing, and general attempt to wish the problem away and demonization of those who try to deal with it.
So if we’d rally together to beat a visible threat, why not do the same for an invisible one?”

What Would Republicans Have Thought of the Boston Tea Party?

I mean, it WAS a Tea Party. That’s good. They were protesting TAXES! Yaay! And everyone dressed up as Indians so they were demonstrating political incorrectness AND pushing blame onto a troublesome minority at the same time. Great, a twofer! Come on, what’s not to like?
Well, hold on a minute. What about the violence part? I mean, they destroyed somebody else’s PRIVATE PROPERTY. You know tea doesn’t grow on trees (well, bushes), and it came on a boat all the way from China or India or someplace far away and those sailors had to go through storms and stuff and that cost somebody a WHOLE LOT OF MONEY and those violent protesters just threw it into the harbor! What if the owner didn’t have enough insurance? Or it didn’t cover acts of war or insurrection—and you know that’s what the insurance company would say, even if it was “Indians” who did it.
AND, even worse, they were protesting the legal actions of their OWN GOVERNMENT. It wasn’t that a few rogue tax collectors were out of control and giving a bad name to all the good tax collectors, it was the King and his whole government who raised the taxes! Gosh, you can’t take to the streets (or docks) to protest your own government, you should SUPPORT your government. No matter what. And if you don’t like it, just leave. God Save the King and all that (you DO stand up when they play that tune, don’t you?).
Gosh, what’s a good Republican to think? People with a just grievance but who are both protesting against the government AND destroying private property! Republican heads are spinning. We hate taxes but we hate violent protests against the government too! Where are my cognitive dissonance pills? I know, if the violent protest involves white people upset about money, it’s good and I’ll name a wing of my party after it. If it’s dark-skinned people upset about being beaten and murdered, it’s bad, and I can go on happily ignoring whose knee was on whose neck.

If You Don’t Like it, Leave!

Just read this devastating rejoinder in the comments section of a NYT article discussing racial problems in America. Really? Did you just think that up all by yourself this morning while reading the newspaper? No, I bet you’ve been parroting that half-assed excuse for not dealing with something all your life. I’ve certainly been hearing variations of it since I was a teenager in the ‘60s (“America, love it or leave it!”). It’s the all-purpose, get-out-of-rational-thought-jail card that numb nuts have been playing all century.
Thing is, nobody but sociopaths actually lives their life that way. My wife says the front door is sticking? Hey, if you don’t like it, leave! Then she says our 8 year old is disobedient and doing poorly in school. Don’t like that, either? Leave! Oh wait, then I’m stuck with the kid. I’d better leave first. Better yet, we’ll put the kid in a foster home.
Got a beef with how we do things here in Land-of-the-Free? Don’t want to hear about it. Just shut up. Better yet, shut up and leave! Hey, every dictator worth his epaulettes and armored limo knows that the easiest way to get rid of problems is to get rid of the people who mention them! Why solve a problem when you can just ignore it?
Actually, I may be too harsh (who me??). There are times when it’s ok to keep your mouth shut—when something is none of your business. But when somebody does something or says something that affects you and those you care for, well then it IS your business. And if you care for your country, then something that affects it (or reflects poorly on it) IS your business. The prejudices you hold about people in the darkness of your mind are between you and whatever passes for your conscience. But how we collectively treat people and deal with the myriad problems that we face are my and everybody’s responsibility. I will not be denied the opportunity to make my country better.
If you don’t like it, FIX IT!  

Erasing History

So pulling down the statues of Confederate leaders is “erasing history,” meaning we want to hide the truth about the past, let it be lost and forgotten in the mists of time, cover it up and bury it in the litter box. Well, that would be bad, right? Same thing as Stalin airbrushing his latest enemies out of official pictures in textbooks and news archives (some of those pics got pretty empty over the years). We can’t pretend stuff didn’t happen. We need to remember all the dumbass things we did so we don’t do them again (didn’t somebody say something like that?).
And of course, teaching stuff in school and writing about it in books doesn’t count, because who the heck pays attention in school or reads books? Maybe a short YouTube video… But what we really need are STATUES! Yeah, every government building should have a bronze, bigger-than-life-sized fertilizer truck with Tim McVeigh stepping out of the cab so we remember not to blow people up (and government employees remember to keep an eye peeled). Schools should all have statues at their entrance of Dylan and Eric with their trench coats and weapons ready to rock and roll—or another child-murderer of their choice (oh so many to pick from)—so we know not to kill kids.
Really? No, not really. Confederate sympathizers and apologizers, as well as actual sane people, know very well that we don’t put up statues of despicable things we need to remember, we put up statues of people and events we LIKE and respect and celebrate. And of course they DO love and celebrate the leaders of the Confederacy, cuz they told that darn Federal gummint where they could go stick their anti-slave talk. Nobody was gonna slave-shame THEM. And THAT’S the problem, a lot more than the statues themselves. Too many people still today don’t really have a problem with what happened in the slave-holding states back then and what is happening to the descendants of those slaves here today.
And for those of you who are limbering up your typing fingers to reply that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, it was about states’ rights, read the various Confederate States’ declarations of secession. The “rights” they wanted to preserve were the right to buy and sell people, make them work for nothing and beat them bloody if they didn’t. Guess your statues didn’t teach you right after all. Pull ‘em down.