A rough place on Election Day - a county polling station out West

Two days ago I turned a corner and surprised a man who I instantly saw had a gun holstered on his hip. I was surprised, too, but this is the Four Corners (New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Utah). To his credit he hardly flinched and to my credit, I instantly smiled and said, “How you doing?” He said something like ‘fine, thanks.’ It didn’t have to end that way did it?

         Even if open carry laws were not a ‘happening thing’ out here, and even though I’ll keep using my parent’s thoughts on a place where people wore guns – “That’s a rough place” – I could see myself becoming accustomed to the occasional sight. I don’t think that’s good for my country.

         The ‘rough place’ where I saw the armed man? Why it was a county building, a polling station, and it was election day.

         The fact that we can’t count on a clear demarcation between the two domineering political parties on this issue is enough for me to end my days of knee-jerk voting for Democrats no matter how bad the Republican opponent is. They must step up now or lose, I say.

Adolph Reed, Jr. on Salon and in Harper's are must reads.

I got a jolt from reading an interview with Adolph Reed, Jr. on Salon. Here's the link to Thomas Frank's interview. Mr. Reed has an article in the current Harper's magazine. I think both the article and the interview are must-reads for me. I'm sure I'll have to read each twice. It's deep stuff.
I argue a lot in this space that the Democratic Party has compromised itself to the point of being useless as a counterweight to the Republican remaking of America. Mr. Reed has a grasp on this you simply must read.
I won't reiterate the arguments here, but here is one quote from Reed contained in the Salon interview: "Here’s a factoid: a Roper poll a month before the 1944 presidential election found that 68 percent of respondents said that they would not favor a political and economic system no matter what it was called that didn’t pivot off of a fundamental right to a job, that didn’t rest on the fundamental premise that everyone in a society who is willing and able to work should have a right to a job." Look how opinion has been shifted by shady pols and corporate media!
When discussing the old folks of the Tea Party movement Mr. Reed responds to Thomas Frank saying that much of the accusations about President Obama being a Socialist or a Communist are just racist code words:
Reed: "I'll tell you, it's that Birchite (John Birch Society) psychosis. This is the social base of fascism, really, is what they are."
Frank: "They don't have street gangs."
Reed: "No, thank God. Not yet anyway. And I guess that's partly because a lot of them are pensioners."
Frank: "They'll get you with their golf carts."
I can't help but think where "they" are going to get us is with their gun laws. As states add open carry of guns to stand-your-ground-laws to militias and neighborhood patrols by creeps how will we avoid the chill upon political discussion and demonstrations? How long will it take for the shooters to stand their ground in a heated debate or street protests? Do you think juries in those states will convict the shooters? I think that juries often rule against their own convictions when confronted with the hard fact of laws. If it's legal to stand your ground when threatened, if it's legal to pack heat, if a crowd of protesters illegally break out of their "free speech zone" ...  Can the armed street gangs be far behind?

Old-fashioned Populism is the all-American answer to defeat the Corporatist Two-Party System ruining the U.S.

Here is a link to JimHightower.com. It will open in a new window and I encourage you to read: SEEDS OF A MOVEMENT: A 21ST CENTURY POPULIST RENEWAL IS FLOURISHING AT AMERICA'S GRASSROOTS

So you thought Texas was full of yahoos? Think again. This man was elected Texas Commissioner of Agriculture in a state-wide election in 1982. Texas was a hotbed of the old populist movement and it was farmers who led the way against the railroad and banking interests. Jim Hightower is the living embodiment of an old Southern tradition.

Nothing convinces me more that the Democratic Party is not going to lead us out of our moral decline in this country than the fact that it was the Democrats who failed to recognize the populist revolution that elected President Obama. Back-stabbing Republicans were predictable. Back-stabbing Democrats are the enemy and I don't cry when they are defeated. 

I have not heard Democrats take a solid stand against the perverted use of eminent domain that must be if the Keystone Pipeline is to be built. I have not seen the Dems protect the innocent children of America from gun violence even though a simple, literal interpretation of the Constitution clearly indicates that regulation is allowed.

I've blogged on these issues before, so I'll end now, leaving you time for Jim Hightower.

about dueling, and not with banjos

I just read a bit of this article on Huffington Post wherein Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky bemoaned the fact that he could not challenge someone to a duel and still be a United States Senator. You know what? I'd vote for a return to dueling in the United States and I swear to God, I MEAN it!
Dueling, as I understand it from history books and novels (mainly novels) was considered a gentlemen's activity. It was governed by strict rules of protocol. A man could lose his reputation for life if he cheated in a duel or shrank from an honorable challenge. I would not change all of this. However, there were some people who were so scorned by "gentle" society that it was permissible for a gentleman to ignore the challenge and not lose face. I would absolutely change this for the United States. We are, excuse me, we claim to be, a democracy. Therefore, I, as a lower middle class adult could be spurned by, say, Donald Trump if I challenged him to a duel. No, no, no. If I challenge Donald Trump or Rudolf the Red-Nosed Giuliani to a duel, and they refuse, they MUST possibly face a lifetime of humiliation - titters, giggles, averted eyes as they enter the five-star restaurant. Subtle insults from humble desk clerks as they check in to their over-priced hotel. Outright insubordination from underlings who are willing to face a duel with the proven coward. Oh, yes. I am serious as death on this.

As I am only recommending a return to dueling in the States, I insist that only guns be allowed in duels. After all, we are the Kings of Guns. Sure, we are also the Kings of Small Landmines, but what the hell - do we really want it legal to plant landmines on hiking trails and children's playgrounds? I mean within our borders, of course. Hell no!

We Americans probably provided every single gun that killed the tens of thousands of innocent Mexicans in their recent drug wars. Our drug habits and phony "War on Drugs" provided the gangsters with the motivation to use those guns. Yes, only guns for American dueling. It just makes sense. American pragmatism. What, we're going to stand by with our hands in our pockets while innocent children are slaughtered by guns and then say, no, no, Samuri swords are ok, too? Bullshit. That is unAmerican, and as the entire world BETTER Goddamn know by now, "Whatever America wants, America gets" (sing it to the tune of "Whatever Lola Wants.")

Now we DO have a few issues to address here with the use of guns in duels. I'll start with big clips and auto- or semi-automatic weapons. It is very distasteful to me to allow these, however, as they are American as apple pie, it's hard to think of the proper argument against them. How about this - any American hunter who went after an elk or deer with an AK-47 would be laughed out of Idaho, right? So, I think it is reasonable to put into law that no dueling gun is legal if it's use on an elk or a deer would tear up the meat of that game animal beyond respectable dining. Don't get me wrong, now. This is not an anti-Second Amendment essay. I understand that it is perfectly Constitutional to buy and use guns that could kill an entire elementary school population in under a minute. I'm not arguing that point. It's, what's the word? Generally accepted criteria? Settled law? Something like that.  Anyway, this essay is NOT about protecting children for God's sake; it's about honor.

Another thing I find distasteful in this modern, enlightened era is the Old West-style facedown on the streets. You know, holstered six-shooters, men standing with their hands near the gun until one of them makes the move and then - BLAM. But then, you know, this is not the old West. This is modern America. We have laws here about the rights of handicapped people, and is that old style fair to the handicapped? No way. You can't run a business in the United States without providing a wheel chair ramp so why should the winning of a duel depend upon who can move the fastest? That's not the American Way. We're too civilized to allow any old able-bodied asshole to go around challenging paraplegics and racking up notches to impress the saloon girls. No, no, no. The speed of drawing the gun out of the holster must not come into play. However, one can't help the fact that SOME degree of physicality is involved, so let's just stay with the old-school single shot pistol held casually by one's side until the permission to fire is given. Then we can keep the drama of the drawn out battle of nerves. I love that. You know, the nervous guy raises his pistol and fires quickly, misses, and then must stand still while the better man takes careful aim and - Blooey! Yeah, one shot, but if both men survive they can always take off their gloves, slap the other's face lightly - whap, whap - and do it all over again! Now that's cool!

I do apologize to the ladies for my constant use of the masculine pronoun. I do believe in equal rights; I do! Therefore, any adult over the age of, say, 18, must have the right to challenge any other adult, male or female. And we must not only forgo sexism; we must also forgo ageism. For instance, just because Pat Robertson is an old fool, must I allow him to continually offend my sensibilities? NO!! Now, if I ONLY challenge old, feeble folks I risk a loss of reputation, so it behooves me to challenge Pat one day and Franklin Graham the next. Or, I can take on Laura Ingraham and then Ann Coulter.

There are no other rules of engagement then, other than the fact that one is offended and, if that offensive adult accepts the challenge, what will be will be. There will always be some people who will refuse the challenge without losing face among the people they care about. Damn Anabaptists! Damn hippies! You and your separate little peaceful loving communes! This is America! Love it or leave it!

I could go on about the economic benefits (a sky-rocketing use of gun ranges, etc.), population control, reality TV shows ... But the primary issue here is a free expression of Constitutional Rights, God Bless 'Em.