RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Gutless Politicians Blocked a Bipartisan Gun Bill. But Who's Surprised? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Sunday, 26 June 2016 08:11

Pierce writes: "I don't like to say I Told You So-Oh, hell, yes, I do - but I Told You So. The March of Cowardice went on in the United States Senate on Friday as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell chloroformed the Extra Special Bipartisan Compromise gun-restrictions bill."

Mitch McConnell. (photo: Getty Images)
Mitch McConnell. (photo: Getty Images)


Gutless Politicians Blocked a Bipartisan Gun Bill. But Who's Surprised?

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

26 June 16

 

Out on the weekend, where we'll be reading quite a lot of Michael Herr's work.

don't like to say I Told You So–Oh, hell, yes, I do–but I Told You So. The March of Cowardice went on in the United States Senate on Friday as Majority Leader Mitch McConnell chloroformed the Extra Special Bipartisan Compromise gun-restrictions bill proposed by Senators Susan Collins and Heidi Heitkamp, two nonentities, in favor of a completely useless bill proposed by future one-term Senator Ron (Shreds of Freedom) Johnson of Wisconsin, who happens to be as dumb as a bag of rocks. The 411 on this latest maneuver can be found, among other places, over at The Hill:

McConnell had promised a vote this week to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on her bipartisan measure barring people on two terrorist watchlists from buying guns or explosives. But what he scheduled was not what she had in mind. Instead of setting up a vote to add the Collins legislation to the pending appropriations bill on the Senate floor, McConnell scheduled a vote to discard it. The Collins bill survived that test in a 46-52 vote, but it fell far short of winning 60 votes, the threshold necessary to overcome procedural hurdles. The result allows Republicans to argue that no other action is necessary. "It didn't have sixty votes. That's what a motion to table does. It demonstrates where the votes are," said Don Stewart, McConnell's spokesman.

Clever dick, that Mitch, equal emphasis on both words. He gives his vulnerable members–like, say, Ron Johnson–cover whereby they could "support" sensible gun-restrictions but still not be seen as getting crossways with the armaments industry and its primary sales force, the NRA. Of course, Senator Collins, who must have about 30 tons of aluminum siding in her backyard and who must own half the python-ridden swampland in Florida, pronounced herself shocked (SHOCKED!) at how this could have happened. Wasn't this bill a Compromise? Wasn't this bill bipartisan? Somebody send the EMT's to Ron Fournier's house. Again, from The Hill:

Collins lamented that the way McConnell set up the votes made it tough to know how much support her proposal could have garnered had it been offered cleanly. "That'll be a question I'll never know the answer to," she said when asked how her amendment would have done had the Johnson amendment not been there to provide political cover. When asked if she wanted to have another vote on the proposal, Collins said, "Of course," just before taking an elevator down to the Capitol basement.

Where she drank herself into a stupor.

I made that last part up.

See, all throughout the week, when Republicans were showing the white feather on this issue in the wake of the Orlando massacre, we heard an awful lot from constitutional conservatives about due process, and the Fifth Amendment, and so on and so forth. I agree that these are serious concerns. I wish they would bring a bill to the floor and actually debate them in earnest. Might be a helluva civics lesson. But that never will happen under the current congressional majorities because, collectively, they don't have the guts God gave the common ficus. It is of no little historical interest that the guys who actually wrote the Bill of Rights weren't afraid of debating anything in public. Our present constitutional conservatives wouldn't have lasted five minutes in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787, or in any of the state legislatures during the brawling, two-year process of ratifying the Constitution. George Mason wouldn't even deign to send them out for snacks.

One of the great things about working at this shebeen is knowing that, at Esquire, you've got a massive tradition of incredible journalism to uphold. Part of that tradition unquestionably was created by Michael Herr, who went out into the field in Vietnam and brought back the stories of the grunts caught up in the faceless grinder of an idiotic war. (Any journalism school that doesn't include them in its curriculum should be torn down immediately and turned into a public park.) These he later fashioned into Dispatches, which I believe is still the greatest book about being inside a war that I've ever read. Later, Herr worked those same memories into the incredible prologue to Apocalypse Now, and into the screenplay for Full Metal Jacket that he wrote for Stanley Kubrick. (All most people remember from that film is the long boot camp section, but the long segment about the siege of Hue is pure Herr.) 

I once had a Vietnam vet friend who told me that The Deer Hunter was about the war in Vietnam, but that Apocalypse Now was about the Vietnam War. He later walked into a closet with his M1 and shot himself to death. I wept that day, but I understood and found solace, partly because I'd read the work of Michael Herr—who died Friday at the age of 76, and who ended his masterpiece of a book with this final truth—as inescapable as a prayer:

I saw a picture of a North Vietnamese soldier sitting in the same spot on the Danang River where the press center had been, where we'd sat smoking and joking and going "Too much!" and "Far out!" and "Oh my God it gets so freaky out there!" He looked so unbelievably peaceful, I knew that somewhere that night and every night there'd be people sitting together over there talking about the bad old days of jubilee and that one of them would remember and say, Yes, never mind, there were some nice ones, too. And no moves left for me at all but to write down some few last words and make the dispersion, Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam, we've all been there.

And, as long as we're saying farewell to folks, we should wish godspeed to Ralph Stanley, an authentic child of what Greil Marcus referred to as "the old, weird America." Stanley picked up his banjo, put together the Clinch Mountain Boys, and followed his muse into the heart of American gothic horror, in almost every real sense, as the Washington City Paper explains. Most of us remember him for his stunning rendition of "O, Death" in the Coens' O, Brother, Where Art Thou? But, for me, his most deeply chilling performance remains the ancient murder ballad, "Pretty Polly." (Dock Boggs, remarkably, took the song even deeper into hell.) I'm sure that Blog Official Music Archivist Bill Osment and Blog Official Guitar Picker Gary Popovich can check in with more details. For me, well, the other night, somebody suggested that, as far as music is concerned, we should unplug 2016, wait 30 seconds, and then plug it in again to see it it reboots. I'm good with that.

Notes From My Favorite Machine: To Infinity And Beyond: The Hubble looks at Neptune and finds…gas mountains! Talk to us, Scientific American!

As reported by the investigative team, the icy clouds are a lot like the phenomenon of orographic clouds that we see here on Earth—pancake-like formations that happen over terrestrial mountains. This latest Hubble data helps confirm that bright Neptunian clouds are paired with dark vortices. Ground-based telescopes have been able to spot these bright features, but lack the resolution to probe the dark spots at bluer wavelengths. Now it seems that the evolution of these features can be traced with future Earth-based data. Because the dark spots, or vortices, of Neptune come and go much more rapidly than a feature like Jupiter's Great Red Spot (that's been seen for the past 400 years), this is an opportunity to learn much more about Neptune's chilly secrets.

I already copyrighted Neptune's Chilly Secrets as the title of my next bus-station porn novel, so y'all stay away.

On a fairly regular basis, we here at the shebeen have been concerned that one of the FBI's shrewd stings of a hapless loser who wants to become a terrorist might go sideways on the Bureau. I am constantly told it can't happen, safeguards and all, but this item from the TC Palm doesn't reassure me at all:

Mateen's background, however, was checked again by G4S in 2013 after the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office requested he be removed from the St. Lucie County Courthouse patrol after he allegedly made derogatory comments to a deputy. A deputy at the courthouse mentioned the Middle East to Mateen, who reacted by threatening the deputy, said Sheriff Ken Mascara, who attended the Wednesday night meeting at the community's Island Club. "Omar became very agitated and made a comment that he could have al-Qaida kill my employee and his family," Mascara said Wednesday. "If that wasn't bad enough, he followed it up with very disturbing comments about women and followed it up with very disturbing comments about Jews and then went on to say that the Fort Hood shooter was justified in his actions." The FBI launched an investigation into Mateen after Sheriff's Office officials reported the incident to the agency. As part of its investigation, the FBI examined Mateen's travel history, phone records, acquaintances and even planted a confidential informant in the courthouse to "lure Omar into some kind of act and Omar did not bite," Mascara said. The FBI concluded Mateen was not a threat after that, Mascara said.

(Bolding my own.)

The fck? Seriously? Sounds like somebody in Washington ought to have a chat with Sheriff Mascara and find out some more about this before the InfoWars crowd goes completely insane.

Weekly WWOZ Pick To Click: "Watch And Chain" (Honey Island Swamp Band): Yeah, I pretty much still love New Orleans.

Weekly Visit To The Pathe Archives: Here's a U.S. teenager in 1933 who can really shoot a pistol. I sincerely hope she married a non-smoker. Her grandchild, little Wayne, has become quite an influential lobbyist, I hear.

From the essential Diane Ravitch's blog, we are tipped to a story in the Texas Tribune about how that state's mandatory, high-stakes testing program apparently was designed by fumble-brained orangutans:

New testing contractor Educational Testing Service, in the first year of a four-year, $280 million contract to administer the STAAR, has seemed overwhelmed by the task: It misdelivered tests, lost records of test answers, and took weeks longer than promised to deliver test scores.

That sounds bad. It can't get worse, right? Of course, it can.

At the last minute, ETS reportedly told one district that the high school English I test included a question with no right answer. Officials there were told that students should just leave the question blank, according to a letter from Houston-area superintendents complaining about widespread testing problems. As difficult as it must have been to get that message out to every English I classroom in the district, ETS reportedly never bothered, according to the school official who wrote that "Something of that magnitude should have been broadcast to the entire state."

Here is another question with no right answer: What's the best way to monetize public education?

Is it a good day for dinosaur news? It's always a good day for dinosaur news!

Kind of a light week. (The first result for "dinosaur news" on Google is the kid who got her head stuck in the Barney costume.) However, the Mashable crew brings us the story of some Australian ladies who are dedicated to making dinosaur news as clean as possible:

Like many towns in this region of Australia, Eromanga is in a state of almost perpetual drought, with a shrinking population as locals leave in search of better prospects. But the land is not done with those who remain—something unexpected is emerging. In this isolated place, the earth has a mind to turn itself inside out. Farmers recall fenceposts working their way out of the ground for no apparent reason, and then something else inching to the surface. They tell stories of feral pig hunters coming home with pockets bulging full of large, unfamiliar teeth and vertebrae. Dinosaurs.

Even in this lost and dusty place, the MacKenzies know the truth–dinosaurs lived then in order to make us happy now.

Top Commenter Of The Week: Tough week for the committee. Long sessions, lots of arguing. Good thing Senator Professor Warren stopped by with some munchkins and a big Box o' Joe. But, eventually, the consensus was reached that Top Commenter Lisa Deeley Smith is this week's Top Commenter of the Week for her erudite riposte to He, Trump's speculation on Hillary Rodham Clinton's religion, which combined her theological studies with her devotion to Galaxy Quest:

By Charles Wesley's songbook, by Francis Asbury's horse, you shall be avenged.

And, yeah, I've known LDS for almost 40 years. What's it to you?

I'll be back on Monday with what I am sure will be a metric fckton of Both Siderist drivel about the gun debate, and further hair-on-fire panic about the Brexit business. Until then, be well and play nice, ya bastids. Stay above the snake-line or the good folks in Eromanga will be polishing your bones.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
2.1 Million Brits Signed a Petition for Another EU Referendum. They Shouldn't Hold Their Breath. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=34227"><span class="small">Adam Taylor, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Sunday, 26 June 2016 08:10

Taylor writes: "Yes. It's actually happening. People in Britain are talking seriously about the possibility of another referendum."

A man leaves after voting in the EU referendum, at a polling station in Biggin Hill. (photo: Dylan Martinez/Reuters)
A man leaves after voting in the EU referendum, at a polling station in Biggin Hill. (photo: Dylan Martinez/Reuters)


2.1 Million Brits Signed a Petition for Another EU Referendum. They Shouldn't Hold Their Breath.

By Adam Taylor, The Washington Post

26 June 16

 

es. It's actually happening. People in Britain are talking seriously about the possibility of another referendum.

A petition calling for another referendum on whether Britain should stay in the European Union has quickly received millions of signatures (more than 3 million as of Sunday morning) — a level that means it must now be debated by British politicians. It was apparently so popular that the British Parliament's website, where the petition was hosted, briefly crashed.

The drive for a new referendum is coming from those who had hoped to "remain" in the E.U. Thursday's referendum was fairly close — the "leave" vote won with just 51.9 percent. And so the petition for a new referendum suggests there should be a rule that in referendums with less than 75 percent turnout (Thursday's vote was 72.2 percent), there should be another referendum unless a decision is reached by more than 60 percent of those voting.

Could this plan actually work? Might Britain actually vote again and decide to stay in the E.U.? Well, it's certainly possible. But that doesn't mean it's not completely daft.

Why it is (kind of) possible

It would be an odd move to have a referendum immediately after a previous referendum on the same subject provided a clear outcome. But, frankly, this entire situation is odd.

Britain has only ever had three nationwide referendums. Generally, major policy decisions are decided by the country's elected officials. As many have noted, this referendum was only called in a bid by Prime Minister David Cameron to calm tensions over the E.U. within his own Conservative Party ahead of a general election. Cameron thought he could win. Obviously he was completely mistaken.

Thursday's referendum wasn't actually legally binding — Cameron could have set it up to be so (a nationwide 2011 referendum was set up to be), but he apparently decided better of it. This means that, in theory at least, the British government could completely ignore the results and do whatever it thinks is best.

Of course, doing that would anger the majority of the country who voted to leave the E.U. But a new referendum could provide some democratic justification to the decision.

The close result does help the argument somewhat. Britain's 1975 referendum on membership of the European Economic Community was decided by a 67.2 percent vote to stay in. In the 2011 vote (on whether to use the Alternative Vote electoral system) was decided by 67.9 percent of the vote. Nigel Farage, a key Brexit supporter, unwittingly provided support for this argument by saying that if "remain" won by a "52 to 48" margin, there would be "unfinished business" and an argument for another vote.

Another additional factor is the various reports of those who voted "leave" but now say they are dismayed at what has happened. Many of these accounts seem to suggest that the "leave" voter in question thought their vote would serve as a protest vote. "I didn’t think my vote was going to matter too much because I thought we were just going to 'remain,'" one man told the BBC on Friday, adding that he was "quite worried" about the effect.

Why it's completely daft

Okay. There are a few things to unpick here, so we'll go through them step by step.

  • Ignoring the clear result of a referendum is unfair. Sure, the results of Thursday's vote were close, but they were pretty conclusive. 51.9 percent is a better mandate than most governments win for a general election, for example. It would also be political suicide for Britain's government to effectively say "your vote didn't count" to half the country. And millions may want a new referendum, but 17 million already voted in one to leave.

  • You can't retroactively legislate like this. The proposal outlined in the petition would require setting up laws and then retroactively applying them to Thursday's vote. To put it simply, that's not how laws work. It's worth noting that the petition appears to have been set up in May, ahead of the vote, in a bid to change the rules before Britons voted. However, in practice this doesn't matter – it'd still be retroactive legislation if it happened now.

  • Petitions don't mean much. Now that the petition has over 100,000 votes it will be debated by Parliament, but British members of Parliament have no imperative to act on it. Petitions get lots of signatures all the time and nothing happens: Remember the debate on whether to ban Donald Trump from Britain earlier this year?

  • "Remain" might still lose anyway. For those who supported "remain," the idea that "leave" voters are regretful voters who didn't know what they were doing is heartening. However, we only have anecdotal evidence of a few regretful pro-Brexit voters who have talked to media outlets. Until there is a vigorously conducted poll that shows otherwise, its fair to conclude that "leave" would win a second referendum anyway.

What could possibly happen

That said, there is a lot of uncertainty in the air. Cameron has already said he would step down, which will trigger a leadership contest for the Conservatives. There are signs that Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, may also be forced to step down. Some wonder whether there could be another general election before the end of the year.

Meanwhile, Britain has not yet triggered Article 50 — the procedure for actually leaving the E.U. — and there are signs it may try to delay doing so as long as possible. If there is a general election, how and when to leave the E.U. would probably become a major issue.

Even when Article 50 is invoked, negotiations may take up to two years. Any new deal with the E.U. will have to pass Parliament. Some in Westminster are saying that it should probably be put to referendum again. If that happens, it may well be the last chance for "remain" to have their voice heard.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Real Wolf of Wall Street: Why Donald Trump Is So Popular With the Richest Investors Print
Saturday, 25 June 2016 13:47

Parton writes: "On Wednesday, hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, Ted Cruz's former sugar daddy, announced that he had formed a Super PAC for wealthy Republicans who were too cowardly to own up to being Trump supporters. It's subtly called the 'Defeat Crooked Hillary Pac' and it being sold as a way for rich donors to contribute without having to sully their reputations by associating with that awful Donald Trump."

Donald Trump. (photo: Bill Clark/Roll Call)
Donald Trump. (photo: Bill Clark/Roll Call)


The Real Wolf of Wall Street: Why Donald Trump Is So Popular With the Richest Investors

By Heather Digby Parton, Salon

25 June 16

 

Top investors who back Trump don't care about the economy, they (wrongly) think he can make them richer

n Wednesday, hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer, Ted Cruz’s former sugar daddy, announced that he had formed a Super PAC for wealthy Republicans who were too cowardly to own up to being Trump supporters. It’s subtly called the “Defeat Crooked Hillary Pac” and it being sold as a way for rich donors to contribute without having to sully their reputations by associating with that awful Donald Trump. Mercer  hired professional Clinton character assassin David Bossie to head up the project, which is perfect. His Clinton stalking goes all the way back to the 1990s with his organization called Citizens United. Yes, it’s that Citizens United.

One wonders who they think they’re fooling by pretending that trashing Hillary Clinton does something other than help Donald Trump but it turns out the donor class isn’t always as bright as they like to think they are. After all, as the New York Times pointed out in its big Atlantic City expose the other day, supposedly sophisticated Wall Street investors repeatedly gave Donald Trump vast sums of money which he squandered even as he personally made a fortune. It took four bankruptcies before they finally wised up that the man wasn’t a business genius, he just played one on TV.

Some still believe it.  Take this fellow quoted in Adam Davidson’s scathing profile of Trump’s business ventures in the New York Times Magazine:

Andrew Beal, a billionaire banker and investor, called me the other day to talk Trump. I had been leaving messages for every prominent business executive I could find who has publicly expressed support of the Republican candidate.

Before I could ask my first question, Beal told me he wanted to get something out of the way. He knew that I would ask about specifics. “Everybody wants to be real specific,” he said. But Beal’s support for Trump has nothing to do with specifics. He grants that he doesn’t know much about Trump’s policy goals or about whom he might choose for key economic positions. He doesn’t even think Trump knows. And that, he explained, is exactly why he supports him. “All these politicians with all these specific plans,” he said. “I think it’s total [expletive].”

His point was that business doesn’t run this way: If you’re hiring someone to be a chief executive, you don’t ask them to lay out every decision they’ll make, years ahead of when they’ll make it. You hire someone whom you trust, and you let them run things. Beal says he knows that Trump will do the right things to make the economy perform better. “You’re going to say, ‘How?’ ” he told me. “I don’t know how. I know that sounds crazy. That’s how the real world operates.”

That would be one of the so-called Masters of the Universe who allegedly keep the engine of capitalism working with their strategic insight and keen grasp of complex issues. When you read something like that you realize how easily all those rich investors got taken in by Trump.  It turns out they’re even more clueless than those poor dupes who ran up their credit cards to attend Trump University. They were dazzled by The Donald like everyone else.

And  he’s not the only one. Get a load of New York magazine’s Michelle Celarier’s rundown of the cast of characters who got together Tuesday night for a high-dollar fundraiser at Le Cirque in New York. It was hosted by hedge fund billionaire John Paulson and raised between five and seven million dollars:

The bigger gift among Paulson and his fellow hosts might have been attaching their names to the event in the face of a generally souring view of Trump — too erratic, too offensive — among the top ranks on Wall Street. At least in the case of Paulson, there may have been a business motive for supporting Trump: As of last July, the presumptive GOP nominee was an investor in Paulson’s funds at a time when others were fleeing because of poor performance. But whatever his reason, the hedge-fund titan is now officially part of the small band of financiers publicly throwing their support behind Trump — others include investors Carl Icahn and Wilbur Ross, Cerberus’s Stephen Feinberg, hedge-funders Robert Mercer and Anthony Scaramucci, and former Goldman Sachs executive Steve Mnuchin — even as many of their peers question whether doing so will prove to be reputational poison.

That’s a Wall Street wingnut rogues gallery with Anthony “The Mooch” Scaramucci (who I wrote about here) as co-sponsor of the event and Stephen Feinberg, a gun nut so extreme that he probably even scares Wayne LaPierre a little bit. And this was the event that reportedly brought Ted Cruz’s richest fanboy Robert Mercer fully on board the Trump train.  

One wonders if any of them were shaken by this Moody’s analysis released on the day after the fundraiser:

“The economy will be significantly weaker if Mr. Trump’s economic proposals are adopted. Under the scenario in which all his stated policies become law in the manner proposed, the economy suffers a lengthy recession and is smaller at the end of his four-year term than when he took office,” the report said. “By the end of his presidency, there are close to 3.5 million fewer jobs and the unemployment rate rises to as high as 7 percent, compared with below 5 percent today. “During Mr. Trump’s presidency, the average American household’s after-inflation income will stagnate, and stock prices and real house values will decline.”

That doesn’t sound like such a great America, does it?

Nonetheless, most investors are with Trump:

A Bloomberg/Morning Consult national poll on investment, tax and economic issues shows voters with money in the market pick Trump over Clinton, 50 percent to 33 percent, as the person they think will be better for their portfolio. Those with more than $50,000 invested answer the question almost identically as smaller investors…

“Donald Trump has made his business experience a key point in his campaign, and it seems to be resonating with voters,” said Kyle Dropp, co-founder and chief research officer at Morning Consult, a Washington-based media and technology company.

Some of this is driven by partisanship with six in ten self-identified Democrats saying they’ll be for Clinton and six in ten Republicans for Trump. Indies split two to one for Trump. The big difference is obviously that there are many more Republican investors than Democrats.

It’s a bit mind-boggling how this notion that the GOP (even under Trump) is better for the economy continues in spite of so much evidence proving the contrary. By any measure, whether it’s the stock market, GDP, reducing inequality, unemployment, poverty or racial economic progress the country does better economically under Democrats. Of course, the really wealthy ones aren’t really concerned about the economy in general. Many of them, like Trump donor John Paulson make fortunes from other people’s misfortunes. (He made a killing on the mortgage meltdown in 2007 although now he’s down to his last 13 billion or so.) What they care about is their own tax rates and any regulations that may impede their freedom to gamble with the economy as they see fit. On that score, the Republicans are much more responsive to their personal needs and so is Donald Trump.

In fairness, there are many Wall Street types who are appalled by Trump even as they loathe and despise Democrats like Clinton and Obama for being mean and calling them fat cats and forcing them to adhere to some regulations after they crashed the world economy with their reckless gambling. They really would prefer a nice, easy Republican like Mitt Romney who wouldn’t have a slavering mob of left-wing populists breathing down the new president’s neck watching his every move for signs of favored treatment for the 1%.  

Instead, they are stuck with Trump, a man so obnoxious and ignorant that even though he’s more or less “one of them” they recoil in horror at the prospect of supporting such a cretin.  Luckily, there will be vehicles like the “Defeat Crooked Hillary PAC”  available for them to express their dislike of both candidates without having to take responsibility for the result.  

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Fear, Loathing and Firearms: Sensory Overload Inside the NRA's Mall of Death Print
Saturday, 25 June 2016 13:43

Fountain writes: "At the 145th National Rifle Association annual meetings and exhibits, you could see and purchase replica flintlock muskets like the kind Daniel Boone used, 'wardrobe' handguns the size of a cellphone, a carriage-mounted 1883 Gatling gun, historic firearms from the Renaissance down through the latest Surge, bullet-splat jewelry, deep-concealment holsters, triple barrel shotguns, and camo everything - coolers, flasks, four-wheelers, deer blinds, infant-wear and sexy-time lingerie."

Sig Sauer rifles on display. (photo: John Sommers II/Reuters)
Sig Sauer rifles on display. (photo: John Sommers II/Reuters)


Fear, Loathing and Firearms: Sensory Overload Inside the NRA's Mall of Death

By Ben Fountain, Guardian UK

25 June 16

 

Guns and wall-to-wall star-spangled patriotism are the National Rifle Association’s way of projecting a rugged image of strength to its members, but they also point to the steady current of hysteria throughout American history

frightened population is obedient.”

– Hunter S Thompson

“I’m not scared about going to jail. Somebody’s got to do something to knock the fear out of these negroes.”

–Muhammad Ali

At the 145th National Rifle Association annual meetings and exhibits, you could see and purchase replica flintlock muskets like the kind Daniel Boone used, “wardrobe” handguns the size of a cellphone, a carriage-mounted 1883 Gatling gun, historic firearms from the Renaissance down through the latest Surge, bullet-splat jewelry, deep-concealment holsters, triple barrel shotguns, and camo everything – coolers, flasks, four-wheelers, deer blinds, infant-wear and sexy-time lingerie.

There was a motorcycle with a .50-caliber machine gun mounted on the handlebar (sorry, not for sale); all manner of scopes, optics, and laser-sighting technologies; “shelf-stable” food products; bulk ammo, precision ammo, make-your-own-ammo ammo; historical exhibits; mom-and-pop purveyors of cleaning fluids and swabs; and corporate icons with slick, multi-level sales areas worthy of a luxury car showroom.

And the flag, everywhere, all the time, the stars and stripes popping from pistol grips, knives, banners, T-shirts, shawls, bandannas, product brochures and shopping bags. American, America, sweet land that we love. A photo spread for a well-known US gun manufacturer featured a whiskery, camo-clad, Viagra-aged caucasian male standing in ankle-deep marsh with a dog by his side, shotgun slung across his back and a large US flag in one hand, the pole planted in the muck as if staking a claim.

A country, a product, a lifestyle. That word shows up often in firearms ad copy, as in: “We find peace in the solitude of this lifestyle, and we thrive on all the great outdoors has to offer.” But on this rainy opening day of the NRA convention all the action was indoors. “Eleven Acres of Guns & Gear”, promised the banner in front of the Kentucky exposition center, a thuddingly nondescript series of enormous beige boxes that inhaled thousands of conventioneers without so much as a belch. How big is 11 acres? Felt like a hundred, which isn’t to say that this conventioneer was the least bit bored.

Mingling with a crowd striking for its nearly uniform whiteness, I did lapse into a kind of fugue state from time to time, a retail trance brought on by sheer sensory overload, but with all this American ingenuity and weirdness on display, actual boredom was out of the question. Old people and those less old but morbidly obese trundled about on motorized scooters, their baskets filled to the brim with corporate swag. The crowd buzz was punctuated by omnipresent promotional videos, impromptu live briefings on subjects such as “target acquisition” skills, and music, mostly country or guitar-skronk, though I did pass a booth where Lido Shuffle was playing.

A guy dressed like Zorro wandered past, then a guy dressed up as a frontier sheriff, with a badge on his vest and six-shooters on his hips. Eddie Eagle was here, the NRA’s kid-outreach and gun-safety mascot, a flightless bipedal cousin of Big Bird.

Glossy signage pushed a steady visual diet of Americana – cowboys and pioneers, war heroes, the family, founding fathers, rugged outdoors individualism, our freedoms and the defense of same, all embodied by photogenic white people, not a brown or black face to be seen. Celebrities signed posters and flacked merchandise, among them stars of cable-TV hunting shows, Nascar drivers, pro wrestlers, decorated veterans. More flags. History. Freedoms. America and her guns, cultural icons embedded in the brain like saints in the stained-glass windows of a church: Colt, Remington, Winchester, Smith & Wesson, brands curated with all the pomp and solemnity of holy relics.

What gun culture lacks in wit – for grownup delinquent fun and sly-dog subversion, you can’t beat a custom-car rally – it more than makes up for in design wizardry, precision tooling and a long and honorable tradition of craftsmanship.

But something’s happened in the past several decades, a kind of hyper-consumerist fetishizing where categories divide, then subdivide into ever narrower specialties that seem to have little to do with utility. How many variations on the AR-15 “platform” – the civilian version of the M16 assault rifle – can there be? The AR-15 was used in the San Bernardino and Sandy Hook elementary school mass shootings, and again more recently in Orlando, with 49 dead and 53 wounded. It’s also featured in a 20 January 2016 post on the NRA’s website titled “Why the AR-15 is America’s Most Popular Rifle”. “The AR-15s [sic] ability to be modified to your own personal taste is one of the things that makes it so unique,” reads the post, and indeed, walking the floor of the exhibition hall I ended up cross-eyed at all the polymers, alloys, finishes, calibers, stock and barrel configurations, buffer systems, trigger systems, muzzle brakes and so on, to infinity and beyond.

I had entered the realms of style; that is to say, the dark swamps of consumer psychology where desire, identity and aspiration are always bubbling in a subterranean psychic stew. What kind of AR man do you want to be? Or woman, for that matter – take yours in solid pink or “Muddy Girl” camo?

Most of our buying these days has less to do with need than with serving fantasies and tamping down fears. Clothes do it for us. Vehicles too, profoundly; in my neighborhood in Dallas you see plenty of spiff pickup trucks “hauling air”, as the saying goes, driven by men with soft hands and closets full of suits. But in our terrorized, polarized, ferociously tribalized times it’s hard to think of a more charged consumer item, one as psychologically fraught, as a gun.

For relatively not much money we can buy ourselves a piece of that rugged individualism and triumphant history (“For nostalgic hunting or cowboy type shooting the 1886 Classic Carbine or Standard Rifle are perfect”) and raise a big middle finger to Isis, the feds, the gays, feminists, whoever it is we think is messing with us. A gun keeps us in character, the American character, as helpfully illustrated by all those fancy marketing visuals, which might as well be movie stills from the reel of greatest hits playing in every American’s mind. With a century’s worth of Hollywood puffing your product, not to mention the explicit blessing of the US constitution, gun marketing has to be one of the pig-laziest gigs around. What other consumer item is sanctioned by the Bill of Rights? And by God according to the NRA this market shall not be infringed or treaded upon or trimmed in any way, even if a literal reading of the second amendment happens to turn up the words “well regulated”. Maybe that inconvenient phrase explains why one searches the NRA’s extensive website in vain for the actual text of the second amendment.

At the exposition center I kept seeing the word “tactical” – tactical gear, tactical clothes, tactical categories of guns. What did it mean? “Tactical” as opposed to, uh, strategic? Then I watched a fantastically violent, Tarantino-style video of a “tactical” semi-automatic shotgun in action. A guy in a gilly suit – he looked like a half-grown Chewbacca – blasted his way through a series of targets that included watermelons, glass globes filled with red liquid, and fully clothed anthropomorphic mannequins, bam bam bam, stuff exploding faster than you can snap your fingers. That’s when I got it, or at least I think I did. This wasn’t a hunting firearm. “Tactical” denotes human. The intra-species encounter.

“It’s just not the way it was,” Donald Trump said later that day to thousands of NRA faithful gathered in Freedom Hall. “It’s just not the way it was, and we’re gonna bring it back, and we’re gonna bring it back to a real place to where we don’t have to be so frightened, we don’t have to be so afraid.”

At that instant I seemed to feel a kink in the air, a sudden gash in the time-space continuum, which was possibly the “gckh!” of hundreds of sales reps choking on their Cheetos. “Not ... be ... frightened? What the hell! Who does Trump think we’re supposed to sell all these guns to?”

Those sales reps needn’t worry. Fear is the herpes of American politics: the symptoms may bloom and fade according to stress levels or the phases of the moon, but the virus never dies. That the world is full of dangers is beyond dispute. Peril is the air we humans have always breathed, a fact of life that demands of us open eyes, a clear head and emotional self-control. Otherwise we’re doomed to the existential level of mice, or, as one authoritative text put it long ago:

Your true enemies, as opposed to the imagined, the inflated, the convenient. In his classic 1964 essay “The Paranoid Style in American Politics”, Richard Hofstadter did the nation a great service by analyzing our tendency toward phobia and panic, but I was thinking of another writer when I arrived in Louisville, a native son of the city, lifelong member of the NRA, and author of such latter-day classics as Hell’s Angels and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Hunter Stockton Thompson (1937-2005) was the wild child of an insurance salesman father and librarian mother, his formative years marked by mischief and petty crime that progressed, by the time of his senior year of high school, to stealing cars and robbing liquor stores. “I was cursed with a dark sense of humor,” he later wrote, perhaps too modestly, “that made many adults afraid of me, for reasons they couldn’t quite put their fingers on.” These days the young Hunter would likely earn himself a diagnosis of ADD, along with IQ scores well in the genius range. Add to these a taste for risk, an acute and easily offended sense of justice, and a congenital contempt for authority, and what you have is a prime example of a distinctly American strain of wildness, the same strain that drove Huck Finn to light out for the territory, and Diane Arbus into the precincts of the damned and deformed.

“There is no human being within 500 miles to whom I can communicate anything – much less the fear and loathing that is on me after today’s murder,” Thompson wrote to a friend on the day of John F Kennedy’s assassination. Thus the fear-and-loathing franchise was born, out of a cold rage that would develop over time into a tool for analyzing not just the writer’s own soul and psyche, but that of the country as well. Years later he elaborated in an interview:

It was a state and attitude that any number of phenomena could provoke in him – Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Iran-Contra, the marketing of Z28 Camaros or the death of the American dream. Fear, for the damage this horror might do to body and soul; loathing, for its affront to justice, mercy, love and the spirit of fun. For Thompson, fun included enthusiastic and knowledgeable gun ownership. Lots of boys like things that go boom, and some never stop liking them. Thompson, who once gave a firecracker bomb to David Letterman on the air, was one of those boys, his passion going hand in glove with his famous appetite for drugs, alcohol and other adult activities, including politics and the Book of Revelation. At times his own prophecies show biblical big-league vision, as in this piece titled “September 11, 2001” (dated the day after) from his book Kingdom of Fear:

The synchronicity seemed perfect. I would go to Louisville and hang out with the NRA, and in my downtime seek out traces of America’s prose laureate of fear, loathing and firearms. One morning a retired Courier-Journal reporter drove me around Thompson’s old Cherokee Park neighborhood, a pleasant area of rolling hills, comfortable houses and generous urban parks. Thompson’s extremely awesome grand-niece fetched me from my motel and drove me to meet one of his childhood friends, an old-school southern gentleman who observed that for all his alleged madness, Thompson was scrupulously careful with guns. Check out the photos, he told me. In nearly every photo of Thompson with guns – and there are many – the gun is “safe” when not in actual use, ie bolt actions with the bolt open, shotguns broken, revolvers with the cylinders out.

“A lot of people shouldn’t own guns,” Thompson said once. “I should. I have a safety record.”

I’d come to Louisville for guns, but around town I began seeing banners for something called the Festival of Faiths, this year’s edition billed as “Pathways to Nonviolence”. Synchronicity + Serendipity = Karma, or at least a trail that seemed worth following. Friends of friends led to cocktails with some amiable Louisvillians, which led to dinner, which led to a festival concert presided over by Teddy Abrams, the wunderkind conductor of the Louisville Orchestra, which ended with all of the evening’s performers – Abrams, a Pakistani rock group, a 13-piece salsa band, an angelic South African vocalist, and Ricky Skaggs and his bluegrass band – jamming like a musical UN while dozens of people who evidently don’t dance very much (I was one) happily danced below the stage.

America is various. It refuses to be all one thing or all the other. The next day I was back at the festival to hear a panel discussion, “Face to Face with Islamophobia”, moderated by Tori Murden McClure, MDiv (Harvard), president of Spalding University, and the first woman to row solo across the Atlantic Ocean (America is various!). She began with a series of thoughtful, measured remarks about Islam, the global war on terror, and the abiding fact of the US military-industrial complex. She discussed “terrorism in context”, and offered numerical markers such as these:

US deaths from terrorism, 2001-2015 (all numbers estimated high-end and rounded up):

  • 9/11: 3,000

  • Military personnel KIA, Afghanistan and Iraq: 7,000

  • Military contractors KIA, Afghanistan and Iraq: 7,200

  • Military personnel, postwar trauma (pegged to KIA in the absence of reliable figures): 7,000

  • Civilians, domestic terrorism: 87

  • Civilians, overseas terrorism: 350

  • Total: 25,000

And this:

US deaths in non-terror incidents involving firearms, 2001-2015: 404,496

And also this:

Estimated civilian deaths from GWOT in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, 2001-2015 (from neutral sources, low-end estimate): 1,170,000

Another Islamophobia speaker, Dr Ingrid Mattson, former president of the Islamic Society of North America, talked about the “great closing of the American mind” since 9/11 and its emotional corollary, as performed by people in airports freaking out at the sight of her headscarf. What’s with all these Christians walking around scared out of their skins? “Follow the money,” she advised. Track it through to the books, the thinktanks, the Pacs and TV pundits. Fear-mongering can be a great career move for a pol or talking head. It’s exciting. It draws attention. It moves product.

“This country depends on war as a primary industry,” Hunter Thompson said in a 2003 interview, but he might have just as easily said “fear” as “war”. Later in the same interview he commented:

So with all this banging around in my head, I walked into the Kentucky exposition center the next morning and confronted those 11 acres of guns. I had definitely found the money, but so what? This is America and this is what Americans do, we make money. I wandered around arguing with myself in this vein for a while, then decided that what was confusing me was the presumption, for lack of a better word.

The mashup of stone-cold lethality and sleek retail culture, a Mall of Death sort of upbeat perkiness, with thick dollops of belligerence and bravado. “Our high-performance Brass Jacket Hollow Point rounds deliver massive expansion and deep penetration for ultimate stopping power.” “Shoulder Bones Are Mere Speed Bumps.” “Optimal penetration and expansion through even heavy clothing.” “One-shot confidence.” “Cutting petals.” “Deadly downrange stopping power.” “Expands rapidly to 2X the diameter to carve massive wound channels.”

This kind of verbiage makes perfect sense, once you accept the basic premise. Guns are machines for inflicting deadly force – what’s the point of the damn thing if it shoots marshmallows? It’s not hard to envision a scenario where you would want a firearm; where you would feel very much a fool for not having one. The world is indeed a dangerous place. Lots of disturbed people out there, damaged people, fanatics, shitbirds, mean people with all the conscience of a starved rat. But here’s the rub: we’re much more likely to shoot our families, our lovers, ourselves than we are that marauding stranger. The numbers bear this out: you bring a gun into your house, the chances of you or a family member being killed by a gun are far greater than the chance you’ll ever use it for self-defense.

Which could be viewed as statistical proof – as if it was needed – that human beings are flawed. We’re creatures of passion, impulse, pride, mood and pitifully fragile ego, with barely the patience to drive a mile in our cars without wanting to kill someone. Women’s mortality rises especially high when guns are around. I thought about all this as I sat in Freedom Hall and listened to Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s longtime CEO, deliver a phrase so familiar to the membership that they recited it with him:

The surest way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Sometimes it really is that pure, but human nature being what it is, we contain sufficient good and evil in ourselves that many of us can recall a crisis in our lives and be grateful that there wasn’t a gun nearby. Or remember with regret that there was. Just as I can imagine scenarios where I’d feel foolish and reckless for not having a gun, I can conceive of just as many situations where I’d be the world’s biggest fool for having one.

But in NRA Land the lines are always bright and clear: us against them, good versus bad, American versus villains. “We, in this room, we are America,” insisted LaPierre, whose gulpy, throttled delivery belied the clench of a man in serious need of breathing lessons. Anyone hoping for nuance or even coherence would have been disappointed in his speech, which pounded out a steady drumbeat of fear and alarm. He warned of those “other rooms” where “political and media elites at the highest levels” are conspiring to destroy the second amendment, and with it “our core values, our freedom”.

“A Clinton White House would be a cesspool for NBC, ABC and CBS elitists to plan programming and orchestrate interviews to bombard the airwaves against our freedom.” Elitists are “shredding the very fabric of our country”; “seizing and destroying all the freedoms and values we care about most”; and planning to “put the full weight of a weaponized IRS, ATF, EPA, interior department and every other federal agency behind attacks against groups and people they don’t like.” If Hillary Clinton wins, “it’s game over for everyone in this room, and everything that we all care about”.

It seems safe to say that the paranoid style in American politics is alive and well. All of the classic elements that Hofstadter described in his 1964 essay were on full and florid display at Louisville’s Freedom Hall: conspiracy, persecution, apocalypticism, the characterization of political difference not as a matter of good faith give-and-take, but a final showdown between absolute good and absolute evil. “We will save freedom!” LaPierre shouted in closing. “And America truly will be America again!” He ceded the podium to NRA president Chris Cox, who announced the NRA’s official endorsement of Donald J Trump for the office of president of the United States, then Trump himself took the stage to offer his thoughts.

In that long-ago essay, Hofstadter took pains to point out that the US has never had a monopoly on the paranoid style. As proof, he cited the one instance in modern history of the paranoid style’s “consummatory triumph”, a distinction that belongs to Germany in the era of the Third Reich.

While in Louisville I made it my business to follow the trail of another native son of the city, a near contemporary of Hunter Thompson’s. I went to his childhood home on Grand Avenue, a neat, modest, one-story pink house with a historical marker out front. I saw the gym where he trained as a youth, and toured the museum and cultural center that bears his name.

Two weeks later these places would become crowded with people mourning Muhammad Ali’s death, but at the time I was visiting these sites out of the sense that for a real-life demonstration of rugged American individualism, you would be hard pressed to find a more salient example than Ali, né Cassius Marcellus Clay, who as a practicing Muslim renounced participation in that “primary industry” that Hunter Thompson talked about. For refusing military service during the Vietnam war, Ali lost his world championship title, his boxing license – and thus his means of making a living – and who knows how many millions of dollars in future earnings.

His indictment and trial in federal court led to a sentence (later overturned by the supreme court) of five years in jail, the maximum penalty allowed. With the wrath of the law and mainstream America bearing down on him, Ali still refused to bend. He wasn’t scared of going to jail, of never boxing again, of trading his fame for infamy. Faced with the loss of pretty much everything a person can hold dear, Ali wasn’t afraid, which years later moved his friend Bill Russell to say: “Ali was one of the first truly free people in America.”

As a loud, proud black man in the early 1960s who did his own thinking and spoke his mind, Ali blew out several of the hottest circuits in America’s paranoid wiring. “I don’t have to be what you people want me to be,” he famously declared. Mainstream, ie white, America freaked, and then came the conversion to Islam and his refusal of military service as the Vietnam war escalated. At a time when paranoid delusions were driving the US into a catastrophic war, Ali saw it for the fraud it was; his was a mind free of unreasoning fear, which isn’t to say he had little to fear. For refusing the draft, he lost his freedom.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Popular Support for Liberal Democracy Can No Longer Be Taken for Granted Print
Saturday, 25 June 2016 11:48

Mount writes: "Britain has Brexited. The consequences of Thursday's vote are momentous. But it is even more important for what it represents: Today, we are entering a new political era - one in which popular support for the core institutions of liberal democracy can no longer be taken for granted."

Students take part in a pro-EU rally. (photo: Valentyn Ogirenko/Reuters)
Students take part in a pro-EU rally. (photo: Valentyn Ogirenko/Reuters)


Popular Support for Liberal Democracy Can No Longer Be Taken for Granted

By Yascha Mounk, Slate

25 June 16

 

One in which popular support for the core institutions of liberal democracy can no longer be taken for granted.

ritain has Brexited. The consequences of Thursday’s vote are momentous. But it is even more important for what it represents: Today, we are entering a new political era—one in which popular support for the core institutions of liberal democracy can no longer be taken for granted.

The practical consequences of Britain’s departure from the European Union are terrifying. Millions of European citizens living in Britain woke up to the disorienting realization that they may soon lose the right to stay in a country they had made their home. The same goes for British citizens living in France, or Spain, or Germany. If politicians fail to ensure that some amount of freedom of movement between Britain and the rest of Europe is preserved, the disruption to the lives of ordinary people will be on a scale practically unprecedented in peacetime. But even if some reasonably humane solution is worked out, the emotional toll exacted by the uncertainty they face will be serious.

At the same time, Brexit will also speed up the continent’s centrifugal forces: England is turning inward. Scotland may well leave the United Kingdom before the decade is over. The uneasy peace in Northern Ireland is being put to a serious, and wholly unnecessary, test. In the coming years, copycat referenda on EU membership are likely to be held in countries at the European core, such as the Netherlands. There can no longer be any doubt that the European Union is in an existential crisis.

Europe’s weakness harms the West as a whole. As the continent lurches from crisis to crisis and sees the gradual rise of populist strongmen on its own shores, it is getting increasingly tempted to make nice with authoritarian leaders in Turkey, Russia, and China. It’s little wonder that, outside Britain, the only triumphant voices to be heard Friday morning are those of Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Vladimir Putin, and the propaganda outlets of ISIS.

These points alone would suffice to make the outcome of Thursday’s referendum the most significant vote in a generation. But its true importance is even bigger than that: The decision of the British electorate to leave the European Union constitutes the most significant rebellion of the citizens of an affluent liberal democracy against their political system since the end of World War II. It signals the beginning of an era in which we can no longer be assured that the citizens of countries from Sweden to the United States will reliably choose liberal democracy over far-right populism and xenophobia.

There are plenty of reasons to be dissatisfied with the European Union as it is currently constituted. The EU leaves the most important decisions to an unelected council of the ministers of its member states, giving ordinary Europeans little control. And countries such as Greece are paying a massive—and seemingly indefinite—price for the faulty construction of the single currency zone. Though I strongly believe that the human and political consequences of the U.K.’s departure from the European Union made a “Leave” vote unconscionable, I have some sympathy for those who advocated Brexit on the basis of sovereignty or in the hope of building a more robust welfare state.

As the polls show, however, those were not the reasons that most supporters of Brexit had in mind. In fact, voters on both sides of the divide had virtually indistinguishable views on such questions as whether “capitalism” was good or bad. But Brexiters had starkly more negative views on issues such as “immigration,” “multiculturalism,” and “social liberalism.” The vote to leave the European Union was not a vote against Europe’s financial elites. It was a vote against civil rights, against ethnic minorities, against immigrants, and against refugees.

This also puts a rather more sinister cast on all the talk of sovereignty. Voters cared some about whether decisions will be taken in London or Brussels in the future. They cared much more about whether checks and balances would continue to stop the people’s righteous anger from expressing itself. What they really want is the freedom to make discriminatory laws against the immigrants and minorities whom the chief proponents of Brexit demonized throughout the campaign.

As my recent research shows, British voters are far from alone in turning against the limits on the popular will that constitute an important element of liberal democracy. Across most countries in North America and Western Europe, voters have grown deeply dissatisfied with the political class. For a rapidly growing number, this dissatisfaction with particular leaders has started to transform into an actual rejection of democratic institutions. Across North America and Western Europe, the number of citizens who say that it is important to live in a democracy is shrinking. At the same time, the number of citizens who are open to making their countries more authoritarian is rising.

This trend is especially striking in the United States. Two decades ago, 1 in 16 Americans believed that Army rule would be a good way to run the country. Today, it is 1 in 6. The picture is even bleaker among the young and affluent: Support for military rule in this group has increased nearly sixfold, from 6 percent to 35 percent.

Obviously, Brexit won’t lead to military rule. Nor is the Pentagon about to assume power in America. Opinion polls need to be interpreted carefully and with a healthy dose of skepticism. But when they show such a stark shift in opinion, it is safe to conclude that something big is going on. That big thing, I fear, is that the citizens of liberal democracies have grown so disenchanted with the status quo that they are willing to put their faith in populist strongmen and radical political experiments.

Two decades ago, far-right populists were electorally insignificant in most of North America and Western Europe. Then, people such as Jörg Haider in Austria, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, and Marine Le Pen in France celebrated a remarkable string of political successes, establishing their movements as a firm part of their political systems and making their countries less hospitable for immigrants and other minority groups. In countries such as the United States, France, or Sweden, they are now within striking distance of outright majorities. Thursday’s referendum proves that there is no magic firewall that is sure to stop them.

It is worth remembering that David Cameron only called this referendum because he, along with the vast majority of Britain’s political class, was convinced that Brexit would never happen. It is also worth remembering that, 24 hours ago, most polls seemed to point to a victory for the forces of stability.

This should serve as a stark warning to people who are confident that Donald Trump could never be elected president. If he manages to turn the election into a referendum on the status quo, he has every chance of winning—especially since all the evidence suggests that the citizens of liberal democracies have never held the status quo in as much contempt as they do now. If we blindly trust the polls that seem to foretell his defeat, we might be in for an even ruder awakening come November.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Next > End >>

Page 1996 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN