Skip to main content

 Bannon Up!

This analogy is far from perfect, but it represents to me a futile mindset.

  A sacrifice bunt in baseball involves giving up an out to advance a runner into a better position to score a run.  Occasionally, a pitcher tries so hard to throw pitches that are difficult to bunt, that he ends up walking the batter, which moves the lead runner into scoring position, gets no out, and puts another runner on base.  I’ve heard former coaches and players announcing games cry, “He’s trying to make an out.  Let him!”

  I believe Steve Bannon wants to go to prison, to make himself a martyr and hero to the right-wing nuts who support him.  I say, let him.

  I’ve heard some pundits worry that convicting him would further infuriate the right-wing nuts.  I think it’s time to abandon that type of thinking.  We have seen time after time that making concessions to appease these people is completely unproductive.  They see concessions only as weakness.

  Even so-called reasonable Congressional Republicans in the past demanded and won concessions from Democrats, then immediately betrayed the agreements that were made. 

  Working for consensus is admirable, but worrying that violent people will become violent if they aren’t appeased is foolish.  They have demonstrated that they will threaten and use violence regardless of the importance or rationality of an issue.

  So, if Steve Bannon wants to commit obvious crimes, go to prison, and become a martyr, let him.  He’s no Nelson Mandela.  And the worst of the January 6th insurrectionists should also go to prison for significant terms.  The right-wing nuts may still get violent, but at least there will be fewer of them in public.  If they are so committed to sacrificing themselves for their misguided cause, let them.  Take the out, and take them out of society, and society out of harm’s way. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That's How the Light Gets In On Economic Perspective $Million per day My argument in today's blog is that the rich, especially the ultra-rich do not need protection from people advocating redistribution of wealth downward.   I'm recalling "Joe, the Plumber", (who was not named Joe and was not a plumber) who was used by a conservative Presidential candidate to exemplify that liberals would try to tax away the opportunity to start a business and become wealthy.  Also, I've been accused of being a conspiracy theorist when I've complained that the ultra-wealthy collude to protect and increase their massive wealth.    So, I'll address three issues at once: 1.  Are we trying to deprive the wealthy of their lifestyle? 2.  Do ultra-wealthy have the time, resources, and inclination to conspire to strongly influence politics and economics? 3.  To get an idea of economics in general, it helps to have an understanding of wealth. My ans
1 comment
Read more

grooming

  Political parties have long used wedge issues to encourage their members to turn out to vote.   Sometimes these issues are inflammatory, employing demonization, occasionally to the point of being dangerous.   I fear that this year, we are witnessing such an issue: the accusations of pedophilia.   I realize that the Q-Anon conspiracy theorists have made this an issue for a couple of years now, but there is a new, and much more dangerous twist, that is surfacing that may turn out to be far more insidious.   Rather than merely accusing all Democrats and liberals of being child-trafficking pedophiles who drink children’s blood, they have broadened out the accusation to include grooming children for pedophiles.   A bit of background:   you may remember the ardent believer who took a gun into a New York pizza parlor where he was told children were being kept in the basement by a cabal of pedophiles led by Hillary Clinton among others.   Fortunately, when he arrived, he was persuaded th
Post a Comment
Read more