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

  The Trump Legend        What is the Trump story?   It will be quite different for followers and detractors.   I believe the reason that so many people can have completely opposite views of the same person and events lies in great part to our American, and perhaps human, myths.       I had occasion once to be watching a televangelist in the company of some fundamentalist in-laws.   Seeing this person crying while singing a hymn, I thought he was the phoniest person I had ever seen.   But one of my wife's aunts turned to me and said, "Isn't he the most sincere person you've ever seen?"   I didn't answer, but it occurred to me that we were sitting in the same room watching the same event with completely opposite views.   I love studying history, but I am now more careful to try and research the historian.       Some of us like to believe in heroic leaders following their ...
Post a Comment
Read more
I believe in god - my god.   I believe partly because my parents believed and raised me to believe.   But mostly because of my mortality.   My tenuous existence drives me to believe in a god or gods, or life forces, in outerworldly notions unsupported by any evidence other than the similar language or desires of others. Since the affirmation of others is the only support I have, I seek out affirmation in as many places and ways as I can find.   I try to spread the joy and comfort I experience from affirmation to others, claiming that I want them to share in what I have found, but actually needing to reaffirm my belief. The more people I can find or persuade toward my belief, the better. If I am insecure in my belief, I may become more adamant in my desire to spread my belief. I may become a missionary to teach my word.   If that is not enough, I may threaten those who disagree.   I may chastise or condemn them.   I may shun them.   I may imp...
Post a Comment
Read more
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. ...
1 comment
Read more