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

Musings

  Right-To-Lifers Don’t Go Far Enough       I was pro-choice, but I’ve changed my mind.   The problem is not that the State should govern what a woman does with her body, the problem is that the State has not gone far enough.   The argument is that to protect the life of a fetus, the State must overrule a woman’s privacy and bodily autonomy and regulate her body for her.   Fine.   If we want the State to be in the business of protecting life through bodily regulation, then go all in.   Stick to the prime directive.   Protect all life.   The State should govern both men and women to protect life.   The State should tell any healthy person what to do with their body in order to protect life.   So, if someone needs a kidney, liver, or any organ transplant to save their life, the State should find someone and take whatever parts are needed to save that life.   If not, then we are allowing organ-icide.   (...
Post a Comment
Read more
Inspired by "Is religion a force for good in the world?" - the debates with Christopher Hitchens Let's compare general religious tenets with general humanistic tenets: I assert that to be a good humanist you must follow the rules.   To be a good religious person you must break the rules. Religious:                                             Humanistic: love thy neighbor                                   love thy neighbor do good works                                       do good works live according to the scriptures              live according to what can be drawn from evidence (science) try to follow the dictates of god       ...
Post a Comment
Read more