Pronouns

People habitually mock that which they do not understand. One of the things that a lot of people don't understand is the whole concept of transgenderism. (I think I may have made up a word there) They don't "get" that some people may want to identify as a different gender than the one listed on their birth certificate, or no gender at all and adopt non-traditional pronouns to describe themselves. Their lack of understanding is manifested as derisive stabs at humor or even attempts to legislate away the existence of transgender people. Things such as gender-affirming surgery for minors or whether a person who lived most of her life as a male should be allowed to compete in women's sports may be legitimate subjects for debate, but in my observations what those who are opposed to these things are really opposed to is the very existence of transgender people. 

I'll leave the discussion of gender-affirming surgery for another day, because I believe it's a distraction - a slippery slope argument whose real goal is to erase transgender people from society. (And if you want to call it "mutilation", nobody asked me whether I wanted to be circumcised as an infant - I'll never get that foreskin back) Most things that differentiate a transgender from a cisgender person, including preferred pronouns, have absolutely no effect on any other person. So, why does anyone, other than the individual who identifies as transgender, care? In my everyday interactions with my fellow Nebraskans I can't imagine how a person's gender identity would affect me in any way. Does it matter if I can't tell whether the person who makes my latte (consumption of which is compulsory for us liberals) is male or female? Or neither? Or even whether my grandkids' teachers have identities which conform to societal gender "norms"? All I care about is whether my fancy coffee gets made with the right degree of fanciness and whether the school teachers communicate their subject matter well. 

The bigoted attacks on transgender people (and all LGBTQ+ people for that matter) has been disguised as some kind of concern for children's safety. This "concern" is based on their evidence-free perception that anyone who isn't heterosexual cisgender is by definition a child molester, a pedophile. The term "groomer", meaning someone who intentionally and incrementally gets a child comfortable with sexual activity in order to sexually take advantage of them, as been thrown around liberally. Anyone who who is in the LBGTQ+ community is tarred with this brush, allies among cisgender heterosexuals are included in their minds as "pedo groomers". It reminds me of the hysteria in the cult I was a part of in the nineties during the "homo purge", where anyone even suspected of being gay, as well as what they called "homo fantasizers" and "homo sympathizers" were purged from the ranks. If these legislators and church leaders cared about children's safety rather than performing as if they did to garner the bigot vote, they'd be looking into the many church groups where child abuse is rampant, including but not limited to, the Catholic Church. Keep an eye out for the credible accusations of child molestation and you'll see a lot of ministers and Republican politicians and zero drag queens. 

Then we have the low-key "humor" of saying things like "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci" or something equally idiotic. This is a bigot's attempt at cleverness. Yes, they know what a pronoun is and that what they wrote wasn't a pronoun. It a feeble attempt to mock gender identity choice and whatever else they're worked up about at the same time, while exposing both their bigotry and their ignorance. 

While parents aren't always as understanding as their children want them to be when it comes to their sexuality and gender identity, you would think that a bunch of drag queens reading to school kids, or hosting a community event where the parents are fully knowledgeable and bring their children to these events wouldn't be cause for a protest. After all, isn't the current right-wing obsession with schools are teaching all about parents' rights? Since the parents are involved, why are there scores of armed men in combat gear protesting these events? 

I think you know the answer.

The Laptop

With all the crises that Republicans have been screaming about that need solving, like inflation, the border, Social Security shortfall, crime, and imaginary election fraud, now that they're charge of the House of Representatives they'll be concentrating on big issues like investigating the January 6 Committee, impeaching Joe Biden and, of course, Hunter Biden's laptop. 

Republicans, going all the way back to the Clinton administration have attempted to get their way with pointless investigations, while their own people have been engaged in the real corruption, pontificating about "family values" while nominating...Donald Trump. 

Hunter Biden is without a doubt a serial screwup. He has gotten lucrative jobs by trading on his father's name, gotten himself thrown out of the military for drug use, and made a long string bad decisions. But, in true Republican fashion, since they have fantasized that President Biden was involved corruptly in his son's bad decisions it must be so. No evidence needed. 

There is no doubt that Hunter Biden had a laptop that he once abandoned at a computer repaid shop in Delaware. There also appears to be videos on it that make Hunter look pretty bad. It's also indisputable that he's under investigation for various crimes including tax fraud. Fine, if he's guilty I would hope he's held accountable for any hypothetical crimes. 

But...why does anyone care?

With all the serious issues to be addressed, this what the Republicans are going to focus on?

The clown show is open for business.
 

Still a Murderer

 

After seeing Kyle Rittenhouse once again on social media attempting to justify himself, I thought I'd revisit this post from July, with a few additions:

Kyle Rittenhouse was on trial for murder. He killed two people and seriously wounded a third. 

According to trial testimony, the first person that Rittenhouse killed was Joseph Rosenbaum. I've heard different versions of what happened between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum, and various descriptions of Rosenbaum as a troublemaker. But trial testimony established that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum four times after Rosenbaum lunged at him. Multiple witnesses established that Rosenbaum was harassing, not only Rittenhouse, but other counter protestors as well. Video shows Rosenbaum chasing after Rittenhouse and throwing what appears to be a plastic bag at him. There is no credible allegation that Rosenbaum was armed. The defense claims, and video footage confirms, that a shot was heard just before Rittenhouse turned and fired at Rosenbaum, who was still unarmed. No one, not even the defense, was claiming that Rosenbaum fired the shot. I think that it's reasonable to conclude that Rittenhouse was terrified that he was going to get beaten up by Rosenbaum and possibly others. It's abundantly clear that in his mind he connected the gunshot that he heard with Rosenbaum chasing him, freaked out and fired his weapon. Video appears to show Rosenbaum reaching for the barrel of the weapon, or perhaps lunging at Rittenhouse. What would you do if a terrified youngster with an AR-15 pointed his gun at you? It clear to me from the testimony given at the trial that it's entirely plausible that Rittenhouse feared for his life - not because an actual threat to his life existed, but because in his fantasy of protecting property from rampaging hordes and in a moment of irrational terror that existed only in his head  and apart from the reality of the situation, he panicked and killed someone. And fired, not once, in order to drive off someone who he fantasized was trying to kill him, but four times as Rosenbaum fell. 

The jury decided, as the defense claims, that Rittenhouse fired in self defense. I am unfamiliar with the specifics of Wisconsin law, although I am reasonably sure they don't have a version of a "Stand Your Ground" statute, so it's wasn't a sure thing either way. But is it self defense if you purposely put yourself in a position to provoke people to anger by walking around with a loaded weapon that you are prepared to use against people who are damaging property? Emotions were running hot in Kenosha and he inserted himself right into the middle of it. And "inserted" is the right word. This wasn't his city, it wasn't even his state. He got his mother to drive him across state lines and pick up his illegally obtained weapon because he was looking for trouble. And he found it. Trouble didn't find him. He actively sought out a dangerous situation and shot an unarmed man who he thought endangered him. 

Something that wasn't brought up in the trial, but is referred to repeatedly by Rittenhouse supporters and enablers, was that Rosenbaum was a convicted pedophile. This is true. When he was 19 he was accused of molesting several young boys and was convicted and spent time in prison for it. This certainly makes Rosenbaum a terrible person - at least it indicates that he was a terrible person when he was 19, roughly 18 years before he was killed. Rittenhouse stans insist that killing Rosenbaum was somehow a public service given his past. But as much as we may feel that pedophiles are the worst of the worst and deserve to die, (1) Rittenhouse had no knowledge of Rosenbaum's record, (2) He'd served his time and (3) the law frowns on vigilantism, no matter how horrific the crime. This is what we in the piscine metaphor game call a red herring. While in this case, the target really was a pedophile, bringing this up is right in line with the right wing trying to paint anyone who opposes them as a pedophile. But in this case it's totally irrelevant and intended to justify Rittenhouse's actions over and above the tissue-thin self defense claim. 

Regarding Rittenhouse's murder of Rosenbaum, he was found not guilty because the statutes allowed a claim of self defense even when there wasn't anything to defend oneself from other than in the supposed defender's mind. 

Let's move on to the murder of Anthony Huber. 

Much is made by Second Amendment extremists of the "good guy with a gun" as a preventive to "bad guy with a gun" violence. (Of course they are not dissuaded by statistics showing that this hardly ever happens) In their minds armed citizens should be able to stop a mass shooter in the early stages, or even before the shooting starts. Anthony Huber, as well as several others, had just seen Rittenhouse kill someone. Even though he was armed only with a skateboard, he attempted to subdue the killer before he could kill again. The bare facts of this second killing are not really in dispute. Huber attacked Rittenhouse with a skateboard in order to detain him. If Rittenhouse had been killed by the skateboard, I presume that Huber could have successfully used the "feared for his life" defense. After all, Rittenhouse, who had just inarguably killed someone, still was armed with a deadly weapon, was walking away. Wouldn't, in other circumstances, someone like Huber be lauded as a hero? Instead, Rittenhouse was able to get off a shot and Huber was killed; Rittenhouse again claimed to fear for his life as a defense against someone who attempted to disarm and detain him. Team Rittenhouse wants us to view this second killing in a vacuum: someone was attacking him and he defended himself. Since he says, one again, that he feared for his life, he's let off again. But you can't divorce Huber's killing from the context of Rosenbaum's killing. This wasn't a random, unprovoked attack by a mad skateboarder, but a reaction to his murder of Rosenbaum. 

As in the case of Rosenbaum, the Rittenhouse cheerleaders attempted to smear Huber, but with less success. Huber was accused of domestic abuse and sexual assault, however this was inaccurate. He had been charged with several felonies springing from a dispute with several family members, as well as misdemeanors for disorderly conduct and possession of drug paraphernalia. No allegations or charges of sexual assault were included in his record. Unlike Rosenbaum his run-ins with the law were minor, but like Rosenbaum, they were completely irrelevant. 

We finally get to Gaige Grosskreutz, the only one of Rittenhouse's three victims to survive and the only one who was armed. Grosskreutz was at the protests as a medic, but unlike Rittenhouse he (1) had actual training as an EMT and (2) had actively treated around a dozen people for pepper spray and rubber bullet impacts. He was armed and had a license to carry a weapon. Grosskreutz ran toward the sound of gunfire, the gunfire that killed Rosenbaum. He saw Rittenhouse kill Huber and had drawn his gun. Initially he had raised his hands but when he saw Rittenhouse "rerack his rifle to load a new round into the chamber" he ran toward Rittenhouse "to prevent himself from being shot", claiming to have no intention of actually shooting him, but pointing his pistol in Rittenhouse's direction nonetheless. It's obvious that Grosskreutz didn't intend to shoot Rittenhouse...because he didn't , even though he had the opportunity. If he had shot and killed Rittenhouse, surely he would have been able to claim that he feared for his life and been acquitted. Like the murder of Huber, friends of Rittenhouse want to take this shooting out of context and present it as just an incident of him defending himself from someone pointing a gun at him. But the context is supremely important. Grosskreutz would not have been in the position that he was in if two murders had not jus occurred. Rittenhouse wouldn't be in that position if he hadn't just murdered two people. 

The now tiresome accusation of criminality rears its head again. Grosskreutz, while having several misdemeanors on his record was not a felon and was legally able to go armed. 

Rittenhouse got off. In my opinion it was overly broad self defense statutes that allowed his claim of self defense to stand. They're not much different in Wisconsin than anywhere else, but for the most part a claim that someone "feared for their life" is taken at face value. In the case of the first person that he shot, Rittenhouse claimed he was afraid that he would be killed by his own gun, that he testified that Rosenbaum was trying to take from him. In the case of his murder of Huber, he was apparently deathly afraid of a skateboard. He seemed to be completely unaware that he was being "attacked" because he had just KILLED SOMEONE! 

After the acquittal, instead of breathing a sigh of relief that he wouldn't be going to prison, he has become the darling of the gun lovers in the NRA and the Republican Party, spouting pro-gun rhetoric via his Twitter account and encouraging his supporters to justify his murder and maiming spree by pointing out the arrest history of his victims. 

The NRA crowd and its hangers-on don't see the inherent problem with this no-questions-asked "feared for my life" defense. Cops have been using it for as long as there have been cops, but now you start to see videos of aggressive, armed individuals screaming "I feel threatened" at people armed only with words. I'm not advocating unprovoked violence, but wouldn't a natural extension of this belief be for protestors to just proactively shoot any right wing counter-protester? 

After the Rittenhouse verdict, I'd certainly fear for my life if I saw any of those armed assholes at a protest.