It’s nice the survivors of the school shooting in Florida are going to march on Washington

Florida school shooting: Students to march on Washington

Young survivors of Wednesday’s school shooting in Florida have announced a national march on Washington to demand political action on gun control.

Student organisers told US media that they were determined to make Wednesday’s shooting a turning point in the national gun debate.

The attack, which left 17 students and staff members dead, was the deadliest US school shooting since 2012.

Yesterday protestors chanted “shame on you” to US lawmakers and the president.

Mr Trump said last year he would “never” infringe on the right to keep arms – a long-running and contested debate within the US.

In his first public comments on the gun control issue since the attack, Mr Trump blamed the Democrats for not passing legislation when they controlled Congress during the early years of Barack Obama’s administration.

He also rebuked the FBI for missing signals before Wednesday’s school shooting, after the organisation admitted it had failed to act on a tip-off about the suspected shooter Nikolas Cruz.

But let’s face facts. It will have not the slightest effect on the Republicans who control Congress. Nothing will change. There will be no gun control whilst Republicans are in office being financed by the National Rifle Association, which doesn’t give a fig about how many children and students are sacrificed on the altar of gun worship. Those who run the NRA are probably masturbating to videos of the carnage.

Historically, every mass shooting has lead to a loosening of gun controls, to make mass shootings ever easier. This has never troubled Republicans, and never will, because those bastards have no shame at all. They love guns and despise those shot by them.

So march on. It will have no effect against Republican intransigence. It might make you feel better for a moment, but as long as Republicans remain in control of Congress, that’s all it will ever do.

Tories back religious discrimination in schools

Well, isn’t THAT a surprise! Nothing changes for the better.

Minister’s plans to allow more religious discrimination in schools ‘will increase prejudice’

How about simply abolishing public funding for “faith schools” altogether? Taxes come from people of different faiths, or of no faith at all. Using them to subsidise religious proselytising is a betrayal of the public trust in government. If there ever was any.

School re-segregation would be a retrograde step by a retarded government. But then, that’s the Tories for you. Ever marching bravely backwards into the 18th century, where the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg wil finally feel comfortable.

Oh! Here’s the politically correct answer to America’s school shooting problem!

Why didn’t we think of this before?

Florida shooting: Days after Parkland massacre, activists rally for gun control while a nearby show hawks assault rifles

Image result for ar-15

What’s not to like about it? Every household should have several. After all, if you have an assault rifle or three, you’ll never be threatened by someone else who has one, will you? I guess they would have to buy a tank.

Inside the sprawling expo centre that housed the gun show, rows of long yellow tables provided enthusiasts with a smorgasbord of weapons options, and choices to carry and keep those weapons safe.

Lines of semi-automatic rifles were looked over by potential buyers. Ammunition gleamed on the tables close to offers of $5 instant background checks. Vendors offered up Tasers, knives, and bulletproof vests.

Bulletproof vests!!!

Why not give every school child a bulletproof vest which will slightly reduce their chance of being mown down by some crazed gunman who managed to get past America’s lax gun ownership laws? Win-win!  Gun manufacturers get to sell their lethal product to every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants one, as well as protection against guns to every potential victim.  Profits!!!!

Alternatively, and maybe even better, why not have the tiny tots tote a gun to school every day, so they can blow away the evildoers, mostly gun nuts themselves, trying to blow them away? Even more profits. If everyone has several guns, no-one will ever kill anyone again, amirite?

God, but America gets sicker every day. A country so deviant that it can’t even control gun ownership to any extent, because it is in thrall to lobbyists of the National Rifle Association, does not make a reliable ally. Yet Theresa May still loves her some Trump. She’s an idiot. And apparently so are Americans.

So… what do we make of gay parents…

Center Parcs pulls advertising from Daily Mail over ‘homophobic’ column on Tom Daley and Dustin Lance Black’s baby announcement

This was about about a column in the Daily Mail by Richard Littlejohn who opined that while gay parents were better than an institutional upbringing, the best upbringing was by a heterosexual couple, and he couldn’t fathom why anyone would support a gay couple raising a child.

It was criticised as homophobic, a view he attempted to deflect in the article by saying he was in favour of “civil partnerships” (note, not marriage), resulting in the company pulling its Daily Mail ads. Well, the Daily Mail is hardly a supporter of anything gay. He went on to criticise Daley and Black about flaunting a sonogram of the foetus, without revealing who the mother is, and that it’s important to know who the mother is, because mothers are essential to child care. Without a mother, a child is apparently inconsolably deprived.

He further mocked Daley and Black, asking who the father would be, and why there was no mention of the mother’s participation in the event.

Now, the tone of the column was pretty homophobic. Littlejohn is evidently no more a friend of gay people than the Daily Mail. Well, those odious bastards wouldn’t have published the column had it been supportive of gay couples.

But, there was one salient point in the otherwise nasty diatribe that deserves consideration. It was the question, where did the baby come from? Was it bought? Is there a form of human trafficking involved in this sort of operation, where an anonymous woman is used as an incubator to host a foetus to be delivered on birth to a  barren couple? Gay or straight.

This is a question that needs some thought. I am not certain it’s morally wrong, after all, if one can pay a nanny to look after a child for years on end, what is wrong with paying a woman for gestating it? Still and all, it has me scratching my head.

Why couldn’t Daley and Black have adopted one of the many orphans in need of parents? Whose DNA is in the child? Is the DNA source important? How did it get there? Not questions Daley or Black answered, though there may be good reasons for their reticence, including the privacy of the surrogate, but they are interesting ones. The DNA can’t come from both of them, so did it come from either of them? And if neither, why not adopt?

I’ve read about situations where a female, even lesbian, friend of a gay male couple agrees to carry a baby, and has artificial insemination to do it. Sperm donors can mix their emissions and not know which one made it through without DNA testing. I’ve no problem with that, because everyone is willingly involved, without any sort of coercion, financial inducement or exploitation. But buying a baby? Are there similarities to prostitution?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m gay myself and support the right of gay couples to raise children together. I’m just wondering about the means, and whether surrogacy as a commercial transaction is ethically valid, whether the would-be parents are gay or straight. One can argue that if prostitution is a career willingly entered into, it’s not something to criticise, however, it’s all too frequently a measure of last resort, with coercion and trafficking common in its practice.

Food for thought with no obvious answers.

Bye, bye, UKIP

Ukip sacks Henry Bolton as leader in wake of racism row to spark fourth leadership contest in 18 months

Well, he was endorsed by the odious Nigel Farage, who earlier this week admitted UKIP was (thankfully) collapsing. Fewer than 2000 members took part in the vote to axe der fuehrer, who jilted his girlfriend Jo Marney after she tweeted racist nasties about Prince Harry and his definitely non-white fiancee Meghan Markle.

No-one with any decency will mourn UKIP’s passing. they were on a par with Moseley’s Brownshirts coming up to WWII, and with Tories like Enoch Powell and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Mind you, the Tories might just select the Moggster to replace the hapless May after she fails to secure the disastrous Brexit so many of them want. After all, when you have the Tories, who needs UKIP in the first place? Birds of a feather.

Trump’s cabinet is as ignorant as he is…

Trump’s climate change sceptic environment chief Scott Pruitt flies first class to avoid angry public

Well, I can understand this twit’s desire to avoid critics who point out publicly how stupid he is. He denies science on no rational grounds other than its being politically and commercially inconvenient. Similar to Soviet stooges of their day.

The fact that this mind-blighted whackadoodle has been let loose to destroy the Environmental Protection Agency, just in order to destroy the environment, is enough to condemn Trump, all other issues aside.

But we shouldn’t leave other issues aside. Trump is arguably the worst human being in the world, and a disgrace to America and its presidency. Americans ought to be embarrassed that they elected a twerp like Trump. Most may be regretting it now, but it’s too late. The damage is done, and it will take generations to undo, if it can be undone at all.

Congrats, USA. Fucked up yet again.

Does Labour have any “clarity” on Brexit?

The short answer is… no.

Labour receives 17,000 emails calling for say on Brexit

Labour has received 17,000 emails over five days from people lobbying for a clearer party policy on Brexit.

The emails, coordinated by Labour MPs and campaigners, call on Labour to give supporters “their say” by setting up a new policy commission on Brexit.

They say there is a “pressing need” for the party to set out an alternative approach to government Brexit plans.

Labour said its national policy forum, which meets in Leeds this weekend, plans to discuss the impact of Brexit.

We are now more than a year and a half from the referendum held on 23 June 2016, and almost a year since May stupidly triggered article 50 to leave the EU, and neither the government nor the main opposition party has formulated a policy as to what they actually want from Brexit. With just over a year before the deadline, they fudge and vacillate this way and that, spinning dizzyingly around trying to please all sides and alarm none, and clearly have no clue what they are doing.

The feckless Tories are at war with each other, and Labour has been trying to pretend there are no major issues that need to be discussed and resolved at all. Anything to avoid taking a reasoned policy stance. May went from strong and stable to weak and wobbly in an ill-advised election night, and Corbyn has been dithering about in Socialist bliss trying to conceal his own anti-European biases. Between the pair of them, they couldn’t organise two slices of bread and a slab of ham into a sandwich.

But Corbyn is even more handicapped than May. May is weak because she has no real authority after losing the election and having to get into bed with the demented DUP, the heirs of “Reverend” Ian Paisley, just to stay in Downing Street. And paying for the privilege from the Tories’ magic money tree. Corbyn, however, despite being handed the wonderful gift of a Tory party deeply conflicted and disarrayed, is hamstrung by his own wish to leave the EU, which is what the Tories are in the process of screwing up. He’s actually on their side on the major political issue of the day, and cannot produce effective opposition.

Britain has neither a government nor an opposition it can trust, and that is the worst of worlds.

Oh the irony and hypocrisy

Florida shooting: White House refuses to release photo of Trump signing bill weakening gun laws for mentally ill

At the same time as that creepy and odious excuse for a human being, Donald Trump, tries to deflect attention from the NRA’s responsibility in making guns far too easy to obtain in the US by suggesting, in a tweet, that people who knew the latest Florida killer should have done more to report him to the authorities, he wants to conceal the fact that he approved a bill that makes it easier for the mentally ill to obtain guns.

The bill, HJ Resolution 40, repealed an Obama-era rule that would have added thousands of mentally ill US citizens to a database preventing them buying firearms.

Barack Obama pushed for the change following the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012, in which 20 children between six and seven years old were shot dead. The law came into effect in 2016.

On the day Mr Trump signed the bill, the National Rifle Association (NRA), America’s most powerful pro-gun pressure group, called it a “new era for law-abiding gun owners”.

WTF?

Evidently the NRA, supported by Trump, is OK with deranged people having guns. So why is Trump trying to deflect blame from the NRA in this latest shooting by claiming the shooter should have been reported as deranged? It’s not as though the NRA would have supported his inability to buy a gun. They are all in favour of it.

American citizens let the NRA and Trump get away with this. I have no sympathy at all. They reap what they sow, and they’ve sown carnage among their own children.  And until they get some gumption to stand up against fetid swamp of Republicans supporting the NRA, they may as well get used to more of their children being blown to bits.

They have no-one to blame any more than themselves. No tears, thoughts or prayers here. Get off your fat heinies and do something practical to stop this. Or just accept the mortality rate of your children as a necessary accommodation to Republican nutcases. And stop complaining when they die. You allowed this to happen by not voting against Republicans. I can excuse Democrat voters and pols  to some extent- they didn’t vote for the twitter-in-chief. But have they done enough? Maybe a shut-down of government till gun control gets taken seriously? Would that be too much?

It’s up to you. If you insist on voting for the party that enables massacres, or enabling the party that enables massacres, then you will just have to accept massacres.

Oh, and Trump is a villainous scumbag. He truly represents his base, and it just doesn’t get baser than that.