If freedom means anything it means the right to commit violence in another person’s name. This is a lesson that’s been passed on from one generation to the next since the time this country was first founded. And it’s starting to bear fruit like there’s no tomorrow. Of course I am referring to Omar Mateen whose final moments perfectly capture what it means to be free in this country: going down in a blaze of glory with gun in one hand and cell phone in the other.
But he’s certainly not the first of his kind, nor will he be the last. Indeed, when it comes to committing violence in the name of others Mateen and his ilk don’t hold a candle to the grown ups in the room. Hillary warned the other day of the prospect that Trump might be given the nuclear launch codes (or is it that he gets to push a button, or both?). Now there’s the ultimate expression of freedom: a democracy that guarantees persons of every sex, class, race, and religion the right to launch a nuclear attack — except of course if you’re rich, white and misogynistic, in which case you only get a taste of what it feels like to commit mass genocide. Perhaps that’s for the best. Do we really want Trump anywhere near a computer let alone one capable of launching missiles halfway around the world?
Speaking of weapons of mass destruction, we launched a few of those in Japan not too long ago and as a result won the war for the rest of the free world. For that we will never apologize for what we did to the Japanese. Not in a million years. Better to just lecture them on the evils and immorality of nuclear war. Anyway, if we had to apologize to Japan, then we’d be in for a doozy of an apology tour. Vietnam would want in on the action, as would Iraq. And that’s just for starters. Who knows what other groups or countries might have a bone to pick with the U.S. government?
I imagine the patrons at Pulse whose night out became a night to forget would have some questions for their representatives in government. And to get them started, here’s one of my own: what’s scarier, Trump with the nuclear launch codes or Hillary as Dubya-lite? Here’s another: where are the guns for the good guys? If the logic is that we should arm the good guys with guns so they can then neutralize the bad guys with guns and if the government can’t protect the good guys without guns from the bad guys with guns then why isn’t the government making more of an effort to get the good guys their guns? And here’s one last one: don’t forget the bullets! Ok that wasn’t a question but who cares.