The universe is upside down. Everything is opposite of anything it should be even in an otherwise rational world. I’m choosing to dissect two of the most egregious examples occurring this week. I can’t bring myself to review the Republicans behavior re: the January 6 riot. It is what it is. There are others. Please bear with me. This is important.

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial, presented on CCM in all its glory, now with the jury. The facts of the case are brutally clear. Rittenhouse is an underage (17 y/o at the time) teenager who shot and killed two people and injured a third during a night of Black Lives Matter protests and civil unrest in Kenosha, Wis. He was underage to own an assault rifle and had a friend purchase one for him, a felony. He lived out of state. He went out of his way to Wisconsin allegedly to protect property there and offer EMT level medical aid if violence occurred during the “protest”, which was predicted. He was not an EMT and had no medical training. He wandered into the protest fray humping an AR-15 assault rifle; repeat- “assault rifle” and I can speak authoritatively on that subject having done the same in a different theater.

Rittenhouse had no demonstrable rationale for strapping this weapon (with a 30+ round clip) to the front of his body, very visible to all. He claimed he did so for his “own safety”, as if he planned to use it in a defensive manner if the was threatened by the mostly black crowd. Defensive as in shooting one that threatened him. But the underlying, but unstated foundational tenet of gun advocacy: That guns, particularly rapid-fire assault weapons are effective and necessary weapons of self-defense. Without them, lawlessness and tyranny would prevail. And in the words of the NRA, “in the hands of the “good guys”, guns promote public safety. The classic gun rights fantasy, self-defense as circular reasoning.

Rittenhouse says he carried a rifle in order to guarantee his safety during a violent protest but he was forced to shoot people when he says his life was threatened. According to his own defense, the gun posed a grave threat to Rittenhouse himself but the gun metamorphosed situations that might have ended in orthopedic trauma to death. His gun simply invited conflict. When protesters spotted Rittenhouse’s plainly visible weapon of war they immediately moved to foment conflict with him. The killing began when Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Joseph Rosenbaum, an unarmed protester, prompting Rosenbaum to advance on him presumably in an effort to stop a potential shooting. Rittenhouse claimed that Rosenbaum wanted to take the rifle and if he got it, and if he had been successful, “he would have killed me with it and maybe killed more people”. Rittenhouse fired four shots in less than one second, killing Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse then ran away, attempting to flee the scene following which he shot and killed another protester who was running after him and another protester who assaulted him after Rittenhouse had tripped and fell to the ground.

After all this turmoil and mortality, what was the value of assault weapons that night? They failed to deter attacks against those brandishing them. Rittenhouse brandishing such a weapon was the reason Rosenbaum pursued him, resulting in his death. Had it not been for the presence of weapons of war, a more moderate confrontation would have occurred, avoiding mortality associated with such weapons. Rittenhouse fired four rounds in less than one second at a person he thought was a mortal danger to him. Why not one round that might have immortalized his assailant rather than killing him instantly? Rittenhouse thought that the assault weapon very ostentatiously strapped to his chest would have embodied the pivotal NRA benchmark, helping the good guys ward off the bad guys. But if Rittenhouse was the good guy, what good did his weapon do him? What good did it do the community he was there to protect? Two people killed, and Rittenhouse life changed for the worse no matter what the jury finds.

• Update 2:00 pm today, Friday- Not guilty on all charges. It’s not for me to work all of you with my personal biases on this case but I will give you some things likely to happen as a result of this verdict.

a. In a criminal, capital murder case, the bar for conviction is set extremely high (beyond a reasonable doubt). The defendant does not need to prove his innocence; the prosecution must prove guilt by leaping over the high bar. The jury took four days to obviously find reasonable doubt and that’s the end here. However, that doesn’t mean this is over. The aggrieved families now have the option of suing Rittenhouse in civil court for wrongful death, a burden much lower than in a criminal case (preponderance of the evidence) as O.J. Simpson found out. So Rittenhouse will likely find himself in court for many more months with a much higher probability of facing money damages. His previous life as it was is pretty much over for a long time.

b. And by the way, at some point in the recent past, Rittenhouse’s mother went on TV asking for money gifts to pay attorney and court fees she estimates to US$110,000 so far. They haven’t arrived at civil trials yet and civil attorneys don’t work cheap. They’ll all present bills that’ll make his eyes water.

c. In the future, we will see many more assault weapons arriving at “protests” and “demonstrations” because the issue of “self defense” is now seemingly more legitimized. If per chance anyone is shot, the diagnosis of “self defense” will be automatic and similar court actions as this one will be as well automatic. Somewhere Wayne LaPierre is smiling.

d. Television coverage of trials will become extremely popular, especially when covered in real time by venues like CNN. There is quite a bit of chatter now that the previous prejudice against defendants testifying on their own behalf is now morphed to a better chance of sympathetic juries if/when the defendant breaks down and sprouts bitter crocodile tears on cue (and on camera).

---

2. The impeccably contemptible clown act involving the HOR censure of (R. Az) Paul Gosar. The House voted to censure Paul Gosar of Arizona and strip him of his two committee assignments after he posted a video to his social media accounts depicting his murder of Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and President Biden. First of all, let’s not minimize the potential for evil of “social media”. Anyone, anywhere can depict pretty much any kind of detrimental, injurious, hurtful, inimical, destructive prose or pictorial they choose and get away with it. Lord knows, Donald Trump played social media like a Stradivarius to win the Presidential nomination in 2016, without which no one would have noticed him. Secondly, chastising a member of a publicly responsible legislative body ain’t what it used to be or should be. Subsequently, Ocasio-Cortez criticized Republicans for failing to denounce Gosar’s actions and asked her fellow lawmakers, “Does anyone in this chamber find this behavior acceptable?” Well…..apparently only Democrats as all but two Republicans fully supported Gosar, who never apologized, only “self-censored” himself by removing the offending cartoon from his social media account.

In fact, violent and malevolent actions are becoming more prevalent in politics, with Republicans leading the charge, and their colleagues failing to rein in any of it. Minority HOR Leader, Kevin McCarthy was quick to divert criticism of Gosar by quoting other similar atrocities by Democrats in the past, and more importantly to assert that if (when) Republicans took control of the HOR in 2022, any consequences of Gosars censure would be quickly reversed. Speaker Nancy Pelosi remarked: “These actions demand a response. We cannot have a member joking about murdering each other or threatening the president of the United States. This is both an endangerment of our elected officials and an insult to the institution of the House of Representatives.” In response, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy remarked: “Gosars censure is ‘Pelosi burning down the House on the way out the door’ and claimed Democrats are abusing their power by removing Gosar from his committees. Not only have Republicans failed to discipline colleagues for such actions, their ilk espousing such malevolent actions have profited very ostentatiously.

The antics of (R.Ga) Marjorie Taylor Greene leap out. A supporter of Trump’s efforts to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential election, Greene has repeatedly and falsely claimed that Trump won the election in a landslide victory that was “stolen” from him (no evidence to support his claim). She called for Georgia’s election results to be decertified and was among a group of Republican legislators who unsuccessfully challenged votes for Biden during the Electoral College vote count, even though federal agencies and courts overseeing the election found no evidence of electoral fraud. Greene has published numerous baseless conspiracy theories and has tried to legitimize the thoroughly discredited Qanon conspiracy. She routinely expresses racist, anti-Semitic, and Islam phobic views. Naturally, Greene is a vociferous supporter of Donald J. Trump. The House of Representatives voted to remove Greene from all committee roles in 2021 in response to her incendiary statements and endorsements of political violence. Eleven Republicans joined the unanimous Democrats in the vote, but she prospers today, continuing to amass large quantities of cash support from her voter region and minimal if any new rein from her colleagues in the HOR.