In this week's issue of Banter M:
It's All Over But The Drowning - Chez Pazienza writes about the prospect of his hometown Miami succumbing to rising water levels due to catastrophic climate change, and wonders how his now oblivious seven year old daughter will navigate a planet plunged into chaos.
You Say Establishment, I Say Establishment - In a heartfelt essay, Tommy Christopher explains where his political biases come from. "When I hear someone suggest that at any level of my being, I give a good fuck whether Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton becomes president beyond what good I think will result in the world, it pisses me off," he writes.
Bernie Sanders' Sandy Hook Problem - Bob Cesca examines Bernie Sander's perplexing stance on protecting gun manufacturers from litigation, and reveals that while preciously on the fence about to who to vote for in the Democratic primary, this issue may have have decided it for him.
Excerpt from Bob's piece:
Bernie Sanders' Sandy Hook Problem
by Bob Cesca
Believe it or not, until this week I was more or less undecided about my vote in the Democratic presidential primary race. On one hand, I think Hillary Clinton is uniquely and superbly qualified for the job. On the other hand, Bernie Sanders' position on Wall Street speaks directly to the chunk of my brain that's still reeling from the Great Recession and all of the harrowing consequences I faced during that time.
This week, Bernie may have lost me for good.
As many readers of The Daily Banter are well aware, gun control is one of my top-shelf issue areas and hence one of the topics I cover most often here. It's also one of the issue areas where I'm firmly planted on the extreme left. I haven't always been this way, but the Sandy Hook massacre changed everything. For example, I'm not exaggerating when I say the Second Amendment has outlived its vagueness and must be repealed or clarified. I also think most firearms should be banned and confiscated. Enough is enough -- it's time to get the guns.
Regarding Sandy Hook, it's a topic that continues to resonate with me, perhaps more so than even 9/11. The images continue to spring to mind every time I hunker down to write about it: teachers using their bodies as human shields to defend their six- and seven-year-old students from an onslaught of rounds fired from Adam Lanza's AR-15 assault rifle; the look of shocked terror in the tear-soaked eyes of the parents; the 20 young lives lost in a senseless display of consumer-available firepower. All of it.
I can't imagine, therefore, how anyone, especially Man Of The People Bernie Sanders, can take sides against the families of those 20 children -- 20 children who will never know what first-love is like, who will never know what it's like to succeed in a career, who will never know what it's like to send their own children off to school. But Bernie did it anyway, in both words and congressional vote. Not only did the far-left Vermont senator vote in support of protecting gun manufacturers from litigation, but during his Daily News editorial board interview this week, Bernie defended his position when asked about the Sandy Hook families and their lawsuit against Remington, the makers and marketers of Lanza's AR-15.
Is Remington liable for the wrongful deaths of those children and teachers? Maybe, maybe not. But from what we've observed on many occasions in the past, it's a process that mega-corporations often must endure -- knowing how some of these corporations earn their profits on deadly consumer items. In this case, the most popular firearm in America and one that's been used in way too many gun massacres.
To read the full article and the rest of the magazine, go here!