Last night, I was having a political discussion with some relatives. My cousin said that if the suggestions of the left, which he says focus on raising taxes, were enacted in combination with the suggestions of the right, which he says are about cutting expenses, the budget would be balanced in the blink of an eye. What he forgot to consider is that the left don't only favor tax increases. They also oppose program cuts. And the right don't only advocate for program cuts, they also oppose tax increases. So if you put them all together, they just cancel each other out, and you have no change.
This is why a number of long term and prominent Congress people, mostly Senators, from both sides of the aisle, have announced they've had enough, can't stand the partisan gridlock, and are not running for re-election.
I have been having a debate lately with a conservative friend who is also a gun advocate. She forwarded a synthesis from someone else who identifies the causes of gun violence as the easy availability of guns, which he says cannot be impacted unless all guns are outlawed, the prevalence of extreme mental illness (he's also a psychiatrist), and a culture that cultivates antisocial dumbing down, like through violence-focused video games. He calls his synthesis The Gun, The Killer, and The Culture. He also says there are Constitutional Amendments that support each cause of violence. The Second Amendment prevents gun control, the Fifth Amendment prevents involuntary commitment of sick people, and the First Amendment prevents curtailing of "entertainment." According to my friend, this guy is a friend of hers, and he's "ready to shred his NRA card," because the NRA holds legislators hostage through its funding of them, and it threatens to politically assassinate them if they make any move toward gun control.
But in discussions with my friend, she says she thinks the big problem is the video games. She likes the Second Amendment, which I keep telling her she misunderstands as preventing general gun control, and she's more ready to set aside some of the "protections" afforded by the First Amendment. Many other people, including First Amendment adherents, want to protect free speech, but are more willing to qualify the "protections" afforded by the Second Amendment. And civil rights advocates don't care what happens, as long as people are not forcibly institutionalized. They're firm Fifth Amendment advocates.
It's the same problem as with the economy. What everyone wants is not only to focus on someone else's end of the problem, but also that no one should intervene on their end of things. And it leads to exactly the same stalemate and failure to progress. If the economy is to improve, we cannot rely on taxing the hell out of someone else, and leaving all the programs fully as they are. Nor can we slash any and all programs, and not raise taxes. If gun violence is to be controlled, we need to pay attention to the perpetrators, control maladaptive and antisocial cultural influences, and call an end to promiscuous gun availability. If the only sure way to do that is to have no gun availability, so be it. It beats having people randomly assassinate each other, when they're flaky and hopped up on video games, and can get their hands on a gun.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Congressional Republicans to the Rescue
Congressional Republicans have averted what might have been a disaster in the Executive branch. There was apparently serious consideration of elevating Susan Rice to the office of Secretary of State. Ms Rice was not acceptable as someone with that much authority and cache. Here's what Ms Rice did to earn the resistance she incurred.
The United States was indirectly attacked in Benghazi, Libya. Ms Rice mischaracterized the attackers, suggesting they were someone other than who they were. Her excuse was that she relied on "intelligence" from somewhere or other. Had Ms Rice been allowed to continue this mischaracterization, there is no telling what foreign policy mess this could have created for the United States. She and her office could have identified "assailants" who were not assailants, and there could have been completely inappropriate and spurious repercussions. Fortunately, however, Congressional Republicans intervened.
It is unclear for the moment why Republicans were as astute and assertive as they were. It's hard to tell if they were perspicacious, tenacious, or both. But fortunately for our country, and for all of us, they were. They made clear that they do not stand for such carelessness in the Executive branch, and they have little use for thin excuses such as a reliance on "intelligence" when it comes to important, and maybe momentous, interpretations of international events.
The position Congressional Republicans took could not have been easy, since it involved impeachment of a high government official. We should be grateful to Congressional Republicans for protecting this country from recklessness, carelessness, or even dishonesty when it comes to the Executive branch's almost glibly implicating some inadequately identified faction "over there.”
And the capacity for perspicacity and assertiveness shown by Congressional Republicans is all the more noteworthy, and impressive, because they did not always possess it. There was a time not long ago that they were unable to discern when the Executive branch was maneuvering, or manipulating, or dissembling. They blindly accepted tales of conspiracy and aggression, with no proof at all, and they were not only permissive, but fully enthusiastic about confronting alleged, and imagined, enemies. No failure to uncover any substance to the original claims ever led them to the kind of realization they now have about Rice. But now all of them, old guard and young turks alike, have developed crystal clear vision, and the (self)righteous indignation to rebuke anyone who would try to fool them.
Thank you, Congressional Republicans, for saving us all from Susan Rice.
The United States was indirectly attacked in Benghazi, Libya. Ms Rice mischaracterized the attackers, suggesting they were someone other than who they were. Her excuse was that she relied on "intelligence" from somewhere or other. Had Ms Rice been allowed to continue this mischaracterization, there is no telling what foreign policy mess this could have created for the United States. She and her office could have identified "assailants" who were not assailants, and there could have been completely inappropriate and spurious repercussions. Fortunately, however, Congressional Republicans intervened.
It is unclear for the moment why Republicans were as astute and assertive as they were. It's hard to tell if they were perspicacious, tenacious, or both. But fortunately for our country, and for all of us, they were. They made clear that they do not stand for such carelessness in the Executive branch, and they have little use for thin excuses such as a reliance on "intelligence" when it comes to important, and maybe momentous, interpretations of international events.
The position Congressional Republicans took could not have been easy, since it involved impeachment of a high government official. We should be grateful to Congressional Republicans for protecting this country from recklessness, carelessness, or even dishonesty when it comes to the Executive branch's almost glibly implicating some inadequately identified faction "over there.”
And the capacity for perspicacity and assertiveness shown by Congressional Republicans is all the more noteworthy, and impressive, because they did not always possess it. There was a time not long ago that they were unable to discern when the Executive branch was maneuvering, or manipulating, or dissembling. They blindly accepted tales of conspiracy and aggression, with no proof at all, and they were not only permissive, but fully enthusiastic about confronting alleged, and imagined, enemies. No failure to uncover any substance to the original claims ever led them to the kind of realization they now have about Rice. But now all of them, old guard and young turks alike, have developed crystal clear vision, and the (self)righteous indignation to rebuke anyone who would try to fool them.
Thank you, Congressional Republicans, for saving us all from Susan Rice.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Asking the Wrong Question About Prayer
The Miami-Dade County Commission has reconsidered its ban on prayer before Commission meetings. The practice had been replaced by a less charged contemplative exercise known as a “moment of silence,” but some wanted back the more formal expression. They had proposed a diet of “non-denominational” prayers to open Commission meetings, a sort of better-than-nothing accommodation. As the issue was discussed, and debated, and fought, the standard effort on the parts of “prayer” advocates was to ask the equivalent of the question, why not? They challenged any seeming answer to this question, including cost, the risk of divisiveness, and other concerns.
But underlying, and most central to the struggle, is the other question: why? What is it “prayer” advocates want, and why do they want it? If we’re being honest, we will acknowledge that the United States was set up as a Christian country, and it largely still is. The “separation of church and state” theme never meant religion was not considered primary among people who live here. And anyone, or, in full disclosure, any of us, who want the “separation” clause to mean we should be free of having religion contaminate the air we breathe, are in some sense kidding ourselves. My wife used to send me to the store to buy something. I’d ask her which brand she wanted. “Any brand is fine,” she’d say. Quite often, I would return home with the item requested, she’d look at it, and say “well not that brand.” And worse yet if I had come home empty-handed, having concluded for myself that we didn't need the requested item after all. There was a bottom line, a fundamental reality, I somehow failed to get. So it is with religion, in this country no less than in many others, including the Muslim countries we now love to hate for their religious fanaticism and the battles they wage against those who don’t agree with them.
So in that sense, the answer to the “why” question is “because.” It’s just the way it is and always has been. But having said that, advocates and adherents don’t really articulate what their fundamental and emotional goal is. They seem to try to negotiate a compromise with non-believers, or people who for one reason or another don’t want “prayer,” or who think it has no place in public function, and they offer a round of “non-denominational” “prayers.” Any cleric is fine with them. These utterances do not, apparently, have to be about Jesus, or Mohammed. They presumably do have to be about “god.” And if they don’t, then what, exactly, is their point? But since the avowed source of the urge for reconsideration was the Christian Family Coalition, we probably have reason enough to suspect the “prayer” faction wants more than just a “non-denominational” nod.
Still, we’re left wondering “why,” and what these apparent religionists want. They don’t simply want a tribute to their source of religious inspiration. They can have that any time, and all the time. What they want is for the rest of us, all of us, especially those of us who don’t feel as they do, to pay tribute to them and their personal interests, and they want it on the record. It’s precisely the proselytizing, the intrusion, the coercion the “separation” clause did mean to confront, that they want to advance.
And what would satisfy? A “prayer” to open every meeting? Why is that enough? And who decided? What about a closing benediction? How about a little booster to introduce each agenda item? An “amen” after each speaker, perhaps?
The question is “why.” What, really, do those in favor of Commission meeting prayer, or school prayer, want? If it’s something missing, or unsettled, in their lives, why is that not a personal matter? What has this got to do with the rest of us, in our own lives, in our own work, and in our own public business? I have no quarrel at all with people who wouldn’t leave home, or start a meal, or go to sleep, without saying whatever prayer has meaning for them. If it helps, or they like it, or they need it, they should feel free to partake. If they sit through public meetings, like Commission meetings, and occasionally, or continually, think religious-based thoughts, good for them. If prayer works for anything, I assume it works if the prayer is personal, and silent. But why is this exercise something that, in their opinions, should contaminate secular public gatherings? That’s the question.
But underlying, and most central to the struggle, is the other question: why? What is it “prayer” advocates want, and why do they want it? If we’re being honest, we will acknowledge that the United States was set up as a Christian country, and it largely still is. The “separation of church and state” theme never meant religion was not considered primary among people who live here. And anyone, or, in full disclosure, any of us, who want the “separation” clause to mean we should be free of having religion contaminate the air we breathe, are in some sense kidding ourselves. My wife used to send me to the store to buy something. I’d ask her which brand she wanted. “Any brand is fine,” she’d say. Quite often, I would return home with the item requested, she’d look at it, and say “well not that brand.” And worse yet if I had come home empty-handed, having concluded for myself that we didn't need the requested item after all. There was a bottom line, a fundamental reality, I somehow failed to get. So it is with religion, in this country no less than in many others, including the Muslim countries we now love to hate for their religious fanaticism and the battles they wage against those who don’t agree with them.
So in that sense, the answer to the “why” question is “because.” It’s just the way it is and always has been. But having said that, advocates and adherents don’t really articulate what their fundamental and emotional goal is. They seem to try to negotiate a compromise with non-believers, or people who for one reason or another don’t want “prayer,” or who think it has no place in public function, and they offer a round of “non-denominational” “prayers.” Any cleric is fine with them. These utterances do not, apparently, have to be about Jesus, or Mohammed. They presumably do have to be about “god.” And if they don’t, then what, exactly, is their point? But since the avowed source of the urge for reconsideration was the Christian Family Coalition, we probably have reason enough to suspect the “prayer” faction wants more than just a “non-denominational” nod.
Still, we’re left wondering “why,” and what these apparent religionists want. They don’t simply want a tribute to their source of religious inspiration. They can have that any time, and all the time. What they want is for the rest of us, all of us, especially those of us who don’t feel as they do, to pay tribute to them and their personal interests, and they want it on the record. It’s precisely the proselytizing, the intrusion, the coercion the “separation” clause did mean to confront, that they want to advance.
And what would satisfy? A “prayer” to open every meeting? Why is that enough? And who decided? What about a closing benediction? How about a little booster to introduce each agenda item? An “amen” after each speaker, perhaps?
The question is “why.” What, really, do those in favor of Commission meeting prayer, or school prayer, want? If it’s something missing, or unsettled, in their lives, why is that not a personal matter? What has this got to do with the rest of us, in our own lives, in our own work, and in our own public business? I have no quarrel at all with people who wouldn’t leave home, or start a meal, or go to sleep, without saying whatever prayer has meaning for them. If it helps, or they like it, or they need it, they should feel free to partake. If they sit through public meetings, like Commission meetings, and occasionally, or continually, think religious-based thoughts, good for them. If prayer works for anything, I assume it works if the prayer is personal, and silent. But why is this exercise something that, in their opinions, should contaminate secular public gatherings? That’s the question.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
From His Cold, Dead Hands?
I don't think Charleton Heston coined this crack. He liked it, though. He said it to Michael Moore in "Bowling for Columbine." He had that mindless and sightless look some people have, when they're spouting slogans, and what they're saying is either uncivilized or out of the realm of reality. He was talking, of course, about his attachment to his guns. Heston was the spokesperson for the NRA. He might have been its president.
In case you don't know, Moore's conclusion in "...Columbine" is that Americans have an atypical (in the world, or at least among allegedly civilized countries) attachment to guns, and one of the results of that attachment is an abnormally high rate of episodes of gun violence, including murder. Columbine was the poster incident for Moore's exploration of the topic.
I don't think it's disputable that Americans whack each other a lot with guns. I have no idea why, and Moore couldn't figure it out, either. If it's something to do with a frontier mentality, we are unusual in not having gotten over it. Canadians, who have the same story to tell as we do, are not obsessed with guns and assaulting each other as we are. We own this land, from sea to shining sea, as they say, and we have nothing much else to prove. All of the countries I know about had frontier adventures at one time or another in their histories, too, but they don't still look at the territory they claim, or their neighbors, as hostile and asking for combat. So it's hard to think it's that.
Then, of course, there's the good old Second Amendment. This is the biggest scam of all time. For the record, let me quote what the Second Amendment says. It says "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This is the Second Amendment. I did not summarize it or paraphrase it. Think about this. Does the country depend on a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, for its security? No. Is our government going to call upon us as untrained and uninitiated individuals, to collect our guns and come out to fight someone? No. If you have a gun, and the government calls you to bring it with you to the middle east, so you can attack Iran or someplace, would you go? No. The Second Amendment is a joke at this point in our history. It is completely anachronistic. It is irrelevant and meaningless.
The elephant in the room, so to speak, is gun control. It's clear gun owners are out of control, so will the government control gun ownership? The fact is, it already does. You can't have a tank, or a bazooka, or a hand grenade, even if you really want one. All we're talking about is assessing how we're doing, and maybe realizing the constraints are still a bit too loose. Personally, I'm glad my neighbors don't have tanks, or bazookas, or hand grenades. They're just too dangerous. So are handguns. Do they make some people feel secure, or powerful? Yes, apparently they do. Are they fun, if you want to shoot targets? So it seems. Do they help you overpower an animal you either couldn't catch or couldn't kill on your own? They do.
But look around. Wake up and smell the coffee, as they say. It's been one massive disaster after another, and now it's a bunch of young children at a school in Connecticut. The guns the murderer used, two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle, were registered to his mother. Whatever that's about. Did she need two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle? I can't see how she did, and she's now dead because of it. And so is her son. And so are 25 other innocent people. I guess by now someone has pried the guns out of Adam Lanza's cold, dead hands.
Regular people shouldn't have guns. They don't need them, they mostly don't even use them, and guns are dangerous. They are problems, or disasters, waiting, and begging, to happen. So surprise. We have another disaster.
Isn't it time?
In case you don't know, Moore's conclusion in "...Columbine" is that Americans have an atypical (in the world, or at least among allegedly civilized countries) attachment to guns, and one of the results of that attachment is an abnormally high rate of episodes of gun violence, including murder. Columbine was the poster incident for Moore's exploration of the topic.
I don't think it's disputable that Americans whack each other a lot with guns. I have no idea why, and Moore couldn't figure it out, either. If it's something to do with a frontier mentality, we are unusual in not having gotten over it. Canadians, who have the same story to tell as we do, are not obsessed with guns and assaulting each other as we are. We own this land, from sea to shining sea, as they say, and we have nothing much else to prove. All of the countries I know about had frontier adventures at one time or another in their histories, too, but they don't still look at the territory they claim, or their neighbors, as hostile and asking for combat. So it's hard to think it's that.
Then, of course, there's the good old Second Amendment. This is the biggest scam of all time. For the record, let me quote what the Second Amendment says. It says "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This is the Second Amendment. I did not summarize it or paraphrase it. Think about this. Does the country depend on a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, for its security? No. Is our government going to call upon us as untrained and uninitiated individuals, to collect our guns and come out to fight someone? No. If you have a gun, and the government calls you to bring it with you to the middle east, so you can attack Iran or someplace, would you go? No. The Second Amendment is a joke at this point in our history. It is completely anachronistic. It is irrelevant and meaningless.
The elephant in the room, so to speak, is gun control. It's clear gun owners are out of control, so will the government control gun ownership? The fact is, it already does. You can't have a tank, or a bazooka, or a hand grenade, even if you really want one. All we're talking about is assessing how we're doing, and maybe realizing the constraints are still a bit too loose. Personally, I'm glad my neighbors don't have tanks, or bazookas, or hand grenades. They're just too dangerous. So are handguns. Do they make some people feel secure, or powerful? Yes, apparently they do. Are they fun, if you want to shoot targets? So it seems. Do they help you overpower an animal you either couldn't catch or couldn't kill on your own? They do.
But look around. Wake up and smell the coffee, as they say. It's been one massive disaster after another, and now it's a bunch of young children at a school in Connecticut. The guns the murderer used, two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle, were registered to his mother. Whatever that's about. Did she need two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle? I can't see how she did, and she's now dead because of it. And so is her son. And so are 25 other innocent people. I guess by now someone has pried the guns out of Adam Lanza's cold, dead hands.
Regular people shouldn't have guns. They don't need them, they mostly don't even use them, and guns are dangerous. They are problems, or disasters, waiting, and begging, to happen. So surprise. We have another disaster.
Isn't it time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)