On the epidemic of mass shootings

I agree completely with the late and former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in his article "The Right To Bear Arms" in Parade Magazine (January 14, 1990, page 4).

http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

I have other thoughts too, beginning with an attempt at some analysis of the amendment.

First, the Second Amendment is frequently misquoted. The entire amendment is one sentence of four clauses separated by three commas. Here is the complete Second Amendment:

"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."

The frequent misquote leaves out the first two clauses, as well as the final clause. Here is the incomplete, but more often-quoted version:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

The complete amendment above clearly specifies that those particular citizens assigned to "a well-regulated militia" have "the right...to keep and bear arms," not each and every citizen. Since the amendment is one sentence (albeit four clauses), the first clause applies to the entire amendment. The word "state" in the second clause refers to the state "militias" of the first clause. The word "people" in the third clause refers back to those in the state "militia," not all people, connecting the third clause with the first clause. The phrase "shall not be infringed" refers of course to the phrase "the right of the `people`" which (following the algebraic Transitive Property of Equality http://www.mathwords.com/t/transitive_property.htm) also refers back to the word "militia" in the first clause, the prerequisite clause of the amendment. So all four clauses of the amendment reference the first clause, "A well-regulated militia."

Second, this amendment needs to be amended again, or better, completely rewritten to reflect and remedy the issues involving guns today, providing restrictions along with the acknowledged right. The amendment is also written somewhat awkwardly compared to writing today (the one sentence of four clauses above), which is part of the reason for the confusion in its interpretation. It was written in the style of the time which was likely influenced by the erudite education of the "framers" of the Constitution. In addition, we are far beyond colonial times, so the focus on the state "militia" no longer applies. But it is perfectly reasonable that ordinary citizens should be permitted to lawfully own a simple gun. However, since guns in general are among the most dangerous and deadly of the human inventions, it is more than perfectly reasonable that gun ownership should come with severe restrictions/regulations. The need for tougher restrictions are for two reasons: 1) the lethal power of a gun, and 2) the sheer ease and likelihood with which a gun can be lethal. Protection against the danger and destruction that guns are designed for should greatly outweigh the right to unrestricted ownership; and by anyone, including law enforcement and the military (restriction laws for law enforcement and the military should be reexamined as well, although differently than ordinary citizens; what those differences should be I don`t know).

For example, one combined amendment for ordinary citizens should be a reimplementation of the now-expired Assault weapons ban and the Brady Law. The first is obvious. The latter requires a 5-day-waiting-period for the purchase of any gun to give time for a thorough background check (I actually agree with Chief Justice Burger`s suggestion of 10 days instead of 5 days which would allow for a much more thorough check (unless, as he notes, proof could be shown for urgent need so the background check could expedited.). A 5 or 10 day waiting period would also put the onus on the purchaser to plan ahead responsibly. Prudent responsibility should trump convenience (I doubt if any of the surviving family members of the victims of mass shootings would have sympathy for someone who complained of being inconvenienced by waiting for a 5 or 10-day thorough background check. Those families might suggest an even longer waiting period.) Background checks for firearms should be the most rigorous of any personal inquiry. There should be little-to-no privacy plea permitted to own and wield a gun. If you want one, you have to submit to the most rigorous examination or your personal and legal history (including criminal and mental history). In my opinion, there is a civic obligation, expectation, and consequence to owning a gun of any kind. Guns are tools with the power of destruction and death. Loss of more personal and legal privacy in order to protect society from the unintended consequesnces and mishaps of the gun owner should be expected. The worst has to be assumed and prepared for because of the gun's lethal power.

Another amendment might be, as Burger points out, that there be specified firearms that the average citizen would not be permitted to purchase under any circumstances, regardless of a background check, like automatic and assault weapons (the Brady Law and the ban on assault weapons during the Clinton administration were both allowed to expire under the administration of President George W. Bush). Again, the reason is the ease with which the more destructive guns wreak lethal carnage. Those guns could include any gun other than a simple, non-automatic handgun or rifle. No ordinary citizen needs more than one to six bullets in any one gun for the right and ability to protect themselves. All automatic firearms should be illegal to own by the general public, and severely restricted by law enforcement and the military. The four branches of our national military and each state National Guard are our modern versions of the colonial/state militias. They are also professionals trained to safely and effectively use the more dangerous variety of manufactured and sophisticated weaponry, so those entities could be allowed automatic and assault weapons. But those individuals would be subjected to the same rigorous and revised background checks as everyone else; law enforcement and the military personnel are human beings too...fallible and vulnerable to unforseen human consequences. The average citizen, however, is comparatively untrained in the safe use of guns, so all the more reason for the heaviest restrictive gun laws to be imposed on the general public.

Finally, because we have a strong national military, this issue is no longer about protecting the citizen against the government through the right to own a gun. That was more of an immediate concern in colonial times (or at least worry from the example of former British rule). We should be well past the paranoia that our government is a tyrannical entity in democratic disguise, unlawfully imprisoning its citizens at whim who then can`t defend themselves because they either don`t have all necessary firearms to resist the random and fallacious arrests or the government has confiscated their weapons; that is a much more rare (and illegal) occurrence now in this country. This issue should now simply be about protecting the safety of the general public from the lethally destructive power of guns. While it is true that it takes a person (or some intelligent physical force) to pull a trigger (hence the erroneous argument "Guns don`t kill, people do"), as I stated above, the ease of the resultant destruction is indisputable and the reason that guns need to carry much tougher regulations.

Clearly, the pattern of mass shootings in the United States demonstrates that we as a country are doing a deplorable job of protecting our fellow innocent citizens from injury and death by guns. These mass shootings have become an epidemic. Epidemics need to be actively addressed and eradicated, or at the very least, greatly minimized.

In Support of Government Balanced with Individual Prosperity

Finally, to my relief, someone has expressed an appreciation for government. In Paul Begala's article, "I (heart) Government," (Newsweek, September 19, 2011. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/11/paul-begala-why-now-is-the-time-to-defend-big-government.html) he reminds us of how much good government has done for the country. However, it has been a continually popular stand in this country to think of our federal government as a force of ill, a contemporary "bogeyman."

I was first aware of the negative view of government during the Vietnam War and the "Communist or 'Red' Scare," when we as Americans were terrified with the idea that Communism, or the Communist form of Socialism would destroy the world. Completely ironically, the Soviet Union was in no shape to annihilate the United States or anyone else because the country was imploding, self-destructing. In more recent years, and currently, the fear of Socialism has been transferred from the Soviet Union (primarily because it no longer exists) to any domestic issue that is proposed for assistance by our own federal government. 

The reasons are several. First, some equate the Socialism of the Soviet Union and its failure as a strong example of how a centralized government can become autocratic and totalitarian under the posture of providing for the welfare of its citizens. Second, there is a steadfast belief in Capitalism, our form of government, that the only vehicle for true and deserved success is through individual hard work and financial gain. And third, there is a ugly mindset that feels that the poorest citizens deserve their lot in life because they brought poverty on themselves from a lack of exactly the initiative of the aforementioned hard work. The author Ayn Rand and Senator Paul Ryan (an outspoken disciple of Rand) were and are proponents of this view, respectively.

What they forget, however, is that not only is a country only as strong as its weakest citizenry, but that no individual is solely responsible for their own success with anything. To be successful one needs opportunity, and one only has opportunity in a country that is financially stable enough to have opportunities in which to participate. To take the stance that one's hard earned money should be left alone by their government is to completely forget that it was a stable government that allowed the individual to make the money in the first place. If one succeeds financially in a country that is stable enough to offer that success, one is obligated to pay a proper percentage of that gain back in taxes to the very government that allowed them to make the gain. This should be simple common sense and ethics. So the idea that the federal government would tax its wealthiest citizens more than its poorest is not only fair and equitable, it's practical, ethical, and makes complete financial sense. It would all but eliminate the problem of any serious national debt. Yes, there will always be some citizens who are lazy, indifferent, dependent financially and emotionally, and will always remain poor. But that is not the vast majority of people. Therefore, for any wealthy person to look upon a poor person with disdain or disgust and argue against being taxed fairly because of the few who are lazy, is a greater abomination in attitude than the attitude of the few who remain lethargic. It is simply inhumane and un-American.

Finally, Begala mentions several enormous accomplishments that would not have been possible without financial support from the federal government: the abolition of slavery, putting men on the moon, and the killing of Osama Bin Laden to name a few. The only thing I see that the detractors of government involvement in domestic issues are motivated by is self-centeredness and greed. It is greed in the guise of a warning against a possible dictatorship like the former Soviet Union. The remarkable and ironic thing is that many of these same detractors of government are the same that elected George W. Bush as president twice which put us on the brink of financial ruin and in the current recession. It was not too much governmental regulation, but too little (of the banks and Wall Street) that eliminated our balanced budget (achieved by the Clinton administration) and nearly turned a recession into another depression or worse. Government by itself is, of course, not the answer to all the problems facing a country. But neither is no government at all. How to skillfully balance government involvement with individual freedom is a delicate dance. However, contrary to how many of the voices in the Republican and Tea Parties continue to express themselves, government is also not the enemy. 

Texting DUZ Risk Making U Stoopid :)

I mean this post in both a serious and a humorous sense. I know it will hit home (and maybe feel offensive) to many readers because most of us send and receive text messages to some degree and are not particularly concerned with how well we write when we do text. I think that many of us successfully separate our casual writing in texting from the care we take with our writing when it's important to do so. But I also think it's important that we occasionally stop to think about the habits we can fall into and both their value and their potential damage.

That said, while this is not a political post, I want to give a hearty thanks to Niall Ferguson for his article, 

"Texting Makes U Stupid" (Newsweek, September 19, 2011 http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/11/how-will-today-s-texting-teenagers-compete.html). In my opinion, he is right on the money. The longer I live the more I'm convinced that the most important of the three "Rs," just like we all learned, is reading. Next of course is writing. But to be a good writer, one has to read...a lot...to absorb and learn the craft from other writers, and the great writers.

Writing is the skill of telling a story in permanent form, extrasomatically, meaning manually, outside our brains. The Sumerians invented writing in 2000 B.C., and they perhaps unwittingly gave humanity the best technical tool for learning and documenting that our species has ever, and probably will ever know. The beauty of writing involves the brilliant skill of putting complete words together to form mental imagery absent the presence of the actual storyteller. One key word in the preceding sentence is the word "complete." The best writers use complete words as well as a creative and rich vocabulary.

Texting is usually not complete words, but a short-cut version of writing and is about as far from skillful writing as ketchup is from a healthy vegetable. The pleasure of texting is rapid, amusing, and casual communication anywhere in the world. But it is really only entertaining and fast at best. The best part of course is that it makes global communication nearly immediate. The dangers and worst parts of texting are that the writing is often extremely poor, and it can create terrible writing habits in the user which can then transfer into other forms of communication like e-mail and actual typed documents. By the way (not BTW), "email" is also a shortcut and should not be a word. E-mail stands for "electronic mail" and therefore the "e" should be separated from the word "mail" by a hyphen.

I know from personal experience about the probable effects of texting on the skill of writing. I taught Music Appreciation at the college level for two years and assigned the students research papers. The writing, on average, was horrible. Not only did the students probably not even bother to run the "Spellcheck" (which is still leaving to the computer what one should be doing themselves, proofreading), but I found many instances where the students used texting shortcuts, and they had not the faintest idea of how to put words, sentences, paragraphs, and the format of pages together to create a mature and riveting narrative. This is not only a pity, it's a tragedy. A general poor writing education and the habit of texting in shortcut writing (and even quick e-mailing) rather than writing carefully is not only robbing today's young people of a fundamentally necessary skill, it's robbing future generations of the ability to learn about them through their excellent writing. How do today's young people think that their writer ancestors were able to tell them about their own lives so well? Ironically, though we think that today's computer technology is an advancement, our ancestors were probably better off that they were less technologically advanced in this way. They were able to become great writers because the technology that they were limited to forced them to use their brains more than their gadgets. They didn't have speedy devices like cell-phones and computers, so they had to rely on their minds and their pens. And yes, many of them could write with pen and ink and not make mistakes because they were used to thinking more slowly and they made less errors as a result. One look at the original (or a copy of the original) Constitution and the Declaration of Independence proves the ability and skill with just pen and paper. (Incidentally, I have copies of a couple of letters that my grandfather Lee wrote to his son, my Uncle Frank, in pen. The handwriting is fairly clean and the vocabulary is superb, even for just a personal letter. And the paper has no lines and the writing is straight across the page.)

Good, clear thinking takes time, and great writing requires both. Texting requires neither and the technology supports that. The speed and ease of computers has created a hidden but devastating double-edged sword. It feels pretty wonderful to be able to communicate with anyone anywhere in the world at lightning speed. But the very two things that are valuable for deep learning, time and clear thought, are essentially obliterated by that ease and speed. I would argue with Mr. Ferguson that the gain in speed and ease of communication is not worth the complete loss of the time and clear, skillful thinking necessary to keep all of us writing at our best.

Paul Ryan's uncourageous healthcare proposal

The health care proposal put forth by Republican congressman, Paul Ryan, has been touted as "courageous." I would like to point out one element that I think makes it very uncourageous and therefore typical once again of the Republican capitalist mindset. It does not propose to raise any taxes, particularly on the wealthy. Instead, it proposes tax cuts to the wealthy and cuts to valuable existing government-funded programs.

One clear way in which we could reduce our national debt is to raise revenue by raising taxes from wealthier Americans. This is a perfectly reasonable and fair principle. If one can afford to pay higher taxes, one should. This because one has been able to earn the income by living in a country that allows the increased earnings; if one benefits from such an allowance, then one should ethically pay a proper percentage of those earnings back to the government in taxes.

Too often the mentality of many of the wealthiest Americans seems to be opposite to this. One way in which our capitalist form of government is not impressive is that the accumulation of wealth can breed selfishness. However, none of us have come by our wealth completely independently. We were fortunate to have parents or other life situations that put us in the fortunate position of being able to earn more money. In other words, no one is successful entirely on their own. We all receive help. So in return for receiving help comes giving help in return through generosity, and generosity in the same form in which it is received, or monetarily. It is a very ethical and reasonable principle that if one benefits by making money in a system that also protects those assets and allows one to make the money in the first place, that one should return a proportionally larger amount in taxes to the provider of that protection, or the government. In other words, if one is able to have the opportunity to acquire wealth and benefit from that ability by the government (there is no police state on earning capital), one should pay a larger share in taxes. It should definitely not be the other way around. Tax cuts are the other way around. Tax cuts leave to hope that the wealthy will spend their tax cuts on goods and services in the economy therefore boosting the economy and indirectly helping those less wealthy ("Trickle-down economics"). However, this is dependent on the person receiving the tax cut to voluntarily spend the money and boost the economy. This is not sufficient. The return of assistance in the form of taxes must be obligatory or law. This method of return should also be welcomed and expected by the citizens, not resented and protested. It is a selfish and childish principle that one would be allowed to keep all their earned capital AND benefit from the protection of that capital by the federal government. (One "can't have it both ways," or "your cake and eat it too.") Therefore, it is a completely fair and equitable system that the federal government would enact law that would require that the percentage of each person's individual taxes would substantially increase along with their increase in earnings. This should be a no-brainer and something that we as Americans would feel proud to do rather than reacting stubbornly and selfishly by bawking at the idea of our taxes being raised. If more of us who were wealthier could change this selfish mindset, we could reduce the national deficit in a fraction of the time it took to accumulate. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. The Republican (and Tea Party; their very name comes from the famed protest of paying more taxes in the "Boston Tea Party") mentality resents the idea of returning a larger percentage of their earnings in taxes. Instead, they indirectly put the burden on those who can afford it less by cutting government programs that help the public thereby raising revenue by saving, or not spending that government money. The problem with that is simple and backwards. It's depriving the country of valuable services (government-funded public services like healthcare, affordable housing, education, research, and public transportation, just to name a few) while allowing the wealthy to remain wealthy at the expense of the rest of the country. It is a very self-centered attitude. It also killing our country as evidenced by the soaring national debt. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, managed to balance the budget. George W. Bush, a Republican, gave us this huge national debt. Case closed.

So even though Senator Paul Ryan's budget proposal has been called courageous, I contend again that it is only courageous in that it is assertive. Real courage would be if Paul Ryan were to stand up to his Republican colleagues and encourage them to reconsider raising taxes on themselves and other most wealthy Americans to help increase revenue and lower the national debt. That would be courageous indeed!

____________

Link to President Obama's speech on the federal budget:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/winning-the-future/fiscal-framework?utm_source=email107&utm_medium=image&utm_campaign=fiscal

What do John Boehner's tears really show?

I watched last Sunday's 60 Minutes with usual interest. In particular, this time, I was interested to see what John Boehner would be like in an in-depth interview. I knew that Boehner could become emotional, but I was unprepared, as was Leslie Stahl, for how frequently he became emotional and what he became emotional about. As a man who is also extremely emotional, I found it somewhat refreshing that Boehner could allow himself to be so emotional without being ashamed. But I also found myself paying attention to what seemed to be making him emotional. He teared up when he talked about himself and reaching the "American Dream," and he expressed not being able to be around kids at schools because he wants the same for them like he has achieved, but he did not say how he wanted to help other people achieve the same thing. The implication was that the goal is on future stories of individual "rags to riches," but less on feeling someone else's pain by giving them (through equitable tax revenue) what they can't get for themselves individually, one of the functions of any government, federal or state. Joy Behar of "The View" said it best, "He cries only when he talks about how sad his life was... He had to sweep floors, he was a janitor, and yet he has very little empathy for people who are in that position now."

It was also mentioned in the 60 Minutes piece that Boehner is a former Democrat. What changed his mind and caused him to become a Republican was seeing his earnings taxed by the federal government in a way that I'm sure he deemed excessive. What was not mentioned, and is rarely mentioned in any newspiece about taxation, is what in particular Boehner objected to his money (in the form of taxes) being put toward. This is always a necessary (and overlooked) question. It isn't complete to object to something without knowing specifically what it is that's objectionable. Simply objecting to raising taxes in general is not specific enough. We need to know what  the revenue obtained by the tax increase(s) would actually pay for before objecting.

This is a prime example of what I often feel to be one fundamental difference between people: a difference between selflessness and selfishness; and politically, between the Democrats and the Republicans. Democrats tend to empathetically remember what it was like not to have wealth and support programs that assist people. Republicans tend to forget what it was like to have little wealth and want to keep their hard-earned wealth for themselves. Republicans therefore support less government involvement and interference, and more individual success and gain. In "my view," however, it's the simply difference between being selfless and selfish.

Article about The View:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/13/barbara-walters-rips-john-boehner-this-guy-has-an-emotional-pr/

60 Minutes newspiece:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7143552n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

The refreshing consistency of President Obama

I was most impressed in reading James T. Kloppenberg's article, True To His Word, in the most recent issue of Newsweek (November 29, 2010). Personally, I have been impressed with the way the president has been taking his job seriously and implementing decisive and needed legislative action ever since he took office. What I had not thought to do was to revisit either of his books, Dreams From My Father, or The Audacity of Hope, to assess his performance, but Mr. Kloppenberg did. Kloppenberg points out that Barack Obama explained in detail in both books what he intended to do if elected president, and he has, in fact, stayed "true to his word."

I read The Audacity of Hope and listened to most of Dreams From My Father as a book on tape. I was extremely impressed with both of the books and they only strengthened my already positive impression of Obama. I did not think to reread either of them prior to the Mid-Term elections or afterward. Frankly, however, I wouldn't have felt the need. I am not at all among the voters who have been disappointed with his performance as president thus far. Quite the contrary. I think he and his administration have done an outstanding job considering the abysmal mess that he and his administration were handed by the previous administration. But it was elevating and confirming indeed to read from Mr. Kloppenberg that the exaggerated din from both sides of the aisle, comprised of extreme Democrats and Republicans (not to mention the Tea Party), are forgetting how consistent, productive, and successful this president and his administration have actually been in saving this country from near economic disaster.

James T. Kloppenberg's article confirms what I already thought: that though they certainly aren't perfect and they have made their share of errors, we have one of the finest presidents and administrations in history currently in the White House. We need to tone down our collective anger and impatience as a nation and appreciate that they are doing much more good than harm.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/17/obama-is-doing-just-what-he-said-he-would-do.html

Capitalism at its worst: Great individual wealth can breed great selfishness

After reading the cover story of last week's edition of Newsweek, November 8, 2010, ("Power of 50") and hearing the feedback from the angry voters who successfully gave control of the House back to the Republicans, I am struck by a strong tentative conclusion: That it is mostly the extremely wealthy who are giving the general public the distorted impression that the federal government is trying to spend too much of their money (in the form of taxes for domestic and foreign government expenditures). The reality is that the wealthy are too protective of, and selfish with, their wealth. It is selfishness in the guise of a protective warning: a greatly exaggerated (verging on paranoid) warning to the public that the federal government of the United States, under the Obama administration and its passage of legislation, has become an oppressive, mammoth, Socialist, and autocratic federal government. Ironically, those who listen and believe the wealthy proponents of this scenario keep themselves ignorant and poorer while the wealthy grow all the more wealthy. In short, demonizing the federal government for the normal and necessary regulation of national capital is a decoy by the wealthy for a compulsive desire to remain individually, selfishly, and egregiously affluent.

Even though it is true that millions of people are still out of work and have lost their homes, and even though the national debt is still dangerously out-of-control, I don't feel that the severity of the anger generated by extreme conservatives is appropriate or directed at the correct source. The Obama administration was correct in acting as swiftly as they did in the passage of the Stimulus Package (which saved the country from bankruptcy), and they were correct in passing a preliminary health care bill because the health of health care is directly tied to the health of the economy. These were necessary emergency measures, probably necessary in their expense, and likely actually inadequately funded rather than too expensive. One of the reasons that unemployment is still too high and the health care reform disappointing (no Public Option) is that the Obama administration compromised too much and did not press for more spending for both initiatives. In other words, maybe you get what you pay for; not enough money means not good enough results. However, it is then highly unreasonable to give the impression that too much money was spent when in fact it was exactly the opposite. To little was spent in the short term for adequate enough gain in the long term.

According to the article in Newsweek, "Power of 50," the largest influence on voter anger and negativity is Rush Limbaugh. Of the wealthy people listed in the article, Limbaugh is the wealthiest. I suspect that if one is prone to anger and negativity, and if one is wealthy, and one is as self-righteous in their personal and political agenda as Limbaugh sounds (from his quotes in the article), this is the kind of person who would be the most likely to warn against the evils of a source other than himself (namely the federal government). In my view, one of the primary traits of immaturity is a quick and consistent tendency to demonize others (in this case, large institutions like national governments). In other words, to find everyone else but oneself in error.

Three cheers (finally!) to the 111th Congress!!

Major applause to Ezra Klein for his most recent article in Newsweek (click on the link below). All I want to say is that I'm in complete agreement and I wish that more voters (particularly Democrats) had realized this before the Mid-Term elections. I did. If we can now just encourage the new Congress to do more of the same.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/06/klein-the-do-lots-111th-congress.html

The lesson of the Mid-Term elections: Let's put anger aside and work better together

For a Democrat like me, the results of the Mid-Term elections were greatly disappointing. However, instead of responding with anger and disgust (as so many members of the Tea Party and Republican Party were wont to do regarding the elections), I think it would be the best response to try to turn what might feel like a silly and useless step backward into a positive democratic step forward. It is always important to hear from anyone who feels that they aren't being heard, and to that extent the Tea Party's organization has been healthy. That's the process of a good democracy. But it would be a severe mistake to make as the only new agenda just more negativity and uncooperation.

For example, I have heard on the news from Republicans such as Mitch McConnell, that their primary goal now is one of repealing constructive legislation such as health care. However, the election results showed more anger over the amount of money spent for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Stimulus Package), not the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act. Though some, also like me, felt that the Stimulus Package and health care legislation was actually insufficient not excessive, maybe one of the lessons of these last Mid-term elections is that peoples' voices need to be heard and paid attention to, and sooner. But one of the lessons too is that people also need to learn how to let their voices be heard most effectively.

Anger seems to have motivated and fueled many discontented people to the polls on Novemebr 2, 2010. But that temporary anger needs to subside now so that the results that those same voters want to see take place in Washington can have a chance to productively work. More negativity and anger should not continue to be the prime motivator, particularly from our leaders. Our leaders (old, and now new) need to pay attention to the anger, but they need to govern with sobriety.

Let's heed Jonathan Alter in these Mid-Term elections

I mentioned this to a friend of mine on Facebook recently, but I read an article in Newsweek by Jonathan Alter ("Why the Mid-Terms Matter: The GOP's agenda has to be stopped." Newsweek, November, 1, 2010. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/23/alter-midterms-matter.html) in which he raises the very valid point that it is not the Obama administration that we need to be concerned about in these Mid-Term elections. It should be the concern of handing control back, and so dangerously soon, to the very political party that got us into this economic mess in the first place. It is simply unrealistic to hope that the economy would recover substantially in only a year-and-a-half. It is ironic indeed that the Republicans and the Tea Party are attempting to paint the Obama administration as the primary cause of the severe unemployment and the soaring national deficit. In plain truth, this is not in perspective at all. While it is always true that one can conceivably always find a way to spend less money, the eight years under President Bush (who was elected by many of the same people who are now laying the blame at President Obama) spent a phenomenal amount of money on the Iraq war, a ruinous prescription drug program, and tax cuts which got us into the financial mess we're in; that could be considered "big government" too...but that overly-general and exaggerated perspective depends on who is spending the money and for what.

In short, the electorate should be looking at and criticizing themselves in these Mid-terms, not President Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress. We elected them to try to help repair the crumbling economy, not to take office and do as little as possible. It is very unwise of us as an electorate to judge the proactivity of the Obama administration as "big government" when they are not only taking the plight of the current condition of the country seriously, but also successfully steered the country away from the brink of bankruptcy. Doing that in only a year-and-a-half is no small accomplishment at all!

At the very least, Jonathan Alter's point is that we must not sit these Mid-Term elections out by not voting. Neither anger nor apathy are credible reasons for deciding how to vote. In point of fact, when given the opportunity, one should always vote.

It's time to end discrimination of ANY kind!

Usually, I don't pay a lot of attention to excess political e-mail, but this morning I received one that contained a video that was particularly aggravating. I have included the link to the video here. Suffice it to say that I will be happy when, like racial bigotry, prejudice against sexual orientation will be a thing of the past. What a waste of time in the least, and unkind and amoral at worst, to spend one's time in discomfort and judgment by trying to prevent people from simply being themselves.

Just let prejudice go already!

http://www.couragecampaign.org/NBCTAKEACTION

(BTW, kudos to the Obama administration for having the courage to hire people based on their qualifications, regardless of their sexuality (which matters not in the least).)

The correct title for President Obama's health care legislation, please...

It is annoying, but a bit typical, that the Obama administration's successfully passed health care legislation is not being referred to by its correct title but by a derogatory epithet. The incorrect title (epithet) is "Obamacare." The correct titles are the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act. The epithet is easier to say and read, but it is only designed to chide the legislation and to catch the attention of the reader negatively. It does not respect the meaning of the words of the correct titles nor does it do justice to the significance of the legislation.

Everyone knows that the health care system is broken and we have known it for a long time. Fewer people still realize that the health care system is directly tied into the health of the economy. As a matter of fact, it is one of the primary foundations of a healthy economy (if your citizens are not healthy, there's not much point with anything else) and it should be the first priority in restoring an economy, which is why the Obama administration made it a greater priority immediately than job creation.

Incidentally, even though unemployment is still so high, since the economy is the number one issue in the coming election, it is somewhat surprising that the American electorate would not have been more enthusiastic about the successful passage of the health care legislation. But this is tied to the misperception that most any idea generated by the federal government insinuates "big government." This is, in fact, one of the main purposes for the coining of the term "Obamacare." It is a short, unflattering, and disrespectful way of suggesting that Barack Obama and his administration are taking control away from the citizens of the United States, via the federal government, with the passage of large legislative initiatives. It is true that the Democratic Party (along with the Republican Party) is one of the two largest, wealthiest, and most dominant political parties in the United States. And it is probably true that it is not healthy for there to be only two major political parties in a wealthy country; it probably feels only one short of an implication of a monarchy. But a major difference is who we as a people elect/hire to put into that government. In my opinion we have one of the smartest, most compassionate, least dysfunctional, and proactive administrations in history. It is also the first African-American president who is completely dispelling the ancient and preposterous notion that the African-American is in any way inferior to any other race (it would be nice indeed if the notion of racial inferiority was now a dinosaur). The contrary happens to be true: this particular African-American, Barack Obama, is among the most brilliant of the United States citizens in every way, and he has chosen a like administration.

So instead of deriding what the current administration is doing, I would like to offer that we take more time in our evaluation of their efforts for the country. Let's realize at the very least that they are making a serious effort to do what we hired them to do, and not allow our insecurity and fear of the slow recovery of the economy to cause us to exaggeratedly misjudge their intentions. I am one American who simply has no fear whatsoever that the Obama administration is attempting to turn this country into a Socialist dictatorship. It is the opposite. Our country nearly went bankrupt because of Capitalism run amuck. The Obama administration is trying to show that a little compassion and concern for our fellow citizen with assistance from the federal government -- rather than mostly pursuing individual wealth and reducing governmental regulation of that wealth -- can go a long way toward righting the ship of our economy.

In that spirit, and in the spirit of helping to properly educate each other, let's doff the term "Obamacare" and just use the correct phrases of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act.

President Obama speaks out against bullying

Amen!!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ItGetsBetter?utm_source=email81&utm_medium=image&utm_campaign=itgetsbetter

The Stimulus Package needed to be larger not smaller

In an article in the October 25, 2010 issue of Newsweek by Ezra Klein called, "Circle of Trust: Obama Needs Some New Blood,"(p. 24)  Klein states that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Stimulus Package) was a good and necessary idea which worked. It saved the United States from bankruptcy.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/16/klein-obama-needs-new-voices.html

But, contrary to the sustained din of opposition to the Stimulus Package, according to Klein it was also not enough. The 10% unemployment is a result not of reckless spending by the Obama administration, but because not enough financial resources were allocated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. And the reason there was not enough was because of Republican resistance and obstruction. In other words, as I have suspected one cannot right a ship that has severe leaks before fixing those leaks. And you can't fix those leaks free of charge or for too little money. The national debt has to be increased in the short term to insure that the economy is made healthy again in the long term. So even though the Republicans and the Tea Party are angrily rallying against the spending in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that very obstruction is what has largely caused the unemployment that they are accusing the government of not improving; it is "passing the buck." In other words, the irony is that the very thing that people want (jobs, employment) is being stymied by their own refusal to allow the federal government to spend the necessary money to create the jobs they want. They are fearful of the myth that a government that spends money in the short term, even if it's for the long term gain of its citizens, is only a reckless, oppressive, and controlling government. As I have written before, like Glen Beck's reaction to distrusting nearly everyone who runs for public office, this thinking verges on paranoia. It's also operating primarily out of fear which is never productive or healthy. Congratulations to Ezra Klein for the clarification.

We're Doing Better Than We Realize

I remember a 60 Minutes piece not long ago about observing countries where the people seem to be the happiest. The winning country was Denmark. The reason: very modest expectations. The people of Denmark are content with simple basics of life: health, education, food, and some nice leisure. What they don't seem to be concerned about is whether their government is out to take advantage of them or is not doing enough to help them. True, their tax system is perhaps quite a bit more excessive than we would be comfortable with in this country (50% of their income goes to taxes, but they are provided with free health insurance, for example, among other benefits), but their citizens don't go wanting for some basic securities of life. They also don't seem to have an unrealistic view of what their government should be doing for them.

I just watched a short video at the White House website showing the trend of the U.S. economy from 2007 to the present. Clearly before President Obama took office the economy was in a downward spiral. But, according to the video, due in part to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act the economy did not "bottom-out" but did indeed recover and has been recovering (albeit very slowly) ever since. The graph shows that we are now about where we were when the recession began, certainly not "out of the woods" yet, but no longer in  the severe hole either.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/19/white-house-white-board-cea-chair-austan-goolsbee-explains-jobs-trends

Drawing on the reference to the Danes, what seems to me to be the largest problem is that we are expecting too much from our government too soon. And almost contrary to that, we are deciding that because the federal government is not creating the jobs fast enough for us that the answer is that the government should be involved much less. The obvious question that arises from that is, wasn't it less government involvement that got us into this mess in the first place? Wall Street running amok was because of not enough government involvement (deregulation), not more government involvement (regulation). It's funny that the Tea Party's answer to the continued woes of the economy is to allow the very unbridled market that created this mess to try to fix it as well; that's like going back to the same doctor for more surgery who nearly killed you during your last major surgery. It's already been tested recently and failed miserably, nearly to the point of the demise of the U.S. economy. Makes no sense at all.

Sure, we would like to see more swift evidence already from our new leader that all those who lost jobs during the recession are now working again, but that is not happening because it is simply unrealistic. President Obama seems to have been successful at the first important task, avoiding an economic meltdown. But that also seems to be have been the relatively easy part. The hard part is going to be getting a large enough percentage of all those who lost work back into new jobs, and that will likely not be possible for a while. It is not because of inaction, it is because huge damage takes much longer to repair and that many people being out of work is just not going to be rectified quickly. It will likely take an equivalent amount of time that the recession took to develop in the first place...years more.

So I would like to propose that we are being much to judgmental of the Obama administration in demanding that they be proving already that they can get even a substantial amount of the unemployed back to work after only a year and half. They have already proved that they can bring an overall economy back from the verge of collapse (akin to Captian Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger landing the plane on the Hudson). Let's allow them to continue this good work with the other critical items still on their agenda. It will take more time and more patience on everyone's part.

A responsible (federal) government is not necessarily a "big" government

I just watched the story on 60 Minutes about the Stand Down organization that helps homeless veterans over a three-day period. They are given food, shelter, medical care, and clothing. Some, after interviews and counseling, make it on to further care. Most do not and are forced to return to the streets. Understandably, the ones most eligible for further assistance are those with the most severe crises such as addiction and serious medical conditions. But this leaves the remaining homeless with little options but the streets once again.

The conservative mindset is that the role of the federal government needs to be extremely limited. Small. Less. But the words "limited" or "small" or "less" are all too general and vague. As a result, these words often translate into non-existent. Though I am not a proponent of war unless absolutely necessary (for example if one's country is directly attacked by another nation), what is maddening to me is the fact that because the American attitude toward the federal government is to try to over-limit it, this translates into not enough services for our citizens in need. In this example, we offer the soldiers respect and support for enlisting and serving, but disregard and even ignore them when they return from duty. It is an example of where the conservative mindset of shunning "big government" can be so damaging. In other words, it's not "big government" to spend money on defense in order to fight a war, but it is "big government" to spend money on resources to provide for the comfortable transition and continued care of the same soldiers after they have served. That is simply irresponsible and inhumane. It is also selfish...like wanting someone to fight your battle for you, but unwilling to assist them with their wounds when they return. I'm afraid that this is consistent with the conservative attitude that assisting someone might make them lazy. But there is a big difference between providing for someone permanently and giving them temporary and necessary help. If our country is going to accept a volunteer soldier and deploy them into combat, we as a country need to be equally prepared to provide services for the safe and effective transition of those soldiers in reentering civilian life.

We should be mortified with embarrassment and shame that any of our veterans are homeless after they have served for us in any military capacity. A portion of our tax dollars should go toward offering the best V.A. care money can buy.

"Intelligent," not "Elitist"

Kelly O'Donnell, on the Chris Matthews show this morning, made an excellent point in clarifying/rebutting the derogatory use of the term "elitist" to describe an "intelligent" politician or candidate for public office. President Obama was labeled an "elitist" by many conservative voters during the 2008 presidential campaign, and he is still often referred to as elitist. Many incumbent Democratic Senate candidates up for reelection this November  who are educated and intelligent are also being labeled as elitist and "out-of-touch with the people." The label is being used by conservatives, both in the Republican Party and in the new "Tea Party," and it is derogatorily intended to try to paint the person/candidate as one who sees themselves as intellectually superior and unable to identify with or feel compassion for the average, ordinary citizen.


What I find particularly interesting is that this kind of criticism or epithet does not tend to come from people who are educated. It comes mostly from the less educated and less experienced. As Kelly O'Donnell pointed out, intelligence should not imply elitist. The Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines elite as a "socially superior group." So there is a tremendous difference between elite and intelligent. Most of us don't much admire anyone who is interested in feeling superior to someone else. But I don't think anyone who is at all educated would say that it is not valuable to be intelligent. However, I do think that someone who is less well educated might be the first to criticize or condemn someone who is well educated by referring to them as seeming "superior." In my view, some Republicans, and many of the members and candidates of the Tea Party, are not particularly well educated. (Sarah Palin, the ringleader of the Tea Party movement is a case-in-point. One need only watch the interviews of her with either Charlie Gibson or Katie Couric to see the evidence.) This is one of the reasons that they tend to level the epithet of "elite" toward intelligent and highly educated candidates. It is a weak and childish criticism revealing their own insecurity and their probable jealousy of the education of the people they are criticizing.


In short, intelligence is a commodity not a detriment, but elitism, being by definition about superiority, is hopefully never desirable. We have a superbly intelligent president right now with a highly intelligent administration. They are not elitist, but many of them happen to be highly educated people which is one of the criteria I certainly use to vote for anyone for public office. They also seem, by their action in the passage of much valuable and varied legislation, to be genuinely and seriously compassionate to the needs of the American citizens. They also need to be given the time that we gave them (at least one term, not only a year and a half) before we criticize them for not solving all the problems that were dropped in their laps by the previous administration. It takes intelligence not elite thinking to repair the kind of damage that is now crippling this country. We have that in the current administration in the federal government.

Enough about "Socialism" already!

I read two very interesting articles in Time magazine. One was by Fareed Zakaria entitled "The New Challenge From China" (October 18, 2010). In addition to Mr. Zakaria being a superb writer and journalist, the article illuminates the tremendous success that China has had in the last decade alone with improving its education system. It easily rivals and even surpasses the United States. Another article by Joe Klein, from the same issue of Time, called "America from the Road" interviews a number of people who are extremely displeased with the direction they feel that President Barack Obama is taking the country. One person was quoted as fearing that we are headed toward a "..'European' style of Big Government..." This is another way of saying "Socialism."

I feel particularly tired of hearing this argument. First, we have carried the term "Socialism" over to the present day from the years of fear of Communism. The Communists employed a "Socialist" government. Their form of Socialism was extreme and brought about the demise of the Soviet Union. However, there is a big difference between being concerned for the welfare of the citizens of your own country and imposing autocratic rule. For starters, it depends very much on who is at the helm, who your leaders are. We happen to have elected a president who is not only brilliantly intelligent but also truly cares about the American citizens. That is certainly being socially compassionate but it is a far cry from Socialism. It's time that we cease the use of the term "Socialism" as a derogatory term to avoid the fact that we as a country do not have enough compassion for our poorest citizens. (I don't recall ever hearing the funding of the Iraq war or campaigning for criminalizing abortion as "Big Government" or "Socialism." That strikes me as a very subjective and hypocritical categorization of the issues.) If we did, we would not hesitate to promote and vote for higher taxes for domestic issues such as education, health care, affordable housing, and other large-scale issues that do indeed need support from the federal government. Though China has certainly been guilty of suppressing human rights, it is also an example of a country that is apparently not concerned about whether their improved education looks like Socialism. Clearly, their Premier, Wen Jiabao, is more concerned with the education of his country's citizens.

Frankly, aside from the fact that the word "Socialism" conjures up the former Soviet Union and Joe McCarthy, I simply don't understand the vehement desire to not want to help our poorest citizens. This is what Vice-President Joe Biden meant when he referred to "fairness." If I could be pretty sure that a portion of my tax dollars would go toward providing universal health care for every person from birth to death, I would gladly agree to my taxes being raised (an additional $100 or $200 a year, for example) as long as that tax increase was applied to everyone who could afford it. That way, I would know that if I ever lost my job and was unemployed that I would be covered under universal coverage until I got another job in which my employer paid toward my health insurance. This, to me, is just normal common sense and compassion.

So please, let's stop referring to valuable governmental assistance with domestic issues as "Socialism." It prevents us from doing on the national level what we would all do in private if faced with helping someone in need.

To all incumbent candidates: "Stand tall with the president"

The election this November is not about electing a president, but the anger that is fueling the races for Congress is directed mainly at the president. In my opinion, the Democrats have consistently made the mistake of distancing themselves from their own party's president (from Clinton in 1994 for example and the Republicans retook the Congress) instead of campaigning on a platform of supporting what their president has accomplished. It is, in my view, a rather cowardly posture: supporting the president when they're popular, but shunning them when they're not. Shunning is rarely kind or admirable, but especially not when the person being shunned has done well and much of the populace is too ignorant or misinformed (in the current climate because of unrestrained anger) to recognize it. President Obama and many of the Democratic senators have built a substantial resume of successful and beneficial legislation. It is up to the incumbent candidates now to tout those accomplishments, not to be afraid to mention them for fear of being aligned with an unpopular president.

Turn down the anger for these Mid-Term elections

I would like to offer a rebuttal to a recent article in Newsweek (“I’m Mad As Hell…And I’m Going To Vote! The Psychology of an Angry Electorate,” October 11, 2010, p. 29).

The article reports that many voters are enraged and furious with the Obama administration for what they see as reckless spending by the federal government and insufficient assertion (and even absence of anger) in response both to the ailing economy and to the Gulf oil spill caused by BP Oil. These voters see President Obama as both too calm and cool in the face of disaster, and insensitive to the fact that they are still out of work, out of their homes, and fearful of the federal government in general. However, in my view, this anger is inappropriate, misplaced, incorrect, and highly unproductive in a variety of ways.

First, Barack Obama inherited an economy that was crippled by a former president who was elected by many of the very voters who are angry now. So, for starters, these angry voters should be angry with themselves, not at President Obama; one needs to accept lying in the bed of their own making. But some of the angry voters are ones who voted for President Obama but have their sights too short and are too impatient for the change they want and were expecting from him. He has already fulfilled many campaign promises of change, but some of the larger changes his initial supporters want, and that he is working toward, will take much more time to enact.

Second, Obama was hired for his intelligence, compassion, and general intellectual skill with problem solving which are the qualities we should demand in any leader, but particularly ones that are needed in a time of extreme crisis. We are undoubtedly still in an expreme crisis (no matter what any financial expert might say about the “end” of the recession…we are certainly not “out of the woods” yet), and what is needed is level-headedness not anger. Anger is a temporary loss of control. It is healthy to express anger but unhealthy to operate from it. Crises need calm control not loss of control, and Barack Obama is remarkable at calm control. To quote Anna Qunidlen, Obama is “unflappable,” a superb quality and skill in times of crises.

Third, rebuilding a damaged economy takes both time and money. It cannot be one quickly or for free. Since the current economic damage we now face was brought on for eight years under President George W. Bush, and since for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, it will both likely take an equal amount of time to undo that damage and it will take more money in the short term to make the necessary repairs to our economy; these even though the deficit had already been increased to astronomic proportions under President Bush. In other words, balancing the federal budget cannot be priority right now. The repairs have to happen first, which means the federal government will have to spend more money for the repairs for the time being (resulting in the increase of the national debt in the short term) until the economy stabilizes and regains its footing. Then the goal can shift back to rebalancing the federal budget. To react to the passage, signing, and enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as simply reckless spending by the federal government (and the current administration) is to be wholly ignorant of all this. It is necessary short-term federal spending in response to the unwise and reckless spending by Wall Street and the federal government during the Bush presidency. Holding the Obama administration responsible for reckless spending is completely and inappropriately shifting the blame and ignoring the reality of the situation.

The appropriate response to the current economic situation should be patience and appreciation. We have a president and an administration that have approached the job with intelligence, efficiency, and effectiveness. The economy did not collapse (that is evidence of success in this crisis alone) and many effective pieces of legislation have been passed and signed. In short, we now have an administration of adults in the White House. Adults do not exhibit anger carelessly. It was carelessness and recklessness that resulted in the economic situation in which we arrived in 2009. Let’s not make the mistake of reverting back to the behavior that got us into that state in the first place by operating prematurely with careless and reckless anger, particularly toward an administration that is making steady progress in correcting the problems. We need to operate with sober intelligence (patience) in addition to deep emotion (elation or anger). The Obama administration is doing just that and, though not at the pace many would prefer, is slowly righting the ship. You can’t sail a ship with even a small crew (much less a full one) if the ship still has substantial leaks. (The current unemployment state is a result of those substantial leaks and it that will take much longer to rectify. It is completely unrealistic to expect that the Obama administration would have managed to substantially reduce the unemployment rate by now, or even in four years. It will take longer.) But you also can’t repair the leaks with no money, even if the shipyard seems to be on the verge of bankruptcy. The first success of the Obama administration was to successfully prevent the bankruptcy and begin the repairs. That is no small feat.

So please turn down the anger and vote in these Mid-term elections to allow the current federal and state governments to continue the job they are successfully doing. (Also pay a visit to the White House website. One brief browse shows the success.)