Steve, excellent post, well thought out, good analogy to car ownership, ( even enjoyed the dig on Cheney) However, my response will be very brief:
Owning and operating a car IS NOT ( let me repeat that it IS NOT) a constitutionally protected right. Owning a gun is. There, I'm done in record time.
(but of course I have a few more thoughts)
Believe it or not, I actually am OK with having some (read that word strongly - SOME) regulation/registration and/or licensing but it seems that the powers that be are moving to use these as a method or restricting gun ownership which I do not support. There are even restrictions in an unnamed state which prevent you or at least put you through months and months of waiting and extra loopholes to jump through if you have ever received any mental health treatment. I have a friend who saw a therapist for a few months after the loss of his mother, years ago, and he has had to wait over a year and get a signed and notarized statement from a psychiatrist ( though he never saw an MD in the first place) in order to get his permit approved. (Talk about attaching more stigma to going to a few counseling session, 8 years ago to manage grief). In another stat, he'd have no problem. Lets make it reasonable and realistic in all states and I am in. No matter the laws criminals will get and use and abuse weapons. The more onerous the laws the more you restrict legal gun use, not illegal use. Interesting statistic out today that overall murder rate has dropped over the past year. Coincidentally, the overall percentage of gun ownership has risen over the past year.. Hmm.... could there be a correlation?
As for trying to legislate responsibility and common sense- best of luck with that-no matter the issue, there will be those that are and those that are not, all the laws in the world won't stop stupid.
Speaking of this car ownership analogy (I am happy to slide into a new topic). I am struck with how popular it has become and has even been used by our President as an example of how it is OK to require everyone to have health insurance, like they require car insurance ( Of course he also conveniently forgets that not everyone owns cars).
So shall we tackle heath care next?
Thursday, December 31, 2009
On guns and cars...
Using a gun should be at least as controlled as using a car: license, registration & insurance must be required to use them.
Who would want someone without a license driving a car? Doesn't it make sense that there be some sort of driving test to prove that whoever controls a 2000 lb. weapon can steer it and brake it properly? It makes perfect sense to me that drivers pass a written test periodically that challenges their knowledge of the rules of the road. (No wisecracks here about what language that should be administered in, that's another essay!) And those with warrants out for their arrest, should they be allowed to make a quick 5 minute stop to the DMV and walk out with a valid license? Hell, no! Should we not periodically check the drivers vision while we're at it, to make sure that Mr. Magoo stays off the road? This all makes perfect sense to me.
Registering and insuring a car also, while an expensive pain in the buttocks, makes perfect sense too, no? A person who sees a car weaving in and out of traffic at 110mph should have a license plate number to report to the police. And duh, accidents happen! Insurance provides all parties some financial protection when they occur.
Nobody questions the logic of having a license, registration, and insurance when it comes to cars.
So why, oh why, should we not have these same requirements on guns? Who wants a gun in the hands of someone who knows nothing about firearm protection, who has never shot a gun, or may be a criminal, or can't see to shoot straight? For God's sake let's ensure that the gun owner can actually handle the gun before being allowed to use it! Common sense, people!
And why not place the burden of registration and insurance on a gun owner, like we do with cars? We know accidents happen, don't they? One minute your out quail hunting with your friends, and the next minute you've shot them in their dang eye! Shit happens, okay? Let's recognize reality and provide some protection for when shit does happen. Again, common sense.
Now you may say that all this regulation makes it tough for law abiding citizens to get a gun, while the criminals get one illegally in a second. That is unfortunately true, criminals will always find a back door, the path of least resistance. But does that mean we should keep the front door unlocked? C'mon, seriously, should we abolish all car licenses and registrations because they make it easier for criminals to get cars than than us '10 and 2 on the steering wheel' folks? Of course not. We focus on prevention (car alarms, etc), and ideally, capable law enforcement, that is funded and trained enough to go after the criminals that try to steal a car or the fool who drives drunk.
And while this will make a conservative cringe, having yet another layer of government to license & register guns will not work perfectly efficiently and it'll cost some money. The DMV, though it's gotten a lot better here of late, is still a beurocratic mess. This regulation would be an expensive pain in the buttocks, just like car ownership is.
But the responsible car owner sees the common sense in these regulations, despite the inconvenience the pose. So should the responsible gun owner.
Who would want someone without a license driving a car? Doesn't it make sense that there be some sort of driving test to prove that whoever controls a 2000 lb. weapon can steer it and brake it properly? It makes perfect sense to me that drivers pass a written test periodically that challenges their knowledge of the rules of the road. (No wisecracks here about what language that should be administered in, that's another essay!) And those with warrants out for their arrest, should they be allowed to make a quick 5 minute stop to the DMV and walk out with a valid license? Hell, no! Should we not periodically check the drivers vision while we're at it, to make sure that Mr. Magoo stays off the road? This all makes perfect sense to me.
Registering and insuring a car also, while an expensive pain in the buttocks, makes perfect sense too, no? A person who sees a car weaving in and out of traffic at 110mph should have a license plate number to report to the police. And duh, accidents happen! Insurance provides all parties some financial protection when they occur.
Nobody questions the logic of having a license, registration, and insurance when it comes to cars.
So why, oh why, should we not have these same requirements on guns? Who wants a gun in the hands of someone who knows nothing about firearm protection, who has never shot a gun, or may be a criminal, or can't see to shoot straight? For God's sake let's ensure that the gun owner can actually handle the gun before being allowed to use it! Common sense, people!
And why not place the burden of registration and insurance on a gun owner, like we do with cars? We know accidents happen, don't they? One minute your out quail hunting with your friends, and the next minute you've shot them in their dang eye! Shit happens, okay? Let's recognize reality and provide some protection for when shit does happen. Again, common sense.
Now you may say that all this regulation makes it tough for law abiding citizens to get a gun, while the criminals get one illegally in a second. That is unfortunately true, criminals will always find a back door, the path of least resistance. But does that mean we should keep the front door unlocked? C'mon, seriously, should we abolish all car licenses and registrations because they make it easier for criminals to get cars than than us '10 and 2 on the steering wheel' folks? Of course not. We focus on prevention (car alarms, etc), and ideally, capable law enforcement, that is funded and trained enough to go after the criminals that try to steal a car or the fool who drives drunk.
And while this will make a conservative cringe, having yet another layer of government to license & register guns will not work perfectly efficiently and it'll cost some money. The DMV, though it's gotten a lot better here of late, is still a beurocratic mess. This regulation would be an expensive pain in the buttocks, just like car ownership is.
But the responsible car owner sees the common sense in these regulations, despite the inconvenience the pose. So should the responsible gun owner.
More…
When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President — I’m beginning to believe it.
A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Democracy’s the worst form of government except for all the others.
No, I’m not a part of any organized political party, I’m a democrat. (hee hee)
For every action, there is an equal and opposite government program.
People come to Washington believing it is the center of power. I know I did. It was only much later that I learned that Washington is a steering wheel that's not connected to an engine
The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
And my favorite (and particularly apt today):
A wise prince will seek means by which his subjects will always and in every possible condition of things have need of his government, and then they will always be faithful to him.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
New subtitles?
Well I don't have a name yet, but some apt and funny subtitles. I'll put the names as a comment so you can have fun guessing who said them.
I like this one but it's too long:
"The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club."
We can both agree on the sentiment below, I think.
"There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust."
"It may well be that our means are fairly limited and our possibilities restricted when it comes to applying pressure on our government. But is this a reason to do nothing? Despair is not an answer. Neither is resignation. Resignation only leads to indifference, which is not merely a sin but a punishment."
"Too bad that all the people who really know how to run the country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair."
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. "
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." ...Kidding, Sue!
"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
That's enough for now...
I like this one but it's too long:
"The Democrats seem to be basically nicer people, but they have demonstrated time and again that they have the management skills of celery. They're the kind of people who'd stop to help you change a flat, but would somehow manage to set your car on fire. I would be reluctant to entrust them with a Cuisinart, let alone the economy. The Republicans, on the other hand, would know how to fix your tire, but they wouldn't bother to stop because they'd want to be on time for Ugly Pants Night at the country club."
We can both agree on the sentiment below, I think.
"There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust."
"It may well be that our means are fairly limited and our possibilities restricted when it comes to applying pressure on our government. But is this a reason to do nothing? Despair is not an answer. Neither is resignation. Resignation only leads to indifference, which is not merely a sin but a punishment."
"Too bad that all the people who really know how to run the country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair."
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies. "
"In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." ...Kidding, Sue!
"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
That's enough for now...
upon further reflection
Well I certainly jumped into the deep end of the pool in the pool with that last post.
From the post it's clear I have some deep-seeded religious beliefs. How religious beliefs can and should affect policy is an area that, upon reflection, I don't want to touch with a 39 1/2 foot pole.
But it was startling to me that the absurd leap from profiling to McCarthyist tactics to torture was so EASY for us as a nation to take, to justify and defend. Look how quickly we found escape clauses and workarounds in the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, and yes to some extent our own Christian beliefs. "These aren't enemy combatants, so the Geneva convention doesn't apply." "These are not U.S. citizens, they are enemy combatants, so the Constitution doesn't apply." "The enhanced interrogation techniques save lives and are vital to our security." "Wiretapping U.S. citizens making calls overseas is OK if we suspect they're calling terrorists." I think there's ample evidence to suggest that there is a very fine and easily crossed line surrounding profiling. And it seems clear to me we jumped over that line with both feet.
In practical application, Sue, I think profiling (if you'd call it that) works well when you're rounding up a group of say 20 or 30 people, who fit a very narrow category. But applying profiling to a group of 20 million, knowing 99.995% (rough guess 1000 out of 20 million, give or take a lot) have no connection whatever to terrorism? I question the effectiveness of treating those 20 million differently than the general population. If say you were to narrow it down, for example, here's a group of young Muslim men, who spent at least a few days in Afghanistan, Yemen, or Pakistan in the last 5 years, who have posted threats online or have publicly expressed radical views? Maybe that's a group of 10,000 people or so (completely a wild guess, but orders of magnitude less than profiling young Muslim men only). I think it is prudent and logistically practical to ask that smaller subset some extra questions at an airport and watch them more closely, or not let them fly at all. But if you think on it, why use young Muslim men as a screener at all? Wouldn't it suffice to say ANYONE who spent at least a few days in Afghanistan, Yemen, or Pakistan in the last 5 years, who have posted threats online or have publicly enorsed terrorism or radical views should be on a watch list or a no fly list? I would think twice before boarding an airplane with anyone who falls into that category, including old men and women, regardless of religion. And if I'm being honest, I know I wouldn't let my kids on board with such a person. That's definitely not worth the risk.
Now in the case of Abdu....Young muslim male, on a watch list already, Dad reports him missing and having incredibly radical ideas (yikes!), last suspected heading towards Yemen (double yikes!!!). How many fit that description? This wasn't profiling, this was a lead handed to the CIA/FBI on a silver platter. How can you NOT follow up on that? That's one cat that should NEVER have been allowed on a plane.
From the post it's clear I have some deep-seeded religious beliefs. How religious beliefs can and should affect policy is an area that, upon reflection, I don't want to touch with a 39 1/2 foot pole.
But it was startling to me that the absurd leap from profiling to McCarthyist tactics to torture was so EASY for us as a nation to take, to justify and defend. Look how quickly we found escape clauses and workarounds in the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, and yes to some extent our own Christian beliefs. "These aren't enemy combatants, so the Geneva convention doesn't apply." "These are not U.S. citizens, they are enemy combatants, so the Constitution doesn't apply." "The enhanced interrogation techniques save lives and are vital to our security." "Wiretapping U.S. citizens making calls overseas is OK if we suspect they're calling terrorists." I think there's ample evidence to suggest that there is a very fine and easily crossed line surrounding profiling. And it seems clear to me we jumped over that line with both feet.
In practical application, Sue, I think profiling (if you'd call it that) works well when you're rounding up a group of say 20 or 30 people, who fit a very narrow category. But applying profiling to a group of 20 million, knowing 99.995% (rough guess 1000 out of 20 million, give or take a lot) have no connection whatever to terrorism? I question the effectiveness of treating those 20 million differently than the general population. If say you were to narrow it down, for example, here's a group of young Muslim men, who spent at least a few days in Afghanistan, Yemen, or Pakistan in the last 5 years, who have posted threats online or have publicly expressed radical views? Maybe that's a group of 10,000 people or so (completely a wild guess, but orders of magnitude less than profiling young Muslim men only). I think it is prudent and logistically practical to ask that smaller subset some extra questions at an airport and watch them more closely, or not let them fly at all. But if you think on it, why use young Muslim men as a screener at all? Wouldn't it suffice to say ANYONE who spent at least a few days in Afghanistan, Yemen, or Pakistan in the last 5 years, who have posted threats online or have publicly enorsed terrorism or radical views should be on a watch list or a no fly list? I would think twice before boarding an airplane with anyone who falls into that category, including old men and women, regardless of religion. And if I'm being honest, I know I wouldn't let my kids on board with such a person. That's definitely not worth the risk.
Now in the case of Abdu....Young muslim male, on a watch list already, Dad reports him missing and having incredibly radical ideas (yikes!), last suspected heading towards Yemen (double yikes!!!). How many fit that description? This wasn't profiling, this was a lead handed to the CIA/FBI on a silver platter. How can you NOT follow up on that? That's one cat that should NEVER have been allowed on a plane.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
call me crazy
First off,I completely agree that the idea of a hate crime is a form of profiling: it is crazy to me that murder is categorized as better or worse depending on race or religion or class of victim or perpetrator. So I am not the hypocrite you make me out to be.
Yes Sue, it is an absurd leap from profiling protocol to McCarthyism tactics to the insanity of waterboarding innocent bystanders. But the sad truth is we as a nation took that absurd leap, or have you forgotten: the wiretapping, illegal survellience, and yes the waterboarding of those in the wrong place at the wrong time is not a figment of my imagination. It is a part of our history. In case of the wiretaps and secret survelience it is with us still. That’s not spewing anti-Cheney rhetoric, that is a statement of fact.
And as absurd a leap it was, it all seemed so natural and reasonable at the time to overlook our laws, our restraint, our compassion. I mean in the interest of national security, of course, to protect us. And how quickly we went down that slippery slope, from profiling to witch hunt to outright torture, in the blink of an eye.
And yes, it is completely unrealistic (downright crazy, really) to expect to live in a colorblind, religiously neutral society. We are humans, after all, with all the imperfections, shallowness, and outright fear that is all too prevalent in our species. But God (oh yes liberals dare use the Word!) gave us hope too, did He not? And faith. Faith that tells us that as quickly as we can fall down that slippery slope of fear and mistrust that with a little compassion and understanding we can climb back out again. Hope that drives us towards the colorblind, religiously neutral perfection and love that Jesus (and yes, by God I’ll use his name too!) showed us, despite our limited expectations of the future and our flawed past.
So, for purposes of airline security, and all other worldly goings on in general, I choose not to see US vs. THEM, but only US. It’s a copout to think we cannot reasonably protect airline passengers without giving into our worst fears. God gave us imagination and ingenuity along with hope and faith. Surely we can apply it to this situation.
Call me crazy and unrealistic if you must. I’ll be in good company, at least.
Yes Sue, it is an absurd leap from profiling protocol to McCarthyism tactics to the insanity of waterboarding innocent bystanders. But the sad truth is we as a nation took that absurd leap, or have you forgotten: the wiretapping, illegal survellience, and yes the waterboarding of those in the wrong place at the wrong time is not a figment of my imagination. It is a part of our history. In case of the wiretaps and secret survelience it is with us still. That’s not spewing anti-Cheney rhetoric, that is a statement of fact.
And as absurd a leap it was, it all seemed so natural and reasonable at the time to overlook our laws, our restraint, our compassion. I mean in the interest of national security, of course, to protect us. And how quickly we went down that slippery slope, from profiling to witch hunt to outright torture, in the blink of an eye.
And yes, it is completely unrealistic (downright crazy, really) to expect to live in a colorblind, religiously neutral society. We are humans, after all, with all the imperfections, shallowness, and outright fear that is all too prevalent in our species. But God (oh yes liberals dare use the Word!) gave us hope too, did He not? And faith. Faith that tells us that as quickly as we can fall down that slippery slope of fear and mistrust that with a little compassion and understanding we can climb back out again. Hope that drives us towards the colorblind, religiously neutral perfection and love that Jesus (and yes, by God I’ll use his name too!) showed us, despite our limited expectations of the future and our flawed past.
So, for purposes of airline security, and all other worldly goings on in general, I choose not to see US vs. THEM, but only US. It’s a copout to think we cannot reasonably protect airline passengers without giving into our worst fears. God gave us imagination and ingenuity along with hope and faith. Surely we can apply it to this situation.
Call me crazy and unrealistic if you must. I’ll be in good company, at least.
Count me out
Count me out, Sue.
Let’s start by profiling young Muslim men. What does profile mean? It means making an assumption that all young Muslim men are guilty first, and must prove their innocence before they can be trusted. If you want you can make that assumption only for young Muslim men, I can’t stop you, but count me out.
To test their innocence we will check the background of young Muslim men more closely than the rest of us. What does that mean? It means if you or someone you’re acquainted with knows a lot of young Muslim men, you will be put on a watch list: a list that implies your guilt by association. It means that your phone should be tapped, your email messages scrutinized, your constitutional rights denied. If you think this curtailment of liberty is a reasonable price to pay in the name of increased safety, I can’t stop you, but count me out.
If you have a connection, incidental, accidental or otherwise, with someone whom the State has identified as a terrorist (and the State never makes mistakes, does it) you should be taken in for questioning, held indefinitely, and waterboarded until you confess to everything you know that could stop an attack (or until you make up a story to make the torture stop). If you subscribe to keeping law and order through the adoption of a police state, I can’t stop you, but count me out.
As for me, I’m all for making the airlines safer by spending the money to build and deploy the latest bomb-sniffing equipment to every gate at every airport. I want a system that passes Bibles and Korans without question, but is 100% effective in sniffing out flammable shoes, underwear, or any other belonging a terrorist (Al Queda or otherwise), could conceivably weave into a bomb. And such a system is technologically feasible TODAY. The only reason it’s not being used everywhere is cost and convenience. While we find it completely acceptable to limit the freedom of everyone we think fits the mold of a possible terrorist (i.e doesn’t look or act like us), we find it completely unacceptable to sacrifice a few extra dollars for an airline ticket, or wait an extra hour or two in a security line to guarantee everyone that gets on board is bomb free.
But as we know: our way of life is non-negotiable. We won’t pay extra for our security if it inconveniences US, treats US as guilty until proven innocent. And as for THEM? What kind of radical would treat THEM the same as one of US, as if THEY were our brother? It’s un-American, it sacrifices our national security: it’s letting the terrorists win.
So go ahead, get out the pitchforks, renew the crusade and hunt THEM down, if that’s your wish. But you can count me out.
Let’s start by profiling young Muslim men. What does profile mean? It means making an assumption that all young Muslim men are guilty first, and must prove their innocence before they can be trusted. If you want you can make that assumption only for young Muslim men, I can’t stop you, but count me out.
To test their innocence we will check the background of young Muslim men more closely than the rest of us. What does that mean? It means if you or someone you’re acquainted with knows a lot of young Muslim men, you will be put on a watch list: a list that implies your guilt by association. It means that your phone should be tapped, your email messages scrutinized, your constitutional rights denied. If you think this curtailment of liberty is a reasonable price to pay in the name of increased safety, I can’t stop you, but count me out.
If you have a connection, incidental, accidental or otherwise, with someone whom the State has identified as a terrorist (and the State never makes mistakes, does it) you should be taken in for questioning, held indefinitely, and waterboarded until you confess to everything you know that could stop an attack (or until you make up a story to make the torture stop). If you subscribe to keeping law and order through the adoption of a police state, I can’t stop you, but count me out.
As for me, I’m all for making the airlines safer by spending the money to build and deploy the latest bomb-sniffing equipment to every gate at every airport. I want a system that passes Bibles and Korans without question, but is 100% effective in sniffing out flammable shoes, underwear, or any other belonging a terrorist (Al Queda or otherwise), could conceivably weave into a bomb. And such a system is technologically feasible TODAY. The only reason it’s not being used everywhere is cost and convenience. While we find it completely acceptable to limit the freedom of everyone we think fits the mold of a possible terrorist (i.e doesn’t look or act like us), we find it completely unacceptable to sacrifice a few extra dollars for an airline ticket, or wait an extra hour or two in a security line to guarantee everyone that gets on board is bomb free.
But as we know: our way of life is non-negotiable. We won’t pay extra for our security if it inconveniences US, treats US as guilty until proven innocent. And as for THEM? What kind of radical would treat THEM the same as one of US, as if THEY were our brother? It’s un-American, it sacrifices our national security: it’s letting the terrorists win.
So go ahead, get out the pitchforks, renew the crusade and hunt THEM down, if that’s your wish. But you can count me out.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Greenspan and Cramer on 'Meet The Press'
Turned on "Meet the Press" this morning and did a spit take. Who at NBC decided that the two most qualified people available to illuminate us about the economy and job losses were Msgr's Greenspan and Cramer?
Well Mr. Gregory, how do you top that? "Next week, on 'Meet The Press', special guest Tiger Woods and Mark Sanford discuss the importance of marital fidelity. And you won't want to miss our roundtable discussion of highway safety with our special panel of convicted drunk drivers."
If it's Sunday, and you want to be as misinformed as humanly possible, it's 'Meet The Press'.
Well Mr. Gregory, how do you top that? "Next week, on 'Meet The Press', special guest Tiger Woods and Mark Sanford discuss the importance of marital fidelity. And you won't want to miss our roundtable discussion of highway safety with our special panel of convicted drunk drivers."
If it's Sunday, and you want to be as misinformed as humanly possible, it's 'Meet The Press'.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
