I've heard the argument in the title of this post........well.......not as much after the Arizona shooting as after other shootings. Probably because it happened in one of the states with the least restrictions on carrying firearms. And look what good that did.
But I'm sure I'll hear the argument again when a guy shoots people in a state other than Arizona. The whole concept of if people were freer to carry guns then there would be less incidents like this is flawed because most of these mass shooters don't seem to care if they die or not. Of course the follow up statement is that "yeah but they would kill a lot less". That might be true if suddenly every person carrying weapon is trained enough to hit their target in such a high stress situation. And let's face it, most gun training classes don't train you for that crap.
Also, what if there were multiple, everyday people armed and ready to try to stop the shooter from various sides? Boy would I love to be caught in the middle of that mess.
My point in all this is that if you are an unreserved supporter of the rights of citizens to bear almost anything, just be honest and say so. Say "I like guns and I believe the founding fathers wanted us to have the right to bear arms to this degree". Don't pull the altruistic, public safety argument. Because it's a losing one for your side. Our murder rate in this country versus the rest of the civilized world (who don't have gun laws near as free as ours) is ultra high. And the fact that people don't have enough guns isn't the reason.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Tennessee Tea Parties declare war on history textbooks.
The Commercial Appeal has a story that says that a group of Tennessee Tea Parties want, among other things, to change references to the Founding Fathers as slave owners. You can scope it out here .
From the story:
"The material calls for lawmakers to amend state laws governing school curriculums, and for textbook selection criteria to say that “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”
Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another."
I'm sorry but the truth is the truth and our schools should teach our nation's history warts and all. I haven't been in school in a little while so I can't speak on current textbooks, they may very well be biased and disproportionately point out the flaws of the founders. What I can say is that removing all reference to this is pathetic. Schools should give students all the info and let them think for themselves, not guide them into some sort of predetermined view of history dictated from above. Plus none of the things that Mr. Rounds mentions are "made up".
Also, I think the effectiveness of various Tea Party movements is being diluted as they take on more issues and topics. As an anti-debt, anti-deficit, and anti-reckless spending movement it had a pretty considerable effect. It moved these issues to the forefront in a big way. It could have even had a lasting impact on our national conversation regarding debt and deficit reduction. Right now I see it turning into another conservative movement focused on vague "anti-Americanism".
A movement of fiscal responsibility could have continued to grow across the board. A great many people in our nation think our government spends way too much, but a lot fewer of them want to go around rewriting our textbooks.
From the story:
"The material calls for lawmakers to amend state laws governing school curriculums, and for textbook selection criteria to say that “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”
Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another."
I'm sorry but the truth is the truth and our schools should teach our nation's history warts and all. I haven't been in school in a little while so I can't speak on current textbooks, they may very well be biased and disproportionately point out the flaws of the founders. What I can say is that removing all reference to this is pathetic. Schools should give students all the info and let them think for themselves, not guide them into some sort of predetermined view of history dictated from above. Plus none of the things that Mr. Rounds mentions are "made up".
Also, I think the effectiveness of various Tea Party movements is being diluted as they take on more issues and topics. As an anti-debt, anti-deficit, and anti-reckless spending movement it had a pretty considerable effect. It moved these issues to the forefront in a big way. It could have even had a lasting impact on our national conversation regarding debt and deficit reduction. Right now I see it turning into another conservative movement focused on vague "anti-Americanism".
A movement of fiscal responsibility could have continued to grow across the board. A great many people in our nation think our government spends way too much, but a lot fewer of them want to go around rewriting our textbooks.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Arizona sees the mundane face of evil
Here I sit, halfway watching the BCS championship, but also sitting and reading updates on the sad shooting that took place in the same state.
The harm done and lives taken and affected by this is very far removed from my comfy living space at this moment. But from the descriptions I've read all I can say is that several good people were killed or hurt by one very stupid man. And sometimes that's all that there is to a story. I don't want to trivialize this by referring to a work of fiction, but to illustrate this point I'm going to mention a thought I had while watching the new Coen brothers film of "True Grit" a few weeks ago.
In the film, when we first meet the man who killed Mattie Ross's father he is a mumbling moron. Not super sinister or intimidating. Just a dummy who had a gun and a desire. At times like this in our country, we see that evil isn't always a mesmerizing figure who has power over others like Hitler or Charles Manson. Sometimes it's just some guy that wouldn't be all that scary if he didn't have a gun in his hand.
To all you trying to politicize this I say stop. And that means everyone. I know Olbermann and those on MSNBC have said their bit referring to the Tea Party, but those on the other side are doing the same thing. Conservative hosts love to play the victim when something like this happens. They get to say that the "liberal media" is blaming conservatives. Nevermind that when they say that, they're usually referring to a select group of loudmouth commentators. Just leave it alone. There are no great lessons to learn here, except perhaps from the lives of the victims and the heroism that was displayed by some. When evil comes bringing death sometimes it comes in the form of a community college student who writes bad poetry.
The harm done and lives taken and affected by this is very far removed from my comfy living space at this moment. But from the descriptions I've read all I can say is that several good people were killed or hurt by one very stupid man. And sometimes that's all that there is to a story. I don't want to trivialize this by referring to a work of fiction, but to illustrate this point I'm going to mention a thought I had while watching the new Coen brothers film of "True Grit" a few weeks ago.
In the film, when we first meet the man who killed Mattie Ross's father he is a mumbling moron. Not super sinister or intimidating. Just a dummy who had a gun and a desire. At times like this in our country, we see that evil isn't always a mesmerizing figure who has power over others like Hitler or Charles Manson. Sometimes it's just some guy that wouldn't be all that scary if he didn't have a gun in his hand.
To all you trying to politicize this I say stop. And that means everyone. I know Olbermann and those on MSNBC have said their bit referring to the Tea Party, but those on the other side are doing the same thing. Conservative hosts love to play the victim when something like this happens. They get to say that the "liberal media" is blaming conservatives. Nevermind that when they say that, they're usually referring to a select group of loudmouth commentators. Just leave it alone. There are no great lessons to learn here, except perhaps from the lives of the victims and the heroism that was displayed by some. When evil comes bringing death sometimes it comes in the form of a community college student who writes bad poetry.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Boehner and the GOPs Reagan worship
"Remember when Ronald Reagan was president? We had Bob Hope. We had Johnny Cash. Think about where we are today. We have got President Obama. But we have no hope and we have no cash." ---John Boehner
I'm a little over a month late on this, but apparently John Boehner thinks that the 1980s were the time when Cash and Hope were tearing up the pop charts. That or he's making a nonsensical reference to their being alive when Reagan was president and how they are deceased in this present time, when Obama is our president.
Of course it's probably the second one and he's probably just using their names for a silly punchline. But it does seem like Bob Hope has always been a favorite celebrity of the GOP (I know Nixon loved to trot him out at least). But I love how he glosses over the fact that Hope and Cash were also alive when both Bushes and Clinton were president.
I look forward to the day when the GOP shuts up about Reagan. Nothing against the man personally, from everything I've read he sounded like a nice enough human. I do believe that a lot of his legacy has to do with the way he made people (especially Republicans) feel more than any real fiscal conservatism. If you don't believe me then read this nice little summary from the fanatically free-market/small government Ludwig Von Mises Institute.: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan
Note it was from 1988 and the president was nearing the end of his term. People who truly believed in small government saw right through Reagan before he was putting on his shoes to walk out the door.
So here are my two thoughts:
1. The GOP has enough new blood to justify them laying off the Reagan praise and talking about whatever plans they have for the future.............
2. .....which if they actually mention I'm sure will involve throwing around the words "cut taxes" the way they throw around Reagan's name. Which leads me to another point. I don't mind a party that raises taxes, I mind one that raises taxes but doesn't show much evidence of sound budgeting. I look at Britain with envy these days. Their Tory/Lib Dem coalition government are making tough decisions that should nonetheless put them on a more sustainable path. Smart tax raises and smart spending cuts. The minute I see a candidate who talks about both and means both (none of these piddly little cuts, a million here, a million there) then I might get behind them enough to put a sticker on my car. But if the lack of serious responses to any of the recent debt commissions are proof of the apathy on this matter then it looks like my sedan bumper will continue to be bare.
I'm a little over a month late on this, but apparently John Boehner thinks that the 1980s were the time when Cash and Hope were tearing up the pop charts. That or he's making a nonsensical reference to their being alive when Reagan was president and how they are deceased in this present time, when Obama is our president.
Of course it's probably the second one and he's probably just using their names for a silly punchline. But it does seem like Bob Hope has always been a favorite celebrity of the GOP (I know Nixon loved to trot him out at least). But I love how he glosses over the fact that Hope and Cash were also alive when both Bushes and Clinton were president.
I look forward to the day when the GOP shuts up about Reagan. Nothing against the man personally, from everything I've read he sounded like a nice enough human. I do believe that a lot of his legacy has to do with the way he made people (especially Republicans) feel more than any real fiscal conservatism. If you don't believe me then read this nice little summary from the fanatically free-market/small government Ludwig Von Mises Institute.: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan
Note it was from 1988 and the president was nearing the end of his term. People who truly believed in small government saw right through Reagan before he was putting on his shoes to walk out the door.
So here are my two thoughts:
1. The GOP has enough new blood to justify them laying off the Reagan praise and talking about whatever plans they have for the future.............
2. .....which if they actually mention I'm sure will involve throwing around the words "cut taxes" the way they throw around Reagan's name. Which leads me to another point. I don't mind a party that raises taxes, I mind one that raises taxes but doesn't show much evidence of sound budgeting. I look at Britain with envy these days. Their Tory/Lib Dem coalition government are making tough decisions that should nonetheless put them on a more sustainable path. Smart tax raises and smart spending cuts. The minute I see a candidate who talks about both and means both (none of these piddly little cuts, a million here, a million there) then I might get behind them enough to put a sticker on my car. But if the lack of serious responses to any of the recent debt commissions are proof of the apathy on this matter then it looks like my sedan bumper will continue to be bare.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Obama's "deep seated hatred for white people"
Remember that time when that dude who cries a lot on FOX News said that President Obama had a "deep seated hatred for white people"? Is it only more or does that seem about as preposterous as saying that Will Smith has a "deep seated hatred for white people"? I've heard the joke in the black community about some white people getting a "ghetto pass", well I think Will Smith got his "white pass" for basically the content his entire stinkin' career and our president got his when he started wearing mom jeans for his casual photographs.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Mike Huckabee: Palin destroyer?
Few things in politics frighten me more than the possibility of a Sarah Palin presidency. It frightens me enough that when Arkansas has its open primary, and if Palin is on the GOP ballot, I will choose to vote in that primary and I will vote for whichever candidate has the better chance of pulling ahead of her.
Which brings us to the man whose name is the title of this post.
Mike Huckabee was the governor of my state. A very moderate governor, due in large part to having to deal with a Democrat controlled state legislature. For instance, he signed legislation which put into effect ARKids, a program to insure children in low income families in the state. Also, regarding illegal immigrants, Huckabee condemned a bill which would deny them state benefits as "un-Christian".
But he wasn't perfect. The Arkansas Times often pointed out what could be considered his ethical lapses, such as his reporting (or lack thereof ) of campaign payments he made to himself. And of course there's the stories of his commutations of rapist Wayne DuMond and felon Maurice Clemmons, both of whom went on to commit murders once out of prison.
But now that Huckabee's star has ascended into the world of TV and radio, you never hear about those much. The Teflon quality that Reagan and Clinton had, Huckabee has too. Both Clinton and Huckabee hail from Hope, Arkansas by the way, which makes one wonder what elixir they discovered in their younger days.
One evening a few weeks ago, my wife and I settled in to watch Real Time with Bill Maher. A prime piece of blue state TV if I've ever seen it. But also one of the best shows to watch if you want insightful and informed political panels. Any Republicans or conservatives who go on this show and face such a hostile crowd typically know their stuff, or could at least name several books, newpapers, or magazines they read for information (unlike Palin). Huckabee came on for an interview with Maher on satellite and we both concluded afterwards that he was definitely presidential material. Not to say we would vote for him. But his charm, whit, and general likability really are Clinton-esque in a lot of ways. He also had well thought out, albeit philosophically conservative, answers to everything Maher pressed him about.
Then the other day I read an article in which conservative writer David Frum argues that Huckabee is the only person who can stop the Witch from Wasilla. You can read it here. I mentioned this article to my wife who speculated on a Huckabee/Palin (or the other way around) run instead. I sincerely hope Frum is right and my wife is wrong.
Palin is a thoroughly mean spirited politician who has the vindictiveness of Richard Nixon with none of the brains, all wrapped up in a package that is soccer mom-ish enough to speak to the Twilight reading mini van mom crowd and physically appealing enough to suck in conservative men to ignore her total vacuousness. Just look at the near worship that square-jawed haircut Sean Hannity tends to lavish on her.
Huckabee has nowhere near the meanness of Palin. But that doesn't qualify one to be president. His accomplishments as governor if you read up on them show him to be a "compassionate conservative" in the truest sense. Maybe he wouldn't be a terrible president, but then again the man who first brought us the term "compassionate conservative" brought us an unnecessary war, a bumbling response to a natural disaster, and a green light to torturous behavior which ceded some of the moral high ground of my country's military. Huckabee may be nice, but the most important thing to me in a president is one who can respond with wisdom and not excessive militarism to events like North Korea firing on South Korea or Iran's continuing development of nuclear program. Nothing I see in Palin shows me that she could pass this test, and Huckabee has yet to prove himself to me on this front.
Which brings us to the man whose name is the title of this post.
Mike Huckabee was the governor of my state. A very moderate governor, due in large part to having to deal with a Democrat controlled state legislature. For instance, he signed legislation which put into effect ARKids, a program to insure children in low income families in the state. Also, regarding illegal immigrants, Huckabee condemned a bill which would deny them state benefits as "un-Christian".
But he wasn't perfect. The Arkansas Times often pointed out what could be considered his ethical lapses, such as his reporting (or lack thereof ) of campaign payments he made to himself. And of course there's the stories of his commutations of rapist Wayne DuMond and felon Maurice Clemmons, both of whom went on to commit murders once out of prison.
But now that Huckabee's star has ascended into the world of TV and radio, you never hear about those much. The Teflon quality that Reagan and Clinton had, Huckabee has too. Both Clinton and Huckabee hail from Hope, Arkansas by the way, which makes one wonder what elixir they discovered in their younger days.
One evening a few weeks ago, my wife and I settled in to watch Real Time with Bill Maher. A prime piece of blue state TV if I've ever seen it. But also one of the best shows to watch if you want insightful and informed political panels. Any Republicans or conservatives who go on this show and face such a hostile crowd typically know their stuff, or could at least name several books, newpapers, or magazines they read for information (unlike Palin). Huckabee came on for an interview with Maher on satellite and we both concluded afterwards that he was definitely presidential material. Not to say we would vote for him. But his charm, whit, and general likability really are Clinton-esque in a lot of ways. He also had well thought out, albeit philosophically conservative, answers to everything Maher pressed him about.
Then the other day I read an article in which conservative writer David Frum argues that Huckabee is the only person who can stop the Witch from Wasilla. You can read it here. I mentioned this article to my wife who speculated on a Huckabee/Palin (or the other way around) run instead. I sincerely hope Frum is right and my wife is wrong.
Palin is a thoroughly mean spirited politician who has the vindictiveness of Richard Nixon with none of the brains, all wrapped up in a package that is soccer mom-ish enough to speak to the Twilight reading mini van mom crowd and physically appealing enough to suck in conservative men to ignore her total vacuousness. Just look at the near worship that square-jawed haircut Sean Hannity tends to lavish on her.
Huckabee has nowhere near the meanness of Palin. But that doesn't qualify one to be president. His accomplishments as governor if you read up on them show him to be a "compassionate conservative" in the truest sense. Maybe he wouldn't be a terrible president, but then again the man who first brought us the term "compassionate conservative" brought us an unnecessary war, a bumbling response to a natural disaster, and a green light to torturous behavior which ceded some of the moral high ground of my country's military. Huckabee may be nice, but the most important thing to me in a president is one who can respond with wisdom and not excessive militarism to events like North Korea firing on South Korea or Iran's continuing development of nuclear program. Nothing I see in Palin shows me that she could pass this test, and Huckabee has yet to prove himself to me on this front.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
The co-opting of the tea party, and some thoughts on Obama
Just popping in to share a few links that I'm digging right now.
The first one is Matt Taibbi's latest Rolling Stone article on the Tea Party movement. It does a good job of tracing the movement's origins in Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign up through it's current co-opting of the GOP. A movement that was truly independent and anti-establishment has become a breeding ground for ignorance and theories about Obama's citizenship. You can find the article here.
The second link is a response to Dinesh D’Souza's recent Forbes article on President Obama. It can be found here.
Opponents of Obama are coming up with all sorts of reasons ranging from "anti-colonialism" to a "deep seated hatred" of whites for his actions as president. Which is funny because he really isn't any different than any other liberal politician. Talk of higher taxes on the wealthy for instance are pretty standard in Democratic circles. You didn't hear anyone calling Clinton an "anti-colonialist". I guess now that we have a black president, calling him "liberal" just isn't enough.
Plus on the foreign policy front the only difference I've seen between Obama and Bush is better vocabulary. Recently our president has asserted a power to assassinate U.S. citizens if he deems it necessary. I can only imagine the storm that would have erupted in the media if Dubya asserted something like this. You can read more here.
The first one is Matt Taibbi's latest Rolling Stone article on the Tea Party movement. It does a good job of tracing the movement's origins in Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign up through it's current co-opting of the GOP. A movement that was truly independent and anti-establishment has become a breeding ground for ignorance and theories about Obama's citizenship. You can find the article here.
The second link is a response to Dinesh D’Souza's recent Forbes article on President Obama. It can be found here.
Opponents of Obama are coming up with all sorts of reasons ranging from "anti-colonialism" to a "deep seated hatred" of whites for his actions as president. Which is funny because he really isn't any different than any other liberal politician. Talk of higher taxes on the wealthy for instance are pretty standard in Democratic circles. You didn't hear anyone calling Clinton an "anti-colonialist". I guess now that we have a black president, calling him "liberal" just isn't enough.
Plus on the foreign policy front the only difference I've seen between Obama and Bush is better vocabulary. Recently our president has asserted a power to assassinate U.S. citizens if he deems it necessary. I can only imagine the storm that would have erupted in the media if Dubya asserted something like this. You can read more here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)