In reference to the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre:
We need to first remember hat in the days when a man armed himself with a sharp stick, a rock, club, or sword, he had to do his killing up close and personal. Furthermore, a man could do only as much carnage as his strength – and the strength and skill of his indented victims – would allow.
Eventually humans invented the cross bow. Battle deaths escalated. Eventually, humans invented firearms. Battle deaths escalated. Humans invented automatic firearms. Casualties in America’s wars skyrocketed. We can only speculate on how many lives could have been spared had the American Civil War been fought with swords and if the American army had defeated the rebels quickly instead of dragging out the war for 4 years. Union generals could drag the war out for years thanks in part to mass manufacturing of firearms. The Vietnam War illustrated that point with even more clarity. The French, the Americans, the Vietnamese, the Russians, The Chinese could not have dragged that war out from 1954 to 1975 if they did not have mass production of weapons, particularly automatic weapons.
COMMENT ON PRO-GUN PROPAGANDA
Since the Sandy Hook massacre, pro-gun lobbyiests have used various Internet methods to publish testimony supposedly given by Darrell Scott — the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado — before House Judiciary subcommittee on crime on May 27, 1999.
I will comment on two of its supposed quotes.
QUOTE: “ The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used, neither was it the NCA - the National Club Association - the true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in his heart. In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA.”
REPLY: From a strict text point of view, Scott had the doctrine wrong here in equating the Columbine high school killers with Cain. Cain discovered the great secret of how he could get rich by killing someone. Harris and Klebold did not kill for gain: they killed to kill, including themselves. The architect of this sort of strategy was (not Cain) Satan.
QUOTE: “Erik and Dylan would not have been stopped by more gun laws or metal detectors. No amount of laws can stop someone who spends months of planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.”
With due respect, Scott got this point wrong. Metal detectors could have detected the weapons at the doors. The laws could have stopped Klebold and Harris in the use of automatic weapons if the laws had outlawed the manufacture of automatic weapons. Harris and Klebold’s effectiveness would have been reduced by some quantum factor if the laws had restricted the sophistication of weapons they could access.
In the history of human weaponry, automatic weapons are mankind’s truly barbaric weapon. Any untrained weakling can kill dozens of people as long as his trigger finger holds up and as long as he has a supply of bullets. Weapons designers made these weapons not for sport or hunting game. Their purpose is mass killing of humans.
The automatic weapon has succeeded in making both war and civilian life more bloody and dangerous.
It should be obvious that merchants should not sell automatic-weapons to mentally unbalanced people. The problem is mentally ill people do not walk around with labels on them. It should also be obvious that manufacturers and merchants of automatic weapons make a lot of money in this business – whether the buyers are crazed or not. They will try to convince us that the weapons are not the problem, that people are the problem. And they will sell all the weapons they can to the problem.
Both the weapons and the people are the problems.
THE POINT
In the 1960s, one out of two Americans owned guns. Today, one of three Americans own guns. However, that 33 percent has stockpiled the largest number of weapons ever collected in the whole history of the country. Many of that 33 percent of Americans own multiple weapons or cashes of weapons. Federal law should not allow a minority of people to stockpile themselves as private armies.
THE CALL TO ACTION
We Americans have reached a point where both American and international law should outlaw the sale of automatic firearm weapons. Certainly civilians should not be able to buy them. Obviously unbalanced violent mentally ill people should not buy them.
Ultimately, outlawing manufacture of these weapons should be our real goal. May the 21st century be the age when atomic bombs and automatic weapon came to an end.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Saturday, December 15, 2012
AN ESSAY ON SCHOOL DESIGN AND HOW IT CAN IMPROVE STUDENT SAFETY
Parents of school children, I have this question for you to consider in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. In case your child's school got a terrorist attack, would your child’s school design help the children survive or trap them, putting them more at risk?In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, this essay will contemplate the topic of school architecture.
BACKGROUND YOU MAY HAVE NOT HAVE HEARD IN SCHOOL HISTORY CLASSES
In 1915, a private school in Peabody Massachusetts caught fire killing no fewer than twenty young women students.
In 1958, Our Lady of the Angels, a large, somewhat-overcrowded multistory Catholic private school in Chicago, caught fire at the height of the school day. 92 children and 3 nuns died in the inferno.
Today, I really cannot remember any school fires in America. This is because after these disasters, superintendents of schools and city planning commissions implemented ideas to make schools safer. Governments put these in place by law.
In March 1937, a large, fairly-new consolidated school in New London, Texas experienced the most horrific school disaster in American history. To be fair to the school board, we will note that the community was rolling in oil revenue wealth and built what was for the time a well-designed school for their children. However, something went wrong in the heating plant. The school used natural gas as its heat fuel in the days when companies did not add the smell to the fuel. Natural gas got loose and filled the crawl space, then filled some of the school. Someone in a shop classroom ignited a spark; the resulting blast reduced the whole school in one second to a pile of kindling. The scale of the misery broke down documentation of this disaster, so the best estimate is 300 children and teachers dead. Because of that accident, the government requires natural gas companies to add a smell to natural gas.
In May 1927, the most infamous terrorist attack on a school occurred at a consolidated school in Bath Township Michigan. A disgruntled citizen unbalanced by unmanageable tax debt, managed to booby-trap the school with dynamite. After the explosion, when crowds gathered at the disaster, the man set off a shrapnel device in his automobile. It killed and maimed even more people, including himself and some of his enemies. 44 children and adults died in that outrage.
In 1999, two heavy-armed students attacked Columbine High School in Littleton Colorado, killing 13 students and adults. They were amateurs compared with the vindictive scope of the terrorist in Bath, Michigan. So were the young men who shot up the University of Texas, the Virginia Technical University, and the Sandy Hook School.
WHAT NOT TO DO
After the Columbine Massacre, after another large massacre at Virginia Technical University, and on 14 December after the Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre, some people were hardened enough to recommend for the public record that school leaders place more armed people in schools.
The simple people of America must first understand that they will get, in the long view, little if any security from clutching their guns tight and praying to their wooden idols.
Armed schools are, I suppose, a fine idea if one likes educating children in an atmosphere of distrust and prison. We should, however, first understand weapons do not constitute the first and best solution to weapons.
After the massacre, I contemplated my grade school – the Grandview School in Provo, opened for business back in the late 1940s. On Founder's Days, our principals told us students that Grandview was the first post modern one level school built in Utah. The sunny comfortable classrooms had walls of glass and a private door leading outside. This school architecture idea never quite caught on, probably because private doors could let people in as well as out. However, if teachers carefully managed, the doors, they provided more advantages than problems.
In the ideal world, schools should be small and one story. In the real world, we would install the best technologies and the best ideas into schools no matter what the cost. The best ideas and technologies face compromises with what is currently available and how much citizens are willing to spend on them.
CALLING PARENTS TO ACTION
Parents should study their children’s school plan to decide if the building will protect children during an attack — or trap them.
Many schools make a point of announcing that they have an emergency procedure in place whereby leaders will send text messages announcing attacks or emergencies. That plan has definite problems, starting with the fact that only people who read text messages will find it useful. Many teachers insist that students turn off their devices during lectures. Many teachers don’t monitor their devices while teaching. This is how it should be in the classroom.
We must build some safety solutions into school architecture. School leaders can use systems of dropping movable walls, a system of electronic doors that close and lock by signal to isolate dangerous intruders with evil intentions. Furthermore, the time has probably arrived that schools should use security systems that involve large lobbies with double-door entrances on both sides
where the students pass through metal detectors
and students wear magnetized coded badges to activate, open, and close locked security doors.
IN CONCLUSION
For the foreseeable future, this is The Way of the 21st Century. Eventually retina scanning and other identity devices yet invented will make security less intrusive.
We will admit that no plan is foolproof, for the fools are ingenious. However, some school districts do not have a plan or a clue. The key to remember is this: security features do children no good unless we invest in them and build them into school architecture.
BACKGROUND YOU MAY HAVE NOT HAVE HEARD IN SCHOOL HISTORY CLASSES
In 1915, a private school in Peabody Massachusetts caught fire killing no fewer than twenty young women students.
In 1958, Our Lady of the Angels, a large, somewhat-overcrowded multistory Catholic private school in Chicago, caught fire at the height of the school day. 92 children and 3 nuns died in the inferno.
Today, I really cannot remember any school fires in America. This is because after these disasters, superintendents of schools and city planning commissions implemented ideas to make schools safer. Governments put these in place by law.
In March 1937, a large, fairly-new consolidated school in New London, Texas experienced the most horrific school disaster in American history. To be fair to the school board, we will note that the community was rolling in oil revenue wealth and built what was for the time a well-designed school for their children. However, something went wrong in the heating plant. The school used natural gas as its heat fuel in the days when companies did not add the smell to the fuel. Natural gas got loose and filled the crawl space, then filled some of the school. Someone in a shop classroom ignited a spark; the resulting blast reduced the whole school in one second to a pile of kindling. The scale of the misery broke down documentation of this disaster, so the best estimate is 300 children and teachers dead. Because of that accident, the government requires natural gas companies to add a smell to natural gas.
In May 1927, the most infamous terrorist attack on a school occurred at a consolidated school in Bath Township Michigan. A disgruntled citizen unbalanced by unmanageable tax debt, managed to booby-trap the school with dynamite. After the explosion, when crowds gathered at the disaster, the man set off a shrapnel device in his automobile. It killed and maimed even more people, including himself and some of his enemies. 44 children and adults died in that outrage.
In 1999, two heavy-armed students attacked Columbine High School in Littleton Colorado, killing 13 students and adults. They were amateurs compared with the vindictive scope of the terrorist in Bath, Michigan. So were the young men who shot up the University of Texas, the Virginia Technical University, and the Sandy Hook School.
WHAT NOT TO DO
After the Columbine Massacre, after another large massacre at Virginia Technical University, and on 14 December after the Sandy Hook Elementary Massacre, some people were hardened enough to recommend for the public record that school leaders place more armed people in schools.
The simple people of America must first understand that they will get, in the long view, little if any security from clutching their guns tight and praying to their wooden idols.
Armed schools are, I suppose, a fine idea if one likes educating children in an atmosphere of distrust and prison. We should, however, first understand weapons do not constitute the first and best solution to weapons.
After the massacre, I contemplated my grade school – the Grandview School in Provo, opened for business back in the late 1940s. On Founder's Days, our principals told us students that Grandview was the first post modern one level school built in Utah. The sunny comfortable classrooms had walls of glass and a private door leading outside. This school architecture idea never quite caught on, probably because private doors could let people in as well as out. However, if teachers carefully managed, the doors, they provided more advantages than problems.
In the ideal world, schools should be small and one story. In the real world, we would install the best technologies and the best ideas into schools no matter what the cost. The best ideas and technologies face compromises with what is currently available and how much citizens are willing to spend on them.
CALLING PARENTS TO ACTION
Parents should study their children’s school plan to decide if the building will protect children during an attack — or trap them.
Many schools make a point of announcing that they have an emergency procedure in place whereby leaders will send text messages announcing attacks or emergencies. That plan has definite problems, starting with the fact that only people who read text messages will find it useful. Many teachers insist that students turn off their devices during lectures. Many teachers don’t monitor their devices while teaching. This is how it should be in the classroom.
We must build some safety solutions into school architecture. School leaders can use systems of dropping movable walls, a system of electronic doors that close and lock by signal to isolate dangerous intruders with evil intentions. Furthermore, the time has probably arrived that schools should use security systems that involve large lobbies with double-door entrances on both sides
where the students pass through metal detectors
and students wear magnetized coded badges to activate, open, and close locked security doors.
IN CONCLUSION
For the foreseeable future, this is The Way of the 21st Century. Eventually retina scanning and other identity devices yet invented will make security less intrusive.
We will admit that no plan is foolproof, for the fools are ingenious. However, some school districts do not have a plan or a clue. The key to remember is this: security features do children no good unless we invest in them and build them into school architecture.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Message to Republican True Believers: Romney will be President; Ryan will be Vice President
Years ago, Vice President John Nance Garner, who knew from first-hand painful experience, said that the Vice Presidency was not worth a pitcher of fresh urination – or words to that effect. Garner came from Texas; Texans have colorful ways of putting things.
Some things have changed in the vice presidency since Garner left it in 1941 and retired to Uvade, Texas. However, the dog’s body quality remains around the office of the Vice Presidency to this day.
Some things have changed in the vice presidency since Garner left it in 1941 and retired to Uvade, Texas. However, the dog’s body quality remains around the office of the Vice Presidency to this day.
THE VICE PRESIDENCY COULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO A HILL OF BEANS.
Way back in 1896, candidate William McKinley selected for his vice president a Republican party official and New Jersey state legislator by the name of Garret Hobart. Among other things, Hobart is credited with saying “What this country needs is a good five cent cigar.” He got that right: we can make bigger fortunes selling many things for a nickel than a few things for 50 cents. However, to get back on point, McKinley set out to make Vice President Hobart a sort of executive assistant president. Heaven knows what would have happened if Hobart had not suddenly died two years into the experiment. McKinley replaced Hobart in 1900 with the huge ego of Governor Theodore Roosevelt. McKinley died a few months later. Roosevelt became president. When the Great Ego finally got himself a vice president in 1905, he did not want any powerful assistant blocking his limelight. So much for an executive assistant president.
More than a hundred years later . . .
Romney decided to select as his vice president candidate a U S Representative from Wisconsin who had a nationwide reputation for fiscal conservatism of the hardest, coldest order. Paul Ryan of Janesville Wisconsin also had gone on record with plans to reduce the dreaded national fiscal deficit. Among so called Tea Party people (whomever and whatever they are) and among True Blue Conservatives of both fiscal and social varieties, Ryan was The Brilliant Star in the Midwest, The Rising Hope of the Generation.
In the weeks since Romney took Ryan to the mountaintop and showed him the Kingdoms of the World, news programs have broadcast many stories featuring people who now find themselves excited about the Republican ticket. People willingly state for the record they really did not like Romney much or did not agree with him wholeheartedly. Now they will work hard for the ticket.
Their enthusiasm, while admirable in its purity, is completely misplaced.
Romney is the presidential candidate. He is the same man who –
● was the son of a Rockefeller Republican
● labeled in the 1960s as as part of the rising generation of The New Liberal Modernized Mormons
● went from riches to richer
● created his own state health insurance requirement.
The Romney Ego will eventually notice if crowds like his veep candidate better than himself. I seriously doubt it will like it.
Ryan can say what he wants. Will Romney consult him if the voters elect them to highest offices? The Vice Presidency never did evolve into an executive assistant president: it has only a few real constitutional duties from the beginning to now. The Constitution does not specify that the President has to take his vice president seriously in fiscal consultation.
RYAN MISSED HIS CHANCE
Representative Paul Ryan should have held out for a cabinet position in a department with a lot of entitlements. Or he should have held out for director of budget. Then he would have been in a better position to actually put his ideas into effect.
Representative Akin's brilliant career goes bust
That haze on the horizon is the career of Missouri Republican Representative Akin, as it goes up in smoke.
To review: Missouri voters elected Representative Akin, Missouri Republican, as this year’s candidate for Senator hoping to unseat a vulnerable Democrat senator named Claire Conner McCaskill. He made the mistake of saying in public that victims of "legitimate rape" cannot biologically become pregnant and thus do not need access to legal abortions.
This raised a question in the minds of many Missouri voters: should we require a senator candidate to know human biology?
Fire and brimstone fell over Akin’s head. Republican candidates, leaders, and financiers back-peddled to distance themselves from him. They urged [ if not ordered ] him to withdraw. Never mind the fact that he was (yesterday) the darling star of the Missouri Republicans, their Great White Hope. Missouri Republicans have few darling stars available at any given time to take up The Crusade. He is the same person they elected a few weeks ago. What really changed about him exactly? The change came in voters’ perceptions; that is all.
Let this stand as a lesson to us all.
Say something really dumb or really politically incorrect; it corrupts or invalidates your whole person. The assumption, however, is silly. Just because someone says something dumb in one area does not mean that someone is dumb on all subjects and in all respects in all areas.
The Akin Crash does illustrate to what extent some voters obsess over political issues sexual and the extent to which some of them will punish the baby in case of rape. If people want to execute someone as punishment for these acts of violence, it should be the rapist.
To review: Missouri voters elected Representative Akin, Missouri Republican, as this year’s candidate for Senator hoping to unseat a vulnerable Democrat senator named Claire Conner McCaskill. He made the mistake of saying in public that victims of "legitimate rape" cannot biologically become pregnant and thus do not need access to legal abortions.
This raised a question in the minds of many Missouri voters: should we require a senator candidate to know human biology?
Fire and brimstone fell over Akin’s head. Republican candidates, leaders, and financiers back-peddled to distance themselves from him. They urged [ if not ordered ] him to withdraw. Never mind the fact that he was (yesterday) the darling star of the Missouri Republicans, their Great White Hope. Missouri Republicans have few darling stars available at any given time to take up The Crusade. He is the same person they elected a few weeks ago. What really changed about him exactly? The change came in voters’ perceptions; that is all.
Let this stand as a lesson to us all.
Say something really dumb or really politically incorrect; it corrupts or invalidates your whole person. The assumption, however, is silly. Just because someone says something dumb in one area does not mean that someone is dumb on all subjects and in all respects in all areas.
The Akin Crash does illustrate to what extent some voters obsess over political issues sexual and the extent to which some of them will punish the baby in case of rape. If people want to execute someone as punishment for these acts of violence, it should be the rapist.
Friday, August 3, 2012
LINING UP FOR MARRIAGE: an essay discussing real definitions of marriage and family values
On August 1, people lined up for blocks to buy sandwiches at Chick-Fil-A to show solidarity with a company president who publicly defined traditional man-and-wife marriage as a command of God and the best way to go. A few days later, same-gender couples lined up around the restaurants and smoched openly on the kissers.
People find it easy to stand in line to buy sandwiches. Will these people stand in line to vote? Will they write for the record their stand on marriage and family?
Someone I know wrote on Facebook the other day:
“There is real inequality and favoritism taking place with the government choosing who can and can't be married. It isn't fair. And while a lot of religious people take pleasure being "favored" by the government - it's immature. What if tomorrow the government decided to only recognize marriage between homosexuals and void everyone else's? Would you still be happy with the government's ability to favor?
“Everyone gets caught up in fighting the definition of "marriage" when the truth is we need to be caught up in the gross lack of separation between church and state that has taken place. That's what's causing all this mess, and causing my facebook feeds to read like a bipolor teenager (let's just say my Utah and California friends wouldn't get along very well).”
What does a parent say when his favorite son elopes to British Columbia with his sweetheart to get married in a same-sex marriage ceremony? How does he respond to this --
“All Tom and I ever wanted was to get married because we love each other. And if we hurt some people’s feelings, well — that is just too bad. It is their problem, not mine. I married the only man I ever loved and am glad I married the man I loved. It meant a lot to me to marry the person I found most precious, despite the fact that some people thought he was the wrong kind of person for me to marry. Government has no business forcing some people’s religious beliefs over others. I support the right to marry for all – white or black, gay or straight. That is what loving is all about.”
Interesting that in red states in general and in Utah in particular –
When the homosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage, their opponents called it "sin." However, when heterosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage they call it "progressive."
Marriage as political alliance. Dowries. Women treated as property with no rights. Institutional violence between men and women. Polyandry. "la casa grande” for the mistress. “la casa bonita” for the wife. No-fault quickie divorces. Heterosexuals have done the most damage to the concept of marriage over time. Changing the gender ratio is only just the latest step in the devolution of marriage definitions.
Marriage is not a domestic agreement between two people.
Marriage is a covenant between at least four entities
the man
the woman
the culture in which they live
and or
God
and children, who have a vested right to a solid stable extended family.
The central issue in this debate needs to be stated a different way. Children have a right to a legal family relationship. They have a right to two parents, one of the male persuasion, one of the female gender.
Civil governments in general have done a lousy job in protecting and preserving marriage. Traditional orthodox churches, however, have in the main been ineffective, as well. In fairness, though, neither the Old Testament or the New Testament are really clear on the subject of when God considers a couple “married.” The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contains sections that do a clearer, more convincing, job of defining marriages both in the world and in the next sphere.
Marriage is not first and foremost about companionship. People should not confuse marriage with companionship. Marriage is about a stable legal framework to raise children. Eventually most if not all marriages get various people and things attached to them: houses, summer homes, yachts, in-laws, friends, ecclesiastical leaders, accountants, teachers, trainers, and attorneys -- as well as children. If a married couple is not careful, their marriage will evolve into a way of insuring that they get what they do not want.
Marriage was ordained by God. Civil unions were ordained by humans. People in civil unions should have clear rights of inheritance and work benefits for themselves and their partners.
The president’s comments on marriage on 9 May 2012 only shows how little those in authority have thought out the definitions of family life, marriage, and domestic arrangements. Domestic arrangements have a long, sometimes honorable, history in the long evolution of human events.
People find it easy to stand in line to buy sandwiches. Will these people stand in line to vote? Will they write for the record their stand on marriage and family?
Someone I know wrote on Facebook the other day:
“There is real inequality and favoritism taking place with the government choosing who can and can't be married. It isn't fair. And while a lot of religious people take pleasure being "favored" by the government - it's immature. What if tomorrow the government decided to only recognize marriage between homosexuals and void everyone else's? Would you still be happy with the government's ability to favor?
“Everyone gets caught up in fighting the definition of "marriage" when the truth is we need to be caught up in the gross lack of separation between church and state that has taken place. That's what's causing all this mess, and causing my facebook feeds to read like a bipolor teenager (let's just say my Utah and California friends wouldn't get along very well).”
What does a parent say when his favorite son elopes to British Columbia with his sweetheart to get married in a same-sex marriage ceremony? How does he respond to this --
“All Tom and I ever wanted was to get married because we love each other. And if we hurt some people’s feelings, well — that is just too bad. It is their problem, not mine. I married the only man I ever loved and am glad I married the man I loved. It meant a lot to me to marry the person I found most precious, despite the fact that some people thought he was the wrong kind of person for me to marry. Government has no business forcing some people’s religious beliefs over others. I support the right to marry for all – white or black, gay or straight. That is what loving is all about.”
Interesting that in red states in general and in Utah in particular –
When the homosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage, their opponents called it "sin." However, when heterosexuals corrupted the concept of marriage they call it "progressive."
Marriage as political alliance. Dowries. Women treated as property with no rights. Institutional violence between men and women. Polyandry. "la casa grande” for the mistress. “la casa bonita” for the wife. No-fault quickie divorces. Heterosexuals have done the most damage to the concept of marriage over time. Changing the gender ratio is only just the latest step in the devolution of marriage definitions.
Marriage is not a domestic agreement between two people.
Marriage is a covenant between at least four entities
the man
the woman
the culture in which they live
and or
God
and children, who have a vested right to a solid stable extended family.
The central issue in this debate needs to be stated a different way. Children have a right to a legal family relationship. They have a right to two parents, one of the male persuasion, one of the female gender.
Civil governments in general have done a lousy job in protecting and preserving marriage. Traditional orthodox churches, however, have in the main been ineffective, as well. In fairness, though, neither the Old Testament or the New Testament are really clear on the subject of when God considers a couple “married.” The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contains sections that do a clearer, more convincing, job of defining marriages both in the world and in the next sphere.
Marriage is not first and foremost about companionship. People should not confuse marriage with companionship. Marriage is about a stable legal framework to raise children. Eventually most if not all marriages get various people and things attached to them: houses, summer homes, yachts, in-laws, friends, ecclesiastical leaders, accountants, teachers, trainers, and attorneys -- as well as children. If a married couple is not careful, their marriage will evolve into a way of insuring that they get what they do not want.
Marriage was ordained by God. Civil unions were ordained by humans. People in civil unions should have clear rights of inheritance and work benefits for themselves and their partners.
The president’s comments on marriage on 9 May 2012 only shows how little those in authority have thought out the definitions of family life, marriage, and domestic arrangements. Domestic arrangements have a long, sometimes honorable, history in the long evolution of human events.
THE CALL TO ACTION
In the meantime, red-state, traditional family values political activities will insist on chicken sandwich lunches and blue-state progressive family values political activities will insist on Swedish meatballs or Greek salads for lunch. Lunch will not have much fun in it. We will accomplish very little in the way of getting strong solid families for children.
In the meantime, red-state, traditional family values political activities will insist on chicken sandwich lunches and blue-state progressive family values political activities will insist on Swedish meatballs or Greek salads for lunch. Lunch will not have much fun in it. We will accomplish very little in the way of getting strong solid families for children.
Friday, July 20, 2012
DARK KNIGHT RISING MASSACRE: CONTEMPLATING THE SECOND AMENDMENT
INTRODUCTION RATIONALE
The mass killing outrage at the Aurora Colorado cineplex brings to mind all sorts of bad memories associated with another mass murder incident which took place in the Columbine public high school in Littleton, Colorado, back in 1999.
It should be noted clearly that in both cases, people willingly sold weapons to these unbalanced – maybe crazy – individuals.
The ironies of the Aurora atrocity compound before our eyes. A bunch of citizens come together at a cineplex at midnight to watch a famously violent movie in which people (one character in particular) die. Instead dozens of them become the victim of a violent person. It will be interesting to see if Dark Knight Rising gets associated in history with this event the way Manhattan Melodrama still brings to mind that authorities killed Dillinger as he left a showing of that Gable-Loy-Powell romantic drama.
In the wake of this outrage, certain Utah leaders talk about increasing gun availability and concealed weapons permitting. What a pretty picture of civility that paints.
It does not seem to occur to any of them to promote the use and research-improvement of non-lethal weaponry. I suspect their fascination with guns must have something to do with the sexiness or violence of them.
BACKGROUND
The Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of a community to create militias. Militias fell out of favor in favor of professional militaries rather early on. It is ironic that Constitutional purists use this amendment in modern times to guarantee a person’s right to own as many deadly weapons as he or she wants, when this was not the original meaning at all.
The Second Amendment guarantees the exercise of power and dominion in militias.
The Amendment barely made sense in the 1790s when police forces did not exist, and many citizens lived in isolation or small villages. In those days the weapons were primitive. One had to load the powder, then the shot, and maybe the weapon would fire correctly and maybe hit someone if one was a good shot under pressure. And maybe not.
In 2012, The Second Amendment guarantees the right of a citizen to stop a person from shedding the citizen’s blood by giving the citizen the means to kill or disable the person. Instead of the person bearing responsibility for shedding the citizen’s blood, the citizen gets to take responsibility for killing the person. This really does not open up much by way of a choice.
Now the military industrial complex builds bigger, more sophisticated, and deadly weapons. One person can do a lot of mayhem without much effort. Unfortunately, many merchants happily sell automatic weapons to just anyone who has the money. Thus the atrocity that occurred in the Tucson Safeway parking lot is not one of those things that just happens. There are cause and effects; there are reasons why.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. English common law addressed that topic back in 1791.
The Second Amendment is not about self defense. The Old Testament guaranteed that. English common law covered that as well. We should not rely on the Hebrew Covenant and English common law for this particular point of law.
As a result, gun enthusiasts hang their rights on an amendment that has nothing relevant about twenty-first century conditions.
THE CALL TO ACTION
1 Both the Utah Legislature and Congress should encourage research-improvement on non-lethal weaponry.
2 Congress and The States really should replace the outdated Second Amendment with two new amendments.
One should address the limits of American military power. It should limit soldiers’ minimum ages to 19 (preferably 20). It should ban conscription.
The other should guarantee the right of citizens to self defense with non-lethal weaponry.
3 State and federal laws should require gun owners to buy insurance for their guns. The gun owners – not the governments -- should pay for cleaning up messes caused by misuse of guns.
Federal and local law should require people who want to buy guns and/or concealed weapons to submit four notarized affidavits. Those documents should specifically endorse, for the public record, prospective gun owners as law-abiding, mentally, emotionally, physically competent to own and use a gun. Government should charge people with perjury if they lie. All four documents need to agree on the particulars.
I would like Romney and Hatch and Herbert state for the record How long will Republican Constitutional conservatives misuse an amendment that guaranteed civic militias to justify and guarantee mayhem
The mass killing outrage at the Aurora Colorado cineplex brings to mind all sorts of bad memories associated with another mass murder incident which took place in the Columbine public high school in Littleton, Colorado, back in 1999.
It should be noted clearly that in both cases, people willingly sold weapons to these unbalanced – maybe crazy – individuals.
The ironies of the Aurora atrocity compound before our eyes. A bunch of citizens come together at a cineplex at midnight to watch a famously violent movie in which people (one character in particular) die. Instead dozens of them become the victim of a violent person. It will be interesting to see if Dark Knight Rising gets associated in history with this event the way Manhattan Melodrama still brings to mind that authorities killed Dillinger as he left a showing of that Gable-Loy-Powell romantic drama.
In the wake of this outrage, certain Utah leaders talk about increasing gun availability and concealed weapons permitting. What a pretty picture of civility that paints.
It does not seem to occur to any of them to promote the use and research-improvement of non-lethal weaponry. I suspect their fascination with guns must have something to do with the sexiness or violence of them.
BACKGROUND
The Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of a community to create militias. Militias fell out of favor in favor of professional militaries rather early on. It is ironic that Constitutional purists use this amendment in modern times to guarantee a person’s right to own as many deadly weapons as he or she wants, when this was not the original meaning at all.
The Second Amendment guarantees the exercise of power and dominion in militias.
The Amendment barely made sense in the 1790s when police forces did not exist, and many citizens lived in isolation or small villages. In those days the weapons were primitive. One had to load the powder, then the shot, and maybe the weapon would fire correctly and maybe hit someone if one was a good shot under pressure. And maybe not.
In 2012, The Second Amendment guarantees the right of a citizen to stop a person from shedding the citizen’s blood by giving the citizen the means to kill or disable the person. Instead of the person bearing responsibility for shedding the citizen’s blood, the citizen gets to take responsibility for killing the person. This really does not open up much by way of a choice.
Now the military industrial complex builds bigger, more sophisticated, and deadly weapons. One person can do a lot of mayhem without much effort. Unfortunately, many merchants happily sell automatic weapons to just anyone who has the money. Thus the atrocity that occurred in the Tucson Safeway parking lot is not one of those things that just happens. There are cause and effects; there are reasons why.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. English common law addressed that topic back in 1791.
The Second Amendment is not about self defense. The Old Testament guaranteed that. English common law covered that as well. We should not rely on the Hebrew Covenant and English common law for this particular point of law.
As a result, gun enthusiasts hang their rights on an amendment that has nothing relevant about twenty-first century conditions.
THE CALL TO ACTION
1 Both the Utah Legislature and Congress should encourage research-improvement on non-lethal weaponry.
2 Congress and The States really should replace the outdated Second Amendment with two new amendments.
One should address the limits of American military power. It should limit soldiers’ minimum ages to 19 (preferably 20). It should ban conscription.
The other should guarantee the right of citizens to self defense with non-lethal weaponry.
3 State and federal laws should require gun owners to buy insurance for their guns. The gun owners – not the governments -- should pay for cleaning up messes caused by misuse of guns.
Federal and local law should require people who want to buy guns and/or concealed weapons to submit four notarized affidavits. Those documents should specifically endorse, for the public record, prospective gun owners as law-abiding, mentally, emotionally, physically competent to own and use a gun. Government should charge people with perjury if they lie. All four documents need to agree on the particulars.
I would like Romney and Hatch and Herbert state for the record How long will Republican Constitutional conservatives misuse an amendment that guaranteed civic militias to justify and guarantee mayhem
Thursday, June 28, 2012
OBAMACARE > ROMNEYCARE > HEALTH CARE > HEALTH
The John Roberts Supreme Court today upheld the Affordable Health Care Act – and by conservative estimate, this is the most important supreme court ruling since that day in 1973 the Burger Court discovered the right to privacy for women and took away the right to life for unborn babies. It really may be the biggest ruling since that day the Taney Court ruled that Dred Scott was not a person. In today’s ruling, the Act is declared constitutional. However, the 5 justices justified it as taxation, not commerce.
Taxation always brings out the hypocrisy in both America’s citizens and America’s Congress. Everyone has a favorite federal program; everyone has a favorite entitlement. Everyone wants that program and entitlement funded to the max — but with someone else’s tax money.
Just a few days ago in Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch won a primary election by exploiting that very cultural hypocrisy. He won the election by, in essence, flattering Utah voters into believing he will use his massive seniority in the Senate Finance Committee and his basic fiscal conservative principles to slash federal spending and federal taxation – while preserving federal programs important to Utah’s jobs. This not only illustrates taxation hypocrisy, it may be this week’s best working definition of “federal pork” : Excessive federal spending in someone else’s state.
MEANWHILE ON CONSTITUTION AVENUE
Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate presumptive, decried the Supreme Court decision and promised to repeal it. It is a tall order; we will see if he is up to the task.
First, the Electoral College has to elect him.
Next, the American voters need to elect Republican majorities to the Senate and the House. And the voters can be fickle creatures. Do more of them want Affordable Health Care? Or the status quo where only people with money can get access to health.
We should hope that Romney does not exploit divisive tactics simply to appeal to the bitter devils of his countrymen’s natures as the negative method to win election. Anti-Obamacare – like anti-Communism of the 1960s – mixes fear, jealousy, and intense emotional displays and rhetoric all for a theatrical quasi-patriotic effect.
Romney, however, really needs a positive plan to replace Obamacare. He cannot just take a negative stance. He’d be the one to develop a plan: as an executive he made plans; as governor of Massachusetts, he created his own state insurance mandate.
IN FOCUS
Some people like to say that The American Health Care System is rather like a glass half full of possibilities for those with the funding. Other people like to say The American Health Care System is rather like a glass half empty for those without status or money. I think The American Health Care System has the wrong glass.
A problem in the whole Health Care debate is that people and leaders generally across the nation ignore “Health.” Health always seems to get lost amid the bickering and posturing over Insurance and Taxation.
What is health? How do we get it? How do we maintain it? How do we preserve it in old age? What things in American culture and American cuisine make us unhealthy? What can the governments do to promote health instead of just funding care for sickness?
THE CALL TO ACTION:
Romney could lead a national discussion on American health and make proposals as to how governments can encourage a healthy American life. This will not be easy. Americans, as a generalization, want to live as heathens but still stay healthy. If that does not happen, what with causes and effects, they want complete funding to repair their damages to their health. Neither expectations are reasonable in a 21st Century of tight budgets and scarce resources. We should promote health fire, health care systems next.
Taxation always brings out the hypocrisy in both America’s citizens and America’s Congress. Everyone has a favorite federal program; everyone has a favorite entitlement. Everyone wants that program and entitlement funded to the max — but with someone else’s tax money.
Just a few days ago in Utah, Senator Orrin Hatch won a primary election by exploiting that very cultural hypocrisy. He won the election by, in essence, flattering Utah voters into believing he will use his massive seniority in the Senate Finance Committee and his basic fiscal conservative principles to slash federal spending and federal taxation – while preserving federal programs important to Utah’s jobs. This not only illustrates taxation hypocrisy, it may be this week’s best working definition of “federal pork” : Excessive federal spending in someone else’s state.
MEANWHILE ON CONSTITUTION AVENUE
Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate presumptive, decried the Supreme Court decision and promised to repeal it. It is a tall order; we will see if he is up to the task.
First, the Electoral College has to elect him.
Next, the American voters need to elect Republican majorities to the Senate and the House. And the voters can be fickle creatures. Do more of them want Affordable Health Care? Or the status quo where only people with money can get access to health.
We should hope that Romney does not exploit divisive tactics simply to appeal to the bitter devils of his countrymen’s natures as the negative method to win election. Anti-Obamacare – like anti-Communism of the 1960s – mixes fear, jealousy, and intense emotional displays and rhetoric all for a theatrical quasi-patriotic effect.
Romney, however, really needs a positive plan to replace Obamacare. He cannot just take a negative stance. He’d be the one to develop a plan: as an executive he made plans; as governor of Massachusetts, he created his own state insurance mandate.
IN FOCUS
Some people like to say that The American Health Care System is rather like a glass half full of possibilities for those with the funding. Other people like to say The American Health Care System is rather like a glass half empty for those without status or money. I think The American Health Care System has the wrong glass.
A problem in the whole Health Care debate is that people and leaders generally across the nation ignore “Health.” Health always seems to get lost amid the bickering and posturing over Insurance and Taxation.
What is health? How do we get it? How do we maintain it? How do we preserve it in old age? What things in American culture and American cuisine make us unhealthy? What can the governments do to promote health instead of just funding care for sickness?
THE CALL TO ACTION:
Romney could lead a national discussion on American health and make proposals as to how governments can encourage a healthy American life. This will not be easy. Americans, as a generalization, want to live as heathens but still stay healthy. If that does not happen, what with causes and effects, they want complete funding to repair their damages to their health. Neither expectations are reasonable in a 21st Century of tight budgets and scarce resources. We should promote health fire, health care systems next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
