Impediments versus Inevitabilities

Are most conservatives Christians? Because many of them say that they are. I am not naïve in thinking all – what’s the number everyone is throwing around, 11 million – of the illegal immigrants in this country want to do right by others in seeking immigration. But, I do believe many if not a great many of them wish to. First off, people from both sides need to stop speaking of immigrants synonymously with Central or South Americans. Immigrants come from all over. When you consider in certain countries teenage girls having to move hours away from their families, from villages, to a factory in a big city so that they could make peanuts working twelve-hour-plus days, live in a veritable closet upstairs from the factory-floor, get minuscule breaks, and even go as far as having a supervisor close-pin their eyelids to their eyebrows so that they don’t fall asleep while stitching hems on jeans that we end up buying for $27, why would they want to readily escape this for a better life in some first-world haven? Granting asylum to everyone just as putting all immigrants currently here illegally on a line of buses that would comprise of most of California’s coast is not the answer if we are going to base the seekers upon amoral policies, or obviously if they themselves are amoral.

And when it comes to expressing religious perspective, the views of the Jeneane Garofalo’s on the left and the Phil Robertson’s on the right both piss me off. If you do right by yourself, and others, whether your morality stems from God, or not, it’s all good. This, for now, is the one and only right thing to believe.

It is perfectly valid for anyone to express any view, but it is not accurate to say when we speak about religion in this country, as well as abroad, that we are speaking in terms of moral relativism. Quite simply, rather, it is a fear from moral cohesion. …I read the Bible. A LOT of crazy stuff going on in the Old Testament (difficult to get through, in fact), which of course led to among other laws the creation of the fifteen – oy – ten! commandments. Just as many so-called Christians should not ignore a whole section between the Old Testament and the book of Revelations, they simply cannot cherry-pick what to believe in as good for business. Why aren’t there more chains like Hobby Lobby who remain closed on Sundays in recognition of Exodus 35:2, or who fight like they had and won to legally disallow providing birth control in their health care plans in interpretation of Exodus 20:13 (or, Exodus 23:7, Leviticus 24:17, and so forth)? Because, those other organizations choose to remain morally flexible.

Regardless, there is no apocalypse. We are not heading back to those pre-Ten Commandments days, because we all live according to the laws of a democracy. Freedom of religion certainly includes freedom from religion. Yet this all goes beyond so-called Christians ignoring the teachings of Christ. The governor of Indiana is now getting the hint on this, for instance, though naturally he also blames ‘the media’ in a flimsy attempt to safeguard his political aspirations. He actually signed into law what the governor of Arizona vetoed, and is also being tossed around in other states. I never heard of conversion therapy until just the other day, which several states legally allow therapists to practice. But whether it is a legal form of child abuse, discrimination, or murder like the wacko-lawyer in California is looking to propose indiscriminately against gays in that state, there is a simple solution here. Has any legal authority in the history of this country put to death someone for wearing a garment made of two different threads; a homeowner for planting a vegetable and a fruit side by side in their garden; for working on the day of the Sabbath? Either be willing to re-introduce these things because the Bible says so or stop discriminating against LGBTs.

Homophobia, at the bare minimum, is fundamentally not a bad thing to fess up to. So many kids these days have gay parents. Therefore, like all social phobias based on skin-color, gender, as well as religion and sexual orientation, they are all easily, fundamentally defined as just a lack of familiarization with someone different than you.

When it comes to seemingly every issue in this country, we live in a moral haze. It is making me cray. I cannot blame the mainstream-media for being shallow, when you consider the source of both candidates and incumbents who ‘debate’ for public office treating us like children. So, we go on laughing and crying in a nation afraid to debate actual ideas. With short attention-spans, we largely prefer to live moment-to-moment; prefer not wanting to upset advertisers, campaign-donors, whom we work for, or the general fear of becoming unjustly discriminated against in our delicate communities. We largely tend to keep shallowly entrenched in our extremes, with little regard towards a middle ground, as it becomes increasingly more difficultly and crazily about money over morals. I cannot help but not believe in this.

Money Talks, and where does ‘the Right Thing’ Walk?

I don’t agree with the headline that he ‘rips McConnell a new one’: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/02/20/obama-trashes-mcconnell/

…I wonder, when it comes to the issue of fiscal irresponsibility if Democrats and Republicans on the ground are mad at the same thing, but just choose to label it differently.  The labeling is of course a result of disinformation and misinformation, from the right-wing, to which I wish The White House and/or Democrats in Congress would put together some sort of widely publicized, ‘round-the-clock or just a daily effort to more concertedly, transparently inform the public regarding what they are actually trying to do for the middle-class.  Let me just clarify that our economic progress has been a credit to those beneath and between all of the ballyhoo from above, but it could have been improving at a faster pace.  And, I suppose this may still answer the question behind “genuine ideas”, as mentioned in here speech.  But I still wonder if both sides agree we are living in a corporatocracy (or, plutocracy), and both sides blame the government for allowing corporate money to continue to do its damage, and thus just label who is right and wrong differently.  The lack of civilized conversation between red and blue states of mind still foster this stitched-in-Cambodia blanket of runaway greed.

The GOP, in their continued attempts to label themselves as the GNP, are simply still a long ways worthy of our trust, in both message and spirit.  ‘How many more election losses is it going to take?’, can safely be the new Democratic campaign slogan.  We cannot have all-out Social Darwinism if, for one, many on the right still insist on living in the 1950s as far as many a social value.  As former Speaker of the House during Reagan’s tenure, Tip O’Neill said it, their economic policy is all theory and no practice.  It sounds lovely and just, all in the name of liberty.  In theory, we can all individually push to create our own opportunity, and create communities in order to foster any and all various fields of opportunity, without the help of ‘big’ government.  Everyone can do the right thing for one another, and compete fairly against one another, in theory.  But you gotta somehow share the wealth.  (And, for any who want to label this as preaching socialism, bear in mind of course how any ‘ism’ can work just fine so long as it is not corrupt.)

Black and Blue, All Over

In the early 1950s, President Eisenhower needed to nominate a new Chief Justice.  His attention ultimately centered on the three-term governor of California, Earl Warren. Warren, the more conservative Eisenhower felt, on paper, like a political moderate, and was enthused the two would relate.

However, as David Halberstam put it in one of my favorite books, The Fifties: “If Dwight Eisenhower had decided from Earl Warren’s record that the two of them shared similar attitudes and values, then he was wrong. They could not have been more different. They might have come from similar backgrounds, but Eisenhower had long ago removed himself from the complexities of contemporary American life by going off to the military; there he was largely isolated from the changes in the society.”

I loved this insight when I first read it.  One of my closest friends for almost thirty years has been a Marine now for about twenty-five of them.  And reading that paragraph instantly reminded me of the many rifts between civilians and many of his military friends and peers when we often hung out.

I can’t speak for them but I nor my friend were ever easily accepting of such rifts.  Marines can adapt a very clique-ish, walk-on-water attitude when out and about among civilians (and not to mention, among other branches in the military).  Such instances paid towards myself, I would quietly resent how all they pretty much had to do was sign their names on a dotted line and obtain an instant career — along with obtain future benefits like free travel and a free college education.

As an artist, I have always felt among the lowest scrapping along the opportunity totem-pole, with an ego just as big but an even bigger — that is, recognizable — inferiority complex.  So, in this sense, I know what it is like to feel shunned.  But, unlike regular folk, the common fear/point of view military and law enforcement people are trained for and more accustomed to is the enormous, practical responsibility of having to think in terms of enforcing general safety, every day.

However, it has become very easy to sense how this social disconnect has now drastically widened as police forces in unheard-of small towns and cities across America have become inexplicably militarized — courtesy of hand-me-down equipment like tanks and grenade-launchers, from our most recent wars.  Having been at war for now over thirteen years, we as a nation have certainly become very accustomed to it.  And these weapons have certainly handed down a tangible, offensive sense of amoral over-dramatization — and, overcompensated imagination — to tellingly drama-free areas.  I mean, there are reasons, say, here in upstate New York one can only see ‘Repeal the SAFE Act’ signs out on cricket-laden suburban and rural lawns — largely populated by whites — and only ‘Stop the violence’ signs posted around poor, inner-city neighborhoods — largely populated by minorities.

Meanwhile, and by absolutely no means to underscore, the real ‘thieves’ — the lobbying powers anchoring the revenue of guns, et al — continue to go about business as usual.

 

In the immediate aftermath of his death Eric Garner’s widow and daughter both expressed believing race had nothing to do with it.  A very wise declaration — as wisdom is yet again stubbornly lacking on both sides of this matter.  For one, saying this of course downplays any a potential riot that could spring at any time, any place, and under any circumstance, under their family name.  And on the flip-side, we can all see how difficult it can be to reasonably rule out race as a factor, in the abstract, upon gathering the facts from one such incident to the next.

We’ve all seen the video and read the key components about the Eric Garner incident:
– Why go to such great lengths to arrest a man for selling tax-free cigarettes?
– The local police had a history of verbally harassing Garner, over this, according to both what he kept saying in the video and in later accounts from his family.
– The two officers questioning him initially appeared as calm as can be.  It was in broad daylight, and there was no chase to get their adrenaline revved up.

And so when they finally motioned to make an arrest Garner backed up a little, held his hands back, and up, insisting, “Please, do not touch me.”  Then the one officer from behind slipped a choke-hold on him.  (Now, if one sustains an object while applying some type of force this can be referred to as a ‘hold’.  And if such a hold happens to be an arm wrapped around a person’s throat, then this can literally be referred to as a ‘choke-hold’ — which is illegal in the NYPD.)

At no point was Garner physically resisting arrest, even after he was pulled face-down, head pinned against the pavement, repeatedly heard pleading, “I can’t breathe”, while several officers now jumped in, and at some point as a result of all this, dying.

This is a very clear case of police-misconduct.

Trayvon Martin: in one particular defense of George Zimmerman’s character, he was among the few protesting a police beating of a black homeless man, Sherman Ware, in 2010.  By all accounts, it seems reasonable to assess that Mr. Zimmerman simply should not have created his own ‘Ground’ […sigh] by getting out of his out of his car, as a result of, well, manifested boredom.

Michael Brown was an upsetting result of differing eyewitness accounts.  But, later, in nearby Berkeley, Missouri, was a clear case of an actual armed [black] man having pulled his gun on a [white] police officer and the officer justifiably engaging in self-defense.  And in between, we have this interesting, recent post by a retired St. Louis police officer.

Tamir Rice is an extraordinary case of incompetence, immaturity, poor training and conditioning.  I mean, of course with complete respect to Tamir’s family, but this fool of an officer must have gone to the Reno 911 academy.

Akai Gurley is yet another clear case of lack of common sense.  If officers — in this case, an Asian-American officer — are ordered to patrol a housing project of poor residents, very late at night, as a result of some recent homicides, but there is no lighting in the building, then YOU CANNOT PATROL WHAT YOU CANNOT SEE!

Jerome Reid: despite being very loudly, clearly, and repeatedly warned not to move, with a gun pointed at his face, he started to step out of his car with his hands raised about shoulder level.  The officers then opened fire, killing him.  Reid and the man driving the car were black.  The Bridgeton officer who spotted the gun, Braheme Days, is black; his partner, white.  Reid had spent about 13 years in prison for shooting at three state troopers when he was a teenager, and officer Days knew who he was.  Days was among the arresting officers last year when Reid was charged with several crimes, including drug possession and obstruction.  Both officers have been placed on leave while prosecutors investigate.

Since the Rodney King travesty, in spite of the LAPD’s decision to undergo sensitivity training as they continue to largely, successfully conduct community outreach, there was the recent case of a California officer pummeling a homeless, black great-grandmother alongside a highway.  This did end up with a $1.5 million settlement in her favor.

 

There are countless scripts, even in our recent history.  Take the Central Park Five case from the not-too-long-ago 1980s: five black teens with five different, video-recorded confessions, charged with the rape of a white, female jogger, one night, in Central Park.  With each different video-confession presented in front of the jury, each of the five were still convicted of the same crime.  Or, personally, the stunning dozen or so instances my one friend rattled off in one conversation of being pulled over for DWB.  I never knew it was illegal, for one, to have something like an air-freshener hang from your rearview-mirror.  I suppose, because I never ‘fit the description’.  The perennially high percentage of mistrust minorities have towards law enforcement in cities and towns throughout the country reflects the high percentage who have a decreased confidence in our legal system.

In Malcolm Gladwell’s book, blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, there is a chapter towards the end entitled, “Seven Seconds in the Bronx”.  This chapter I strongly urge reading for the sake of here conversation.  It extensively deconstructs — and proposes ideas and solutions, analyzed and practiced, among some local police forces — details surrounding the Amadou Diallo shooting.

The four officers in this famous case made a string of instinctively shallow and profoundly regrettable decisions: no real second-guessing of the subtly influential elements surrounding them, and very little precaution taken to better ensure self-defense.

Towards the end of the chapter is a quote by a psychologist, Keith Payne, that pretty well sums up everything here: “When we make a split-second decision we are really vulnerable to being guided by our stereotypes and prejudices, even ones we may not necessarily endorse or believe [my italics].”  The word ‘prejudice’ of course never automatically refers to racial-prejudice, but you can see how race can still be considered a factor, both directly and indirectly, in every case involving a law enforcement official shooting a usually poor, black civilian.

 

We are all very busy people, continuing to go about our daily lives business as usual.  And this does not forgive how easily sensationalized we can be from being more generally bored than we would care to admit.  And, so long as we are here, journalistic leads ought to exclude mentioning race in their initial reporting of these instances until more of the facts are gathered.

 

One of the first Supreme Court cases Chief Justice Warren presided over was Brown v. Board of Education.  He sought amongst his associates a clear, unanimous 9-0 decision (unheard of in today’s Court) in favor of desegregation as a means to signal at least a legal balance between liberals and conservatives alike. Naturally, a more conservative justice wanted to write his own concurring opinion and another continued to hold out at 8-1.  But, by May of 1954, the unanimous decision was reached.

This decision was long deliberated over, as a result of being very long overdue.  For later in life, a few years since retired now, Warren would be brought to tears when asked during an interview about his decision as California governor to intern 110,000 Japanese-American citizens living in the state, during WWII.  As a strong advocate throughout his career for young Americans to have a decent education, and to be treated with equity and respect, fear and misunderstanding obviously overtook reason at this point in time.  Oh, the inestimable power of conformity, and the difficulty — if ever — to think for oneself in the face of it.

The Toothpick is Mightier Than the Sacrificed Lamb

Wow. This past Thursday, the Arizona state legislature passed a law which awaited the signature or veto of the governor on whether to permit businesses to refuse service to gays based on “religious principles”. The legislation was placed on the governor’s desk, on Monday, upon which she has until this coming Saturday to decide whether to sign or veto. Arizona’s U.S. senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, both urged the governor to veto. Apple began back-peddling their plans to build a plant in the state. The Super Bowl was threatening to leave (just like they did about fifteen years ago when the state did not want to recognize MLK Day, and the state, then, reportedly lost hundreds of millions in revenue).

But, as the tide of protest continued to get bigger and bigger, thank goodness the governor did not for any reason wait until the weekend to decide to veto.

Since most politicians rather willfully shy away from educating, before simply cutting to the heart of the tedious, Leviticus 18:22/Old Testament debate debunking the “religious principles” claim, given how cynically nutty this particular piece of legislation was, we ought to first air out a few civil liberty quandaries (when legislation like this will come up, again)…

For one: how would one know if a potential customer is gay?! How awkward would it be if a teenager, out with his parents, is refused service by an unwise proprietor despite not yet coming out? …I would love to stop at any a gas station in the state and reply, ‘Hey, biologists and anthropologists say that the vast majority of us heterosexuals are to some extent bisexual. This includes you, Dwight. So, $25 on 2.’

How perverse is it to leave it up to the law to decide what is ‘burdensome’ to the business person’s religious beliefs? Would gay residents of Arizona ultimately have to be registered to wear a yellow (or, pink) star, like the Jews had to wear in concentration camps, to be ensured potential discrimination from business? If a general physician became known for refusing gay patients, one could go in for a prostate exam and then share when it is over, “By the way, doc, I’m gay, and you just had your hand up my ass!”

Arizona is one of five states that allows its general public a no license or permit (or, “Unrestricted”) concealed/carry handgun policy, as well as upholding a Stand Your Ground/Castle Doctrine which extends coverage to any place in the state where a person has a right to be. So, if discriminated against (or, not), where deadly force is threatened (or, not), said person could shoot the discriminator and legally claim self-defense. It seems like interpreting public policy in Arizona is a bit like knowing how to play poker… or, Russian-roulette. Long live the wild west.

The argument from those who support this legislation is that businesses would simply, legally be protected to “politely” refuse transacting with presumed gays. It is perfectly astonishing, even more so now in the Information Age, how a conformed brainwashing can lend to an inability to see the discriminatory element (let alone, overlook the separation of church of state factor, which a] separates us from the countries we choose to continue to coldly and hotly war against, and b] hypocritically smacks the idea of less federal government in the forehead).

People might look at religious/social conservatives and say or think something to the effect of, ‘You can never change them.’ Wrong. Facts open people’s eyes. They do mine.

As for the “religious principle”, it has been proven that children who have gay parents become so acclimated to the normalcy of living among gays and gay couples, they therefore do not grow up discriminating against gays. Or, to put it as one sign at a not-too-long-ago same-sex rally, proudly, and rightly, said: “Jesus had two daddies!” I would see gay couples at the Catholic church I used to regularly attend and feel a profound sense of relief.

Intellectually, as well as sociologically, just about everyone alive now in the U.S. has been acclimated to both having come to reject as well as accept several passages/ideas written in the Old Testament. We accept the biggies, like not murdering, stealing, et cetera, while rejecting planting two different crops side by side or wearing a garment made from two different threads as being punishable by death. One of the very ten commandments dictates Christians should not work on the day of the Sabbath. Multiply roughly 50 Sundays per year times the 26 years I have been legally working, and I and others ought to be worried about being stoned to death. We can safely agree there are actual, deeper and darker, hierarchical sins going amorally unfrisked and unacknowledged in our current day.

In a nutshell, refusing equal rights for gays just because it is written in the Bible – or otherwise referred to as ‘religious principles’ – is simply means to hide behind one’s homophobia.

A Meaningful Discussion: A Left-to-Center Understanding of Guns in America

The gun-violence/control debate could be less complicated to discuss, overall, if it were not so undeniably interconnected with other big issues like education, the economy, healthcare, racism, immigration, the drug war, campaign-finance reform, to name a few. One thing is for certain, this discussion makes those pertaining to our ongoing fiscal controversies appear, well, shallow.

The history of our ‘dueling’ nature…young men in abject poverty conforming to gangs and/or desperation…our retro-ideological, inarticulately overlapping, time-and-patience-evaporating, posturing, and overreaching arguments towards responsibly revitalizing economic opportunity in this country…films, music, and video games sensationalizing violence…and a thus far extraordinarily understated re-emphasis on secured storage of firearms in the home, among the key mental health aspects largely, exclusively surrounding the recent rash of shooting rampages can keep law-abiding folks on both sides of the issue awake nights. But, whenever the national discussion is impelled by a horrible gun-incident the conversation reverts to default polemics, politicians prefer to altogether avoid the issue, and/or the whole conversation proceeds nowhere. Obviously, things need improving, just as ambition should be made of sterner stuff.

Every reasonable, responsible, law-abiding gun-owning and non-gun-owning citizen has the same goal: how to reasonably keep ourselves, as individuals, safer from violence. For, now—although, marginally—I am grateful more have decided to contribute to what is being dubbed along both sides of the aisle as ‘meaningful discussion’ […or, ‘action’, ‘conversation’] to de-escalate future scores of gun-violence.

 

According to the Center of Disease Control and Prevention, since 1968, over 1,384,000 Americans have died from firearms. 1,309,000-plus Americans have died over our whole history of combat (http://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.asp). Almost the same amount of Americans have died from firearms, than in wars, in about one-fifth the time. A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun-murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined. Studies suggest that about 80% of gun-crimes in the U.S. are committed from guns which were acquired without any federal monitoring. …The preferred weapon of choice in mass-shootings (62 in the U.S. in the last 30 years; 7 in 2012, alone) is either the semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity detachable magazine or a semi-automatic handgun, in the hands of the mentally unstable, which points again to the controversy of whether to seek to ban ‘military-designed’ firearms and high-capacity magazines as beyond that of a mental-health matter.

Since the ratification of the 2nd amendment, revolt and revolution had not only been stirring here but as well as in Europe, leading to our Revolutionary War, our 2nd Revolutionary War (of 1812), ‘manifest destiny’ and the Mexican-American War, and the Civil War. After WWII and the Korean War—and for that matter, on into Vietnam and the Persian Gulf—we made the decision to globally extend our interests. In the early to mid-fifties, we assisted in the overthrow of Iran, followed by Guatemala, followed by an embarrassingly unsuccessful attempt in Cuba, in 1961, and followed by what a considerably high percentage of polled Americans imagine (though I strongly hope against) to be a successful overthrow of our own, in 1963… Throw in our most recent double-whammy in both Iraq (despite the WMDs being in North Korea), and Afghanistan—where things are as yet stabilized, drone-might is not necessarily making right, and after hundreds of billions of dollars al Qaeda is spreading across North Africa, entering Syria, as well as maintaining in Pakistan. All the while, European countries’ economies are getting thinner. Department of Justice indictments against the big bankers responsible for the lending-crisis: 0. According to the D.o.J.’s assistant attorney general, Lanny Breuer, as to whether there was enough criminal intent to prove massive fraud in the selling of and investing in outrageously bad mortgages to the public, there is still “reasonable doubt”. (And as there always seems to be a moreover in cases like this—and not to mention, separate cases involving the big banks, UBS and HSBC—in a somewhat recent speech before the New York Bar Association Breuer made reference to “losing sleep at night over worrying about what a lawsuit might result in at a large financial institution”?) What does it matter how wealthy some people get, what kind of military do you expect to have leftover to defend you and us?

So, given our exploits, and what we are still very capable of, we are not very far beyond our covetous and aggressive nature. Might it very well be far from ironic or impractical, then, to assuage citizens from believing they should one day go without being able to purchase—albeit, hopefully, more carefully and universally monitored—semi-automatic firearms for the purpose of home-protection, as a means to (goodness forbid) defend against a threat of tyranny? Perhaps this particular notion may not entirely stem from a powerful lobby’s ever-fluctuating, bottom-line, after all (even though only around 4% of the nation’s licensed gun-owners are members of the N.R.A.).

Why do some of us voters, every two to four years, campaign and argue vigilantly on behalf of those seeking to best represent our ideals and values—at times going against our better judgment in legitimately scrutinizing their sincerity and ambition, or not so much voting for one person but against the other—while much of our past still has a great deal to atone for?

I think about my nieces and nephews, that little girl at the elementary school with 10 or 11 bullets in her, the young teacher at the same school who sacrificed her life in defending her students and the part of the argument around whether to prohibit beyond the date of a bill’s possible enactment anyone from being able to purchase a semi-automatic firearm that can accept a detachable magazine of more than ten rounds—however, continue to allow for anyone who may already own such a firearm to legally keep and use it—begins anew.

 

Let’s face it, the recurring controversy around guns largely centers around one aspect: semi-automatic rifles. The perception problem with the most popular of them all, the AR-15, for example, is it looks like a machine gun. But it isn’t. By itself, it can only fire a single shot at a time, less than a second at a time, with each pull of a trigger. They are equipped to be of better quality and more convenient than say a bolt-action rifle, which requires considerable more manual action between shots.

Fully automatic rifles, which are and have largely been prohibited for civilian use, are actual machine guns. They have been outlawed since 1934, in accordance with The National Firearms Act, for civilians to own without special permission from the U.S. Treasury.

To become a registered owner of a fully automatic, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of ‘reasonable necessity’, and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant would be consistent with public safety. The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant’s residence. And since the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act in May of 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act’s passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians. (They also cost about the same as a new car.)

However, regarding semi-automatic rifles, here’s the hitch: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/how-make-your-gun-shoot-fully-automatic-one-easy-step. The Slide Fire Solutions bump fire stock is still for sale and, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, still legal. The bump-fire stock entirely changes the semi-automatic to a fully automatic, with increased accuracy at about one-tenth the price.

Preventing and prohibiting the manufacture and/or sale of this (which Senator Feinstein’s newly proposed bill does seek), and not the semi-automatic rifle itself, would only be consistent with the full-auto ban.

 

But still, I myself still do not own nor have ever felt compelled to own a gun—which I take as a good sign. I am actually a vegetarian for animal rights reasons, to show how far I have had to come in analyzing this issue. I also happen to prefer other, more creative means of tension-release, than, say, the instantaneous appeal of extending one of our more powerful phallic symbols, squeezing a finger, and feeling that resolute bang at a gun-range. (Hence, I suppose, this is one reason why pink guns are now being manufactured.) My sister and brother-in-law are Catholic Workers—pacifist activists who have little problem with intervening in conflict resolution, and who live a life of voluntary poverty, working in solidarity with the poor. For several years they have lived in a three-story apartment-house in an abjectly poor, inner-city neighborhood.

Would it be valid to consider either of us as ‘crazy’ for not owning a licensed firearm, for self-defense purposes? Not at all.

But I can acknowledge that carrying oneself in such ways can only protect so much. For one, any a more mentally stable, licensed gun-owner could be capable of losing their cool and fatally overreacting in an instant. Any person then ought to have the right to likewise protect, minus the compulsion to try to be a media-hero. (Although the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law, which exists in about 24 states, is too open-ended to interpret as ‘defense’).

But as mentioned, studies suggest roughly 80% of those who have used a firearm in a crime had acquired the weapon without any federal monitoring, and you can obviously be certain a criminal will not willingly relinquish such guns. An estimated half-million of guns used in crimes are reportedly stolen from the home every year because they are not securely stored. So, for the time being, and for a good while hereafter, we have the overarching, undeniable, and unfortunate truth that there are still millions—plural—of illegally owned guns in the U.S. And also for the time being, with that said, an equally compelling truth that is easy for non-gun owners to overlook is how the presence of the second amendment serves as a major protectorate.

 

In May of 1999, in front of Congress—as well as in December 2012 episode of “Meet the Press”—Wayne Lapierre advocated on behalf of universal background checks. But, lately, not so much, instead advocating what would a criminal care about a background check? Did he mean to word this as what would a potential criminal as yet having to fear a background check care? The solution is obviously not for Americans to buy more guns, for who is to say which potential owners would be potential criminals?

But I have to disagree with Senator Durbin in declaring Lapierre had completely missed the point behind the idea of universal background checks, during his most recent argument in front of Congress. He purposely missed the point. This recent line of thinking of his, and not of most gun-owners, either reflects paranoid-delusion or drunk-with-power salesmanship. I think it is more a case of the latter. Funnily enough, when it applies to winning an election or to economic policy, over 50% can considered a “mandate”, but when polls indicate over 90% of the public supports universal background checks, word is this proposal is “likely to happen”. …Backwards logic?

The amount of illegally owned guns is certainly where the personal traverses with the political, in everyone. As many know, the so-called “straw purchaser” technique is a popular method by which guns fall into illegal hands. Criminals purchase firearms by enlisting an aforementioned type of individual, as yet lacking in a criminal background, to travel to certain states to purchase firearms from gun shops. The criminals then safely travel the interstate to transport these guns back into states which happen to have stricter state-laws, mark up the price of the gun(s), and privately resell them to anyone.

There also of course exists the so-called “gun-show loophole”. As of the “Summary of Federal Law” by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence from their website, http://smartgunlaws.org/private-sales-policy-summary/, updated in August 2012:

“Five states (California, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island) and the District of Columbia require universal background checks on some or all firearm purchasers, including purchases from unlicensed sellers. In California, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia, universal background checks are required for transfers of all classes of firearms; Maryland’s law applies only to handguns and assault weapons; the Connecticut and Pennsylvania laws are limited to handguns. Delaware, Nevada and Oregon have laws allowing voluntary background checks by unlicensed sellers.”

Thus, there just seems an obvious solution to drastically lessen gun crimes, in the future: make every firearm dealer in the country a federally licensed firearm-dealer. This would also include outlawing the private sale a gun to your neighbor (I don’t care how well you think you know him/her) and cracking down on anyone hanging in or around a gun store looking to sell in case a person claims to ‘need’ a gun right away. Federal law could also extend to what California does: prohibiting gun ownership for people convicted of any kind of violent crime, drug offenses, alcohol abuse and juvenile offenses while underage.

How the idea of making every firearm dealer a federally licensed dealer went unchecked for so long is positively beyond me.

Let the idea for a gun-registry pass if the ultimate goal behind universal background checks is to prevent people with criminal backgrounds or mental instability to be able to buy a gun, anywhere, and to thus assure all federally licensed dealers with the proper funding and resources to conduct checks through the NICS system. (On a side-note, I wish mainstream media pundits would also be impelled to immediately defer to the psychological elements behind why a tyrant is why he is, or why an unstable person who shoots multiple people is why he is, instead of sensationally ramping up the rhetoric of either as ‘crazy’ or ‘evil’.) If gun-owners as so-called patriots wish to believe there one day could be a military coup in this country, and then imagine themselves serving as the last line of defense against tyranny, then let them believe that. I don’t believe such a coup could ever possibly, remotely get off the ground, in this country.

 

So how then do we further help abate the fear induced by the millions of illegally owned guns still currently out there?

For one, targets for a large or small act of gun-violence do often seem to be ‘unsuspecting’. Doing away with signs outside of an establishment indicating guns are not permitted would be an obvious plus. But what if federal legislation were to be suggested for a responsible and licensed private citizen to be permitted to carry a concealed handgun, anywhere, apart from federal establishments currently secured under restriction? The suggestion itself can in a way sound exactly like: just hire more police. And it does sound more cost-effective than implementing walk-through metal detectors in any public establishment (one of which could cost around $3500-4000).

If one is compelled to own a gun, s/he is expected to bring with this responsibility the mental, emotional, and physical preparation to be able to use it in an instance of self-defense. This expectation, of course, is not always a given. The annual number of revoked Carrying a Concealed Weapon permits—for which there are several types, and are all regulated on a state-level under four possible policies: Unrestricted (which I am currently not wild about), Shall-Issue, May-Issue, and No-Issue—are always small, and often on the grounds of DUI, unlawful carry, and aggravated assault. Of course, next to preventive, common sense there is still no threat of close bodily harm which a good can of mace or pepper-spray, or even a small, blunt object along with alert thinking to call and/or run for safety or help, still could not ward off.

Typical conceal carry requirements under a ‘Shall-Issue’ jurisdiction indicate that a granting authority literally shall issue a permit if certain permit requirements are met, as opposed to where an authority decides it ‘May Issue’ a permit, at their discretion. Thirty-seven states are currently Shall-Issue; eight are May-Issue, 4 are Unrestricted, and only Illinois (although some counties ironically have an Unrestricted policy, as the state will be required by a recent court-order to establish a better policy by May of 2013) and D.C. are the current no-issue jurisdictions, which forbid open and concealed carry for private citizens.

Allowing to conceal and carry in certain restricted yet more randomly unsuspecting targets of desperation or bigotry—hospitals and places of worship, respectively—vary from state to state. Despite popular opinion, recent mass-shootings, at their foundation, are not entirely mental health-based. There are dual elements at their core (the other I will get to, very shortly). The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act under The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act grants exceptions to current and honorably retired law enforcement officers to carry a weapon within a thousand feet of a school zone, per any state that happens to disallow certain conceal carry permit-holders to legally carry a firearm anywhere in public (except, as mentioned, in all federal buildings).

Schools are generally now in fact very secure. Nevertheless, implementing safety plans as a means to significantly decrease the impact of a future incident, in advance, certainly could not hurt.

 

An extremely important and decidedly overlooked attribute from any and all updated discussion on guns is one that does not call for new regulatory intervention at all. In any mass-shooting or gun-crime exists the potential shooter’s empowered knowledge of easy access to a gun. Now, when it comes to secured storage of guns in the home, the majority of gun-owners are deeply responsible. However, still, a great many annual gun-deaths and gun-crimes in the U.S. stem from folks who are to some greater or lesser degree tragically blind in believing their gun(s) could fall into immature, irresponsible, depressed, mentally unstable, or criminal hands. (Half of all teen suicides, for one, are by the gun.) Steel-safes with a key-coded locking system cost anywhere from only $25 to upwards around $230, depending on the size and amount of guns being stored, along with the ammunition. A small price to pay for safety.

Keeping tabs on more irresponsible gun-owners would realistically be more the responsibility of those who have an interest in guns. Rest assured, non-gun-owners could find tactful ways to address it as well. But as an altogether savory incentive, the prospect of less shooting incidents will come with less shouts for regulatory gun-control.

 

As for the final and herein most prevalent aspect, there is certainly a recurring pattern to mass-shootings. They involve a male; young and/or unmarried; socially frustrated and/or possibly abused in some way, possibly into substance abuse, and/or mentally and emotionally unstable. As information regarding the recent incident at Newtown is still being analyzed, the young man responsible in this case was a mentally/emotionally unstable resident of a legally qualified gun-owner.

Violence in mental illness is rare, and thoughtfully seeking as well as maintaining faith in proper courses of action for schooling and/or treatment, is obviously a very delicate matter for the family involved. Measures in the Affordable Care Act will allow access to care and treatment of the mentally challenged to be easier, as well as for the rash of violent cases involving combat veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder back home, all victims of domestic abuse, random street-violence, and bullying.

It is now perfectly essential to improve the accuracy and availability of information in order to get every state to adhere to the law already in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (or, NICS), prohibiting the violently/mentally unstable from being able to buy a gun. Every state must be able to have the financial resources available to report dangerously, mentally imbalanced people to the NICS.

The very first thing which tends to come to my mind upon hearing of a shooting incident is the missed warning-signs. There always has to be some. Within hours after Newtown, I could not help but think back on something I had read regarding the Virginia Tech incident. Here was a case where the future shooter, among other ignored signs, was in a college English class seriously scaring the crap out of his fellow students with his writings. The professor took this upon herself to consult with the Dean. …Proper thing to do. However, the professor was then instructed to dismiss the matter as not too serious and to then privately tutor the student back in his dorm-room?! She followed through, but not without deciding to set up a code-word with an assistant standing outside the dorm-room in case she was to suddenly feel threatened. The assistant would then immediately call for help. Although, eventually, as we all well know the student ended up killing 32 on campus, injuring several more, had sparked a national incident, and then took his own life.

There is a recall to do our best to listen for, be cognizant of, recognize, acknowledge, and utilize whatever our powers of peaceful persuasion to intervene and mediate more obvious warning signs. It is always heart-rendering to hear examples of obvious bullying in schools still treated by any and all of the powers-that-be as some matter-of-course; as something a teen or pre-teen needs to somehow endure on his/her own. Considering not all teens are extroverted, gregarious, nor for that matter perhaps properly guided enough, this is ridiculous.

It takes a number of things to go wrong for a plane to go down, or for a nuclear meltdown to occur, and thus multiple precautions have been put in place to prevent these things from occurring. So, I don’t think it is too much to ask to have the same approach when it comes to observing and initiating more amicable threat assessments. Over 120 school shooting and/or bombing threats have been stopped across the country by some form of intervention since the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School (http://www.reporternews.com/news/2012/dec/18/many-school-shootings-prevented-according-list/).

The Executive Director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness sums up quite nicely the whole matter of gun-violence in the final paragraph of his following August, 2012 post: http://blog.nami.org/2012/08/gun-laws-and-mental-health.html.

 

Finally, and just very briefly, a New York Times op-ed published the day after 2012 Election Day (appropriately titled, maybe, “We Need a Little Fear”), included an alarming stat: in 1960, 5% of American children were born to single mothers; as of 2010, that percentage grew to over 40%. Of course, most single mothers are not necessarily single by choice. Some are because of irreconcilable differences with a former spouse or partner. And many cases involve the father-to-be deciding to split upon hearing news of the pregnancy. Then, the anti-abortion/pro-choice woman—oftentimes, of low-income—is left to decide whether to have the child and possibly piece together a support-system. I don’t wish to get into that debate because the ultimate decision should be left up to her. I only dare, frankly mention this particular scenario because raising a possibly male child without a father, on a small income, takes more energy. And with the help of family, friends, and a community—and/or the option to find a more palatable place to live, if available—is not always a given. Love, love, love, communicate with, and guide that child to no end, should she decide to have him or her.

 

If there is a middle ground on reducing gun-violence it is responsible control through reasonable means of protection. (Slide action stocks: unreasonable.) The ultimate social and political goal would be to significantly pacify the threat of violence, in general, as well as come to a better understanding of ourselves. The usual catalyst of a mass-shooting is primarily related to a call for easier access to mental health care and support in every way. And the best annihilator of any gun-crime is all-around, damn-near impossible access to any firearm.

I have never liked the idea ingrained in our culture of a singular hero. And whether we ought to do less with the word or think upon anyone who plays a helpful role as one would be of the same difference. But this issue, among others, is in need of serious, practical re-examination, and requires a group-effort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvWokFcD22E

Composite Letter to the Speaker of the House

Mr. Speaker,

Thank you for responding. Forgive the delayed response. Norton security updates had tripped up my ability to connect to the internet for a while, as so I had been utilizing public library computers, and I had also been more than unusually busy during this time of year. Not nearly as much yourself, it seems…

I am not sure whether your office will get to read this before a deal on the so-called fiscal cliff will be reached, but I felt compelled to respond nonetheless…

Mr. Speaker, we live in the Information Age. Yet, one concern I keep having regarding our lack of compromise these days is how some Republican constituents in particular choose not to fact-check their representatives or listen to more impartial sources of information. For instance: http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=165186992&m=165186957

As you may have listened here, as stated from my previous message, there are still quite a few oversights in citing this Ernst & Young study, as cited in your response regarding tax cuts amongst the very wealthy costing the country roughly 700,000 jobs over ten years. The Congressional Budget Office indicated the around 200,000 jobs which would initially be lost towards the beginning of 2013 would quickly be regained, and also indicated a strong chance of about 12 million jobs being created over ten years as a result of the increase in the tax-revenue among the top 2% income earners.

Anytime a member of the GOP starts with doomsday talk at the prospect of higher tax revenue, on account of the very rich, I have come to hear this as a sign of promise. Please tell me you are not afraid of losing the small percentage on the far-right who unfairly deem the President as a ‘socialist’, for there are many on the left as you may happen to know who view his first four years in office as that of a moderate Republican. (Some of them claim to be conservatives—pundits, business owners—who again claimed to have voted for Mr. Obama in hopes the Republican Party might reach some sense of normalcy again.)

Now, just hear me out, if you will, for I sincerely do not wish to come across as an ideologue. Of your citing Ernst & Young in your radio message and Governor Romney citing the National Federation of Independent Businesses in the first of the 2012 Presidential debates, both organizations happen to be right-of-center organizations funded by opponents of the President. And the CBO is non-partisan. (Also, I still cannot help find it coincidental how Mr. Romney towards the end of his campaign boasted that he would create 12 million new jobs, in just his four years as President.)

One of my favorite bits of banter throughout this last campaign was how the President had two years, with a Democratic House and Senate, to ‘fix things’.[1] Well, Republicans have had about 32 years to prove their rugged-individualist/survival-of-the-fittest socio-economic interpretation of the American Dream—supply-side, or ‘trickle-down’, economics—could work.

Under this economic philosophy, under every Republican administrator over this time-period, the national deficit has managed to significantly increase partially due to tax-cuts along with an inability to lessen government spending in order to help offset the lack of tax-revenue. This last Republican Presidential nominee was very close to winning the election with a palpably near mad-scientist interpretation, proposing to cut everyone’s tax-rate (including the very rich) by 20%. But, he fell very short in teaching leadership-by-example without so much as intending, for example, to offer specific adjustments to a tax-code that further benefit the uppermost income-earners. This left a lot of faith in the private sector to create jobs, generate revenue, and pay down the deficit.

Republicans threw everything they could at President Obama in this past election so to prevent him from obtaining a re-election-free, second-term agenda, and then some: obstructionism courtesy of this “silent” filibuster in the Senate (not of your particular concern, but just as a matter of principle, I believe, in need of reform), desperate disinformation, attempts at voter suppression in Florida as well as in other swing-states, shallow media coverage, knucklehead distractions like the 24% of white evangelicals who still believe him to be a Muslim (in other words, closet-extremist) or that he was not born in this country. All of this, yet the President still managed to win.

The Tea Party’s beginning was not so much a grass-roots combustion but something considerably funded and advanced along by the hugely billionaire, long-armed triumvirate of the Koch brothers. George Will fashionably cited “journalistic malpractice” in “underestimating” the Tea Party on an episode of ABC’s “This Week”, close to Election Day. Apparently he meant overestimating. Going back to their beginning in 2009-10, apart from predictable wins in red states, so-called Tea Partiers have now lost Republicans at least four Senate seats, ultimately to Democrats, and arguably played a considerable role in helping Republicans lose the White House. Seeing them predominantly win nothing more than Congressional districts is understandable, from this point forward, as well as not worth politically fighting too much for.

After a brief coming-up for air, post-Election Day, as an unnecessary epilogue to a campaign that felt like watching two parents argue over money, every day, for about six months, again we came face-to-face with the looming repercussions of the 2011 Budget Control Act, aka, the ‘fiscal cliff’: a procrastination of federal budget challenges drawn up by leaders as a motivational tool to reach a compromise.

I am writing to you because this matter is clearly now more in the hands of Republican leadership, based upon impartial sources of information as well as consistent polling numbers. Mr. Speaker, it is time to focus together on seeking to address many another big challenge facing our present and future rather than impose personal or ahistorical political will at such an inopportune time. Challenges, such as: http://www.npr.org/2012/12/07/166713194/world-bank-issues-alarming-climate-report.

As stated in my previous message, I have never known the Republican Party to be more the symbol of regular folk. I am told that it once had been. I find it morally imperative to work for a living and as well put a high premium on personal responsibility. But it is certainly more than on an intellectual level that I find the Republican Party to be the party that favors the rich. Under the current White House proposal, people making $400,001 per year, would probably get the worst of the whole fiscal deal. But, $400,000 is still a lot of money, no matter where in the country a person may live. It is the one percent of the one percent—the multi-billionaires in charge of energy and hedge-fund management, among other ventures—like David, Charles, and William Koch, Steve Schwarzman, and Harold Simmons, to name a few—who have been able to get away with selling the rugged-individualist message yet not so much working harder than many amongst the working-poor but by virtue of buying ginormous amounts of political influence.

The interpretation of the American Dream I hear every so often, that every person deep-down aspires to be rich, always makes me quite uncomfortable. This has never been my interpretation. Don’t get me wrong, I can be a fervent competitor and am definitely a better person as a result of being challenged in ways I would have probably never sought to on my own. But even winning the lottery (which I generally don’t participate in) comes from a pool of hard-earned participant’s earnings. Opportunity creates itself, but I certainly do not believe it is considered equal from birth. I just feel that personal growth is not necessarily measured by individual wealth. And the hard-bitten reality in our culture is that tax-cuts as well as tax-breaks for the very top still tend to cater to the dark dalliances of accumulating more in terms of greed—not quite so much towards opportunism, as recent history evidences.

There is nothing wrong with being rich, so long as one does not use their money to buy, influence, control, or manipulate power. If one makes $25 billion per year in oil and spends roughly $60 million on just trying to unseat the President during a campaign, while having his foundation-people speak around the country as to the value of free-enterprise, there are simply no wind and solar CEOs who can compete with this level of clout. David Koch, alone, seems clearly out to bury the competition and to stifle these growing trends which recognize the reality of climate-change as well as new and growing sources of cleaner energy.

With technology continuing to make access to information faster and more portable, I try to insist that more Republican constituents fact-check their representatives. For instance:

  • Lloyd Blankfein recently lobbied on Capitol Hill on behalf of privatizing Social Security and Medicare. He had taken in between $16-17 million in personal earnings last year, while Goldman Sachs appeared to have lost money. I find this level of placating on his part as a clear representation of short-sighted values.
  • Senator Chambliss of Georgia expressed more care for his country than for a twenty-year tax pledge and then said pledge’s author responded with a veiled threat that the Senator is at risk of losing his job? …How telling is this? Like the Ambassador Rice-Benghazi matter, this is simply bizarre. We are not talking about breaking from a treaty or a doctrine or a law of any sort, but from something that simply has no greater clout than a pinky-swear. I wonder if the Senator is thinking of a warm place for his foot to join the lobbyist’s head and would thus rather not wish losing his job over allowing taxes to go up on everyone, come January 1, 2013.
  • You mentioned as one of your goals here in your response, that “repealing the president’s health care law – which is raising costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers – must be on the table as well.” Now just for the sake of clarity, you did not mention negotiating to repeal aspects of the Affordable Care Act, but to repeal the whole law which happens to be nicknamed after the very person you are sitting across from. This is very unrealistic from an initial negotiating stance.

The repercussions of going over the cliff would not really kick in until the end of January 2013, yet some postulate how over the very long haul it might be the hard medicine this country would need towards reducing our deficit. However, even temporarily sinking back into recession is too great a risk.

We are $16 trillion in the hole. The visceral trust-issue the right has with the left is with alleged, wasteful spending and/or a need for entitlement-reform—people getting a bargain for how much government spends on each individual’s behalf. For one, the amount in Medicare benefits received is a little over three times the amount for which a taxpayer making $40,000/year puts in, in Medicare taxes. Regarding healthcare spending, in general, I am insured, and always conscientious of agreeing to more than what I need. But, of course, I cannot speak for everyone on this.

I recently asked my father what exactly is considered ‘wasteful spending?’, and he was quick to reply: it is whatever a particular congressperson says is wasteful. I also have to admit that I just didn’t think it was possible for a Democrat to be referred to as a ‘bully’, but I guess it is. It was not made perfectly clear to me until this past week how the birth of the Tea Party was not only a more cynical result of President Obama’s initial, first-term spending but also to the W. Bush years’ spending and general inability to lessen it. A catalyst for President Obama’s spending was the stimulus package. The original amount, if I can recall, was tapered down for the sake of Republican interests. Yet, the final, lessened amount was still passed on a Democrat-party-line vote and as predicted by more Keynesian economists, in the end, did not spend enough to make enough. Also, some economist’s outlook of the recession was worse than they had initially imagined, when the package was drawn up.

 

It is my understanding that in a time of economic crisis, the federal government is pretty well expected to be the tide that lifts all boats? Yes? No? We all know we had a surplus going at the beginning of the 21st century that was virtually flipped on its head. We entered into two wars—one, without proper evidence—without knowing fully how we were going to pay for them. And, accountability for the lending/banking crisis has been practically non-existent.

But here we are, in the here and now. We need to cite and examine the mistakes both ideologies have made over the past twelve years from an honest philosophical perspective. It stinks, but I am willing—no, I am in fact eager—to make the reasonably hard as well as assuredly not-so difficult sacrifices in order to help get us out of this hole and contemporaneously maintain a balanced budget and responsibly create jobs, provided we STOP with the presumptive, overreaching ambition, political posturing, or half-implementations of what worked in the recent past. We cannot cut or raise taxes if we cannot be expected to lessen spending.

There has been enough quarreling to prove we should now move on with a clean slate. Enough information is there for every adult to—provided we are properly treated as such—be self-sufficient and responsible.

Also, on a side-note, based upon this President’s first-term record, I doubt fear of a financial increase in regulations would be any more drastic than past Presidential second-terms.

The visceral trust-issue the left has with the right is with the disparity of wealth. We just went through the housing and banking crisis to reaffirm that. I firmly doubt those who significantly helped bring our economy to its knees—and then some who had the nerve to shamelessly, personally incentivize their public bailout money—are registered Democrats. Not to mention, the average worker salary, adjusted to inflation, has not changed since just before 1980 while the CEO-to-average-worker ratio has risen from 20:1 in 1965, 383:1 in 2000, and 231:1 in 2011 (all numbers according to a May 2012 report by the Economic Policy Institute, “CEO pay and the top 1%”).

Nowadays, when people seem to go onto any political talk show and are asked questions about the economy, they’ll make a good case for the first part of their answer. But then the second part will veer off into blaming the other side and political posturing. Maybe this is done out of habit; whether it reflects genuine fear (which I kind of doubt), insecurity, or general uncertainty, but it defeats the whole purpose of the first part of the answer. It’s just completely redundant. And so then it’s: stay tuned next week for the same set of answers in our ongoing economic saga. …Make a strong case, and either own up to either of one’s own party’s faults or just zip it!

Our national conversation cannot continue to remain so default-polarized, on this or any issue, but certainly one that seems quite shallow compared to others, in order to reach common ground. Congress’ overall approval rating, as well, cannot remain averaging in the teens as a representation of the new normal.

If anything, the corporate tax-rate is too high and significantly lowering it might be worth discussing in order to boost job creation, to go with discussion of entitlement reform. Revisiting some of the President’s jobs bills from his previous term might be worth reconsidering. (The Veteran’s Jobs Bill, for instance, which the Senate voted in favor of 58-40 [not enough to break the filibuster-proof 60], was a proposed bill to be funded with $1 billion in imposing penalties on Medicare providers delinquent on their taxes against an $800 billion aforementioned, as-yet-to-be-funded war.)

How we determine how government should or should not spend our money reflects—as with practically everything else—personal responsibility. Look around, see what opportunities do and do not exist, and ask how exactly certain opportunities are going to surmise. Perhaps we can break apart the big banks? How can we get private investment and entrepreneurship interested in neighborhoods that have always been relatively desolate? How can we get people left under their own, individual devices to realistically operate under a similar moral and civic code?

Give in to popular opinion now and in the future we can all learn to be better teachers through open, honest, and civilized discussion and debate.

There just seems to be very little established, fundamental decency between either party, towards policy, right now, for which this ‘cliff’ matter is a direct result.

Thank you very much again for your time.

Sincerely,

Douglas Conroy


[1] One other bit was the omnipresent political weasel Newt Gingrich contending, among other voices, the amount of times Congressman Ryan was interrupted during the Vice Presidential debate—the operative word, of course, being ‘debate’. But, anytime Congressman Ryan speaks in front of a camera, his coolness tends to shift into a sort of frustrated rock-star conviction and it is almost imperative someone be there to ‘interrupt’ him.