I have paid attention to more than 20 Presidential State Of The Union Addresses - delivered by the last 5 Presidents. They never left me satisfied, even the last year's Obama's speech.
I have to admit that this one was completely different. It was mostly with the economy in mind, promising the emphasis on the job creation and making America competitive on the World Market again. Obama even quoted the "deliverables" resulting from the on-going talks with the China and Korea - creating hundreds of thousand jobs in the US. He promised doubling of the national export by 2014. There was a good stress on the clean energy promising that 85% of the US produced energy by 2035 will come from the Clean Energy (of course it leaves the question "how clean is clean energy" if we talk about the nuclear power plans or the energy coming from burning of fossil fuels - "clean coal" and gas). He also concentrated on necessity of saving the budget. 5 Year Freeze on all Discretionary Domestic spending is a good start - followed by restructuring the current programs. At the same time he promised prioritizing higher education to produce more technologically advanced work force. There was a "Sputnik moment" mentioned and a "fast train" to the future - and Coast to Coast.
Some pundits criticized it afterwords for being too general, and not delivering any solutions. Some others for sending some contradictory messages (spending freeze - education and infrastructure expansion, etc).
Health reform which is the sore in the eye of the Republicans was on a table for "re sculpting" - "let's fix what needs to be fixed and let's move forward" - said Obama. America suffers the highest in the World Corporate Tax, at the same time having loopholes allowing many (most) to pay close to nothing. It's on a target list along with the simplifying of the tax code in general.
These were the things we almost always hear on such occasions, however most of the times not as convincingly as today.
What we almost never heard in such a decisive way is the promise of restructuring of the Government, dismantling many redundant agencies and services, saving funds as well as increasing the efficiency of such services several times. As stated by the President such a restructuring was overdue since the "B&W TV era". This kind of a promise along with the rejecting of all of the earmarks in all the future bills - besides being a very good idea must have looked very attractive even to the Republicans.
I was waiting impatiently to hear how was going to be mentioned and how was offered to be solved the issue of 2 Wars inherited from the former administration. According to the President the Iraq War is ended and even though slowly, the stabilization becomes more pronounced, and the day the last American soldier returns home is in the near future. The same was told about American involvement in the Afghan conflict - with the shift of responsibilities to the Locals, Pakistan and other allies, it makes the talk about return of our personnel also possible. It's about time. Also, the price tag of these wars so far is more than $3 Trillion of the money we didn't have at the first place (ref-a). When our involvement in these unpopular activities is limited or ended - then and only then we can start talking about getting out of debt.
Knowing the complexity of the political and economical climate in the last months (enhanced by the result of the November elections) I have no doubt that the President Obama, preparing to deliver the State of The Union address in January 2011, faced probably the toughest task out of all 5 Presidents whom I had a chance to observe. And yet the delivered 'product' played well the tune of hope. A real hope, and not a fairy tale. Lots of promises, but the same time making the impression that the fulfillment is withing the reach.
So, when the President finally pronounced the usual "...and the State of Our Union is strong" - it actually didn't sound like a cliche.
---------------
It leaves us with two responses to the President's Speech - one by the legitimate Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, and the other by a Tea Party spokesperson Rep. Michelle Bachmann.
As much as Ryan's response was quite predictably attacking the Policy of the President, and promising the fight for reducing of the size and the influence of the Federal Government on both business as well as State Governments - it wasn't too confrontational. It's tone offered some hope for negotiations, and the reasoning. Ryan seemed to understand that the situation in which our economy is right now is the result of action of a few presidents before Obama (I would insist on blaming only the previous one) .
This, by itself was one of the biggest differences between his response and the one delivered by Michelle Bachmann. The latter one immersed herself in a cloud of condemning-Obama-and-all-the-Democrats rhetoric. She didn't have any problem with putting a blame only on the current administration for the effects of Bush presidency, concentrating herself on how the economy (and the job market) was 'crashed' by the Obama's policy in the first 2 years of current Presidency. Although surprisingly she stayed away from total "misfiring" of the data (bending it nevertheless to prove her agenda), however couldn't help herself making a factually incorrect reference about the American attack on Iwo Jima, claiming that American GI-s won that battle "against all the odds". Well, however difficult and bloody (resulting in a great number of casualties) this episode of the War on the Pacific was, the ODDS weren't against us. It was already the March of 1945. Michelle Bachman and her writers have a very baffling tendency of writing the fictional short stories - vaguely connected to the reality.
---------------
ref-a: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html
SLOGAN
- a tribute to the Social Media
A RIGHT WORD IS WORTH A THOUSAND PICTURES...
PAGES
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
In anticipation of the State Of The Union...
Only a few hours are left to the State Of The Union address by the President Obama. In previous years, no matter what the situation of the country really was, we heard every time the reassuring words, "... and our Union is STRONG!". We were receiving this statement like a communion at the end of a mass. We were all addicted to it. We needed that "fix", and we applauded it regardless of the situation of the economy, regardless of our growing 'unpopularity' among other countries in the World.
Last year we heard it again and it made what it was designed to do - it lit a dim, flickering flame of HOPE. The country was (it's barely started to recover from it) in a recession which was unprecedented in our lives. Two wars raging, economy on it's knees, jobs escaping across the oceans...
What is the future going to bring? Will we have anything to look forward to? Is President Obama going to bring in his speech tonight something more substantial than the 'fix' we always received? I hope so. It's time.
---------
And then we will hear not one response from the Republicans, but two - the other from the self appointed prophetess of the Tea Party - Michelle Bachmann. Oh, well, the fun never stops.
Last year we heard it again and it made what it was designed to do - it lit a dim, flickering flame of HOPE. The country was (it's barely started to recover from it) in a recession which was unprecedented in our lives. Two wars raging, economy on it's knees, jobs escaping across the oceans...
What is the future going to bring? Will we have anything to look forward to? Is President Obama going to bring in his speech tonight something more substantial than the 'fix' we always received? I hope so. It's time.
---------
And then we will hear not one response from the Republicans, but two - the other from the self appointed prophetess of the Tea Party - Michelle Bachmann. Oh, well, the fun never stops.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann - too pretty for their own good...
Both Sarah Palin and Rep. Michelle Bachmann are not too popular with the Liberal Media, to say the least. In fact recently they haven't been too popular with their own Party activists.
On January 21, Bill O'Reilly, a conservative political commentary, in his program on the Fox News Channel came out with a 'brilliant' explanation to that problem. According to O'Reilly, liberals and others do not like both women because they are both so "good-looking." This assessment gained approval of all the Conservative Media. The problem has been solved...
Really?
Sarah Palin's popularity has recently dropped across the America. The recent CBS/New York Times poll found that as much as 57% of the voters do not approve Sarah Palin's views.
Does it mean that all 57% of the voters are Liberal?
For about 3 years now Sarah Palin proved that she can't answer a simple questions asked by the interviewers, about politics, about economy - without diving in an empty rhetoric without providing any real solutions to the most serious and nagging problems of the Country. After her Presidential Campaign, still being a Governor of Alaska she simply quit her governorship like it was a game of Bingo. So much for the interest in the State of Alaska's welfare. She was proclaimed a "a self-promoting ignoramus, and at worst a shameless media troll who will abuse any platform to deliver dog whistle encouragement to a far-right base, that may include possible insurrectionists" by Stephen Colbert.
Her stunt with putting the "cross hair" over the most democratic congressional districts didn't help her gaining popularity either. I agree - there is no direct relation of her act with the massacre, but it didn't act as a preventive measure either. Not to mention her "wonderfully soothing" TV address after the massacre in Arizona, where she expressed her "profound thoughts" using the term "Blood Libel", and then defending the "lost" position over and over.
At the end, Dick Chaney (the former Vice President) even didn't mention her name when asked about some candidate names for the coming in 2012 Republican Nomination. One must be really "off track" if the well known for his too strong and too vitriol statements Newt Gingrich on January 18 advises her to "slow down" and stated that she had become more 'controversial'.
Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-Min) is a bit different story, or is it?
On January 21, Bill O'Reilly, a conservative political commentary, in his program on the Fox News Channel came out with a 'brilliant' explanation to that problem. According to O'Reilly, liberals and others do not like both women because they are both so "good-looking." This assessment gained approval of all the Conservative Media. The problem has been solved...
Really?
Sarah Palin's popularity has recently dropped across the America. The recent CBS/New York Times poll found that as much as 57% of the voters do not approve Sarah Palin's views.
Does it mean that all 57% of the voters are Liberal?
For about 3 years now Sarah Palin proved that she can't answer a simple questions asked by the interviewers, about politics, about economy - without diving in an empty rhetoric without providing any real solutions to the most serious and nagging problems of the Country. After her Presidential Campaign, still being a Governor of Alaska she simply quit her governorship like it was a game of Bingo. So much for the interest in the State of Alaska's welfare. She was proclaimed a "a self-promoting ignoramus, and at worst a shameless media troll who will abuse any platform to deliver dog whistle encouragement to a far-right base, that may include possible insurrectionists" by Stephen Colbert.
Her stunt with putting the "cross hair" over the most democratic congressional districts didn't help her gaining popularity either. I agree - there is no direct relation of her act with the massacre, but it didn't act as a preventive measure either. Not to mention her "wonderfully soothing" TV address after the massacre in Arizona, where she expressed her "profound thoughts" using the term "Blood Libel", and then defending the "lost" position over and over.
At the end, Dick Chaney (the former Vice President) even didn't mention her name when asked about some candidate names for the coming in 2012 Republican Nomination. One must be really "off track" if the well known for his too strong and too vitriol statements Newt Gingrich on January 18 advises her to "slow down" and stated that she had become more 'controversial'.
Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-Min) is a bit different story, or is it?
- In the days preceding the the vote on the Repeal of the Health Reform she demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge about our laws and the Constitution saying that “This is not symbolic, this is why we were sent here and we will not stop until we repeal a president and put a president in the position of the White House who will repeal this bill, until we repeal the current Senate, put in a Senate that will listen to the American people and repeal this bill.” One may repeal the bill - not people.
- She also propose to retroactive repeal of 1862 Homestead Act in fight against federal hand-outs - claiming that many European immigrants came to this country just to get the promised 160 acres of the American land...
- She also stipulates that there should be an investigation investigating the Anti-American views presented by... President Obama.
- In the days preceding President's trip to India - she openly and authoritatively claimed that that trip was a proof of the completely irresponsible approach to the fiscal problems of this country since it was suppose to cost the taxpayers a staggering $200 Million a day !!! for all 2000 people taking part of the trip !!! Later on on a question where she took such an outrageous information she bluntly answered that it was posted in a "local newspaper in... India".
- Speaking at the event sponsored by Iowans For Tax Relief, Bachman reinvented the History of the United States stating that the Founding Fathers worked to end the slavery once and for all. She said: “But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States,” , claiming later: “men like John Quincy Adams… would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.”
It is demeaning to the memory of all who really fought to end the slavery during the Civil War. As far as the real history goes, all founding fathers had slaves and the original Constitution of the United States referred to all slaves as "3/5 of a human". And when these basic facts of American History have been taught in American school for decades (or longer) Michelle Bachmann demonstrates complete ignorance of these facts. We were all furious at Ahmadinejad (the President of Iran) when he tried to disregard the Holocaust claiming that it never happened and it's only a figment of our imagination... He is an enemy of the United States... He didn't go to the American schools. What conclusion should we come to in regard to Michelle Bachmann ? Has she ever gone to school?
I rest my case.
These "politicians", for demonstrating such a stupidity and juvenile behavior should be excluded from any political activities in this country. Both of them have no respect toward the Truth, nor toward the Democracy. Both of them (and many others) follow one rule - and just one rule only - "a lie repeated 1000 times becomes the truth" (invented and implemented by Paul Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Minister of Propaganda).
- She also propose to retroactive repeal of 1862 Homestead Act in fight against federal hand-outs - claiming that many European immigrants came to this country just to get the promised 160 acres of the American land...
- She also stipulates that there should be an investigation investigating the Anti-American views presented by... President Obama.
- In the days preceding President's trip to India - she openly and authoritatively claimed that that trip was a proof of the completely irresponsible approach to the fiscal problems of this country since it was suppose to cost the taxpayers a staggering $200 Million a day !!! for all 2000 people taking part of the trip !!! Later on on a question where she took such an outrageous information she bluntly answered that it was posted in a "local newspaper in... India".
- Speaking at the event sponsored by Iowans For Tax Relief, Bachman reinvented the History of the United States stating that the Founding Fathers worked to end the slavery once and for all. She said: “But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States,” , claiming later: “men like John Quincy Adams… would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country.”
It is demeaning to the memory of all who really fought to end the slavery during the Civil War. As far as the real history goes, all founding fathers had slaves and the original Constitution of the United States referred to all slaves as "3/5 of a human". And when these basic facts of American History have been taught in American school for decades (or longer) Michelle Bachmann demonstrates complete ignorance of these facts. We were all furious at Ahmadinejad (the President of Iran) when he tried to disregard the Holocaust claiming that it never happened and it's only a figment of our imagination... He is an enemy of the United States... He didn't go to the American schools. What conclusion should we come to in regard to Michelle Bachmann ? Has she ever gone to school?
I rest my case.
These "politicians", for demonstrating such a stupidity and juvenile behavior should be excluded from any political activities in this country. Both of them have no respect toward the Truth, nor toward the Democracy. Both of them (and many others) follow one rule - and just one rule only - "a lie repeated 1000 times becomes the truth" (invented and implemented by Paul Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Minister of Propaganda).
China and our Political Climate
A few days have past already from this historic (no matter how you look at it) visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to the USA.
I do not have to mention that China is one of American biggest trade partners, partners with whom America has the biggest Trade Deficit - overall U.S. deficit with China - $25.63 Billion (ref-a). They have been manufacturing many if not the most of the 'every-day-use' items available on our market, from the simple plastic toys to the high end electronics. The Chinese political system have embraced the free market economy to a certain degree, making China the fastest growing economy in the World, in 2010 exceeding 10% growth. It's anticipated that in not so far-away future this economical giant will supersede the US economy. The fourth-quarter of 2010 China's GDP numbers make it all but certain that China became the world's second-largest economy in 2010, ending Japan's 42-year reign in that position (ref-c).
China is the World's bigger owner of the US debt - as reported by Guardian (ref-b) China owns 907 Billion USD, superseding Japan who owns now 877 Billion USD. The total debt being a staggering amount of 4 Trillion 310 Billion USD. A the same time China's President stated during his speech in Washington that US-dollar dominated global currency system a "product of the past."(ref-d). He then highlighted moves to turn the yuan into a global currency.
China grows not only economically, it's military machine is also in overdrive (thanks to the economical success). We have just learned that the new Chinese Stealth Fighter has been successfully tested, making them even more formidable force.
It leaves also two other threads (long promised and not yet delivered) - a ballistic missile whose only purpose would be the aircraft carriers (our carriers) and also a ballistic, anti-satellite missile - which could blind the US defenses and targeting systems in a blink of the eye.
I am not trying to cause an unsubstantiated fear of the Armageddon. Far from it. As a matter of fact I still believe that no one (Chinese, Russians, nor Americans) really wants any military confrontation. But I believe that what we are witnessing right now is just a new and improved Cold War. Cold War whose purpose is making the normal, economical bargaining between the countries like China and the US completely impossible.
Since the moment when I was old enough to start understanding any political environments and the forces governing the interaction between the Political Blocks I stood in awe looking at what Russia and China were creating. No matter if the term "Evil Empires" applies to them or not any more, they are still (right now it's obvious that China more than Russia) involved in changing the World according to their agenda. Agenda which is not limited to the 4 year periods (election cycle in the US), but is designed to produce effects in 100 years periods or even longer. The scary part of is is that they succeed in it.
Energy crisis is not anything our generation invented. There is also a crisis of the minerals needed to advance in electronics, a well known shortage of copper... China, for long decades, has been establishing it's presence and influences in the most of the underdeveloped then, and developing now countries in the world. They were "sneaky" enough not to push too hard their political agenda (trying to convert the target countries to the Communism) or even radicalizing them too far. Thus keeping these activities under the radar of the US politics.
When I was in the Sudan in 1985, and 1986 I was surprised learning that at that time there were about 100 thousand of Chinese workers in the Sudan - the employees of the construction companies, oil companies and mining companies "helping" the host country and the same time assuring for themselves the resources until this day hidden under the Sudanese soil. And the Sudan was just an example - this kind of quiet invasion has been conducted in many of the African countries.
When the whole West runs out of resources - China may still have an Ace in their sleeve.
China has become a World's Super Power, Super Economy, force to be reckoned with on any level. And yet, the intellectual property issue is almost completely unresolved. Even though since 1994 - Copyright Implementing Regulations - Makes copyright infringement a criminal offense (violators can be sentenced to prison for up to seven years or executed in severe cases) as estimated only 10% of Microsoft software is used in Chine under the legal license. But it doesn't concerns software piracy only. Well known are cases of the "knock-off" products being produced freely in China and distributed all over the world. I believe that it is symptomatic.
I only mention here the on going 'human rights' abuse (as reported over and over by Amnesty International). China's human right's policies have caused strains between the rival powers, with the U.S. calling on China to release jailed dissidents, including Nobel peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, who was prevented from attending the Dec. 10 prize ceremony in the Norwegian capital. Nothing happens - except of President Hu mentioning that our relationship shouldn't interfere in the internal policies of our countries.
No one questions that the relationship between the US and China is one of the most important bilateral relationships, not only for us, but the world in total. But, even though Mr. Hu stated firmly: "We do not engage in an arms race or pose a military threat to any country. China will never seek hegemony or pursue an expansionist policy" (ref-e) - should we treat it for the face value, or be as vigilant as possible? I go for the latter.
--------------
The President of the People's Republic of China comes to the US to have talks with the President of the USA. No matter what is anybody's personal feeling about this summit, the importance of such an event is unmeasurable. Our ties (economies of both countries) are becoming closer and closer. The changing of political climate within that country allows the American businesses not only "off-shore" the production of the goods (what is at least a controversial issue for many) but also creating the factories and products which will be sold only on the Chinese market - profiting the American economy.
In such a climate, facing such a difficult task of making this relationship work - a prominent radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh mocks the President Hu's speech by 30-second-long imitation of him speaking in Chinese, delivered on his radio show while he was watching the actual speech on the Fox Network.
It made me speechless...
---------------------------------
ref-a: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079600579354700.html
ref-b: The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/18/us-federal-deficit-china-america-debt
ref-c: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704590704576092730688164622.html
ref-d: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110118-714345.html
ref-e: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-01/21/c_13700418.htm
I do not have to mention that China is one of American biggest trade partners, partners with whom America has the biggest Trade Deficit - overall U.S. deficit with China - $25.63 Billion (ref-a). They have been manufacturing many if not the most of the 'every-day-use' items available on our market, from the simple plastic toys to the high end electronics. The Chinese political system have embraced the free market economy to a certain degree, making China the fastest growing economy in the World, in 2010 exceeding 10% growth. It's anticipated that in not so far-away future this economical giant will supersede the US economy. The fourth-quarter of 2010 China's GDP numbers make it all but certain that China became the world's second-largest economy in 2010, ending Japan's 42-year reign in that position (ref-c).
China is the World's bigger owner of the US debt - as reported by Guardian (ref-b) China owns 907 Billion USD, superseding Japan who owns now 877 Billion USD. The total debt being a staggering amount of 4 Trillion 310 Billion USD. A the same time China's President stated during his speech in Washington that US-dollar dominated global currency system a "product of the past."(ref-d). He then highlighted moves to turn the yuan into a global currency.
China grows not only economically, it's military machine is also in overdrive (thanks to the economical success). We have just learned that the new Chinese Stealth Fighter has been successfully tested, making them even more formidable force.
It leaves also two other threads (long promised and not yet delivered) - a ballistic missile whose only purpose would be the aircraft carriers (our carriers) and also a ballistic, anti-satellite missile - which could blind the US defenses and targeting systems in a blink of the eye.
I am not trying to cause an unsubstantiated fear of the Armageddon. Far from it. As a matter of fact I still believe that no one (Chinese, Russians, nor Americans) really wants any military confrontation. But I believe that what we are witnessing right now is just a new and improved Cold War. Cold War whose purpose is making the normal, economical bargaining between the countries like China and the US completely impossible.
Since the moment when I was old enough to start understanding any political environments and the forces governing the interaction between the Political Blocks I stood in awe looking at what Russia and China were creating. No matter if the term "Evil Empires" applies to them or not any more, they are still (right now it's obvious that China more than Russia) involved in changing the World according to their agenda. Agenda which is not limited to the 4 year periods (election cycle in the US), but is designed to produce effects in 100 years periods or even longer. The scary part of is is that they succeed in it.
Energy crisis is not anything our generation invented. There is also a crisis of the minerals needed to advance in electronics, a well known shortage of copper... China, for long decades, has been establishing it's presence and influences in the most of the underdeveloped then, and developing now countries in the world. They were "sneaky" enough not to push too hard their political agenda (trying to convert the target countries to the Communism) or even radicalizing them too far. Thus keeping these activities under the radar of the US politics.
When I was in the Sudan in 1985, and 1986 I was surprised learning that at that time there were about 100 thousand of Chinese workers in the Sudan - the employees of the construction companies, oil companies and mining companies "helping" the host country and the same time assuring for themselves the resources until this day hidden under the Sudanese soil. And the Sudan was just an example - this kind of quiet invasion has been conducted in many of the African countries.
When the whole West runs out of resources - China may still have an Ace in their sleeve.
China has become a World's Super Power, Super Economy, force to be reckoned with on any level. And yet, the intellectual property issue is almost completely unresolved. Even though since 1994 - Copyright Implementing Regulations - Makes copyright infringement a criminal offense (violators can be sentenced to prison for up to seven years or executed in severe cases) as estimated only 10% of Microsoft software is used in Chine under the legal license. But it doesn't concerns software piracy only. Well known are cases of the "knock-off" products being produced freely in China and distributed all over the world. I believe that it is symptomatic.
I only mention here the on going 'human rights' abuse (as reported over and over by Amnesty International). China's human right's policies have caused strains between the rival powers, with the U.S. calling on China to release jailed dissidents, including Nobel peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, who was prevented from attending the Dec. 10 prize ceremony in the Norwegian capital. Nothing happens - except of President Hu mentioning that our relationship shouldn't interfere in the internal policies of our countries.
No one questions that the relationship between the US and China is one of the most important bilateral relationships, not only for us, but the world in total. But, even though Mr. Hu stated firmly: "We do not engage in an arms race or pose a military threat to any country. China will never seek hegemony or pursue an expansionist policy" (ref-e) - should we treat it for the face value, or be as vigilant as possible? I go for the latter.
--------------
The President of the People's Republic of China comes to the US to have talks with the President of the USA. No matter what is anybody's personal feeling about this summit, the importance of such an event is unmeasurable. Our ties (economies of both countries) are becoming closer and closer. The changing of political climate within that country allows the American businesses not only "off-shore" the production of the goods (what is at least a controversial issue for many) but also creating the factories and products which will be sold only on the Chinese market - profiting the American economy.
In such a climate, facing such a difficult task of making this relationship work - a prominent radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh mocks the President Hu's speech by 30-second-long imitation of him speaking in Chinese, delivered on his radio show while he was watching the actual speech on the Fox Network.
It made me speechless...
---------------------------------
ref-a: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079600579354700.html
ref-b: The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/18/us-federal-deficit-china-america-debt
ref-c: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704590704576092730688164622.html
ref-d: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110118-714345.html
ref-e: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-01/21/c_13700418.htm
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Sarah Palin and a 'Blood Libel'...
Besides of the occasional remarks about her 'brilliancy' I didn't want to talk about her - because it by itself would give her the 'legitimacy' she so strongly demands from the witnesses of her act.
It was the case until a few days ago when she used the term 'Blood libel' in her speech right after the Arizona Massacre. I could have even let it go if not for the overwhelming reaction of the members of the press attacking her (and rightfully so) for it's use. However, my angle is a bit different, than what I hear from the most of the passionately speaking attackers.
"Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn," she said.
To unfamiliar with this term and it's history (like obviously Sarah Palin was, when she used it) let me quote from the "Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary":
"The blood libel is a false accusation that Jews sacrifice Christian children either to use the blood for various "medicinal" purposes or to prepare Passover Matzoth (unleavened bread) or for vengeance and mock crucifixions. It is one of the central fables of Anti-Semitism of the older (middle ages) type. The blood libel is a phenomenon of medieval and modern Christian anti-Semitism, but spread to the Middle East as early as 1775, when there was a blood libel in Hebron.(...)There have been about 150 cases of blood libel that were actually tried by Catholic authorities, and many other rumored cases that never came to trial."
Most of her attackers argued that by the use of the term 'Blood libel' she brought an Anti-Semitism to the table, and offended Jewish part of the population. The confrontation went as far as quoting (by both sides of the quarrel) statements by the leaders of the Jewish organizations. Was it really the legitimate direction of the polemic? Not to me, and fortunately not to some others like Time's Alex Altman. She could have apologized and buried the matter for ever. But no, she 'reloaded' and heated the debate once more.
But again, the debate had in my opinion a misguided direction. 'Blood libel' however painful for those who were falsely accused of the religious bloody practices, is a part of the Language the same way a Holocaust is. If not abused, it may be used in many a context - to prove the point. We use the parallels and metaphors in the art of the argument to make it more explainable, easier digestible, sometimes stronger. So, by these means Palin's use of the term was not offensive. (I am positive that she didn't mean to use an Anti-Semitic card in this argument - it was just not a very prudent thing to do).
When I heard her saying these words it woke in me a strong disagreement because of a little different aspect. She proved again that she perceives herself as completely wrongly accused martyr, whereas the whole liberal America conspires against her. She dared to put herself in the same category as the wrongly accused by the Christian Authorities Jews. Her lack of perspective when considering herself a part of so deeply suppressed and misunderstood entity, that only the term 'blood libel' could fit to describe it is scary to say the least. Her and other members of the Tea Party (or other conservative organizations) responsibility for the Arizona Massacre is disputable, I understand it. But at the same time is not a matter of a myth - completely unfounded and sick - it's a matter of interpretation of the inflammatory remarks uttered so often in the past by herself, or Sharon Angle or others.
When the abortion doctors were attacked and sometimes killed, when the clinics where they worked were cowardly targeted and destroyed we as a society didn't have too much difficulties with associating such acts directly with the inflammatory and very graphic statements by the anti-abortion activists. Although often they couldn't be charged with the crime, the moral condemnation was strong and unanimous.
Why can't we apply the same standards to Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle?
It was the case until a few days ago when she used the term 'Blood libel' in her speech right after the Arizona Massacre. I could have even let it go if not for the overwhelming reaction of the members of the press attacking her (and rightfully so) for it's use. However, my angle is a bit different, than what I hear from the most of the passionately speaking attackers.
"Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn," she said.
To unfamiliar with this term and it's history (like obviously Sarah Palin was, when she used it) let me quote from the "Zionism and Israel - Encyclopedic Dictionary":
"The blood libel is a false accusation that Jews sacrifice Christian children either to use the blood for various "medicinal" purposes or to prepare Passover Matzoth (unleavened bread) or for vengeance and mock crucifixions. It is one of the central fables of Anti-Semitism of the older (middle ages) type. The blood libel is a phenomenon of medieval and modern Christian anti-Semitism, but spread to the Middle East as early as 1775, when there was a blood libel in Hebron.(...)There have been about 150 cases of blood libel that were actually tried by Catholic authorities, and many other rumored cases that never came to trial."
Most of her attackers argued that by the use of the term 'Blood libel' she brought an Anti-Semitism to the table, and offended Jewish part of the population. The confrontation went as far as quoting (by both sides of the quarrel) statements by the leaders of the Jewish organizations. Was it really the legitimate direction of the polemic? Not to me, and fortunately not to some others like Time's Alex Altman. She could have apologized and buried the matter for ever. But no, she 'reloaded' and heated the debate once more.
But again, the debate had in my opinion a misguided direction. 'Blood libel' however painful for those who were falsely accused of the religious bloody practices, is a part of the Language the same way a Holocaust is. If not abused, it may be used in many a context - to prove the point. We use the parallels and metaphors in the art of the argument to make it more explainable, easier digestible, sometimes stronger. So, by these means Palin's use of the term was not offensive. (I am positive that she didn't mean to use an Anti-Semitic card in this argument - it was just not a very prudent thing to do).
When I heard her saying these words it woke in me a strong disagreement because of a little different aspect. She proved again that she perceives herself as completely wrongly accused martyr, whereas the whole liberal America conspires against her. She dared to put herself in the same category as the wrongly accused by the Christian Authorities Jews. Her lack of perspective when considering herself a part of so deeply suppressed and misunderstood entity, that only the term 'blood libel' could fit to describe it is scary to say the least. Her and other members of the Tea Party (or other conservative organizations) responsibility for the Arizona Massacre is disputable, I understand it. But at the same time is not a matter of a myth - completely unfounded and sick - it's a matter of interpretation of the inflammatory remarks uttered so often in the past by herself, or Sharon Angle or others.
When the abortion doctors were attacked and sometimes killed, when the clinics where they worked were cowardly targeted and destroyed we as a society didn't have too much difficulties with associating such acts directly with the inflammatory and very graphic statements by the anti-abortion activists. Although often they couldn't be charged with the crime, the moral condemnation was strong and unanimous.
Why can't we apply the same standards to Sarah Palin or Sharon Angle?
Martin Luther King Jr Birthday observed - Presidents of that era
Yesterday, in the whole Country, we observed a holiday celebrating the birthday and life of a great Human Rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. (born on January 15, 1929). Even though he was later cowardly assassinated (on April 4, 1968), while standing on the balcony of his motel room in Memphis, Tennessee, where he was to lead a protest march in sympathy with striking garbage workers of that city, his impact on the social evolution of the United States was unparalleled. The holiday was proclaimed by President Carter and later signed into law by President Reagan - as a National Holiday.
Everybody remembers his "I had a dream..." speech, and even though the "promised land" hasn't become a reality yet - the profound changes have been made to a fabric of Society.
Most of people tend to forget that the MLK was an advocate for all equities, not only fighting for the emancipation and equal treatment of the people of color, but all underprivileged groups of the inhabitants of the Country, including all the minorities, women, and the poor - who were previously conveniently overlooked by everybody.
I have a great respect and admiration for Dr. King. I also believe that it would require nothing short of insanity to try to undermine his profound importance to the democracy, and the history of the USA in general.
And yet - in the January of 2010 an elected member of Colorado School Board - Brett Reese threw at Dr. King a bunch of racial slurs and unsubstantiated political accusations, and openly quoted in his radio talk show a letter by a Neo-Nazi activist, trying to deface the memory and the legacy of the MLK, trying to sell to the public a seed of hatred and lies. It really looks like we are going backwards...
To me the Martin Luther King Jr day is also a day to remember, and bring closer, one of the American Presidents - a very unlikely hero, very unpopular for his role in escalating the Vietnam War - Lyndon B Johnson. I still remember sitting on a floor in a living-room and listening to the transmission from the Arlington Cemetery a few days after the fatal shooting in Dallas in November 1963. JFK was dead. Even though I was a kid, in a foreign country, I knew that something terrible had happened. Unspeakable act of violence... Unfortunately one of many these years... The surviving Vice President was sworn into the Office. Lyndon B Johnson began his 6 years of service.
Ever since I started understand a bit better the worlds affairs, I grew impressed by this President. I know, I am going to utter a very unpopular statements here. The reverence with which the Nation looks upon a fallen President (JFK) prevents anybody to truly balance his actions. I am not going to dwell on it too long, but I have to mention at least 2 major developments: during the Bay of Pigs Invasion John F Kennedy brought us the closest to the nuclear annihilation we have ever been. I understand better and better the mitigating circumstances, the complexity of the situation, but I am still convinced that the hard line position of JFK might have brought the end of the time as we know it. Well, it didn't... The JFK's decisions also pushed America into the war. President Eisenhower had about 900 advisers in Vietnam, by the 1963 American forces in Vietnam grew to 16000. This was only the beginning. Predominant understanding of that region was based on a 'Domino Effect Theory' saying that if the Communists are not stopped in a first country they invade (South Vietnam) the 'red plague' would spread to all the neighboring countries. It wasn't a right assumption as we know it after the fact.
When Lyndon B Johnson took the office, the machine was already wound up to the brink of explosion. Of course, he escalated the war. He committed more and more equipment, more and more personnel. More and more body bags were coming back home. The war was becoming more and more tiresome, destructive and taking higher and higher toll on the Nation.
Yes, President L.B. Johnson is responsible for it. But did he have a choice? He didn't start it, he inherited the war with the Office...
Alongside with the Vietnam War L.B. Johnson was involved in pushing the most advanced socially legislature in the history of the United States. Coming from the South (Texas) he was deeply concerned with the racism, and all forms of discrimination on a base of the gender, religion, ethnicity etc. He was 'marching' shoulder to shoulder with Martin Luther King Jr. and other racial, and social activists finalizing in 1964 a piece of legislature which was not even expected by many - the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1964. Of course he had to tread lightly if he wanted to be reelected in 1964. Nevertheless he hasn't stopped. The other socially charged, revolutionary initiatives followed the Civil Rights Act and were signed into law during his second term (actually first term of his own presidency). Please just have a look at a few bills he introduced and signed, changing the America forever.
Our days are spent on discussions about the future of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid... Both Medicare and Medicaid were signed into law by L.B. Johnson, along with the law addressing unfair treatment of the minorities on a housing market, as well as uneven pay received by different groups of employees.
And yet the civil unrests caused by the WAR were growing. And Johnson, deeply troubled by the situation and the hatred of the Nation (directed directly at him) appeared in front of the Television on March 31, 1968 uttering these memorable words: "...I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President". In the same speech he announced some new steps to limit the Vietnam War. No one wanted to believe in that, nor remember it...
* 1963: Clean Air Act of 1963
* 1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964
* 1964: Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
* 1964: Wilderness Act
* 1964: Food Stamp Act of 1964
* 1965: Higher Education Act of 1965
* 1965: Older Americans Act
* 1965: Social Security Act of 1965
* 1965: Voting Rights Act
* 1965: Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965
* 1966: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
* 1967: Age Discrimination in Employment Act
* 1967: Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
* 1968: Bilingual Education Act
* 1968: Fair housing
* 1968: Gun Control Act of 1968
The Vietnam War continued to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. America has lost 58 thousand soldiers, killed or missing in action. The terrible toll.
The war he hasn't started, the war he tried to limit and end, completely overshadowed his undeniable social efforts and achievements. It made him remembered by the common man as one of the worst Presidents in the history of the United States instead of who he really was - one of the most progressive and devoted to social, and racial equality, and one of the most effective in it, Presidents.
I know that my lone cry is not going to change much, but maybe someone, even a single person, will look at Lyndon B Johnson - the 36th President of the United States - and see him for who and what he was - a fighter for social and racial justice, caring for the Country and the People.
Everybody remembers his "I had a dream..." speech, and even though the "promised land" hasn't become a reality yet - the profound changes have been made to a fabric of Society.
Most of people tend to forget that the MLK was an advocate for all equities, not only fighting for the emancipation and equal treatment of the people of color, but all underprivileged groups of the inhabitants of the Country, including all the minorities, women, and the poor - who were previously conveniently overlooked by everybody.
I have a great respect and admiration for Dr. King. I also believe that it would require nothing short of insanity to try to undermine his profound importance to the democracy, and the history of the USA in general.
And yet - in the January of 2010 an elected member of Colorado School Board - Brett Reese threw at Dr. King a bunch of racial slurs and unsubstantiated political accusations, and openly quoted in his radio talk show a letter by a Neo-Nazi activist, trying to deface the memory and the legacy of the MLK, trying to sell to the public a seed of hatred and lies. It really looks like we are going backwards...
To me the Martin Luther King Jr day is also a day to remember, and bring closer, one of the American Presidents - a very unlikely hero, very unpopular for his role in escalating the Vietnam War - Lyndon B Johnson. I still remember sitting on a floor in a living-room and listening to the transmission from the Arlington Cemetery a few days after the fatal shooting in Dallas in November 1963. JFK was dead. Even though I was a kid, in a foreign country, I knew that something terrible had happened. Unspeakable act of violence... Unfortunately one of many these years... The surviving Vice President was sworn into the Office. Lyndon B Johnson began his 6 years of service.
Ever since I started understand a bit better the worlds affairs, I grew impressed by this President. I know, I am going to utter a very unpopular statements here. The reverence with which the Nation looks upon a fallen President (JFK) prevents anybody to truly balance his actions. I am not going to dwell on it too long, but I have to mention at least 2 major developments: during the Bay of Pigs Invasion John F Kennedy brought us the closest to the nuclear annihilation we have ever been. I understand better and better the mitigating circumstances, the complexity of the situation, but I am still convinced that the hard line position of JFK might have brought the end of the time as we know it. Well, it didn't... The JFK's decisions also pushed America into the war. President Eisenhower had about 900 advisers in Vietnam, by the 1963 American forces in Vietnam grew to 16000. This was only the beginning. Predominant understanding of that region was based on a 'Domino Effect Theory' saying that if the Communists are not stopped in a first country they invade (South Vietnam) the 'red plague' would spread to all the neighboring countries. It wasn't a right assumption as we know it after the fact.
When Lyndon B Johnson took the office, the machine was already wound up to the brink of explosion. Of course, he escalated the war. He committed more and more equipment, more and more personnel. More and more body bags were coming back home. The war was becoming more and more tiresome, destructive and taking higher and higher toll on the Nation.
Yes, President L.B. Johnson is responsible for it. But did he have a choice? He didn't start it, he inherited the war with the Office...
Alongside with the Vietnam War L.B. Johnson was involved in pushing the most advanced socially legislature in the history of the United States. Coming from the South (Texas) he was deeply concerned with the racism, and all forms of discrimination on a base of the gender, religion, ethnicity etc. He was 'marching' shoulder to shoulder with Martin Luther King Jr. and other racial, and social activists finalizing in 1964 a piece of legislature which was not even expected by many - the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1964. Of course he had to tread lightly if he wanted to be reelected in 1964. Nevertheless he hasn't stopped. The other socially charged, revolutionary initiatives followed the Civil Rights Act and were signed into law during his second term (actually first term of his own presidency). Please just have a look at a few bills he introduced and signed, changing the America forever.
Our days are spent on discussions about the future of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid... Both Medicare and Medicaid were signed into law by L.B. Johnson, along with the law addressing unfair treatment of the minorities on a housing market, as well as uneven pay received by different groups of employees.
And yet the civil unrests caused by the WAR were growing. And Johnson, deeply troubled by the situation and the hatred of the Nation (directed directly at him) appeared in front of the Television on March 31, 1968 uttering these memorable words: "...I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President". In the same speech he announced some new steps to limit the Vietnam War. No one wanted to believe in that, nor remember it...
* 1963: Clean Air Act of 1963
* 1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964
* 1964: Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964
* 1964: Wilderness Act
* 1964: Food Stamp Act of 1964
* 1965: Higher Education Act of 1965
* 1965: Older Americans Act
* 1965: Social Security Act of 1965
* 1965: Voting Rights Act
* 1965: Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965
* 1966: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
* 1967: Age Discrimination in Employment Act
* 1967: Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
* 1968: Bilingual Education Act
* 1968: Fair housing
* 1968: Gun Control Act of 1968
The Vietnam War continued to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. America has lost 58 thousand soldiers, killed or missing in action. The terrible toll.
The war he hasn't started, the war he tried to limit and end, completely overshadowed his undeniable social efforts and achievements. It made him remembered by the common man as one of the worst Presidents in the history of the United States instead of who he really was - one of the most progressive and devoted to social, and racial equality, and one of the most effective in it, Presidents.
I know that my lone cry is not going to change much, but maybe someone, even a single person, will look at Lyndon B Johnson - the 36th President of the United States - and see him for who and what he was - a fighter for social and racial justice, caring for the Country and the People.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Political Assassination in Arizona - 2nd Amendment revisited
Jared Lee Loughner (22) killed 6 people and wounded 14 in an act of political terrorism, nearly killing a Congress Woman, killing a Federal Judge, and a few other federal employees and bystanders on Saturday, January 08, 2011.
It is an unspeakable act of violence, perpetrated by a 22 years old, evidently disturbed person. We can discuss his affiliation with the extremely conservative, anti-Jewish, anti-immigration organizations. We can discuss his twisted reality and anti-government sentiments. But again, it's not what interests me the most at the moment.
Let's talk about one of the pillars of the American Democracy - the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
It reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This Amendment was ratified by most of the States in 1789, a few years after the Revolutionary War ended. I do not need to emphasize the structural and social differences between the America of the late 1700 and the America of 2011. It's not the same country by any means. One of the differences is a well oiled Military Machine, as well as all forms of organized on Federal and Local levels law enforcement organizations (FBI and Police). What was necessary more than 200 years ago in order just to survive - is not necessarily required, nor needed now.
Now and then we hear an argument about some of the Religions of the World - that they do not change in time, do not evolve (as most of the societies evolve) becoming more and more conservative and actually impeding progress. At the same time we do not even give a second thought to the very 'dated' 2nd Amendment which although traditionally correct, in the modern society seems a bit archaic - just like fasting on Friday.
I like guns myself (for the record: I do not own any). Their absolutely pragmatic design and function, simplicity and effectiveness of both... Modern pistols like Gluck (used by J.L. Loughner) and Beretta are minimalistically beautiful. The same applies to the hunting rifles and shotguns, and other military issue weapons.
All members of the Military, Law Enforcement and Security Forces are subject to the long and tedious process of getting familiar with them, and being able to understand and keep in check not the mechanics of the guns they use, but the psychological aspect of having a gun in their hands. I stress here the feeling of empowerment while holding a loaded gun. There is no exception, it's an unavoidable sensation working on the enzyme (chemical) level of our brains. Everybody is a subject to it, like everybody is a subject to a 'cultural shock' and all the stages of it. All the Operators are trained to be aware of it and think beyond the effect of the adrenaline and endorphin produced at that moment.
But what happens to the 'common', untrained people. The effect of holding a loaded gun makes them lose the proper perspective on reality. Quite common are the confessions of the accidental shooters referring to a feeling of invincibility while having a gun in their hands. We are all conditioned by the culture in general (followed by the law) to respect the human life. To a certain degree this conditioning has been extended to all the mammals - even those who are otherwise considered 'game'. There is also a just and proper fear before pulling the trigger when the gun is aimed at another human being (and rightfully so). But this fear may be diminished by a mechanical proficiency, if the training didn't address the psychological aspect associated with it.
We (the USA) are probably the only civilized country in the World, who's citizens are free to buy a fire arm (after some, sometimes rudimentary, background check and the waiting period), and in many States carry it (last time I checked 17 States of the USA issue the 'concealed weapon' permits).
I am a New Yorker, but I travel sometimes. I remember to this day my trip to Houston, TX shortly after they approved the 'concealed weapon' in that State. After taking a rental car from the airport (with almost empty tank) I stopped by at a Gas Station on my way to the City. While waiting for the tank to be filled, I noticed a car pulling to the neighboring distributor (a shiny red Mustang convertible with a vanity plates and a roof down). The guy who climbed out had on him pair of jeans and cowboy boots, gold chain and rings, white tea-shirt... and 2 - 9mm pistols in the mesh holsters under his arms. He wasn't a law-enforcement officer...
What if I (or anybody else) accidentally smashed his priced possession in a traffic accident. How well could he control his urge to use 'a second amendment solution' (as called by Sharron Angle in her campaign against the Senate majority leader).
Advocates of the 'concealed weapon' permits claim that the violent crime rate in the states who introduced these permits plummeted dramatically right after their implementation - in the laymen's terms: criminals have to think twice before pulling a gun on a innocent looking victim - since that person may react by pulling the trigger of his/her gun hidden in a purse or a pocket.
Is it really a solution?
We are getting more and more insensitive to the 'normal', 'quiet' 'polite'. It doesn't impress us, it doesn't leave a long lasting impression. We need stronger and stronger stimuli, to even pay a bit of attention. The advertisers know it and use it in their campaigns. Also politicians know it. The chase after more attractive and 'head turning' wording of the politicians speeches brings the speech writers to the usage of previously (a few decades ago) unused language - with it's roots in the military 'lingo'. No one selects the people groups any more - they are 'targeted'. No one backs off from the wrong position, wrong statements - they are 'forced to retreat'. We do not have any more the peaceful and democratic 'exchanges of ideas', 'discussions' and even 'quarrels'. We have the constant 'battles' and 'wars'. The politicians on the 'opposite sides of the isle' are not representatives who want GOOD for the Country any more, they are adversaries and most often foes.
I do not want to be too partisan blaming this escalation of the Republican side. It happens on both sides of the isle. Even the President on the 6/14/2008 used this kind of rhetoric: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser.
But most of this sort of unnecessarily violent references we can hear in the speeches of the Conservative politicians, radio talk-show host etc. Mentioned beforehand Sharron Angle said openly that if they lose the elections - there is always 'a second amendment solution' (she said that in her campaign against the Senate majority leader in 2010). Sarah Palin compiled a map of the USA with the congressional districts - where more progressive, democratic districts were indicated by a 'cross hair' - like in a gun sight. One of this districts with the 'cross hair' painted over it was a district in Arizona - to which the brutally targeted Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford belonged.
We can't take the politicians words literally - I am sure they do not mean when they refer to 'Wild West' way of solving problems. These are metaphors only. I understand it, and most of the logically thinking people in the US know it as well.
But what about those not exactly stable, not exactly balanced psychologically. As I heard yesterday - there is about 45,000 of sick or very unstable individuals in the USA at any given moment. They are usually barely tolerated by the society at large. They are frustrated and isolated. Being rejected over and over they develop hatred to all the people surrounding them. They respond overwhelmingly 'well' to the 'conspiracy theories' propagated by talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. They do respond and they react upon it.
It's not at all surprising (or at least it shouldn't be) that the empowering effect (experienced by normal people) of the gun becomes the solution of all their problems. The gun gives them the power and unlimited control over their lives an all the control over lives of the people around them. It gives them finally the control over something...
It's not that difficult to indoctrinate such a person(s) to do the unspeakable acts of violence in the name of somebody else's agenda - we have witnessed that over and over during last 2 decades.
---------------------
I understand that the criminals will find their way to the possession of the fire-arm, no matter how hard the system tries to prevent them from it. It is 'a war' which can't be won. The weapons used by them are often smuggled or stolen (even from the law enforcement). And this is a subject to a different discussion. What is a problem which I see, is the easiness of obtaining the weapon license, or buying the weapon parts from the mail order catalogs, only to assemble it at home. It is a federal offense to transport the weapon across a State line, but some individuals may not see it as a restraining factor. And the parts I am talking about are not a hand-gun parts but the parts to build an assault rifle, like AK-47. Can anybody explain to me why any law abiding citizen may want an assault rifle? The name itself reveals it's true purpose, it's not a protection, it's an aggression - assault. They are not legal for hunting game, so the only explanation would be to hunt... people?
Suddenly, after the Arizona Saturday tragedy someone raised the issue of extended clips to the hand-guns. The perpetrator of the Saturday massacre had an extended (30 bullet) clip which he purchased separately. Again, why a law abiding citizen would like to have an extended (double capacity) magazine for his hand-gun? Is the 'paper target' at he shooting range going to escape while he reloads the gun? I doubt.
Why are these assault rifles and 'assault accessories' legally available in the States? If the main legal purposes of the gun ownership are protection, hunting, target practicing (I am talking about artificial, paper or clay targets...), what are the reasons preventing the legislature from banning them once and for all?
Why in some States one can obtain a gun license and buy a gun - all the same day? How thorough can the background check be if performed in such a hurry? Apparently not very thorough in Arizona, since Jared Lee Loughner, had some brushes with the authorities prior to the gun purchase.
If every driver is obligated to pass at least an eye test every few years, why doesn't anybody have to pass a psychological evaluation before obtaining a gun license and then every few years just to prove that they are still capable to tell the reality from paranoid illusions? Who is afraid of such tests?
Well, I may answer this question right away - gun manufacturers and dealers - since probably half of the people applying for the license wouldn't pas such a test (I don't even want to think about the current owners).
We hear all the time the argument saying that 'Government control is depriving the people of their freedoms'. We hear it from the 'Wall Street', we hear from all the lobbyists of the 'big business (like the Gun Manufacturers).
But what is apparent, is that the lack of the strong and decisive Gun Control regulation is one of the main reasons why this tragedy (and many previous ones) have taken place.
---------------------
The Constitution of the United States is a profound and powerful document. I am not in the position to even suggest revoking the Second Amendment. Although I myself can't see the wisdom in it now - I understand that it was very important to the process of forging of the New Country of ours. I also hope that the Arizona Saturday tragedy is not going to be forgotten without a proper action. I hope that it will spawn the new, comprehensive approach to the Gun Control issue preventing the events like that in the Future.
It is an unspeakable act of violence, perpetrated by a 22 years old, evidently disturbed person. We can discuss his affiliation with the extremely conservative, anti-Jewish, anti-immigration organizations. We can discuss his twisted reality and anti-government sentiments. But again, it's not what interests me the most at the moment.
Let's talk about one of the pillars of the American Democracy - the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
It reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This Amendment was ratified by most of the States in 1789, a few years after the Revolutionary War ended. I do not need to emphasize the structural and social differences between the America of the late 1700 and the America of 2011. It's not the same country by any means. One of the differences is a well oiled Military Machine, as well as all forms of organized on Federal and Local levels law enforcement organizations (FBI and Police). What was necessary more than 200 years ago in order just to survive - is not necessarily required, nor needed now.
Now and then we hear an argument about some of the Religions of the World - that they do not change in time, do not evolve (as most of the societies evolve) becoming more and more conservative and actually impeding progress. At the same time we do not even give a second thought to the very 'dated' 2nd Amendment which although traditionally correct, in the modern society seems a bit archaic - just like fasting on Friday.
I like guns myself (for the record: I do not own any). Their absolutely pragmatic design and function, simplicity and effectiveness of both... Modern pistols like Gluck (used by J.L. Loughner) and Beretta are minimalistically beautiful. The same applies to the hunting rifles and shotguns, and other military issue weapons.
All members of the Military, Law Enforcement and Security Forces are subject to the long and tedious process of getting familiar with them, and being able to understand and keep in check not the mechanics of the guns they use, but the psychological aspect of having a gun in their hands. I stress here the feeling of empowerment while holding a loaded gun. There is no exception, it's an unavoidable sensation working on the enzyme (chemical) level of our brains. Everybody is a subject to it, like everybody is a subject to a 'cultural shock' and all the stages of it. All the Operators are trained to be aware of it and think beyond the effect of the adrenaline and endorphin produced at that moment.
But what happens to the 'common', untrained people. The effect of holding a loaded gun makes them lose the proper perspective on reality. Quite common are the confessions of the accidental shooters referring to a feeling of invincibility while having a gun in their hands. We are all conditioned by the culture in general (followed by the law) to respect the human life. To a certain degree this conditioning has been extended to all the mammals - even those who are otherwise considered 'game'. There is also a just and proper fear before pulling the trigger when the gun is aimed at another human being (and rightfully so). But this fear may be diminished by a mechanical proficiency, if the training didn't address the psychological aspect associated with it.
We (the USA) are probably the only civilized country in the World, who's citizens are free to buy a fire arm (after some, sometimes rudimentary, background check and the waiting period), and in many States carry it (last time I checked 17 States of the USA issue the 'concealed weapon' permits).
I am a New Yorker, but I travel sometimes. I remember to this day my trip to Houston, TX shortly after they approved the 'concealed weapon' in that State. After taking a rental car from the airport (with almost empty tank) I stopped by at a Gas Station on my way to the City. While waiting for the tank to be filled, I noticed a car pulling to the neighboring distributor (a shiny red Mustang convertible with a vanity plates and a roof down). The guy who climbed out had on him pair of jeans and cowboy boots, gold chain and rings, white tea-shirt... and 2 - 9mm pistols in the mesh holsters under his arms. He wasn't a law-enforcement officer...
What if I (or anybody else) accidentally smashed his priced possession in a traffic accident. How well could he control his urge to use 'a second amendment solution' (as called by Sharron Angle in her campaign against the Senate majority leader).
Advocates of the 'concealed weapon' permits claim that the violent crime rate in the states who introduced these permits plummeted dramatically right after their implementation - in the laymen's terms: criminals have to think twice before pulling a gun on a innocent looking victim - since that person may react by pulling the trigger of his/her gun hidden in a purse or a pocket.
Is it really a solution?
We are getting more and more insensitive to the 'normal', 'quiet' 'polite'. It doesn't impress us, it doesn't leave a long lasting impression. We need stronger and stronger stimuli, to even pay a bit of attention. The advertisers know it and use it in their campaigns. Also politicians know it. The chase after more attractive and 'head turning' wording of the politicians speeches brings the speech writers to the usage of previously (a few decades ago) unused language - with it's roots in the military 'lingo'. No one selects the people groups any more - they are 'targeted'. No one backs off from the wrong position, wrong statements - they are 'forced to retreat'. We do not have any more the peaceful and democratic 'exchanges of ideas', 'discussions' and even 'quarrels'. We have the constant 'battles' and 'wars'. The politicians on the 'opposite sides of the isle' are not representatives who want GOOD for the Country any more, they are adversaries and most often foes.
I do not want to be too partisan blaming this escalation of the Republican side. It happens on both sides of the isle. Even the President on the 6/14/2008 used this kind of rhetoric: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser.
But most of this sort of unnecessarily violent references we can hear in the speeches of the Conservative politicians, radio talk-show host etc. Mentioned beforehand Sharron Angle said openly that if they lose the elections - there is always 'a second amendment solution' (she said that in her campaign against the Senate majority leader in 2010). Sarah Palin compiled a map of the USA with the congressional districts - where more progressive, democratic districts were indicated by a 'cross hair' - like in a gun sight. One of this districts with the 'cross hair' painted over it was a district in Arizona - to which the brutally targeted Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford belonged.
We can't take the politicians words literally - I am sure they do not mean when they refer to 'Wild West' way of solving problems. These are metaphors only. I understand it, and most of the logically thinking people in the US know it as well.
But what about those not exactly stable, not exactly balanced psychologically. As I heard yesterday - there is about 45,000 of sick or very unstable individuals in the USA at any given moment. They are usually barely tolerated by the society at large. They are frustrated and isolated. Being rejected over and over they develop hatred to all the people surrounding them. They respond overwhelmingly 'well' to the 'conspiracy theories' propagated by talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. They do respond and they react upon it.
It's not at all surprising (or at least it shouldn't be) that the empowering effect (experienced by normal people) of the gun becomes the solution of all their problems. The gun gives them the power and unlimited control over their lives an all the control over lives of the people around them. It gives them finally the control over something...
It's not that difficult to indoctrinate such a person(s) to do the unspeakable acts of violence in the name of somebody else's agenda - we have witnessed that over and over during last 2 decades.
---------------------
I understand that the criminals will find their way to the possession of the fire-arm, no matter how hard the system tries to prevent them from it. It is 'a war' which can't be won. The weapons used by them are often smuggled or stolen (even from the law enforcement). And this is a subject to a different discussion. What is a problem which I see, is the easiness of obtaining the weapon license, or buying the weapon parts from the mail order catalogs, only to assemble it at home. It is a federal offense to transport the weapon across a State line, but some individuals may not see it as a restraining factor. And the parts I am talking about are not a hand-gun parts but the parts to build an assault rifle, like AK-47. Can anybody explain to me why any law abiding citizen may want an assault rifle? The name itself reveals it's true purpose, it's not a protection, it's an aggression - assault. They are not legal for hunting game, so the only explanation would be to hunt... people?
Suddenly, after the Arizona Saturday tragedy someone raised the issue of extended clips to the hand-guns. The perpetrator of the Saturday massacre had an extended (30 bullet) clip which he purchased separately. Again, why a law abiding citizen would like to have an extended (double capacity) magazine for his hand-gun? Is the 'paper target' at he shooting range going to escape while he reloads the gun? I doubt.
Why are these assault rifles and 'assault accessories' legally available in the States? If the main legal purposes of the gun ownership are protection, hunting, target practicing (I am talking about artificial, paper or clay targets...), what are the reasons preventing the legislature from banning them once and for all?
Why in some States one can obtain a gun license and buy a gun - all the same day? How thorough can the background check be if performed in such a hurry? Apparently not very thorough in Arizona, since Jared Lee Loughner, had some brushes with the authorities prior to the gun purchase.
If every driver is obligated to pass at least an eye test every few years, why doesn't anybody have to pass a psychological evaluation before obtaining a gun license and then every few years just to prove that they are still capable to tell the reality from paranoid illusions? Who is afraid of such tests?
Well, I may answer this question right away - gun manufacturers and dealers - since probably half of the people applying for the license wouldn't pas such a test (I don't even want to think about the current owners).
We hear all the time the argument saying that 'Government control is depriving the people of their freedoms'. We hear it from the 'Wall Street', we hear from all the lobbyists of the 'big business (like the Gun Manufacturers).
But what is apparent, is that the lack of the strong and decisive Gun Control regulation is one of the main reasons why this tragedy (and many previous ones) have taken place.
---------------------
The Constitution of the United States is a profound and powerful document. I am not in the position to even suggest revoking the Second Amendment. Although I myself can't see the wisdom in it now - I understand that it was very important to the process of forging of the New Country of ours. I also hope that the Arizona Saturday tragedy is not going to be forgotten without a proper action. I hope that it will spawn the new, comprehensive approach to the Gun Control issue preventing the events like that in the Future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)