Back in August, while vacationing at Cape Cod with family, I started writing about kids and guns. Or, more to the point, parenting and guns. I noodled around, trying to talk about how we institute sane gun policy with our child, because kids, especially boys, like to play with toy guns.
Now, on December 14, 2012, as I sit on the couch with my child while he eats Extra Cheesy Cheddar Bunnies and watches “Wonder Pets,” that essay sits unfinished in my queue, and 20 children and 7 adults have been slaughtered in Newtown, Connecticut by a man with guns.
On Tuesday, a man with guns killed two people at a shopping mall in Oregon. Here in Minnesota last week, a man shot his granddaughter because he thought she was an intruder. (She lived.) On Thanksgiving, again in Minnesota, a man shot and then executed two teenagers who he says broke into his home. I don’t need to go any further back in time, do I?
Because America has reached the point where headlines such as this are necessary: “Mass shootings at schools and universities in the US” (emphasis mine) and “A history of mass shootings in the US since Columbine.” They don’t even try to list them all anymore.
One of the reasons I have not finished the essay is because talking publicly about guns and gun policy is a daunting prospect in this hysterical, gun-addled country. It’s like a third rail or, more accurately, a religion, where no one is allowed to criticize or question. The moment anyone brings it up, the NRA and various right-wingers go ape-shit, bark about the Second Amendment, trot out false equivalencies, blame it on gun control, and it’s all over.
“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”
Fuck you, NRA, and the heavily-armed horse you rode in on.
People with guns kill people, and you can keep your bumpersticker mentality and bizarre interpretation of the Constitution to yourself. Your superficial, myopic sloganeering in your adoration of the Second Amendment is laughable, uncritical, and harmful. It hinders thoughtful discussion of our culturally complicated relationship with firearms. It distorts our history and makes effective, evidence-based public policy impossible. I have no use for you; you are part of the problem. Because you stifle any chance to approach this issue with sanity, facts, reason, and long-term thinking.
Sure, it’s not just about guns, but you won’t let us talk about the guns part at all. And, truth be told, your friends on the right don’t want to assist the mentally ill, talk about poverty, drug policy, education, or anything else that might help. And it’s not about better defenses or arming teachers or security at schools. Stop blaming the victim.
All you have is “No.”
So just shut up.
Your right to have a gun is infringing on my freedom to be safe anywhere, ever.
You’re done.
After today, you have nothing more to say.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Guns.
No apologies, folks. It's time for a review of the evidence and a re-evaluation of national and state gun policies based on facts. It's time to address the cultural issues. It's time to talk about our national obsession with firearms and the Second Amendment. It's time to talk mental health, poverty, crime, and drug policy.
Past time.
Thoughts and prayers are one thing. I'm sick of them. Thoughts and prayers are not action.
Surely a great nation such as the United States can work to craft sane gun policy as well as policy that works on other related issues. While it is certain that every prohibition creates another underground, I believe that we can create a policy long-game that starts to create change.
Stop standing in the way, GOP and NRA. You have no leg to stand on.
You never did.
Past time.
Thoughts and prayers are one thing. I'm sick of them. Thoughts and prayers are not action.
Surely a great nation such as the United States can work to craft sane gun policy as well as policy that works on other related issues. While it is certain that every prohibition creates another underground, I believe that we can create a policy long-game that starts to create change.
Stop standing in the way, GOP and NRA. You have no leg to stand on.
You never did.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
United Gifts of America
This may be one of the worst things I have read in awhile: Romney reflects on his loss in call with campaign donors
Not the least for its cynical reaffirmation of the famous 47% comments, its abject disdain for government, and complete inability to analyze election results, but because the party of "personal responsibility" and its poster boy, Mr. Romney, take absolutely no personal responsibility for his loss.
It couldn't be that you see access to health care and the ability to get a college education as "gifts"; it's that those gifts were given to brown people, young people (presumably of all colors), and women. It couldn't be that your party no longer has anything to offer to broad swaths of a changing America, it's that America is changing, and you don't like it. It couldn't be that what Mr. Obama has offered is good and important to many Americans, and actually is what they want; it's that President Obama bribed voters with "freebies." It's not that you are anti-immigrant, it's that President Obama painted you that way. (Insert Jessica Rabbit quote here.)
You, in other words, did not bring this failure, this loss, on yourself through bad politics and poor policy, it was thrust on you by a President, a government, who panders to minorities and women (i.e. not "real Americans"?). He, Mr. Obama, is the cynic, not you. He is trying to make life better for Americans purely to be re-elected president, while you pandering to a decaying segment of America is purely American.
I'm disgusted. More disgusted than when I heard the 47% comments for the first time. But I suppose I am not surprised. The Party of No has learned Nothing. Perhaps they shouldn't. Perhaps they should continue looking for the missing black people, talking about "urban voters," and revive their search for the Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration. Maybe, then, in 2014, we will be rid of their over-represented public presence for awhile.
Not the least for its cynical reaffirmation of the famous 47% comments, its abject disdain for government, and complete inability to analyze election results, but because the party of "personal responsibility" and its poster boy, Mr. Romney, take absolutely no personal responsibility for his loss.
It couldn't be that you see access to health care and the ability to get a college education as "gifts"; it's that those gifts were given to brown people, young people (presumably of all colors), and women. It couldn't be that your party no longer has anything to offer to broad swaths of a changing America, it's that America is changing, and you don't like it. It couldn't be that what Mr. Obama has offered is good and important to many Americans, and actually is what they want; it's that President Obama bribed voters with "freebies." It's not that you are anti-immigrant, it's that President Obama painted you that way. (Insert Jessica Rabbit quote here.)
You, in other words, did not bring this failure, this loss, on yourself through bad politics and poor policy, it was thrust on you by a President, a government, who panders to minorities and women (i.e. not "real Americans"?). He, Mr. Obama, is the cynic, not you. He is trying to make life better for Americans purely to be re-elected president, while you pandering to a decaying segment of America is purely American.
I'm disgusted. More disgusted than when I heard the 47% comments for the first time. But I suppose I am not surprised. The Party of No has learned Nothing. Perhaps they shouldn't. Perhaps they should continue looking for the missing black people, talking about "urban voters," and revive their search for the Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration. Maybe, then, in 2014, we will be rid of their over-represented public presence for awhile.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Thanks, Minnesota. Again.
The rights of a minority should not be put to a vote. The Minnesota State Constitution is no place for discrimination; it is a place to uphold rights and equality.
I'll be saying "Thanks" to Minnesota voters for awhile.
Thanks.
Twice.
I'll be saying "Thanks" to Minnesota voters for awhile.
Thanks.
Twice.
Tea Party for the Community?
There's an interesting article in the NYTimes about Occupy Wallstreet organizing to help people hit hard by Sandy in the New York City area. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters for America tweeted a query: "Good piece in NTY about the Occupy relief response to Sandy. Q: has Tea Party ever dedicated itself to acts of goodness?"
From the New York Times: "ON Wednesday night, as a fierce northeaster bore down on the weather-beaten Rockaways, the relief groups with a noticeable presence on the battered Queens peninsula were these: the National Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Police and Sanitation Departments — and Occupy Sandy, a do-it-yourself outfit recently established by Occupy Wall Street."
And that got me thinking: does Tea Party morality allow for helping your fellow human? In the libertarian-objectivist model, if one is suffering, hasn't one brought that suffering upon oneself, even if it's caused by a natural disaster? If someone knew a storm was coming, and did not prepare, do they deserve what follows? Do the dictates of "personal responsibility" stretch that far?
I really don't know; that's why I'm asking.
For religious members of the Tea Party, are natural disasters acts of God, and brought about by a moral failing? And isn't suffering also the direct result of a moral failing?
Or is it only if people in the government extend the helping hand that it's wrong? Even though one could argue that officials are elected by the people, so the government is only extending the hand of the people through a bureaucratic system.
The only things I have seen Tea Partiers doing are: yelling at elected officials at community meetings, holding up poorly-spelled and/or logically-flawed posters at rallies and protests, and generally being nuisances in a completely non-constructive manner by spouting hollow rhetoric about "liberty" and "freedom," which seems to mean "taking liberty with the truth and freedom from facts."
In many ways, I would think that the Tea Party should be getting all hot and bothered, reading about the response these Occupy people have put together. After all, it's private citizens doing it, instead of the the government, even if they are just a bunch of dirty hippies. But then again, it's community organizing, and it's what Barack Obama references when he says that Americans stick together and help their fellow Americans. And we cannot agree with the Great Socialist.
And how can a group of people like the Tea Party get together and organize themselves, protest as allowed by the government, elect candidates into the government, etc. without criticizing themselves for "community organizing"?
There again, I think this is only OK in their morality when it's based in rage toward a government that...
Oh, I don't know. It's all so tortured.
See above. I really don't know.
From the New York Times: "ON Wednesday night, as a fierce northeaster bore down on the weather-beaten Rockaways, the relief groups with a noticeable presence on the battered Queens peninsula were these: the National Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Police and Sanitation Departments — and Occupy Sandy, a do-it-yourself outfit recently established by Occupy Wall Street."
And that got me thinking: does Tea Party morality allow for helping your fellow human? In the libertarian-objectivist model, if one is suffering, hasn't one brought that suffering upon oneself, even if it's caused by a natural disaster? If someone knew a storm was coming, and did not prepare, do they deserve what follows? Do the dictates of "personal responsibility" stretch that far?
I really don't know; that's why I'm asking.
For religious members of the Tea Party, are natural disasters acts of God, and brought about by a moral failing? And isn't suffering also the direct result of a moral failing?
Or is it only if people in the government extend the helping hand that it's wrong? Even though one could argue that officials are elected by the people, so the government is only extending the hand of the people through a bureaucratic system.
The only things I have seen Tea Partiers doing are: yelling at elected officials at community meetings, holding up poorly-spelled and/or logically-flawed posters at rallies and protests, and generally being nuisances in a completely non-constructive manner by spouting hollow rhetoric about "liberty" and "freedom," which seems to mean "taking liberty with the truth and freedom from facts."
In many ways, I would think that the Tea Party should be getting all hot and bothered, reading about the response these Occupy people have put together. After all, it's private citizens doing it, instead of the the government, even if they are just a bunch of dirty hippies. But then again, it's community organizing, and it's what Barack Obama references when he says that Americans stick together and help their fellow Americans. And we cannot agree with the Great Socialist.
And how can a group of people like the Tea Party get together and organize themselves, protest as allowed by the government, elect candidates into the government, etc. without criticizing themselves for "community organizing"?
There again, I think this is only OK in their morality when it's based in rage toward a government that...
Oh, I don't know. It's all so tortured.
See above. I really don't know.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs
If you are anything like me, you read and re-read and sometimes still read the Chronicles of Narnia. I have always especially loved The Last Battle, with its nefarious plots, darkness, and heroics. It is perhaps the most obvious in its Christian allegorical implications, but any reader can create meaning and draw parallels, and as a nonbeliever, the most striking and current parallel I have is pulled from Chapter 13: "How the Dwarfs Refuse to be Taken In:"
"Romney and his campaign had gone into the evening confident they had a good path to victory, for emotional and intellectual reasons. The huge and enthusiastic crowds in swing state after swing state in recent weeks - not only for Romney but also for Paul Ryan - bolstered what they believed intellectually: that Obama would not get the kind of turnout he had in 2008.
They thought intensity and enthusiasm were on their side this time - poll after poll showed Republicans were more motivated to vote than Democrats - and that would translate into votes for Romney.
As a result, they believed the public/media polls were skewed - they thought those polls oversampled Democrats and didn't reflect Republican enthusiasm. They based their own internal polls on turnout levels more favorable to Romney. That was a grave miscalculation, as they would see on election night."
Wait, that's an article about the Romney campaign on November 6.
Let's try this:
Tirian had thought... that they were inside a little thatched stable, about twelve feet long and six feet wide. In reality they stood on grass, the deep blue sky was overhead, and the air which blew gently on their faces was that of a day in early summer... Lucy led the way and soon they could all see the Dwarfs. They had a very odd look. They weren't strolling about or enjoying themselves (although the cords with which they had been tied seemed to have vanished) nor were they lying down and having a rest. They were sitting very close together in a little circle facing one another. They never looked round nor took any notice of the humans till Lucy and Tirian were almost near enough to touch them. then the Dwarfs all cocked their heads as if they couldn't see anyone but were listening hard and trying to guess by the sound what was happening.
You remember it, right? Everyone emerges through the door into a bright, sunny paradise, but the Dwarfs sit huddled in a circle, only able to see the dark, dirty stable. They close ranks and refuse to listen to anyone:
"Now it's time for the president to propose solutions that actually have a chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a closely divided Senate, step up to the plate on the challenges of the moment, and deliver in a way that he did not in his first four years in office.
"To the extent he wants to move to the political center, which is where the work gets done in a divided government, we'll be there to meet him half way."
They don't want yammering about a republican mandate when House republicans, while still in charge, had fewer votes than House democrats. They don't want continued obstructionism from a Congress with historically low approval ratings.
All the "modern" GOP has to offer is denialism and the inability to prepare for all outcomes if those outcomes do not fit with their created reality. Karl Rove going live on Fox News to tell them they had it wrong when they called Ohio for Obama. Running an entire end-of-campaign strategy on the belief that polls are skewed and that your anecdotal observations and internal polling tell the Real Story because the other one doesn't look good. Choosing to believe that the Obama ground game was all just smoke and mirrors, and that their own ground game was superior and would carry the day when they had not even truly tested their big, expensive GOTV apparatus. Ignoring any data showing Obama in the lead in both electoral and popular counts. Thinking that we still live in an America where all that counts is GOTWV: Get Out The White Vote.
And closing ranks on November 7, vowing to stick to their dark, fantasy-based belief in cutting taxes and obstructing the President, all in the name of party and politics.
“Well, at any rate there’s no Humbug here. We haven’t let anyone take us in. The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs."
"Romney and his campaign had gone into the evening confident they had a good path to victory, for emotional and intellectual reasons. The huge and enthusiastic crowds in swing state after swing state in recent weeks - not only for Romney but also for Paul Ryan - bolstered what they believed intellectually: that Obama would not get the kind of turnout he had in 2008.
They thought intensity and enthusiasm were on their side this time - poll after poll showed Republicans were more motivated to vote than Democrats - and that would translate into votes for Romney.
As a result, they believed the public/media polls were skewed - they thought those polls oversampled Democrats and didn't reflect Republican enthusiasm. They based their own internal polls on turnout levels more favorable to Romney. That was a grave miscalculation, as they would see on election night."
Wait, that's an article about the Romney campaign on November 6.
Let's try this:
Tirian had thought... that they were inside a little thatched stable, about twelve feet long and six feet wide. In reality they stood on grass, the deep blue sky was overhead, and the air which blew gently on their faces was that of a day in early summer... Lucy led the way and soon they could all see the Dwarfs. They had a very odd look. They weren't strolling about or enjoying themselves (although the cords with which they had been tied seemed to have vanished) nor were they lying down and having a rest. They were sitting very close together in a little circle facing one another. They never looked round nor took any notice of the humans till Lucy and Tirian were almost near enough to touch them. then the Dwarfs all cocked their heads as if they couldn't see anyone but were listening hard and trying to guess by the sound what was happening.
You remember it, right? Everyone emerges through the door into a bright, sunny paradise, but the Dwarfs sit huddled in a circle, only able to see the dark, dirty stable. They close ranks and refuse to listen to anyone:
"Now it's time for the president to propose solutions that actually have a chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a closely divided Senate, step up to the plate on the challenges of the moment, and deliver in a way that he did not in his first four years in office.
"To the extent he wants to move to the political center, which is where the work gets done in a divided government, we'll be there to meet him half way."
They don't want yammering about a republican mandate when House republicans, while still in charge, had fewer votes than House democrats. They don't want continued obstructionism from a Congress with historically low approval ratings.
All the "modern" GOP has to offer is denialism and the inability to prepare for all outcomes if those outcomes do not fit with their created reality. Karl Rove going live on Fox News to tell them they had it wrong when they called Ohio for Obama. Running an entire end-of-campaign strategy on the belief that polls are skewed and that your anecdotal observations and internal polling tell the Real Story because the other one doesn't look good. Choosing to believe that the Obama ground game was all just smoke and mirrors, and that their own ground game was superior and would carry the day when they had not even truly tested their big, expensive GOTV apparatus. Ignoring any data showing Obama in the lead in both electoral and popular counts. Thinking that we still live in an America where all that counts is GOTWV: Get Out The White Vote.
And closing ranks on November 7, vowing to stick to their dark, fantasy-based belief in cutting taxes and obstructing the President, all in the name of party and politics.
“Well, at any rate there’s no Humbug here. We haven’t let anyone take us in. The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs."
Monday, November 12, 2012
B Not So Much
Stands on her own! Literally!
I see what you're trying to do here, Mattel. I really do. But why did you have to go all Fox News, Million Mom on it? What's wrong with a smart pantsuit in a vibrant blue? Or a sassy, shorter cut?*
A sensible pair of flats and a casual cardi?I know. It's Barbie. She started out as a fashion model, and now, she can B President, right? That's progress! She has B-liefs! She can B Aggressive! B B Aggressive!
And you, little (white) girl, playing with Barbie, can B anything!
I know you can't make everything in a version that looks like everyone, but instead of white brunette President Barbie AND a white blonde President Barbie (such diversity!), how about black President Barbie? And I know pink is your signature color, and certainly the women pictured above have appeared in it, but for President Barbie of the B-certainly-does-not-stand-for-Bitch Party, couldn't you have knocked down the Studio 54 disco-ball glitter just a tad?
At the very least, you are not teaching the art of smart campaigning, as no one, male or female, is going to win the presidency with a sunglasses-wearing micro dog in their purse and cutesy not-spelling and supremely weird phrases on their campaign literature.
I think the elections of 2008 & 2012 showed us what happens when certain parties don't choose serious people to run for higher office, and I will not be expecting "Lastly, I have to thank Barbie" in Paris Hilton's 2050 acceptance speech.
But I do think we can do better than this for our girls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)