Iran’s Disputed Election – The Big Picture

Posted on June 15, 2009
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

This is an amazing set of pictures of the beautiful, brave people of Iran

Iran’s Disputed Election – The Big Picture – Boston.com

twittering the Iran Revolution

Posted on June 14, 2009
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

It’s definitely an uprising. So far the revolution is in the minds of Iran’s inspired reformers and in social media, put to amazing new use. Given the strength of the two, the revolution may well become fact.

Iranian officials appeared to be ready, after uprisings elsewhere had been organized by phone texting, to block text messages as election “official results” began to be announced. They were not so prepared for twitter and facebook and the many modes by which users connect to the online world. Twitter use was not so effectively shut down.

As a news junkie who rarely turns on the TV, when I began to see reports of protests in Iran on twitter I did what I have done to see breaking news for most of my life. I turned on CNN. To my surprise CNN was not covering Iran. Not on CNNHN either. After past experiences with CNN wall-to-wall coverage, Like when John-John’s plane went down, I was prepared for excruciatingly repetitive coverage. Instead I got entirely forgettable old news.

New to twitter as I was, I had the good fortune to be following a few bloggers and reporters, and through their tweets became aware of increasing intensity in Iran’s protests. Before long I was additionally following their sources, provided in attributions as (RT) “retweets.” Soon I was following people on the ground, observing and participating in the protests.

I even became an unwitting participant in the uprising if only for a moment. I followed one link that implored followers to shut down Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s website. The link led me to a proxy server that attempted to refresh Khamenei’s site every 1 seconds, which would in effect create a denial of service attack when multiple users follow the link.

It was exciting to think of myself as being involved, but realized that there is too much that I don’t know about Iran and the current situation (though I have strong sympathies) to be an active participant from half a world away. I closed my browser window and left it to true stakeholders to decide if blocking the site was a wise move.

In all, it was a heady experience to be following real events in Iran even while our mainstream media outlets were virtually silent. By 2 a.m. when I needed sleep, I was still too keyed up to go to bed.

A couple of weeks ago I was still asking what twitter is for. Today I have a feeling it could change– and may already have changed the world.

Sphere: Related Content

Sonia Sotomayor’s Wise Latina Remarks

Posted on May 29, 2009
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

Judge Sonia Sotomayor The angry white males are raising Hell, fomenting hatred among the small-minded for the sake of their ratings and to stir up the worst of the Republican base. Guys like Rush and Newt demonstrate why white men get a bad rap. You can no more generalize about white men than other groups, especially in these days of the sensitive metrosexual. Still there are some dominant features amongst the dominant crowd.

As one who looks much like other white males, I’d have to admit to have shared in some of the benefits granted as a matter of course to my race and gender. In my own mind and amongst those uncomfortable with gay men, I also can empathize with others who feel or are treated as outsiders. As a gay man of a certain age, having come into adulthood as AIDS was becoming known, I know what it is to be among friends who have experienced the same discriminations as I have.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s statement:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

even taken out of context, does not trouble me. We who strive for legitimacy and integrity in a culture where straight white men are more frequently presumed to posess these qualities, develop our own myths to give us strength and help us see the value in our many diversities.

Our myths, our stories that convey what is transcendently true for us, may acknowledge what we don’t have that the dominant culture takes for granted, but more importantly, the stories are about what we’ve gained through our coming to terms with our unique gifts and attributes. For me, while I lack the easy self-assurance that I admire in other guys, there are compensations in a quality of empathy and self-awareness that can only be earned. A person who has been taught through many subtle messages that favor the white, the male, and the straight, that they are good, that they’re somehow complete, may not have the motivation to see the best in a diverse people, largely foreign to themselves.

I don’t know what is to be a wise Latina woman, but I find it not at all offensive, that she, among her sisters, would share a story about themselves, what they have learned and experienced that others likely will not have learned.

That people would get upset about the word “better” is ludicrous in this context of a shared myth. When we’re telling stories, hyperbole is just one of the many tools of the storyteller.

Put Sonia Sotomayor on the Bench of Nine, and she will begin to live in yet another myth and tell stories of fairness and justice and honoring precedent and above all, the Constitution.

Sphere: Related Content

What Nancy Pelosi Knew is the Wrong Question

Posted on May 16, 2009
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has been under attack by Republicans and the right-wing media for the possibility that she knew that the Bush administration was torturing people. The mainstream media have abetted the right-wing tactic by making what Pelosi knew into multiple Headlines. What Ms. Pelosi knew is not the main issue. She could hardly even have been an accessory to the alleged crimes of torture as no one attributes to her the power either to approve or stop the torture. Yet somehow, through the perversity of the right-wing media and those who sell news rather than report news, Nancy Pelosi has become the main story.

Had Ms. Pelosi publicly objected to the content of the briefing she received, she had been warned that she would be sanctioned for breach of national security. She can not know how that would have played out. Would she have been arrested and isolated, would the right-wing news machine make her an enemy of the state in the minds of those who continued to support Bush and Cheney? Would she ever regain her credibility to oppose the policies she had been made aware of?

I don’t know if Ms. Pelosi is absolutely correct in her characterizations of the events of 6, 7, and 8 years ago. She was not allowed to document or share the information she received. I do know that she is not the villian in this story. Responsibility for the abuses of the Bush Administration falls precisely on those who made the policies, carried out the policies, sought to justify torture and sought justification for torture. These people are the villains. A leader in the minority party in the house at the time these policies were made and carried out was effectively silenced in the guise of keeping congress informed.

Sphere: Related Content

Josh Groban Recognizes Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington in Comments on MSNBC

Posted on January 20, 2009
3 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

While the backing choruses at the “We Are One” concert on Jan. 18 were not acknowledged by the producers, Josh Groban was kind to give Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington a shout out in his comments yesterday on MSNBC.

Sphere: Related Content

Gay Men’s Chorus of Washington Sings for Barack Obama

Posted on January 19, 2009
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

One hundred members of the 225-member group were invited to sing with Josh Groban and Heather Headley at the Lincoln Memorial for the historic “We Are One” concert. The performance of “My Country Tis of Thee” recalled and paid tribute to Marian Anderson’s concert opening with that song at the Memorial in 1939.

The appearance was among important firsts: the inclusion of the chorus and the invocation by openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson. The president-elect mentioned lgbt people as an identity group in his remarks as he had done at the beginning of his whistle-stop tour. It’s unfortunate that the producers and HBO did not include any identification of the group, but word has gotten out that our singers were there. Also many who were there are perplexed why Bishop Gene Robinson’s Invocation was not even broadcast.

Sphere: Related Content

Barack Obama’s “little” whistlestop speech in Philadelphia

Posted on January 17, 2009
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

President-elect Barack Obama’s speech in Philadelphia this morning was a remarkable one, but not necessarily for what the talking head corps is remarking about.

Obama caught my attention early with the phrase,

It was these ideals that led us to declare independence, and craft our constitution, producing documents that were imperfect but had within them, like our nation itself, the capacity to be made more perfect.

I thought I heard the sound of a gauntlet crashing down on a cold stone floor somewhere. What will our strict constructionist, Federalist Society judges think when they hear that? Did the president-elect just declare that our founding documents are living documents, to be perfected, even as we seek to be perfected?

But Barack Obama arrived at the scene of this speech with moral authority absent from the arguments of the originalists. As the first African American president, he is the embodiment of the tension between the idealism and the compromises written into the texts. The accommodation of slavery until 1865 is quite arguably the strongest example of the constitution’s imperfection.

Constructionists and originalists can argue that there has always been a process to change the law and the constitution itself as needs changed. Language that acknowledges the slave trade, neither endorsing it or prohibiting it, was a compromise. The original intention there was to include accommodation enough to get the constitution passed by men who disagreed.

There will have been countless other disagreements and compromises ratified as well.

As one who muses but is not a constitutional scholar, I can only say that while understanding that the original text is flawed does not leave everything up to interpretation, is seems that to prohibit any interpretation of intent is foolish dogma.

That was Barack Obama’s opening, in a speech that seemed to try to do two things in particular: first to tie these moments to a great American history of overcoming adversity in the face of revolutionary change, and second, to call on all Americans to be better than we are, reminiscent of JFK’s inaugural remarks.

And yet while our problems may be new, what is required to overcome them is not. What is required is the same perseverance and idealism that our founders displayed. What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives – from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry – an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our better angels.

We are not all made for independent thought and action. But most folks are capable of moving beyond their prejudices, even while never giving them up entirely, given a leader they believe in.

He called on us to form a more perfect union by “seeing ourselves in one another.” Providing a recitation of many of the identity groups to which we belong and which sometimes divide us. It was important for this gay man to hear his own identity group named, even as Obama called us to come together (which could also be read as “get over it.”)

As Obama began his speech with reference to the Declaration of Independence, he paraphrased it’s greatest, most enduring idea, saying, “we all are equal.” That would seem to be the “founding creed” in his closing.

For the American Revolution did not end when British guns fell silent. It was never something to be won only on a battlefield or fulfilled only in our founding documents. It was not simply a struggle to break free from empire and declare independence. The American Revolution was – and remains – an ongoing struggle “in the minds and hearts of the people” to live up to our founding creed.

So the American Revolution is ongoing — alive today — with a people still seeking change. Yes we can.

The original text of the speech can be read here.

Sphere: Related Content

Just Seat Sen. Roland Burris, Already

Posted on January 6, 2009
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

roland-burris_1214005f1 Senator-designate Roland Burris showed up at the Capitol today, and as expected was turned away. Majority Leader Harry Reid should get his priorities straight and work on passing economic legislation and stop politicking. Relying on a rule that requires certification from state secretaries of state to deny Burris the seat does not pass constitutional muster and all interested parties know it. Time to tend to the people’s business. Repudiating Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich for his corrupt ways is not the Senate’s business. Let the courts and the Illinois legislature deal with him.

Sphere: Related Content

Giant Snowman Rises Again in Alaska, Mysteriously

Posted on December 26, 2008
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

Story on ABC News
Video and Story on Anchorage Daily News

The libertine in me loves Snowzilla.

Sphere: Related Content

WhiteKnot.org – Getting and Making White Knots

Posted on December 24, 2008
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

WhiteKnot.org – Getting and Making White Knots

From the WhiteKnot site:

The White Knot is the symbol for marriage equality.

It takes two traditional symbols of marriage—white and tying the knot—and combines them in a simple way to show support for the right of gays and lesbians to marry. All loving couples deserve the same legal rights, benefits, and respect that civil marriage bestows.

Posted using ShareThis

Sphere: Related Content

Rick Warren is not the people’s pastor

Posted on December 21, 2008
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

An open letter to the president-elect and his transition team:

Dear President-elect Obama,

I am one of your incoming administration’s vocal and unswerving supporters.

And I am hurt. The man appointed to represent the faith of the nation at the inauguration of what all hope will be the greatest presidency of at least a generation, regards me and others like me, your glbt supporters, as being of less value, of a lesser human stature than our heterosexual brothers and sisters. He’s the appointed spiritual leader; this is a spiritual issue.

Rick Warren does not allow people like me join his church. He compares the love between me and my boyfriend to harmful, criminal sexual acts, whose comparison serves rhetorically as hate speech.

Commentators say your transition team is calculating that this will blow over, that by January 20th, glbt people will back down and that this representative of the community of faith will no longer distract us all from the important work of the new administration. Do not give in to such unconsidered opinions. If the new administration discards us so blithely before inauguration we will always question whether our rights and our worth were ever a consideration.

Justice delayed is justice denied. The African American civil rights movement was a great teacher. GLBT equal rights represents a host of legal issues. Most of us accept that it will take time to do the lawmaking work that we need to achieve our rights. While there is no justice until all have justice, time is a requirement.

Not so on moral and spiritual leadership. On your first day, at your first moment as President Barack Obama, you can show us the respect you would show all the people of the nation and the world. No political consideration can rise to the level of such a moral one.

Please find a spiritual leader for this momentous day that can speak for all of us.

Respectfully,

John Paul McCarty

Sphere: Related Content

Give Bush Nothing. The Iraq Supplemental Was The Compromise.

Posted on May 6, 2007
4 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

While delivering his second-ever veto to the Iraq supplemental appropriation to fund his war, the American Pretender asserted in many speech-crafted sentences that the war in Iraq is now the war on terrorism and where we engage Al Qaida:

In Washington last week, General Petraeus explained it this way: Iraq is, in fact, the central front of all Al Qaida’s global campaign.

It seems possible, beyond the hyperbolic rhetoric, “If we don’t defeat them over there, we’ll be fighting them over here,” that Iraq has become the haven for terrorists that the neocons insist it has.

The question is, where is the president’s apology for creating that situation? All justifications for invading Iraq have turned out to be lies, and before the U.S. invaded, Iraq was not such a “haven.”

Much worse, the president has not earned the nation’s trust to accept his administration’s assessment of the current situation in Iraq. In fact, the nation, still smarting from a contentious election and its dubious outcome, was willing to give Bush the benefit of uncritical and unearned support following Sept 11. The administration squandered that support and much more on it’s Iraq adventure and countless cynical attempts to undermine government regulation of the world’s wealthiest corporations.

It is also true that continuing the war provides acknowledged political cover after the fact, and enriches the president’s most valued supporters, including major energy companies, and contractors that supply not only logistical support, but also tens of thousands of mercenary soldiers.

It is hard to know how the administration values the aspects of continuing the war that benefits it politically or lines the pockets of their cronies. It might seem unfair to overstate the impact of these influences; it would also be foolish to overlook them.

Following his veto, it was amazing to witness the contempt with which the president described the motives of Congressional Leaders. He characterized Pelosi and Reid, especially, as making political statements or performing “political theater” in presenting him with a bill that requires the president to begin some withdrawal of forces in October, even with the broad flexibility allowed for in the bill and the potential for future negotiations.

Bush never allowed that Congress, itself, had a valid, principled position on the war. He never acknowledged that many of the congress members that voted for his $124 Billion, did so against personal principles or those of their constituents, in the spirit of compromise. He never allowed that some allowed the vote to pass only because there were some stated limits and benchmarks. Where will those votes go if the president’s, so called, “clean” bill came up for a vote?

Maybe Congress could not override the veto, but Bush must not be allowed to override the will of Congress and the American people. Message to Congress: Stand your ground. Give Bush nothing. The passage of the supplemental with timeline and benchmarks was the compromise. Send it again; or, send less, not more.

Sphere: Related Content

Did Someone Whisper Impeachment?

Posted on May 1, 2007
2 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

George Bush for so long has refused to acknowledge his weakened political position overall, and especially regarding the war. Today, while vetoing the spending bill he requested because it contains some minimal Congressional oversight, on the fourth anniversary of his “Mission Accomplished” declaration that “major combat operations were over,” he is likely to signal some willingness to compromise on a replacement bill.

In an NPR interview Rep. John Murtha said, regarding a recalcitrant president:

There’s four ways you can influence a president. First of all, there’s the polls, which didn’t influence him. Second of all, there’s an election, which should have influenced the president. It has had some influence: He fired the secretary of defense. Third, there’s impeachment, and fourth, there’s the power of the purse. We’re using the power of the purse to negotiate with the president, and I hope we’ll be able to work out a â€“ we want to work with the president to end this long conflict, where our troops are caught in a civil war.

Murtha backpedaled just a bit when pressed, but didn’t take it off the table by any means. He is recommending as a next step, funding military operations in Iraq for two more months while passing a full appropriation to take care of soldiers’ needs, Walter Reed, equipment, etc. That way forcing the conversation every couple of months. I like this approach, short of giving no more money for combat operations, except what’s necessary to withdraw more or less gracefully.

Bush could be doing what he’s already done many times, saying he’s willing to compromise, but then offering nothing. He has already stated that timetables and benchmarks are off the table. Will he offer anything new? Is there any way that, given what he won’t concede, he can offer anything substantial and that can be trusted to be sincere?

Rep. Murtha has a reputation of speaking his mind, not being careful at all times with his words. Still, to my ears, mentioning impeachment as a remedy, was not an accident. I think it was a signal that impeachment is on the table if the president continues to refuse to work with Congress. I wonder what back-channel messages might be sent up Pennsylvania Avenue?

Sphere: Related Content

The count: Gonzales 64, or 71

Posted on April 21, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

The previous count: Sampson 122, Lorita Doan 29

The Gonzales hearing did not go quite as I expected. Two weeks of preparation including “murder board” sessions, and still the AG was not up to the task. I believe my expectations were not met because I incorrectly believed saving himself would be his objective.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank wrote:

The hearing was billed as Gonzales’s chance to explain the contradictions, omissions and falsehoods in his response to the firings. But instead of contrition, the attorney general treated the committee to a mixture of arrogance, combativeness and amnesia. Even his would-be defenders on the Republican side were appalled.

Certainly some of his “I don’t recall” variations were for his own protection. In a corrupt administration that has raised obfuscation to an art form, perjury is about the only charge that can be made to stick. Dana Milbank of the Post put the count of Gonzales’s claims of faulty memory at 64. NPR’s Nina Totenberg put it at 71. Both can be correct, as there are many ways to say “It serves my purpose to sit here and pretend I’ve lost my mind, but insist I still should be the U.S. Attorney General.”

Sen. Tom Coburn R-Okla. A tired artful dodge used by officials under fire is the statement “I take full responsibility,” uttered now by Gonzales on several occasions. It’s usually employed to say also, “end of story.” One of my favorite quotes from committee questioners came from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

To me, there has to be consequences to accepting responsibility. And I would just say, Mr. Attorney General, it’s my considered opinion that the exact same standards should be applied to you in how this was handled. And it was handled incompetently. The communication was atrocious. It was inconsistent. It’s generous to say that there were misstatements. That’s a generous statement. And I believe you ought to suffer the consequences that these others have suffered. And I believe that the best way to put this behind us is your resignation.

Gonzales is not falling on his sword, in this play, however. The underlying problem of the Justice Department being used as just another political tool will remain, even if Gonzales leaves. The understood pact is that he stay in place, take all the heat and protect the administration, that is, Rove and Bush. His reward is keeping his job. This way both objectives are met.

Bush might mitigate his problems by appointing a new AG known for intelligence, integrity, and independence. That’s not too likely. Someone like that just might initiate a proper investigation from within, and on all sorts of things that have not yet come out.

The Boston Globe writes:

“There were no bombshell revelations in yesterday’s hearing, but it did provide new evidence of why Gonzales has been so deceitful about the firings. In at least some of the cases, the attorneys — all Bush appointees — were being canned for blatantly partisan reasons, either because the administration believed they were prosecuting Republican officeholders too aggressively or not prosecuting allegations of voter fraud by Democrats aggressively enough.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. describes such behaviors by the administration and Justice as “improper.” Other interpreters might say “criminal.” To use U.S. Attorneys to selectively investigate and prosecute your political enemies for purely political purposes, is abuse of power. Protecting allies from rightful prosecutions is obstruction of justice. These were two of the articles of impeachment drawn up against Richard Nixon. The third was contempt of Congress. How blatant is that in the present administration?

Getting Gonzales out of the government would be a worthy goal. He has no one’s confidence except for the president’s. Let’s not fool ourselves that the AG’s removal would fully redress the abuses that have been exposed. Congress must now move to understand fully the White House’s involvement.

Sphere: Related Content

Pacifist, Humanist, Pragmatist — Trying To Make Sense In Aftermath Of Sensless Virginia Tech Shootings

Posted on April 20, 2007
2 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

There are plenty of wonderful tributes to the victims, survivors, and their families on the web, both in the MSM as well as Facebook and Myspace. It’s important to understand the human losses this week. Personal stories of the victims make clear the depth of losses in the tragic shootings on the Virginia Tech Campus.

I’m conflicted about writing this. I’ll decide whether to post and when later. Some folks will find me reactionary or opportunist. In truth, my writing is motivated by anger and grief. My earlier reaction was shock and rage. Yes, rage. Don’t worry. I understand my own rage and am a pacifist at heart. You will never catch me packing heat. Never. Again, I understand my rage and abhor violence.

Jane Smiley had a telling piece in Huffington Post quoting a former gun owner,

I gave my gun away, because when I had it, every time something happened that made me mad, my mind would start circling around that gun, and I would be thinking about using it. So I got rid of it and I’m glad I did.

Once, in Junior High, I threw a bic pen at a classmate. She was taunting me. I throw badly. Those who taunt me would say I “throw like a girl.” Any self-respecting “girl” would take exception. Somehow, without intention, I landed the pen uncomfortably close to her eye. No physical harm was done, but I was mortified by my own actions and the potential consequences.

The pen incident was my last violent act.

Today my weapon of choice is still a pen, but this time, I’m writing. Actually, as most weapons contests go, I’ve escalated to a more efficient weapon, the computer keyboard. I can definitely get more words down; but, writing at high speed, not all hit their mark. Fortunately, removing poorly chosen words is also a more efficient process.

Monday, April 16, a lone gunman murdered 32 people, injuring numerous others, on what one witness called the “bucolic” Virginia Tech campus. I have family nearby in Blacksburg, and was born and have owned a home in Virginia, but do not have any personal ties to this tragedy. And yet, I am still deeply affected by the events there.

I avoid immersion in the endless commentary by any number of talking heads and their interviewees. I am especially quick to lower the volume when a newsperson has extracted all the facts they can from a witness and then attempts to get some emotion for the microphone, turning empathy into just another question designed to get a voice to crack.

I worry that I’ve become inured to the emotional side of the tragedy. I’m assured by my anger that I have not. My knee-jerk is “too damn many guns,” but that is too easy; though, it has to be part of the story. Another part of the story is how badly the federal and state governments deal with problems that are politically inconvenient, including moneyed opposition to all reasonable restrictions on guns, and mental health care which seems to be most available to the well-to-do and a small portion of the indigent population.

In Virginia, the politics certainly play a role. With the NRA headquartered in Fairfax, one fears that the lunatics truly are running the asylum. Amazingly Virginia has managed to elect two truly decent Democratic governors, in succession, including the present Gov. Tim Kaine. The trade-off these otherwise good men have to make to take office is that they have to embrace Virginia’s sacred cows to some extent. That means promises to maintain at least the status quo on guns, abortion, and the death penalty.

The status quo on guns and the death penalty are actually pretty extreme. Sadly, not even the most basic of Virginia’s restrictions on gun purchases proved any impediment for Virginia Tech’s gunman. Having been committed to a mental institution involuntarily for anti-social behaviors, having been determined to be potentially “of harm to himself or others,” should have kept the young man from purchasing guns legally.

I’m convinced there will always be guns in America, and hardly oppose legitimate hunting rifles and the activities for which they were designed. I do not understand hunting “for sport” but the traditional hunt for food for meat-eaters seems more humane than factory farming practices. That sport hunters are necessarily included in regulated hunting seasons is not an issue for me.

I question a society where guns are celebrated in everyday life. The NRA does much to promote such a society. Without trying to account for their large donors, its clear that they extract donations and member fees from a broad swath of the population by making believe that even reasonable gun ownership will be outlawed and that any restrictions are an abridgment of rights. They prey on ignorance and fear and perceived victimhood, in much the same way televangelists and politicians do.

I worry about first-person shooter video games and don’t know their affects on impressionable minds. State-sponsored execution legitimizes killing and Virginia has been one of the biggest killers of alleged violent offenders. Televised wars of choice and bloody civil conflict, and public hangings of deposed leaders have to contribute to a culture that accepts violence too easily. That a hanged leader is known to have been a murderous despot himself, only reinforces the idea of “righteous” killing.

There is a community of 26,000 in Southwestern Virginia, at Virginia Tech, whatever their political beliefs, who has seen the affects this week either of a mostly anomalous case of one troubled youth with dangerous weapons, or of a culture run amok with the permissiveness of violence and the tools of violence.

We know that Tech’s shooting, however shocking and severe, was not an isolated case. America is the mass murder capital of the Western world. Those who promote pat slogans like “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” need to be exposed for high cost of their lobbying efforts on society. America needs a national discussion on the death penalty and it’s effects on the minds of it’s people. Conservative pastors need to reconsider their constant messages of retribution for personal wrongs and wrongs against God, and look more to messages of generosity and forgiveness which are just as easily found in the same texts they preach from.

We need better mental health intervention, wider availability of mental health services and help for middle class and poor patients to pay, and to continue to work to remove the stigma on those who seek assistance.

We need to examine our entertainment business and identify as pornographic gratuitous and graphic violence for entertainment’s sake. It’s crazy how worked up we get over sexual content of any kind while letting violence mostly slide. This clearly includes the fast-growing gaming industry. What we do with these forms of protected speech, and in a few cases, art, is the stuff for much discussion. Some of these violent vehicles do a better job than others â€” acknowledging violence but showing the waste of it. Maybe in a scheme of ratings and enforceable and enforced age restrictions these would be treated somehow differently. It seems like whatever disincentive for producing and selling these entertainments should be at least as strong as the market forces that encourage producers to escalate violence to increase the bottom line. Maybe the most violent-rated could be the most highly taxed. Somehow that seems ripe for first-amendment challenges, but there has to be a price for those who purvey violence, when the rest of society seems to be paying a high toll.

And yes, there are too damn many guns.

Sphere: Related Content

keep looking »