One of my colleges wrote a thoughtful commentary on the issue being raised about increasing the number of surveillance cameras in operation. This post seems to echo the sentiment of many Americans who are concerned about their safety and wish to prevent future senseless attacks. However, I think that the hyper focus such tragedies create distract our thoughts from more meaningful solutions.

 Whether or not we should install more security cameras should not be the discussion. We can not only focus on building a bigger and better wall of protection. We will never be totally safe from the deranged thoughts of the human mind. But by turning inward instead of outward, maybe our society can come up with solutions that get to the root of the problem. Working to make our society more inclusive; providing real opportunities for education and meaningful work; giving our mental health professionals the resources they need to help those who are suffering...these are just a few of the many directions the collective conversation could be going in.  There is so much that we can be doing in a society to build up individuals into well adjusted, productive members of society.  That is where real safely lies.

 Fear is a powerful emotion. But when it rules a country, the inhabitants do not thrive. Growth and advancement is achieved only through seeing past fear to hope and using that hope to fuel action.

If Americans are to continue their belief that our country leads the way in political morality, we need to take a close and careful look at how we treat the criminals in our society.  How we treat the "other" defines ourselves.

Some politicians are up-in-arms over the fact that the Boston bomber was read his Miranda rights. They claim that it's because the public safety exemption applied in this situation. This is an interesting sticking point, since it is not mandatory and actually not very common that suspected criminals are read their Miranda rights.  It seems that the true reason that some senators have been so vocally  upset about this is because they don't like Muslims and they want to have a good old-fashioned lynching.

One of the main issues for conservatives is fighting to ensure that the Federal government does not become too powerful, and does not abuse its power to oppress.  As evidenced by the recent failure of our government to pass any kind of gun restrictions in the wake of such tragic mass shootings on our  home soil, it seems that politicians will fight hard for Americans to have the right to kill other Americans.  However, in a case involving anyone born in another country, especially someone who aligns themselves with Islam, these same politicians are ready to deny them any and all rights.

The Boston bomber was a citizen.

The difference between this and the other cases is that he's a Muslim foreigner, and this is a religiously motivated attack. For conservatives, this appears to override the fact that he is in fact a legal citizen, and there are calls for him to be treated as an enemy combatant, (which is a legal stretch and goes directly against the Right's beliefs in protecting citizens from the big-bad abusive government). The Right appears to be so angry that he was read his rights and that this somehow represents an over-reaching government. If the whole argument against big government is that it can't be trusted to make exceptions to it's rules fairly, then that means that the rules MUST be followed, not only when we're really angry, but ESPECIALLY when we are.

There's no question that we're all upset about this and that we all want justice to be served, but when we let emotion allow us to subvert the laws that protect us, we lose the the moral high ground and we lose that which all Americans prize above all else, the belief that we really are the good guys.

We the Sheeple, the blog of a fellow classmate, brought up another interesting point within the current debates surrounding gun control.  Here are my comments on that post:
Can You Name the Slain Sheep?

This is a very important article and an idea that needs to be spread. I agree that the attention and fame given to mass murders is way out of place. I appreciated that the author of the commentary, John R. Lot Jr. refrained from using any names in his article. It is a tragedy that the names of the murderers are more recognized than their victims. Think of the hour long documentaries on various channels that chronicle the lives and horrible murders of these people. It is certainly a point the media should consider.

I also agree, however, that the freedom of the press should be upheld. Any attempts to regulate what is newsworthy and what is not puts our country onto a precarious path. I believe this about the first amendment, however when it comes to the second amendment, I do lean toward wanting tighter rules and legislation concerning the type of guns citizens may own and how they go about requiring them. It seems to me that while I understand that "guns don't kill people, people kill people", if assault rifles like the ones used in these latest shootings were not available, would we be spared such horrible tragedies? If a gun was not kept in the home, how many fewer suicides would occur because the means to carry through with a split second decision would not be there? 

My first instinct with regards to regulating gun ownership is to think it is a reasonable proposal. This article has got me thinking though. I can see supporters of no gun control using the same "slippery slope" argument and I can agree that they have a point. I appreciate articles like these that challenge my thoughts. It's certainly an important debate and far from black and white. This article and my colleges comments have been helpful in providing more food for thought.

ReplyDelete

 

The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters,

Francisco Goya, c. 1799

 

Americans are Waking Up

 

Can you feel it?  Can you hear it?  The wind of change is here.

    
     It feels good to be a part of an awakening.  To see equality spread and acceptance grow.  Public opinion has finally shifted and public policy will soon follow.  Another disgusting layer of exclusion and bigotry will soon be shed by the American government.  Marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is just around the corner.
 

 

 The Great Gay Debate

   The debate over gay marriage is often talked about on religious and moral terms.  Sentiments like these are the norm from many religious groups:

One side sees a moral mandate to liberate marriage from its heterosexual limitation. The other side sees natural marriage as a liberating, God-given institution for human flourishing. There is precious little shared ground in this debate. CP

There are obviously very strong emotions and beliefs surrounding the gay marriage debate.  But the fact of the matter is, religion and morality have no place in the debate at all.

     LBGT couples are asking the government to allow their unions to stand on equal ground with the unions of heterosexual couples.  They are not asking that religious institutions change their stance on homosexuality (although it would be nice if all religions got rid of exclusionary doctrine).  The fact is, it does not matter if religions ever accept their unions.  Religion is not a necessary ingredient in marriage.  As far as the government is concerned, if you qualify for a marriage license, no matter what your beliefs are, you may enter into the civil union of marriage and as a result of that union are granted certain rites and responsibilities.  Marriage has been a foundational institution from early to modern American society.  But not for moral or religious reasons. 

Early Americans' understanding of marriage was closely tied to their understanding of the state: both were seen as institutions which free individuals entered into voluntarily and thus could also exit voluntarily. The basis of marriage was not religion, but the wishes of free, consenting adults. Marriage: Religious Rite or Civil Rite?

 

Modern America: Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between the spouses, between the spouses and their children, and between the spouses and their in-laws.  The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Wiki

 

Marriage is a civil right that is not now and has never been dependent upon any one religion or even religion in general for its justification, existence, or perpetuation. Marriage exists because people desire it and the community, working through the government, helps ensure that married couples are able to do what they need to in order to survive. At no point is religion needed or necessarily relevant. Marriage: Religious Rite or Civil Rite?

     It is not necessary to debate this issue on moral or religious grounds at all.  Marriage is a civil institution first and foremost.  If you have a marriage license, in the eyes of the government you are married.  Whither or not that ceremony took place in a church, a temple, a mosque, a zoo, a forest, or under the ocean, is completely irrelevant to the federal or the state government.   Whither or not a marriage is between a man and a woman or a woman and a woman or a man and a man, should also be irrelevant.  If two consenting adults wish to take on the responsibilities associated with marriage, they should by all means also enjoy the benefits the government affords civil unions.  Those benefits, by the way, are pretty substantial.  (Check out this partial list...its pretty damn important!) 

     Society functions best when humans help one another and when we can hold individuals responsible to the commitments they make.  When two people commit to support each other, build a home together, and perhaps raise children together, it is in society's  best interest that we support them in their efforts.  And if either party decides to shirk their responsibilities, it benefits society and those individuals affected by such choices to be held accountable.  It is in our country's best interest to sail upon the wind of change now blowing through public opinion and finally give equal rights to all marriages. 

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 (If you still think your anti-gay marriage argument has a logical leg to stand on, here is some more food for thought...)

 

 

 

 
 

Gays and Religion Just Can't Get Along    

     Erick Erickson, a contributor on FoxNews.com's opinion page, believes that Gay Marriage and Religious Freedom are Incompatible.  In his article, he lists eight examples of "a fight" against religious freedom being wrought upon Christians by gay and lesbian couples.  He states, "The gay rights movement must drive from the town square those who disagree and must punish and silence those who refuse to surrender their belief that marriage is between a man and a women."  It is a fairly short article, but quite dense in several logical fallacies. 

     Since Erickson's intended audience is like minded, conservative Christians, he hit the main talking points that a certain segment of our population is tuned in to.  He knows just what to say to get their heads nodding in agreement and fingers shaking in disapproval.  All you have to do to get conservative Christians on your side of an argument is to play the Persecution Card.  Oh yes.  In America, where roughly 70% of the population identifies as Christian, Christianity is under attack!

     "The fight has only just begun," Erickson asserts.  Christians must be on constant high alert because all around there are people who want to take away their religious freedom.  Christianity, aka family values, aka morals, are under attack.  And the 4% of Americans who identify as LGBT, they are a huge threat to the poor, persecuted Christians just trying to uphold their faith in peace.

     In Erickson's list of examples, he perpetuates this favorite of Christian myths by painting a distinct picture of the two sides.  He uses words that depict the Christians in his examples as the innocent victims of a great villain.  The comic book version of this myth using Erickson's words would look like this:  (red indicates words he used to describe gay couples and blue for Christians)

The Big (4%) Scary Power-Drunk Gay Mob (aka "Agenda Impresarios") is ransacking American cities!  They are stomping on churches and Christian owned businesses!  They "must drive from the town square those who disagree and must punish and silence those who refuse to surrender their belief that marriage is between a man and woman." Meanwhile, stalwart Christians who merely disagree and politely decline and use only the weapon of op-ed pieces in their local paper, are having their freedoms trampled!  They are being evicted!  Customers are freezing business with their companies!  People are being fired from their jobs over the expression of their opinion!

   Honestly, even giving this article two minutes of my time is too much.  But here is one minute more...

    Is Erickson so drunk on this mythical fear of his religious freedoms being taken away that he completely disregards that 5 out of his 8 examples have nothing to do with religious freedom at all?  5 of the persecuted Christians were business owners who denied services to the gay couples they were later sued by.  The business owners were sued because they were violating the state's non-discrimination law!  A Photographer, a T-shirt shop owner, two bed and breakfast owners, and the owner of an inn, all denied services to these couples based on their sexual orientation.  There are laws against that, and yeah, when the law is not kept, lawsuits happen.  What other legal recourse does a minority group have if it is being oppressed or denied rights by the majority? 


 Example involving a religious institution:

A Methodist church in New Jersey was sued for not offering its facility for use during same-sex weddings. A judge ruled against the church.

     On the outset, this example is actually one that seems to raise a legitimate question about wither or not gay and lesbian couples should be able to demand that any church, regardless of their beliefs on gay marriage, permit them to use their facilities.  Oh, if only Google had not been invented though and a three second search could not produce the following facts:

The Methodist church violated the requirements of its "Green Acres" tax exemption, which required it to make its facility open to the public.
The church has since replaced the "Green Acres" exemption with an exemption specifically created for religious institutions, allowing it to continue discriminating against gay people. Fox News Fails To Prove That Marriage Equality Threatens Religious Liberty... Eight Times In A Row

     Just check the article for the explanation of the other two examples.  As the title of the article states, Erickson "Fails."  He fails to address an argument without resorting to ad homonym attacks.  He fails to get his facts right.  He fails to draw meaningful, logical conclusions about the issue.  He fails to convince me that his argument that "gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible", is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to rationalize religious sanctioned bigotry. 

Michelle Malkin Fires at Colorado in the        Great Gun Debate
      
      The debate over gun laws has waxed and waned in the public conscious for decades.  After the recent and extremely horrific mass shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut, the debate has returned to front and center.  Lawmakers are grappling with a myriad of questions concerning guns and gun ownership; How do we as a nation prevent such tragedies from occurring?  Who should be allowed to own a gun?  What types of guns may be obtained by citizens?  Where should they be permitted to carry their guns?  etc. The time to finally pass new laws on gun ownership has come.  On Monday, February 18, The Colorado House passed a bill which included the following restrictions:

The proposed ammunition restrictions limit magazines to 15 rounds for firearms, and eight for shotguns.

 

The House also approved a bill requiring background checks on all gun purchases, including those between private sellers and firearms bought online.

 

Other proposals would ban concealed firearms at colleges and stadiums, and another requires that gun purchasers pay for their own background checks.
 

        Michelle Malkin wrote an opinion piece on the subject titled The Anti-Choice Left's Disarming of the American Woman".  Malkin aligns herself with a segment of our country who consider themselves strong supporters of the second amendment.  Unfortunately, this segment of the populous seems rarely able to engage in a truly educated debate on the subject, in part due to their zealot-like upholding of certain myths.  She can't even get out of the gate on this debate without asserting three fallacies as fact;

1. That the Left is Anti-Choice
2. That any type of gun restriction is in reality "disarming" citizens
3. And that this matter is specifically about women.

The Left is Anti-Choice
     I take issue with conservative Republicans throwing around the "anti-choice" label especially when it comes to guns.   Republicans will get up in arms about gun rights, but when it comes to a woman's reproductive rights-which is in my opinion the very pinnacle of women's rights-they stand in opposition to such important matters as access to contraception and a choice in unwanted or dangerous pregnancies.  They will oppose her most basic rights concerning her own body but when it comes to guns, nothing is more sacred than a woman's right to bear arms.

Gun Restrictions = No Guns!
     In order to operate a motor vehicle, a person must go through training and become licensed in order to drive.  To get a job a person must usually undergo a background check.  If you want to own a gun, which object's sole purpose is to injure or kill it's target, you may not be required to show you know how to operate it.  You may not have to go through a background check.  If you want to carry that gun into a stadium full of people, or onto a college campus, you simply need to obtain a permit to conceal your weapon and then you may take it where you want.  In the interest of public safety, it seems only reasonable to impose  certain restrictions.  No one is trying to abolish the second amendment.  But since our weapons have evolved beyond single shot muskets it is time to make some adjustments to the laws.

Thinking Pink
     Instead of having an intelligent debate about public safety, both sides have unfortunately engaged in a classic straw man attack.  In regards to whether or not guns should be allowed onto college campuses, the argument has been derailed into one about how women can protect themselves against rape.  If we look at National Statistics about Sexual Violence on College Campuses, it is clear that rape is a huge problem on college campuses.   "One in 5 college women are raped during their college years."(stats)  This statistic is astounding and one that absolutely should be addressed.  Unfortunately, fighting for a woman's right to carry a gun on campus so that she can protect herself from rape takes the debate away from talking about what can actually help her.  If we lived in a video game world where "rapers" were behind every corner waiting to ambush anyone who walks by, then it might be advisable to carry a weapon.  The fact is, rape rarely occurs in random settings by random people.  "85% of rapes are committed by a person the victim knows." (stats) I don't care how stylish they make your gun.  I don't see an AR-15 becoming the latest trendy accessory to your Little Black Dress for your next hot date.

      By engaging this particular straw man debate, proponents of gun regulations have allowed their opponents to paint them as "morons".  The comments about rape prevention made by several of the Democratic senators during the debate in no way helped their case and certainly do nothing to help women.  In fact, perpetuating the rape myth and spending even one minute debating whether or not vomiting or urinating or using a ball point pen is a good deterrent against an attacker, takes us further away from solving real problems facing our nation's citizens.  If we continue to disregard the realities of violence on campuses and allow research into the causes and effects of guns in public safety to be halted our country will continue to endure many more tragic gun deaths.

The Hole Shebang

      Michelle Malkin is in a position to inform many Americans about public policy and the ways in which they are affected by it.  She could be doing the citizens of this country a great service if she would engage in real and honest debate and learn the facts about an issue instead of holding fast to a political ideology based in myth.  She might also sound more educated if she spent less of her efforts coming up with condescending adjectives to hurl at those who oppose her beliefs.  When you resort to name calling, I have to surmise that your argument is full of holes.

  

Now you Love Me?

Poll: Hillary Clinton 'Easily the Most Popular Political Figure'

"Fame is a fickle food - Upon a shifting plate"
Emily Dickinson

Five years ago, Hillary Clinton lost the race for the Democratic nomination for president to Barak Obama.  If she were running against him today, the tables would be turned.  According to a survey by Quinnipiac University, Hillary Clinton is "easily the most popular actor on the American political stage today." She ranked in at a nice 61-34 favorable rating.  To put that into perspective,  she is viewed favorably by more than six in ten voters.  That is quite a lead over president Obama's 46-45 split approval and she has been able to maintain her high level of approval throughout the past four years in her position as Secretary of State.

Look What I Can Do

Being Secretary of State has put Clinton in the second highest position next to the president.  Working side-by-side with her formal rival, she has demonstrated that after the votes are cast, being a civic servant is what is most important to her.  Putting aside what must have been considerable disappointment, she has worked tirelessly to improve the opinion of America worldwide.  She has been in a non-partisan position which has allowed her to gain ground with Republicans.  She has been able to show the American people that she has the expertise, the intelligence, the humanity, and the grit to be a great leader.  "It is a stand-out record, one that makes her the equal of the likes of James Baker, George Schultz or Henry Kissinger among our leading modern secretaries of state." cnn.com

 

Has the Ship Sailed?

With such an outstanding record as Secretary of State and the large approval rating she now holds, it seems that Hillary is in a prime position to make another go at the White House.  But has she had enough?  The incredible toll her service has taken on her life and especially with her recent health scare, no one could blame her for stating her biggest desire for the future as "I hope I get to sleep in".  But it would be a shame if she truly decides to hang up her political towel.  2016 could be our best and brightest hope for a woman president yet.