Yesterday, President Obama awakened to learn that he had been awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. In his acknowledgement, he confessed his humility at being awarded the prize, and confessed that he did not feel as worthy as some earlier laureates whom he had much admired. Nonetheless, he said that he would accept the prize as an acknowledgement of what this country can do and will try to do to live up to the ideals of our founding documents.
This did not stop the derision from some who found him less than deserving, some even saying that he should decline the prize. To date, the only person who has turned down the prize was Le Duc Tho, the leader of North Vietnam who was awarded the prize along with Henry Kissinger for their efforts on the Viet Nam Peace Accords. Rush Limbaugh even said that he agreed with the Taliban that President Obama did not deserve the honor. Glen Beck was, as usual, apoplectic. A few sane voices on the right, among them John McCain and Tim Pawlenty, acknowledged what many of us feel: that it is an honor for a sitting President of the United States to receive this recognition.
One of the principal reasons for the awarding of the Nobel Prize is to recognize and honor "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations…." (http://nobelprize.org) This year, Barak Obama was awarded the Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." According to the Nobel Prize web site, 205 names were submitted in 2009, thirty-three of which were organizations. The Nobel Committee does not release the names of the other entries for fifty years, and so we do not know the nature of those competing with our president. This, however, does not diminish the honor of his being awarded the prize.
Was I surprised? Yes, I was as I had heard no rumblings of this possibility. He is a new president, but he has made many efforts to rectify our standing in the eyes of the world. (If you read the list of the Nobel Peace Prize laureates from 1980 to 2009, you will find that about ten of them were given for "efforts," not for accomplishments. The prize is frequently given to those who espouse diplomacy as a tool for solving conflict, not something to be denounced.
President Obama has announced our attempt to close Gitmo, a black eye on our reputation as a nation of laws, and while it is as yet to be accomplished, he and his Justice Department are working to realize this promise. He has spoken out for the reduction of nuclear proliferation and is working with other nations to make it a reality. He has spoken to the Arab people on Al Jazeera to stress that we Americans do not hate all Muslims, thereby giving some in the Muslim world less reason to automatically hate us. He is attempting to work with those in the Middle East before the situation gets any worse. If the eight years of the G. W. Bush presidency taught us anything, it was that nations ignore the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians at their peril and that a chauvinistic attitude toward the rest of the world makes them less likely to want to work with us. "My way or the highway" is a bully's approach to dealing with others. Some may follow out of fear, but others will hate us, and in some of those countries, a hate will simmer and bubble over into American-hating fanatics that perpetrate events like those of 9/11. We must know our enemies in order to deal with them intelligently, and the best way to get to know people is to talk with them. That does not make you a wimp. Quite the contrary. Most bullies back down when their false bravado is met with one who does not cringe in their midst.
Our President just won an honor for which we should be proud. Perhaps, that will make other nations more willing to work with us to address many of the problems facing the world today. Is that a bad thing? I think not.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Tea without History or Sympathy
By Karen Esham - September 14, 2009 at 10:35 pm EDT
Watching the Tea Party type demonstration on September 12 was a bit like falling down the proverbial rabbit hole. When those of us on the left protested anything during the Bush years--or ever for that matter--we were un-American. Now, fomenting revolution is a blessed occurrence, according to Fox News, Freedom works, and others. I only wish some of the protesters and right-wing commentators would brush up on their history once in a while. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. That meant no representation at all, not just representation for which you did not vote.
And why all this furor now? When Clinton left office, Bush was left with a surplus. It was his tax cuts and spending and unfunded mandates with his Republican Congress that created the deficit and left us in the economic mess in which we find ourselves. It was his Secretary of the Treasury who did not oversee the first outlay of TARP, etc. And now, because Barack Obama is president, the malcontents cry out, "Socialism is upon us!" or "Fascism is here!" or "Chairman Obama!" or "They're trying to make us like France!" (Again, a little reading of history might help them decide which movement is which and what they really mean, but hey! Why get factual at this point!)
I've always found it amusing to be called liberal elite by the Rush Limbaugh crowd. Liberal I am, but elite? In whose book? Technically, I am not even middle class any more. I am very well educated, but as a retired school teacher, what I make from my retirement and what I can make consulting here and there does not even put me into the middle class these days. But you know what? I happily pay my taxes. I know when I see an ambulance or a policeman, my taxes help pay for that. I use the public library. I drive on the highways, use public transportation, fly into airports, count on clean water and federally inspected meat and produce. I want my military well equipped and my veterans well cared for. I want programs like Head Start and free and reduced lunches available for students. I believe in help for the elderly and those who cannot help themselves. These things do not come free. My taxes help pay for them, and I pay them willingly. And I would happily pay "death taxes" if I only had enough money to will to my children, if only I would ever have that much to leave!
When the protesters were protesting about their taxes and government spending, they drove on those roads, gathered in those parks, were protected by police forces. Who do they think paid for those amenities and services?
As a liberal who has protested a thing or two in her day, I do support every person's right to protest, petition, and to speak. I do understand why many are upset with the role government has been forced to play because of the economic melt down caused by some Wall Street fat cats. I am also upset with the state of the economy, but I remember how we got here. Until we all learn to be less susceptible to the extremes and shrill voices on the right--or the left, for that matter--none of us will have the kind of country we want to have.
Tea baggers, wake up and smell the coffee. You live in a great country where you are permitted to protest, but while you do so, you are protected by those whose services are paid for by taxes. And please, when you use history, get your facts straight.
Watching the Tea Party type demonstration on September 12 was a bit like falling down the proverbial rabbit hole. When those of us on the left protested anything during the Bush years--or ever for that matter--we were un-American. Now, fomenting revolution is a blessed occurrence, according to Fox News, Freedom works, and others. I only wish some of the protesters and right-wing commentators would brush up on their history once in a while. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. That meant no representation at all, not just representation for which you did not vote.
And why all this furor now? When Clinton left office, Bush was left with a surplus. It was his tax cuts and spending and unfunded mandates with his Republican Congress that created the deficit and left us in the economic mess in which we find ourselves. It was his Secretary of the Treasury who did not oversee the first outlay of TARP, etc. And now, because Barack Obama is president, the malcontents cry out, "Socialism is upon us!" or "Fascism is here!" or "Chairman Obama!" or "They're trying to make us like France!" (Again, a little reading of history might help them decide which movement is which and what they really mean, but hey! Why get factual at this point!)
I've always found it amusing to be called liberal elite by the Rush Limbaugh crowd. Liberal I am, but elite? In whose book? Technically, I am not even middle class any more. I am very well educated, but as a retired school teacher, what I make from my retirement and what I can make consulting here and there does not even put me into the middle class these days. But you know what? I happily pay my taxes. I know when I see an ambulance or a policeman, my taxes help pay for that. I use the public library. I drive on the highways, use public transportation, fly into airports, count on clean water and federally inspected meat and produce. I want my military well equipped and my veterans well cared for. I want programs like Head Start and free and reduced lunches available for students. I believe in help for the elderly and those who cannot help themselves. These things do not come free. My taxes help pay for them, and I pay them willingly. And I would happily pay "death taxes" if I only had enough money to will to my children, if only I would ever have that much to leave!
When the protesters were protesting about their taxes and government spending, they drove on those roads, gathered in those parks, were protected by police forces. Who do they think paid for those amenities and services?
As a liberal who has protested a thing or two in her day, I do support every person's right to protest, petition, and to speak. I do understand why many are upset with the role government has been forced to play because of the economic melt down caused by some Wall Street fat cats. I am also upset with the state of the economy, but I remember how we got here. Until we all learn to be less susceptible to the extremes and shrill voices on the right--or the left, for that matter--none of us will have the kind of country we want to have.
Tea baggers, wake up and smell the coffee. You live in a great country where you are permitted to protest, but while you do so, you are protected by those whose services are paid for by taxes. And please, when you use history, get your facts straight.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Wanted: Health Care Reform and Some Profiles in Courage
On September 10, President Obama presented his health care reform proposal to a Joint Session of Congress and the American people. To those Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who were frustrated with the as yet unarticulated health care plan, he provided answers. To those who had disseminated falsehoods about a Senate bill yet to be written or a House bill yet to be reconciled—misinformation about death panels, paying for abortions, subsidies for illegal immigrants, the availability and security of Medicare, President Obama called them what they were: lies.
He called on Americans to be their best, and cited the late Senator Teddy Kennedy’s letter to Obama where the late Senator reminded us that it is an American character trait to have “concern and regard for the plight of others.” Kennedy had spoken of the “character of our country.” Who indeed are we, and what is our character if we continue to ignore the fact that people in this country can die, just because they cannot afford health care?
There are so many problems with our current health care system, and we all know, as the President said, that many of us live “one accident or illness away from bankruptcy” if we have no insurance, poor insurance, or lose our insurance if it is taken from us. Any of us can lose the insurance we have—if we have it—if we move, lose a job, change jobs, or if our pension plans can’t continue providing it.
On MSNBC, one report displayed a graphic showing that 46.3 million people in 2008 were uninsured. And now, it is far worse, in part because of the loss of full-time jobs that provide benefits and the economic meltdown of the past year. For the last 12 months, 17,000 a day have become uninsured. What difference does it make if we have gifted physicians and well-equipped hospitals if one has no access to them because he or she lives in the wrong area, has no insurance, or cannot afford the co-pay and uncovered insurance expenses? (Just today, I learned that my Medicare advantage plan will not cover the flu, pneumonia, and shingles vaccines that my physician wants me to have because I am 65 and a long-time sufferer of rheumatoid arthritis. The cost is around $300-plus that I will have to pay myself or risk the resultant illnesses. I will do it, of course, but on my teacher’s pension, it will be difficult. I am just fortunate that I can manage to afford it at all. I know that there are many more who cannot.)
Despite this obvious and desperate need for reform, despite the obvious fact that the status quo cannot be maintained, the misrepresentations continue. Leader Boehner reiterated the lie about coverage for illegal immigrants the following day. During the speech, Minority Whip Cantor texted throughout. Representative Joe Wilson shouted out, “You lie,” pointing at the President as he spoke. Governor Rick Perry of Texas throws out threats of secession as if we had never fought a bloody Civil War to resolve that issue. Former Representative Tom DeLay and some current members of Congress are “not sure” President Obama was born in the United States, despite ample proof to the contrary. Right wing radio and some Republicans in office have fanned the flames of the incivility of the August town hall meetings. Few have even bothered to distance themselves from those who liken the President to Hitler and Mao or to those who claim the President is not the president because he was not born in the United States, despite more than adequate proof. They do nothing to distance themselves from those who shout they want their country back or that they are not “represented” because the person for who they voted did not win. Yes, these voices were loud, but what were they saying that made sense? Others at the town hall meetings who wanted answers heard angry shouting and insipient madness from some of the audience--and occasionally from the congressperson holding the meeting--when they wanted answers.
It has been nearly a century since Teddy Roosevelt called for health reform, and sixty-six years since John Dingle, Sr. introduced a bill for comprehensive health reform in 1943. The issues Congressional committees are working on now are the same issues. To those who say that Congress is “rushing” on the health care reform issue, I say, “Are you kidding me?” More than half a century, minimum, is not speedy in anyone’s universe.
Finally, I would ask all the Congress people who seem to be opposed to anything interfering with the profits of the insurance companies by opposing things like insurance exchanges, the very things that guarantee the kind of health care they enjoy, to give up their own insurance if they think it is such a bad idea. If they sincerely oppose the concept, it’s only right that they should. Isn’t it only right that the insurance available to Congress people be available to us as well.
Members of Congress need to remember that they work for their constituents’ well being, not for their own election. Where are the Profiles in Courage in the 21st century? It is up to them to step up and do what is right and just, not only that which is easy and expedient. I say to them, “Be worthy of the office you hold.” And while I’m at it, “Behave like adults, not like petulant children willing to have a hissy fit if you don’t get 100% of what you want. There are 535 of you representing 50 very diverse states. You all have to give a little.” Everyone needs to be more civil, more thoughtful, more willing to walk that mile in another’s shoes.
Let us all try to be worthy of the country in which we live. Let us all try to live up to the “character of our country,” as the late Senator Kennedy asked us to.
He called on Americans to be their best, and cited the late Senator Teddy Kennedy’s letter to Obama where the late Senator reminded us that it is an American character trait to have “concern and regard for the plight of others.” Kennedy had spoken of the “character of our country.” Who indeed are we, and what is our character if we continue to ignore the fact that people in this country can die, just because they cannot afford health care?
There are so many problems with our current health care system, and we all know, as the President said, that many of us live “one accident or illness away from bankruptcy” if we have no insurance, poor insurance, or lose our insurance if it is taken from us. Any of us can lose the insurance we have—if we have it—if we move, lose a job, change jobs, or if our pension plans can’t continue providing it.
On MSNBC, one report displayed a graphic showing that 46.3 million people in 2008 were uninsured. And now, it is far worse, in part because of the loss of full-time jobs that provide benefits and the economic meltdown of the past year. For the last 12 months, 17,000 a day have become uninsured. What difference does it make if we have gifted physicians and well-equipped hospitals if one has no access to them because he or she lives in the wrong area, has no insurance, or cannot afford the co-pay and uncovered insurance expenses? (Just today, I learned that my Medicare advantage plan will not cover the flu, pneumonia, and shingles vaccines that my physician wants me to have because I am 65 and a long-time sufferer of rheumatoid arthritis. The cost is around $300-plus that I will have to pay myself or risk the resultant illnesses. I will do it, of course, but on my teacher’s pension, it will be difficult. I am just fortunate that I can manage to afford it at all. I know that there are many more who cannot.)
Despite this obvious and desperate need for reform, despite the obvious fact that the status quo cannot be maintained, the misrepresentations continue. Leader Boehner reiterated the lie about coverage for illegal immigrants the following day. During the speech, Minority Whip Cantor texted throughout. Representative Joe Wilson shouted out, “You lie,” pointing at the President as he spoke. Governor Rick Perry of Texas throws out threats of secession as if we had never fought a bloody Civil War to resolve that issue. Former Representative Tom DeLay and some current members of Congress are “not sure” President Obama was born in the United States, despite ample proof to the contrary. Right wing radio and some Republicans in office have fanned the flames of the incivility of the August town hall meetings. Few have even bothered to distance themselves from those who liken the President to Hitler and Mao or to those who claim the President is not the president because he was not born in the United States, despite more than adequate proof. They do nothing to distance themselves from those who shout they want their country back or that they are not “represented” because the person for who they voted did not win. Yes, these voices were loud, but what were they saying that made sense? Others at the town hall meetings who wanted answers heard angry shouting and insipient madness from some of the audience--and occasionally from the congressperson holding the meeting--when they wanted answers.
It has been nearly a century since Teddy Roosevelt called for health reform, and sixty-six years since John Dingle, Sr. introduced a bill for comprehensive health reform in 1943. The issues Congressional committees are working on now are the same issues. To those who say that Congress is “rushing” on the health care reform issue, I say, “Are you kidding me?” More than half a century, minimum, is not speedy in anyone’s universe.
Finally, I would ask all the Congress people who seem to be opposed to anything interfering with the profits of the insurance companies by opposing things like insurance exchanges, the very things that guarantee the kind of health care they enjoy, to give up their own insurance if they think it is such a bad idea. If they sincerely oppose the concept, it’s only right that they should. Isn’t it only right that the insurance available to Congress people be available to us as well.
Members of Congress need to remember that they work for their constituents’ well being, not for their own election. Where are the Profiles in Courage in the 21st century? It is up to them to step up and do what is right and just, not only that which is easy and expedient. I say to them, “Be worthy of the office you hold.” And while I’m at it, “Behave like adults, not like petulant children willing to have a hissy fit if you don’t get 100% of what you want. There are 535 of you representing 50 very diverse states. You all have to give a little.” Everyone needs to be more civil, more thoughtful, more willing to walk that mile in another’s shoes.
Let us all try to be worthy of the country in which we live. Let us all try to live up to the “character of our country,” as the late Senator Kennedy asked us to.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Don't Want Health Care Reform? Must Be Nice to Live in LaLa Land.
Unlike everyone else on the planet, I am waiting to see what is in the final health care bill before I implode. I haven't seen so many Chicken Little's running about since Harry and Louise (or whoever those terribly concerned people were who agonized over the Clinton health care plan sitting at their kitchen table every single day until they killed the bill.) The anti-health-care camp keeps protesting about big government takeover of medicine, of government bureaucracy getting in the way of the sacred doctor/patient relationship. They obviously have better health care than I've had in many years. In their perfect world, their doctor tells them what they want, and magically, it is done. This drug is prescribed. They get it! This treatment is thought to be beneficial. It is done. Must be nice to live in Lala Land.
In the world in which I live-- the world in which most of us live--bureaucrats tell us every single day what we can and cannot do, what treatments we can and cannot have, what drugs we may and may not be prescribed. Within the past month, my doctor gave me samples of a drug which improved a chronic medical condition for me appreciably. She therefore prescribed it. The group from whom I get my meds-- a large pharmaceutical group that is part of a Medicare advantage plan-- told me they could not allow me to have it because they did not have it on their list for patients with my condition. I purchased a month's worth myself, out of pocket, for $101.00.
Shortly thereafter, I received a letter stating. "X manages your prescription drug benefit at the request of your health plan. Certain non-preferred drugs are not covered by our plan. Your benefit plan requires that we review requests for coverage of certain non-preferred drugs…." It goes on to say that my doctor can further explain why I need this drug and that she had done so. Then they noted that my request for this "is approved." However, there is a huge BUT. "You should know that in addition to being reviewed for coverage eligibility, every prescription also undergoes a professional practice and safety review. (And now in bold print) If this review results in any concern, you might receive a quantity of medication that is less than what your doctor prescribed." (This medicine is not a narcotic, but they were treating it as though it were.)
These Nay-Sayers in Congress and pundits who talk about all the choices we have and all the non-interference we now have with our plans certainly don't have any idea what people like me experience. I have no choice in the insurance I have. (And so, for many of us, it matters not how many insurance companies there are in this country, does it?) My teacher retirement plan put all Medicare eligible retirees into a Medicare advantage plan, and the advantage has been for the insurance company, not to me. And, as the above narrative reveals, it doesn't matter what my doctor feels is best for me, my not-very-advantageous plan and the big pharma reviewers decide what is best for them and their bottom line, according to what is on one of their charts. None who make these decisions for me after my doctor's initial diagnosis and prescribed treatment have ever met me, let alone taken my vital signs.
So, when I hear these people bemoan what a horror it will be for Big Government to get between my doctor and me, I long for the days when I only had big government with Medicare (and no advantage) between me and my doctor. Now, I have the government, an insurance company and big pharma between us. Who are they kidding?
In the world in which I live-- the world in which most of us live--bureaucrats tell us every single day what we can and cannot do, what treatments we can and cannot have, what drugs we may and may not be prescribed. Within the past month, my doctor gave me samples of a drug which improved a chronic medical condition for me appreciably. She therefore prescribed it. The group from whom I get my meds-- a large pharmaceutical group that is part of a Medicare advantage plan-- told me they could not allow me to have it because they did not have it on their list for patients with my condition. I purchased a month's worth myself, out of pocket, for $101.00.
Shortly thereafter, I received a letter stating. "X manages your prescription drug benefit at the request of your health plan. Certain non-preferred drugs are not covered by our plan. Your benefit plan requires that we review requests for coverage of certain non-preferred drugs…." It goes on to say that my doctor can further explain why I need this drug and that she had done so. Then they noted that my request for this "is approved." However, there is a huge BUT. "You should know that in addition to being reviewed for coverage eligibility, every prescription also undergoes a professional practice and safety review. (And now in bold print) If this review results in any concern, you might receive a quantity of medication that is less than what your doctor prescribed." (This medicine is not a narcotic, but they were treating it as though it were.)
These Nay-Sayers in Congress and pundits who talk about all the choices we have and all the non-interference we now have with our plans certainly don't have any idea what people like me experience. I have no choice in the insurance I have. (And so, for many of us, it matters not how many insurance companies there are in this country, does it?) My teacher retirement plan put all Medicare eligible retirees into a Medicare advantage plan, and the advantage has been for the insurance company, not to me. And, as the above narrative reveals, it doesn't matter what my doctor feels is best for me, my not-very-advantageous plan and the big pharma reviewers decide what is best for them and their bottom line, according to what is on one of their charts. None who make these decisions for me after my doctor's initial diagnosis and prescribed treatment have ever met me, let alone taken my vital signs.
So, when I hear these people bemoan what a horror it will be for Big Government to get between my doctor and me, I long for the days when I only had big government with Medicare (and no advantage) between me and my doctor. Now, I have the government, an insurance company and big pharma between us. Who are they kidding?
Friday, August 28, 2009
Guns, Guns Everywhere! Why Don't I Feel Safer?
I don't know about you, but I feel as though I've awakened in the middle of a real-life episode of Gunfight at the OK Corral, or worse yet, a gangster flick starring multiple Al Pacino archetypes wearing assault weapons as though they were the new bling of the new Gun Toting Fear Monger Coalition. Even now, I cannot believe what I've been seeing and hearing, and I marvel that some of these people can't even recognize the insanity of what they are saying and doing.
So many of the pistol packers express feelings of safety and security for themselves when they have a conceal-and- carry permit, when they get to cuddle their very own gun where no one else can see it. I don't know about the rest of you, but fearing that someone with a hidden gun is standing behind me, waiting in a long and slow grocery-store checkout line while they do a price check on an item I have to have makes me very nervous these days. Let's face it, people do snap from time to time.
Listening to the Second Amendment proponents justify the carrying of loaded guns, even those AR-15 assault rifles, anywhere near our president just baffles me. First of all, nearly all of these gun lovers fail to mention the initial part of the Second Amendment, the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that appears to be less unequivocal than the other nine.
Amendment II 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.
None of the Second Amendment proponents ever forget words like right, bear Arms, shall not be infringed. However, I have yet to hear any of them even whisper the words well regulated.
Let's get my bona fides straight right now. I grew up south of the Mason-Dixon Line and live there still. All of the men in my family for generations were and are hunters. Many were champion trap and skeet shooters. Heck, I bird hunted myself until I had my third child, and in my twenties, I won a turkey at a trap shoot. So, I am not anti-gun. I no longer have my 28 gauge, but my brothers own more than one gun, and I want them to be able to keep them.
But, who needs an assault weapon? And why? How much sense does it make for anyone to suggest that it would be perfectly all right for a gymnasium full of people to be armed while listening to the president? To John Veleco, speaking for Gun Owners of America on Hardball with Chris Matthews August 19th, it is a lovely idea. He knows that gun owners are all "law-abiding citizens." How in the world does one tell the difference between a law-abiding person with a gun and a killer or a madman with a gun? (Having taught hundreds of young adults over the years, three young men-- that I know of-- were convicted of murder a few years after graduation. I can tell you that it is not always easy to spot the person most likely to kill, I don't care what anyone says.)
And those Senators and Representatives who are currently proclaiming the rights of these people who are carrying their guns into areas near the proximity of President Obama need to revisit the wording of the recent Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia Et al v. Heller 2008) that did allow handguns in D. C. and read the entire decision. After maintaining the right "to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home," Scalia writes, in the majority opinion: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…." He then goes on to list many of the now existing regulations on firearm ownership, sales, and use. Again people, right to bear arms comes after the term "well regulated militia." Let's not forget the well regulated part.
I have fond memories of Saturday afternoon cowboy matinees at the local theatre, but I don't enjoy it one bit when I see a bad version of the Old West alive and in living color today in the 21st century. Granted, some people are angry. That's fine. But aren't we a century plus beyond a gunfight on Main street over health care, the deficit, or TARP?
Holster you guns, cowpokes! Our Founding Fathers did not walk around armed and dangerous. They wore tights and ruffled lace blouses for Pete's sake. Leave the Old West mentality in the 1800's where it belongs, and let's try to be as enlightened as the Founding Fathers were, an enlightenment based on reason and not fire power.
So many of the pistol packers express feelings of safety and security for themselves when they have a conceal-and- carry permit, when they get to cuddle their very own gun where no one else can see it. I don't know about the rest of you, but fearing that someone with a hidden gun is standing behind me, waiting in a long and slow grocery-store checkout line while they do a price check on an item I have to have makes me very nervous these days. Let's face it, people do snap from time to time.
Listening to the Second Amendment proponents justify the carrying of loaded guns, even those AR-15 assault rifles, anywhere near our president just baffles me. First of all, nearly all of these gun lovers fail to mention the initial part of the Second Amendment, the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that appears to be less unequivocal than the other nine.
Amendment II 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.
None of the Second Amendment proponents ever forget words like right, bear Arms, shall not be infringed. However, I have yet to hear any of them even whisper the words well regulated.
Let's get my bona fides straight right now. I grew up south of the Mason-Dixon Line and live there still. All of the men in my family for generations were and are hunters. Many were champion trap and skeet shooters. Heck, I bird hunted myself until I had my third child, and in my twenties, I won a turkey at a trap shoot. So, I am not anti-gun. I no longer have my 28 gauge, but my brothers own more than one gun, and I want them to be able to keep them.
But, who needs an assault weapon? And why? How much sense does it make for anyone to suggest that it would be perfectly all right for a gymnasium full of people to be armed while listening to the president? To John Veleco, speaking for Gun Owners of America on Hardball with Chris Matthews August 19th, it is a lovely idea. He knows that gun owners are all "law-abiding citizens." How in the world does one tell the difference between a law-abiding person with a gun and a killer or a madman with a gun? (Having taught hundreds of young adults over the years, three young men-- that I know of-- were convicted of murder a few years after graduation. I can tell you that it is not always easy to spot the person most likely to kill, I don't care what anyone says.)
And those Senators and Representatives who are currently proclaiming the rights of these people who are carrying their guns into areas near the proximity of President Obama need to revisit the wording of the recent Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia Et al v. Heller 2008) that did allow handguns in D. C. and read the entire decision. After maintaining the right "to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home," Scalia writes, in the majority opinion: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…." He then goes on to list many of the now existing regulations on firearm ownership, sales, and use. Again people, right to bear arms comes after the term "well regulated militia." Let's not forget the well regulated part.
I have fond memories of Saturday afternoon cowboy matinees at the local theatre, but I don't enjoy it one bit when I see a bad version of the Old West alive and in living color today in the 21st century. Granted, some people are angry. That's fine. But aren't we a century plus beyond a gunfight on Main street over health care, the deficit, or TARP?
Holster you guns, cowpokes! Our Founding Fathers did not walk around armed and dangerous. They wore tights and ruffled lace blouses for Pete's sake. Leave the Old West mentality in the 1800's where it belongs, and let's try to be as enlightened as the Founding Fathers were, an enlightenment based on reason and not fire power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
