Why CNN Got It Wrong

Wednesday night CNN had a townhall meeting, of sorts, with survivor victims of the Parkland, Fl school shooting and lawmakers and NRA representative Dana Loesch.  It was a microcosm of every debate on gun issues.  I will not go into that too deeply but many people operate on this issue from ignorance.  When that happens what we talk past each other, we hear what we want to hear and the rhetoric gets ugly. The students of  Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School are trying to tell us something, through tears, angry, and pain.  CNN did them a disservice.  We can't as well. 

The gun debate is not new and has always been complicated.  Gun ownership helped build the country and almost destroyed it. Guns are truly American,  We live in a country with the right to own guns. The Supreme Court, in DC vs. Heller identified the right as an individual one when used for legal purposes including self-defense. This clarified the wording of  the role of  "well-regulated militia" in the second amendment saying one did not have to be part of one to have the right.  However, that same decision however said it is Constitutional to put restrictions on where and what kind of gun one can own.  Quoting the late Justice Anton Scalia writing for the majority:  “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” For instance, Scalia said concealment laws were permitted at the time of the Constitution’s ratification and should be permitted today. 

So in the United States today the right of gun ownership can be mitigated by laws as long as owning a weapon for legal purposes is not eliminated.  That is simple. Calls for full bans on all weapons are not helpful and would require getting rid of the 2nd amendment, some in the crowd at CNN seemed to applaud. But here is the thing, the 2nd amendment was never about hunting, nor really personal protection from criminal elements.  No one in the 1780s would have thought to even consider those questionable.  What it was about was the states having the ability to fend off a tyrannical central Federal government who were overreaching.  The Civil War, in part, was predicted by the founders and because there has always been a tension of when are we 50 states and when are we one nation.  The 2nd was designed to help the states beat back an unlawful attack on Americans' freedom. Banning all guns is a failed idea and should not be entertained and it fails to add to the conversation.

But also what doesn't help is those that argue any restriction on access to fire arms is a total ban or worse that someone is coming to their homes and taking there guns.  To hear recent NRA messaging
you would think that there is a ready force in the government coming to take away all the guns and lock up people who believe in gun rights.  They say we hate freedom.  This is a failed conversation too and frankly insane. 

Then why not outlaw specific firearms to keep that people less armed?  The idea of banning assault weapons as they are called seems reasonable to many.  We can ignore the extremes and work on that.  But  the fact that defining an assault weapon has proven difficult because the gun manufacturers know that there is a market to exploit and so change a bit of the weapon to work around any law.  Besides, the reason is there is a market.  There are plenty of Americans who not only want a gun for personal protection or hunting, which most people feel is fine, but because it is actually fun to fire skeet shoot, fire at a range and feel the power of a gun.  That is why first-person shooter games are also popular.  And in this country we have that right.

So the solution to this are difficult and can not be done with the posturing of politicians, town halls driven by anger and certainly not the crazy rhetoric of the far right and a President who blurts out thoughtless nonsense without thinking through the implications of the idea. Guns are part of our culture and while I am all for helping with a cultural change, that can not be done by laws and will fail if tried. 

Let me be perfectly clear.  The NRA does not have the interest of Americans' right at heart, nor do they care about gun owners and safety.  They are lobbyists for the gun manufacturers. They have become the loudest voice for the biggest gun makers in this country.  They have for decades spoken with a radical agenda and attacked the FBI and other law enforcement (before it was done by mainstream Republicans).  In fact George H.W. Bush ended his relationship with the NRA over them calling the FBI Jack-booted thugs in the 90s.  They do not speak for a majority of the gun owners nor mainstream America.  But they are out front because they have power in Washington due to their deep deep pockets.  We watched their national spokesperson snarl at kids who were trying to get their point across on the CNN program.  She also lied about the NRA's position on various efforts to limit guns getting into the hands of the wrong people. And then the next day she claimed she claimed the mainstream media loves school shootings to because it is good for ratings.  That is some high level chutzpah for someone who has used gun issues to make her career. 

Guns are an emotional issue and when there is too much emotion there is room for ignorance to fill in the gaps.  There are facts that need to be used when making decisions on guns and school and general community safety.  There is a debate here, it isn't easy.  So let's be clear about moving forward, the debate has to be from a position of knowledge and history.

So let's keep in mind:
1.  The President doesn't think things through, his ideas are nonsense and should simply be ignored.  Let's stop debating what he says.  The man will not follow through and will change his mind if the right person gets in his ear.   

2.  The NRA speaks not for gun rights but gun makers.  They are not part of the solution.

3.  If your argument is that the 2nd amendment was written when muskets were state of the art that is not relevant to the discussion.   It is like suggesting the 1st doesn't relate to the internet.  It is a non-starter.  Yes guns are more deadly but we can both keep the 2nd intact and restrict guns in many ways.  Let's work on that.

4.  It is dangerous to argue to ban all private gun ownership.  Not only will that not be good giving the government too much power over the people, but it will also end any good conversations.

5.  If you question is "why do you need a gun like that?" you aren't asking the right question.

The real question is where can be build roadblocks to keep guns out of the hands of people who want to do harm or don't have the capacity to fully understand what they are doing:

1.  Comprehensive and fully funded background check system that includes people being treated for severe mental illness.  I know there is a privacy concern here but we give up privacy all the time for purchases.  This can be worked out over time.

2.  Waiting periods for weapons like AR-15s.  I am not a gun maven, but a semi-automatic weapon or any based on a military weapon designed to be used offensively should require a waiting period. 

3.  Training for weapons.  The purchase of a weapon should require a training course of some kind.  I don't think that is unreasonable.  A weapon can create damage in the public sphere I think we have a responsibility to make sure the owner at least knows where the the rounds will go.

4.  Severe penalties if your weapon is used in the commission of a crime.  Meaning you have to be responsible for it.  If stolen report immediately. 

5.  Add-ons to guns that make them shoot like automatic weapons (bump stocks etc.) should be banned and buy back programs should be put in place.  If caught with one after two years of the ban in place there should be prison time. 

Those are all ways we can slow down the violence that we have been visited by but it won't stop it. 
What Parkland taught us was that we have a blind spot when it comes to certain people and weapons.  Laws could have stopped the killer in Florida, if he had to be 21 to buy an AR-15 he wouldn't have it, if there was a way to take away his guns when he threatened a school shooting that could have helped, if the state and federal authorities had taken him seriously they could have intervened.  But that didn't happen because I truly believe we don't see the very people who are threats as threats. So often we hear reports of problems that people saw and in this case reported.  Yet nothing was done.  We have to take this all seriously.  I wonder, if after recent San Bernadino and the Pulse nightclub how the FBI, local law enforcement and the family he lived with would have reacted if his name was Ahmed.

I want laws to make it harder for some people to get access to any weapons, I want to outlaw devises that convert semi-automatic weapons, and there are probably some weapons that don't belong in the hands of private citizens.  I want to live in a country where the freedoms that made us great are mitigated by the thoughtfulness that makes us continue to be so.  I want the nonsense to stop, the shouting, the posturing and the downright disgusting nature of the rhetoric to stop.  We are sick as a culture not because we have guns but because we refuse to speak openly and honestly about them.  Because we are polarized and too many so-called leaders cannot be trusted.  The children are screaming at us because that is all they think we can hear.  Let's prove them wrong and listen, because under the tears, the anger and pain they do have a still small voice that is powerful.  It is time to focus and just freaking listen.  

We Continue to Live in a Post-Truth World.

So the move Black Panther opened on Friday.  A superhero movie centered on an African prince who is to lead a hidden kingdom on the African continent.  I haven't seen the movie and cannot comment on the content, but I have seen that it has been a movie that has inspired a sense of pride among African Americans in the media.  So of course there is a segment of our culture who feels this is a problem. To respond to this there has been a deluge of fake Twitter posts showing pictures of white people with physical injuries saying they were jumped as showings of the film.  This was completely untrue and easy to prove wrong.  Twitter has had to ban users who have been doing this.  But the story isn't going away and that is the problem. Once it is out there people will believe it and won't do the research.  It demonizes the black community suggesting that white people shouldn't go see this film.  It also will push down the box office numbers in some communities, though it still was a record weekend.  But facts don't matter anymore do they?

CNN has gone out of their way to get the mythical both sides of any information they report on in what has become in the last 30 years or so news analysis.  Virtually every day there is someone on their air that lies to the hosts.  Sometimes called out but mostly there is a nuanced push back that doesn't seem to want to offend.  Just a few minutes ago I switched over to CNN to hear about a rumor that Rick Gates, Paul Manafort's second and the head of the Trump inauguration team, has plead guilty.  Two people were arguing about gun laws in the wake of the Florida shooting.  Once again false talking points were unchallenged on the air.  But that has been going on since last Wednesday with this story.  For example, the call for armed guards in schools.  The school in Florida has an armed guard.  The shooting went to fast to have him engage.  Shooting stories bring out the lies consistently.  Most of the people who have opinions about guns do it from an emotional place.  (except members of Congress who are on the NRA payroll).  So even news stories are riddled with false statements.  I get that a little but I wish the news media would do a deep story about the facts of these events.  After the shock and awe, after the crazy number of reporters are sent to stick microphones in the face of grieving families, after the political class stops using victims as political football, I would like to see a documentary done on what is true and not true about these shootings.

There are journalists who are doing deep work on the Russian involvement of our elections. NBC's:  Left Field: After Truth which looks at a known Russian troll farm Facebook ad to organize anti-refugee rally in Twin Falls Idaho.  This has created a growing anti-refugee feeling and people are being attacked in the town.  In fact it is one of the ground zeroes for fake news.  Like the Bowling Green massacre lie from the White House, it has ginned up people to repeat nonsense about Muslims in our country.  What is amazing is the number of people who, despite the facts, continue to believe things that a proven to not be true.  But the more we push back with facts more people with have to believe.  Facts are important and the fact that we have documentary shows called After Truth and a White House that believes in alternative facts it will not be easy.

But there are those who don't want facts to interfere with their world view.  When Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor was nominated for the court an old speech in which she suggested a "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."  Speaking about how certain perspectives will color a judges decision.  As they always have.  It was a speech about Latina jurists.  In context the statement made the point that a diversity of perspectives give the court a better understanding of issues that may involve people of color or women.  When discussing it on Fox News one commentator when asked about the context said something to the effect that context isn't important.  Context helps define truth.  But to this right wing noise maker truth was unimportant. 

Now is par of the course for pundits but should it be for members of Congress they should be held to a higher standard, by themselves as well as us. However my hope that this could be true is just not realized.   Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY), a conservative upstate Republican, went on CNN “Newsroom” on Saturday, attempting to defend President Donald Trump in light of the recent indictments of Russians for their illegal meddling in the 2016 election.  While she twice, at least, said that the indictment put an end to the idea of collusion of the Trump campaign with Russian troll farms (it doesn't) she had to be asked if she thought the 37 page indictment seems to be a conclusion of the efforts of the special council.  Tenney had to admit that she hadn't read the indictment released on Friday.  Seriously, the indictment was online before I got home on Friday.  She is back in her district and not in session, she was going on national television to speak about this and she didn't read it.  Not because she didn't have time it is because she didn't care about the facts.  When pushed a little about the role of Russians in the election she said they helped both sides.  (They didn't and the indictment is clear about that).  How is it that a member of Congress can get away with that.

The answer is simple.  We are living in a Post-truth world.  Facts don't matter.  If it violates our worldview it can't be true.  Be it about what is happening at movie theaters, restrictions on guns, Russian involvement in our election or virtually anything these days there is no trusted referee to help us.  Where have you gone Walter Cronkite, a nation turns its confused eyes to you?  Who is your heir and will we believe her?

Jamie Morton is Up For Parole Again

So the letter came today.  Every two years it comes at the end of January or beginning of February.  It tells me that Linda's murderer will once again have a chance to be freed from prison.  It once again asks me to draft a statement for the board.  It once again brings up the debate between wanting that man to die in prison and my values of living in a culture where rehabilitation and second chances are important.  It seems that in the long run I know nothing changes the past, I like my present, and when I look back over the 30 years since Linda's murder I have struggled, hurt people, and acted the fool in part from carrying the anger and pain of that afternoon in the summer of '87,  However with each year I have healed.  Maybe I can even drive down James Street in Syracuse next time I am there.  But I still am uncertain about the fact that Jamie Morton be freed.  So here is what I plan to send the parole board.  Not that different from previous letters but maybe with a little more edge.  Call me out if you feel you need to, frankly I am not sure if I am totally comfortable with my own thoughts:

Dear Parole Board,

I am writing this letter as a victim impact statement to be considered at the upcoming parole hearing of Jamie Morton, Inmate number 88C0405. On August 31, 1987 he murdered Linda Akers, my fiancé, in my apartment in Syracuse.  It seems that I have done this every 2 years for a while now so I wonder if this is really a necessary action, however I feel I give voice to Linda and that is important for me. 

Mr. Morton violently beat and stabbed Linda for no reason except to vent his anger at a world he felt was unfair.  But more than stealing Linda and my future, he took a light out of the world.  Linda’s work with young children, especially during her time at the Bishop Foery Foundation, was focused on reaching vulnerable and at-risk children.   She wanted to make a difference in the world, especially for those who were often unseen or ignored by society as a whole.  She never got the chance to make her mark. 

I have never felt that someone who could so senselessly take a life should be released and enjoy the freedom he stole from Linda and for many years myself.  Now, more than 30 years after her death, I think I have found a way to heal almost fully.  However, when I am brought back to that time period either by a visit with my college friends or a trip through Central New York, I once again feel the wound as if it were fresh. How can someone who caused such ripples of pain be able to fully make up for it even in 3 decades?   

Yet I am also someone who believes in both justice and rehabilitation.  If Mr. Morton has served his time honorably and without incidents of violence or dangerous behavior, and if he will add to the world’s good as opposed to evil, should he not be released?  Each time I have received your letter I find myself in debate with myself about what I would like to see (Morton die in prison) from an emotional level and the values I fought for and that Linda shared that justice and rehabilitation should be part of our society.  Giving people a second chance is important to me.  I just can’t help but think of his behavior at trial, his lack of real remorse and of course the simple fact that his reaction to being angry was to kill the innocent person nearest him.    

You have more information than I do.  You know his record in prison.  You know if he has found a way to purge the anger that fed him.  You may even know if he still has murder in his heart.  But if you can’t be sure that the man you sent to prison is not coming out with all the same problems then how can you feel comfortable allowing him back into society? 

I know that you are supposed to take a “future focused” approach to deciding parole. But I don’t think you should forget the crime itself and not just the action of plunging a knife into another human, but what ending Linda’s life meant to the world.   I hope you see that Mr. Morton took the life of a woman who was dedicating that life to young children, many vulnerable at-risk children in your community.  I hope that you will see the crime was against a single person but has caused a great deal more pain for many, many others.

So in the end, once again, you have to decide whether Morton should be free, living the community where Linda was no longer allowed to bring her light.  Your job is difficult, I know I don’t have a vote, but again, if you don’t feel 100% confident he will add to the community don’t set him free, I wouldn’t. 

Thank you for taking my words into consideration while you deliberate. 

Sincerely,

George Kelley 

Racists are Getting Cover from the Top

In Carmel, Indiana, a northern suburb, a Muslim group has petitioned the zoning board to build an Islamic Center that will include a mosque.  The center will be in a residential neighborhood that has been seeing development north and south of it.  The people who live there do have some legitimate questions about what this new house of worship will mean to the neighborhood.  Traffic and noise being the biggest issues.  Also what it might mean if the center does drug treatment programs or a food pantry.  Neighbors need to consider these things and the zoning board should as well.  Houses of worship in general can be a net positive to a neighborhood.   But for some any effort to create a commercial-like environment can be problematic.  A large building with a public profile does change a lot about an area.

The mosque has tried to address some of the issues, for example, fear of a public call to prayer has been been spoken to by the fact that there will not be one to conform with local noise ordinances.  So know that local government will have to balance the needs, rights, and concerns of the groups.

But the debate has brought out an ugly side of our culture.  The responses to the story on local newscast social media pages has been down right racist.  One person, who doesn't live in the city let alone the neighborhood, said that there is a mosque in Plainfield so why do they need another one.  It is almost one-hour from the area that this community lives in.  Others equated Islam with terror and suggested, without sarcasm, that this is the first step to Sharia being imposed in Carmel.  It is mindnumbing.  But this is where we are as a country.  It isn't new, loud-mouthed hate has been part of culture since the dawn of culture.  I have always found it interesting that in ancient Rome there was political graffiti that attacked leaders and others personally.  But today it feels different.  It feels like elected officials are helping to cultivate this hate. 

High level leaders in the Republican party, including the President, have reached out to the most divisive and hateful members of the right wing noise machine.  People like Alex Jones, a man who called the Sandy Hook massacre a false flag operation, has access to top government officials and the President has been on his conspiracy ridden radio program.  White supremacists have been invited into the White House and we have seen members of that subculture flashing White Power signs while standing in the People's house.  And of course, the President, when faced with questions about the racist gathering in Charlottesville called some of the them fine people. 

Anonymity of the internet, cover run by our leaders and the daily deluge of slug from members of the inner circle in the current administration has created a fertile ground for hate to be acceptable to many.  It takes good people to not do nothing.  There are many times arguments can be made against whate I believe, from a mosque in Carmel, to DACA to a border wall to security measures.  But if those arguments use bigoted, ignorant or racist ideas to prop up a failed position, we must challenge them.  There are more of us than them.  And some can still be shamed, regardless if the GOP leadership has lost that ability.       

Facts are Always Facts.

When access to the internet became ubiquitous, I was teaching a class at Georgia College.  I remember telling my students that if they used a website as a reference for their writing they must show the websites' citations as well.  Twenty some years ago the internet was not fully understood by many, even in academia, and of course there was tons of misinformation on the World Wide Web.  I used part of a class session to show this by finding websites that promoted wild conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination, Flat Earth groups and of course my favorite alien visitation.  Most students became better consumers of the vast information now available to them.  More than two decades later the information has only expanded but so has the misinformation and confusion.  That coupled with partisan news organizations and position driven websites we now have access to a tsunami of information from a devise we carry in our pockets, but that wave brings flotsam and jetsam that is is hard to weed out.  

While long before the internet was the main way we interact with information, hucksterism, misinformation and yellow journalism were around.  The internet has just not only made it more private but has linked like minded people to create a perpetual reinforcement machine that leads people to believe things and justify them by the sheer numbers of people they can connect with who agree.  Fertile ground for those wishing to take advantage of ignorance.  

Sometimes this is just a way to separate a willing mark from his or hers money.  Phil Plait, known as the Bad Astronomer, post an Instagram photo today of a booth selling magnetic jewelry that apparently does something non-specific for health.  Snake oil on a grand scale.  Every Facebook feed has something for sale that will make you a better human being, hopefully.  In many cases this is just folly.  While this is usually only dangerous to those who fall for the pitch, it is highly disturbing that it is so easy to fool people.  But recently we have seen an uptick in more authoritarian sources selling nonsense.  

While many news organizations have a editorial bent there have always been some sources of information that eschewed facts for information to promote a position.  Until very recently Fox News led the charge but usually only in their infotainment shows (early morning and the prime time schedule).  But since Donald Trump began running for President, other sources that have no connection to reality are getting access to the inner circles of government.  A good example is InfoWars which claims all kinds of crazy things including that no children died at Sandy Hook.  The current President has been on the show of Alex Jones.  Also he has elevated people who promoted the insane notion that a pizza place in Washington DC was the center of a pedophile ring led by Hillary Clinton.  This led to a man shooting the place up.  

This world of Alternative Facts, as stated by a White House representative when asked to justify clear lies from the White House podium leads to all kinds of things.  There is a controversy in Carmel, IN over the building of a mosque in what is a residential area of town.  Now for those not from the Indianapolis area, Carmel and some of the surrounding suburbs are on a building kick again.  A field across the road from my neighborhood  is populated with McMansions and a new CVS at the corner (about 3 miles from another new CVS basically at the other end of my neighborhood).  I understand the idea of not wanting a new Islamic center which will become a community center for the Muslim community, one that is active in the interfaith world.  But there are many who don't want the mosque because of the stereotypes of Muslims.  One claiming the Dearborn, MI is a city run by Sharia law.  He read it on the internet.  People running for Congress and speaking for the President have suggested that Sharia law is taking over areas of the country.  This is nonsense but you can quote websites who say this without proof.  

Facts exist and they are facts regardless of whether people believe them. Too often when a statement is challenged people say "prove me wrong".  That is not how this works.   We need to be a culture that is educated enough to understand when we are being lied to, and know how to seek out reality.  The internet is made to people passing along bad information.  Don't like the internet think for you.  Think for yourself, find out where you get your facts and if something fits too nicely into a particular narrative, try to debunk it before you pass it along.  We will all be better for it. 

Thank You Alabama, But This is Round One

Let us celebrate.  It is an odd thing to say about a special election in Alabama in December of an off year, but last night the side of light and justice won the race.  A special thank you to the African-American electorate who truly came through for Doug Jones last night.  Thank you to Corey Booker and (this one hurts) Charles Barkley for helping to excite and get the vote out.  Roy Moore is not going to the Senate and the only way to see this is a good thing. 

But let's keep in mind that over 650 thousand people voted for the guy who think that homosexual behavior should be against the law, Muslims should not be able to serve in Congress, and that the Constitution shouldn't apply if it doesn't support his version of Christianity, and of course wants to abolish all the amendments since the Bill of Rights.  Oh and there are several credible accusations that he dated and molested teens when he was in his 30s.  This fight is not over.  We must be diligent.  Over half a million people voted for a terrible candidate who did not belong on a ticket for anything, let alone the Senate.  His ignorance and hate resonated with so many people.  To get a look at just how terrible this candidate was, his spokespeople who were the only contact that mainstream media had with the campaign when interviewed sounded like they were crazy.  Just yesterday, Jake Tapper, interviewing his spokesman asked a simple question about whether he knew that  you can be sworn in without a Bible and the spokesperson seemed to have a seizure.  Every time I saw someone supporting his campaign I wanted to send a care package to them.  Yet still the RNC, the President, members of Congress and many in Alabama still threw their support behind Moore. 

Last night the President and his Bannon influenced hate-filled nationalism took a blow.  But in 2018 we can truly have a chance to cure this horrific disease in American politics.  Mobilize, continue to fight for good candidates, stand up against hate of all kinds, even if it doesn't effect you personally, and be informed.  Listen to those in your party who have been marginalized, remember last night it was African-Americans, especially women, who won this for Jones who didn't really build in-roads to the community.  He has two years to do that.  Stop being a one-issue voter, I understand that lines need to be drawn on some issues, but do what many in Alabama did last night and voted for someone who may vote differently than they did.  Demand access, information and facts from all candidates, don't let political speak be the background noise of any campaign.  Oh and talk to those who you disagree with, there is a battle for political soul of this country, some of our allies don't vote the way we do, but in the end share some of our values.  Celebrate Alabama, celebrate Doug Jones, but then let's see what we can do to keep the tide rolling. 

so tired

Yesterday, Dianne said something like the one good thing about a Trump Presidency is that it makes each day seem like a month, each week more like a year, he is prolonging our lives.  It is true but I am very tired. 

I am tired of having to explain facts are not up for debate.  There are things that just are.  There aren't two sides to facts. (Despite what lawyers might say)  Be it a crowd size at an inauguration or referencing events that didn't happen, some things are not debatable.  I am tired of people trying to explain away reality in favor of a President who has a passing relationship with it.  When a spokesperson for the President of the United States says that there are alternative facts (which we know means lies) she is creating a Lingua Tertii Imperii.  A Trumpian world view full of propaganda and nonsense.  Intoxicating to his core supporters.

I am tired of having to argue against people that Roy Moore is a bad guy.  Seriously how low is the Republican party willing to go to support this guy.  Twice removed from the bench for violating the Constitution, he continues to promote ideas so far outside the main stream they might be illegal in other countries.  He has said that the country was better when slavery was legal.  He, in violation of the Constitution, wants to ban Muslims from serving in public office.  He believes homosexuality should be outlawed.  Oh and he is credibly accused of child molestation and wanting to date high school girls when he was in his thirties.  The later he didn't really deny.  There is evidence that he was watched for his bad behavior around teen girls and maybe even banned from a mall.  He may become a Senator in the US Congress.  How is it possible that he is being supported by so many and why would a sitting President strongly endorse him? 

I am tired of explaining why America wasn't great when black people where considered second-class citizens.  Seriously, there is a rising voice, like Moore's, who long for the good old days when blacks were either slaves, under Jim Crow or getting beaten for demanding their rights as Americans.  The President's support for White supremacists and his bringing into the inner circle of power people who have these beliefs is disgusting and it is exhausting to have to stand against it.

I am tired of watching smart people try to explain away nonsense from elected officials. This can be infuriating.  People I respected have done the kind of mental stretching that would make Plastic man proud.  I truly wonder at times how they sleep at night.

I am tired of having to fight the battles that I thought were settled before. While hate-groups and their allies have been around forever, they were kept in check in the last 2 decades.   President Trump's rise has given a sense of power to anti-woman, anti-Islam, anti-Jewish, anti-Gay, and so many other hate-based organizations as sense of support.  We watched in horror as Nazis marched in American cities and killing a counter-protester in Charlottesville and the President thought there were good people on the side of the Nazis. 

I am tired of having to call my representatives so often because they are trying to do something horrible.  It seems weekly there is another attack on the very foundation that makes our country great, the idea that together we create a social network with the help of government so we can all live and many more thrive.  I am all for free market economies but the rules have allowed some to take extreme advantage of the weakest in our society.  Over the Obama administration laws enacted were to help stand in the way of that and now they are being dismantled.  In fact recently a fine to Wells Fargo for, and let me be clear, creating false accounts in their client's names, to pad numbers and collect bonuses, only to charge the new costs back to the clients who, the stole their identity is being rolled back by this administration.  To me, this is the highest level of evil. 


I am tired that every morning I feel like I have to check the following:

• Is reality up for debate?
• Did another racist, homophobe, misogynist, etc get access to the President or appointed to a position of power? 
• Are there Americans being disenfranchised by actions of party who doesn't seem to care?
• Are we at war with someone new?
• Did the President say something on his Twitter feed that will make the world unsafe for some or all of us. 

So many other things could be added to this list. Exhaustion washes over us and there is a worry that we will run out of steam.  November of 2018 is coming.  We have to save our strength and we can change the political landscape.  Let's lean on each other when we need the support.  

Are We Entering a New Era?

The recent rash of high profile men who are accused or have admitted to sexual harassment and assault are being shamed, fired and in jeopardy of losing their political offices.  This  has caused a bit of anxiety among some men who fear that all men are being painted with the same large brush as  sexual predators. The "NOT ALL MEN" voices are loud and getting angry.   The thing is that I have had dozens of conversations with dozens of women I personally know and all have a story of a time a man has violated their personal space, made them uncomfortable in a sexualized context or assaulted them.  Women in the 20s through their 70s.  Women of wealth and education and women or neither.  Conservative, liberal and apolitical women.  Something is seriously wrong with the way men and women interact in many areas of life and it is mostly being seen in the work place where men with power and control of women's careers or economics take advantage of that.  But it appears that there are plenty of less cut and dried situations where women have felt they were made vulnerable.

The following is a thread from my Twitter feed in response to a man who said only a tiny minority of men act inappropriately toward women and not all men should be blamed:

Jim, as a man who thinks he has never been someone like that (referring to sexually inappropriate behavior in an earlier tweet)  I can't honestly say that I know for sure because we socialize women to not tell us and we socialize men to act this way.  I know I have never attacked a woman.  I know that I have never held a woman in a space against her will, I know I have never shown my genitals to a woman that was not my lover, but I can't say that some woman in my past did not feel threatened by my actions.  My intent is not fully relevant if the person in question is both feeling threatened and at the same time socialized not to respond.  This new era of woman standing up may change the way that women and men deal with it.  Bottom line is that we are looking at power not flirtation.  We are looking at control not seduction.  That is the problem of how we socialize women and men sexually.  And women are over it (thank God).  

Sex is a weapon in many of the incidence that are being discussed on daily news programs.  It is not about desire or even lust, it is often about control and power.  Many of the men listed in various accusation could have found women who would willingly be with them.  For some, money, power, access and fame are aphrodisiacs.  But they didn't want partners or equals, they wanted to dominate, shame or somehow own a piece of these women. 

But the less than clear situations do need to be addressed, but the rising voices that men can't flirt or a ridiculous article in the Los Angles Times today that asks if men could still hug women.  (the answer is no if she doesn't want you to).  I believe there are many layers to the issues of sexuality and the use of sex ans sexual language as a way to inflict power.  But it starts with how we raise our children to understand how to interact with others. 

Currently men seemed to be socialized from an early age that when it comes to sex to act as if they are on a campaign to conquer defended land.  "Did you get very far" is one of the many quotes we use to discuss men's sexual activity with women.  For women they are socialized to defend the line that men want to cross.  In fact if women don't put up a fight and express their own sexual desire they are often shamed.  Also much of our culture eschews teaching about sexuality and pretends that if we tell teens not to have sex then they won't.  It is a troubling cycle but I think the recent news and the openness for women to talk about their experiences we may make a breakthrough. 

We must teach young people that they are in control of their own bodies.  They should never be forced to kiss and hug anyone at and earlier age.  As young people grow they should be given not only information on how their bodies work but how their minds work in relationship to the desires of their bodies and that they have the right to control their own body.  This could include many things including not shaming for how they look, talk, act or express themselves. 

We may be in a new era.  Every day more and more stories come out.  In less public situations more and more women are confronting men around them who make them feel uncomfortable and more and more men are rethinking how they see the world.  But the process will be slow and it is up to us to help teach the next generation.  Maybe we needed this recent explosion and we may find that it tarnishes people we love.  I think it is worth it. 

Few Will Mourn Charles Manson, But We Should Be Happy He Had a Long Life

Since I was really young Charles Manson has been America's greatest embodiment of evil.  I remember reading Helter Skelter, about Manson's orchestrated Tate and LaBianca murders.  I was probably too young, but the idea of Manson's cult was fascinating and also scary.  Now Manson has died and we are getting a rehash of the horrors of his murdering followers and his long term ability to stay in the public eye.  

Manson has been the country's boogie man for 5 decades and many were truly upset when the government reversed his death sentence because of court changes. After which there were even more angry that he was getting taken care of in prison, in conditions that led to a long life span.  While I understand that desire for revenge, I have felt that on a very personal level, the fact that he was kept alive and fairly healthy late into life is good for all of us. 

We are a country of laws and built on the concept of justice.  We have courts, lawyers and prisons that deal with those that violate the laws of the country.  But prisons were originally less about simple punishment and more about attempts are rehabilitate.  The idea was that we can set people on the right path after being in the penal system.  While that ideal might still exist in theory, we know that prison is the cost of violating the law. In some jurisdictions one can lose their life.  But while in custody of the government,  that is what prison is, we must make sure that the government treats those in prison as humans and within the values and laws of the United States.  Manson, while despicable, is a perfect canary in a coal mine for our legal system.  How we treat the worst of those in our prison systems is a good barometer for how all prisoners will be treated.  Making sure that Manson's rights are not violated makes it more likely that others, both criminals or those simply suspected of criminal behavior are treated better.  Manson's long life is a good indicator that while prison might be a hell hole in some ways, the system is not taking into its own hands that which the law wouldn't allow.  While I know that sounds naive, I am sure that there some times that guards are involved in the prison yard justice, we know that for the most part there is some protections.  

Revenge is sweet at first but grows bitter with time.  I am happy that there are signs that at least someone like Charles Manson is not simply at the mercy of a emotions of those who have power over him, but that our values stand in the breach.  It may not feel good for us, but thinking beyond this single example we should be happy.  The world will not really miss Charles Manson, we will always have his infamy as our history.  Today, let's not get angry that he lives so long, be happy that if we ever are accused of a crime, that our judicial system is still based on the ideals that our founders created.  

It Was Never About Sex

I have sat down to write this blog post so many times, and so many times what has happened is that someone else comes forward with accusations of sexual harassment or assault aimed at a famous person.  One of the things that comes out is that we now have come to the point where the accused's politics play a role.  A Washington Post story that broke yesterday found four women who said that as teens Roy Moore engaged in an inappropriate relationship with them and at one point a women who was 14 years old was molested by Moore.  For those who don't know, Moore is the former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice who twice was removed from the court for violating Supreme Court decisions and he is the current Republican Senate candidate in the special election in Alabama.  This is a difficult and disgusting story and we need to make sure that this isn't just some made up nonsense, however the story is well sourced and the push back is interesting.  Alabama state Auditor Jim Ziegler in trying to defend  Moore's apparent sexual activity with teens as young as 14 :
"Take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus.”  Seriously, this is where we are.  (Let's remember Moore attacks Islam by calling Mohammad a pedophile).  Some Republican leaders have taken to say "if the accusations are true..." While innocent until proven guilty is a value we hold true in this country, the story seems to have a great deal of support suggesting that Moore has a history that has been kept quiet in Alabama for years.  The women in the story were reluctant to go on the record and like so many others the floodgates have opened and more women are coming forward.  This is true of the various others as well, Harvey Weinstein, the movie mogul and large Democratic supporter was also accused of horrible acts of assault and intimidation and it seems every day more women come forward.  I would hate to try to list the names of people accused in just the last week, I am sure I would miss someone. 

But in all these stories, the one thing that is missing is that none of these stories is about sex.  It is about people, mostly men, using sex as a weapon to assault others, mostly women.  It is a power and control.  Rape has always been a way to claim superiority over someone.  It is used in war and in fact the have been cultures were the winning armies would rape the survivors of the battle as a way to humiliate them, and then rape the women of the conquered village.  While the perpetrator may get a sexual release from that activity described in these accusations and allegations sex requires consent.  Even when consent appears to exist, when someone is at the age of majority for example.  The power dynamic of the relationship is a factor.  That is why trying to explain away the attacks on children using an ancient relationship is just ridiculous.  It is why the Monica Lewinsky relationship with President Clinton was completely wrong.  We have to stop thinking about these things in the context of sex and start thinking about them in the context of violence.  Too often because of the fact that there is a sexual component to these stories people attempt to write it off.  The #metoo has shown that these kinds of attacks are no rare and too often people try to justify it.  Imagine if these women who have been touched, harassed, and raped were saying they were stabbed or even robbed.  Would we be so nonchalant?  Should a movie director, a politician, a priest, a rabbi, a teacher or anyone be allowed to violate the body of another person under their charge or in their constituency?  Right now there are some trying to make excuses for people who have.  That too is not a new thing.  It happens all the time and we are at a place in society where we must draw a line in the sand and stop it.  We elected a President who bragged about sexual assault, saying that he could do it because he was famous.  Alabama may elect a man who may well have assaulted a 14 year old and used the Bible to explain it away.  We are seeing the first bricks in the wall that have blocked women especially from coming forward coming down.  The entertainment industry has exploded with accusations that were open secrets and people are paying the price.  Louis CK, Kevin Spacey and of course Weinstein have lost jobs, income and may lose their place in the industry.  But we need to do more, we need to hold people accountable when rumors are bouncing around and shine a light on them.  We must not laugh it off and take it seriously.  We must give up our politics and grab onto our humanity when it comes to this kind of behavior.  This is not a women's issue, it doesn't matter if you have a wife or daughter, it is about making sure that all of us are safe in body, and that powerful people can be held accountable for their actions. 

To Alabama I say, Roy Moore has twice been taken off the court for violating the Constitution, he has used language to dehumanize LGBT community members and Muslims, he has called for the death of Americans for who they love.  If you don't want to believe he is a child molester, that is fine, but with his track record do you want to take a chance he might be? 

Where Do We Go From Here

I have taken to checking my social media not long after I wake each morning. On Monday I saw a friend from Las Vegas check in that she was okay. I was confused, was there a weather incident, an earthquake, or something worse. It was something worse. A man decided that he wanted to kill as many people as possible for some unknown reason and bullets struck almost 600 people with 58 of them fatally. And so we continue to live in a world where killing people is easy and part of our normal life. There have been more mass shootings (4 or more deaths) than days of the year in 2017. This is where we are. I listened yesterday to my neighbor who is a prosecutor talk about visiting the scene of one of the record setting murders in Indianapolis, and having to tell a child her uncle, a young man, was dead. It was heart wrenching. Yet this happens every day across our great nation.

We are a country that was born by gun fire, settled by gun fire, committed atrocities in the name of growth by gun fire, defended freedom by gun fire, supported the innocent by gun fire and frankly saved the world by gun fire. We wrote into our founding documents the right to own guns because the founders thought it was an important tool, not for hunting but to fight off tyranny. While the words say "well-regulated militia" the idea was that all able bodied men would rise up to be that militia and in the recent Heller decision at the Supreme Court, this right in the 2nd amendment was considered an individual right. No militia necessary. For some that is meant to say it is a free for all, but if you read Heller there is a strong caveat in it that was written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Scalia, know as the uber-orginalist often voted on cases as if the ink on the Constitution was not yet dry. He focused on, much to my dismay at times, on an 18th century world view and not where we are. He didn't want to interpret the Constitution as much as he wanted to use it as a caliper against the cases in front of him. Yet he saw in the 2nd room for limitations and that is where we need to be having a conversation. Where to we set limits to fire power while maintaining our 2nd amendment rights?

This discussion is not about memes and talk radio. This isn't going to be settled on late night TV or in ads from the NRA (I have a lot to say about those guys at another time). We have to settle it politically and to think that in the wake of the deadliest civilian shooting ever is not the right time you are saying you don't want to talk about, but are happy with the nonsense vomited out by both pundits and so-called experts and ignore the reality of the situation. That is criminal level malpractice. I know several members of Congress owe their seats to particularly the NRA, which advocates not for gun owners but gun makers, but even those that aren't seem to want to avoid the issue for fear of being attacked by the mouthpieces of those who make and sell weapons. There are also those who are opposed to unrestricted access to weapons and accessories who seem to not want to have a serious conversation but use ignorant language and positions. This is not how we get things done.

So let me suggest some things:

1. The number of guns owned is not relevant. I know it sounds horrible that there were almost 50 guns that this man owned but there are plenty of people who own tons of weapons. Saying no one needs these weapons is a terrible argument because that is not anyone's call. If you have a number of weapons you think someone should be allowed to own, let us know. Then argue why that is a legal position. This is a distraction from the real issues.

2. As Scalia said we can place limits on the 2nd and one that comes up immediately after this attack is the so-called bump-stock. Making a semi-automatic weapon fire much like an automatic. Outlaw those. Simple. Some may argue the enjoy using them for target practice. I can argue many things here, including the unreliability of automatic fire when it comes to hitting a particular target, but what you want is not a legal argument. If it were no one should be arrested for anything.

3. Stop saying that gun control is a slippery slope to weapons confiscation. You sound stupid doing it. I don't care who you are. It is virtually impossible to take personal weapons from the population and I don't see anyone arguing this who has any legitimacy in public life. (and if your reaction is the old Sen Feinstein quote from 60 Minutes you look even dumber).

4. Stop saying that it isn't the kind of gun you would hunt with. I agree if you go hunting deer with a semi-automatic weapon you are either a really bad hunter or you are a psychopath who just wants to kill animals and not really wanting to hunt for game or sport. But that is not why we have a 2nd amendment. Owning a weapon is not about hunting, and protection for some is a real issue. Again I feel that if you build an arsenal for fear of the government you may be over the moon a little today, but in the end the founders basically said that it is the reason to have the weapons freely in the hands of individuals. And that leads me to the idea of muskets versus AKs. The 2nd amendment was written, in part, to protect against well-armed tyranny. Evolution of weapons is not relevant to the conversation. Yes the founders would be appalled by what happened in Vegas and couldn't full fathom it, but they also didn't want an unarmed citizenry in case a despot took power. Having commonly used weapons is implied in the right.


Congress can do more and should but just saying that is not enough. Here is what I think they could wrestle with, do hearings on, take votes and force a national conversation based on the facts and situations of today within the context of the 2nd amendment.

1. Outlaw the ability to turn a semi-auto into virtual full auto. With a broad law that covers everywhere.
2. Return to banning weapons sales to mentally ill.
3. Have a full and public hearing on suppressors (known as silencers) and what their impact might be.
4. Continue buy back programs.
5. Engage a special commission on basic rights education. Bring in people with a variety of opinions and then put together curriculum to use in school systems. If we have public schools they should be for the public good. Teach people accurate information about the rights as they stand.
6. Prosecute fully anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime.
7. Media should stop making these shooters into folk legends. The Vegas shooter didn't snap, he isn't a retired real-estate investor and professional gambler. He is and was a homicidal maniac. If his name was LeRoy Washington or Abdul Mohammed the stories would be different.

There are many more things we can discuss. Gun culture is a problem, in urban neighbors where guns are badges of honor, in my town where I eat breakfast at a place where 10% of the people open carry and some with questionable holsters, and online where wanna-be heroes tout their arsenal and pretend to be soldiers. (One comically ran from the Vegas shooting when the firing started).

We have a problem, but the noise around it is drowning out what we can do. Or as Mich McConnell suggests we should just sit back and relax, take a breath and hope that next week another person doesn't decide that killing 70 people might be a good idea. He know knows how to do it.