Ah, Chicago

From Huffington Post:

1.  "In an interview with WGN on Monday evening, Jackson said the city is in "a state of emergency" after the closing of 50 of its public schools, the shuttering of dozens upon dozens of grocery and drug stores and a growth in the number of vacant lots, particularly on the city's south and west sides where much of the weekend's violence occurred. "We need not just more policemen, but more teachers and more coaches and some plan for an economic reconstruction," he said. "There's nothing wrong with the people, the structure must change."

Actually don't you think it is time we started to look at the people, be sure there is not something wrong with the people.  Don't get me wrong - I am not blaming the people or even saying it is their fault.  But the systems - the "structure" - is the people.  They create the structure, they emerge from the structure, they are duped into supporting the structure. They are lead to believe that they cannot handle this on their own, cannot be trusted.  Jackson's tried and true strategy of getting more money thrown at abstract issues instead of looking at the behaviors of the people is on full display here.  The people are waiting for some structure to come and help them, they are not encouraged to or amendable to the idea of helping themselves. It is someone else's problem to fix. It is time to let the people themselves protect themselves, not convince them to hide in the shadows waiting for someone else to do it.  The cavalry is not coming.

2.  "In response to the violent holiday weekend -- during which more than 60 people were wounded and 11 killed in shootings -- Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said lax gun sentencing laws were playing a major role in the continued bloodshed. Mayor Rahm Emanuel called on all the city's residents to "take a stand" against violence."

Oh, Rahm:  Take a stand with what?  How?  By standing shoulder to shoulder with you in denying themselves the right to protect themselves?  Those words mean nothing when uttered by someone who wants to disarm every law-abiding citizen and leave them at the mercy of criminals.  Perhaps you and your superintendent of police should pay attention to what he said; stop trying to find new and creative ways to punish law-abiding citizens, to prevent them from defending themselves and "taking a stand" and start really putting criminals who illegally possess and use firearms in jail for long periods of time.  Law-abiding Chicagoans are left to live as prey and the criminals are slapped on the wrist and sent back to prey on them.

Score one for Christie

Nope, not much of a Chris Christie fan.  But this is one glimmer of hope that a more rational approach to violence can be had (and who would ever have thought the words "rational" and "Chris Christie" would be in the same sentence).  Funny how when he hugs Obama the democrats love him, but when he thwarts their citizen control efforts, not so much.  In both cases, he is acting on his own conscience (assuming he has one).  seems a moderate thing to do.  His suggestion that limiting magazine size would not be effective but increasing resources to identify those who commit atrocities makes sense to me as a law-abiding firearm owner and psychologist.

Especially interesting and irrational are the comments by Senate President Steve Sweeney, a Democrat: "This veto sounds like it was geared more for a national audience, rather than crafted for the streets of New Jersey."  Actually the comments in Christie's veto echoed some common sense notions - notions that would not have been controversial through most of the history of this nation:  People commit violence, not tools, and most of those who commit such violence are ultimately found to have suffered mental health challenges.

Citizen control in NJ has been a fruitless exercise of the left.  New Jersey has had some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation for many years.  Still crime has gone up and the state is home to many of the nation's most dangerous cities.  I am sure politicians would prefer that this not be seen as a function of a bad economy, moral failings, bad government, and mismanagement.  Much better to blame it on guns.  Still crime has risen while gun control has increased, so logic would tell us that crime and mass shootings are not being deterred by blaming tools instead of people.

Of course, it is likely that Sweeney is one of those who believes that the use of guns in crime in NJ would end if only all guns were illegal everywhere else, in all states.  But why does crime not spiral out of control in those states where gun ownership is not restricted as it is in NJ?  Guns are guns after all - it is not like the ones that get into NJ are somehow more malicious than others - it is the hands that use them.  So, is it the people in NJ that are the issue?  Is it the policies?  Does the likelihood of unarmed prey increase the commission of crimes?  Do we really think that because people in NJ cannot create policies that prevent violence, the rest of us should be forced to live at their level?

For those who really think that a federal law outlawing private ownership of handguns in the US (Oh, how they love to point at Australia or Great Britain) would solve this issue or even that further restrictions on gun ownership will solve this issue, I would ask you to look toward our southern border and the war on drugs (remember that those are island nations) .  How many tons of illegal drugs and thousands of illegal immigrants cross our southern border every year?  How well are we handling that?  If you cannot stop these transgressions of the border, do you really think a national ban in handguns or firearms would not create a black market for firearms coming across that border?  At that point, only those who are breaking the law will be armed (which is an apt description of the situation in Mexico right now with the cartel death squads).  How well has the war on drugs worked out ion our own country?  Do you really think a war on firearms will work out any better?

If you do, might I suggest you pull your head out of your ass and look around?

Target - off target.

Target announced today that it will "...respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law" (see Target's statement here).  Although they specifically mention open carry in their statement, they do not make it very clear whether they would include concealed carry in this request.

I am no open carry enthusiast - for a number of reasons I will not enumerate here, but certainly one of them is that we live in a world of sheep and, as one commenter on the announcement noted, those sheep get scared and like to scare others. When they get scared they whine and cry a lot and no one likes to hear whining.  So Target made a gesture - no more, no less.

Let's be clear - this is nothing more than a request.  They do not mention whether they will actually post signs to this effect.  But even if they do, depending on where one lives, a private entity's sign denying the right to carry on their premises may not have force of law - law defines where carry is and is not legal.  In many states, their only recourse should one deign to carry on their property would be to ask the person to leave and then, if they do not, press charges for trespass; that is, for not leaving when asked to do so.  We can only guess as to whether Target will want to go down that road.  I suspect the individual stores will find this more or less appealing.

Of course, Target insults those who carry firearms by suggesting they are creating "...an environment that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience..." Target desires. What families?  So, friendly families do not shoot together?  None of your workers own firearms?  Firearms owners do not have families and friends they love and cherish?  Once more a corporation has succumbed to the illogic and insult promulgated by groups like Moms Demand Action that all firearms owners are crazy and criminal.

If you really want to be both entertained and appalled read some of the comments.  Speaking of illogic, one of my favorites, in response to a carrier who says he will be carrying there anyway, says " doing God's work, are you, scaring little kids?"  God's work?  Oh, dear!  You will pardon my saying so, but if the kids are scared it is because you are scared, because you have shared your immature fears with your children. Why would I say this?  Because not all kids are scared of firearms - only those whose parents are afraid of them.  Be a parent and teach your children, not frighten them. [Of course, these are the same people appalled by legal hunting].

Many of the commenters need to read this blog post. Not because they will agree with it, but because they do not understand the law nor did they read Target's statement without putting their own fears on top of it.  This does not "promote public safety."

Please note again from their statement:  "But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law."  They did not prohibit it, they requested it.  This means that, unless they go further, nothing has really changed. Of course, Target is really making a bet here - that bet is that firearms owners are more civilized than their detractors.

For all of this, one thing that firearms owners need to remember is that if we expect people to respect our rights we need to respect theirs.  Target's stores are their private property and they have the right to prohibit firearms if they wish to do so.  We should remember that the Second Amendment guarantees that the government shall not infringe on our right, not private entities.  We may think this is a wrong-headed decision, but a belief in the rights of others must lead us to accept it.

Of course, one thing that corporations like Target need to remember is that we all have the choice as to whether we shop at Target or somewhere else.  I absolutely hate the Walmart atmosphere and some of their practices - but perhaps the best way to respond to Target's wishes is to do as they ask; do not bring your firearm OR your money into their stores. Consider how people would respond if Target said gay couples could not show affection, hold hands or kiss in their stores - because it scared my children. [It would not and I would not care - this is simply illustrative].

BTW - note to all criminals - Target has now, nominally, defined itself as a defense-free zone.  Of course, this logic is also well-beyond most commenters; as one noted "Thanks Target for creating a safe place to take my family shopping."  So, how is it there in fantasy land?  Let's be clear - although clarity will make no difference:  If true legal prohibitions of carry of firearms, say in schools or even military bases, cannot deter criminals from using them to kill others, do you really think Target asking criminals "please" is going to make any difference?  Do you really think the people who want to do you harm are going to care?  All this has done is create a target-rich (pun intended) and defense-deprived environment, where all of you can graze together waiting for the wolves.

I wonder though; if I were to go unarmed to Target (which, in truth, I would not) and be robbed in their stores or parking lots, I would have to ponder (should I survive) whether they bear some civil liability for my inability to defend myself. Am I shopping at my own risk or have they put me at risk?

Hobby Lobby and the disingenuous whining of sheep...

This is clearly disingenuous whining.

While not a Christian or a religious person (I insist that Christians notion that they have some kind of monopoly on morals and values), even I can see the issue that leads to the Hobby Lobby decision.  At the center of this is whether government can make laws that tell a person what they can practice and choices they have.  The Bill of Rights does note that the government can not tell a person how they may practice their religion.  But even more clearly than that, if government can continue to discover new rights that are not specifically enumerated (such as gay marriage - and to be clear I do not care who someone loves or marries) then it is on thin ice when it starts denies those with genuine religious convictions what behaviors they need to support.

I am not anti-choice and am not pro-abortion.  I am pro-responsibility and that responsibility in the case of contraception and pregnancy termination falls clearly on the shoulders of the individual.  Clearly the government can collect our taxes and put them to the use those currently inhabiting the legislative and executive branches of government see fit; my taxes can support wars and spying I oppose and be used to enforce gun control laws I disagree with.  But we are not talking about taxes here; we are talking about an employer whose beliefs mean they cannot in good conscience financially support an employee's right to choose certain treatments.  Can the government tell a privately held corporation how it will spend its money?  Perhaps this is at the root of the problems with Obamacare - it is a socialist health care system that cannot support itself, so requires the private sector to do so.  One mus be blinded by partisanship not to see some problems with that; with a law that tell you how to spend your money.

I will agree that this may be a slippery slope, but that is hardly a reason to allow for further over-reach.  the law itself created this slope. Will Jehovah's Witnesses be able to deny funding for transfusions and will Scientologists  (Is that really a religion?) be able to deny psychotherapeutic medications or therapy?  Of course, Grim's argument from absurdity is more comedy than substance.  And, really, haven't all the decisions on gay rights really already opened Pandora's box on most of this?  Humanism is really as much a religion as Scientology (that's sarcasm folks) and this argument springs forth clearly from a degree of hedonism that knows no bounds.

This is, of course, the result of having employer-funded health care system.  You can't have a government that tells employers how they will spend their money.

First, this is a matter of definition; we need to consider where lifestyle choices end and health care begins.  Clearly, for some women, contraceptives serve a health-related purpose beyond preventing pregnancies (or as a function of preventing pregnancies).  We can define that as an issue of "medical necessity" and it is obvious that not all contraceptive use is of "medical necessity".  In fact, most is a matter of "lifestyle necessity" or, more accurately, "lifestyle convenience".

But, to be honest, I think it would be extremely hard to make a case that using drugs that are meant to terminate pregnancies fit under the heading of "health care."  In fact, it is likely a sick society that would think so.

So consider this in light of the fact that Hobby Lobby is not saying they do not want to fund "birth control"; they are saying their do not want to fund life termination.  Oh, one can leap through many hoops to somehow make them the same, or they can argue from absurdity to garner laughs and distract from facts.  Hobby Lobby has no concerns about funding a vast majority of "pregnancy prevention" methods, but do not want to fund the small number of options that do not prevent pregnancy but abort one.  Unwanted pregnancies are a public health issue, but not an individual disease (well, perhaps some see it that way and see abortion as excision of an invading parasite).  Of course, we gave up on preventing them, our society long ago "decided" that unwanted pregnancies, unwed mothers, "baby daddies", and everything that goes with them were not really problems; that it was part of a "do what you want" society where you can count on someone else fixing the problem or supporting your children.  We surrendered to it.

Again, I am not pro-choice, but even I can see their issue and do not see it as limiting choice - it simply means certain choices are "on you".

Choice means responsibility, being pro-choice means being pro-responsibility.  Of course, we live in times where responsibility is an archaic notion, something people like me talk about and the younger people around us shake their head and smile at the feeble old man, living in the past.  we live in a time where the message is "Do what you want" and someone, someone somewhere will pay for it, pay to fix it.  No rules, no limits, no need for forethought, no need for concern.

Another sign of our times.  If Hobby Lobby hung up signs forbidding the carry of firearms, concealed or open, in their stores, these champions of individual rights would nominate them for an award.

Ponderations

Damn - stepping into really dangerous territory here, but it is time to flesh out a thought that has been a small kernel for a long time.  I considered it back when we were going to war in Iraq, justified by a laundry list of reasons, one of which was to "spread democracy", the idea that all people deserve and can function with the right for self-determination.  Such thinking has been at the heart of American intervention for a long time, although most often the war cry does not recognize how the enemy has changed, does not benefit from analysis of our previous folly.  The thought once more emerges as the "democracy we proudly created" in Iraq falls into disarray and ruin.

Are all cultures really capable of or suited to democracy?

I can only imagine how we look from the outside sometimes, why to oms our nation is at once amazing and perplexing.  We are a nation that, now more than ever, has great divides among its people (perhaps later we will ponder how this has happened over time).  Yet we all live under a single government and must cope with its incompetence and inefficiency.  Thus it amazes to hear the administration's criticisms of  the Maliki government in Iraq. Words like "greater inclusiveness" and "tolerance" flow so easily from the lips of those who are our betters, who know what rights we need and don't need, yet want leaders in other countries to surrender a power that they themselves cling to.  Still we - Americans - do not rebel, do not rise up, do not kill indiscriminately, terrorize our fellows, or behead those who disagree with us.  There is some sort of value, some sort of morals, some cultural element that allows for our displeasure while maintaining some semblance of order.

I would propose that what does that is our Bill of Rights.  It seems that, as long as a people are not persecuted, hounded, marginalized and denied their rights as protected by our constitution, then discontent will likely never cross over to armed rebellion.  As long as we are, at our core, who we were, we persevere.  Of course, this interpretation of things is a cautionary tale to those who are seemingly moving to curtail or infringe upon those rights they do not like, while making up news ones.  It is likely our cultural values will not permit those so treated, so denied, to simply accept this mandate unchallenged.

But back to Iraq (well, not literally).  Here is where the ice beneath my feet gets thin and I piss people off.  I simply do not think that all cultures can exist as democracies.  I find no better way to say this than to propose that a certain level of maturity is necessary for a democracy to function - that and a list of inalienable rights that are shared (and protected) by all.  Some of it is a cultural commitment to "the common good", which means that culture needs some common center (again our rights).  Maybe part of it for our nation emerged from a shared religion and, usually, only symbolic antagonism between sects of it.  Perhaps some cultures - indeed some religions - "need" a dictatorial form of government, in the sense that it evolves from the culture naturally).  Perhaps some cultures require periodic extermination of large groups of dissidents so as to maintain general order. The example of Iraq surely shows that Saddam, for all his brutality, kept a "cork in the bottle" and that imagining that we would place our culture's governmental template over Iraq, pull that cork is what has lead to a thus far never-ending shedding of blood.

This is indeed a cautionary tale on a number of fronts.  First, it suggests that we tread more lightly and stay our big stick when it comes to building the world in our image.  This is not a position in which I consider one form or culture superior to another; in fact that is what those wanting to impose democracy are doing - somehow our way is best.  What I am suggesting is that cultures be taken as they are and that we not play God by intervening.  Second, it speaks to our own modern times.  It begs us to remember the glue that holds this plan together.  Part of that glue is that our inherent rights are sacrosanct; that they transcend the fools we elect to represent us.  If those rights are not transcendent, then we have no reason to cooperate with our leaders.

In addition (out on that ice again), what are the implications of multi-culturalism for our future?  Is there a point at which the rights, goals, understandings, values, ad morals are no longer shared?  As opposed to our perspective, many cultures are not oriented toward "live and let live". They cannot accept that you are not like they are, do not dress as they do, do not worship as they do, that you have a right to be different, perhaps that God does not run our government.  In essence, they do not recognize the rights that bind us, do not recognize a "Common good" beyond what their country can do for them.  As our society becomes one of many cultures who vary in acceptance, tolerance, rights, and responsibilities, is there a point at which it is no longer our culture, perhaps better put as "the culture that is was", that adopted our form of government?  When does the culture cease being what it was and, when that happens, what follows?

Again, this is not to devalue any culture; it is simply to ponder whether our own dedication to allowing all viewpoints will be our undoing as a nation. Do we fail to recognize how unique, yet tenuous, our social contract has been?

Student debt crisis

The Fiscal Times suggests one approach to reducing student loan defaults; making it a public rather than privately funded matter.  Somewhat typical - reminiscent of liberal solutions to "gun violence" - forget the violence, just take away the guns.

In this case, forget the fact that this debt largely emanates from people getting degrees that they should not have.  Consider this:  We have created a system where the bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma, where everyone, capable or not, is expected to go to college after high school.  Problem is that college is expensive - even more so with the proliferation of private universities who are in it for profit and subsist on the financial aid debt that is piled on their students.  An undergraduate degree has become no more than a box to check on the way to a job that cannot pay enough to support paying back the loans. We have seemingly incompatible positions here:  everyone deserves to go to college (whether it and they are functional or not), but they need to go into debt to do so.  This is even more true when one considers the fact that many of those attending the most expensive schools are doing so because they could not qualify to attend public universities.  I know - I teach and have taught at both and while the quality of the students in both has decreased over time (again due to the fact that "everyone" is supposed to go to college), the private institution consistently draws students who, on average, would not have been accepted into a public university.  I should also note that, as competition from private schools has increased, state-run public universities have become less a place for training and learning and more a place where the bottom-line is most important.

As long as universities, great and small, public and private, are measured by their cash reserves, their students are going to emerge with more and more debt while being less and less useful to the job market.  This is not a matter of funding sources, it is a failure of culture.

Violence is violence

Once more anti-gun media works hard to make the words :gun" and "violence" synonymous.

Would this story get this attention if the tragic death of this young man had been by stabbing, choking, bludgeoning, and vehicular homicide?  The problem here is that people kill people and they do so with all manner of implements, many of which the vast majority of users handle without hurting anyone.

Such manipulation serves only to minimize the behavior that is the root of this problem.  this young man was tragically slain by violence between two gangs at a block party.  Gang warfare.

There were guns in the world when I was a teen.  I confess as to the fact that I, from time to time, carried them.  But we did not engage in shootouts, no one was killed or even shot.  So what has changed?  I could give a long list of politically unpopular ideas on what it is.  And it is the fact that they are politically unpopular that leads such media outlets to focus on the means as opposed to the meaning.

It is hard to speak truth, hard to teach people values and insist that they live by those values. In a world where all have won and must have prizes, where no one is evil they are just disadvantaged, where all approaches to life and values are relative, one is left only with trying to make misbehavior impossible, even if it means denying freedom to those responsible enough to live with it.

There was a time when killing was a moral failing, where we were all entrusted to be able to do the right thing and those who failed were dealt with accordingly. Now we blame the misbehavior on the means, excusing it as expected.  We no longer expect appropriate behavior and think we can only eliminate bad actions through limiting freedom.