NEON GODS

When Facts Mean Nothing

This email to Andrew Sullivan from one of his readers struck a chord with me.

During the months that have passed since John McCain “tapped” Sarah Palin to be his running mate, I’ve had more and more trouble reconciling the obsessive adoration of Palin by so many in the GOP, including a lot of my relatives, (some of whom are very smart and successful people) with the obvious dangers of having someone like her as president. The bizarre behavior. The vapid thinking. How do they not recoil at the smug way in which she wears her ignorance like a badge of honor? It’s just amazing to me how every word out of her mouth is taken as gospel, and when she can’t even answer a softball question without struggling to form a semblance of coherent opinion, they set off against the liberal media.

Never mind the implications of her “word salad” responses. It’s quite sad actually, especially for me to see how my own family has changed. There’s been this kind of de-evolution from a thinking, reasoned, disinterested opinion, into an irrational, crusading, narrow banded thinking process...

My siblings back in Indiana are all bright and successful.  We can talk and argue intelligently at length on any subject whether it be science, economics, agriculture, music, you name it.  They are thoughtful about what they say and they will call you out when you say something that sounds fishy or illogical, but when it comes to politics or religion, their minds snap closed like a venus flytrap.  Everything is straight from Fox News and even when you confront them with obvious facts they won't back down.  Of course this has been going on for years in our family. It sounds like Andrew's readers family just caught the same disease.

--Trakker

Reducing Violence in the Cities

I have had some feedback to my post about the shooting death of little eight year old Heather Center.  Many objected to my anger directed at the gun lobby for the many shootings each year, telling me that guns don't kill, people kill.

That is without a doubt one of the stupidest arguments ever.  No one has ever claimed otherwise!  (The second most stupid argument is that people can kill with knives, baseball bats, frozen turkeys, etc.  so it will do no good to implement gun control measures because people will just use something else.  The parallel to this argument is that we shouldn't try to find a cure for cancer because people die of lots of other things too so if we cure cancer people will still die of something else. Yeah, that's pretty stupid).

But I digress.  Yes, people kill people, and they frequently use guns.  This has become a real problem in the inner cities (much to the gun lobby's delight).  At first we tried to control the flow of guns into the cities, but there are just too many gun owners and gun shops only too happy to make a profit, so we could only stand by and watch the carnage, but now there is a new program called CeaseFire that has shown promise in reducing the shootings (and other violence) in the cities.

The key is to change social norms so that violence is seen as "uncool" both by potential perpetrators and their communities, instead of being the automatic way to settle a dispute. [...]

"Violence gets transmitted the same way as other communicable diseases, so we train 'violence interruptors' to prevent escalation," says Gary Slutkin, founder and executive director of CeaseFire.

"They change the norm from 'violence is what's expected of me' to 'violence will make me look stupid'," says Slutkin. [...]

A three-year independent evaluation of CeaseFire published by the Department of Justice last year found that in Chicago, it reduced violence in every community where it was deployed.

Shootings and killing fell by between 41 and 73 per cent, with drops of 17 to 35 per cent the result of direct interventions by CeaseFire. Retaliation murders fell by 100 per cent in 5 of the 8 communities covered...

So, yes, this is a recognition that people kill people, and the focus of this program is on the people who kill (or injure) other people.  The idea behind the program makes sense and it would be great if it works, even if it only reduces killings by 50%.

--Trakker

Government Lies, Real Journalism, and Suffering On Behalf of the People

Nancy Youssef, of McClatchy News, wrote a long article about Haji Sahib Rohullah Wakil, an Afghan who was detained in U.S. custody for 6 years, most of that time was spent in Gitmo.  He was released in 2008.

He's back in Afghanistan working as a tribal to help the people of his province, and much to his horror the Pentagon is now accusing him of engaging in terrorism again.  Read the article to see how ridiculous their claim is and how badly Wakil has been treated by our country.

Glenn Greenwald used this article to highlight the many lies our government has been telling us about terrorists, detainees, Gitmo, and the whole Bush war on terrorism.  Glenn praises Youssef's article and calls it an example of how real journalism should be practiced.

As the McClatchy article reflects, what is and is not real "journalism" is not that complicated.  The government makes a claim.  The role of the "journalist" is not to repeat it or merely report that the government claims..., but instead, to investigate it with skepticism to determine whether it is true, and then report if it isn't.  And journalists don't have to wait for a member of the "opposition party" to call them and object before doing so.  That's so basic that it's staggering to believe that it is disputed, and yet not only is that proposition disputed, it is explicitly rejected by many -- if not most -- establishment journalists.  And in that fact lies much of the explanation for what has happened in the U.S. during this decade (at least).

Also of interest is the first comment posted to Glenn's column.  Jim White is a frequent commenter and here is what he wrote:

At the end of the [McClatchy] article, we have this:

"Where is the justice? I am still being threatened because of this," Wakil said, his arms flailing. "But I do not want to retaliate. People respect me now more than before because they know I am innocent. It is my job as a tribal elder to suffer on behalf of my people."

What a succinct summary of the depths to which we have sunk. First, of course, Wakil understands that the concept of "justice" no longer exists for the United States when it come to the Great War on Terror.

Further, though, I dare anyone to give me a single example of a political figure in Washington who sees their job as entailing the obligation "to suffer on behalf of my people". Inside the Beltway, the only objective is to enrich oneself as much as possible in both cash and power while ensuring re-election. The concept of doing anything, let alone suffering, on behalf of the people is completely foreign to our government...

--Trakker

Heather Brooke Center Was Shot to Death Today

This evening a man in South Carolina shot a little 8 year-old girl to death.

A man put an 8-year-old girl in a headlock Wednesday and shot her to death, then shot himself in the stomach, authorities said.

How many times a week do we read stories like this - innocent people shot to death by a gun owner.  We're told that people need guns for personal protection and to defend us from a rogue government, but every day we read of angry gun owners shooting a wife or girlfriend or their children or someone they hate. They shoot abortion doctors, they shoot guards at museums, they shoot someone to make a statement, they shoot classmates, they shoot someone hoping the police will shoot them, now so common that it has a name, "Suicide by Police." 

While I'm sure gun zealots feel sad about the victims, they have historically refused to do ANYthing to effectively stop these killings.  They respond by blaming the victims for not arming themselves.

Sure, there are laws that are supposed to prevent criminals and the mentally unbalanced from owning guns, but as we all know from reading the tragic stories in the news everyday, those laws are unenforceable.   Just look at the man who shot this little girl:

The sheriff said [the shooter], 50, has a long criminal record.

So why did he have a gun?  Who cares?  Certainly not the gun lobby.

Why are these laws unenforceable?  Because the gun lobby doesn't want the laws to be enforceable.  In fact, if they had their way (and they usually do) everyone would be allowed to own any gun they want, in whatever number they want, with no accountability whatsoever.  They want everyone in America to be armed.

Oh, they scream and bleat and beat their chest about how much they hate criminals and assure us that they want to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have one.  If that's true then the NRA would be outraged that this child killer with a long criminal record had a gun.  They would demand that the South Carolina authorities investigate how this man got his gun and would demand that the person or gun shop that sold him the gun, or neglected to take it away from him once he was convicted of a felony (assuming he had committed one) be identified and punished.

It won't happen. It never happens, in fact sometimes the shooter is even a member of the NRA.  I called and asked the NRA once how many members a year are purged from their rolls because they were convicted of a felony.  They said they wouldn't divulge that information.  Why?  Wouldn't that send the right message, that the NRA doesn't tolerate members who commit felonies?

The little girl who was shot was named Heather Brooke Center.  She only got to spend eight years on earth.  Think of her for a moment because what she was today is all she'll ever be.

--Trakker

[Don't] R.I.P. McNamara

I spent four years in the military during the Vietnam War so I know Robert McNamara well. No, I never met the man but everyone in the military at the time felt his touch.  I never met a serviceman who liked or respected him.  He was your stereotypical bureaucrat, running a war and sending men and women to their deaths from his comfortable office in Washington.

Well, he finally joined the 58,000 plus troops who died in his little war.  I think Joseph Galloway (McClatchy News) has the best response to McNamara's death yet.

When famous people die, we have come to expect scores of tributes to the person, with stories of all the great things he or she did in their life, and how much they will be missed.  Well, this one is different.  Galloway hated McNamara and he's not afraid to show it.  He writes:

The only disagreement I ever had with Dave Halberstam was over the question of which of us hated him the most. In retrospect, it was Halberstam.

He goes on to describe just how deep Halberstam's hatred was,

When McNamara published his first book — filled with those distortions of history — Halberstam, at his own expense, set out on a journey following McNamara on his book tour around America as a one-man truth squad.

McNamara abandoned the tour.

Read Galloway's piece, it's deliciously irreverent.  And scroll down to WallaceN's comment.

--Trakker

 

Off topic

My wife is a quiet, thoughtful, gentle person.  So why is she upstairs screaming at her phone?  What could possibly send her into such a rage?

Verizon.

Verizon's phone, cable TV, and Internet service works well, but beware if you have to call a customer service rep.  They have the worst customer service of any company I've ever dealt with.

A few months ago I was getting 3-4 telemarketer calls a day trying to sell me an extended warranty for my car.  Day after day.  It was driving me crazy.

Since my number is on the 'Do Not Call' list I called Verizon to see if they would trace the calls so I knew what company was calling. 

The woman I talked to made it clear that wasn't something they would do, but before I hung up she asked me if I knew I had the slowest Internet service they offered.  I said yes because faster service cost more than I wanted to pay.  She told me that they had a new package that would give me their fastest service plus free long distance for about the same price I was now paying.  I asked if this was a promotion that expired in a few months. She said no, I only had to agree to keep the service for two years.  I asked how much more it was and she did some calculations and said, "Around $6 more."  It sounded worth it so I agreed to switch.

To make a long story short, the difference, when all was said and done, was about $20.  I was livid and when I called back I told the customer rep to switch me back to my old service.  He said, "I'm sorry, sir, we can't. We no longer offer that package."

Evidently Verizon wanted to phase out the old package and replace it with the newer more expensive package.  They saw I was getting a good deal on the old package and did what they had to to get me off of it.

I'm not even going to go into the problem my wife is having with them.

Be very careful if you have to deal with Verizon.

--Trakker

"I Quit!"

The latest sport in Washington is trying to fathom why Sarah Palin abruptly resigned as governor of Alaska.  While it's possible it was triggered by a huge scandal that is about to break, I think the best explanation I've found is this: she's a quitter  Whenever she finds the job too hard or too boring, she quits.  Take her college experience for example: five different colleges in five years.

I like this explanation because it fits Occam's razor that the simplist answer is usually the correct answer.

Read more about it in "The Sarah Palin "I-Quit-arod" by Karen Tumulty.

--Trakker

Dear President Obama...

So President Obama is upset at liberals because we demand that any health care reform bill include a public option.  A public option is crucial to creating a system that is affordable to the American people and the taxpayers, otherwise the insurance companies will be able to jack up the costs (and their profits) and we, the taxpayers, will have to pay higher and higher subsidies to those who can't afford it.  Evidently Obama would rather have a bad health care reform bill than fight the monied interests in this country.

This post on Crooks and Liars links to the Washington Post article that reports the following (I refuse to link to the WaPost):

President Obama, strategizing yesterday with congressional leaders about health-care reform, complained that liberal advocacy groups ought to drop their attacks on Democratic lawmakers and devote their energy to promoting passage of comprehensive legislation.

In a pre-holiday call with half a dozen top House and Senate Democrats, Obama expressed his concern over advertisements and online campaigns targeting moderate Democrats, whom they criticize for not being fully devoted to "true" health-care reform.

"We shouldn't be focusing resources on each other," Obama opined in the call, according to three sources who participated in or listened to the conversation. "We ought to be focused on winning this debate."

Specifically, Obama said he is hoping left-leaning organizations that worked on his behalf in the presidential campaign will now rally support for "advancing legislation" that fulfills his goal of expanding coverage, controlling rising costs and modernizing the health system. [emphasis added by Crooks & Liars]

Here's my response (and judging by the responses left in C & L and Campaign Silo, I'm not alone):

Dear President Obama,

During your campaign for President you made a number of promises, in return for my vote.  You got my vote.  Now that you have won, it's increasingly obvious that you feel no particular obligation to keep many of your promises.  Why? 

Now I hear that you are upset because WE still want, and are willing to fight for, the things you promised...and you want us to stop fighting for them because it might harm the party.

Uh, just how stupid do you think we are?

I should remind you that most liberals I know feel little loyalty to the Democratic Party.  We are issue oriented rather than politically oriented.  We want a better life for the people who live in this country and we don't care much which party supports our issues.  Traditionally it has been the Democrats, but lately both parties are more concerned about what's better for corporations and special interest groups than for the people that our government is SUPPOSED to be working for.

I appreciate your even-handedness and intelligence in running our foreign affairs, and I feel safer with you in office, but I will not compromise when it comes to health care reform, transparency in government, and opposing your plan to imprison accused enemies, for decades even, without a trial, for example.

Asking us to support a bad health care reform bill so you can get bragging rights for the next election is an insult.  I would rather have no health care reform than one that benefits the insurance companies and screws the taxpayers, leaving our health care system in the hands of corporations whose goals are to increase profits rather than doing what's best for the people of this country.

One last request: please stop berating progressives and liberals to prove just how damn centrist and bipartisan you are.

--Trakker

It's Time To Leave the Democratic Party.

This post about Donna Edwards (D-MD) on FireDogLake is sounding a warning bell that the progressive House candidate we supported with such excitement in 2008 is beginning to show some signs of wavering in her progressive stances.  So far there seems to be nothing to be overly alarmed at, but we need to let her know that our support in 2010 is predicated on how she votes on issues important to progressives (e.g., health care reform that includes a strong viable public option).

Here is what I believe happens when idealistic progressive Democrats, like Rep. Edwards, get elected to the House.  The party leadership begins bombarding them with how important it is to support the party and work as a team, which means that sometimes they will be called upon to support bills that may displease their supporters, but it's for the good of the party and for the nation.

If that doesn't work, then they bring in the President to do some deft arm-twisting - which is hard to say no to, especially in this case where the President is an African American and immensely popular in Edward's district.  If that doesn't work, then the Democrats instruct one of their pressure groups - like AIPAC - to announce that Rep. Edwards is not sufficiently supportive of their agenda and that they may be forced to run a "better" candidate against her in the next primary.

This is how the corporate-run Democratic Party forces left-leaning Democrats to support legislation that benefit the corporations (or harm them as little as possible), and it usually works.

This is why we (liberals, progressives, civil-libertarians) need to break away from the Democratic Party NOW and start organizing a new grass-roots party targeting kids in college and high school - the people most aware of the damage the present Congress has done - and is continuing to do - to their future.  I believe this age group will soon be losing their loyalty to President Obama as they watch him and the Democratic Party cave to special interests and continue to support corporate interests and some of the worst tendencies of the Bush Administration.

We need to groom candidates to run for office at the lower levels of government (and try to lure some present Democrats to switch), and begin building enthusiasm for a government that governs in the best interests of the people, NOT corporations and the very wealthy.  I will keep harping on this because there is virtually no chance we can ever thrive in or change the Democratic Party.

--Trakker

"The only source of love on earth is human empathy."

In 2006 an off-duty NYPD officer with a gun was mistakenly shot by another officer.  His fellow officers were devestated and some kept a vigil at the hospital where the wounder officer had been taken.

As the New York Daily news wrote at the time,

On learning that [Officer Eric] Hernandez had been shot, the entire [precinct] football team assembled at St. Barnabas Hospital. They kept a vigil day after day, but all their prayers could not save him.

Recently Secular Right, a conservative atheist, wrote about the phrase, "but all their prayers could not save him."

Isn’t it the least bit puzzling to believers why some prayers get answered and others don’t?

...who can possibly imagine a reason why God wouldn’t respond to prayers to save an officer’s life, but would respond to the petitions that we are regularly told have produced a divine affirmative—to get someone out of debt, say, or to cure someone of illness?

This has always bothered me, even back when I was still a believer.   Why were some people's prayer's answered and others, good people praying for the same thing, weren't.  I believe even the most ardent believer would admit that there is no consistancy in the way God answers prayer.  Why?

I take it that believers do not ascribe such inconsistent results to capriciousness on God’s part, but rather to their own limited capacities to understand God’s ways:  “Thy Will be done.”  But why continue directing any psychic energy to a being so lacking in sympathetic correspondence to human needs and values.  It will not do to say: “God does respond to our prayers, but in ways that we cannot fathom.”  Saving a child from cancer and letting a child die from cancer cannot both be a sympathetic response to prayer; if we had wanted a stricken child to die in order to secure an earlier entry to heaven, we would have said so.  And if premature death from cancer is such a boon, why doesn’t a loving God provide it to one and all?

It is humans who work with passion and commitment every day to try to save their fellows (and a range of other creatures)  from suffering and sorrow.  Emergency room medicine is constantly evolving to try to ensure that gun shot victims and people crushed by cars survive.  Doctors and hospital staff work frantically throughout the night to try to revive a failing heart or a shattered brain.  They do so out of love and compassion, while God, who could restart an exhausted heart in an instant, demurs.  The only source of love on earth is human empathy.  Transferring our own admirable traits onto a constructed deity just obscures the real human condition: we are all we have, but that is saying a lot.

Pastors and other religious leaders can't answer this obvious discrepancy so they have devised various strategies to deflect people's normal tendency to question inconsistencies, "We cannnot question God" or "God works in mysterious ways."  My question is, why would God work in a mysterious way? 

What would you call a father who could save a daughter from drowning but doesn't, or who gives one pre-teen child a generous weekly allowance but makes his other pre-teen children work for their meals?  We all know that one important key to being a good parent is consistency.  Would such a father be worthy of praise, much less worship?

[h/t Daily Dish]

--Trakker

Rep. Bachmann Advocates Breaking The Law

This is just amazing.  We have a member of the House of Representatives who says she plans to break the law and implies that others should also. Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann (R) told the Washington Times that when she fills out her 2010 census form she will only fill in the number of people who are in her household, nothing more.   According to the Census Bureau's website, everyone is required by law to fill out the census form.

The Times article was published two weeks ago and as far as I know there has been no attempt in the House to censure her or cite her for an ethics violation.

I called Rep. Bachmann's office this morning and asked if she had changed her position. The staffer I talked to said no, she still plans to answer only that question.  He further volunteered that she is taking this stance because of ACORN's involvement in the census.  This is kind of weird because as I recall, in the 1990 and 2000 census, the census forms were mailed to me and I mailed them back. No one ever called at my door. I also asked if there had been any action in the House to censure her over this and the staffer said not that he knew of.

I can't believe our Congress now has members who openly admit they plan to break the law and, by example, encourage others to do the same. 

[I called the House Committee on Standards and Official Conduct about this and they told me I would have to write a letter to the committee to file an official complaint, which I will do.  Follow the link above for the address if you want to do the same.]

--Trakker

"Reagan Was Wrong"

I don't recall any of Henry Fairlie's columns back in the 70s and 80s. I recall seeing his byline in the Washington Post and I'm sure I read some, but back then I figured the Republican party and conservatives were fringe players even though Ronald Reagan was elected President and even re-elected. Now I wish I had paid attention, in fact I wish more people had paid attention because Fairlie was a conservative who saw that the Republicans were sowing the seeds for their eventual destruction.

Fairlie was a Brit, a romantic, and a Tory in the Michale Oakeshott mold, who came to the U.S., fell in love with the country but eventually found himself appalled at the conservatives over here. Sounds a lot like Andrew Sullivan (who writes the Daily Dish) doesn't he?

Last week's Newsweek had an excellent article about Fairlie titled "Reagan Was Wrong."  I had to read it. Here's what endeared me to Fairlie,

During the 1980 Republican convention, he wrote a column for The Washington Post describing the delegates as members of the "booboisie" once mocked by H. L. Mencken, by which Fairlie meant they were: "Narrow minded, book banning, truth censoring, mean spirited; ungenerous, envious, intolerant, afraid; chicken, bullying; trivially moral, falsely patriotic; family cheapening, flag cheapening, God cheapening; the common man, shallow, small, sanctimonious."

Spot on!

The author of this Newsweek article, Jeremy McCarter, is editing an anthology of Fairlie's work (Fairlie died in 1990).  Maybe this time around people will pay more attention to what Fairlie had to say.

--Trakker

Mark Sanford

It's been painful watching Mark Sanford's mid-life crisis.  He would be fine in a country like France where people understand human nature and accept it.  But this isn't going to end well in uber-religious South Carolina where a man who strays must repent, reject his lover, and return to his wife and pretend to love her.  Then, if you are a Republican, nutty religious people will forgive you. If you are a Democrat you will always be the spawn of the devil so forget even trying.

--Trakker

Obama

Life has gotten busy lately so I haven't had time to write much, but I've bookmarked some items I'd like to comment on.  Hopefully I can post a few today, since I will be out of town tomorrow.

After watching Obama for a few months now, I'm beginning to get the feeling that his writing and rhetorical skills have been largely responsible for getting him where he is today, not his leadership and legislative skills, which have yet to be developed.

Unfortunately, he made campaign promises that he now feels he cannot keep (e.g., DADT, transparency and openness).

Anyone who is paying attention knows that he is overly deferential to Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats, and contemptuous of the left.  In his heart I believe he is afraid that a majority of voters still lean strongly conservative and hate the left, thus he is doing everything he can to convince the MSM that he is not a liberal.  To do this he has decided to throw his LGBT constituency under the bus.

It was frustrating watching his recent meeting with the LGBT leaders the other day.  He said all the right words to the enthusiastic cheers of the leaders who still want to believe him, but it was all bullshit.  Take DADT (don't ask; don't tell) in the military.  Since Obama took office over 200 highly skilled gay military men and women have been kicked out of the military, and more are going every week.  President Obama says this is wrong, but he claims he can't do anything about it yet because the military brass at the top is resisting letting openly gay people serve under them.

Evidently Obama prefers to ignore the fact that HE is now Commander-in-Chief.  He is their boss. If he abolishes or suspends DADT, they had better salute and accept it or leave the service.  This is what Harry Truman did as C-I-C when he told the military brass that they WILL accept his order that blacks be allowed to serve as equals in the military service.

It's possible that the brass at the top are resisting this because they are all loony Christian fundamentalists and are threatening to leave the military en-mass if Obama allows openly gay people to serve.  Good, their exodus would only make our military better, especially when we're at war with Muslim nations.

--Trakker

We Sucked The Pleasure of Life From Another

Bobby Gouker's mom passed away last week.  Who is Bobby Gouker you ask?  You don't know him, in fact few people knew him.  Bobby died years ago, but he still lives in my memory, and it haunts me.

Bobby was a classmate of mine at Weston Elementary School in Elkhart, Indiana.  Bobby stood out from the rest.  He was goofy looking, with a high, fat tummy, flabby arms and legs, unruly rusty red-brown hair and freckles.  He looked like a clown.

Bobby wasn't good in school, he wasn't personable - and worst of all for a boy - he was terribly uncoordinated.  He lived with his mother who was much older than most of our mothers, he had no father that we knew of, he had no brothers or sisters, and he had no friends.  In short, he was the kid we all dumped on.  We treated him like shit because we knew he would take it and not fight back.  He didn't have any defense mechanisms, no smart mouth, no quick retorts.  He just looked downcast and walked away.

Today I think teachers would have noticed what was going on and intervened, but back then teachers were only paid to teach not change behavior or protect the dumped on.

Like most of the boys in school, Bobby joined our cub scout troop when it formed.  Mothers were supposed to take turns hosting the meetings and when it was Bobby's mother's turn we all went over to Bobby's house wondering what to expect.  We had never been to his house before (did I mention that he had no friends?).

Obviously Bobby's mother didn't have a clue.  We entered a house that was dark and quiet, with soft adult music playing in the background.  Bobby's mother served little tiny finger sandwiches, little celery and carrot sticks, and nuts on fancy plates we had never encountered before.  It was as though she were entertaining a ladies auxiliary club or something.  We all sat around in confused silence and then went home.  I'm sure Bobby was mortified.  He never came to another scout meeting after that.

Thinking back, Bobby was one of the most miserable kids I ever knew.

I'm sure down inside we knew that the way we treated Bobby was not right.  There was an incident that sticks out in my mind even to this day.  At recess our school had a playground for boys and another for girls.  In good weather we boys always played softball at recess.  We would appoint two captains and they would take turns picking their team until there was only one kid left, Bobby.  The captain whose turn it was would always grimace when they had to take Bobby because Bobby couldn't catch a ball, couldn't throw a ball, or hit a ball.  He was toxic in the field and at bat. No captain wanted to take him.  How humiliating recess every day must have been for Bobby.  Once Bobby and another kid were out sick and I was the last person left, and I recall how embarrassed I felt.

But one recess one of the captains evidently had a moment of adult insight and compassion, and with his first pick he said, "I'll take Bobby Gouker."  There was stunned silence and then everyone clapped and cheered.  I'll never forget the look on Bobby's face as he walked out to take his place as the first chosen.

But that day was a single aberration.  By 6th grade Bobby learned to avoid us, to turn inward and protect himself from his daily humiliations.  After 6th grade I never saw Bobby again.  I never had a class with him, never ran into him in the halls.  I found out later he graduated from our high school and a few years later died in an auto accident, though I suspect it was not an accident.  Regardless, his memory stays with me year after year, a memory of how I and my classmates sucked the pleasure of life from another.

It's hard not to blame myself, or my classmates, but in reality, we didn't know any better at the time.  We hadn't learned empathy yet.

As far as I know all my classmates turned out to be good people and good citizens.  Few if any had a mean streak in them.  Still, those memories of Bobby boil up from time to time (I've written about him before), especially when I hear of children who have been abused.  Of all the human rights I recognize, the one I am most fervent about (and the hardest to enforce) is the right of every child to be loved, cherished, hugged, and to have a happy childhood.

--Trakker

This is not going to end well...

I hesitate to write about gun issues because in America, guns appeal to the most insecure, frightened, paranoid people around and the NRA knows it and stokes their fears to keep their coffers full.  These same unbalanced people viciously attack anyone who dares to point out that maybe these are not the kind of people who should be allowed to assemble an arsenal (which is why the comments to this post are closed).

The gun movement in America is not about protecting the rights of hunters, it's not about insuring that the relatively few who have a genuine need for handguns for protection are able to have them when needed.  No, the gun movement in America is focused on one single issue: making sure every sick, scared, mentally unbalanced American can buy any, and as many, firearms as they want, with as few controls as possible.

The NRA pays lip service to keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons and others who are dangerously unhinged, but in reality they don't give a damn.  After all, the more shootings there are of innocent people, they more likely the rest of us will feel the need to arm ourselves for protection.  It's a viscous circle that only benefits a few: undertakers, hospitals, and gun manufacturers (and the NRA).

What set me off this time was emails I've received from gun zombies (write about guns and the gun zombies come out from under their rocks and shoot you with comments and emails).  A few are polite and civil, the rest are obviously from people too scared to imagine facing life without an arsenal to provide them with a spine and a dick.

Then there was this article in the NY Times about a pastor in Kentucky who is encouraging his flock to come to church armed tonight for a special service (guns are allowed but not cameras).  Sheriff's deputies will be at the door of the church to make sure openly carried firearms are unloaded.  Read the whole article to get an idea of how bizarre the gun culture has gotten in the U.S.

There have been many who have noticed a major uptick in blind anger on the right since Obama was elected.  A lot of right wing organizations and political movements are using Obama's election to inflame their listeners or members, including Rush, Fox News and the NRA.

This is not going to end well.  We have a nation whose right wing citizens are armed to the teeth and their leaders are doing everything they can to paint Obama and the Democrats as enemies, as a danger to everything (right wing) America stands for.  Watch your back, liberals.

--Trakker

A Father's Abuse Haunted Michael All His Life

My wife was a bit taken aback when I complained that after 24 hours of non-stop news of Michael Jackson's death it was time to move on.  "You've got to be kidding.  It's Michael JACKSON," she said.  "He was a legend, he will be remembered as one of the most talented performers ever."

That's true. So why didn't his death have as big an impact on me as it did on everyone else?  I stopped to think, when was the last time I've ever been shocked to tears, to feelings of deep sadness and extraordinary loss by the death of a singer or actor or athlete or the breakup of a group?

Never.  Maybe the closest I've come to something like that was when the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to Los Angeles in 1958, but I was a young kid then and that was when I finally learned that baseball is a business, not a game.

But just when I was beginning to think I was a freak or something, my son called and said, "Don't know about you, Dad, but I'm tired of all the news about Michael Jackson."

What saddens me most about Michael Jackson's death was that for all his talent and fame and personal wealth, he was never very happy. Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings posted a clip from Wikipedia about how badly Micheal was abused as a child.  It was so bad that Jackson claimed there were times when the sight of his father would make him nauseous.

The irony is that some of that abuse probably made Michael a better performer at a very young age.  Would he have become the star he became if his father hadn't been so brutal?  The better question is, would Micheal have had a longer, happier life if his father had been more encouraging and less of a tyrant, even if he never became a star?  Certainly, if Michael never became a star we would have never known his sweet voice, his blockbuster songs and stunning videos.

But to be honest, I think most of us would happily give up the great things Michael Jackson gave us in return for a loving, supportive father and a happier childhood - and hopefully adulthood - for Michael.

--Trakker

Another NRA Loony Ends Up In Shackles

Just how fanatical are the right wing gun loonies in this country?  Let's take a look at talk show host and blogger, Hal Turner, of New Jersey. 

The National Rifle Association (NRA) challenged laws banning handguns in Chicago and suburban Oak Park.  The three judge 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the NRA challenge and upheld the laws banning handguns. Turner went nuts.

On his blog Turner wrote, “Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed.” Then he posted photographs of the judges, along with their work address, room numbers and phone numbers, and a picture of the building where they work (according to the FBI, the photo of the building included arrows and a label referencing “Anti-truck bomb barriers” to help would be assassins).

Even though Hal Tuner lives in New Jersey and the two laws that were upheld only affect Chicago and a suburb, the idea that a panel of judges would slap down the NRA sent him over the edge.  Hal Turner was arrested by the FBI yesterday for threatening assault and murder of federal judges.

I say, kudos to the 7th District Court of Appeals for having the guts to stand up to the NRA.

--Trakker

A Thursday Morning Rant

I'm about to leave for a Cato Institute symposium on health care.  I know where Cato stands on this but their speakers are always informative and the symposium is free (and a free lunch afterward which seems to fly in the face of their philosophy, doesn't it?).

I will be taking the Metro downtown on the very tracks where the accident happened a few days ago.  It's obvious that our Metro system (and most rapid transit systems in the country) are severely underfunded to the point where fatal accidents sometimes occur but evidently this is preferable to more taxes to pay for better infrastructures.  (I hate St. Ronnie and the Republicans...they've screwed us royally.)  We need to explain the purpose and benefits of taxes better.  Most people believe the taxes they pay just disappear into this big hole called "bureaucracy."

Now that we've spent all our money (and our kid's and grandkid's money too) on wars, and bailing out the wealthy, we will be told by our President and Congress that, much as we need better health care and better safety nets for children and the poor, well, there's just no more money left.  Sorry.  The Iranian government stole an election and the people reacted with fury.  In the U.S. our elections and politicians are bought by corporations and pressure groups, and we sit on our asses and take it. We deserve to get screwed, I guess.

The Iranian government decided to use brutality to end the protests (or so it seems).  That was stupid.  They have lost the support of their people and they will now have to become a police state to control the people and they are going to have to limit communications with the outside world, and keep foreign journalists out.  This is going to cripple their economy, which I don't believe was that strong to begin with.  Their government has a tiger by the tail and that tiger will eventually catch and eat them.

--Trakker

A Frightening Change for the Worse?

The Tweets coming out of Tehran today sound like the government violence against the protesters is growing, to the point where it sounds like the government intends to kill as many civilians as it takes to stop the uprising (copied from the Daily Dish).

they pull away the dead into trucks - like factory - no human can do this - we beg Allah for save us -

Gunshots Being Heard From Aazadi St.

Lalezar Sq is same as Baharestan - unbelevable - ppls murdered everywhere

they catch ppl with mobile - so many killed today - so many injured - Allah Akbar - they take one of us

in Baharestan we saw militia with axe choping ppl like meat - blood everywhere - like butcher - Allah Akbar

Reports: Young Girl Who Shoted in to chest Near Jomhori St. By Army Forces, Died In The Hospital (not conf.)

they dont allow people to help shooted girl

Reports: At least 2 ppl was shot incl. 1 young girl at Jomhori St. (not conf.)

If true (and there is really no way of confirming any of this), it sounds like Supreme Leader Khamenei has decided he would rather rule the nation by force, making the rest of Iran's government a sham, rather than risk change.  Any elections from now on will have to be rigged because given a choice, the people will vote for change.

But if Khamenei manages to beat down the opposition and take complete control of the nation by force, won't it embolden the American neo-cons and Israel to make a case for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities to ensure this madman Khamenei isn't able to develop nuclear weapons (If he is willing to brutalize his own people, imagine what he and Ahmadinejad would do to Israel!)? 

--Trakker