Category: Domestic Policies

Categories
Gun Control mass murders Politics

Gunshot Victim’s Dad to Politicians – “I don’t give a sh@t that you feel sorry for me,”

Richard Martinez

It’s something we’ve seen far too often. Mass shootings in our so-called “civilized” society by a gun-crazed lunatic, then more lunatics come forward to defend the right of the shooter over the rights of the multiple innocent victims he killed.

Survival of the fittest. Kill or be killed. Their definition of American civility!

Then the politicians, those entrusted with the task of leading this nation and protecting the rights and wellbeing of all Americans as laid out in the Constitution, do nothing except to offer their condolences. And in doing nothing, they validate the right of the lunatic shooter and the lunatics defending his rights.

Well, after yet another mass murdering spree in California where multiple innocent people lost their lives, and where lunatics rushed forward to defend the shooter, politicians are once again poised to offer their condolences. But the father of one of the victims is not hearing it. He’s not going to be satisfied with them calling him with the usual, sorry for your loss, but the shooter has his rights too!

“I don’t care about your sympathy. I don’t give a s— that you feel sorry for me,” Richard Martinez, the father of Christopher Michaels-Martinez, told The Washington Post.  “Get to work and do something.

“I’ll tell the president the same thing if he calls me,” Martinez added. “Getting a call from a politician doesn’t impress me.”

He went on to urge Obama and Congress to take “immediate action” to implement new gun control laws.

“Today, I’m going to ask every person I can find to send a postcard to every politician they can think of with three words on it: ‘Not one more,’ ” he said Tuesday. “People are looking for something to do. I’m asking people to stand up for something. Enough is enough.”

Carney defended Obama’s actions and said he had done all he could without congressional action.

Obama had “acted on every item the administration has contained within the report provided by the vice president to the president on measures that can be taken administratively to help address this challenge,” said Carney.

Categories
Domestic Policies Gun Control mass murders News Politics shooting

Guns. Again.

I started watching Elliot Rodgers’ online twisted manifesto about how women ignored, belittled and frustrated him and how, obviously, his only appropriate response was to kill as many as he could, but after two minutes, I had to stop.

This is madness.

We keep asking the same questions. How does a person such as this get legal access to guns and ammunition? Can killings like this be prevented? If the answer is no, then why not? We seem to be able to address, debate or even stop other types of anti-social behavior, but in the present political climate, where the Second Amendment seems more sacrosanct than the First, the answer we keep getting is that no, there’s nothing we can do. I can’t accept that.

Perhaps the country’s tolerance for gun violence and murder has not been tested enough, even with the killing of students in public schools and colleges, and that we need even more killing before we’ve finally had enough. I can’t accept that either. I’ve had enough. No more.

Maybe we’ll get a more liberal Supreme Court that will undo the terrible mischief of the Heller decision that completely obliterated the militia clause in the Second Amendment and made gun rights a personal right. I understand that many gun owners from across the political spectrum believe that this was the correct decision, but a more specific historical analysis shows that the Framers’ intent was not to make sure that everyone could have a gun for personal use, but rather so they could join the state militia quickly in case it was necessary for public defense. The Framers distrusted a too-strong national army and put the militia clause in the Second Amendment for a reason. It was there that Mr. Justice Scalia, the high priest of Original Intent, found that the Framers obviously did not mean for it to have legal weight and told us in Heller that we could ignore it. Go buy a gun. It’s your personal right.

And so here we are, shrugging our shoulders and repeating the old script that says that guns are not the problem, mental illness is the problem. Or society is the problem. Or anger is the problem. Or the president in the problem. But guns? Access to guns is never the problem.

You want more? That’s easy. Simply go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Gun Control Politics Texas

The Little Men With Big Guns Causing Huge Headaches in Texas

In Texas, little men with big guns need a law to authorized their little egos. But the good people of the state are speaking up for their right to peacefully assemble and eat at a restaurant without the unnecessary, legally justified intimidation of these little men and their little egos, and their big guns.

It would be an understatement to say that the tactics of gun rights activists have been backfiring of late. The showdown has taken place foremost in Texas, where in recent months groups such as Open Carry Texas have conducted provocative demonstrations in which armed men exercise their right under state law to carry semi-automatic rifles in public. No fewer than five national food and beverage chains have now told them to get rid of their guns or get lost, including Starbucks, Wendy’s, Applebees, Jack in the Box, and Chipotle.

And now Chili’s and Sonic have effectively joined the list: Two videos posted on YouTube on May 19 by the San Antonio chapter of Open Carry Texas—since removed from public view but obtained by Mother Jones—show its armed members being refused service at both restaurants. The two companies have not made official statements on open carry but have since indicated that they are reviewing their policies. [See update below.] From the nervous and angry reactions of some patrons to comments from some of the gun activists themselves, it’s not difficult to see why these spectacles haven’t been winning many people over.

Categories
Gun Control Politics shooting

New Shooting Complements the NRA – 3 Year Old Shoots 18 Month Old in Head

So now, another senseless shooting. This time, a 3-year-old shoots an 18-month-old in the head. I guess the Republicans would say the 3-year-old had mental issues that need to be addressed.

In Payson, Arizona, a town just two hours northeast of Phoenix, a toddler accidentally shot his younger sibling in the head at a residence. According to the Payson Police Department, a 3-year-old boy found a gun in a home he was visiting with his family, then shot his 18-month-old sibling in the head.

At this point, the condition of the baby is not available.

The investigation is just beginning, according to AZFamily. 

Categories
Gun Control Politics

Fox News Guest Loses Job After Making Dumb Statement About UCSB Shooting on Fox

First, Robi Ludwig went on Fox News after the shooting in California and said that the mass shooting could have been caused by the shooter not being able to cope with his “homosexual impulses.”

Ludwig, a spokesperson for Coldwell Banker, apparently did not check with her employer before making that statements. After her appearance on the Fox, a concerned viewer shared Ludwig’s statement with Coldwell Banker. The viewer – Scott Wooledge – also asked, “I believe she is a spokesperson of yours, correct?”

Coldwell replied with this: “Dr. Robi’s comments on the tragedy in Santa Barbara do not represent the opinions of Coldwell Banker. Therefore at this time we feel it best to part ways with her as our lifestyle real estate correspondent.”

Categories
Domestic Policies Education New Jersey News Politics

Pension Tension

OK, who didn’t see this one coming?

Governor Chris Christie says he’s not going to make the full public employee’s pension payment he promised after the Democratic turncoats in the state legislature sided with him over working people in the spring of 2011. In raw numbers, that’s a $2.4 billion dollar cut. The NJEA is suing. Moody’s and Fitch are threatening to further lower the state’s credit rating.

Wealthy people, thank heavens, are safe. After saying that “there’s nothing off the table” concerning the budget, it turns out that there is something off the table, and that’s any revenue from wealthier residents or businesses. So essentially what we have is the Republican ideology that says that unions are destructive, raising revenue is not viable, and the middle class must bear the brunt of the costs of quality public schools and public services. And if they can’t pay for it, then oh well.

I’ll say it again: Christie will not win another general election in his lifetime. Donors know it, which is why they’re looking more favorably at Jeb Bush (shudder), and the far right has already abandoned him. Meanwhile, those of us who still proudly live in New Jersey will need to endure Christie for an entire second term.

Perhaps after that, we can begin to move forward.

You want more? That’s easy. Simply go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Domestic Policies Education News Politics

Marshmallow U.

If nothing else, the past week has shown that those on the left can be just as short-sighted and ill-advised as those on any other part of the political spectrum. That the forum for these misdeeds is the university make the issues that much more compelling.

I’ve been waging a somewhat lonely campaign to remind my senior students that college is not the place to look for job training. Oh, they might find it there, but too many of them chose the schools that they did because “they could get a good job” if they went there. Far be it from me to argue that there’s no financial reward for going to a university, and a good one at that. My point is that too many young people go off to higher education with dollar signs in their heads. My job is to remind them that they are, in fact, going to a place where the people in charge are experts in their fields and will be asking their students to complete academic work that demands rigor, attention to detail and actual academic skills. As with anything related to young people, they’ll eventually learn the lesson.

It’s too bad, though, that the universities are the ones who have gone soft. This graduation season has seen Brandeis, Rutgers and Smith cave in like an abandoned mine in the face of student protests over who would speak at graduation ceremonies. Other universities chose speakers purposely to avoid controversy. This is terrible. I understand that the students are paying for their education and believe that they should have some control over who ushers them into the working world. But to disqualify the head of the International Monetary Fund or former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice misses the point of a liberal education. There people have something valuable to say. They’ve been through some of the pivotal events of the century. They’re powerful women, for heaven’s sake. They deserve to be heard. Shame on the universities who gave in.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, along comes another new concept on the campuses called “trigger warnings.” No, these have nothing to do with guns, but, rather, are a device to let students know that what they are about to read, hear, see or study might offend one or more of their sensibilities. An example:

The most vociferous criticism has focused on trigger warnings for materials that have an established place on syllabuses across the country. Among the suggestions for books that would benefit from trigger warnings are Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” (contains anti-Semitism) and Virginia Woolf’s “Mrs. Dalloway” (addresses suicide).

I can certainly understand giving students a warning for graphic violence or scenes of genocide or rape, but there is something to be said for surprise or initial reactions or confusion or disbelief when you read or hear something jarring for the first time. That’s part of learning and being aware of one’s own reactions in social or academic situations.  And how does one adequately write a policy that covers every eventuality? Didn’t colleges try to do that in the 90s with speech codes? Those didn’t work out so well. I can’t see this working out well either.

Students want to be safe, but learning is not always safe. It’s supposed to be challenging, upsetting, rewarding, fun and, yes, life-altering. Blocking graduation speakers and warning students about some content but not other content is a recipe for intolerance. That’s not right.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Domestic Policies Express Yourself News Politics war war on women

We Need A War On War

If the Greatest Generation fought and won World War II and created a new world where a war like that one was far less thinkable, then the Baby Boomers must be the Double Secret Greatest Generation for fighting multiple wars on multiple fronts.

We fought the War on Poverty. Haven’t won that one yet. We’re currently fighting the War on Terrorism, the War on Women, the Climate War, the War on Christmas (how will we know if we’ve won that one?) and other, lesser wars on education, entitlements, health care, obesity (seem to be winning this one), the minimum wage, voter ID laws, sabermetrics and a few others that I’m sure others believe us to be waging.

What we really need, though, is a War on War. That one would be worth fighting, albeit delicately. Because obviously we couldn’t’ be fighting an actual war while fighting a war to end wars. So don’t look for the United States to enter Syria, Iran, North Korea or even Nigeria with a force ready to end hostilities or to slap some people in the face, grab them by the shoulders and yell, “What the heck are you thinking?” (I would volunteer for this kind of duty. I do outrage really well.)

The War on War has to start with every individual and every media outlet in the country. It requires a sustained effort on the part of every citizen and we need to teach it to our youth. It would be an idealistic campaign, but sometimes those are the most successful ones. Besides, we can’t afford to lose this one.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
fail House republicans Immigration Reform immigration reform Politics

President Obama Continues to Push Republicans on Immigration Reform

The Senate passed their version of immigration reform over a year ago, but House Republicans have failed to address the Senate’s bill or any bill containing the words immigration reform.

On Wednesday, President Obama once again called them out on it.

“Unfortunately, Republicans in the House of Representatives have repeatedly failed to take action, seemingly preferring the status quo of a broken immigration system over meaningful reform,” Obama said in a statement released by the White House.

“I urge House Republicans to listen to the will of the American people and bring immigration reform to the House floor for a vote,” Obama said.

He repeated that plea in a private conversation with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican said.

The Senate legislation, unveiled on April 16, 2013, and passed by the full Senate in June, has remained stalled in the Republican-led House, despite a strong vote by the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Categories
Abortions Domestic Policies Health Healthcare News Politics

The Abortion Freeport Doctrine

In 1857, the US Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that slavery was legal and that slaves were property. Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, in debates with challenger Abraham Lincoln in 1858, was a supporter of popular sovereignty on slavery, That is, he wanted to let the people of a territory decide if it was to be legally free or slave. This, obviously, wouldn’t be possible given the Court’s decision because the justices said that slavery could not be banned. So Douglas came up with a dance that came to be called The Freeport Doctrine. This doctrine would allow slavery, but would encourage territories to enact high legal boundaries to its implementation, rendering it moot in practice.

Despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973, anti-abortion groups have stopped at nothing–not even the law–to enact high legal hurdles that inhibit the right of every women to control their reproductive lives and health choices. In one of the presidential debates in 2004, George W. Bush even invoked Dred Scott as a guiding principle for his judicial choices. Abortion equals slavery. Welcome to the Abortion Freeport Doctrine.

Three states have taken this tactic to new extremes. Texas passed an onerous law that will result in the closing of more than half of the remaining clinics in the state. Arizona passed a law, now under judicial review, that would restrict medication abortions. And Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant said today that he will sign a law that will prohibit abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and with no exception for rape or incest This is all on top of restrictive laws that have been passed, and have passed judicial muster, over the 41 years that Roe has been the law of the land. The Supreme Court is now weighing whether the Affordable Care Act can require all employers to cover contraception for all of its employees, because those companies consider some contraception to mimic abortions.

This is an emotional issue and the debate over abortion does not yield any middle ground. But we can find a way to make abortions less likely, provide contraception and sex education, and allow women and their doctors to make decisions that are in the best interests of the patient. That’s called freedom of choice and it’s something I hear a great deal about from those on the political right who want the government out of our lives, except in the bedroom. Or kitchen. Or back seat. Or…you get the point.

My solace comes from the belief that the conservative tide has crested and that we’re seeing the worst of the restrictions now. Many will stay in the most conservative states, but the idea that a women’s body is her own is pretty much a settled social idea that the court overturns at the country’s peril. It’s worth remembering that the Freeport Doctrine went nowhere. It’s also worth remembering that it took another hundred years for African-Americans to gain their full legal rights. I hope we’re not still debating the choice issue 60 years from now.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Domestic Policies Health Healthcare News ObamaCare Politics

March 31 Is Only The Beginning

I suppose it would have been fitting if the Obama Administration had scheduled April Fool’s Day as the last day to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. We’ve certainly been treated to a smorgasbord of ineptitude, shifting deadlines, executive pronouncements that let certain economic sectors off the hook, and some rude, disrespectful, sometimes hateful objections from the right-wing about the entire business.

That’s why March 31 is so important. It represents the end of the first, and possibly most vital, stage of the implementation of the act. Millions of people have signed up for heath insurance. Millions of others are now covered by Medicaid. The federal and state websites are still balky, but they work. The end of the beginning is upon us. It can only get better from here. And the best part is that the law is working.

Republicans have dropped their demand that the law be scrapped, which six months ago looked like a possibility as they shut down the government and Healthcare.gov showed exactly what can go wrong when the government attempts to shortchange the software cycle. Now the arguments are that the law needs to be fixed, although GOP candidates are running against it to the exclusion of everything else, except perhaps voter ID laws that will guarantee a Republican majority in the House for the foreseeable future. Even Democrats in tossup races in Louisiana and North Carolina are talking about fixing the law so it doesn’t ensnare the middle class and endanger employer-provided health insurance.

The problem is that, over time, that’s exactly what the law will accomplish. We are moving into uncharted waters, where the employer mandate will shift and companies will start to drop health insurance from their benefit plans. How this will work is the key. Will companies give employees a voucher with a dollar amount attached to it to buy insurance? Will they raise wages so people can pay for their own policies? Will insurance companies bring down the cost of policies so they can remain viable? Will we eventually get a public option that takes private insurance out of the economy? These are the questions that will define how successfully the ACA reforms the health care industry. Follow the money. That’s always been the gold standard of social change.

My sense is that employer-sponsored health insurance will be gone from most industries within 7-10 years, and the fallout won’t be as bad as some have predicted. Companies have a vital interest in the health of their workers and insurance companies won’t want to price people out of plans. Without the major expense of providing health insurance, companies will be able to pay workers more, though not too much more. The minimum wage will be less of a burden as it rises. Workers will need to make healthier choices and get checked more often before health issues become major concerns. The GOP calls this personal responsibility, and they accuse the Democrats of coddling the country with social programs. The ACA will do more for people taking control of their health than anything we’ve done in the United States. Remembers, the ACA is based on Republican ideas. That’s why the law is both a curse and a blessing.

All of that is in the future. For now, President Obama’s approval numbers are in the tank. History will remember him far more positively.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
Domestic Policies Education News Politics

Christie’s Broken Record

So far, the political discussion revolving around Chris Christie’s diminishing prospects for 2016 have centered on the George Washington Bridge scandal, (and the laughable investigation by his own attorney), and the not-yet-vetted story about Sandy aid being withheld from less-than-enthusiastic supporters of the governor. These are certainly key issues that tell us a great deal about Christie’s style and demeanor, but even without them, he simply doesn’t have a record that would support a national run.

There’s no New Jersey Miracle, no New Jersey Rebound, and no New Jersey Bounce (OK, there’s one of those, but it’s unrelated to economics and politics). The governor hasn’t led New Jersey into a new ideological paradigm, nor has he provided a new framework by which the state operates. Democrats still outnumber Republicans. His 2013 coattails were, shall we say, a bit short when it came to counting legislative seats. His Supreme Court nominees have been rebuffed.

And this guy wants to be president?

About all he can run on is a state worker’s pension and benefits bill that is providing little relief to anyone. Middle class public workers are being whacked because more money is coming out of their checks for pensions and health insurance (which should have been negotiated, not imposed), and property taxes remain stubbornly high (remember that these taxes were supposed to go down as a result of the pensions bill). The result is that the governor took spendable money out of the economy at a time when he should have been putting more money into the economy to create jobs. What we have in  New Jersey now is slow growth, a deteriorating middle class and a governor who wants to have public workers pay even more into their pensions. What about millionaires, you ask? He won’t touch their taxes.

Funny side note: Christie is seen as a moderate Republican. You can stop laughing now.

Christie’s latest economic gambit is to renege on his mandated duty to make full payments to the public worker pension system. That would put it in serious jeopardy and would negate a promise that the courts have ruled to be essentially non-negotiable. He’ll lose this argument and more credibility because the Democrats in the legislature will not cave in to him as they did in 2011 and the crossover vote that earned him his victory in November is abandoning him. Conservative Republicans in NJ still back him, but that’s not nearly a majority of the voters.

My sense is that the governor will survive the scandals. The larger question is whether New Jersey can survive him.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Exit mobile version