More on Guns in America

Gun-related violence in America is amazingly high compared to other "civilized" nations of the world. Why is that?

It is tempting to say that we need more restrictions on gun possession, but I am really not sure that is a practical answer, unless we want to go all the way and literally disarm Americans and scrap the 2nd Amendment. While I know some people who would like to do that, I don't think that's going to happen. 

In the movie "Bowling for Columbine," Michael Moore noted that Canadians own as many guns as Americans but have far fewer gun-related cases of violence. What's going on? we ask. The answer, I think, is Moore's analysis of violence in all aspects of American life. We are, in fact, a violently competitive society. There are multitudes of ways in which people can act with violence toward one another and simply shooting them with guns is only one of the ways. We can start by humiliating others wherever possible. Our youngsters quickly learn how to bully vulnerable kids, and many adults have never learned to rise above that kind of behavior. Our love of violence is so obviously out there that you can't go to the movies without seeing previews of the latest violent films to be shown. And these are films that offer no redeeming values other than just streaming us through endless violence from beginning to end.

I am afraid that the real reason behind gun-related violence in America is just Americans themselves. They are a violent people and, when a gun is handy in a violent moment, they just shoot their ways through it. This is not going to be solved through background checks or gun-safety instruction or gun-licensing. The only solution is a transformation of the American psyche, and that's probably less likely than getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. There are obviously mental health issues of importance, but American violence way outstrips cases of mental health illnesses. 

Yet, do we have the option, today, of just doing nothing? I think not. Understanding Americans as violent people, we need to try even harder to keep instruments of extreme violence less available. We could start, it seems to me, by requiring gun owners to license their guns and maintain them under the supervision of local law enforcement. An aspect of this in my mind would be that gun owners are required to keep guns under lock-and-key (or with reliable trigger locks) so that unauthorized people cannot access them and the owners themselves have to think a few times before using them in violent ways. If a person wants to have an assault-style weapon under his/her 2nd Amendment right, he/she ought to be assigned to the local National Guard unit for training and the weapon should be housed in the Armory for appropriate Guard use. That seems to be what the 2nd Amendment is all about. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about arming Americans to assault or defend themselves against their own government. It states that a "well regulated militia" is its purpose, and militia's were vital to the newly-declared independent states in fending off the British Army. "Well regulated" means trained and working in the service of the state.

Here We Go Again

Once more, the debt ceiling must be raised or our Federal government will have to grind to a halt. Historically, this has rarely been a big deal. The debt ceiling has been raised as a matter of course. It has only recently become a big deal since the Republican Party decided to use it as a hostage in order to try cutting government programs.

Republicans, especially their Tea Party wing, like to think of debt in terms of "home economics." What's no good for homemakers can't be good for our government. But this piece of reasoning is insane. The government is not the same as a household.

What are the differences? First of all, the government has a flexible income stream (revenue) while a household's income stream is relatively fixed. The government's income comes from within and the household's income comes from without. That is, the government draws income as a variable percentage of the nation's annual gross national product. A household's income is determined by its participation in the world around it, that is, it's contribution to the gross national product. 

Debt is the amount of income which we are obligated to pay out. Debt occurs either because we have promised to pay something to somebody for some purpose or because we have borrowed from somebody in order to spend for some purpose. Borrowing always involves interest on the amount borrowed so that is a further obligation. When debt equals income, we either have to borrow more to cover new expenses (which increases future debt) or increase the income or reduce spending. The debt ceiling is a ban on increasing debt.

The Tea Party would like us to believe that the average American household manages its finances in ways far superior to the Federal Government. But this is a fantasy. The average American household is indebted right up to 100% of its income. That is, every household has made promises to feed and clothe itself, to say nothing of providing cable and cell-phone service, gasoline, insurance, etc. Households have rents or mortgages and indebtedness on loans, credit cards, etc. Households also have obligations to Federal, state, and local governments. By the time all of this is added up, few households possess what is called "disposable income" or income that can be spent on new adventures. Most households are locked into their income streams so borrowing is their only way out. 

The government would normally have far more flexibility than a household. But, for the last twelve years, the government has been held hostage to a ban on increased income (tax revenue). Thus, if the government is simultaneously prevented from borrowing, it is forced to curb spending. That situation might be all right, in some circumstances, but the last four years has seen a large reduction in revenue and a large increased need for spending because of the major recession we have been through. 

A household can lose a major portion of its income when the breadwinner(s) loses employment. When it cannot meet its obligations, the members of the household find themselves homeless. Only the government can reliably provide assistance at this point. But that means increasing government spending in times of need. 

What the Tea Party and other Republicans seem to want is nation fashioned after Les Miserables --- no social conscience, just let people suffer whatever happens to them and guard your own bread. 

Lets Talk about Guns

Well, it always takes a tragedy of some kind for the whole discussion of access to firearms to come up. Too bad, but it has to come up somehow. I will grant that Obama has a lot on his plate, at the moment, but I hope that he will not put off discussion of gun controls for too much longer. Obama is in a strong position. He cannot have another term in office anyway, and whatever he does is not going to hurt another candidate badly in 2016.

The NRA of course is adamantly against any regulation and they own well more than half of the Congress. But dramatic events like the massacre of 20 children in Connecticut may embarrass enough of those Congressmen and women who are otherwise owned by the NRA to allow them to vote for controls. There is the 2nd Amendment, of course, but its meaning needs to be interpreted realistically in terms of the modern concept of "militia" and whether or not modern militias (i.e., the National Guard, etc) require citizens to furnish their own firearms. The answer is obvious, but the Supreme Court may not be ideologically available (at the moment) to understanding that.

Then, of course, there are the truly insane people who just argue that the answer is to arm the teachers. Good grief! Can you imagine the chaos created by school staff and teachers all going for their guns in the event of an attack. How many more fatalities do these people want? There is, indeed, a whole group of people who think the country would be a safer place if we were all "packing heat." I think that's pretty much what the old West was all about and it wasn't really a great formula for civilized society.

Personally, I do not believe that many people want to prevent citizens from owning shotguns and deer rifles so that they can hunt. I have been a hunter myself; and I believe in hunting. Handguns are a little different but I can see some reasons for people owning handguns for hobbies or for self-defense. (Though I must say that shooting a home invader with a handgun or rifle is dangerous because of the weapon's long range. I have always been told that a shotgun is more appropriate, given its relatively short range of effectiveness.) But let's face it. People really do not need to have automatic and assault weapons with large clips of ammunition. Hopefully, we can legislate some controls over these weapons.

Of course, the fact of the matter is that incidents like the most recent massacre in Connecticut are not just about guns. They are also about mental health and how we choose to handle or choose NOT to handle mental health issues. People need to recognize how very dangerous mental health issues can be and, consequently, they need to take them seriously. Unfortunately, the very conservative gun congressmen are also the ones who would like to cut social spending and cripple mental health counseling. What a combination.

Here is an additional idea. Quite consistently with the Second Amendment, we could make the owners of military-style weapons enter their local National Guard units. After all, that's what "justifies" the ownership of these weapons. Of course, from that time onward, the weapons would be housed at the local armories. The new Guard members could visit their weapons and practice with them in the Guard shooting ranges. We could even offer instruction and award marksmanship medals. Result: these weapons are off the street but still ready for Second-Amendment use. Come on guys!

Compromise and Democracy

While I am enormously pleased that the majority of American voters (that is to say, those who actually voted) decided to re-elect President Obama, there is no doubt in my mind that the country still faces a terrible situation. In fact, the country remains split down the very middle in a 50/50 division of beliefs concerning just about everything --- how to handle finances, when life begins, who should marry, what to do in the world that surrounds us, and even who should vote. We cannot afford to remain so desperately divided. Democracy requires the ability to compromise; democratic people must be able to understand each other's needs and respond to them.

Right now, for example, we are facing the "fiscal cliff" over which the country cannot afford to fall. Yet, two days after the election the Republican leadership was once again announcing their refusal to compromise on fundamental economic issues. If the parties cannot begin to work together and discover or create common ground, we will move ahead only by being presented with one deep crisis after another. There is only a month and a half left to us to avoid this particular disaster!

The National Debt is one of the big sore points between parties; and one of the great myths of this controversy is that we have sold our country to the Chinese. Yet 68.1% of the National Debt is owed to Americans as opposed to 9.5% owed to the Chinese. The Chinese, indeed, hold only 31% of the total debt owed to foreign nations. Actual graphs of National Debt clearly demonstrate that Republicans have been the villains when it comes to adding to debt; Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all increased the debt by large amounts, while Clinton actually reduced it. Unfortunately, Obama inherited the huge debt accumulated by Bush II and has been crippled by the interest owed and the Republican's refusal to raise revenue. 

The Republican answer to dealing with debt is to reduce spending and they accuse Obama of being the biggest spender ever. Unfortunately, that is simply a lie (which, more unfortunately, they seem to believe anyway); annual budget facts demonstrate that Federal spending by the Obama Administration has been the lowest since Eisenhower. The issue behind all of this is really the Republicans' desire to cut spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid --- a long term desire on their part, no matter what the fiscal or electoral realities are. Another linchpin in their plan is reducing Federal government to impotence so that government regulations cannot be enforced. 

The question for Democrats is whether compromise with this kind of agenda is possible. I have to confess that it's very difficult to see.

The God Industry

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that "God is dead" in his book "Froeliche Wissenschaft" and continued with that theme in his next book "Also Sprach Zarathustra". What Nietzsche meant was that belief in the Christian god had become "unbelievable" in a 19th Century swept away by scientific rationality. Almost a century later, the French philosopher and author, Albert Camus, pointed out that the hopeless fairy tales of a god, divine creation, heavenly host, and life after death had created an absurd contradiction with realities of the human condition. Yet throughout the election campaigning of 2011 through 2012, we have heard pronouncements from Republican candidates who not only believe that god wills raped women to have babies but who also believe that the earth was created in six days while god rested on the seventh day --- never mind that there was nothing to mark days and nights until god, supposedly, created the sun and moon. It is probably no surprise to anyone that the very same politicians who are such fundamental Christians disbelieve in the last four centuries of scientific work, especially the theory of evolution and any evidence suggesting human involvement in global warming and its consequent, climate change. What is truly appalling is that contemporary supposedly intelligent people can believe and broadcast this nonsense; but what is even more appalling is that we allow this sort of garbage to enter the political theater at all. The very same politicians who introduce bills in state legislatures to prohibit Sharia Law are eager to submit Americans to Christian Law! And when it comes to dealing with women's lives they are not really that far different.

Now Nietzsche warned us that the news of god's death would be slow to make its way throughout the world but we've had almost 150 years to get it right. So what is the problem here? I've been thinking about this a lot, lately, and I've come to the conclusion that the central problem is the "God Industry." It is, in Western history, an enormous industry; and while it seems to be declining slowly in present time, it remains truly enormous today. Consider as an historic example the power of the churches in Medieval Europe; bishops and archbishops were as powerful as kings, perhaps more powerful. Consider the enormous wealth accumulated by religious institutions in order to build the huge cathedrals that we tour throughout Europe. In America we have our cathedrals as well; and every town has enough churches to service a variety of belief systems. The God Industry is everywhere and, most important, it employs large numbers of people. Needless to say, it cannot afford to allow people to go their own way in deciding belief or unbelief. 

Of course, there is also a large amount of fear associated with this issue, fear that we have learned since childhood. If god and the heavenly host do not exist, then what is there to give meaning to human life? If god doesn't regulate behavior, then the world will go mad. If there is no life after death, no heaven where we will meet our Aunt Millies, then that means a fall into Nothingness, the Abyss. In their weird ways, these fears are the greatest nihilistic forces in all of life --- one of Nietzsche's main points --- because they drain all value out of normal existence and thrust everything into an other-worldy paradise. Simply living our lives has meaning to us and does not require other worlds. 

Personally, I am sick and tired of baseball players who motion to god or Jesus when they round first base; if there were a god, I'm sure that she would have something better to attend to. I am also sick and tired of politicians proclaiming their faith, especially the ones who corrupt scientific judgment or try to control women's lives. And finally, if god were something worthy of belief, I don't think he would urge nations to go to war and grind young men and women into useless and forlorn pulp.

Save Big Bird

What's so important about Big Bird? Well, if you look at the amount of money involved, it is obviously not how much of the deficit problem Romney might solve by killing Big Bird. Public radio and television support is something like 0.01% of the problem. 

What is really going on behind the attack on Big Bird is a "bucket list" item with the whole Conservative gang. They have been trying to get rid of public radio and television anyway they can for years now. The deficit is just an easy excuse for accomplishing their longtime objective.

And what's wrong with public radio and television? It's outside the direct control of corporate wealth. The Conservative agenda is to maintain absolute control of the media. Americans should hear and see only what the wealthy 1% want them to hear and see. That is really what is at issue here. Freedom of speech and assembly are wonderful ideals, but do they really mean anything at a practical level when all the media are maintained by corporate power? These media have already successfully reduced the idea of "news" to "entertainment." And, of course, all Americans get for "news" is what the media think will entertain them. Talk about dumbing down!

Better Off

Republicans ask us whether we are better off today than we were four years ago. How can they dare ask such a question? The answer, of course, is "We're a whole lot better off than we were four years ago!"

September 2008 --- It was the end of the Bush era and a complete disaster with little outlook for improvement. The Dow was teetering at 11400 and was at 8000 by the time Obama took office. People were losing their jobs and their homes. It looked like we were heading into the worst depression since the Great One and that this one might actually be as great. We were bogged down in two foreign wars. And the national debt had already climbed to ridiculous levels. 

Obama's first year was a continuation of the Bush budget and a continuation of the slide toward disaster. However, Obama's policies had turned many of these factors around by his second year. He could have done more, perhaps, if the Senate had not been hostage to the 60/40 rule for passing anything significant. Then, by the time the Republicans gained control of the House in 2010, they made it clear they were not going to cooperate with Obama and were going to make him a one-term president by sacrificing the people of the nation. In spite of all that, employment has risen steadily throughout the last three years, housing has been somewhat dealt with, and the Dow is back to 13500. We are out of Iraq and there is a plan to leave Afganistan.

We are clearly better off than we had a right to think we might be. No one is entirely happy with where we are. There is much more to be done, but a return to Republican economics is the last thing in the world that might make things better.

While we're at it, let's consider the National Debt. Republicans constantly harangue Obama about increasing the debt. But if you actually look at the debt graph for the last fifty years, what you find is huge increases in the debt under Reagan (the god of Republican economics) getting even worse under the first Bush. Clinton actually managed to bring the debt under some degree of control and then the second Bush shot it upwards remarkably. Obama inherited a $9 trillion debt with interest in a time when debt reduction would have created an even worse economic condition.