Donald Trump admires the loyalty of his followers. He says he could murder some poor bastard in front of thousands of witnesses and lose not one vote come election day.
He's saying, in effect, it doesn't matter what he says or does, his people will stand behind him.
That's loyalty.
He could, for instance, rape a baby in Times Square and folks will say, "Right on, brother! We forgive you!" Or "Wow, that's amazing! Where can I get me one of them slutty babies?"
You name it, Trump's immune from criticism. And the guy likes that about his people.
Other leaders might be appalled. Trump is proud. He crows about it. (Or is he making a threat to the rest of us?)
Trump seems to think loyalty is an absolute good.
Lots of world leaders have admired loyalty. Adolf Hitler comes to mind. Josef Stalin. And so forth. Guys who want to be able to do what they have to do to keep the country together and not catch any flak for it. They need people who will stick by them no matter what. They don't have time to explain the motive behind every little action.
Just trust them to do the right thing, okay?
And people do.
Often Trump's followers say they like the way he speaks his mind. But that's only half a statement.
Are they saying they don't care what he says, as long as it's the sort of things other politicians would be afraid to say?
That would be an amazingly shallow and dangerous position.
I think you have to conclude what these people really mean to say is that they agree with what Trump says—and they admire him for having the guts to say it out loud.
If that's true, does it also mean they're afraid to say the same thing in front of a television camera?
Maybe. Because maybe only Trump can say the stuff he says and get away with it. Other people know they'd be skewered alive by their friends and neighbors for saying that stuff themselves.
But I'm just speculating.
Maybe people like Trump for the same reason Late Night talk show hosts like Trump: He gives them material to work with on the show.
The man's outrageous—and they can make hay out of that.
Until they end up with an audience full of Trump supporters. Then the lynch ropes come out.
Theoretically.
Actually, I've yet to hear an audience groan or boo the host for attacking Trump. Or going after Sarah Palin, for that matter.
(I love the New York Daily News cover—Trump and Palin pointing at each other, headline: I'M WITH STUPID!)
Which makes me wonder how many people show up at Trump rallies just to (silently) laugh at him. And incidentally feed the man's delusion of unconditional love.
Is Trump just a big joke the whole country is in danger of taking too far?
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Thursday, January 21, 2016
OSCAR NOMS - PART DEUX
The uproar grows. Talk of boycotts and so forth. Solutions proposed. Lots of press, back and forth.
No wait, not back and forth.
I've only heard folks condemn the Academy for all those white nominations. I haven't heard anybody speak on the other side.
It seems a universally held belief that the Academy did something wrong.
Does that mean everybody is convinced the list of nominations could not possibly have been the result of "objective" evaluations of movie performances?
Some folks have suggested the main problem lies not in the Academy but in the current system of green-lighting movie projects. Either the old-guard white producers are racist, or they too often kowtow to the market when deciding how to cast their projects.
(I touched on this in my previous post on the subject.)
More and better roles for black actors might have an impact on the nominations. But not necessarily. It's not like Powerball, you know, where—assuming no fraud—winners are truly random.
Picking an actor is insufficiently objective. If it were objective, then any group of nominators would come up with pretty much the same short list of actors and directors.
And that's the problem with the solution proposed by some concerned people: the call for an increase in the diversity of the nominating group.
It's true the majority of voters are elderly white men. But unless you can prove that makeup naturally creates bias, there's no point in augmenting the population with more people of color.
On the other hand, if it could be proved those elderly white guys are racially biased, it would not help to simply add a pack of black guys in there to even things out. You'd have to add black bigots to the group, guys (and gals) who are prejudiced in favor of black actors.
Because if the new guys were fair and objective, they could never counteract a majority of biased white guys. And the short list would go unchanged.
What's more, you'd have to add a serious crapload of those biased black guys, or the overwhelming number of white performances would probably always swamp the nominations.
If an objective system of judging actors could be developed, maybe a computer could be programmed to create the nomination list. (At least, until Skynet takes over; then only other computers would get nominated.)
Barring that, here's my proposal: announce fifty nominations for every category. Read all their names at the awards show, then say goodnight and go home.
Lots of nominations, but no winners.
If there really is bias in the Academy this system might not work, but it would be a lot harder for those guys to come up with a list without any persons of color on it.
Or give in and create a new Academy just for minorities (in conjunction with the BET awards, maybe).
Or stop trying to honor movie folk. Let the box office be their award. (Everybody involved in a film should get a piece of the action—and with an honest accounting from the studio.)
What doesn't help is the attitude that if you don't get what you want the deck must be stacked against you.
Any given category of human endeavor may be corrupt, but in the absence of proof, it might make more sense to let it slide. Better for your blood pressure, too.
People like to say the world isn't fair. That may be true, but it doesn't always follow you have to do something about it.
Just kidding. Of course you have to act. You know what you know and you can't be wrong. What's more, everything you see proves you right.
It's who we are.
The fact we're wrong about most of it simply doesn't enter into it.
No wait, not back and forth.
I've only heard folks condemn the Academy for all those white nominations. I haven't heard anybody speak on the other side.
It seems a universally held belief that the Academy did something wrong.
Does that mean everybody is convinced the list of nominations could not possibly have been the result of "objective" evaluations of movie performances?
Some folks have suggested the main problem lies not in the Academy but in the current system of green-lighting movie projects. Either the old-guard white producers are racist, or they too often kowtow to the market when deciding how to cast their projects.
(I touched on this in my previous post on the subject.)
More and better roles for black actors might have an impact on the nominations. But not necessarily. It's not like Powerball, you know, where—assuming no fraud—winners are truly random.
Picking an actor is insufficiently objective. If it were objective, then any group of nominators would come up with pretty much the same short list of actors and directors.
And that's the problem with the solution proposed by some concerned people: the call for an increase in the diversity of the nominating group.
It's true the majority of voters are elderly white men. But unless you can prove that makeup naturally creates bias, there's no point in augmenting the population with more people of color.
On the other hand, if it could be proved those elderly white guys are racially biased, it would not help to simply add a pack of black guys in there to even things out. You'd have to add black bigots to the group, guys (and gals) who are prejudiced in favor of black actors.
Because if the new guys were fair and objective, they could never counteract a majority of biased white guys. And the short list would go unchanged.
What's more, you'd have to add a serious crapload of those biased black guys, or the overwhelming number of white performances would probably always swamp the nominations.
If an objective system of judging actors could be developed, maybe a computer could be programmed to create the nomination list. (At least, until Skynet takes over; then only other computers would get nominated.)
Barring that, here's my proposal: announce fifty nominations for every category. Read all their names at the awards show, then say goodnight and go home.
Lots of nominations, but no winners.
If there really is bias in the Academy this system might not work, but it would be a lot harder for those guys to come up with a list without any persons of color on it.
Or give in and create a new Academy just for minorities (in conjunction with the BET awards, maybe).
Or stop trying to honor movie folk. Let the box office be their award. (Everybody involved in a film should get a piece of the action—and with an honest accounting from the studio.)
What doesn't help is the attitude that if you don't get what you want the deck must be stacked against you.
Any given category of human endeavor may be corrupt, but in the absence of proof, it might make more sense to let it slide. Better for your blood pressure, too.
People like to say the world isn't fair. That may be true, but it doesn't always follow you have to do something about it.
Just kidding. Of course you have to act. You know what you know and you can't be wrong. What's more, everything you see proves you right.
It's who we are.
The fact we're wrong about most of it simply doesn't enter into it.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
NEW YORK VALUES
Republican hopeful Ted Cruz has accused his rival Donald Trump of having "New York values." By this term he says he means liberal stances on issues like gay rights and abortion.
Trump's somewhat bizarre response is to wrap himself in the bloody flag of 9/11, displaying images of Ground Zero and asking Cruz if this is what he means by New York values.
I detect a failure to communicate.
Cruz is very clear about what he means by the term he's using. I suspect Trump is acting dumb in this case.
On the other hand, if Trump does not actually fit the definition supplied by Cruz, then Cruz is being silly.
Or perhaps he's accusing Trump of hiding his New York values so he can spring them on an unsuspecting nation in the future.
Or maybe Cruz is worried Trump is deluding himself, that The Donald finds himself free of New York values when he looks for them, but in reality they're lurking in the shadowy recesses of his mind, biding their time, awaiting a dramatic moment to erupt into the light. (Visualize that steel-toothed dildo-creature popping out of John Hurt's chest in Alien.)
Cruz is concerned about Trump, see, in the same way Trump is worried sick his buddy Cruz might fall victim to occult Canandianism. Does anybody want to see Cruz get tackled to the ground by secret service guys just as he raises his hand to take the oath of office?
Oddly, other "New York" values—like arrogance and bad manners—seem perfectly fitting to political critters on the prowl. Trump certainly displays those traits.
But back to the man's 9/11 stance. Is Trump suggesting the World Trade Towers were targeted by terrorists because those guys associated them with New York values?
That's not so far-fetched. Many times since 9/11 I've heard politicians say we were attacked because radical Muslims didn't like our values of freedom and whatnot.
Actually, I think they attack us because they're convinced this country is engaged in a war against Islam and they feel called to defend their religion.
They like to attack tall buildings in New York City because they are conspicuous, high-value targets that symbolize their unholy enemy, America. Beyond that, I think they're just looking for ways of killing as many American citizens as possible, regardless of the symbolism.
On the other hand, I suspect the average Muslim holds values that would clash with Ted Cruz's definition of New York values. (Muslims are not notably pro-gay.) In that case, Cruz could point at Trump's photos of Ground Zero and say: "Yes, Donald, New York values brought down those buildings."
Not what Trump was suggesting, but strangely related.
One of the problems Cruz has (a problem he shares with his fellow Republicans) is that these guys are all some variety of the same political party. They're bound to share more values than not. As a consequence, it's hard to find angles to attack.
A politician may need to go out on a limb and create a problem where none exists. ("This hot sauce is made in New York City!")
In the end, unfortunately, we have to pick one of these knuckleheads to vote for. But hey, nobody said democracy would be easy.
Trump's somewhat bizarre response is to wrap himself in the bloody flag of 9/11, displaying images of Ground Zero and asking Cruz if this is what he means by New York values.
I detect a failure to communicate.
Cruz is very clear about what he means by the term he's using. I suspect Trump is acting dumb in this case.
On the other hand, if Trump does not actually fit the definition supplied by Cruz, then Cruz is being silly.
Or perhaps he's accusing Trump of hiding his New York values so he can spring them on an unsuspecting nation in the future.
Or maybe Cruz is worried Trump is deluding himself, that The Donald finds himself free of New York values when he looks for them, but in reality they're lurking in the shadowy recesses of his mind, biding their time, awaiting a dramatic moment to erupt into the light. (Visualize that steel-toothed dildo-creature popping out of John Hurt's chest in Alien.)
Cruz is concerned about Trump, see, in the same way Trump is worried sick his buddy Cruz might fall victim to occult Canandianism. Does anybody want to see Cruz get tackled to the ground by secret service guys just as he raises his hand to take the oath of office?
Oddly, other "New York" values—like arrogance and bad manners—seem perfectly fitting to political critters on the prowl. Trump certainly displays those traits.
But back to the man's 9/11 stance. Is Trump suggesting the World Trade Towers were targeted by terrorists because those guys associated them with New York values?
That's not so far-fetched. Many times since 9/11 I've heard politicians say we were attacked because radical Muslims didn't like our values of freedom and whatnot.
Actually, I think they attack us because they're convinced this country is engaged in a war against Islam and they feel called to defend their religion.
They like to attack tall buildings in New York City because they are conspicuous, high-value targets that symbolize their unholy enemy, America. Beyond that, I think they're just looking for ways of killing as many American citizens as possible, regardless of the symbolism.
On the other hand, I suspect the average Muslim holds values that would clash with Ted Cruz's definition of New York values. (Muslims are not notably pro-gay.) In that case, Cruz could point at Trump's photos of Ground Zero and say: "Yes, Donald, New York values brought down those buildings."
Not what Trump was suggesting, but strangely related.
One of the problems Cruz has (a problem he shares with his fellow Republicans) is that these guys are all some variety of the same political party. They're bound to share more values than not. As a consequence, it's hard to find angles to attack.
A politician may need to go out on a limb and create a problem where none exists. ("This hot sauce is made in New York City!")
In the end, unfortunately, we have to pick one of these knuckleheads to vote for. But hey, nobody said democracy would be easy.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
OSCAR NOMS
Media award shows are fun—but ultimately crap. Even when everything is operating correctly, all you get is a consensus of opinion about something that's nearly impossible to quantify or objectively defend.
How can you tell if a given performance is better than some other performance? How can you remove such factors as role, writing, directing, editing, cinematography, makeup, wardrobe, and even background music.
The fact is, there are a plethora of obscuring elements that can make you think this guy is better than that other guy.
Ultimately it's mere subjective nonsense.
You like a guy who's playing a villain? Not so much, if he displays a character trait you consciously (or unconsciously) associate with some actual villain in your life.
Does the fellow cheat on his wife in the movie? That's fine for him, but what if your spouse cheated on you in real life? How can you forgive the make-believe event if you can't bear even to think about the real version?
Directors and editors have been known to carve out a performance after the shooting is done and the actors have headed down to some Palm Springs spa to recuperate. George C. Scott would have come off a lot different in Dr. Strangelove if Kubrick hadn't used all the goofy takes he insisted Scott play around with after the "real" stuff was in the can.
And now we get to add race to the mix.
Some folks are saying this year's list of Oscar nominees is a "slap in the face" of people of color.
For that to be true, the nominating committee (or however it's done) would have to deliberately put some white guy on the short list in a given category, despite the fact a black guy did a better job in another movie.
Those protesting the nominations have to believe it's not remotely possible it turned out there were more juicy white guy roles this year, legitimately knocking every black guy performance out of contention.
I think we know there are more roles for whites, both juicy and pedestrian, but even if movies contained the same ratio of blacks as in the population—roughly one out of ten—it would still be unlikely to get one of those performances in the top five. That's an inescapable mathematical fact.
And whose fault is that?
Making movies is a business. Creating and marketing a major motion picture is hideously expensive—at least for the sort of big-spectacle movie that rakes in bales of cash at the box office.
Movie makers have a financial duty to their investors to consider the audience when they get together to engineer a new product. I believe white teenage males still form the biggest market share for blockbuster-type films.
On the other hand, for the smaller movie—perhaps even something shot in digital format and edited on a personal computer—a much greater variety of characters can be used. If only because there's a substantially smaller investment of money.
Add to that new venues of release—streaming video from various sources—and there can be an explosion of juicy minority roles to chose from. Along with a correspondingly smaller chance for an all white nomination list. (Assuming the Hollywood establishment is willing to pay attention to fringe productions.)
Even so, there will still be a nearly one hundred percent chance the award show will, in the end, be crap—for the reasons enumerated above. And you could probably add "low-budget production values" to the list of performance-obscuring elements.
In any case, all this variety is out there, huddled in the near future. Can anything be done now?
Well, sure: set quotas. Minorities can lobby for at least one person of color in each category, regardless of quality.
Just to be fair, right? And PC folks know it's a lot better to be fair than to be accurate.
Or: Give everybody an award and be done with it.
It seems today there is no element of our culture that does not breed rancor and claims of discrimination.
(And I mean discrimination on the basis of race; awards are already supposed to be a case of discrimination based on some other quality.)
Obviously there are many areas of racial discrimination that used to be pretty much okay: voting, housing, jobs, etc. But nowadays we seem to be seeking parity on all sorts of things: award shows, movies in production, the white/minority ratio of folks shot by cops.
And every instance of unbalance is seen as a deliberate conspiracy to dis some race or promote another, a conspiracy run by secret cabals that appear to control all aspects of human life on this planet.
Nothing can ever just happen anymore. Everything happens "for a reason," and that reason is often an evil one.
I guess it's what you get when so many people see the world as a supernatural entity that possesses personality, a universe that votes behind the scenes to promote or destroy this or that segment or individual.
I just don't see any evidence for this view.
Not that humans can't perform that function, be the sort of natural-born a-holes willing to take up the slack in a universe that's not paying sufficient attention to us.
Actually, the proper rule of thumb is to figure some misbehaving guy is just stupid, not actually evil.
But where's the fun in that?
How can you tell if a given performance is better than some other performance? How can you remove such factors as role, writing, directing, editing, cinematography, makeup, wardrobe, and even background music.
The fact is, there are a plethora of obscuring elements that can make you think this guy is better than that other guy.
Ultimately it's mere subjective nonsense.
You like a guy who's playing a villain? Not so much, if he displays a character trait you consciously (or unconsciously) associate with some actual villain in your life.
Does the fellow cheat on his wife in the movie? That's fine for him, but what if your spouse cheated on you in real life? How can you forgive the make-believe event if you can't bear even to think about the real version?
Directors and editors have been known to carve out a performance after the shooting is done and the actors have headed down to some Palm Springs spa to recuperate. George C. Scott would have come off a lot different in Dr. Strangelove if Kubrick hadn't used all the goofy takes he insisted Scott play around with after the "real" stuff was in the can.
And now we get to add race to the mix.
Some folks are saying this year's list of Oscar nominees is a "slap in the face" of people of color.
For that to be true, the nominating committee (or however it's done) would have to deliberately put some white guy on the short list in a given category, despite the fact a black guy did a better job in another movie.
Those protesting the nominations have to believe it's not remotely possible it turned out there were more juicy white guy roles this year, legitimately knocking every black guy performance out of contention.
I think we know there are more roles for whites, both juicy and pedestrian, but even if movies contained the same ratio of blacks as in the population—roughly one out of ten—it would still be unlikely to get one of those performances in the top five. That's an inescapable mathematical fact.
And whose fault is that?
Making movies is a business. Creating and marketing a major motion picture is hideously expensive—at least for the sort of big-spectacle movie that rakes in bales of cash at the box office.
Movie makers have a financial duty to their investors to consider the audience when they get together to engineer a new product. I believe white teenage males still form the biggest market share for blockbuster-type films.
On the other hand, for the smaller movie—perhaps even something shot in digital format and edited on a personal computer—a much greater variety of characters can be used. If only because there's a substantially smaller investment of money.
Add to that new venues of release—streaming video from various sources—and there can be an explosion of juicy minority roles to chose from. Along with a correspondingly smaller chance for an all white nomination list. (Assuming the Hollywood establishment is willing to pay attention to fringe productions.)
Even so, there will still be a nearly one hundred percent chance the award show will, in the end, be crap—for the reasons enumerated above. And you could probably add "low-budget production values" to the list of performance-obscuring elements.
In any case, all this variety is out there, huddled in the near future. Can anything be done now?
Well, sure: set quotas. Minorities can lobby for at least one person of color in each category, regardless of quality.
Just to be fair, right? And PC folks know it's a lot better to be fair than to be accurate.
Or: Give everybody an award and be done with it.
It seems today there is no element of our culture that does not breed rancor and claims of discrimination.
(And I mean discrimination on the basis of race; awards are already supposed to be a case of discrimination based on some other quality.)
Obviously there are many areas of racial discrimination that used to be pretty much okay: voting, housing, jobs, etc. But nowadays we seem to be seeking parity on all sorts of things: award shows, movies in production, the white/minority ratio of folks shot by cops.
And every instance of unbalance is seen as a deliberate conspiracy to dis some race or promote another, a conspiracy run by secret cabals that appear to control all aspects of human life on this planet.
Nothing can ever just happen anymore. Everything happens "for a reason," and that reason is often an evil one.
I guess it's what you get when so many people see the world as a supernatural entity that possesses personality, a universe that votes behind the scenes to promote or destroy this or that segment or individual.
I just don't see any evidence for this view.
Not that humans can't perform that function, be the sort of natural-born a-holes willing to take up the slack in a universe that's not paying sufficient attention to us.
Actually, the proper rule of thumb is to figure some misbehaving guy is just stupid, not actually evil.
But where's the fun in that?
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
EXECUTIVE ACTION
Twisted out of shape by more and more gun violence, a tearful President Obama announced he will act unilaterally to tighten up gun purchase laws, extending the definition of "gun dealer" to include gun shows and Internet sales. The move will force these guys to perform background checks, just like retail gun stores do now.
(Obama also wants more FBI agents to expedite those checks. And some other stuff [more money for mental health] that will require Congressional approval.)
Predictably, Republicans have condemned Obama's outrageous overreach of power. The general response is, as usual, a demonstration of the time-honored political maxim: Why merely react to a provocation when you can over-react?
One fellow, Republican John Culberson (Texas) promises to kill funding for the DOJ forthwith. Not waiting for a lawsuit, etc., he's going to paralyze the country's top law guys until Obama gives in to his demands. As Culberson says, our Second Amendment rights are just too precious to hang around doing nothing.
Republican Presidential pre-candidate Marco Rubio chimed in, saying Obama was obsessed with undermining the Second Amendment.
(If background checks for gun ownership are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has so far dropped the ball.)
Background checks have been around for a long time, guys, and are supported by 92% of Americans. But Republicans (largely under the thumb of the National Rifle Association) object to anything that comes between an American with a hankering for a gun and the immediate and satisfying possession of that gun.
If gun folks know anything it's that the slightest interference in the gun-buying process is just the first step on the road to total gun confiscation.
Republican hopeful Ted Cruz knows it. He has a Website that sports the headline: OBAMA WANTS YOUR GUNS.
And he's right, of course. If you're a lunatic on your way to an elementary school, Obama does want your guns.
Is Cruz really against that?
The Speaker of the House (Republican Paul Ryan) suggested Obama was engaged in a "dangerous level of executive overreach."
But let's face it: This is what they have to say when Obama does something at a time when Congress refuses to do anything. Those guys wouldn't even prohibit folks on the No-Fly list from getting guns. (And with a gun you could shoot your way past the gate—to hell with the stupid No-Fly list.)
As for the NRA: "President Obama's executive orders will do nothing to improve public safety."
(They also reminded Congress-critters their NRA grade was subject to change, should any of them waver in their support for unfettered gun ownership.)
The NRA hinted Obama's action was so inconsequential the gun-rights organization might not even bother to act to stop him. (Unlike Culberson, who vows to cripple the Department of Justice.)
Apparently the NRA feels Obama's orders will have no impact at all—neither save lives nor inconvenience gun buyers.
(Would it be cynical to suggest the NRA cares more about the latter than the former? After all, those guys are not in the business of making America a safer place in which to live. They're only out to protect the safety of the Second Amendment from all three branches of federal government.)
Personally, I have no dog in this fight. I don't care whether people own guns or not. In fact, I think you could make the argument that if everyone carried guns in plain view, the level of impulsive gun crime might go down. The bad guy would be made to think twice.
(On the other hand, thinking twice [or, for that matter, once] is not the strong suit of the average criminal. Might he not avail himself of the gun of the nearest law-abiding citizen? In that case, packing heat could represent an attractive nuisance to weak-minded individuals—perhaps even a kind of entrapment. ["The gun was right there, man! That guy was just begging me to take it! Can't you see why I had to kill him and his family?"])
What interests me is how our pals the human beings come up with reasons to counter the thoughts and actions of others.
For instance, how can the NRA say Obama's actions will do nothing to improve public safety? Since the executive action will merely extend background checks, the NRA must be saying that background checks have never prevented anyone from getting a gun and using it for murder.
Could they possibly mean that?
Criminals, the NRA must suppose, all have their own extra-legal source of guns. But if that's the case, why are a substantial number of bad guys barred by background checks from making purchases each year? Seems a lot of convicted felons are still trying to sneak through the front door at Big Five.
Isn't it likely the most sketchy of gun buyers would avoid retail stores in their attempt to buy a weapon? Obama's action is meant to close the gun-show loophole, forcing the morally-challenged citizens to find guys like that preppy-looking gun dealer in Taxi Driver.
Setting aside the criminal element, what about the mentally ill? A lot of mass shootings are perpetrated by off-balance folks out to right some imagined wrong or to impress the world with the accomplishments of their hyperactive trigger fingers. The background check may be an imperfect tool to keep guns out of their hands, but how can the NRA be so convinced not one incident of murder has ever been prevented?
NRA types (and a great many Republicans) have to conclude the President is shedding only crocodile tears over the children of Sandy Hook Elementary, that he has in his hard and conniving heart nothing for the innocent victims of gun violence, only a raging contempt for the Constitution and a desire to destroy its precious Second Amendment.
Why he would endeavor to undermine the foundation of the country is puzzling until you remember he's a Muslim terrorist from Kenya who has already hijacked the Presidency. Look what he did to Israel, concluding a secret deal with Iran that guarantees the Shiite faithful as many atom bombs as they could ever want.
As Donald Trump once announced: We need a new President, fast! Well, a new President is on the way, Donnie. Could it be you? I have a feeling you think it might.
(Obama also wants more FBI agents to expedite those checks. And some other stuff [more money for mental health] that will require Congressional approval.)
Predictably, Republicans have condemned Obama's outrageous overreach of power. The general response is, as usual, a demonstration of the time-honored political maxim: Why merely react to a provocation when you can over-react?
One fellow, Republican John Culberson (Texas) promises to kill funding for the DOJ forthwith. Not waiting for a lawsuit, etc., he's going to paralyze the country's top law guys until Obama gives in to his demands. As Culberson says, our Second Amendment rights are just too precious to hang around doing nothing.
Republican Presidential pre-candidate Marco Rubio chimed in, saying Obama was obsessed with undermining the Second Amendment.
(If background checks for gun ownership are unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has so far dropped the ball.)
Background checks have been around for a long time, guys, and are supported by 92% of Americans. But Republicans (largely under the thumb of the National Rifle Association) object to anything that comes between an American with a hankering for a gun and the immediate and satisfying possession of that gun.
If gun folks know anything it's that the slightest interference in the gun-buying process is just the first step on the road to total gun confiscation.
Republican hopeful Ted Cruz knows it. He has a Website that sports the headline: OBAMA WANTS YOUR GUNS.
And he's right, of course. If you're a lunatic on your way to an elementary school, Obama does want your guns.
Is Cruz really against that?
The Speaker of the House (Republican Paul Ryan) suggested Obama was engaged in a "dangerous level of executive overreach."
But let's face it: This is what they have to say when Obama does something at a time when Congress refuses to do anything. Those guys wouldn't even prohibit folks on the No-Fly list from getting guns. (And with a gun you could shoot your way past the gate—to hell with the stupid No-Fly list.)
As for the NRA: "President Obama's executive orders will do nothing to improve public safety."
(They also reminded Congress-critters their NRA grade was subject to change, should any of them waver in their support for unfettered gun ownership.)
The NRA hinted Obama's action was so inconsequential the gun-rights organization might not even bother to act to stop him. (Unlike Culberson, who vows to cripple the Department of Justice.)
Apparently the NRA feels Obama's orders will have no impact at all—neither save lives nor inconvenience gun buyers.
(Would it be cynical to suggest the NRA cares more about the latter than the former? After all, those guys are not in the business of making America a safer place in which to live. They're only out to protect the safety of the Second Amendment from all three branches of federal government.)
Personally, I have no dog in this fight. I don't care whether people own guns or not. In fact, I think you could make the argument that if everyone carried guns in plain view, the level of impulsive gun crime might go down. The bad guy would be made to think twice.
(On the other hand, thinking twice [or, for that matter, once] is not the strong suit of the average criminal. Might he not avail himself of the gun of the nearest law-abiding citizen? In that case, packing heat could represent an attractive nuisance to weak-minded individuals—perhaps even a kind of entrapment. ["The gun was right there, man! That guy was just begging me to take it! Can't you see why I had to kill him and his family?"])
What interests me is how our pals the human beings come up with reasons to counter the thoughts and actions of others.
For instance, how can the NRA say Obama's actions will do nothing to improve public safety? Since the executive action will merely extend background checks, the NRA must be saying that background checks have never prevented anyone from getting a gun and using it for murder.
Could they possibly mean that?
Criminals, the NRA must suppose, all have their own extra-legal source of guns. But if that's the case, why are a substantial number of bad guys barred by background checks from making purchases each year? Seems a lot of convicted felons are still trying to sneak through the front door at Big Five.
Isn't it likely the most sketchy of gun buyers would avoid retail stores in their attempt to buy a weapon? Obama's action is meant to close the gun-show loophole, forcing the morally-challenged citizens to find guys like that preppy-looking gun dealer in Taxi Driver.
Setting aside the criminal element, what about the mentally ill? A lot of mass shootings are perpetrated by off-balance folks out to right some imagined wrong or to impress the world with the accomplishments of their hyperactive trigger fingers. The background check may be an imperfect tool to keep guns out of their hands, but how can the NRA be so convinced not one incident of murder has ever been prevented?
NRA types (and a great many Republicans) have to conclude the President is shedding only crocodile tears over the children of Sandy Hook Elementary, that he has in his hard and conniving heart nothing for the innocent victims of gun violence, only a raging contempt for the Constitution and a desire to destroy its precious Second Amendment.
Why he would endeavor to undermine the foundation of the country is puzzling until you remember he's a Muslim terrorist from Kenya who has already hijacked the Presidency. Look what he did to Israel, concluding a secret deal with Iran that guarantees the Shiite faithful as many atom bombs as they could ever want.
As Donald Trump once announced: We need a new President, fast! Well, a new President is on the way, Donnie. Could it be you? I have a feeling you think it might.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
BEST LAID PLANS
The other day I proposed an alternative to ISIS: A New Islamic State that would give Muslims somewhere to go to support their religion without joining the fight against America.
I mentioned Islamic nations might anchor this organization. I didn't name them, but I had in mind countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Those guys are mostly on the opposite side of the Sunni/Shia split. You may recall the first tenet of the NIS was a rejection of such splits.
But human beings would often prefer to widen the split between them and others, given the right opportunity.
And now the Sunnis and Shiites have been handed an excellent opportunity for pulling away from one another, courtesy of Saudi Arabia (mostly Sunni) executing a Shiite cleric for advocating more rights for Shia followers in that country.
The Supreme Leader of Iran (a country overwhelmingly Shiite) promised divine retribution for this act of state murder.
Gosh, that would be easy to take—assuming the revenge came directly from Allah and nowhere else. Nothing would ever happen (though all sorts of disaggreeable events might be tagged as coming from Allah).
The real problem is all those believers who happen to know the Big Guy personally and take their marching orders from him. Those are the guys with the guns and suicide vests and the willingness to put them to use in crowded venues.
The widening of the split between Saudi Arabia and Iran also bodes ill for ending the civil war in Syria. And that's great news for ISIS.
Nice going, Allah.
I mentioned Islamic nations might anchor this organization. I didn't name them, but I had in mind countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Those guys are mostly on the opposite side of the Sunni/Shia split. You may recall the first tenet of the NIS was a rejection of such splits.
But human beings would often prefer to widen the split between them and others, given the right opportunity.
And now the Sunnis and Shiites have been handed an excellent opportunity for pulling away from one another, courtesy of Saudi Arabia (mostly Sunni) executing a Shiite cleric for advocating more rights for Shia followers in that country.
The Supreme Leader of Iran (a country overwhelmingly Shiite) promised divine retribution for this act of state murder.
Gosh, that would be easy to take—assuming the revenge came directly from Allah and nowhere else. Nothing would ever happen (though all sorts of disaggreeable events might be tagged as coming from Allah).
The real problem is all those believers who happen to know the Big Guy personally and take their marching orders from him. Those are the guys with the guns and suicide vests and the willingness to put them to use in crowded venues.
The widening of the split between Saudi Arabia and Iran also bodes ill for ending the civil war in Syria. And that's great news for ISIS.
Nice going, Allah.
Friday, January 1, 2016
THE NEW ISLAMIC STATE
I'm starting the New Year with a new proposal: the New Islamic State.
The NIS will be an alternative to ISIS (or ISIL or DASH).
Any Islamic nation may join, as may any Muslim group or, for that matter, any individual Muslim. If you feel the pressure to pledge allegiance to an Islamic State, sign your ass up. You don't have to go anywhere. Just join in place to enjoy the benefits of your new community.
But listen up—joining the NIS commits you to a short list of tenets:
1. Anyone who follows the Quran is a Muslim: Sunni, Shia, etc. No more rifts inside Islam.
2. The New Islamic State is content with whatever members it might have. There is no desire to extend itself across the world or to promote Islam in places not already Muslim. The NIS is not in competition with any other religion for any reason.
3. The Western powers (including the United States of America) are not in a war against Islam.
4. Israel has the right to exist, in the region in which it currently exists, in some form or other. Details to be worked out later with the Palestinians, etc.
5. Islam is an established, big-boy religion that does not require any member to "defend" it against protest or derogatory comment. You support Islam by behaving like a good Muslim, not by attacking anybody else for any reason. Depicting the Prophet in any light or manner is perhaps reason for outrage amongst Believers, but never an excuse for action. Live and let live.
6. Islam is a free religion that may be joined or abandoned without penalty. Leaving Islam is therefore not legitimate grounds for execution. Again: Live and let live.
That's pretty much it.
Folks loyal to Islam can have a place to register their support that doesn't require them to shoot a gun or strap on a suicide vest.
There is of course always the danger the New Islamic State will get hijacked by radicals and used as a weapon against non-Muslims. Remember, we're dealing with religion here, a major chunk of traditional human insanity.
But things aren't going in the right direction now and for the foreseeable future. I think we may need to try something big.
The NIS will be an alternative to ISIS (or ISIL or DASH).
Any Islamic nation may join, as may any Muslim group or, for that matter, any individual Muslim. If you feel the pressure to pledge allegiance to an Islamic State, sign your ass up. You don't have to go anywhere. Just join in place to enjoy the benefits of your new community.
But listen up—joining the NIS commits you to a short list of tenets:
1. Anyone who follows the Quran is a Muslim: Sunni, Shia, etc. No more rifts inside Islam.
2. The New Islamic State is content with whatever members it might have. There is no desire to extend itself across the world or to promote Islam in places not already Muslim. The NIS is not in competition with any other religion for any reason.
3. The Western powers (including the United States of America) are not in a war against Islam.
4. Israel has the right to exist, in the region in which it currently exists, in some form or other. Details to be worked out later with the Palestinians, etc.
5. Islam is an established, big-boy religion that does not require any member to "defend" it against protest or derogatory comment. You support Islam by behaving like a good Muslim, not by attacking anybody else for any reason. Depicting the Prophet in any light or manner is perhaps reason for outrage amongst Believers, but never an excuse for action. Live and let live.
6. Islam is a free religion that may be joined or abandoned without penalty. Leaving Islam is therefore not legitimate grounds for execution. Again: Live and let live.
That's pretty much it.
Folks loyal to Islam can have a place to register their support that doesn't require them to shoot a gun or strap on a suicide vest.
There is of course always the danger the New Islamic State will get hijacked by radicals and used as a weapon against non-Muslims. Remember, we're dealing with religion here, a major chunk of traditional human insanity.
But things aren't going in the right direction now and for the foreseeable future. I think we may need to try something big.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)