Racism and Misogyny Exist

Two months...This has been the longest break I've taken on this site in six years...

During that time, I've been extremely busy and have rough-drafted another novel, and edited Finer Spirits, my romantic thriller about to come out in a few weeks. It's in the final stages of cover design and so on.

**************************

Anyway, I was disturbed at the reaction to Oprah by a store-owner in Switzerland when the media owner gave an example of racism. Isn't it odd how people explain away a racist incident, as if it either didn't happen or is the victim's fault?

The owner of the shop actually turned around and blamed Oprah, who simply asked twice to examine a handbag in a shop and was refused the right.

The owner of the shop forgot that the "customer is always right" and covered up for the mistake and said,

"I believe she [the saleswoman] rather said something like `we have some less expensive' – `we also have some less expensive bags' and not `it's too expensive for you.' "

I know the handbag business is odd at the high end after reading a book about the business called "Bringing Home the Birkin" if it's true, and how the manufacturers hold back bags in the factory to add to the allure and exclusivity of the purchase (it's not simply managerial incompetence).

Trouble is, Oprah's situation illustrates precisely an enduring and defining example of racism in the context of the everyday fleeting contact. It's not an abstract issue that can be rephrased and explained away. The harm's been done, and this is honestly how racism plays out in real life.

*******************************

As a Canadian living in America, I've sadly had to experience more than my fair share of prejudice, and it happens one to one (mostly subtly, along the lines of "When are you going to move back to Canada?" as if they're hoping I'll leave after 35 years! And I'm expected to thank them for asking!). And I've recently become conscious of being the brunt of misogynistic phrases from men...along the lines of not "worrying my pretty little head" ...I do worry, though, believe me, because I have my own brain and want improvements made wherever...

Recently, I made a comment in our local Patch, and was called "ignorant" three times, "whining", a "sorry ass" and "Go hawk your blog somewhere else." And oh here's a good one: "Gun Prohibitionist" because I'd prefer Americans dispose of guns. So be it. It's true.

Here's another example: the "traditional" cat-calling in public areas that men assume women want. (They don't...I don't know of a single woman who wants it. Period. Silence is superior.) 

Please remember how useful it is to be good to others. Comment online as you would if you were speaking to someone, liked them, and cared about their reaction. 

Reading comments like these are hurtful to soft people (and I'm one). I just know, however, that their unkindness and inaccuracy isn't true, and really shows up them in a horrid display of their comparatively weak and undeveloped command of the language.

Their horribly unfair comments are hugely revealing to me because if they can accuse me anonymously in comments and get away with it -- and I haven't the foggiest idea who these usernames are in real life -- then imagine how they mess around emotionally with the women in their real lives around them. If they can abuse me and get away with it, then they certainly, without any doubt, abuse the women who actually have to put up with them: their mothers, sisters, wives, daughters, cousins, and so on. I feel sorry for these women, and worry about how they maintain their emotional strength. 

*********************************

UPDATE: the local Patch moderator deleted the inflammatory comments above to my great relief. On this same topic, Danielle Steel has recently blogged, see "Are You Still a Brain Surgeon?" and Huffington Post published an incredibly detailed article on this topic and about trolls by Jade Walker, a must see.

British Monarchy Expenses Should Be Transparent

Perhaps the old country of England is changing. Queen Elizabeth II recently announced that Prince Charles is taking over some of her duties. 

More transparency of royal financial taxes and expenses would be a huge change for the better. This post explains my position, and extends a challenge.

1. Myth: British royalty doesn't have power

It does. 

The British are supposed to revere their monarchy and not complain. The main virtue in England is to get along with stiff upper lips when necessary.  Citizens of the small beautiful green island nation value peace, civility, and cooperation. And these goals are truly laudable ideals.  Except it's untrue that monarchy doesn't exert influence over the British. The methods they use can be sharply stark and psychologically cruel while coated with a veneer of charm and beauty.

In England, the three million unclaimed pounds the monarchy takes from Cornwall citizens, by inherited right, is an unfettered display of raw power. With this recent example, England doesn't deserve to call itself a democracy, as it does, if royalty can descend on municipal offices and make off with taxes. Most democracies would call that an act of theft. In England, the monarchy calls those funds entitlements and the royal tradition of the rights to the taxes has prevailed unchallenged.

2.  Myth: British royalty isn’t expensive 

It is. 

Millions of tax dollars fund British royalty. And British Commonwealth nations rationalize the costs of sponsoring royalty. The venerable institutional office supposedly costs every person only a tiny affordable amount each year. The theory is the costs and benefits of royalty are spread around the population.

Ask me, however, and I say the true costs aren't that clear. I would prefer to have visual proof before I can agree to that. And I believe the total cost of employing the army of people associated with the support of royalty is a huge cost at the expense of individuals.

It’s probably not possible to reduce all the costs of the British monarchy to the form of a balance sheet. But it would be nice if an effort could be made to publish a rough outline of such a list of royal taxes and expenses paid by the government. And the sheet should be available to everyone online for free.

3. Myth: British royalty is democratic

It isn't. 

A major issue many internationals have with the British monarchy is that the finances, rights, and powers of the monarchy remain mysterious and private. 

One well-known historic right of British royalty is the right to bestow titles and elevate commoners to the aristocracy. And the Honors List is clearly one such incestuous poorly-understood system. Titles favor one person and family over others visibly for a lifetime. This bad habit promotes permanent, deeply ingrained, undemocratic social inequality. For the Honors Lists often bear scant similarity to the actual importance to society of the contributions of individuals so honored and titled. Easy for me to say this, many extremely hard-working, deserving, and worthy British scientists are repeatedly ignored by Her Majesty.

It's high time for Britain as an independent country and head of the Commonwealth to take this opportunity. Aim for more equality by showing the public the true costs of the monarchy. So many of the public relations efforts of The Firm are secret and priceless. Royals assert they do important work. It's another wonder of the world why they do it, and don’t tire of it. Must be well-rewarding if they say so. And it would be nice to know exactly how well they're rewarded for their hard work every year in tax forms, for example, or a financial balance sheet. 

Bill Gates: Vaccinations Reduce Sickness, Improve Quality of Life, Develop Economies

Bill Gates is expanding his humanitarian focus and in his Annual Letter of 2013 outlines reasons worldwide vaccinations are essential.

Fewer Diseases Result in Stronger National Economies

Gates said that "In the same way that during my Microsoft career I talked about the magic of software, I now spend my time talking about the magic of vaccines. Vaccines have taken us to the threshold of eradicating polio. They are the most effective and cost-effective health tool ever invented. I like to say vaccines are a miracle. Just a few doses of vaccine can protect a child from debilitating and deadly diseases for a lifetime. And most vaccines are extremely inexpensive." 

He claims vaccinations lead to better quality of life with more health, education, and business opportunities. And vaccinations reduce sickness from disease, both the initial temporary acute sickness, and the permanent mental disabilities and the effect on cerebral development for survivors. A brain needs nutrition to develop, and cannot do so with sickness in the body that vaccinations help prevent. 

A child can lose a lot of potential by five years of age. And Bill Gates has found studies that  correlate lower IQs to high levels of disease in any country. And although IQ tests are imperfect, the dramatic effect on the population is "a huge injustice" to all citizens, he says. Vaccinations are important because they make people healthier. And healthier individuals can help develop economies. 

Vaccinations begin a Virtuous Circle

Another benefit of vaccinations is that parents have fewer children. "It might seem logical" Gates says, "that saving children's lives will cause overpopulation, the opposite is true." It might take years, but "as the childhood death rate is reduced, within 10 to 20 years this reduction is strongly associated with families choosing to have fewer children."

The rate of childhood deaths is reduced as a direct benefit of vaccinations. And parents with fewer children tend to have more time and money to spend on each one because vaccinated children live longer. And these children tend to get more education and job opportunities. So it's a virtuous circle, a constantly re-inforced win-win outcome all round.

Gates said that UNICEF, headed by Jim Grant, raised vaccination rates from 20% to 70% between 1980 and 1995. A free copy of Grant's book is here.

Gates writes that "Vaccines are the best investment to improve the human condition." And that's a weighty statement from the individual who was wealthiest person in the world for many years, and the former head of a global computer giant. And computers have infinitely improved the human condition. Bottom line: vaccinations improve business.

And Gates adds that childhood health issues are key to so many other issues, such as "having resources for education, providing enough jobs and not destroying the environment."

You can read his letter in its entirety here. And thank you for reading my summary.

Boston Marathon Bystander Gives Firsthand Account

Here’s an email sent me Tuesday afternoon after the Boston Marathon on Monday. I'm preserving the privacy of the participants at their request and edited very little. True story.

*********************************************** 

“Thank you all for your concern.

 

We’re staying briefly, on our way to Spain from Utah, in a furnished apartment just off Boylston Street, behind the Lord and Taylor Department Store a block before the finish line of the Marathon.  This morning (Tuesday) the whole area is cordoned off, but happily we've just got back into the apartment.  We can’t see what’s going on out on Boylston Street because our windows face the other direction.  There’s yellow crime scene tape stopping traffic – foot and car – all around the area, and lots of police.  Our car is in a lot under the building and we don’t dare take it out anywhere, because we won’t be able to get it back here if we do.

This is DK’s third Boston Marathon, and he's done others to qualify for it.  I did one marathon some years back but find they take far too much time to train for.  I do distances between 5K and half marathons, but walk every step - fast.  I did 31 races last year, and three in February when we were in Florida.

Yesterday morning I went downstairs to see the wheelchair winner whiz by.  I was standing behind the crowds – three deep – right across the street from where I presume the second explosion occurred.  The atmosphere was jovial and encouraging, just what you’d expect.  A while later I met up with DK’s mother and two nieces (and two babies) and we watched the elite runners fly by on Hereford Street. We went back to the apartment for lunch and then headed out to see DK.  We avoided Boylston Street, even though we were right there at the finish, because there were so many people there.  We could never have got to the front of the crowd to have a clear view of him, so we went down to Commonwealth Avenue and got a good spot there, about two-thirds of a mile from the end.

DK had left for Hopkinton on a bus from the Common at 7 a.m., along with thousands of other runners.  He had started the race about 10:45, and was running a bit slower than he wanted.  Yet he looked good when he passed us. He ran up to us, gave me a quick kiss, and headed down the underpass to turn onto Hereford Street.  The nieces headed home, walking across the Mass. Avenue bridge to Cambridge (and eventually all the way to Harvard Square!). 

TK (DK’s mom) and I headed back to the apartment where we’d arranged to meet him.  We hadn’t walked a block when we heard a huge kaboom.  We looked at each other, confused.  Not thunder, since the weather was okay.  A cannon in honor of the Patriots Day holiday Massachusetts was celebrating?  Weird.  Then another.  Even more confusing.   I looked back at the underpass and was astounded to see it empty, meaning the runners had been stopped:  OMG, something terrible’s going on. 

Very quickly there were streams of policemen on bikes riding headlong toward the finish.  Police motorcycles and cars came screaming by.  Somebody mentioned explosions at the finish.  I calculated that DK couldn’t have had time to get to the end, and held onto that thought.  He had to be okay.

TK and I worked our way back toward the apartment through pandemonium.  People streaming away from the race and we were going toward it.  Policemen gesturing wildly, cars coming and going, people on phones, everyone looking around wildly.  I’m sure I wasn’t the only one thinking of 9/11.  We were turned away from going through the Prudential Center and when we walked all the way around the outside of it, we were turned away from the little road leading to our apartment.

It was getting cold and we had little information on what was happening, and we had no idea where DK was.  I was worried about him getting cold.  That happens so quickly when you stop running and it was getting to be late afternoon on a cool day. 

I tried to text DK and check the news on my phone but was worried about using up the juice too fast.  So many people called and texted and emailed but the phone lines were jammed and I wanted to conserve the charge so had to make quick updates. 

Meanwhile, DK was running up Hereford Street when the first explosion happened.  He'd turned onto Boylston Street and could see the finish line a few blocks ahead when the smoke from the second explosion burst out.  Suddenly a policeman stood in front of him blocking his way, stopping him from going further and telling him to leave the area.  He made his way to the packet pickup area and was lucky to get his bag (so he had some clothes to put on).  

After that, DK headed to a place as close to the apartment as he could get. Thank goodness he was a few minutes slower than he planned.  And thank goodness we didn’t find a spot to wait for him on the sidewalk outside the apartment.  

We searched for DK through all the thousands of people in that big area. TK happened to gaze in a certain direction when her son appeared, ten feet away. And to our great relief, thank goodness we finally found one other.

We wandered idly along a nearby street as the police turned everyone away from the area.  A lovely couple offered DK a cup of water.  A hotel lobby allowed us in and we spent a little time regrouping, grateful for the warmth. But it didn’t have a television so we were getting information piecemeal.  The T (subway) had been shut down as well as the Mass Ave. bridge, and it was evident we weren’t getting back into the apartment any time soon. 

We had a call from a friend, and the three of us including TK spent the night at their house in Milton.  MP and WP are truly wonderful people who welcomed us very graciously.  We went from feeling like refugees to royalty immediately.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.

We both had many people try to contact us, wishing us well.  It was really wonderful to hear from so many friends, but we simply couldn’t respond to everyone.  Thank you for understanding. 

And heartfelt wishes to those who were terribly injured, including friends of MP and WP.  Presumably we'll be leaving for Spain on Saturday night.  We have even more reasons to light a few candles over there now."

*********************************************

And here's another of FK's later emails to me: 

“It was a very intense experience...Yesterday (Monday) was remarkable.  Such confusion for the ordinary person, but the police swung into action immediately and within a few minutes there were so many ambulances they stretched over blocks....We had to show our ID and keys to get back into our apartment today (Tuesday).  Thank goodness the area right here is still restricted and the police/security presence is very heavy.  Thank goodness our flight to Spain wasn't scheduled today...It was an experience that reminded us of the many things we're grateful for.”

Thanks go out to the writer, my sister. Have to thank her for allowing me to share it. Amazes me that family members of mine survived the attacks. Isn't it an amazing description?

Call For Action Day

Today is national "Call for Action Day" in America because weapons of war don't belong on American streets.

Weapons of war are on American streets because they can legally be so. And why they are is a curious contradiction for a country that appears safe for the most part.

And that's exactly the trouble with guns: you're safe and secure and in peace until you aren't, and here's what the President said.

"It's not over until it's over" President Obama, March 28, 2013.

The President stood in the White House for a televised speech with Vice-President Biden surrounded by mothers affected by gun violence... 

Parents haven't forgotten. The entire country pledged we would do something about it after Newtown. "Shame on us if we've forgotten those kids" said President Obama. "Americans haven't moved on to other things" the President said. He says "Millions of voices" are asking for change.

More from President Obama's speech today:

"Waiting until another innocent child is gunned down? Have to do something about it. Everyone listening should make themselves heard. We need everyone to remember how we felt after Newtown and make sure we meant it, and that it wasn't "Just a bunch of platitudes." Now is the time to act. Tears aren't enough. Expressions of sympathy, speeches aren't enough. We've cried enough, known enough heartbreak. Legislation won't solve every problem. There will still be evil. But we can make a difference, "we can do better than this." If Members of Congress would only lead...That's who we are, it's our character." More at whitehouse.gov.

There isn't really any choice in America if it wants to have a safe country other than to ban guns from convivial and friendly gatherings. America's a country where demented mass shooters like to take aim in movie theaters, in schools at all levels, primary, secondary, and universities and colleges. Happens in businesses, music concerts, places of worship, too.

In a free society anywhere around the world, nowhere is really completely safe or unsafe. It's safe until it isn't, and someone with a gun and a violent disposition disrupts the peace, or even just one or the other.

So the mission of society, while people freely pursue their interests and daily lives should be to make peace and safety a pair of respectable goals. And the only way to do that, and I know my proposal is controversial, some might say blasphemous to the almighty Second Amendment, in today's social and political environment in the United States.

My proposal is to entirely and completely banish guns from America.

Gasp if necessary, but taking away weapons of all sizes is good for society and for everyone in it who depends on peace and safety to live. America hasn't been able to wrap its' collective mind around the prospect of banning guns, although individually certain Americans agree and gun ownership in percentages supposedly has fallen in the last decades. But I just don't see any different choice that's effectively going to make a huge difference in America. And this is not a conspiracy or revolution I'm suggesting. This is just me and what I want, my attitude in favor of a minor change if you will, and my voice on this platform.

If Someone Says Rape Happened Then It Probably Did

An interesting story on NPR about rape in the military is opening old raw wounds for me. The women interviewed claimed they were raped when they served in the military. The interview details, for example, how women in the military often kept quiet about it, and exactly why they did so, which was to remain in the military.

The interview also opened a firestorm of comments on the NPR website where there are usually very few, so it's obviously hit a raw spot in the popular imagination.

One troll in particular, Brim Stone, keeps commenting, saying he's been a victim of rape, but doesn't go into details or offer proof, and yet he insists the NPR story lacks proof, and doesn't believe the interviews. Does his skepticism matter? Probably not, but it's typical, and that sort of disbelief is exactly at the heart of extremely typical reactions to rape.

I know firsthand that even family will side with the rapist and deny it ever happened, ignore it, and shove it under the rug. So it doesn't surprise me when men insist that women fabricate rapes, cry rape all the time, or that they easily lie about it.

Whoever claims women lie about rape is deeply unethical in character. Unjust is another adjective I would use, just to be polite.

It's not at all impolite of a woman to say the truth about an event that actually happened, especially one like rape that's so private, intrusive and potentially embarrassing. Being raped doesn't make a woman more attractive to the opposite sex, after all. A women has zero, even negative, incentive to talk about it and go public.

And by the way, shame on the police for not immediately processing rape kits that they do have. It took guts for each and every woman who used one. There isn't any excuse for that on this planet.

Even if a victim doesn't report a rape and the rapist isn't punished, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Like the article says, men should learn that it's wrong, wrong, wrong to ever rape. Because girls know in their hearts that men who rape are truly ugly trash.

In my case, during my first two months at university in Canada, I lived with my brother and his wife in another city from my parents. My brother and his wife had just bought a house, had jobs they wanted to keep to pay for the new house, and so I had to keep my kidnap incident quiet (though it was not a rape). (My brother's wife who worked with the kidnapper asked him to drive me home because she couldn't~and this kidnapping coworker forty years older than me drove me around for three long hours with a gun threatening to murder me and then dropped me at their house. And she and my brother did zero. In fact she called me "a slut," and I've never forgiven her. Previously, the same month just a week before the kidnapping, which happened when I was seventeen during my first month at university, I was date-raped by a couple of university students and unconscious for twenty hours, and may have been why she called me a slut before I could say what happened). And after that I moved on campus for the year and then moved away, changed universities and countries.

You don't have to believe I was kidnapped if you don't want to.

More than thirty years have passed, and I don't have any proof, and I don't really care if my readers don't believe me, or blame it on me. I was only seventeen, and I know I did nothing wrong.

But not having proof after all these years doesn't mean rape didn't happen, and I didn't forget it.

In conclusion, rape happens.  The man who kidnapped me is unknown to me, and unpunished to this day to my knowledge. I fled the car he said was bombed and didn't find out his name after he released me. And as for the date-rape, I didn't even call it that for years because the term hadn't been invented for the drugging of drinks, and I underwent therapy with a wonderful Australian psychiatrist to forget it (which was essential as I became depressed and suicidal, and it worked well). That date-rapist is now a father and a successful lawyer in Toronto, Canada, with a second house in the Muskokas, according to Google, and I doubt his wife and family knows what he did, and I don't know what ever happened to his accomplice. Is it just all water under the bridge? I don't think so. Did any of those men, and they were all men, suffer from what they covered up? I don't know but I hope so.

And for those of you who think my story is unusual, or that I did anything wrong, please read this.

Immigration: what genius glut?

The New York Times has me shaking my head questioning fact-checkers on opinion pieces at the venerable newspaper. Without direct attribution and proof, the author of the article called America's Genius Glut spouts immigration statistics and refutes them as useless in the same paragraph here:

..."for the sake of our global competitiveness, we shouldn’t train and then return the tens of thousands of Chinese and Indian students who come here every year. But almost 90 percent of the Chinese students who earn science and technology doctorates in America stay here; the number is only slightly lower for Indians."

But if tens of thousands of students leave the United States every year, then how can ninety-percent of them also be staying? Given the small number of visas issued each year that remark doesn't hold water or make any sense whatsoever. Where are the statistics for this? Did he consult either the Census (and if so, where are the figures?) or did he read the writings of immigration lawyers such as "There is no Line"?

It's well-known that many high-tech titans have argued that the admission numbers of skilled immigrants has become too small and tight in America.

Here's what David Desjardins, a founding Google employee, said Feb 8, 2013 on Google+ for example:

...we need a new economic ideology in this country.  The right is so dedicated to anti-government mania that they can't believe we need any common efforts to solve common problems.  But the left can be so obsessed with the equality of every person that they can't imagine there's any more economic value and growth to be created by giving a green card to a science PhD than to a Latino immigrant with a 6th grade education who works really hard.  And so obsessed with an "insufficient aggregate demand" view of our economic troubles that the idea that there might not actually be a fixed, invariable number of jobs for scientists and engineers, but the amount of science and engineering we do depends on how many scientists and engineers we have, doesn't occur to them."

Certainly, the educated should be allowed into America, and achievement should be placed above unproven potential. But at the same time, educating people for the purpose of moving them out of the country has always seemed a double-edged sword.

Immigration should be based on solid policy

 The philosophy behind immigration for a long time has been predicated on the idea that students from around the world flock to first world universities to learn, and then they return to their own countries of birth to live forever and apply their knowledge. This has been going on for decades, since 1924.

The point is, immigration is far from being completely organized, or a democratic department of the government. It's as jumbled and mired in mystery as getting into a private school, for those of my readers familiar with that process. Yet many make sweeping generalizations about immigration as if it were democratic and as if they were experts without being qualified, experienced, and without having any more anecdotal evidence and opinion than I do.

 And how does it make sense to force the educated to leave if they want to stay while allowing in the uneducated?

Certainly those children who have foreign-born parents who've come through the educational system are "American children." Those children will not necessarily wish to, or be able to, for that matter, fit into foreign educational systems.  To turn away children educated here because their parents went against the law and stayed here goes beyond all reason. It doesn't make sense to make a huge investment in the public education of children who will be forced to leave the country if their parents aren't here legally.

It's unethical to have the parents in the country without documents, and foolish to spend money teaching their children. A crucial question is, why were the parents living here without their papers for long enough to raise children? Many have overstayed their visas, are living in the country and paying taxes, but will not maybe ever be able to have citizenship. It's these parents who are here without documents and not innocent children at fault, or rather it's the government at fault for not acknowledging the parents. It's not democratic to be forced to pay taxes and not be allowed the rewards of citizenship, such as voting and...serving on a jury. Everyone who hands over taxes to the government should be awarded citizenship.

So it's important to make it a requirement that all children educated in this country on the taxpayer's backs have parents with documents, with the exception of boarding students on temporary visas. Americans don't want criminals from other countries here, and yet criminals might slip in if government paperwork (now on computers) isn't processed quickly enough. 

And it's important to have an educated citizenry. The countries that educate the world's workforce shouldn't be rewarded with a poorly-educated populace.

But it's also important to have citizenry with legal documents. It's not undemocratic to make it a legal requirement that everyone who enters or stays in the country has to do so with documents, provided (iff) the government in its part does its share, and quickly processes applications. 

Maybe immigration lawyers should have their say in upcoming immigration policy reforms in America. Presidents and lawmakers need to be clear on the facts, and not threaten self-deportation or back-of-the-line policies not firmly grounded in reality. And we need the government to process faster the geniuses who want to be here but are good and don't want to overstay a visa. Just as archivists need to know the extent of a collection to make an archive so, to make changes, the federal government needs to understand the issues and solutions related to immigration problems.

America Has A Gun Culture: And that's the Problem

The husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Mark Kelly no less, was interviewed on CNN with details and statistics about gun violence in America. And what he says makes it unlikely the gun lobby can refute it with logic, even if they can do so successfully without legal impunity. This is an uphill battle for people like me who don't like guns, and here is the point he made:

 "Almost 100 people a day die from a gun, 33 are murdered. We've got 20 times the murder rate of similar countries." And "Up to 40% of gun transfers are made without background checks, and a national survey of inmates found that nearly 80% of those who used a handgun in a crime acquired it without a background check."

And I like his description of failed background checks:

"...since 1994, more than 2 million folks -- among them, criminals and dangerously mentally ill people -- failed their background checks. But we don't know which of those millions just got in their car and drove to a gun show, or home to their computer to go on the Internet -- both places where anyone can buy a gun without a background check.

"That doesn't make sense. It's like saying, hey, criminals, to board the plane, either go through a metal detector and be checked against the terrorist watch list, or, if you prefer, walk right down that red carpet and take a seat, no search necessary. Which would you choose?"

Glad to hear his organization with former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords called Americans for Responsible Solutions has enrolled over 100,000 members. But I don't waver from my position that far more persuasive work needs to be done in America to persuade Americans to dispose of their guns. 

And that is my position, the government should ban guns. Simply and indisputably, they aren't necessary for a civilized society. It's important from an international perspective as I have. And yes, I go farther into gun control than the Kelly-Giffords do.

Commenters on websites where I have made comments may call me a Gun Prohibitionist anonymously, and it hurts. But the fact that many Americans use the excuse that America isn't a civilized society and that's why they need guns--for self-protection--reflects sourly (actually worse than that) on America, even if they don't see the problem from that perspective. They hurt themselves in so many ways when they say that. They endanger themselves and they cripple their families from taking productive action. Foreigners find their attitudes distasteful, unattractive, and dangerous. They don't see that. Just as smokers support an industry that kills them with lung cancer, so the gun manufacturers are enriched by their hobby that will likely kill them and their loved ones, and homeowners buy guns with the same outcomes. Statistics prove unassailably and irrefutably that gun owners are far more likely to hurt themselves than use it for self-defense or killing a menacing wild animal.

And gun enthusiasts are a problem in America, no doubt about it.

In addition, ProPublica analyzes the lack of research with the person who was last leading the governmental effort until the gun lobby successfully stopped all gun-related research. Dr. Mark Rosenberg led gun violence research the Centers for Disease Control(CDC)'s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in the nineties.

 What he says, with unassailable logic, is scandalous:

  "One of the critical studies that we supported was looking at the question of whether having a firearm in your home protects you or puts you at increased risk. This was a very important question because people who want to sell more guns say that having a gun in your home is the way to protect your family.
   What the research showed was not only did having a firearm in your home not protect you, but it hugely increased the risk that someone in your family would die from a firearm homicide. It increased the risk almost 300 percent, almost three times as high.
   It also showed that the risk that someone in your home would commit suicide went up. It went up five-fold if you had a gun in the home. These are huge, huge risks, and to just put that in perspective, we look at a risk that someone might get a heart attack or that they might get a certain type of cancer, and if that risk might be 20 percent greater, that may be enough to ban a certain drug or a certain product.
    But in this case, we're talking about a risk not 20 percent, not 100 percent, not 200 percent, but almost 300 percent or 500 percent. These are huge, huge risks." 

So to review, drugs are banned if they have a 20 percent or greater risk of maybe someday causing cancer, but guns with a 300-500 percent chance of maybe killing someone are just fine. 

But Americans neither know nor care. And weapons like guns aren't totally banned. In fact, no one knows how many guns are around, or how many people die each year from guns. How can the country just turn its back on other research it has done on death and dying? Numbers don't lie! How many more lives will be lost before America gets its' act together?

Dr. Rosenberg also says that since 1996 when the gun research was disrupted, 480,000 or more deaths by murder and suicide have been estimated but not actually counted.

He calls phrases such as "obviously the assault weapon ban didn't work, because Columbine happened" kind of like saying "vaccines don't work because someone got the flu."

But of course, the real scandal is that the federal research ended and America has fallen into the vacuum of shameful ignorance. No one knows the true numbers nationwide. Neither side knows numbers for certain, especially the NRA and all those who value and use tactics of fear by spouting slogans and false statistics rather than knowledge. 

The least that can be done is to pass gun bans on large weapons and background checks, but that's not stopping sales of casual weapons.

NPR said there isn't a national registry for such deaths. No one knows which weapons were used or how many people have died in this internal civil war.

Americans need to get rid of problem legislation such as this:

  "In 2003, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Republican from Kansas, added language to the Justice Department's annual spending bill. It says the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives can't release information used to trace guns involved in crime to researchers and members of the public. It also requires the FBI to destroy records on people approved to buy guns within 24 hours."

To review, gun tracing and gun-approval information can't be done by law. But without real actual knowledge, nothing's going to improve for America, as far as gun violence is concerned. The mental health alleyway is bogus and going nowhere because it limits the actions of those who would restrict gun sales to those who judge someone else is crazy. And those mental health judges are possibly going to become instant targets by rejecting any gun application, and have to be separated from the process. The process should be impersonal. 

The President of the National Rifle Association (NRA) called the following tenets official policy of the organization on the radio (NPR) here. Pres. Keene thinks it's not good to restrict weapons because:

1) Banning assault weapons is not going to stop the real mass killers.

(As opposed to what, may I ask--serial killers or someone who just wants to shoot just one person?) This is silly. He has no evidence or research to support this because none has been done by anyone, officially or unofficially. For proof, please read ProPublica.

2) America with no guns would be total chaos and anarchy. 

Honestly, it sounds to me like anyone saying this is a bit off their rocker, just a bit! What are they talking about? Crazy! How absurd the idea! America needs fewer guns not more. Not having guns, even less than not smoking, isn't going to stop mothers from feeding their newborns.

And incidentally the President of the NRA's command of the English language wasn't very coherent in this interview, but he was sly, persuasive, and crazy like a fox! 

3) Gun registries lead to gun confiscation by the government and to possible publication of gun ownership. 

Kind of an odd worry considering more than half of gun owners buy or obtain them illegally and keep them in secret. But pity them, there isn't any knowledge to go around from one side to the other. The gun lobby especially is lurching around with blind accusations and slogans that sound rational on the outside rather than obtaining hard facts and numbers. And (the bastards like Keene at) the NRA have successfully stopped such genuine research into gun deaths and arguments in the past. (How? With techniques that include minimizing counter-arguments and using intimidating threats that keep political opponents out of office.)

4) "That's not much." The prodigious ammunition reserves of the Aurora shooter wasn't so large. "You can use up a lot of ammunition in sport and competitive shooting."

In other words, David Keene may have (or have owned) more ammunition in his personal storage than the Aurora shooter! You can read more of his uneducated incoherent nonsense if you want for yourself in the transcript here. And I checked, and not a single individual in the hierarchy of the NRA have doctorates. Most won't even admit to graduating from college level education.

Until guns are totally banned, I believe the numbers won't improve in favor of saving lives, although every little bit of good legislation helps. America will continue to be a violent gun culture at heart. And that's a problem for others even if it's not recognized as such. America won't admit to an addiction problem to guns. They say Mexicans and other countries have more gun violence. But like avoiding another car on a slippery road in winter, Americans can't see the outside picture and the possibilities, and how much trouble they could conceivably cause other countries. America can fight the addiction, but they still need to take real action and catch up to other peaceful cultures as far as guns are concerned. It's past time.

Can British Royalty Honestly Expect Privacy Abroad?

 

Courtesy: Chi  

An Italian magazine has printed a flattering picture of the royal couple, shown here. And as usual, the Royal Palace isn't allowing the British people to see them as all the rest of the free world can.

With all due respect, it's unethical. Most couples aren't photographed and hounded in this way, it's true. And the Royal couple assumed they were walking on a beach in privacy, and that their privacy would be respected. It turns out, however, that their assumptions were mistaken. The private became public.

But that was the royal couple's mistake, and probably no one else's. It was a risk they took to walk outside. Why exactly did the Royal couple assume their photographs wouldn't be taken? What in their past made them assume, with some exclusionary royal prerogative, that they wouldn't be photographed? Why should they assume that they can buy their way out of being photographed anywhere in the free world? Most of the world evidently has a press freer than the British press.

The couple seems to be making a legal issue about expectations of privacy, and they sound rather churlish and whiny. The public has the opposite concerns. The Royal couple are undoubtedly public figures, regarded by some Americans as tabloid figures, and are expected by the public to behave as such in public locations, and at all times.

This mischievous behavior isn't something the Queen of England has ever done. One would think she should be more disappointed with her son's wife than with the press recording an event. But pregnancy doesn't last long, and the beautiful Princess didn't learn her lesson in France last summer on the topic of "assumption of privacy." If she's going to be out and about in public, she's likely to be photographed, she evidently might be even where she assumes it's private.

The press is certainly making the issue balloon larger, but it's good for publicity in the business of entertainment. The names of the magazines involved in these photos, for example, were previously unknown to me, and probably most Americans.

Commenters online have looked at the photos and asked why the Royal couple are in full emergency alarm mode about these photos. This is a flattering photo and at least the princess was wearing a bikini (unlike last August).

So I would issue free advice to the Royal couple. They should assume their photos will be taken unless they are within the perimeters of the Royal walls of their castles, or in more remote areas with better security. And they should definitely take the consequences if they walk around in public in a foreign country dressed like this and they should stop threatening legal action. That's just plain impolite. (And by the way, I need more photos for this blog. I'm dressed for work, although it's so cold I could be wearing pyjamas writing this post. Maybe I wouldn't mind vacationing wherever they are now.)

Is America Imploding? NRA Lists Enemies

The American organization, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has published a list of American organizations and celebrities they believe do not further their gun-manufacturing proliferation goals. The NRA, for my international readers, is a government lobbying group in the United States that works by scaring American politicians, by intimidating them, and winning their support through financial contributions (a.k.a. bribes).

The NRA "works" by scaring the general population with slogans, that Americans need more guns for self-defense, and that they have a right to any gun they want. Scaring Americans furthers the aims of the NRA to sell more guns. Strangely enough, they believe that by gathering names of businesses and celebrities who aren't helping them, they're winning as a public relations organization! Sounds like when Hitler published the names of Jews he didn't like in the Second World War. And we all know how wrong he proved in history.

Honestly, the NRA is just a silly, but noisy organization, capable of financing political mayhem, and financially supportive of encouraging American people to buy more guns to kill other American people. The NRA, and similar pro-weapons organizations in America that try to promote a lot of gun use, have flimsy pathetic aims that break apart under the sharp light of examination and common sense. And what could these goals possibly be?

1) They promote twisted testosterone-laden visions of total world domination.

    To counteract, I would say that the beautiful soft visions of world-renowned celebrities of both sexes they've listed have already (un)arguably achieved world domination.

2) And as for the ability to kill hundreds of people in minutes with assault rifles if they have the whim?

     The bombs of WWII killed many more than that in Japan.

3) Guns are useful for self-defense because there's supposedly the constitutional right to bear arms.

Surely there are other more rational methods of self-defense (classes in self-defense spring to mind). By the time Americans have to resort to the use of firearms, it means that all other vestiges of civil society, including conversation, have failed. And as for constitutional rights, certain sensible and experienced legal scholars want to limit or dispose of that idea.

The NRA and similar organizations are hurtful and upsetting, and no good ever comes from them. Seems to me nearly every major American business should be business enemies of the NRA, and most businesses who aren't on the list should be. For the NRA list is, at its core, anti-business, anti-government, anti-religious, anti-nearly every celebrity--and is wrong-headed and wrong-hearted.

Why would any serious business in America profess to be pro-gun proliferation except for guns and parts manufacturers? And the Second Amendment doesn't give Americans the automatic right to bear any kind of arms, as the articles below prove, and as most sensible people already know. Why Americans don't just dispose of their guns, I haven't the foggiest.

Publishing names of businesses, celebrities, and journalists who supposedly don't agree with the goals of the NRA is useless. We don't have any clear idea why these particular ones were singled out, but they're automatically my friends, if true. The point is, calling them enemies is not a productive use of any organization's time and energy.

Can you imagine the United States being a nice place to live if real estate agents perceived people who won't sell houses as their enemies and published lists of their names? Or if any business, for that matter, published the names of people who do not like their products, who will not want to go along and buy them, and further, went ahead and singled out individuals and called them enemies? Businesses would break down and implode....just as Germany imploded and took years to recover when Hitler outlawed Jews and began the Second World War. Hasn't America learned enough about intimidation? Or is it going to start another civil war, the Second Civil War?

As a real estate agent myself, I am terrified of the idea of entering a house with guns. I have seen them in Broker's Open Houses, it's true, but these aren't desirable possessions, in my view. If the aim is self-defense, they have only one purpose, and that is to shoot someone. Weapons aren't productive properties to own if possessions have to earn their keep. They take up valuable household space if they're securely stored, and the news media repeatedly assures me they often aren't stored properly and accidents happen. The same accidents wouldn't happen without weapons.

And, I'd like to point out to Americans, finally, that for many millions of people who don't live in the United States, America doesn't sound like a very safe and desirable place to live. That's a delusional idea Americans use to comfort themselves. I'm just thankful the NRA didn't list my name.

Here's the NRA list of over 500 names. Here's scholarly opinion on limiting the Second Amendment, and more recently here and here.

Violence Control: The Wider American Problem

Governor of New Jersey Wishes to Widen "Gun Control" Discussion to 

"VIOLENCE CONTROL"

Governor Chris Christie, the Governor in my home state of New Jersey wants to widen, broaden, and deepen the topic of gun control. According to this article in the Daily Beast, he sees "Violence Control" as a three-part problem:

1) Violent video games could be a cause of shooting sprees.

2) Illegal drugs need to be regulated and controlled.

3) Mental-health needs to be monitored.

The article queries how:

"Christie’s new campaign pans out. As a practical matter, regulating which games people play, which drugs they ingest, and which mental-health tests they submit to may be even harder than regulating the size of the magazines in their Glocks."

While I think Governor Christie's "Violence Control" discussion is a lurch in the right direction, and I must give him credit points for trying, I have to wonder:

1) Can violent video games be regulated?

2) And didn't shooting sprees happen before video games were invented?

3) How can the war against illegal drugs be won? Illegal drugs have been around for generations now, and haven't gone away. Keeping the focus on police enforcement of illegal drugs can't hurt, I agree.

4) How can mental health professionals be responsible for predicting exactly who will be a mass shooter?

So many questions. So few answers. I still think it's best to focus on passing stricter gun control measures as soon as possible. For that, I give Democratic President Obama my highest praise. Banning weapons is certainly the quickest and single most important way to cut down on gun violence statistics.

UPDATE: Another fascinating statistic comes from an article in the New York Times:
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 38,364 Americans lost that fight in 2010 and committed suicide; 19,392 used a gun."

Tighter Gun Laws: A Hot Topic in America

 ProPublica published an article with statistics on gun control. Pictured are politicians involved in many sides of the issue in an article called "Where Congress Stands on Guns" including funding from the NRA. The issue raises so many questions in my mind for investigators that I wrote the publication this letter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My Letter with Questions to ProPublica

Thank you for this informative article about gun control. To find out who is on the other political side of the issue from where I write on my blog is very useful. Until recently it hasn't been a hot-button political issue for years because many politicians have tried to stay away from the topic and keep it out of the limelight. But that is no longer a possibility, not after Aurora and Newtown, and the practical issue of gun ownership is becoming extremely personal and divisive. So it's useful to know the facts as the issues become more discussed and as Americans form personal opinions about an issue so heavily shaded by experience and family values.

An article in the UK newspaper, The Guardian, yesterday published a chart of gun laws state by state. The article didn't promise their statistics were 100% accurate. But it did show many, many states have ZERO gun laws. That was huge news to me, so I blogged about that. Getting more numbers like this would be useful.

So more hard facts like these in your article are very useful to me personally. From your article, it appears that more politicians are in favor of an assault weapons ban than not. That's good news. I wonder about their attitudes about handguns, temporary licenses for guns, banning gun sales at shows, stronger gun registry for all weapons, including inherited?

I'm also concerned about how medical and sociological and psychological research into gun violence has been effectively muzzled, completely unfunded, and profoundly discouraged by intimidating pro-gun groups. Would like to hear more details about that. Incredible to hear that freedom of speech doesn't extend to official statistics: why violence happens, who is affected, how gun injuries and deaths affect victims for years, and where gun violence is most likely to happen. How are police rewarded or discouraged from dealing with gun-related violence if their weapons are less powerful than assault rifles?

 The Supreme Court should not allow civilian weapons in all situations, in my view so that is a very grey, foggy topic. But what about the attitude of the Supreme Court, as well as the general population, to the controversial Second Amendment? Just as yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't allowed, neither should weapons be. It's very off-putting to go to a movie theater with 12-24 theaters [as I did last week] and see a similar number of armed guards!!! A ban makes life so much easier.

And most politicians take money from the NRA. What's not clear is how many other gun groups provide them with money. It's not clear why politicians have the attitudes towards guns they have, and whether family experience with guns changes their attitudes. If they have guns for self-defense, have they ever used their guns?

And if mental health professionals must now add more names to a database to stop patients from buying guns, isn't that going to slow (and probably stop) patients from getting the help they need from doctors and psychologists? It's well known that the Rolling Stones gained more help from a judge who forced them to get help with the drug problem they had instead of imprisoning them.

With over 14,000 murders in the US [last year] compared to minimal numbers in the remainder of the civilized peaceful world where guns aren't encouraged, banning guns is a no-brainer to me, but the statistics help.So while everyone stops and thinks about gun laws, we need to have the facts, which is where you can help so much. Thank you, ProPublica for this article, and please keep them coming on this crucial topic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

American States Have Scrappy Gun Laws and Some States Have None!

Would like to change the topic away from gun violence, which I've been writing about recently.

But I found an amazing interactive page about guns and weapons, so I must return to that overwhelmingly urgent topic. It's published by The Guardian, the British newspaper here. (We can't get this information for ourselves in the United States anywhere.)

The point is, in most states, lax gun oversight shows up as none in this interactive graph. Not a single state conforms to the weapons regulations of other civilized western countries. Most of the southeast, and many western states do not have any gun regulations, according to this article.

I really hope not to focus all the time on guns on this blog. It's not fun to write about, and I avoid writing about politics, and especially criticizing America. I've tried to avoid politics in this blog. And now it seems like I'm sort of straying into politics...but I don't want to. This topic of gun violence has stayed out of the spotlight of political partisanship, and it's time to do something to mitigate that neglect. We're finding out how much the research into gun violence itself has been restricted by gun lobby groups. And gun violence research sorely needs to be done and to see the light of day. The increasingly wild and personal accusations of pro-gun groups defy logic and experience of an international variety.

The President tightened restrictions on guns on Wednesday, January 16, 2013, an historic day in my mind, and brought tears to my eyes to see him caring about gun violence, signing laws, and actively trying to do something about it. It's good and appropriate that he should do so. Honestly, I hope God blesses that man, he has done so much work. After all, what prize can surpass the Nobel Peace Prize, a prize he already has?!

And the other side, including the judiciary and gun violence researchers have all shown advanced signs of neglect on their watches, and kowtowed to pro-gun lobby groups against all reason...People wouldn't kill people as much if they didn't have guns. Time to stop even thinking of guns for self-defense. We have our words. And the ideas of the pro-gun lobby are to me: silly, reactionary and illogical. How can anyone believe them?

Popular Support For Anti-Gun Enforcement

Lately, I've been writing here on this site to try to end violence by guns and heavy weapons in America. Globally, most citizens would find a goal like that a no-brainer and pretty mild and unambitious.

Not here in America. In response, my facebook page, my Huffington Post feed, and my Linked In site were compromised by an outside hacker, and I've had to change my passwords.

So, let me say, such a mild goal has its own peculiar set of consequences here in America, where free speech is supposedly a human right. A legal right....

From NBC-TV, New York State has bravely proposed restricting guns, and I applauded when I heard it. In fact, my readers know I want guns banned. Requiring temporary permits to own firearms, like hunting permits, would help cut down gun ownership.

And here's an incredible statistic taken from a gun study (before such studies were stopped twenty years ago in America by pro-firearms groups).... David Frum, on CNN, repeated what I'd heard on the radio taken from a study that was actually released:

 A gun kept in the house is 43 TIMES more likely to kill a member (of the household) than to be used in self-defense. 

That's right. If your parents have a gun, remember they're 43 times more likely to kill each other and you than an intruder into your house.

Think of it that way, and think of the little children who died in Connecticut, for all the people who die every day from gun violence. And don't wait. Please, for me, ask gun owners to dispose of their gun or guns.

Instead, think about pursuing milder hobbies. Much better hobbies are out there to have than hunting, even if those old guns were inherited. Buy a camera and go hiking, go canoeing and swimming. But don't try the guns out near you....

NOT if you want to LIVE.

Offer An Olive Branch of Peace

Hearing Piers Morgan fight against pro-gun extremists makes me think about my own views. Turns out, I agree with him and would strengthen anti-gun laws much further.

We don't hear enough about the anti-weapon side--totally banning firearms in favor of peace, preservation, and longevity.

This blog is on the side that doesn't believe the Founding Fathers believed that guns belong in homes. That's not the message they wanted to leave behind on the Second Amendment and some legal Constitution scholars agree with me.

(And yes, my pedigree goes back to Connecticut and Massachusetts, and I'm even an American Patriot, so this is my opinion.)

I'm agitating in my own small way on this blog in the direction of personal peace, kindness, and goodness---not in the direction of evil in the form of aggressive personal offense, fact-twisting, and revenge. The latter are attitudes faking as rationales for military-level household defense within America. In this war on weapons, they're counter-productive and anger-inducing. America must have descended into tragic violence if everyone should have military-level assault rifles, making it anything but a Free Country.

Just nuts in the words of President Clinton.

“No one is challenging NRA members' right to own guns,” Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat said." Huffington Post

Excuse me, Rep. McCarthy, but I most humbly am making exactly that point consistently in posts on this site.

 I've been pushed in the direction of banning guns entirely, because I know in my heart that countries without widespread ownership of guns have: 

1. fewer deaths and injuries from weapons,
2. greater human longevity, 
3. higher overall levels of education, 
4. better and more inclusive healthcare for everyone, and 
5. more safety and security in homes and businesses. 

Any assertions to the contrary are outright, jealous lies unsupported by facts and physical experience.

Unlike me, they, or someone taking care of them, have been PAID by the gun industry somewhere in their pasts to be quiet and muzzle the truth.

What can gun owners do? 

Easy. Be strong. Don't have or own guns. If you have one, you know what to do to dispose of it. Get rid of your weapons, all of them. How many ways are there to say it? 

Throw them away. Tip your guns and weapons. Tip all of them. I, for one, wish you would. I believe one gun is too many in a house. Shouldn't be there, doesn't belong.

Turn the other cheek. Offer an olive branch of peace. Find layers of subtle complexity in the world. Dream of peace. Make me proud. If you don't agree, please don't comment and ruin my sleep...Find your own platform. I'll delete it anyway. And thank you for reading this far.

The Fallacy of American Gun Ownership Rights

Today, the day after Christmas, I was heartened to see guns being turned in at a voluntary program in Los Angeles. It's certainly a step in the right direction. As is the public gun registry this article describes. It's a new age, and the internet has opened lots of homes to public view in real estate sites and ads. Gun owners don't need more protection than homeowners selling their homes or people taking exercise walks outside.

Speaking to other American women at my exercise class this morning, I heard differing points of view about the problem with guns today in America: one woman thought we should each be forced to take care of a German Shepherd dog, one for each household, and not have guns at all. Another, a lawyer, claimed that people in poor communities should be allowed to arm themselves, hunters have the right to have guns--it's a right to own guns under the Second Amendment--but doesn't think assault rifles are necessary. 

Based on having lived in peaceful countries before I moved to America, my views that guns should not be in homes, and that most people don't have any need to own guns--whose only purpose is to intimidate, injure, and kill--is considered by most Americans rash, unwise, crazy and frankly stupid. 

Piers Morgan Under Fire 

I feel sorry for Piers Morgan having around 93,000 75,000 signatures on a deportation petition, growing and subject to updating, a petition that requires only 25,000 to get an official White House response. All those stone cold, unattractive, deeply inhospitable signers had to log in to sign. I would say, judging from first names alone on the petition, for every female name there are twelve to twenty male names. 

Meanwhile, the ladies at my exercise class claim that Piers Morgan shouldn't have put out his own views. That was his so-called mistake, not his actual views, that he should have instead had a guest to argue with the pro-gun lobbyists and left it to a guest to fight with the other side the way he did....But that stance, of blaming a television journalist--the messenger of truth to power and a mouthpiece of the officially unrepresented opposition--defies logic and common sense. Journalists choose the news to tell, so their personal views inevitably gain more visibility. (This is the unstated rationale behind the Republican voice of Fox News). The extent of the vitriol and anger resulting from his frank expression of logic is chilling to me.

Americans can sound wild, crazy, heartless, inhospitable, non-supportive of one another, and not at all free to me when they talk about wanting and liking their guns, and throwing out of the country those who disagree. The fact that a commenter on a website said that the CNN announcer's fate should be similar to the Nazis deported from America in the Second World War is scary. 

It shows that it was possible at some point in the past to throw out someone because of their beliefs (just as beliefs were considered when they entered America--a point I find disturbingly unconstitutional if it comes to that, and it obviously does). Even beliefs sanctioned by international organizations of world peace about gun rights are considered irrelevant and not worth following to Americans. 

Americans threw out Nazis, and so they're attempting to throw out anti-gun supporters. Haven't they noticed that the guns Americans use to kill each other could kill them? That they would seem to every other country as deeply unattractive and inhospitable? Why would anyone bother being a tourist to the country?

The Second Amendment Again

Let's get serious. Gun ownership is not a right in any part of the Second Amendment. As my previous post shows, legal scholars such as Saul Cornell et al. have discovered this as a fact despite dogma to the contrary espoused by pro-gun advocates, even pro-gun lawyers and legal educators. That  gun ownership is thought to be a Second Amendment right is a phony but popular assertion promoted by the gun lobby to sell and own guns designed to intimidate, injure and kill "the enemy among us." And Americans obviously have many enemies within the country. The internal death, intimidation, and injury-by-gun rate is the highest in the world by a ratio of many thousands to one among the civilized countries.

If only most Americans were more civilized, educated, more refined, more experienced of life lived outside of America in a kinder, gentler world, they might not be delusional and just plain wrong about the Second Amendment. They don't have the knowledge, experience, or the right to tell others in the world how to live, and my gentle readers outside of America shouldn't listen to the insular, provincial brand of American bluster, given the uniquely high American murder rate.

Defending oneself by following the path of gun ownership has not worked, as many commenters have written, those who've experienced firsthand violent threats of gun violence.  The fact that self-defense with a gun has worked in a few cases doesn't mean that it has worked in the majority of cases. I find the assertion simply undocumented, inimical to peace, anti-civilization, and anti-humanity.

World and countrywide peace has always consisted of dropping guns, ammunition, and intimidation, and making a conscious effort in that direction. Isn't that obvious?

NRA Has Blood on Its Hands

Now it appears that pro-weapon adherents the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), and other pro-gun lobby groups, are finally coming out into the media with eyes blazing hot with aggression after turning down earlier requests to appear following the shooting of twenty-eight people in a small primary school in Connecticut.

The NRA alone is bankrolled by an over three-hundred million dollar budget PER YEAR. And in the last week they've been getting their message act together. The supposedly fancy idea that the NRA is trying to blast through our consciousness is supposed to be, drum roll please: Every elementary school should payroll a security guard paid for by OUR taxes!!! If this isn't the most stupid, reckless idea that some kind of highly-paid consultancy outfit could come up with, I don't know what is...Don't these shooters and pro-shooters know that education takes place in many areas of life, and classrooms exist all over the country?

All of these riflers and gun-toters and association members and those who enable them need to become more educated and informed of the truth that most of us already know factually and experientially, and realize that the way to go is not "a gun for a gun"...any more than buying an anti-car to destroy a car, or an anti-computer to destroy a computer, would stop sales of cars or computers. So the associations are clearly working to sell more guns and help the weapon industry survive. There can't be any other explanation. They need to help the gun industry, they argue, because guns last for generations and get handed down. They think we won't have any rights left if we don't allow weaponry for private defense.

But what is there left to defend that is valuable and intrinsically unique to America? A house that costs the same after almost twenty years, like mine was, even though I "invested" twice the price of the house in repairs?...Or the financial system, where the American economy is owned by Asia?...Or how about health insurance, where private insurance won't cover many episodes and tests?...Or job security, where there isn't any? Or, take security, where we're told by these gun clubs that the proliferation and easy availability of guns will lead to lifestyles of greater security? Who cares about those who are small-minded enough to actually believe guns defend America? If guns defend America, and not philosophy and lifestyle, I pity and feel sorry for the future military state of the country. General Petraeus, before he was shown to make a human error, almost ran for office and would have appointed military men like him, and the Republicans almost hijacked the voting process to disallow those less likely to vote against them.

And good riddance if weapons and weapon-makers disappear...The military will survive quite well and is one of the rare wings of the American government with reliable financial support.

Political figures are assassinated by weapons of various kinds, and sometimes they're killed despite the best practices in security technologies. Where there's a will, there's a way, and where someone has the desire to kill, that desire is going to have more chance of being successful depending on the attendant availability and accuracy of the weaponry.

An easy way to cut back on violence is not to use guns. If guns aren't anywhere around, they can't be used. Make sense? Don't tell me it doesn't. It's obviously, absolyoutely true.

I am not in any way bankrolled by anyone to make these peace-loving remarks, and the gun lobby is a thousand times more bankrolled than their opposition--simply peace-loving individuals like me. I haven't any proof whatsoever that the associations have any interest whatsoever in promoting peace as a conscious objective. In their policy and mission statements, they seem to have more interest in provoking anger and violence and gun sales, than in having an open, carefree, peace-loving society with open classrooms and fields. And shame on them. HUGE SHAME. Blood is on their hands. 

Those who tend to be pro-guns also tend to use blasphemy and carry guns, and they offend me personally...I don't like them as individuals, and feel immensely sorry for them on a personal level. They are uneducated in, unhelpful to, and ignorant of, a peaceful existence. I feel sorrow for their pathetically misguided pro-gun stance, and anger at their deluded aggression and power by brute force. They simply can't be branded as individuals worthy of my trust.

And I will keep writing for the peace that I want and say what I wish to say voluntarily.... And saying nonsensical arguments pro-gun isn't going to help society become more peaceful, so there's no point in wasting energy saying them in comments or trying to change my mind. Thanks for reading my harmless, free outburst of aggression in favor of stricter gun control. 

Turn in your weapons, please, or dispose of them, along with saddening, sickening pictures of  aggressive killings. Weapons, hunting, and shooting aren't noble. And personally, I don't think gun ownership is at all NICE. Guns don't belong in nice houses.

More Needless Gun Violence

Gun violence again shattered the somnolent peace of the countryside, this time in an elementary school in Connecticut. Almost thirty people have perished today needlessly at the hands of a gunman with an assault weapon.

Yes, guns are allowed. It's a free and open-spirited country. And yes, one person was crazy enough to do it. But just because guns are available doesn't mean they should be allowed and given as a gift from a parent to a child. Yet this is what happened today.

Lisa Belkin, formerly of The New York Times, says in The Huffington Post that it's a parenting issue, but it's bigger than that, much bigger. It's everyone's issue because it's a societal issue. Innocent lives were lost---maybe the next generation's Einstein or Hillary Clinton died. 

America has far more violence than other countries. People around the world heard about it. Anyone with the delusion that America has gun violence in the same exact proportion as other countries doesn't have the facts at hand. Crazies in America have much easier access to guns.

A Few Facts For Unbelievers

For every person who dies in America from a gunshot wound this year, two others are wounded. The lives of many others are changed by these deaths and injuries. Gun violence touches every segment of society because of the flagrant availability of guns.

The Vietnam War in twenty years killed 58,000 American soldiers, and yet that same number is less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the United States in an average two year period.

In the first seven years of the US-Iraq War over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Yet the same number of civilians are killed by gun violence in America every seven weeks.

Gun violence accounts for deaths by homicide (murders), assaults with deadly weapons, suicide, and unintentional deaths and injuries. In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries killed 606 people in the United States, and guns killed over 14,000 people in 2011. Suicides using guns among teenagers and the elderly are higher in the United States than anywhere else in the world.

Of unintentional shootings, eight percent were done by children under the age of six, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

America Leads the World in Gun Violence

Indisputable evidence indicates repeatedly that the United States has the highest rate of gun-related injuries in the world.

Contrary to popular belief, studies have found that safe-storage laws do not affect gun violence rates (W) of suicides and juvenile accidental deaths.

The cost of gun violence is estimated at USD$100 billion annually for emergency medical care and associated psychological trauma.

Time to Be Civilized

Why not have much stricter gun control? The time to take action is now. America has a disastrous gun control policy. It's wrong to make guns as easily available to households as they are now. They don't work efficiently for personal defense, and should be governed by stricter policies.

 It's time to ban assault rifles at the very least, and get rid of handguns. The militia has enough weaponry to keep people safe inside and outside the country. If guns are purchased, after all, they'll likely be used. Otherwise, why go to the expense?

Ethically, there isn't any American justification or excuse to forgive any kind of killer, mass killers, and serial murderers. Our consciences tell us all that today's news was unnecessary. Mental health or illness should not serve as an excuse to explain and forgive murders of innocents.

Mass killers are among the most obvious examples of the mentally ill in society, and they shouldn't have access to guns.  The mentally ill, if delusional about dangers, are surely more likely to purchase guns than the general population rather than less given the opportunity. We're all going to die eventually, so why hasten the inevitable and encourage gun violence by making guns and rifles so readily available?

Make America a safer and more secure place for everyone to live and work. Time to be more civilized and outlaw guns, concealed weapons, handguns, and assault rifles.

This kind of crime is certain to occur again. The killer's dead, and only 25% of Americans favor gun control. Americans won't show they care if stricter legislation isn't passed.

Lose the guns, guys and gals. You will live a longer, gentler, safer, kinder life and feel less anger and profanity. That's my experience, and my promise.

Should the Press Be Given Freedom?

The Old Power of The Traditional Media

Having a discussion with friends on American Thanksgiving last week about freedom of the press, we agreed that newspapers and television news programs in the past had too much power. Journalists gathered together news from various sources and synthesized the various pieces into a coherent whole.The traditional media gave the public measured news stories, one at a time.

 We had to be content with whatever was considered organized at a level worthy of being thrown our way. We had to take what we were given and didn't have any choice, however disorganized and unbelievable the results appeared. The press was powerful enough to be able to shape the news any way it chose and did not have the accountability and public voice of disagreement that we have now, except in those exalted "Letters to the Editor." Amazingly, some people who believe they can influence the public still write those letters. Yet now, even the most exalted traditional journalists are subjected and exposed to the often humiliating language, bad grammar, and ill-will of their online comment sections.

With the chaos of the proliferation of online news aggregators, twitter-sphere and blogs, those aging traditional outlets aren't the single source of news they used to be. And more importantly, and progressively, they haven't the power they once had to make their single point of view the only one available.

If someone makes a statement that is incorrect, thousands of voices can be heard trying to correct and sway public opinion. Twitter and blogs help form new public opinions beyond the influence of the traditional media and current governments.

The Daily Mail Online

Tina Brown mentioned in an interview with Slate that she reads Daily Mail Online.  I have admired and followed her career from years way back in the seventies as editor of Tatler magazine to recently as founder of The Daily Beast. So I have to admit to surprise that she reads it.

The Daily Mail was, maybe still is, considered a tabloid newspaper by many in the United Kingdom but she said it has something for everyone. So bravely I began to read it online, not having been a tabloid reader ever before in my life, I can honestly admit, even when I lived in England. Tabloids are famous for saying what the public wishes to hear however crass. We have to wonder whether they make up salient details in some of their stories. And I expected to be disappointed with the quality and believability of articles. 

Instead, I have to admit the Daily Mail Online is a very content-rich site, and one of my favorite new finds despite my lingering doubts on content, as I do with many sites, by the way. Read it and it will probably swiftly become one your favorite bookmarked sites too.

Today, for example, the venerable American news source The Wall Street Journal mentioned that Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), had not settled any official amount with the maid who accused him of a horrible act in New York City. But the Daily Mail Online, in their article, said the two had settled for an amount in the region of 3 million dollars (And it's not necessarily accurate). 

How to explain the disparity? Now perhaps the Wall Street Journal gave out only one version of their story and did not update it. If the Wall Street Journal doesn't update the story tomorrow or Monday to match that of the Daily Mail Online, what's the truth? And where did the Daily Mail Online get its' number?

It's true that having part of a story can be confusing, but it's not evil on the reader's part to have only one section of a story and want to hear the whole truth. The Wall Street Journal is doing nothing wrong by not updating. At the same time, it's not telling the whole truth. So it's either withholding the truth or else it hasn't verified the truth and doesn't know the whole story. Perhaps the number in the settlement is incorrect, and we don't know whether the number has been verified, if the Daily Mail Online takes the trouble to check facts and verify as strictly as the Wall Street Journal. Many of us doubt it, and yet we take the story in the Daily Mail Online:

1) at face value, as the truth

2) we're the opposite, skeptical. We don't believe it and take it with flakes of salt, or

3) we withhold judgment until the truth comes out

Freedom of the Press

In answer to whether the press needs freedom? Absolutely yes, it must be permitted and encouraged. Having freedom of choice is another basic freedom of human life, if we're good and lucky and we happen to live in a country that supports freedom of choice as a matter of policy and public opinion. And whether the truth is ultimately won or not, the point is that voices of the press should have freedom of expression. 

For me, the shock of hearing the Presidential candidate(s) in the debates of 2012 speak without regard for the truth was a tipping point.  It is said that one powerful candidate actually lied about thirty times in the first forty-minute debate! They made many points sufficiently far off the mark and unverifiable that any journalist would have been completely unable to speak up and stop them at every inconsistency or outright lie. It would have been impossible for anyone to stem the barrage of falsehoods the candidates tossed around so casually and unremorsefully. I, for one, had less rather than more respect when I heard these untruths.

Freedom to intrude, however, by anyone including journalists is not news, not admirable, and difficult for editors to stop. Details in news stories, especially salacious ones, reel in readers. We have to wonder how the Daily Mail Online got its number in the DSK settlement.

The source of the news doesn't really matter to most of us. The truth matters, but not how the truth was discovered. Laws govern us based on the truth, and many courts revolve around details, what they were and how they were found. Details in the news are all part of the chaos of daily life out there.  But the truth does matter, we all prefer that. We need truth to evolve with progressive attitudes and laws. And it takes all sorts of freedom to discover the truth: freedom of choice; freedom of expression; and freedom to ask questions and do whatever is necessary to find the answers.

Life is messy and reading these news aggregator sites, our modern online newspapers, can make it even more so.

How Electronics Have Challenged Our Human Values

Sherry Turkle, Head of a Psychology Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.) has written three authoritative books about the current intersection of the internet with private life.

In a recent radio interview,* the most disturbing conclusions she described were that:

1) We're losing our sense of how to converse and have uninterrupted conversations even in formal settings such as classrooms.

2) People sleep with their cell phones, of course, while recharging them. And adults are more likely to admit using them at night as alarm clocks.

3) Kids feel shut out from parents whenever they use social media and electronics....Adults often shut each other out, too.

It's not just kids who feel neglect in the presence of electronics. We can't fault inanimate objects, but we can limit their use. Ironically, communication is exactly what they were originally created to improve.

It's true. Yesterday in a small shop, for example, the proprietor gave her cell phone caller a lot more attention than she gave me. I walked out without buying as much as I might have if she'd answered my questions.

4) We feel very lost and panicked in America when we don't have working cell phones with us at all times. And for good reason.

Public phones have completely disappeared off the American landscape. Why aren't there more public phones?

Here's a quick story to illustrate the usefulness of public phones. My daughter's cellphone recently stopped working on the opposite coast and it took a couple of weeks for the phone company to fix it. We experienced an uneasy couple of weeks as she traveled to us until the new one was properly activated, and found life surprisingly difficult without one.

Having digital connections such as a cell phone and access to the internet is somehow connected to the three basic human needs of:

1. money (or credit)
2. transportation and 
3. accommodation 

In the digital age, the values of forgiveness, understanding, compassion, and justice should become highly prized and more priceless than ever before.  But in many ways, electronic interactions are now perceived superior to human contact. Conversation is often, in contrast, considered cumbersome and inferior.

Let's think more about that, and discover how humans can truly trump electronics now and forever. Electronics are so new to humanity that we don't understand all their potential for good and evil. As the digital revolution evolves, we need to share the highest human values. We should encourage the human angle, our most priceless virtues, at work and play.

*Today, Terry Gross of National Public Radio interviewed Professor Turkle, and the interview is here.