Gun Violence - ongoing debate

Have we really decided that we can NEVER solve this problem?  Do we not wonder why it continues to occur here but not in countless other countries?
As I have previously said too many times, the incidents like the latest Fort Hood shooting (following the previous Ft Hood incident by a mere 5 years) finds no political will for doing anything important or substantive to address causes and prevention.  The Republican candidate for governor of TX today was interviewed on the topic and, of course, saw absolutely no need for "mental background checks" for those seeking to purchase semi-automatic handguns at TX gun dealer stores.  He would apparently rather accept the inevitability of a continuation of these incidents than dare to place any impediment in the way of any Texan no matter how impaired from exercising his 2nd amendment rights.  Sad, sad. (April 2014)

(December 2012)  I find oddly amusing the declarations by the spokespersons for the NRA as to what lessons have been learned and what ought to be done next to reduce incidence of gun deaths and shootings. My interpretation and recollection of what they have said is that none of the "blame" for the bad things that happen can be laid at their feet. None are the result of policies and actions taken at the insistence of the NRA. None are due to the requirements they have placed on elected politicians to make the 2nd amendment protections the most important protections, trumping other "rights" such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those whose rights are cut short by gun violence. They don't want to allow consideration of renewing the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. They don't want to consider the need for reducing the capacity of magazines. They don't want to allow discussion of "cop killing" bullets vs. shells appropriate for hunting most game. But these three possibilities are vitally needed and necessary now. No, I don't believe they necessarily would have totally eliminated the possibility of all bad school and public shootings. But they would reduce the annual death toll from such future events. Instead, the NRA says we should arm Barney Fife and place him in every school. Who would pay for this? Local school taxpayers, of course, who likely would not pony up the funds to accomplish this. And the NRA talks about doing something about those who are mentally incapable of handling firearms. This part of their solution, however, is only vaguely addressed. Not much of a helpful approach there, NRA.

Les Miserables

I admit, this screed is born of a desire to focus momentarily on something other than the 20 precious children and 6 adults murdered at Sandy Hook last week. But I’m sure my mind will return to it in due course. Today I question the editing/selection skills of the advertising people who are promoting “Les Miserables”. The full trailer as seen in the movie house as a preview is quite powerful and makes one eager to see the film. The TV commercials, on the other hand, are insipid and fail to command attention or elicit interest. Yet the TV commercials use the same cuts as was used in the full preview. They simply move way too quickly from one snippet to the next scene. And the voice over does nothing to encourage the public to want to watch this movie. Don’t be mistaken, I will be seeing this film probably the first week it is out. (Noon-time “senior” matinees are usually not too crowded.) But were I financially invested in the success of “Les Miz” I would be thinking about changing publicists/editors.

School Shootings -- Gun Violence

Multiple deaths similar to the Aurora movie house massacre are the price we pay as a society to underwrite the Second Amendment “rights” for “lawful gun owners.” I normally abhor redundancy. But this is posted immediately following news reports of the multiple killings in Wisconsin in the Sikh house of worship. I intend to repeat this declaration following every senseless criminal action that is exacerbated by our toothless laws addressing automatic weapons and ease of obtaining ammunition. I last posted this in August, 2012. It obviously bears more attention today as the news reports on the horrific shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut are filling every second of cable news channels today. It is time, it is passed time for those who can no longer stomach this repetitive trend to tell the NRA, our elected politicians and the US Supreme Court that the time has come. THE TIME IS NOW! Without infringing on any law abiding hunter or home protector's "right to bear arms" the time has come to restrict the sale of assault weapons, semi-automatic and automatic handguns & rifles and the ammunition that makes them so terrible. There are many actions that can be taken and should be taken. But first the NRA needs to be rendered less powerful. Congress needs to know that strategic votes won't end their careers. Americans who believe their innocent children do, in fact have an incontrovertible RIGHT to safety in the schoolhouse must communicate this right as surpassing the 2nd amendment "rights". The NRA and gun supporters must admit that the they don't really need current lawlessness to ensure that the federal government won't invade their homes & force unpalatable political decisions on them.

It can’t be just me. I doubt that I’m the only consumer/TV watcher who hates their commercial. They must figure that that which makes their commercial stand out, by grating on my nerves, affects others differently so that it becomes memorable. And all the creator wants is for the sponsoring company to be remembered. I’m talking about the Discover Card commercial where the narrator does a sing-song rhyme for seven or fifteen lines and then on the last line goes off-meter by adding at least one extra syllable. The last line always states, “Five percent cash back”. To me it’s like a fingernail scratching down the old blackboard in school. It’s almost enough to make me cancel my credit card with them.

"Self-Service" Checkout

Not too many years ago the local Walmart and the huge grocery chain in this part of Texas, HEB , both instituted “Self-Checkout” counters where a person could scan all their own products, pay through an ATM type machine, bag the products and leave without direct involvement of and clerks or checkout persons. As of November, 2012, however, both these retailers have abandoned these efforts. We are back to “full-service” checkouts or “Express” aisles where those with less than 10 or 15 or 20 items can go. So, what happened to this great technological leap forward? Were the big box companies just too far ahead of their times? Were the customers too inept to handle the multi-tasks involved? Were the exceptions to the rule too much of a challenge? Or did the customers miss the smiling faces and interesting conversational exchanges with the store employees? I have at times used the Self-Checkout without incident. At other times if the scanner didn’t work or the instructions on the screen for paying got too cumbersome, I’ve experienced the frustrations of an unsatisfied customer. Final analysis, I used the Self-Checkout when the manned lines were too long and the Self-Check kiosks were empty. Given an even choice of letting the store employee handle my transaction or doing it myself, I most often opted for the Full-Service. Maybe it’s telling that the only chains that still cling to Self-Checkout are Home Depot and Lowes. Guess the DIYers are less put off than those buying chicken wings & Twinkies.

Where’s the Outrage? One would think that somewhere in this interminable election season that one of the news networks or cable news outlets would spend the time it takes to produce (and the public to consume) one tiny article or editorial on the “Swing State Phenomenon”. But no one has. Perhaps because there is no chance of it being changed in the short term and apparently little evidence that the parties who could change it show any inclination to do so long term. The impacts of the status quo are obvious and given. The major party candidates campaign only in six or eight states where the competition is extremely close. They virtually ignore (except for money raising efforts) the 40+ states that are thought to be safely in one party’s column. The parity that those 40+ states produce is interesting. Two of the three largest states historically favor the Democratic Party & its candidates. When California with its 55 votes and New York with 29 votes are combined they represent over 31% of the total number of votes needed for a candidate to reach the 270 total for election by the Electoral College. This is balanced, of course, by Texas’ 38 votes that have recently been safely Republican. Several dozen small (votewise) states join Texas in being solidly “Red”. This all makes the contest come down to the more competitive, closer races in the “swing” states of Florida and Ohio plus five to seven other states that Obama and Romney both think they could win if everything falls right for them by election day. Most news readers and pundits and most of the country believe that the way it is must be “Constitutionally mandated”. And parts of it are. The Electoral College formally electing the president is, indeed, constitutional. What is not required, however, is that states cast all their Electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote in that state, even if that winning total is only a mere plurality. (Those years where the Green Party or Libertarians or other third parties garner a few votes, some states end up being “won” by a major party candidate who falls short of a majority total.) But the “unit rule” that is employed by 48 states is not required by the constitution. States could decide to cast their Electoral votes proportionally, reflecting a closer approximation to the popular vote their state produced. In a “proportional” world rather than one controlled by the unit rule, California in 2008 might have awarded 40 votes to Obama and 15 to McCain. Conversely, instead of winning all 34 Texas Electoral votes, McCain might have earned 20 to Obama’s 14. When tallied individually by states, the result would still have been an Obama win, but not, perhaps, the “landslide” it appeared to be. Were the “unit rule” to be mothballed one result would be a nationwide presidential election campaign instead of one limited to the swing states. As a voter who has not lived in a swing state perhaps ever, I for one would love to see the candidates attending rallies and campaign events in my state. I would drive two or three hours to see a candidate in person at a stadium rally. But alas, the only candidate I’ve ever seen live was Hubert Humphrey in 1968. (Oh, I did see Obama live in Feb. 2008 prior to his losing the TX primary to Hillary Clinton.) But this year, since the 2012 nominating conventions I don’t believe voters in any of the nation’s eight or ten largest cities have seen either candidate live and in person. Their VP mates or surrogates may have campaigned at fund raising events, but no presidential candidates. Why? No real need. But if a candidate stood to win as many Electoral Votes in a losing effort in Texas as he can in Iowa or Colorado, he well might reallocate his resources more evenly across the country. I understand why states and the major parties prefer the “winner take all” effect of the status quo. A true nationwide campaign would become infinitely more challenging. But it would be infinitely more democratic and fair. And I assume this one change would produce a huge jump in voter turnout nationwide. Of course, this is one reason Republicans likely will never give it a reasonable chance. By the way, were you aware that Maine and Nebraska do not use the unit rule. They allocate Electoral College votes by House Congressional Districts (with the popular vote winner statewide also getting the two votes representing the Senators in their state). Nebraska has used this for only one presidential election, and Maine several more. It has resulted in Maine still allocating all its Electoral votes to the popular vote winner. In 2008 Nebraska cast one vote for Obama and the rest for McCain. Maybe in 2016 I’ll attend a presidential candidate rally. Bet I’ll need to plan to visit a distant cousin in Ohio, though.

Big Bird

I am disappointed, though not surprised at the amount of media attention and Twitter activity devoted to Romney’s declaration that he would eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting since we essentially borrow that money from China. What annoys me is that Romney could and did get away with making so much political hay out of such a straw man. The CPB “subsidy” isn’t big enough to be called a drop in the bucket. It’s more like a drop in a swimming pool.