tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11095334022117455642023-06-20T08:18:36.051-05:00Common CourierLee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.comBlogger149125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-71275945695498838472013-06-25T12:18:00.000-05:002013-06-25T12:18:18.914-05:00A Nation DividedMonday night, several thousand mostly white Chicagoans celebrated the victory of a mostly white hockey team which has not one native Chicagoan on it. Our home team, consisting largely of Canadian millionaires, leads a league in what is sometimes referred to as the most segregated professional sport. <p>
Many of the fans poured out of bars in various stages of drunkenness. Some threw bottles at police. Some broke store windows. Some tried to destroy a public sculpture. At least one woman took off her clothes for the entertainment of the crowd. Numerous arrests were made.<p>
On the preceding Friday night, about a thousand Chicagoans, mostly African-American, took to the streets to march in protest of the gun violence that has once again made our city internationally famous, just like it was in the days of Al Capone. This crowd was peaceful, orderly, and generally somber. Nothing was destroyed. No arrests were made. <p>
There is nothing wrong with frivolity or sport. There is something wrong with the divisions between people that allow violence to be the concern of only one racial group. Why weren't the hockey fans in the streets protesting gun violence a few nights earlier? Certainly the violence is more emblematic of Chicago than any game played on artificially frozen ice. Certainly the gun violence will affect people's lives more deeply than a five-minute penalty.<p>
The answer is simply that one group is white and the other is not, and to an alarming and disgraceful extent, white people don't care very much whether black people get killed.<p>
On the Saturday between the two street demonstrations, I spoke with a member of the Illinois State Rifle Association at that group's annual open house at their shooting range in downstate Illinois. A retired white Chicago cop, he said there was a much larger open-air shooting range not far away, – the south side of Chicago. He laughed as he called the residents of that area “free targets.” <p>
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, making it more difficult for the government to assure that minorities in our country will be represented in our government. <p>
Shortly, we will find out whether George Zimmerman is judged guilty of shooting Trayvon Martin. A lot of people on both sides of the great divide already know what they want the verdict to be.<p>
Our country is suffering in many ways. The mayor of Chicago has responded by shutting schools in poor, largely minority neighborhoods and pledging money to build a new sports arena for relatively affluent college students. The reactions to the mayor's announcements were as divided as the reactions to the shootings and the hockey victory. Some people care. Too many don't. <p>
Abraham Lincoln, referencing the Christian Bible, said that a nation divided against itself could not survive. It appears he was wrong. We have been divided for a long time, and the nation endures. So does the alienation, resentment, and suffering. Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-75315738294628077432013-03-27T12:58:00.000-05:002013-03-27T12:58:21.894-05:00Lisa, Don't Take a DiveWhen boxers, jockeys, or other athletes let themselves be beaten, they are labeled as crooked. What should we call a lawyer who gives up on a case she could win?<p>
Lisa Madigan is the Attorney General of Illinois. Her job, according to her website, is to represent “the People.” Lisa claims to fulfill the obligation that the law places on her to look beyond representing the “parochial interests of State agencies and governmental units to what is the greater good and the more significant interest.”<p>
Why, then, isn't she trying to uphold the Illinois law that bans carrying concealed weapons?<p>
One popular theory is that she doesn't want to alienate downstate voters by taking a strong anti-gun stance, because it might jeopardize her chances of being elected governor if she decides to run. She isn't likely to be doing that, because if she did she would be placing her own political ambitions above the interests of her clients, which might well be seen as a violation of the code of ethics that governs her and all other attorneys. It would also be a pretty risky political strategy, because she would alienate the majority of voters, who don't want people carrying concealed weapons. Maybe she figures that people will vote for her even if she betrays the cause of gun violence prevention.<p>
Another theory is that Lisa is avoiding taking a stand on gun violence simply because she avoids taking stands on all controversial issues. Her website boasts of her efforts to protect senior citizens from being taken advantage of, women and children from being abused, the environment from being degraded, and her work on other issues with which hardly anyone would argue. It doesn't look like she sticks her neck out often. For example, with all the political corruption in Illinois, why is it that the U.S. Attorney has such a long list of successes in prosecuting politicians and she doesn't seem to have a list at all?<p>
Some people theorize that Lisa hasn't appealed the case that threw out Illinois' gun law because she is afraid of losing the case in the Supreme Court. But she has already lost the case in the federal court. If she loses the appeal, we are in the same position we are in now. There isn't anything left to lose. On the other hand, if she appeals, she can turn her loss into a win. It shouldn't be too hard a case to win, either. The federal court decision that she would be appealing is contrary to every other federal court decision on the topic of concealed carry. Since the day that the Illinois decision was announced by the 7th Circuit of the federal court, two other federal courts have taken notice of the Illinois decision and have ignored it. It's pretty clear that the Illinois decision is regarded by other federal courts as wrong, and that the Supreme Court would reverse it. <p>
Lisa hasn't said why she isn't appealing. She won't even admit that she isn't appealing. She's pretending that she is just waiting for the legislature to act. But if the legislature acts, she won't be able to appeal. Lisa is bobbing and weaving, but she isn't throwing any punches. She's just pretending to be fighting for the People. It's not a very convincing performance.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-391814924949195022013-03-09T21:42:00.000-06:002013-03-09T21:42:31.035-06:00To My Gun Nut FriendsSo many people were upset when Attorney General Holder suggested that it is OK to kill American citizens on American soil that he backed away from that position. But not so many people are upset that our government kills other people in their countries every day. <p>
Lots of people are objecting to the idea that our government may be using drone aircraft to spy on American citizens on American soil. But there isn't a lot of opposition to our government using drones to spy on other people in their countries, and even to kill them, their families, and innocent bystanders. <p>
Lots of people aren't bothered that we are still imprisoning people from other countries for years without charging them with crimes. We're still sending them off to be interrogated (tortured), too. <p>
Lots of gun lovers talk about how they want to keep their weapons so that they can fight off our government if it becomes tyrannical. I haven't heard one of them complain about the tyranny our government exercises all over the world. <p>
Our government has been acting badly for a very long time. We tyrannize and terrorize large parts of the world. The gun lovers obviously aren't concerned about tyranny or justice, or they would have already started shooting. They are just concerned about themselves. <p>
I'm quite concerned about how our government is acting, but my focus is not so narrow that I am only worried that my government will abuse my rights. I know that might happen. What bothers me is that it happens to other people every day, all across this country. People get rousted by local police departments for no good reason, and for lots of bad reasons, like racism. People get prosecuted and jailed for crimes they didn't commit. <p>
There is so much wrong with the way our government works that sometimes it takes a real effort to remember that it does some things right. The corruption is outrageous. The abuse of power and privilege is deplorable. The inequality is disgraceful.<p>
But I have chosen to respond to injustice using peaceful methods, not only because they will ultimately succeed, but more importantly because the other path would destroy me more quickly and certainly than any tyrannical government could. To put one's faith in guns is to turn oneself into an instrument of fear, intimidation, death, and destruction. That's not who I want to be. <p>
And so, please give some thought, as you scream at me in meetings and send me angry emails and Facebook posts, to the fact that I am not the fool or coward that you like to think I am. I have just made a choice to be concerned not just with my own welfare, but also with how others are treated, and to approach the world with love and compassion, rather than with suspicion and hate. I disagree with you, but I do not despise you. I wish you no harm. And I wish you would not be so eager to harm others.<p>
The world is not as dangerous a place as you seem to think. I am not afraid. You don't have to be either. I am not a danger to anyone. You don't have to be either. You can put away your guns and embrace your fellow human beings. They aren't really all out to get you. Most of them don't even know you exist, and don't care. You are creating your own prison of anxiety. You can free yourselves. Being alive doesn't really amount to much if you spend all your time worrying about dying and thinking about killing.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-61141108980227092602013-02-13T22:26:00.000-06:002013-02-13T22:26:20.713-06:00What if the crazies are right?I have read many hundreds of comments that the pro-gun folks are posting online. I have listened to them speak in public and talked with them in private. I have read the emails they have been sending to me. I am starting to wonder, what if they are right? <p>
What if more people having more guns really would lead to less crime? What if everyone was so prepared to unleash lethal violence that would-be criminals would be intimidated into not committing crimes? Would this be a country that anyone would want to live in, or would people flee the oppressive threat of violence and live as refugees in other countries?<p>
What if our government really is poised to send jack-booted stormtroopers to grab the guns away from patriots and replace democracy with a totalitarian communist fascist socialism, whatever that is? What if the Jews really do run the world through secret international banking cabals? What if our president really is getting ready to execute a secret plan and turn our country over the the United Nations?<p>
What if the crazies are right, and the rest of us are deluded dupes being led to the slaughter like sheep? What if it really is pointless to enact laws because bad guys don't always obey them? What if we all had the obligation and the God-given, inalienable right to defend ourselves with no limits on the amount of deadly force we could use, regardless of how many innocent bystanders we maim and kill?<p>
What if all the thousands of newspaper reporters and columnists, and the TV and radio reporters and commentators are really conspiring to hide the truth from us? What if no children were shot at Sandy Hook, Obama wasn't born in the U.S., the federal income tax is unconstitutional, and each state is free to do whatever it wants because this is a Republic? What if the Constitution can't be interpreted in the context of modern experience but must be read according to some right-wing zealot's view of what it meant at a time when Africans were slaves, Native peoples were considered less than human, and women were property in America?<p>
What if everyone who disagrees with the loonies is a traitor to our country who should be beaten senseless? What if the John Birch Society is right and fluoridated water really is weakening our minds and vaccinations against childhood diseases really are destroying our bodies? What if psychiatric drugs are to blame for all the school shootings? What if AIDs was invented by the government, gays really are polluting the gene pool, Mexicans really have taken all the good vegetable harvesting jobs, affirmative action is making our country effeminate, and aliens from outer space are among us? And what about the zombies?<p>
What if evolution is an unproven notion that threatens the existence of God, climate change is just a theory, and cigarettes don't cause cancer? What if unions destroy jobs and hippies don't take baths? What if every soldier is a hero and it really doesn't matter how many Afghan, Iraqi, and Vietnamese civilians we've killed? What if Iran really is getting ready to launch nuclear warheads they don't have on missiles they don't have? What if Muslims really are trying to destroy everything America stands for, regardless of what it says in the Koran?<p>
Maybe the crazies are right. Or maybe they're just crazy.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-40127532767171441272013-02-01T13:55:00.000-06:002013-02-01T13:55:10.511-06:00Saving the Second AmendmentGun lovers don't seem to understand that their own actions are endangering their beloved Second Amendment. People in this country were horrified by the slaughter of innocent schoolchildren at Sandy Hook. People are growing weary of the daily news of drive-by shootings, shooting suicides, rage shootings, crime shootings, and accidental shootings. After decades of complacency about gun violence, people want change.<p>
People are asking their representatives in government to enact new laws to reduce the level of gun violence. Most people will be satisfied if rather modest changes are made, such as banning assault rifles and requiring background checks of everyone who buys guns, including people who buy them at gun shows. If the NRA would simply accede to these changes and let them become law, the public's furor for any additional new legislation would dissipate.<p>
But the NRA has been resisting all change, just as it has for years. They insist that the Second Amendment gives them the right to have whatever weapons they want, free of government interference. If they succeed in blocking even the modest laws that are now under consideration, the majority of Americans will feel their will has been frustrated. It is very likely that they will start talking seriously about repealing the Second Amendment. People who want to protect their children from guns will feel that they have no choice other than to eliminate the one thing that the NRA gives as the reason why change can't occur.<p>
With only 25 percent of Americans owning guns, it probably won't be all that hard to get rid of the Second Amendment. The Constitution only requires 75 percent of the states to ratify an amendment. There have been quite a few amendments over the years. <p>
Repealing the Second Amendment will not ban guns. It will simply put gun laws on the same footing as other laws. States and municipalities will be able to decide whether they want guns around or not, and on what terms. Since most people don't own guns and don't have much interest in guns, a lot of places will probably put rather severe restrictions on gun ownership and use. We will start to see our death rates from guns decline to be more comparable to the rest of the world, which does not have the guns or the gun problems that we do. These successes will be noticed, and states will follow each others' examples and enact progressively stricter laws.<p>
The Second Amendment protects the rights of the minority of Americans who own guns. That minority has been shrinking steadily for decades as our population has shifted from rural to urban. City folk and suburbanites just don't hunt much. They don't grow up with guns, so they don't have any emotional attachment to them. They don't think they need guns to protect themselves. Guns are simply irrelevant to an ever growing majority of Americans. If they get fed up enough with gun violence and an intransigent NRA, they'll dump the Second Amendment without regret. Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-78320821553193224932013-01-29T20:24:00.000-06:002013-01-29T20:24:14.292-06:00Building a Safer WorldBuilding codes all across the country prohibit people from doing things on their properties that endanger people on nearby properties. For example, you can't run a golf driving range unless you put up a net to keep balls from going through neighbors' windows. If you drain your swimming pool, you can't let the water flood your neighbor's house. If you have a vicious dog, you have to fence your yard or restrain the animal. You can't let it attack people as they walk by on the sidewalk. You can't play music so loudly that it disturbs neighbors, and you can't shine searchlights into your next door neighbors' windows. <p>
You also can't operate an outdoor shooting range unless you bank up the earth so that bullets that miss their targets don't hit people who live in houses located behind the range. If you run an indoor range, it must be constructed so that bullets don't fly through the walls into neighboring houses. These laws are all constitutional and generally accepted. <p>
Why, then, not require people who have guns in their houses to make sure their bullets don't hit their neighbors?<p>
It would be reasonable to require gun owners to bank up the earth or erect walls around their properties to contain errant bullets. That way, people would be able to keep guns at home to protect themselves but would not create an unreasonable danger to the families in their neighborhood. <p>
There would be some expense involved in erecting safety barriers, but lots of laws impose financial burdens on people who want to use their properties in ways that present hazards. In many places, if you have a swimming pool, you have to erect a fence around it to keep neighborhood kids from drowning. If a pool owner has to pay to minimize the risk that a kid will drown, surely a gun owner should have to pay to minimize the risk that a kid will be shot.<p>
It only makes sense that the people who create a risk of injury or death to the public by keeping guns should bear the cost of minimizing the risk. That's what the law says about driving automobiles. We don't expect motorists to intentionally crash their cars and injure their passengers, other motorists, and pedestrians, but we know that accidents can happen. We let people drive cars even though there is an inherent risk, but the law mandates safety features on cars to minimize the likelihood that accidents will happen and to minimize the consequences of those accidents. The cost of those safety features is included in the cost of the cars. The cost of preventing the accidental shooting of one's neighbor should similarly be paid by the people who want to have guns.<p>
Some people might not want their properties to be walled in. They could be given the option of installing bullet-proof windows that could not be opened, provided that they understood that they could not take their guns out of their houses into their yards. Of course, their houses would have to be built of brick, stone, or some other material that would be impenetrable by bullets, because some of today's ammunition is capable of shooting right through aluminum siding and drywall. There have already been plenty of incidents where people were shot by bullets that came through their walls from outside their houses.<p>
Requiring people to erect safety barriers on their property might seem like a drastic measure, but similar requirements have been imposed by law on commercial properties for years. Companies that handle flammable materials, for example, are required to construct their buildings to minimize the risk that an accidental explosion will endanger their neighbors. Nuclear power plants have to enclose their reactors in massive containment buildings for the same reason. <p>
We live in a world of rights and corresponding responsibilities. The gun lobby has been telling us that people should have the right to keep guns in their homes so that they can take personal responsibility for the safety of their families. If they really believe in personal responsibility, they shouldn't have any objection to erecting barriers on their properties to assure that their activities don't endanger their neighbors. That would be real responsible gun ownership. Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-60472937373150094072013-01-24T18:26:00.000-06:002013-01-24T18:26:44.042-06:00Who Owns the Constitution?Linguists, historians, first year law students, and Supreme Court justices all agree that there are many ways to determine the meaning of an old document such as the U.S. Constitution. You could try to give the words their “plain meaning”, using a dictionary to supplement generally understood terms. But people don't agree on what is generally understood, and the definitions in dictionaries change over time just as the usages of words change.<p>
You could consult dictionaries published at the time the document was written. But dictionaries contain alternate meanings for words, and some dictionaries have meanings that are inconsistent with other dictionaries. How would you know which dictionary to choose and which meaning the authors intended?<p>
You could read other things the authors of the Constitution wrote to try to discern what they meant. But the Constitution was written by a number of people who disagreed on many things, especially on what the Constitution should say and mean.<p>
You could look at how others have interpreted the document. But over the hundreds of years the Constitution has been around, judges and other people have interpreted it lots of contradictory ways.<p>
You could give up on interpreting the Constitution altogether and let some expert tell you what it means. This is a very popular approach, especially with judges who claim to base their decisions on a strict construction of the constitution. The problem is, who do we let decide? Often, judges rely upon people with recognized expertise, like university professors who have researched the Constitution and its history. But the experts often don't agree with each other, and they are as susceptible to error and bias as anyone else. You can find an expert who supports pretty much every possible theory of what the Founding Fathers meant.<p>
People who don't agree with a particular interpretation of the Constitution may point out that times have changed and that the Constitution, which was written before modern technology reshaped our lives, must be made relevant to today's world or it will cease to be useful in guiding our government and our people. On the other hand, people who agree with an interpretation of the Constitution may argue that while technology may have changed, fundamental principles do not. The same people who rely on either of these arguments may use the other argument when it suits them. We see this when people who decry judicial activism in protest of a decision they dislike applaud the same kind of activism when it results in a decision that is to their liking.<p>
Ultimately, it is not only impossible to know what the Constitution was originally supposed to mean, it is irrelevant. What we need to keep in mind is what the Constitution was supposed to do. It was written to be the framework for a nation that would be governed differently from the way many other nations at the time were governed. It was meant to establish a relationship between the government apparatus and the people.<p>
It was not meant to be the law. Instead, it provided a mechanism for making, interpreting, implementing, and enforcing laws. It was not meant to be immutable, so it set out a procedure by which it could be amended. And it was not meant to be the property only of scholars, historians, linguists, judges, or experts. It belongs to all of us, so ultimately we, the people, acting as a nation and not just as individuals, say what it means and what we need it to mean.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-27615390008800990232013-01-22T10:07:00.000-06:002013-01-22T10:07:18.177-06:00Overthrowing the GovernmentThe reasons people give for owning guns have changed over time. It has been a long time since most people would say they needed guns to keep their African slaves from rebelling or fleeing, and it has been quite a while since people said they needed to be able to defend themselves from native American savages. At a forum a couple of days ago in a suburb of Chicago, one guy shouted out that he needs his guns to protect himself from people who live on the south side of Chicago. I wonder who he had in mind? <p>
Not many people around where I live, or where most people live in the US live, still say they need to be able to hunt so that they will have food to eat. Not many say they need guns so they can kill themselves, even though that's what a lot of gun owners do with their guns. Most suicides in the US are committed with guns, and most gun deaths are suicides.<p>
It used to be that only those on the really weird fringes said they needed guns so that they could fight against their own government if it ever became tyrannical. Not a lot of rational people think their handguns or even their assault rifles would make them much of a match if they were up against their local police department or sheriff's office, let alone the entire US government. But remarkably, that was the overwhelming view of about 200 people who showed up at the recent suburban public forum.<p>
The Illinois State Rifle Association had asked their people – who love their guns more than they care about other people's lives – to go to the forum. They showed up and, on a pre-arranged signal, interrupted the moderator's introductions by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. There's nothing wrong with pledging allegiance, but this demonstration was designed to take control of the meeting and display their power. You may have seen something like it in movies like <i>Cabaret</i> and <i>The Sound of Music</i>, which chronicle how Nazis would intimidate patrons of beer halls and other public events by singing, saluting, scowling, taking names, and following up with beatings. <p>
The pro-gunners seemed to think that they were displaying patriotism, and every so often during the forum one of them would accuse people who were promoting reasonable solutions to the problem of gun violence as being un-American. <p>
So it was shocking when one man stood up, wearing what appeared to be military patches on his jacket, announced that he had served in our military, and then went on to say that the reason he needed to be allowed to own assault weapons was so that he could take over the government by force if he decided it was tyrannical. What was more surprising was that the entire roomful of gun lovers stood and erupted in cheers for the idea of armed resistance to the very government that they claimed to love so dearly.<p>
When most people think of modern armed insurrectionists they probably think of kooks living in a cult compound somewhere in the hills out west. But there they were, right in the middle of a prosperous Midwestern suburb, in a meeting that was being held in the public assembly room of the local police station.<p>
The contradiction between claiming to support the government and being eager and ready to overthrow it didn't seem to occur to these people. It made sense to them to cheer a returned soldier just for being a soldier, and in the next breath cheer the idea of killing our own soldiers and federal agents if they were carrying out their duties and their oaths to protect and preserve our country.<p>
One might expect, knowing as we do that various agencies of government in the US routinely spy on people in our country who might be considered threats, that people would be reticent to openly show support for such radical viewpoints. But the gun lovers in the room enthusiastically declared their support for the idea of armed revolution. <p>
At the end of the program a handful of pro-gun folks came up to me, apologized for the rude behavior of the crowd, shook my hand, and said they hoped we could find “common ground.” Maybe we could, if those few represented the majority of gun owners. But they were vastly outnumbered at the meeting, and I'm having trouble thinking of where I might find common ground with people who advocate the violent overthrow of our government and takeover of our country.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com36tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-28255462216741027452013-01-21T13:22:00.000-06:002013-01-21T13:22:30.089-06:00InaugurationYesterday the NRA and Illinois State Rifle Association rallied more than 200 of their supporters to jeer, boo, and heckle the speakers and disrupt a panel discussion that was titled, “Guns and Public Safety: Where We Stand After Sandy Hook.” Today I heard the President of the United States recite lofty praise for the noble character of the American people. It is hard to reconcile yesterday with today.<p>
Perhaps the President believes that by appealing to people's better natures he will move them towards showing respect for one another. Little respect was shown yesterday, not even for a man as he was telling about his son being gunned down at work. The crowd kept shouting as the slain boy's photo was shown on the screen. As another of the speakers talked about feeling compassion for the family members whose loved ones have been shot, the crowd continued to shout insults. I doubt the angry gun owners who were at yesterday's public forum will be moved by the President's speech. I doubt they will listen to it without screaming at their televisions. Actually, I doubt they bothered to listen.<p>
It is hard to tell how small a portion of our populace seethes with the fear, anger, and hatred that we saw in the audience yesterday. They want us to think that they are the majority. I doubt it. We would have already come apart as a country if most of us were that crazed.<p>
The influence that these people have is not to be denied. It should be denounced. The President, in talking as if they weren't among us was probably trying to deliver a speech that would be looked upon by history as noble and visionary. That's what most presidents aim for. Maybe painting a picture of America as it can be is all that they can do. I hope our president doesn't forget that the image he created is not accurate.<p>
The NRA and its supporters do not embrace dissent. They do not tolerate divergent opinions. Their mode of discussion is imbued with the same violence that their weapons promise. Yesterday, they wouldn't even agree that babies shouldn't be slaughtered. These people, who think that their guns are more important than other people's lives, do not seek common ground or reasonable solutions. They see public discourse as something to be disrupted. After yesterday's meeting, the NRA congratulated its members for doing a good job of sabotaging the public forum.<p>
I do not think that our President is unmindful of what is happening in the country. He had to deal with the haters and obstructionists throughout his first term. Had he been at yesterday's forum, he wouldn't have been surprised by what went on. I don't criticize him for pronouncing a vision instead of reporting on reality. I am just disappointed that he was not able to find a way to confront the destructive attitudes that are frustrating his efforts to lead us forward.<p>
It's wonderful that our president can still look upon the world and talk about marching towards a better tomorrow. But it's about time he turned to the rabble and told them to stop throwing rocks. It's time we all did. Then we would see just how puny they are, and their influence would be diminished to be proportionate to their ranks.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-49939899198981014352013-01-16T20:39:00.000-06:002013-01-16T20:39:56.257-06:00Doing As Little As PossiblePresident Obama today asked Congress to expand the federal requirement that says that before people can purchase guns, they must pass background checks. These background checks would make sure that people are not allowed to buy guns if the law says they cannot own guns because of their prior felony convictions or disqualifying mental conditions. Right now, about forty percent of guns are purchased without the background checks, because checks are only required if the guns are purchased from federally licensed gun dealers. No background checks are required if guns are purchased from unlicensed individuals. This is what is called the “gun show loophole.”<p>
Obama also proposed that the background checks be required for purchases of ammunition, not just guns. He also wants to outlaw assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 bullets.<p>
Yesterday, the New York legislature enacted its own package of gun controls, including a ban on new assault weapons, a requirement that all such weapons that are already in New York be registered within a year, and a requirement that anyone who sells ammunition report to the government purchases of large amounts of ammo.<p>
These measures will do some good. But they aren't nearly enough. Although assault weapons have been used in a number of spectacular mass shootings, by far the greatest number of shootings are not committed with assault weapons. Handguns are the weapons used in most shootings. <p>
What is happening in New York and in Washington D.C. right now is that politicians are responding to the shootings that are most embarrassing to them – the mass shootings at theaters and schools. They are paying very little attention to most of the shootings that kill about 80 people each day all around the country, including the suicides which make up more than half of all shooting deaths. <p>
The politicians are not really trying to solve the problem. They are trying to look like they are solving the problem. If they wanted to solve the problem of gun violence, they would have to look at the causes of gun violence, and mental illness isn't the only cause. Poverty, inferior education, inadequate policing, lack of opportunity, racism, bigotry, isolation, drugs, sexism, historical and cultural attitudes and other factors can all contribute to violence. The politicians don't want to open up those cans of worms. <p>
There have been enough studies that we know what it will take to reduce gun violence. We will have to remedy the causes of violence, and we will have to reduce the availability of guns of all kinds in all places. <p>
All that will be accomplished by the small efforts that politicians are now making to reduce gun violence is that in a few years, the NRA will be able to argue that today's inadequate efforts did not work, and that therefore gun control is a waste of time. Why don't we just do what needs to be done now?Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-33259661474823467462012-12-22T09:43:00.000-06:002012-12-22T09:43:47.113-06:00NRA RespondsThe National Rifle Association finally reacted to the shootings at Sandy Hook elementary school. It said that we should put armed police officers at every school in the nation, because there is no other way to assure that children will be safe. Their proposal will be appealing to some people. Over the past several decades, politicians' response to crime has almost always been to call for more police officers. What the politicians don't talk about much is that when the funding runs out, we always end up cutting the number of police on the streets. Our country simply can't afford to have police everywhere. Nor do the politicians talk about just how little good it does to have more and more police. Usually, deploying more police in an area just means criminal activity moves down the block.<p>
The NRA thinks that if there is trouble we shouldn't have to wait a minute or two for the police to arrive, and that we would be better off if there was an armed policeman not only on every street corner, but in every school. That is, they think we should live in a police state. Not many people agree, and certainly not a lot of NRA members, who are famously anti-government. Nor would it work to have only one police officer at each school. To really protect kids the way the NRA envisions protection, we would need police both inside and outside the schools, in every hallway, and at every possible point of entry. Like a prison. And when school is dismissed, we would need police to escort every child home.<p>
The NRA can't think that their proposal makes sense. But it doesn't have to make sense. It just has to sound good to people who don't want to think about what the real solution to our gun violence problem is. The solution is to have far fewer guns in civilian hands. That solution works everywhere else in the world, and it would work here. We aren't really very different from people everywhere else in the world. We came from everywhere else in the world.<p>
What the NRA really wants is not a reduction in violence. It wants more guns, regardless of what effect the guns have on our society. It is, after all, the trade association for the gun industry. Just as the oil, gas, nuclear, and coal industry lobbies push for more use of their products regardless of the harm they are doing to everyone's health and the environment, the NRA doesn't see its role as protector of the populace. It just wants its corporate members, who manufacture, import, and sell guns and related paraphernalia and services, to make a profit. There is no reason to take them seriously when they talk about gun safety. <p>
But, like the energy lobby, the gun lobby has a loud voice because it has the money to advertise, contribute to political campaigns, and organize. There is a lot of money in selling guns, so it is well funded. There isn't any money in not selling guns, so the opposition to the NRA has hardly any money at all. <p>
Corporate money has invaded not only our electoral politics, it has virtually taken over the public debate on a number of topics, including the issue of guns. Even though the American people, shocked by the recent shootings, want something to be done to reduce the violence, the NRA has the money to continue to shape the debate. Today's NRA press conference was just their opening gambit. They will persevere and seek the kinds of victories that they have won in the past and that have brought us to the point we are at now. The only thing that might make a difference this time and lead us to do something about the violence is the images we have in our heads of all the children lying dead in their classrooms. It would take an awful lot of money for the NRA to erase those images.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-44066666395877281572012-12-09T22:01:00.000-06:002012-12-09T22:01:50.023-06:00Seven-Year-Olds and GunsThree days in a row, seven-year-olds have been in the news because of the guns around them. In one story, a seven-year-old boy shot his five-year-old brother while the brother was in the bathtub. Their mother had left two handguns lying around the house. In another story, a seven-year-old boy shot his eight-year-old sister. The gun he used belonged to his grandfather, with whom the children lived. Their grandfather kept the gun locked in a safe, but the seven-year-old managed to unlock the safe. In the most recent story, a seven-year-old boy was shot to death by his father while they were getting into their car. The father said he didn't realize the gun was loaded. All three shootings were called accidents.<p>
Accidents, maybe. Preventable? Absolutely. If there hadn't been guns in the household, none of these kids would have been shot. For decades, hospitals, schools, television stations, and magazines have been advising new parents to baby-proof their homes by putting poisonous chemicals out of children's reach, covering electrical outlets, putting up gates to guard against falls down stairs, and implementing all sorts of other safety practices. I know. I got the warnings when my kids were little. I took them seriously. So did everyone I know. We got used to not being able to open kitchen cabinets without first releasing child-safety latches. There can hardly be a parent of a seven-year-old in this country who hasn't heard these warnings.<p>
And yet, on three days this past week, seven-year-olds were involved in shootings in our country. Are people with guns really so stupid that they don't think they have to protect their children from this known hazard? Do people with guns think their guns are more important than the lives of their children? <p>
It doesn't seem fair to blame all people who have guns for these tragic shootings. But it is fair to blame the millions of members of the National Rifle Association (NRA), because that group has consistently lobbied to keep the government from doing anything to make children safe from these kinds of accidents.<p>
There is a government agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which has done a great deal to reduce childhood injuries and deaths caused by ingesting poisons, strangling on drapery cords, suffocating under crib bumpers, inhaling small toy parts, and numerous other potential hazards. But because of the NRA's efforts, the CPSC is prohibited by law from doing anything to keep kids from being accidentally shot. <p>
There are lots of things the CPSC could do if it was permitted. It could mandate that guns not go off if they are dropped. Other countries have this regulation. The CPSC could mandate that guns have integral locks which would make it harder for kids to shoot them. The CPSC could impose standards for safes where guns are stored, to make it harder for kids to unlock them. But the CPSC has been totally banned from doing anything with regard to guns.<p>
It is hard to imagine that the NRA and its millions of members are so heartless that they are willing to sacrifice children in the name of gun owners' rights. But for years their strategy has been to oppose any regulations on guns, no matter how reasonable the regulations are and no matter how catastrophic the result has been for the public, including children. <p>
One day, this country will decide that protecting children is important enough that it will risk offending the NRA. Sadly, more five, seven, and eight-year-olds will probably be shot before that happens. Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-17735017467650134772012-12-03T14:59:00.000-06:002012-12-03T14:59:58.575-06:00Church ShootingYesterday, while members of the congregation I attend in Illinois were discussing gun violence, a man walked into a church in Pennsylvania and shot his ex-wife, the church organist, in the head, killing her. <p>
The shooting in Pennsylvania didn't influence my congregation's decision to take a stand against gun violence. It was happening as we talked. No one knew about it. But the possibility of a shooting like the one in Pennsylvania was on people's minds. We have all heard of other shootings in churches, schools, and other places where we would like to think we are safe. <p>
What concerned the people I was among was not just that a shooting might take place in our own congregation, but also that shootings might take place somewhere else. No one even mentioned the possibility that we could protect ourselves by posting guards at the doors. No one talked about any measures we might take to protect ourselves as distinct from protecting everyone else everywhere else. The discussion, which was spirited, never veered from the question of what we should do to make the entire world safer. <p>
How wonderfully different the discussion was from what we have grown accustomed to in our political world, where everything is presented as a choice between us and them. American jobs are extolled over jobs being shipped to China, Mexico, Bangladesh, or India, regardless of which country's people are more needy. American health care resources are being restricted to American citizens and denied to people who live in our country but who have not achieved citizenship, as if non-citizen residents didn't need to be healthy. American security is touted as more important than the security of any other nation. Every city and every state is competing to get companies to hire people within its borders rather than in nearby cities and states. Every locale wants people to shop, dine, and vacation there rather than somewhere else. <p>
I'm not sure why the discussion at my congregation stayed on the level it did, but I am grateful for it. Maybe people are so tired of reading about so many shootings every day that they just want it all to stop. Maybe the teachings of concern for one's fellow humans that are found in my religion and in every other religion I am aware of were actually guiding people's thoughts. <p>
Having just endured an election season where we were constantly told that everyone would be voting their own pocketbooks, it was wonderful to participate in a discussion in which no one argued that self-interest was any different from concern for the general welfare. How delightful to be reminded of the sweetness, when so often we are surrounded by bitters.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-43770336134974565112012-11-25T14:38:00.000-06:002012-11-25T14:38:18.294-06:00TomorrowI have been busy, so I haven't written in a while. Busy preparing for tomorrow, Monday, when the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition, <a href=http://www.StopConcealedCarry.org>www.stopconcealedcarry.org</a> which I helped put together, will hold its first press conference. We will announce our intention to make sure that Illinois, which is now the only state that does not allow people to carry concealed weapons, remains free from this danger. We chose Monday for our event, because on Tuesday the Illinois legislature goes back into session. We want our representatives to know that the NRA is not the only voice they should be listening to. They should also be listening to the people in Illinois, a majority of whom don't want concealed guns in our state.<p>
That's the message. That's the plan. As everyone who has ever done this kind of thing knows, the press may or may not show up and even if they do, the newspapers and broadcast stations they work for may or may not run the story. Despite all the effort that we have put in, we may or may not succeed in getting our message out to the public. Something more urgent may get the attention of the reporters, or their editors may just not be interested in what we have to say. A lot of other people and organizations will be vying for their limited time and space. <p>
As always, I am in awe of the people with whom I have been working on this effort. They are so capable, so energetic, so selfless, so dedicated. When something needs to be done, they know what to do and they do it.<p>
As always, I am anxious. I tell myself that regardless of how much press we get, we have succeeded just by putting together a coalition and energizing people on the issue. We have gathered more than 6,600 signatures on a petition which we have delivered to legislators. We know that some legislators have noticed and have been responding. At the minimum, what we have done has accomplished more than if we had done nothing. <p>
I have read books and attended workshops on how to organize and lobby on issues. I have tried to learn from others with whom I have worked. One of the most important lessons I have learned is that I am not really the best person to be doing this kind of thing. I have far too much self-doubt. I don't like to ask people to do things. I don't have enough patience. I am not good at attending to details. I don't put a high value on bureaucracy, even though I recognize its importance. I really like to just get things done. <p>
The other thing I have learned is that I love doing this sort of thing, even though my stomach gets tied up in knots and I get overcome by worry. I love it even though our side often loses, and when we win the victories are usually modest.<p>
Tomorrow I will stand with people who have worked longer and harder than I have on this issue. Some of them have lost family members to guns. Some of them have counseled survivors. I will be among people whose hearts have been torn and whose faith has been tested. It will be a privilege. <p>
When tomorrow's event ends, someone will turn to me and ask, “What do we do next?” I don't really have a plan, just a goal. I want the shooting to stop. I want people to feel that they don't need to be ready to pull out a gun to defend themselves. I want people to live without fear that the person next to them on the street might be carrying a gun. I want people to trust one another. I want people to feel justifiably confident that their government will protect them as best it can and that they do not have to arm themselves. I want hope and faith to replace doubt and despair.<p>
I know that there are many whose vision is the same as mine, and who can be counted on to do what they can. The holiday is over, but I am still giving thanks. Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-23133883003410864992012-11-07T14:38:00.000-06:002012-11-07T14:38:47.762-06:00Election ObservationsEvery election, people complain that money has too much influence on politics, and then they spend even more on the next election.<p>
Every election, people say the electoral college should be abolished and we should have direct elections, and then no one does anything about it.<p>
Every election, Republican and Democratic candidates claim to be independent of their parties, but they never run as independents.<p>
Every election, voters complain that the filibuster and other Senate procedural rules stifle debate, and then they reelect Senators who continue to follow the same rules.<p>
Every election, people tell the pollsters that they want change, and then they reelect nearly all the incumbents.<p>
Every election, whichever party is in the minority in its state legislature or in the U.S. House of Representatives complains that the Speaker of the House has too much power to suppress legislation that is proposed by members of their minority, and then if they gain a majority, they elect a Speaker to wield as much power as possible to suppress legislation that is proposed by members of the other party, which is now in the minority.<p>
Every election, TV commentators complain that the rules for televised debates are too restrictive, and every year they televise the same types of debates.<p>
Every election, some politician gets caught on tape saying something offensive, and the next election politicians try harder to keep audio and video recorders out of their events and to catch their opponents on tape saying something offensive.<p>
Every election, candidates spend months bragging about themselves, and if they win, they tell us how humble they are.<p>
Every election, candidates promise to run positive and clean campaigns. Then they attack their opponents and complain that their opponents' retaliatory attacks are dirty politics.<p>
Every election, candidates say they want to represent all their constituents but put most of their effort into getting members of targeted ethnic, sex, religious, and other demographic groups to support them.<p>
Every election, in their victory speeches, winning candidates thank the volunteers who tirelessly walked door-to-door and made phone calls for them. These candidates never thank the smaller group of lobbyists, party bosses, and large donors who were essential to their campaigns. Those thank-yous are made off-camera.<p>
Every election, losing candidates promise to continue to work in their communities on the issues that the people who supported them think are important. Do they?<p>
Every election, news commentators spend more time predicting which candidates will win than talking about the issues. Then the commentators complain that the candidates aren't talking about the issues.<p>
Every election, people who know nothing about how government runs say we should elect them because they know how business runs.<p>
Every election, exhausted volunteers swear they will never work on another campaign. Every year, they are the first to get involved.<p>
Every election, people ignore what the candidates are saying, then the day before the election they ask a friend who is involved in politics who they should vote for.<p>
Every election, people who have never worked on a campaign show up at candidates' offices and ask for high-level jobs running the campaigns.<p>
Every election, some candidates pledge to not accept money from special interests. Guess what they do?<p>
Every election, the map of red and blue states looks a lot like a map showing which states were on which side in the Civil War.<p>
Every election, voters who threatened to move to Canada forget to move.<p>
Every election, we are told it is the most important election in our lifetimes.<p>
Every election, nearly as many people don't vote as vote.<p>
Every election, someone writes a list like this one.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-44027853431140010402012-11-03T15:09:00.000-05:002012-11-03T15:09:12.609-05:00Don't Throw Away Your TeethThe 94-year-old woman was frustrated with her new dentures. They irritated her gums, despite repeated visits to the dentist who kept telling her to give it time and she would get used to them. She complained to her friend she wanted to just throw her dentures in the garbage and eat soft foods. He told her, “Don't throw away your teeth.” He said he had the same problem when he got new dentures, but reassured her that he did eventually get used to them.<p>
Throughout our lives we trade advice and encouragement with friends. “Dump him, he's not right for you.” “Don't worry, you'll get a new job that's even better.” “It isn't a big deal, kids grow out of these things.” “I know you miss her after all these years, but time will make things easier.”<p>
Coming from people we know and love, these simple platitudes help us get over the little bumps in the road and through the most profound losses. They are just words, but they make a huge difference.<p>
Sometimes we need more than words, more than a hug, more than a gift basket. That is what Mitt Romney doesn't seem to understand. His gesture of packing canned food to ship to areas hit by hurricane Sandy, and his running mate Paul Ryan's photo op helping at a soup kitchen, were supposed to show their deep concern for people in need. Instead, they were powerful symbols showing how far from reality current Republican attitudes towards social responsibility are.<p>
Damage from the hurricane will run into the billions of dollars. Millions of people need power, water, debris removal, rebuilding, transportation, medical care, and more. The effort will require many thousands of people and many billions of dollars over a period of months, and even with all that, people will suffer losses. The notion that a shipment of canned food or a serving of soup is all that is needed is astounding, and yet that is the essence of the Republican party's call to eliminate what they label as entitlement programs for what Romney called the 47 percent whom he said “are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.” Today, the people who think they are victims and that government has a responsibility to care for them includes nearly 100% of the people in New York and surrounding areas.<p>
Just as ridiculous is the Republican philosophy that people can get by without government assistance because private charity will get the job done. Last year, the American Red Cross spent $283 million helping victims of nearly 70,000 natural disasters in the US, including drought, tornadoes, and floods. The same type of disasters occur every year. There is no way the Red Cross or all other charities put together will be able to help nearly as many victims of hurricane Sandy as the government will help. And yet Romney and his party pretend that miracles will happen and the multitude will be fed with a few loaves.<p>
If we abolish FEMA and eliminate government assistance as Romney suggests, we will be turning natural disasters into human catastrophes. If we continue to deny the influence of man-made climate change, as the Republican platform proposes, we will have more natural disasters with more severe consequences. <p>
There are things we can do as individuals, other things we can do through philanthropic institutions, and still other things we can only do as a nation with the assistance of our government. Right now, the most important thing all of us can do to help the victims of hurricane Sandy and victims of disasters still to come is to not vote for Republicans.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-55585526503185602892012-10-28T20:51:00.000-05:002012-10-28T20:51:51.319-05:00Confessions of an Undecided VoterSometimes it's easy to decide who to vote for. Elaine Nekritz and Julie Morrison have my support. They are both good people with strong credentials and records, I generally agree with their views, and their opponents are both scary. <p>
But like a lot of people, I am having trouble deciding which presidential candidate to vote for. Certainly I won't be voting for Romney. On too many issues, he appears to have no idea what he is talking about, and when he does articulate a clear policy, it is usually one that will hurt more people than it will help.<p>
Although I tend to vote for Democrats, I am having trouble convincing myself to vote for Obama. Too often, he has turned his back on the principles he espoused and the constituencies that supported him when he was first running for office. I can't find any reason to think he will be any more courageous or effective in a second term than he was in his first.<p>
Fortunately, Obama is making it easy for me to not support him by sending strong signals that he doesn't care whether or not I vote for him. He hasn't campaigned in Illinois where I live. He seems to assume, as do many analysts, that he will win this state without making any effort. Like any other candidate, if he doesn't think he needs me, I don't see any reason to argue with him.<p>
There is a Green party candidate, Jill Stein, who may get my vote. I'd be shocked if she won Illinois or any other state, but maybe this is a good time to help third parties get a larger voice in our elections. Some of my Democratic friends will be upset with me if I don't back the entire ticket, but I know that a lot of them haven't been very happy with Obama either, even if they have been making apologies for him.<p>
I can't really think of any reason not to vote Green, but still, I haven't decided for sure. The two-party system is ingrained in me. I recall Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, John Anderson, and George Wallace. Parts of some of their campaigns were good for the country. Parts were irrelevant. Some of their efforts may have helped elect people who we would have been better off not electing.<p>
It would have been nice if the media had given Stein more coverage. She could have changed the dynamic of the debates, which were pretty boring. I don't really know why the media lets the Republicans and Democrats monopolize our political life, but I don't like it. <p>
My most difficult choices will be in races where neither the Republican nor Democratic candidates are attractive but there are no third party alternatives. I don't like to leave a ballot blank, but neither do I like being forced to choose between people who are equally unlikely to move the country in the directions I think it needs to go, and I resent that some Democratic candidates seem to assume that they will get my vote no matter what they stand for and how offensive their campaigning is.<p>
I have heard partisans disparage people who don't make up their minds until they get into the voting booths, implying that indecision is a result of not being informed or of not having strong opinions. In my case they are wrong. I'm pretty well informed politically, and my opinions are well developed. I just don't like some of the choices I am being given.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-83176717012741549912012-10-27T10:51:00.000-05:002012-10-27T10:51:28.871-05:00It's Not the Economy, StupidHaving just talked with people from all across America as I rode from Chicago to the West Coast on Amtrak, I am convinced that both the Romney and Obama campaigns are wrong in thinking that the most important issue on people's minds is the economy. People understand that the worldwide economy is changing. They don't expect any president to be able to single-handedly bring back the prosperity that our country enjoyed during most of the past sixty years. They don't believe either candidate's promises to create jobs. Yes, people are hurting financially. But they are not looking to the president to fix their situation by cutting taxes or instituting new programs.<p>
What people want from candidates is honesty, and they don't feel like they are getting it from either the Republican or the Democrat. Unemployed fifty-five year olds know they aren't going to retrain for exciting new careers in green energy. They know that no matter how skilled they become as X-Ray technicians or welders, employers will hire younger workers. They don't want to spend a year or two taking courses at community colleges, and they sure don't want to be racking up student loans. <p>
What people want is some security. They want to know that even if they don't find work, they will get medical care and they will get a social security check to help them get by. But instead of talking about the kinds of systemic changes that are needed in order to bring our country's health care system up to the same level as the rest of the developed world, politicians are talking about fixing the national deficit, which is something that very few people understand and which has little real relevance to most voters. Instead of showing the people how their government will make sure that they are able to meet their basic human needs, politicians in both parties are playing slight-of-hand tricks with numbers. The people are not fooled. They know the difference between reality and illusion. <p>
It has been sixty five years since the U.S. fought a war that most people think we needed to fight, which means that nearly every person who will vote in the upcoming elections knows that we don't need to be wasting more than half of our national budget on our military. But with two billion dollars already having been spent on just this one election, no one is hearing a word about that. They are hearing about abortion and every other issue that the politicians think can be used to divide people from their neighbors.<p>
The people are not as stupid as the politicians seem to believe they are. The people know the politicians are trying to frighten them. What the politicians don't seem to understand is that people are already terrified. People know that the American dominance of the world economy is gone, and they sense that it won't return for a very long time. They can accept that. They just want someone to talk honestly about what comes next. Romney and Obama don't want to talk about that.<p>
From the Great Plains to the Rockies to the ocean, Americans are frightened, frustrated, and angry. They are not fools, but they feel that their politicians are treating them as if they were. It may be too late for either Romney or Obama to start talking straight with the American people. Any change of strategy or message would be viewed as a desperation move. So the campaigns will almost certainly keep talking around in circles, and the voters will almost certainly feel disgusted the day after the election. <p>
The past two years of campaigning have been almost a complete waste of everyone's time. They have not been enlightening, and the candidates have not given the people what they want and need. The campaigns should not have been about the economy, they should have been about the people, and we're not stupid.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-31858440791344611242012-10-09T13:31:00.000-05:002012-10-09T13:31:40.240-05:00"Be Nice" Isn't EnoughLast evening, I was in an audience made up mostly of parents of high school students. We had come to hear the lecture that was presented earlier in the day to the entire student body. The presenter was the uncle of a girl who had been among thirteen people who were shot to death at Columbine High School in 1999. His message was simple: we should all be nice to one another. <p>
The speaker didn't say a word about the gun culture in America, the issue of gun control, or how it was that the two killers at Columbine were able to get hold of the weapons and ammunition they used. He didn't mention that just a couple of months ago there was another shooting just down the road from the Columbine shooting which killed another twelve people at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. He didn't mention that even after the Columbine shooting, Colorado law allows people to carry concealed weapons nearly everywhere, including on college campuses.<p>
The speaker didn't talk about people committing suicide using guns, which happens much more often than mass shootings and kills far more people. He didn't say a word about mental illness, which contributes to a large number of shootings. He didn't talk about poverty, racism, or the gang shootings which arise out of urban ghettos. All he talked about was one shooting incident, and the only message he derived from it was that we should all be nice to one another.<p>
It was a simple message. It would appeal to people who like the “Just Say No” approach to drug abuse, even though that approach has been proven to be ineffective. It would appeal to people who don't want to deal with the complexities of the gun-violence problem. <p>
If everyone took the speaker's advice, some shootings might be avoided. But a lot more would still happen. People get depressed even if other people are nice to them. People who are taught that violence is a legitimate solution to problems use violence in response to the challenges they face, even if they see someone wearing a rubber bracelet that encourages them to have a nice day. People who have guns at hand use them when they are angry, frightened, confused, drunk, or just bored.<p>
“Be Nice” may be a message that soothes suburban parents' anxiety, but it is largely irrelevant to the types of people who end up in the headlines because of who they shot. It's a nice message for kindergartners, but way too simple for high-school students and their parents. Unless we take a more meaningful look at what is causing the shootings which are daily occurrences across our country, we can expect the shootings to continue unabated. Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-50955758679276718902012-10-04T14:38:00.000-05:002012-10-04T14:38:31.763-05:00Business ExperienceWhen Dan Seals was running for Congress full-time, Republicans and some Democrats said he wasn't qualified because he was just trying to land a job. They said he didn't have enough business experience to serve in Congress.<p>
When Bob Dold first ran for Congress, some Democrats gleefully turned the tables and attacked him for not having really managed his family business as he claimed. They pointed out that he was named president of his parents' pest control business just in time for the election, and that his resume showed that he was so busy working on various political staffs outside Illinois that he couldn't possibly have been the business executive that he pretended to be. <p>
Two years later, when Ilya Sheyman ran for the Democratic nomination to run against Dold, he was attacked for being too young and not having enough business experience to know how to help the country get out of the recession. Republicans had fun joining some Democrats who were making these attacks.<p>
Now, Bob Dold is saying that Brad Schneider doesn't really have the business experience that he claims to have. Dold and his backers say that Schneider's consulting company didn't show a profit for the past few years, and that his business credentials are therefore invalid.<p>
The cycle is complete. A pattern has been established. Democrats and Republicans in the 10th District attack each other every election on exactly the same personal issue. Candidates are judged, among other things, on whether they are rich enough and have enough business experience. Neither Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Jesus Christ would do very well if judged by this standard. Very few people who unselfishly devote their lives to public service would. <p>
Despite weekly exhortations from the pulpit that we should devote our lives not to the quest for wealth but to the pursuit of more significant goals, and despite sanctimonious pronouncements on MLK Day by politicians that we should judge one another by the contents of our characters, it is obvious that some politicians think the real criteria we should use to select our leaders is whether they have somehow accumulated a lot of money.<p>
Americans used to tell each other that a person shouldn't be discouraged if they stumbled. The important thing was whether you got up, dusted yourself off, and tried again. But in the 10th District the ethos has changed. Now, it doesn't matter how determined you are. If you don't manage to make a lot of money in business, you are branded a failure in all aspects of life, and particularly unacceptable as a politician. <p>
If government was a business, it might make sense to elect only business people to office. But government is supposed to be more than that. It is supposed to be the instrument of the will of all people. If success at business was due only to skill, it might make sense to elect only skilled business people. But success at business is due to a lot of things other than skill, including luck. If the only measure of success in business was money, we could decide who to vote for simply by looking at their bank accounts and investments. But for business people, success should also be measured by how they treat their customers, suppliers, employees, competitors, and the world. <p>
Neither Democrats or Republicans will say that they prefer to live in a plutocracy, where the wealthy govern, rather than in a democracy, where the people rule themselves. But in the 10th District, it seems like plutocrats are what some people in both parties want.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-1496467984323442132012-10-03T15:26:00.000-05:002012-10-03T15:26:09.354-05:00Romney's DesperationOn the eve of the first presidential debate, with the polls showing Romney trailing and losing support, Republicans decided that their only hope of winning the election is to remind people that President Barack Obama is black and then hope for a racist reaction. They got Fox News to air a recording of Obama speaking in 2007 and to have the Fox commentators push the message that because Obama says he is concerned about the poor and minorities, he is bad for white people. <p>
The video was nothing new. It was shown over and over by Fox during Obama's first presidential campaign. Obama responded to it, and the voters decided not to take the bait that Fox was dangling in front of them. America elected a black man.<p>
One might think that Republicans would have something new to say this election because they can point to Obama's record as president and make their arguments. But apparently, having tried that and seen that it isn't working, Romney's supporters have decided to once again see if they can win the presidency by appealing to racists.<p>
What does Romney have to say about this type of campaigning? So far he hasn't objected. He knows his campaign is in trouble, and he is willing to go along with whatever he is told might help. This does not prove that Romney is a racist. It just shows that he is willing to go along with the race-based strategy.<p>
There shouldn't have been much doubt that this is how Romney would act. Way back when there were a dozen or so candidates in the Republican primaries, the insiders were always lined up on Romney's side. They weren't going to back someone who might show some independence and perhaps turn on them in the future on some issue or other. They wanted what they always want in a candidate – someone who will do what he is told.<p>
The Republicans aren't the only ones who look for compliance above all else. That's what the Democrats were looking for, too, in 2008, which is why Obama spent his term as a senator doing little other than scratching backs. He knew that to get the Democrats to nominate him, the powerful and wealthy insiders of his party would have to be reassured that he would go along with their agenda. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that he responded to the fiscal crisis by bailing out powerful people and companies, that he hasn't prosecuted any of them for their crimes, and he hasn't done anything to reduce the concentration in the industries whose concentration helped cause the crisis. They are still too big to fail, and some of them have gotten bigger.<p>
The most powerful dynamic in American politics, and probably all over the world, is personal relationships. The universal lubricant in politics is wealth. Powerful people use them both to perpetuate their positions. This happens not just at the presidential level, but all the way down to the local school boards and village governments. It happens in township political organizations. It happens on church and charity boards. <p>
For the moment, Romney's rich and powerful backers are making a desperate effort to save his candidacy. But they aren't really worried. In a few weeks, regardless of which candidate wins, they will still have plenty of influence and power. And in a few weeks, the great majority of Americans will still feel shut out, which is why the racial campaigning failed against Obama in 2008 and why it will fail this time. People understand that the divide in America isn't Black against White – it is insiders and their money against everyone else. Sadly, neither major party has much to offer all the everyone elses.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-1880045921146425212012-09-28T17:20:00.002-05:002012-09-28T17:20:45.448-05:00Crowdsourcing Parkinson's Disease ResearchMy father had Parkinson's Disease. He suffered from the disease, from the drugs he was given to treat the disease, and from the fear that his symptoms would increase. <p>
Researchers are working on a way to diagnose Parkinson's Disease by analyzing people's voice patterns. They claim that in clinical settings they can record a person's voice, and a computer can analyze the recording and correctly diagnose the disease in 99% of cases. They are able to do this because Parkinson's Disease affects a person's ability to breath and to control movement of the vocal cords. Now, the researchers are testing whether the test can be performed over a telephone, so that a person would not even have to visit a clinic in order to be tested. The patient could simply say “ah” and recite a few phrases into the phone to receive a diagnosis. Hopefully, patients would then be able to receive whatever medical treatment is available or becomes available in the future.<P>
I recently phoned the researchers at 857-284-8035, said “ah” and recited a few phrases so that they could record my voice to help them develop their phone-in diagnostic technique. It took less than two minutes of my time. I wasn't asked anything other than my age, gender, and whether I have been diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease. The researchers need thousands of people, with and without Parkinson's, to run their computer diagnosis on. Maybe you'd like to help by making the call.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-63913429543012161352012-09-25T16:39:00.000-05:002012-09-25T16:39:27.119-05:00Poopy New YearThe house was clean. We were going to my cousins' for dinner, so I didn't need to shop or cook. I felt like doing something to prepare for Yom Kippur, so I washed and waxed the car. As I was buffing, a bird pooped onto the windshield just a few inches from my elbow. <p>
My first thought was, “You couldn't wait till I was finished?” We all know that the natural order of things dictates that if you want it to rain, either wash your car, water your lawn, or leave your umbrella at home. Then I thought, “Maybe this is a sign of what to expect in the coming year.” Ominous. But then again, maybe it was just the final poop of the outgoing year. Or maybe it wasn't a sign at all. It's hard to tell when god is sending me messages. <p>
Should I be thankful that the poop didn't land on my head? That I wasn't looking up? But then again, couldn't the bird have targeted my annoying neighbor? On the other hand, I am fortunate to have a car at all, so I shouldn't complain about such a minor mishap. On the other other hand, maybe I shouldn't be so attached to material things. <p>
Between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, we are supposed to reflect. What could we have done differently, or better? What should we do in the coming year? <p>
Maybe the bird was a reminder not to take myself too seriously. Maybe the universe is saying, “You polish, I'll poop.” Maybe I am supposed to think about whether during the past year I treated someone the way the bird just treated me. Maybe this and maybe that. We never know for sure, do we? So we look for signs and omens. We talk to a god who may not be listening and may not even exist. <p>
So many times during the past year I imagined there was a message for me in events that took place around me. Maybe I should slow down and enjoy life. Or maybe I should step up the pace, because time is running out. Is there a bird out there for each of us, waiting for the right moment? <p>
Things could always be worse. Planes fall on people's houses. Trees fall on cars. People die. What's a little poop? <p>
Have a year full of wonder and love. Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-12034629489667935312012-09-18T19:08:00.000-05:002012-09-18T19:08:17.968-05:00Habeas KirkIt used to be that when Mark Kirk didn't want to meet with his constituents he would have his aides make up stories about why he wasn't available. They would say he was in Washington, serving as a military reservist, or otherwise engaged. Some of the excuses might have been valid. Some of them turned out later to be misleading or totally false. <p>
Kirk once spent an entire summer avoiding constituents who wanted to explain their views on a timely issue. They called his office repeatedly asking for an appointment and they visited his office five times. His aides kept refusing to let them meet with their representative. Another group ended up camping out in his office until they were arrested in the wee hours of the morning after the press had gone home. Kirk never met with them, either. He did, though, install a buzzer-activated lock on his office so that no constituent could ever again get into the waiting room of the office they were paying for with their tax dollars unless his staff buzzed them in.<p>
It was infuriating to have an elected government official show such disdain for democracy. But at least everyone knew that it was Kirk himself who was responsible for the way his staff was treating the voters. Now, sadly, we don't know if Kirk is in charge or if his staff has simply usurped his office. <p>
Since Kirk suffered a massive stroke which initially left him unable to walk, use his left arm, or speak, the people he was elected to represent have patiently waited to see if he would recover enough mental function to be able to return to his duties as a senator. He released a couple of highly-edited videos that showed him apparently making progress learning to talk again, but it has been impossible to tell from the videos whether Kirk understands the words he is saying or is simply parroting a phrase here and a sentence there as the camera is turned on and off.<p>
Kirk's office refuses to let the press or his constituents meet with Kirk so that they could form an opinion on his mental abilities. They are making a great effort, however, to convince everyone that not only is Kirk still breathing, he is actually thinking. Maybe so. Maybe not.<p>
Kirk's staff wants everyone to imagine that, although in the videos Kirk's expression never changes, he still exhibits a full range of human emotion, and that his emotions are appropriate to the situation he is dealing with. Maybe so. Maybe not. Strokes leave people with a wide range of permanent disabilities. <p>
Today, Kirk's staff released another video of the Senator. For a full minute, Kirk doesn't appear on camera and is not heard from. All we get is a campaign-commercial style montage of newspaper headlines, pans across a flag, and out-of-context video clips of TV reporters, all sewn together with special effects and music. Finally, Kirk appears and speaks for less than thirty seconds, in three separate clips. <p>
In the video, Kirk appears to refer to Illinois' debt being downgraded three weeks ago. It is not possible to know when the video was made. Before his stroke, Kirk was quick to talk with reporters in person or on the phone whenever something newsworthy happened. If Kirk was ready to go back to work, we would have seen this video weeks ago. The fact that it took this long to edit together something that makes him look competent doesn't tell us anything at all about what his real-time abilities are. It usually only takes a day or two for videos of talking oranges or babies to appear on You-Tube.<p>
Most of the people who elected Kirk and those who voted against him probably hope that Kirk has as complete a recovery as possible. But we deserve better than to have his staff manipulate his image to make it appear that he is mentally capable. The fact that Kirk's staff receives their paychecks and exercise the powers of Kirk's office while Kirk remains away from his office gives everyone reason to be uneasy. The same people who used to hide Kirk from his constituents at his bidding are the same ones who are now hiding him, but we don't know if they are acting on his orders or on their own. Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1109533402211745564.post-30344312626086850472012-09-13T15:09:00.001-05:002012-09-13T15:09:26.135-05:00Time To End Charter SchoolsFrom the outset, the union that represents Chicago Public School teachers has said that they are not striking for more pay. They are striking for something bigger. They are striking to insure the very existence of public schools.<p>
Plenty of people have given up on public schools and are ready to switch to a system of private schools funded with public money, either in the form of charter schools or vouchered schools. Plenty of corporations are eager to get hold of all the money which is presently spent on public schools. In a lot of places, it is the biggest expenditure that local government makes. <p>
Chicago has been closing public schools and has plans to close more. That isn't what the strike negotiators tell us they are talking about, but it is what is on everyone's minds. The so-called reforms that the mayor and school board are proposing are designed to transform public education into the charter school model. The school board is proposing that principals be allowed to hire and fire teachers, eliminating protections that teachers now have under their union contract. This is the way things are done in charter schools, because there are no unions in charter schools. It's one of the reasons there is more teacher turnover and teachers have less experience in charter schools than in public schools.<p>
The theory behind giving principals discretion in hiring and firing is that principals in charter schools are acting as corporate executives who should be able to have the employees they want. What that theory misunderstands is that public schools are not run for the benefit of shareholders as charter schools are; they are run for the benefit of students and the public. Principals in public schools don't work for bonuses. If they are good, they get a paycheck and the satisfaction of knowing that they have played a role in educating children.<p>
The corporate model assumes that principals are the most important people in schools. Most people who have sent kids to public schools in America recognize that classroom teachers have the most important and direct influence on children and how well they learn and develop, and that principals are merely part of the administrative overhead that is needed to keep things running. In all schools, principals have little to no meaningful interaction with students on a daily basis, other than perhaps greeting them at the door with a smile.<p>
The investors who want to persuade the public to privatize public schools have been blaming teachers for the shortcomings in education, instead of looking at overcrowded classrooms, scarcity of books, materials, and supplies, the effect of poverty and family difficulties on students, and lots of other things that are the real reasons so many students in Chicago don't do better in school. These problems are the reason that charter schools don't do any better than public schools when they run schools in Chicago and other cities. Studies show that often, charter school students perform worse than public school students.<p>
The people who invest in charter schools aren't really concerned about student performance. They are just there to make a buck. So when charter schools fail to live up to the promises they make, the investors close them down, leaving neighborhoods holding the bag and tossing teachers out of jobs. That is what the Chicago teachers' union is worried about. They don't want to end up on the street because some principal, eager to get a bonus, decides to distract the investors by scapegoating teachers. That is why the public should be supporting the teachers. Not just for the sake of the teachers, but for the sake of their students, and all the rest of us who want those students to get an education.Lee Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09654986604240287605noreply@blogger.com0