Gun Referendum

   November's general election in America will be a referendum on gun control.  All members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senators will be on ballots throughout the country.
  Many Republicans rely on financial support from the NRA for their campaigns, and in return feel obliged to reject efforts to restrict the easy availability of guns to anyone who wants one.
   This easy availability has resulted in the deaths of many hundreds of people in America so far this year, including most recently the killing of 19 children and their two teachers in Texas.
   But the National Rifle Association (NRA) and their political lackeys insist that the problem is not the number of guns in America (there are more guns than people in the U.S.), and the way to prevent incidents like the Texas school shootings is to arm all teachers.
   Moreover, they maintain that the shooters have mental or emotional issues that need treatment, and this has precedent over the claim they have a constitutionally guaranteed "right to bear arms."
  Question: Does this mean they have a constitutionally guaranteed right to kill children?
   Recent mass shooting incidents have again raised the issue of federal gun control. Efforts to increase restrictions on gun ownership have been blocked by Republicans in Congress after a mass shooting in America.
   Result: This puts gun control on the back side of election ballots, as voters decide to choose those who will act to save their children rather than those who take instructions from a gun lobby more concerned with monetary profit than children's lives.

Gun Logic

Guns don't kill people.

People kill people.

Therefore, more gun means more defense. -- NRA backer

 

People use guns to kill people.

More guns means more death.

Therefore, fewer guns means fewer deaths. -- Opponent

Nineteen Chlldren

   There are more guns in America -- 400 million of them -- than there are people.

   There are four gun deaths per 100,000 population in America, compared to fewer than one in Canada or the UK. The more precise ratio is 3.96 per 100,000 in America, and 0.47 in Canada and 0.04 in Britain. In Japan, South Korea and China, the ratio is 0.02, according to those who track such ratios.

   Only 2 percent of all the guns in America are held by the military and police departments. The rest -- 98 percent -- are owned by civilians, and the average gun owner has five firearms.

   Already this year, there have been more than 200 mass shootings in America. The term "mass shooting" is defined as four or more people killed or wounded in a single incident.

   Already this year, there have been 27 school shootings in America.

   Later this week, the National Rifle Association (NRA) will hold its annual meeting in Texas, with Donald Trump as the featured speaker.

   What will they have to say about the murder of nineteen children and two adults at an elementary school in Texas this same week?

   One of the defenses gun advocates use is to say firearms are needed in case of an invasion by a foreign power.

   From where, Canada?

   Compare that defense to the amount of time it took the person to kill nineteen unarmed children and their teachers this week in an elementary school.

    Police response can be measured in minutes, especially when schools have armed security guards in the building every day. 

  Another defense put forth is to say the perpetrators are typically mentally ill, so the issue is therefore not about guns but about sickness.

  But mental disturbances are just as common in other nations, so the issue is not about sickness but remains the easy availability of guns. 

 And they cite the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for their right to bear arms. They neglect the first phrase, which stipulates that a "well organized militia is essential to the security of a free state." 

 Were the shooters at schools and churches in America members of any militia, well organized or otherwise?

   Hunters insist they have a right to use firearms when hunting, but they say is unfair to use automatic weapons against deer. Apparently it's acceptable to use them against children. 

Polysyllabic Nonsense

    From an "epistemologically informed linguistic analysis as an analytically prior first philosophy" to "behavioristic relativism and epistemological naturalism," this "deflationary pragmatic spirit" leads to "ethical and  political concerns."
   Say what?
   The above is from an introduction to a series of recorded lectures on the history of philosophy. But what does it mean? To someone with college degrees in linguistics, literature, economics and history as well as decades of experience in journalism (me), it amounts to balderdash.
   Translated to plain language, it means this: Talk about speech like you understand what words mean.
   Or as my editor said after she rejected my report on the computer programming business, "Write it for your mother-in-law."

Cycles

    There have been twelve economic downturns since the Great Depression that struck America in 1929. All but three of them began while a Republican was in the White House. Two of those three downturns were postwar adjustments while Harry Truman, a Democrat, was president. The third was in 1980, Jimmy Carter's last year in office. That was a six-month dip when the economy faded by 1 percent. All three recessions were relatively short and mild.
   Now we are facing another drop in economic performance, and experts fear this one may be substantial. Some raise the question whether the presidential administration of Donald Trump did enough damage to the economy to plant the seed of the recession weed we now face.
   Others insist the business cycle has a life of its own, and politicians have no influence on it. Also, there is the reality of the covid virus, which has struck hard at nearly all aspects of world society.
   Nevertheless, those who believe the stock market is a barometer of the economy say we are facing a serious drop. The past few days have seen serious declines in Wall Street averages, and experts also note the return of "stagflation," a phenomenon where the economy is stagnant even as prices are inflated. Already, the first three months of this year have seen a dip of 1.4 percent in the economy. Two consecutive quarters of decline represents a recession. If the fiscal quarter ending in June also shows a drop, that will meet the definition of an economic recession.
   As for the Power of Twelve, our resident numerologist points out that this is the twelfth recession since 1929, and the seeds of the current decline were planted when Donald Trump was in the White House. Call it coincidence, but he is the twelfth person to occupy the White House since the Great Depression was at its worst.

Greed Enterprise

 "Greed is good." -- Gordon Gekko

   Corporate minds call it free enterprise.
   Customers call it greed.
   Meanwhile, people wonder why journalists are cynical.

   These thoughts come to mind as gasoline prices soar to nearly $5 per gallon, and corporate speakers blame it on the problems in Ukraine, which they insist affects international trade in general and the oil industry in particular.
   As if an event today instantly affects the value of crude oil that has not yet been pumped out of the ground or is in a tanker ship on its way to another country.
    A similar event is the price of bread, which is made from wheat that was harvested weeks ago and future loaves will be made from grain that has not yet been harvested, whether the crop is in America or in Ukraine.
   Those who defend the free enterprise system insist they must plan ahead to deal with events that may (or may not) happen at some time in the (distant?) future.
   But if it turns out that the unforeseen event they insist must be planned for does not happen, can we assume that the price hike boosted currently will be reduced?
   Assume not, lest ye be labeled with the first part of that word.

Great Replacement Hypocrisy

    The current anti-immigrant theory is the latest in a centuries-old series of efforts to block newcomers from coming to America.
   The keep-out campaigns reached a height in the mid-19th Century as bigotry against Irish and Italian immigrants became blatant. In the first half of the 20th Century, that prejudice focused on people from Eastern Europe.

  Throughout both centuries, bigotry against Asians was so common as to result in Congressional action to limit their numbers and prevent them from citizenship. Now, the prejudice focuses on people from Hispanic nations of Central and South America.
   All these blockage campaigns stressed variations on the slogan, "America for the Americans." The current anti-immigrant slogan is called the "Great Replacement Theory," and warns that the newcomers' goal is not to join traditional American society, but to replace it with theirs.
   However, the avowed tradition of America has long been to blend elements of the arriving culture with those already here.
   Bigots claim otherwise, conveniently forgetting that they too are beneficiaries of the Open Door, as noted on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.

   And there is the historical reality that many of the peoples already here welcomed the newcomers until the immigrants began to take away what had been lands occupied by the tribes for centuries.

   History is often a variation of the same story.

Social vs Economic Responsibility

    For centuries, people have wondered how much responsibility they have for the welfare of others. Religious leaders preach the moral obligation to help those in need, but this immediately raises another need -- to define "need." In addition, this raises the need to establish how much responsibility the needy have to help themselves, or at least try.
   In this way, the issue becomes political as well as social, moral and philosophical. And all these can vary according to theological beliefs.
   Many cultures will acknowledge that people should help others, and this can be established on moral grounds, regardless of religious or theological beliefs.
   But even these systems must deal with the issue of how to help those who do not help themselves. This is, of course, a separate issue from the question of how to deal with those who refuse to help themselves -- those who are not willing to make any effort to help themselves. Some may be willing, but are not able, and these certainly qualify to be among those who deserve and should be provided with as much help as may be needed.
   In all, many will find excuses for not helping those in need. They maintain their allegiance to religious or theological systems, yet they are selective in how or whether they assist those in need.
   The problem of how and whether to help those in need is certainly social and economic. The how can be a social and economic issue, and the whether can be a religious or theological issue.
   Meanwhile, the moral issue crosses all boundaries and must be dealt with in every segment of any society. The problem remains that there are those in need, and some who are capable of helping rely on economic excuses to justify their refusal to follow their own moral or religious teachings.
   Weaving through all these is the thread of hypocrisy.

Image Politics

    If you sound like you know what you're talking about, people will assume you do. -- Pug Mahoney

   Election season is meant to bring out the best in government candidates. Too often, however, the lure of authority attracts people who are more interested in power than in building a better society.
   Certainly they claim their goal is to improve society, but that's just an act they perform as a way to win election. Observers say one example is the difference between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.
   The first made acquired his popularity as an actor, starring in many Hollywood films, and later successfully projected an executive role so well as to get elected governor of California. Later, in a televised debate with incumbent President Carter, he performed so well that he won the election, even though Carter, a retired military officer and former governor, had more training and experience in leadership.
   Historians say another example is William Jennings Bryan, who was better at portraying a successful leader than he was in actual performance.
   More recently, observers point to Donald Trump, who was adept at overshadowing Hillary Clinton in their televised debates but had no governmental experience. Compare that to her extensive experience both in her own right as a member of Congress and ambassador to the United Nations, as well as companion and advisor to her husband Bill Clinton through his years as governor of Arkansas and as president.
   Eventually, Trump's manner of dealing with others (some call it bombastic) failed him during his years in the White House and his re-election campaign, when his debate opponent Joe Biden in frustration said, "Will you shut up, man?"
   Trump lost his bid for a second term as president, both in the popular vote and the electoral college vote, prompting some editors to point that he also lost the popular vote four years earlier and won through to the White House only by manipulating the electoral vote.
   The tradition of bombast among politicians did not begin recently, observers note, but has long been a tactic used by those in government at every level, from local all the way to international relations. Will it ever change?

Good News, Bad News Part Two

    The good news today is that more people found jobs in April, according to a government report, and the unemployment rate stayed at 3.6 percent, unchanged from a month ago.

  The bad news is that the number of people without jobs did not change much from a month ago. That means more people were successful in finding jobs, but an equal number of people began looking for jobs, thus balancing the statistic.

  The other bad news is still the reality that prices continue to rise, and the Federal Reserve Board is likely to boot interest rates again, to combat the rising.

  But.

  It will take a steady hand and a watchful eye to monitor the interest rate in such a way as to slow a too-rapid acceleration, but not too firm as to make it too slow, and thus cause another problem.

Bad News, Good News

   Interest rates are rising.
  For those who borrow and spend, that's bad news.
  For those who save, that's good news.
  The Federal Reserve Board said it will use its money market influence to raise interest rates, as its way to control inflation -- rising prices as an inflated money supply chases to buy stuff.
   But as people stop chasing to buy stuff, they will put the money aside in savings accounts. Already, interest rates on savings accounts have started to rise as financial gurus saw the change coming.
   News reports usually emphasize the negative side of events, and that's what happened today as the Fed announced an uptick in its target for interest rates.
   For those who buy on credit, that's bad news. A result is that people who use credit cards a lot will either pay in cash or they will not buy as much stuff, and put more money into savings accounts.
   Recently, credit card interest rates have been in double-digits, so those who don't pay the balance in full every month pay dearly for their borrowing. At the same time, traditional bank savings account rates have been close to zero -- 0.001 percent, for example.
   Why bother saving, goes the thinking. Instead, buy more stuff. That's okay, but unless production rises to meet demand, prices will rise.
   Prices have been steadily rising, to the extent that the Fed concluded the increases have been too much for good economic health. Result: Brake time.

SCOTUS Leak

    For the first time in memory, someone at the Supreme Court has leaked a draft decision on a pending case.
   Why?
   Is it possible the justices want to know the possible reaction from the general public and will adjust their ruling to minimize any potential problem?
   That by itself is a major news story, regardless of the case involved. But this particular case is about abortion rights, and whether the federal government can approve or disapprove of a woman's decision to end a pregnancy.
   There are three possible decisions:
   1/ Yes, the federal government can act to bar abortions.
   2/ No, the federal government cannot intervene in a decision by a woman and her medical provider.
   3/ Neither of the above, but each state can set its own rules.
   What is legal in one state may not be legal in another, and the federal government has no authority to intervene.
   For now, every state must permit such procedures, following the court's Roe v Wade ruling some fifty years ago, but some states have enacted laws that encourage residents of another state to file a lawsuit against anyone who gets an abortion in any other state,
   The rationale is that the state itself is not interfering with a woman's activities, even though some of its citizens are.
   This would be a way of excusing a state government from any allegation that it is interfering with any woman's activities.
   So whose responsibility is it to regulate medical activities? Historically, each state issues medical licenses and regulates what doctors, nurses and other health professionals do. Also, not every behavior is a federal offense.
  The question now is, what will SCOTUS do? The view from here is that the leak was deliberate, a way to test public opinion before a final decision is made, thus enabling the court to take the less troublesome path.
   That itself would be new. SCOTUS is not usually concerned with public opinion.
   Why now?

Cahoots

    "The fake news media is in cahoots with the radical left," said a commentator on the Fox TV network today.
   Therefore, other members of the news media -- e.g. Fox people -- are in cahoots with the radical right, observed our resident commentator Pug Mahoney.
   That may be acceptable to the right-wingers who watch the Foxy commentators and believe everything they say, but who decides which of the media outlets are "fake" and which are "true"?
   If one side is "acceptable," because it broadcasts conservative right-wing views and comments, that does not mean the other side is "false." It only means there is disagreement.
   To insist that news providers take a side -- preferably the right-wing conservative side -- is to demolish the principle of straight news reporting.
   Even straight-forward neutral reporters are subject to right-wingers insisting, "If you read between the lines, you'll know he's on our side." Which prompted this response from the referenced reporter: "When you look between the lines of my work, all you see is blank space."
   The Fox commentator has a right to his opinion, and a right to express that opinion. He does not, however, have a right to suppress other opinions that disagree with his.
   That way dictatorship lies.