It is well-known that the solution to hateful speech is more speech to fight it. Not censorship, although this seems to be what many on the side of the political Left, both in this country and throughout the world, seem to think, which is unfortunate. But generally, most people still seem to think that you fight hateful speech with more speech. You fight bad press with more press. And in terms of abuses of gun rights, i.e. mass shootings, you should fight these with more guns. Not confiscation or restrictions.
If schools are being shot up, you allow concealed-carry by those teachers and personnel who wish to engage in it and provide armed security. You end so-called "Gun-Free Zones" that only mean the only armed person will be the mass shooter. You do not infringe on the rights of the people, no more than you would infringe on any of the other rights of citizens. If we are faced with repeated mass terrorist attacks, say bombings, that kill twenty here, twenty there, would anybody really think that there would be an enormous demand in the media that we start talking about suspending right to privacy, right against having to talk to law enforcement, due process rights, free speech rights (make it illegal to mock Islam), etc...my suspicion would be no. You might see some calling for more oversight of mosques, and maybe calls for a total ban on Muslims coming into the country, but that would probably be it at the most. Any calls to suspend the rights of actual Muslims in the country would be met with fierce resistance, both by many citizens, politicians, and the courts. And such people would not be accused of being terrorists by the mainstream media.
Gun rights are no different. They are as sacrosanct as any of the other rights we cherish. If someone is abusing them, the solution is to work to solve the issue in ways that do not involve the suspension of civil liberties, just as we work to prevent terrorism without suspending civil liberties.
Saturday, February 24, 2018
There is Never a Time to Talk About Gun Control
One of the oft-made questions in the aftermath of a mass shooting is, "When can we talk about gun control?" The usual response to this from pro-gun rights people is, "Now is not the time to talk about gun control," the implication being that you do not politicize an issue when people are grieving and that discussion of gun control can come later. And there is truth to this, about you wait awhile before bringing in the politics. Of course, the later in which gun control supposedly would be discussed never comes, because the issue fades from memory and the gun rights people are not eager to bring it up. This is a strategy used by the gun rights side I suppose, as when they say, "Now is not the time to discuss the issue..." they say this knowing full well that they never really intend to discuss it in the way that the pro-gun-control proponents want to (which is to discuss what kind of gun control should be done).
This over time has led to frustration from the gun control proponents, who argue, "Well WHEN IS THE TIME to talk about gun control then?" Well to give them an answer, I would say, "Never." This is the answer I would like politicians to give as well. The reasoning is because, the right to keep and bear arms is a sacrosanct right. It is the right upon which all the others depend, and it is as sacred and fundamental to a free people as all of the other rights. After 9/11 happened, in which 3,000 Americans were slaughtered, nobody was asking, "When is the time to talk about speech control? Press control? Privacy infringement? Due process limitations?" Because those rights are considered sacrosanct. To the extent that anything was done by the Bush administration, it was dragged through the mud, called "fascist," "Hitler," "Nazi," and so forth.
The right to keep and bear arms is no different. In addition to this though, we know that the guns really are not the cause of these mass shootings. This is because the guns used in these mass shootings have been around for many decades now. One of the worst mass shootings in this nation's history, the Virginia Tech massacre, involved the use of only handguns. The 1911 pistol, a .45 caliber handgun that takes a detachable 12 shot magazine, has been around since 1911. 9mm pistols have also been in use for many decades. The Thompson submachine gun ("Tommy" gun) has been available since the 1920s, and during the 1920s, people could purchase automatic fire Tommy guns at hardware stores, gas stations, gun stores, or by mail-order, where an automatic fire gun known for its use by gangsters was delivered right to your front door, no background check, whatever size magazine (s) you wanted, and that was that, yet mass shootings were not a problem then. After WWII, you could get WWII M1 Carbines delivered as well, a semiautomatic, detachable magazine rifle. The AK-47 was invented in 1947, although I do not know when it became available in the United States, but they have been available for a much longer time than these mass shootings of late. And the AR-15 became available in 1964 to the civilian market. Yet, these mass shootings are a very recent phenomenon in their frequency. Which tells us that it can't be the guns that are the cause. There is something else at hand that is contributing to them.
Muslim terrorism has been one contributor, as three of the mass shootings of late have been committed by Muslim terrorists. These are the Fort Hood shooting, the San Bernardino shooting, and the Orlando nightclub massacre. Some of the others have just been plain straight-up mental illness. And then others have been cases of pure evil it seems.
This over time has led to frustration from the gun control proponents, who argue, "Well WHEN IS THE TIME to talk about gun control then?" Well to give them an answer, I would say, "Never." This is the answer I would like politicians to give as well. The reasoning is because, the right to keep and bear arms is a sacrosanct right. It is the right upon which all the others depend, and it is as sacred and fundamental to a free people as all of the other rights. After 9/11 happened, in which 3,000 Americans were slaughtered, nobody was asking, "When is the time to talk about speech control? Press control? Privacy infringement? Due process limitations?" Because those rights are considered sacrosanct. To the extent that anything was done by the Bush administration, it was dragged through the mud, called "fascist," "Hitler," "Nazi," and so forth.
The right to keep and bear arms is no different. In addition to this though, we know that the guns really are not the cause of these mass shootings. This is because the guns used in these mass shootings have been around for many decades now. One of the worst mass shootings in this nation's history, the Virginia Tech massacre, involved the use of only handguns. The 1911 pistol, a .45 caliber handgun that takes a detachable 12 shot magazine, has been around since 1911. 9mm pistols have also been in use for many decades. The Thompson submachine gun ("Tommy" gun) has been available since the 1920s, and during the 1920s, people could purchase automatic fire Tommy guns at hardware stores, gas stations, gun stores, or by mail-order, where an automatic fire gun known for its use by gangsters was delivered right to your front door, no background check, whatever size magazine (s) you wanted, and that was that, yet mass shootings were not a problem then. After WWII, you could get WWII M1 Carbines delivered as well, a semiautomatic, detachable magazine rifle. The AK-47 was invented in 1947, although I do not know when it became available in the United States, but they have been available for a much longer time than these mass shootings of late. And the AR-15 became available in 1964 to the civilian market. Yet, these mass shootings are a very recent phenomenon in their frequency. Which tells us that it can't be the guns that are the cause. There is something else at hand that is contributing to them.
Muslim terrorism has been one contributor, as three of the mass shootings of late have been committed by Muslim terrorists. These are the Fort Hood shooting, the San Bernardino shooting, and the Orlando nightclub massacre. Some of the others have just been plain straight-up mental illness. And then others have been cases of pure evil it seems.
Monday, January 29, 2018
Why do people think Republicans will lose big in mid-terms?
So it has been some time, but I figured I'd maybe start posting here again. Will have to see how it goes. For this particular post though, I am just wondering about the current claims that the Democrats are going to "ride a wave" into the 2018 mid-terms and win big. My question is, based on what? Yes, Donald Trump has lower poll numbers, but he had those before the 2016 election as well. So if the polls were inaccurate then, than why should they be considered accurate now?
Public disapproval with Trump's policies? Trump is governing exactly as he said he would. He ran on a total rejection of all the political correctness that has been shoved down the throat of the public for years now, and won. Then he has governed (or tried to govern) based on that and the public is displeased and will thus vote in Democrats in big numbers of 2018? I think people may be greatly over-estimating the Democrats' chances, but we will see.
Public disapproval with Trump's policies? Trump is governing exactly as he said he would. He ran on a total rejection of all the political correctness that has been shoved down the throat of the public for years now, and won. Then he has governed (or tried to govern) based on that and the public is displeased and will thus vote in Democrats in big numbers of 2018? I think people may be greatly over-estimating the Democrats' chances, but we will see.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
In Defense of Nationhood
One of the ideals it seems that has been embraced by the "progressives" and the "global elite," if-you-will, is this idea that borders are now becoming a quaint concept of the past, that the future lies in a world without borders, an international global society in which everyone is a citizen and just can travel anywhere and that's that. John Kerry for example made this point in a speech to university students some months ago.
This view however is not popular among many Americans, and probably not among many people in the world period. Myself, I think it is a pseudo-intellectual view on the part of the global elite (i.e. those in positions of wealth and power who can travel the globe as they please). After Trump's inauguration speech in which he basically defended the concept of nationhood, some have tried to call the speech "nationalist," others have tried to even claim there are aspects of Nazism and anti-Semitism to it (?).
The problem is that it is easy for a wealthy person for whom travelling to Paris from Manhattan is done with the equivalent difficulty, or maybe even less difficulty, then a trip to the grocery store is for the average American, to think of themselves as a "global" citizen, and to begin to think the concept of patriotism and borders as quaint and archaic. That is because they live in a bubble. The people in their wealthy elite bubble traverse into each other's countries and major cities and are highly, highly-mobile. They do not just grow up and exist and remain in one nation (and generally one part of one nation) for most of their lives and thus identify with that culture.
But the average person does. The average person does not travel from global capital to global capital with relative ease. They can't just hop a private jet on Friday, be in Berlin by Saturday, then be back in Manhattan or Los Angeles or wherever it is they call home on Monday morning. They instead live their lives in their nation, and as such, identify with that nation and its culture. For many of them, national service and service to their community is a huge part of their culture. Whereas national service and community service are virtually unheard of among the globe-trotting wealthy elite. They do not have their sons and daughters in the volunteer fire department, or local law enforcement, or in the military as infantry soldiers or whatnot. Telling the ordinary citizens thus that borders are now to be a thing of the past, and that if they disagree and don't want the floodgates just thrown open so that a bunch of foreign peoples can come in, that they are nativists, nationalists, racists, fearful of different people, etc...is a very ignorant and elitist, and in my opinion, pseudointellectual view.
Pride in one's nation, in one's culture, believing in strong borders, etc...is not the same as being a racist or a nationalist. Neither means one believes that they are better than everyone else, or that everyone else must submit to their will, or anything like that. They are just parts of a people's identity. Belief in nationhood does not mean that one doesn't believe that their country should nonetheless strive to be a good global citizen (if I can use that term there), but it also doesn't mean that one thinks that anybody and everybody should just be let into the country either.
The belief that the future lies in the disappearance of the nation-state, that we will exist in one giant global community "governed" (i.e. ruled) by an international class of elites who know what is best for us, that if you live in small-town Alabama, you will be treated the exact same if you go to some big city in China (and vice-versa) is utopian, pseudointellectual nonsense. It is seen as being a high-minded, intellectually-superior position to be of the "global" mindset among its proponents, but in my opinion, it is a position grounded in ignorance, elitism, and utopianism.
This view however is not popular among many Americans, and probably not among many people in the world period. Myself, I think it is a pseudo-intellectual view on the part of the global elite (i.e. those in positions of wealth and power who can travel the globe as they please). After Trump's inauguration speech in which he basically defended the concept of nationhood, some have tried to call the speech "nationalist," others have tried to even claim there are aspects of Nazism and anti-Semitism to it (?).
The problem is that it is easy for a wealthy person for whom travelling to Paris from Manhattan is done with the equivalent difficulty, or maybe even less difficulty, then a trip to the grocery store is for the average American, to think of themselves as a "global" citizen, and to begin to think the concept of patriotism and borders as quaint and archaic. That is because they live in a bubble. The people in their wealthy elite bubble traverse into each other's countries and major cities and are highly, highly-mobile. They do not just grow up and exist and remain in one nation (and generally one part of one nation) for most of their lives and thus identify with that culture.
But the average person does. The average person does not travel from global capital to global capital with relative ease. They can't just hop a private jet on Friday, be in Berlin by Saturday, then be back in Manhattan or Los Angeles or wherever it is they call home on Monday morning. They instead live their lives in their nation, and as such, identify with that nation and its culture. For many of them, national service and service to their community is a huge part of their culture. Whereas national service and community service are virtually unheard of among the globe-trotting wealthy elite. They do not have their sons and daughters in the volunteer fire department, or local law enforcement, or in the military as infantry soldiers or whatnot. Telling the ordinary citizens thus that borders are now to be a thing of the past, and that if they disagree and don't want the floodgates just thrown open so that a bunch of foreign peoples can come in, that they are nativists, nationalists, racists, fearful of different people, etc...is a very ignorant and elitist, and in my opinion, pseudointellectual view.
Pride in one's nation, in one's culture, believing in strong borders, etc...is not the same as being a racist or a nationalist. Neither means one believes that they are better than everyone else, or that everyone else must submit to their will, or anything like that. They are just parts of a people's identity. Belief in nationhood does not mean that one doesn't believe that their country should nonetheless strive to be a good global citizen (if I can use that term there), but it also doesn't mean that one thinks that anybody and everybody should just be let into the country either.
The belief that the future lies in the disappearance of the nation-state, that we will exist in one giant global community "governed" (i.e. ruled) by an international class of elites who know what is best for us, that if you live in small-town Alabama, you will be treated the exact same if you go to some big city in China (and vice-versa) is utopian, pseudointellectual nonsense. It is seen as being a high-minded, intellectually-superior position to be of the "global" mindset among its proponents, but in my opinion, it is a position grounded in ignorance, elitism, and utopianism.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Ranting About the Electoral College
There has been much ranting about the Electoral College in the wake of the fact that Hillary Clinton won the overall popular vote, but lost the Electoral College vote, thus giving Trump the Presidency. Articles are popping up in left-leaning news publications saying that the Electoral College is anachronistic, indefensible, etc...I disagree with this however, for the following reasons:
If there was no Electoral College, then virtually none of the states would get any attention by the candidates except for California and New York, people need to remember how our country is structured. We are a republic that consists of fifty states, hence the name, the United States of America.
No one state, just because it has more people, has a right to dictate its will on the other states in terms of national policy. That is why the system is set up to check that. That is why each state gets two senators, regardless of its population size, because the Senate acts as a check on the House, which serves to represent the popular will and passions of the people. The Senate is to consider the longer-term ramifications of legislation. The Senate's design prevents the more populous states from being able to dictate national policy and essentially lord over the smaller states. The Electoral College is designed for a similar purpose.
What people are also forgetting or unaware of is that the House ultimately has to approve of the Electoral College vote. They can choose to reject it. Now remember, the House is structured to represent the popular demands of the people. Unlike the Senate, each state gets House representatives based on their population size. More population equals more House members. Yet, the House has remained solidly in Republican hands. In fact, the GOP actually gained some seats in the House. What this tells us is that Hillary's win of the popular vote most likely only was due to states like California giving her a slight edge. Had the House clearly gone Democratic party, along with the popular vote going to Hillary, then one could make the argument that the House should reject the Electoral College outcome. But the fact that the House has remained solidly Republican means that the overall popular will is aligned with the Electoral College outcome and that the Electoral College, if anything, is likely working exactly the way that it is supposed to.
Some might try to claim that the Electoral College is aligned against the Democratic party candidates, but I disagree with that completely. Barack Obama won both the popular vote and the Electoral College in 2008 and 2012, with a lousy economy in the latter. And we now know that some of the swing states and blue states that flipped red only managed to do so by small margins of voters, likely because around a million black voters stayed home this time around then voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Had they come out and voted, Hillary would likely have won the Presidency. This also would mean that the working-class white vote that came out in force, ranging from Republicans to some Democrats, wouldn't have still been enough to put Trump over the top (although I would be very interested in seeing the popular vote had Trump not said a lot of the stupid things that he did during his campaign---he could still have run on his overall themes of reforming trade, building a border wall, etc...and still done even better I think with many people). So Democratic party presidential candidates can very much win with the Electoral College.
I also do not at all agree with those saying, "No other country in the Western world has a system like the Electoral College!" well for one, the claim that "every other country" does or does not do something is not unto itself an argument. Plenty of other liberal democracies also require you to show an I.D. before you vote, but the same people complaining about the Electoral College consider voter I.D. here in the U.S. to be racist, oppressive, and the equivalent of a poll tax and hence blatantly un-Constitutional. I would think that one reason other countries can get by without an equivalent of the Electoral College is because population-wise, they tend to be a lot smaller than the United States. And for the ones that do have a very large population, such as Japan, it is crammed into such a small space that there is just no need for any Electoral College equivalent.
If there was no Electoral College, then virtually none of the states would get any attention by the candidates except for California and New York, people need to remember how our country is structured. We are a republic that consists of fifty states, hence the name, the United States of America.
No one state, just because it has more people, has a right to dictate its will on the other states in terms of national policy. That is why the system is set up to check that. That is why each state gets two senators, regardless of its population size, because the Senate acts as a check on the House, which serves to represent the popular will and passions of the people. The Senate is to consider the longer-term ramifications of legislation. The Senate's design prevents the more populous states from being able to dictate national policy and essentially lord over the smaller states. The Electoral College is designed for a similar purpose.
What people are also forgetting or unaware of is that the House ultimately has to approve of the Electoral College vote. They can choose to reject it. Now remember, the House is structured to represent the popular demands of the people. Unlike the Senate, each state gets House representatives based on their population size. More population equals more House members. Yet, the House has remained solidly in Republican hands. In fact, the GOP actually gained some seats in the House. What this tells us is that Hillary's win of the popular vote most likely only was due to states like California giving her a slight edge. Had the House clearly gone Democratic party, along with the popular vote going to Hillary, then one could make the argument that the House should reject the Electoral College outcome. But the fact that the House has remained solidly Republican means that the overall popular will is aligned with the Electoral College outcome and that the Electoral College, if anything, is likely working exactly the way that it is supposed to.
Some might try to claim that the Electoral College is aligned against the Democratic party candidates, but I disagree with that completely. Barack Obama won both the popular vote and the Electoral College in 2008 and 2012, with a lousy economy in the latter. And we now know that some of the swing states and blue states that flipped red only managed to do so by small margins of voters, likely because around a million black voters stayed home this time around then voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Had they come out and voted, Hillary would likely have won the Presidency. This also would mean that the working-class white vote that came out in force, ranging from Republicans to some Democrats, wouldn't have still been enough to put Trump over the top (although I would be very interested in seeing the popular vote had Trump not said a lot of the stupid things that he did during his campaign---he could still have run on his overall themes of reforming trade, building a border wall, etc...and still done even better I think with many people). So Democratic party presidential candidates can very much win with the Electoral College.
I also do not at all agree with those saying, "No other country in the Western world has a system like the Electoral College!" well for one, the claim that "every other country" does or does not do something is not unto itself an argument. Plenty of other liberal democracies also require you to show an I.D. before you vote, but the same people complaining about the Electoral College consider voter I.D. here in the U.S. to be racist, oppressive, and the equivalent of a poll tax and hence blatantly un-Constitutional. I would think that one reason other countries can get by without an equivalent of the Electoral College is because population-wise, they tend to be a lot smaller than the United States. And for the ones that do have a very large population, such as Japan, it is crammed into such a small space that there is just no need for any Electoral College equivalent.
Saturday, August 20, 2016
On the Donald Trump naked statue
So some "art" group a few days ago went and put up some statues of Donald Trump in various major cities around the country, these cities portraying Trump as naked. His body is portrayed as being utterly grotesque and his penis is of course portrayed as incredibly small and I think no testicles.
But I have to say that I agree with those who point out that the group, in their hatred for Trump, have essentially engaged in one of the things that the Left in particular is supposed to be against, which is body shaming. Basically they're knocking on Trump for his physical appearance instead of his political views. Criticizing him for his political views is fine, but body shaming like this is bad, as there are plenty of other people that said Trump haters like and think are decent who also would not be anything special to look at.
One also has to wonder at the hypocrisy here, because if such statues had been produced of say Hillary Clinton, would the media response have been so light-hearted? Or that of the NYC Parks Commission? We probably instead would have seen a tsunami of negative criticism towards the group that created said hypothetical statues, with criticism leveled with regards to sexism and body shaming.
But I have to say that I agree with those who point out that the group, in their hatred for Trump, have essentially engaged in one of the things that the Left in particular is supposed to be against, which is body shaming. Basically they're knocking on Trump for his physical appearance instead of his political views. Criticizing him for his political views is fine, but body shaming like this is bad, as there are plenty of other people that said Trump haters like and think are decent who also would not be anything special to look at.
One also has to wonder at the hypocrisy here, because if such statues had been produced of say Hillary Clinton, would the media response have been so light-hearted? Or that of the NYC Parks Commission? We probably instead would have seen a tsunami of negative criticism towards the group that created said hypothetical statues, with criticism leveled with regards to sexism and body shaming.
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Now John Avlon Knows How Conservatives Felt
John Avlon writes an article for The Daily Beast on Trump, in which near the end, he says, "America is on the knife edge of dangerous" with regards to Trump (LINK). This is exactly how the political Right felt on the eve of Obama's election, and IMO they have turned out to be correct for the most part.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)