af40's Blog

In the wake of this week's horriffic events at Virginia Tech, a number of politicians, media pundits, lobby groups, bloggers and laypeople have brought the decades-old old gun control debate back to the surface. In usual fashion, the two primary opposing camps have summoned to the fore the same hackneyed slogans and talking points we have come to recognize by their jingoistic timber.

Essentially, the NRA and all who are either affiliated with it or sympathetic to it state:

'Guns don't kill people, people do.'

While the anti-NRA-philes say:

'Guns kill people.'

This pseudo-causal debate, not quite scientific, presupposes that either explanation alone is sufficient, and that it is mutually exclusive with any alternative explanation.

Which is, of course, obsurd.

Do people kill people? Yes. People ultimately kill, whether they do it with a handgun, a knife, a machete, rope, or any other number of morbid tools that are now available to miscreants and evildoers.

Do guns kill people? Of course. Guns are created for the sole purpose of killing. If guns were created for purposes other than killing, then we wouldn't be finding so many shell casings at the scenes of practically 99% of all urban crimes.

I find it sad that the debate has never evolved beyond this almost absurdly comic semantic sparring match. The NRA is correct in stating that ultimately people are responsible for their own actions. People can use any number of implements to kill or harm other people, some of which might not even be conventionally described as weapons.

For example, people can get into their cars and smash into other cars and people, something that has been outrageously popularized in a number of video games. Yet few of us think of cars as weapons of death and mayhem. In this same vein, almost anything can be used as a weapon to harm, maim, or kill other people. The NRA is correct in stating that people must ultimately hold responsibility for NOT using guns or any other number of potential weapons to do harm.

But the NRA's narrow focus in taking away practically all blame from the handgun industry and lobby in its efforts to make guns easily available and far removed from state control is also wrong.

For example, the Bush Administration has strongly opposed the sharing of background information on people who buy guns in one state that may have weak or lax gun laws, and who end up transporting those guns across borders, acting as proxies for convicted criminals who can't purchase handguns. While Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and other northern states limit the number and types of handgun purchases, guns can easily flow into northern urban areas from states with weak gun laws like Texas or Florida. As a result, Northern states often decry the fact that their own laws are rendered useless by virtue of the fact that criminals can simply come into the state with truckloads of weapons- all purchased legally in states with weak gun laws. The Administration staunchly opposes the sharing of electronic background information that might stifle this burgeoning gun trade.

In Virginia, where this week's horrible shootings occurred, the only true limit to purchasing a handgun is that you cannot buy more than one gun a month. And the guns you can buy- semi-automatics- are recognized universally for their intended role in killing people.

It is time for a new debate, one that doesn't involve the circular arguments over what ultimately kills people. Handguns- especially semi-automatics- are used primarily for shooting other people. While every American has a 2nd Amendment right to self defense, we must also recognize that in defending this right, we are also giving criminals the opportunity to buy and use weapons not for defensive, but for offensive purposes.

When the Founding Fathers crafted the 2nd Amendment, they never anticipated at the time that much more powerful weapons would be created in the future that could, in the blink of an eye, kill tens, if not hundreds, of people. They crafted the amendment at a time when memories of British limitations to a colonist's rights to guns were fresh. Most American colonists used guns for two major purposes: hunting, and defense against natives or foreign powers, especially on the Frontier. Today, a very small minority of guns are used for hunting. And the Frontier is long gone.

For its own part, what the NRA has failed to address is the fact that just as interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses have changed the rights we do have as Americans, so, too, must interpretation of the 2nd Amendment change so that we do not allow any number of powerful semiautomatic and automatic weapons to become readily available to criminals. The NRA's call for stronger enforcement of laws has some merit, but those laws are often weak by virtue of the fact that criminals simply side-step the laws that are available. But some laws- like the sharing of background information across state lines- can facilitate quick identification of likely criminal use.

It is incorrect to argue, as the NRA does, that having more gun laws does not, on its own, address the criminal's access to black market weapons. But law enforcement would be dramatically aided by laws that facilitate better background checks, because very often guns that do end up on the black market are first purchased by proxies who do not have any notable criminal record, but who should show up as a red flag for the high number of guns they purchase.

Furthermore, the very loose interpretation of the "right to bear arms" under the Constitution, especially of what constitutes an "arm", allows even such absurdly powerful offensive weapons as grenade and missile launchers, or tanks, to qualify. If laws cannot limit the weapons that kill people, then the courts should weigh in and define what constitutes an arm for allowable, reasonable defensive purposes.  Those same courts have narrowly construed what constitutes offensive and pornographic material.

And what could be more offensive, profane, or vulgar, than seeing people being killed- slaughtered- by handguns?

It is time for a new debate on guns that doesn't involve self-serving or dogmatic rhetoric, but which addresses the concerns of both handgun owners and those who fear the damage and destruction that handguns can and do cause.

The now-infamous Duke rape case and the fresh controversy surrounding comments made by TV "shock jock" Don Imus about the Rutgers University women's basketball team offer up a strange juxtaposition of how the media and public involvement is playing an increasingly salient role as the informal, yet biased, arbiter of contemporary American justice. Interestingly, the two cases crossed paths today: while charges against all three Duke lacrosse players were belatedly dropped, absent any evidence to substantiate the case prosecuted- or better said, persecuted- by disgraced Durham DA Mike Nifong, Don Imus' own metaphorical 'sentence' on his disgraceful behavior was just being pronouced, with his show's sponsors dropping out by the truckload and his MSNBC telecast of his radio show being scrapped. 

Strangely enough, in both cases students ended up the victims, but in the Duke case, those students were ultimately convicted by the media's speculations, while in the recent Imus case, the Rutgers students have been hailed for their bravery.

It is odd that this should be so. No evidence was ever found that would substantiate the claims made by the Duke players' accuser. Regardess, the three students were summarily suspended, and consequently and symbolically tarred and feathered in the media and by their own school.  Protests at Duke University, that included participation by numerous academics, called for the immediate dismissal of the students. In what should be considered one of the most egregious examples of injustice, the students' good names and reputations were permanently tarnished, dragged through the seemingly endless mire that has become American pop justice. Oddly, at no point did any prominent professor from the Duke University staff take a stand to defend the three students. The assumption of innocence before before proof of guilt was conspicuously absent among these arguably "liberal" academics, the same academics who frequently decry the same types of injustice when perpetrated by the justice system against minorities. Some of the same academics who were ready to crucify the Duke players jumped to the defense of the Rutgers players.

It is important to highlight this odd behavior on the part of members of academia here, because while the likes of such non-academics like Reverend Al Sharpton (of Tawana Brawley infamy) may be excused for their biased interest in politically milking the system for personal aggrandisement, the biased participation by otherwise obscure academics at Duke highlights a sad fact that is becoming increasingly evident: when you are a minority, the assumption is that any case against you is suspect and biased, while if you are white, and especially white, male, and rich, the assumption is that you are guilty. The extreme hypocrisy in this appears not to register on the radar of the liberal university elite, who frequently pride themselves in highighting the conservative's hypocrisy in defending the elite white class over the disposessed and oppressed rest. According to the liberal elite, in America if you are minority, you can do no wrong. But if you are white, and especially a white male, you are by defnition a racist, and it therefore behooves you to prove your innocence, since guilt is assumed by association to your racist white forebears.

The Don Imus case is clearly different in some respects. It is fairly evident, for example, that the radio host used vulgar and defamatory language, even if one might mitigate the gravity of that language by arguing that it was contextually-based (bad) humor. Imus went over the line, and he should account for that. Unlike the gray haze that enveloped the Duke players for over a year, the evidence against Imus in the court of public opinion is not hard to find. Yet there are distinct similarities between the Duke and Imus cases.

First, it seems that the media is increasingly pre-disposed to pronounce their own sentence. Media commentators are quick to comment on what party they feel is guilty even without full knowledge of the facts. Second, the bar for using the race card is set much lower when a supposed offender is accused of racism. Note how in both cases, university students ultimately suffered from the notoriety and media exposure, but in the case of the Duke players, that exposure was exceedingly negative and presumptive. The Rutgers women's basketball team- indeed innocent regardless of the nature of Imus' comments- is being hailed as heroic and exemplary. Why is it that the Duke players- who were just as innocent as the Rutgers women players and arguaby even more negatively affected- are not seen in the same positive light?

In fact, one can argue that taking a stand to defend one's innocence in the face of harsh media-fueled vitriol is even braver than using the media's encouragement to play the victim role. I cannot imagine what kinds of suffering the Duke families went through for over a year. I cannot imagine how I might feel if I saw all that I had worked for dissolve before my eyes. I cannot imagine how I would react to so much hatred from my own peers and college professors, who should know better. Sure, I feel for the Rutgers women's team. They worked very hard and achieved a lot, both on and off the court. But no one took their accomplishments away from them. If anything, the Rutgers female students will be remembered for their accomplishments ironically because of Imus' comments. By contrast, the Duke students will probably never get back what was taken away from them, and they will forever wear the infamous stamp of "R" for rapist.

Ultimately, it doesn't take much bravery to play the victim card, especially when the media is on your side.

Finally, I find it outrageous that the same type of misogynist, racist comments made by Don Imus can be perpetuated on radio stations that play rap music- notorious for this type of language- without any consequence. Why is it that the same media and academic elite who set the bar so low to convict a white man for making racist comments completely ignore demeaning and racist language by rap stars? The argument that "if you're black, you can say the 'n' word" is nonsense. In no way does any derogatory and slanderous language become better if it is said by someone who might himself be offended by that language. And much of the language in rap music is misogynistic- meaning that it directly attacks white as well as black women.

Where is the media's outrage here?

  

Let me just get one thing out of the way so that no one will accuse me of having a conflict of interest here. I am not politically affiliated with any party, I tend to vote with the best candidate, regardless of what party they belong to, and I was against the war in Iraq from the get-go. But having said all that, I believe that pulling American troops out of Iraq now is a bad idea.

 

There are numerous proposals of some type of troop pullout emanating from both sides of the political isle. Most Democrats want a rapid withdrawal, while a number of Republicans (not most) want a phased withdrawal based on the fulfillment of objectives in Iraq. Added together, the sum total of advocates for withdrawal constitute a majority of the members of Congress. Yet, President Bush is firmly against the idea of any rapid pullout or timetable, which sets the stage for a showdown over which branch of the government- the Legislative or the Executive- has the ultimate authority to wage war.

 

Interestingly, the domestic squabbling here at home isn't directly connected at all to the short or long-term US objective in Iraq and the Middle-East. I have yet to hear a ranking member of Congress logically and rationally advocate a policy that aims not only to cater to a domestic constituency, but to the national interest. National defense, after all, is a national and not a political or regional issue. As such, we would typically expect for both Democrats and Republicans to come together in agreement (for the most part) on national level issues. This did happen in the two years following 9/11.  But that was followed up by our entry into Iraq, which led to the evaporation of the "era of good feelings" between Democrats and Republicans.

 

I believe that any argument about what is to be done about Iraq today should focus upon the national interest first and foremost. Some argue that one cannot separate the national interest from the best interests of our troops and their families, because, after all, it is they who are giving their lives and livelihoods.  The sacrifices of our troops and their family members cannot be emphasized enough.  Ever since the end of the VietNam War, our military has been completely voluntary. As with our firefighters and police officers, the sacrifices of our soldiers on the call of duty are doubly significant by virtue of the fact that those sacrifices are invested willingly.

 

Yet it is perhaps because so much has been lost and invested in Iraq that we owe it to our troops not to abandon them now when so much hangs in the balance. If we withdraw our troops today, we will prevent the death of more of our soldiers, but we will have abandoned all hope of a stable Iraq, and that, in turn, will mean the abandonment of all that has been sacrificed thus far.

 

Many members of Congress argue that because this war was poorly planned and orchestrated, a withdrawal now is justified. I fail to see the connection here. Yes, Iraq was a mistake. Yes, the intelligence "evidence" was flimsy at best. Yes, there was a concerted effort to mislead the American people into a war on shaky grounds. And yes, this war has been bungled from the start by poor, "rosy" planning and inadequate equipment and troop levels. Senator John McCain, who is an advocate of a troop increase, has long argued that Iraq was bungled from the start. Yet Senator McCain, a former POW and war hero, knows that things can get much, much worse if we withdraw now.

 

Both Democrats and Republicans should cease political bickering over unproductive issues such as "why" and "how" we ended up in Iraq, and "who" is to blame. Those issues will be discussed in due time by historians and military analysts. What both parties must realize, on the other hand, is that we can yet lose the Iraq War if they do not work together on finding a workable solution to the growing internal civil conflict in Iraq.

 

The Iraq Study Group Report released last year indicated that even though a solution requires a broader political strategy, miitary involvement is not mutually exclusive with such a strategy. Secondly, even if careful consideration is made as to ways to look "outside the box" in resolving the Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq, there is no guarantee of success. Yet what is guaranteed, I believe, is that Iraq will become a failed state if neither a political nor a military option is exercised.

 

Democrats are correct in stating that pursuing a solely military option is wrong. But they are incorrect in claiming that only a diplomatic solution can suffice in lieu of it. America requires military force in order to obtain the necessary bargaining and functional capability to effect a conclusion to hostilities. Some say that we are simply refereeing a civil war. That might be true, but without our presence, Iraq would rapidly devolve into an all-out conflagration where neither side has any "referee" to rely upon for any measure of order. The Iraq government would rapidly collapse without our presence.  Into that vacuum might appear something much worse, perhaps a Muqtada Al-Sadr or some other client of Iran or Syria. It is not impossible to imagine the rise to power of another brutal dictator bent upon financing and assisting anti-American violence. If Iraq did not pose a direct threat to America before 2003, it would certainly pose one now if we were to withdraw our troops.

 

So this brings us back to the question of national interest. Even though a majority of Americans now feel that Iraq was a mistake, pulling our troops out would not remedy that mistake. The Democrats, fresh off their November electoral victories, are justified in pressing for a solution. They have, as President Bush might say, "political capital".  Yet that capital will be exhausted quickly if they fail to see the disastrous consequences of a pullout. And talk about withdrawing financial support, or about a "nonbinding" resolution that denounces the President's troop increase, simply sends a message (to both Shia and Sunni insurgents, as well as Iran) that  our enemies can win if they simply hold out a little longer, if they can wait out the political storm that is raging in Washington.

 

Declassified Soviet documents indicate that America's loss in VietNam, as well as communist incursions in Angola and Afghanistan ,were precipitated by a perception that America was politically weak and undetermined in fighting off communist advances. Since perception is reality, the perception by our enemies in the Middle East that America's resolve is waning will become de facto capital against us. We will effectively hand our enemies a win.

 

That win will be our loss not only in the Middle East, but everywhere else. America will be relegated to a second-tier power, one that is incapable of securing its national interests, perhaps not because it is militarily weak, but because it is politically divided. Yet, a house divided cannot stand, and therefore America will ultimately lose its military and possibly economic predominance once that happens. Our enemies will simply have to target our domestic constituencies and ensure that both parties lose track of the national interest.

 

Our national interest can only be served if both political parties work together towards a solution that does not repeat the mistakes of VietNam, and one that does not compromise either our direct strategic interests in the Middle East, or the vital reputation on which our long-term global interests depend. 

When the New Jersey State Legislature passed a ban on smoking in commercial areas last year, it oddly made one glaring and inexplicable exception: the Atlantic City casinos. Since that time, heated debates have ensued on both sides of the issue. Briefly stated, the pro-smoking "lobby" (which is well-funded by the casinos) feels that banning smoking in casinos will whittle away its important consumer base, especially gamblers. The pro-ban side (which is a side espoused by workers at the casinos) feels that smoking is a health hazard (duh!) and that having a ban on smoking will not draw away customers any more than it has in other commercial areas, areas that have continued to prosper economically even after last year's ban.

To begin with, I wonder why an exception to the smoking ban was made for the casinos in the first place. Oftentimes after watching the hit TV show 'The Sopranos' (which happens to take place in New Jersey), I get a sickening feeing in the pit of my stomach, a feeling that no matter what New Jersey has to offer for all of its bounty in academia, art, business, and a slew of other sectors, it will always be known as that place where Mafiosos run as free as the buffalo and where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. Seeing the casinos sucessfuly lobby the State Legislature (and now the AC council) for an exception to such a common sense bill brings all of these nauseous feelings back again. In any other state, a bill to ban smoking would never have made those exceptions. After all, workers in the casinos have just as much a right to be free of the poisonous vapor as workers in other areas. And if there is a law to protect the safety and health of workers, isn't New Jersey obligated to offer equal protection to all of its workers?

Secondly, I do not understand the economic argument for making an exception to the smoking ban. Casinos might claim that their customer base is largely of a certain variety that tends to have a penchant for smoking (and drinking), that is, they cater to a segment that one might otherwise call the "seedy" variety. I do not completely disagree there. Having been to the casinos a number of times, it is clear to me that smoking is a highly popular activity among the gambing crowd. But it is also obvious to me that if I spend more than a few minutes on any floor of any casino in Atantic City, I need a gas mask.

And that is why the economic argument fails: people like me- nonsmokers- represent a vastly larger segment of the consumer base than smokers. Even if we account for the possibility that smokers are more likely to gamble than nonsmokers, we must consider two things:

1. Smokers will not necessarily go elsewhere if they cannot smoke. I am sure, for example, that bars and clubs in New Jersey are just as full now than they were a few years ago before the commercial ban. That is because people adapt.
2. The legislators and casino lobbyists fail to understand that the situation here is dynamic. If smoking is banned in casinos, it is very likely that nonsmokers will find those casinos a more agreeable place to visit. When the air is cleared and all is said and done, the vastly larger number of nonsmokers will certainly find the casinos a better place to visit, even if fewer of those nonsmokers- by percentage- gamble.

But the most important factor is not economic, it is health and life quality. Workers who are forced to work under smoking conditions are obligated to place their health at risk. There is no doubt about that because numerous studies have shown that second-hand smoke can cause pulmonary disease and lung cancer. Secondly, consumers themseves are subjected to the same kinds of dangers. I am certain that many nonsmokers decide not to visit casinos precisely because they attract such large numbers of smokers. But then again, I believe nonsmokers are likely to come back if they felt it would be safe to visit.

The proposed Atlantic City ordinance to ban smoking in all but a small, supposedly "well ventilated" subsection of the casinos, would be but one positive step, but one that would not go far enough. While it failed to pass a council vote today (by virtue, some say, of the extreme pressure by casino lobbyists), it is likely to come up again.

Legislators must realize that the ban on smoking in casinos would have distinct health and economic advantages. They must also reaize that protections afforded to the majority of New Jersey's workers cannot be excluded for others just for apparently economic reasons.