Out of tragedy must come something good - curb on violence

In light of the tragedy that descended upon a small community in Connecticut, the call for greater gun control has been ringing across the nation. Rightfully so. After a string of horrific shooting sprees - Sikh temple, Colorado movie theater, a shopping mall in Wisconsin to name a few - the question of having such fire arms available to the general public remains in question. Of course the NRA remains a powerful if not controlling body in US politics, and because of their sway, true reform will have a difficult time coming to light.

All this stems from a few words written by the founding fathers -

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I will not get into a legal discussion or interpretation of these words, rather I think we need to put this into context. When these words were written the United States was a former colony, an upstart in the world. They were breaking from what was the hegemon at the time - England. A nation who's empire the sun never set upon. A nation with the largest navy in the world and a world class standing army. The United States was comprised of a number of farmers and merchants who happened to own muskets to protect their land, hunt and form said militia. Contrast that with today. The United States has the world's most sophisticated military. Period. Therefore the need to have a well regulated militia is unnecessary.

Does this mean we should no longer have the right to bear arms? Of course not. But the right to bear arms does not have the necessity of maintaining a militia. Therefore there should be the ability of imposing greater safety controls on acquiring and keeping those weapons.

• Background checks - If you are a business trying to get a liquor license you have to submit to a lengthy review. If you want to secure a loan, same idea. Or drive a car.
• Increased eduction - You need to take classes to learn to drive a car. Or to be certified with CPR. How about handling a weapon?
• Improved gun safety - Mandatory checks such as gun locks, minimizing capacity of ammo clips and the like. Ban on certain weapons.

I realize these are nothing earth shattering. I also realize they do not prevent all gun violence. I also realize that if you reduce the amount of guns, or at least the access to guns, you reduce the probability that someone with bad intentions gets access to one. The saying that "guns don't kill people do" is correct. But if the people that want to kill do not have access to tools of death, how successful can they be?

Chick-fil-a uproar...tempest in a tea cup

First I will say...it has been a while since I published anything on this blog. I do not expect to post too often (I do write 2 other blogs!) but from time to time I will write some of my views on more "charged" topics that are related to politics. The recent uproar over Chick-fil-a motivated me to write about this. For those in the dark here is a recap of what is happening - Chick-fil-a corporate has come out and made statements about being "pro-family" meaning the way defined in the Bible:


"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

This comes from an interview given to the Bapist Press, click here for full interview. This has led to uproar from both sides. The side that is for equality and the side that is for traditional marriage. Now when it comes to the question of gay marriage, my stance is simple - if two people love each other and want to commit to each other (and enjoy the legal and societal recognition) then let them. Honestly, one thing the world cannot ever have enough of are people who love one another and want to commit to one another.

To me this is a larger issue, with regards to Chick-fil-a, I think we are making too much of the situation. Here is why.

Dan Cathy, the President and COO of Chick-fil-a, has a right to make his stand and company philosophy public as well as be proud of it. The constitution gives him this right. Now, one can argue that his stance is about "family values" are a veiled anti-gay violation of civil rights view point...that is a debate for another day. Even so, as a citizen, Dan has the right to express this. As a business, Dan does NOT have the right to discriminate against his employees or patrons. From what I can tell, Chick-fil-a abides by the laws of the land when it comes to hiring practice, work environment and treating patrons. The likes of Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee also have the right to rally their followers to support Chick-fil-a by purchasing their products.

From the other side, folks like Tom Menino has the right to send a letter to Chick-fil-a expressing his distaste for their stance on the topic as well as suggest he would not be welcoming for the franchise. To read the Menino letter click here. What I find sad yet typical in such a debate is that Menino is not telling Chick-fil-a it will not be allowed to come to Boston but rather: "I urge to to back out of your plans to locate in Boston." Funny no where do I see he saying - you will not come here and I will do whatever I can to prevent it.

Both sides have the right to make their views public. Chick-fil-a as a business, appears to continue to follow the laws of the nation. This is becoming a tempest in a tea cup.

My take is the following - which ever side you fall on vote with your feet and wallet. Do not believe in what Chick-fil-a stands for, don't eat there. If you want to show your support for Dan's point of view then by all means spend your money there. I think this has become a tempest in a tea cup...the issue of gay rights and marriage are by no means trivial, but Chick-fil-a, as long as they respect the laws of the land, have a right to express their opinion. And unlike their chicken and waffle fries, can be and are distasteful.
 

Mark Foley in rehab

So the email-sex pervert Mark Foley is heading to rehab. Interesting, I thought he resigned because he was sending inappropriate emails to interns. I guess when in doubt go into rehab. I wonder how the GOP will spin this?

French students protest while rest of world moves ahead

As a French ex-patriot and unabashed "frog" I am always curious as the mentality of the French populus. The latest attempt by the government to tacklet the staggering double digit umemployment figure would appear to make sense. Allow those that hire freshly minted college graduates to dismiss employees with out reason during their first two years of employment. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060316/ap_on_re_eu/france_job_protests

Of course this has created mass protests of students who have taken this opportunity to decend into the streets to protest. Claims of becoming "disposable" and being at the mercy of employers are being heard through out Paris and France. I believe that they are wrong, the students and protestors, not the governement. As far as I see it, in today's modern industrial society we are all "employees at will" we are free to come and go as we please. We don't like the job, we can leave, we can find another job, we can grin and bear it. Granted, we all need money to pay bills, rent, mortgages, etc, but we should all approach work understanding that jobs are means to achieve goals and not the goal itself. But also that jobs are too be earned and not granted. What the French protestors are missing is that companies do not fire those that are producing and are contributing members of an organization. If a freshly minted student finds a job he or she will be promoted and not fired if they are producing. However if they cannot produce than it is better for them in the long run and the firm in the short run to terminate that employement. That person, while on the short term may find it difficult, will land on their feet and learn from the experience. The firm will be able to give another qualified candidate a chance, continueing the development of a skilled work force.

I hope that the government stands strong and keeps this iniative in place. The French protestors may think they are protecting their interests, but with growing globalization and competition if they are not ready to compete for jobs at home how can they do so on the global stage.

Bush and India

Not sure Bush has made a "wise" choice agreeing to share nuclear technology with India. Maybe he should have held off looking to hypocritical as he tries to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The Iraqi Vote

Reading the head lines today what struck me was the lack of discussion of violence in Iraq yesterday during the nation wide election. This is the best image we can have of Iraq, much better than the staged pulling down of Hussien's statue when the US troops entered Baghdad. It is also encouraging to hear that there was close to 70% turn out (kind of makes the turn out for US elections look pathetic, maybe we have forgotten what it really means to have the freedoms we take for granted) as well as high participation from the Sunnis.

However, let us not allow this to lull us into a false sense of success and of "mission accomplished." Much remains to be done. US troops should still be expected to manage Iraq's security for many more years...for as long as it takes. What happens next year will go a long way to determine the future for Iraq. Let us hope that the politics of Mid-term elections does not cloud our decisions for Iraq

The 911 report

The final 911 report came out this week and overall it gave the efforts of the US government as abyssmal. While I may be overstating the grade I think it should give us all reason to pause and think. Since the horrible events of Sept 11, 2001 we have seen the US government invaded 2 sovereign nations and create great debate around the future of the Middle East as well as the global system. However, what has the government done with regards to ensure that the United States does not suffer another catastrophic attack? From the 911 report it would appear that not enough.

I find it interesting that the Bush administration was not on the White House lawn commentating on the report, rather they had a spokeswoman who had the gall of saying, (this is not a direct quote): "The Bush administration has been doing a good job with Terrorism, we have not suffered an attack since 9/11." Of course this statement is completely misguided and actually extremely reckless. Terrorists do not think in time frames of 2 or 4 years, they think long term, generations, etc. The fight against extremists will last much longer than this President's term. It is reckless to try an convince the American populus that all is fine, what happened on 9/11 will change the way we live for the rest of our lives as well as those of our children. I think the 911 report points that the Government has not taken this to heart. Shame on them, both Republicans and Democrats. Republicans have misguided leadership focusing on overseas "problems" while avoiding the hard decisions and actions needed to make this nation safer. Why are we protecting bomb sniffing dogs as well as those picking up the garbage (air conditioned trash trucks) rather than our sea ports, containers, airports, etc? The Republicans are showing poor leadership in this area, the Democrats are showing no vision or ideas. They are too busy hounding the Republican party rather than leading the country with ideas for how to make this "war on terror" winnable.

Shame on both sides. Maybe this report will give both a kick in the pants to get things done...unfortunately being a year out from midterm elections I highly doubt it.