Guns

Since the massacre of 20 children and 6 adults in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, a few weeks ago, there has been a great deal of howling on both sides of the debate as it pertains to guns and gun control. Those who advocate for gun control are, in many cases, calling for an outright ban on weapons and most particularly assault weapons. Those who oppose gun control argue that it is a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible tragedy to impose such a ban and that it will be more harmful to the citizens in the long-term.

Unfortunately, both sides talk at each other and neither side is particularly inclined to listen to the other as they are both deeply entrenched in their views. The result is a failure to find any progress toward resolving the problem. Making things worse, of course, is when people go to extremes to make their views known. The Journal News, a newspaper in New York, is one such example of going to extremes. The paper set off a firestorm of criticism when it published an interactive map of all registered gun owners in several counties in New York. The paper then defended itself from criticism by stating that it felt it was important to share information about gun permits with its readers, indicating that it wanted to provide even more information. As if printing the names and addresses of people without their permission simply because they have gun permits (it did NOT address whether they even had guns!) was not enough?

No, what the paper did was cross a line. While the information was available via a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, it did not need to be - and should not have been - published by the paper. In spite of their professed desire to make information about gun permits known to the general public, they instead set off a furor about the rights of individuals to keep their personal information, well, personal. Instead, they attempted to frame citizens with legal gun permits as criminals. How is it relevant to "out" people with gun permits because the very act of doing so then renders them as perceived future lunatics and criminals who will all want to go out and shoot up their local malls and schools - in spite of the overwhelming odds against such? What happened in Newtown was a tragedy and some serious introspection is due by the nation as a whole but when one side attempts to paint with a wide brush all they do is tarnish their own arguments and render it impossible to look at the issue rationally.

And, just to be fair, Wayne LaPierre is equally guilty of such when he makes arguments that we should arm the schools? Currently, there are many schools that do have armed security on site and, while the school in Newtown did not, that does not necessarily mean that the tragedy would have been averted if armed security had been there. But the idea of having armed guards at elementary schools is not one that is really reasonable, either. After all, it's one thing to see the number of television shows and movies with wanton violence (guns and otherwise) for children, it's another to see them at school which is intended to be more of a nurturing and protective (not protected) environment.

There is a great deal more that I can say here about the idea of gun control but I do not want to get into arguments with people who are unwilling to listen. Instead, the main point here is that demonizing those who have philosophical differences with you will not solve the problem. Subtly criminalizing them when they have done nothing wrong nor illegal (such as The Journal News did) is more reminiscent of making Jews wear the Star of David in Nazi Germany than the freedom purported to exist in the United States.

On vacation and sick

It seems like one can go an entire year and be relatively well. Then, the minute you go on vacation - WHAM! - you come down with some illness. In my case, it's Christmas and I seem to have acquired a nasty little upper respiratory infection according to my doctor (though I'd just call it a cold). Either way, it's a nasty little thing and, while I'm grateful I caught it the day after Christmas, I'd just as soon have done without it entirely. So now, instead of getting out and doing some fun things (because I am apparently not part of the country being inundated with snow), I'm basically stuck at home and trying to breathe which is not easy when you're congested. Oh, well, that and sleep since I couldn't get much of that last night, either.

On the good side, though, this means that I get to sit down and watch several Star Wars movies uninterrupted! And, while I can't say as though I am feeling 100%, this certainly helps me to feel better. Now, if only this medicine will kick in quickly and get me back up to normal by tomorrow...

*cough*

Christmas Music

A few weeks ago, I had the very distinct pleasure of attending a concert by Trans-Siberian Orchestra. Suffice it to say that I had a great time and enjoyed it tremendously - and that was in spite of the poor seats that we had which placed up in the rafters directly the right side of the front of the stage which meant that we couldn't see some of the lighting conducted from the very front. But, in the end, that did not really matter a great deal.

Now, I should caveat that I am a big fan of TSO and it is about the only Christmas music that I can bear to listen to for more than an hour or so. Their eclectic sound is a mixture of heavy metal with a Christmas theme and clearly has a devoted following as the theatre was jammed with fans. It is clearly a genre all its own, too, as those fans ranged from families with kids (such as mine) to older couples to young headbangers (including a young couple who sat in front of us and whose head-banging motions during the concert were almost as entertaining as the concert itself). Their most famous song, Christmas in Sarajevo, was the denouement of the evening and a fitting climax to a terrific show.

The show began with lights and fire and did not let up from there. The guitarists and violinist kicked things off with some hard-rocking licks which then led up to the beginning of the story of the Lost Christmas Eve (the name of one of their albums). The story was compelling and the intersection of the story with the music was unlike any concert I had ever heard - though it should be noted this was only my 4th concert ever attended. Regardless, it was a wonderful experience and one that should be experienced at least once. In my case, I think we'll be attending again in another year or two so that would make it at least twice.

I may not post another low-level review after the next one, though. Unless I remember to write it within a few hours of actually seeing the concert...

Random Thanksgiving Thoughts

Thanksgiving, that most American of holidays. And I had a very nice Thanksgiving for which I was thankful to see a cousin and uncle I had not seen in some time with the rest of my family (blood and otherwise). Hopefully will be able to continue to renew old family acquaintances in the near future. Ah, the joys of the internet making the world that much smaller...

Several things have been on my mind lately so I'll just skip over a few. First, in the interest of making sure everyone is treated fairly, what the heck was John Sununu and much of the Republican Party doing when they said that the only reason General Colin Powell, a staunch Republican who also happens to be black, chose to support President Obama's re-election (as well as the first time around in 2008) was because he is also black?! I've happily taken Democrats to task for such idiotic statements and will do the same here. Regardless of whether the Republican establishment liked the fact that Gen. Powell voted for Obama or agreed with his reasoning for doing so (and he clearly stated why he supported the president and it wasn't because he was black), to suggest he did so because they share a skin color is racist. The fact that no one prominent within the party rose up to disavow those comments is a major reason why there is a very real perception that the Republican Party is the party for racists (well, ok, white racists). Unless and until the party recognizes it cannot continue with the strategy it has employed for the last 40 years, it faces the very real possibility it will go the way of the Whigs.

Ok, it's been a while and I actually started another blog post on this but got sidetracked and not in the mood to finish that thought so I'll address it in short here. Thank goodness Lucas is no longer controlling the Star Wars empire! Don't get me wrong, I am most grateful for the empire (I know, an ironic word choice) he created back in 1977 and to suggest that I am an ardent devotee is a significant understatement. But over the course of the last 20 years, he has angered me far more than made me happy with the bastardization he has done to the franchise with continual technical upgrades to the original movies and the lousy prequels he did (well, ok, Episode III was watchable but still far lagged behind IV and V). Now, with someone else in charge, even if it is as part of Disney, I have a lot more hope for the future and am looking forward to seeing where the franchise goes from here. Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, I'm sure better things await.

Recently, have come across several people who have become much more politicized. That is in contrast to myself as I have grown less so in my old age. What struck me, though, was how they view everything in their life through the very narrow lens of politics. One person made it clear that they were removing all of their social network friends who had differing political viewpoints. Another tried to argue with me that I was wrong for not being as strident in my political views and that I should be focusing my efforts on getting one of the candidates elected for the betterment of our country as the other candidate would destroy the nation. Trying to point out to this individual that I would vote (without disclosing to whom, they simply made an assumption) and that I had problems with all of candidates and their views a variety of issues was useless as they took the opportunity to point out how the opposing candidate (only the major party candidates mattered to this person) was wrong on EVERYTHING and ignored anything I tried to say. I guess it goes along with the tendency of these same people to only hear things that support their particular worldview and ignore anything else as irrelevant. So, if I don't listen to Fox News then I am getting a slanted viewpoint that only supports liberal weenies who want to burn the flag, get rid of English and turn the country into Northern Mexico (or choose your own country) or if I am listening to Fox News then they only offer "conservative" news and I am some back-woods redneck hillbilly who spends every Sunday in church listening to ignorant preachers who hate gays. Nope, thanks but I prefer to get my news from many sources and ignore the many talking-heads who somehow manage to get paid for saying stupid things for both extremes of the political spectrum while ignoring the needs of the nation as a whole. I now hope that the day comes where we can come back to some sort of middle ground that will allow collaboration on big issues for the nation instead of small-minded wedge issues designed to only garner votes from a small subset of the electorate - because we are now in election mode every day of the year. Politicians now view their job not as one of governance but of getting re-elected. Unless and until this changes, things will likely not improve significantly.

Ok, ok, I've digressed so I'll stop ranting now.

Say what?!

I found the statement below from an article on CNN to be absolutely amazing in its oxymoronic insanity (and emphasis really should be on "moronic") and belief that people are going to be so stupid to actually take it at face value:

"Our goal is for no customer ever to pay the $100 fee," said Spirit Chief Operating Officer Tony Lefebvre in a statement. "By planning ahead and paying for bags before getting to the boarding gate, our customers are saving time at the airport and speeding up the boarding process. When our customers choose these time-saving, self-service options, our costs go down, and we can pass those savings along to our customers."

Really, by charging your customers up to $100 for luggage, it makes things more efficient for your company so that you can then pass those savings back onto your customers?! Um, how does charging your customers more to bring their luggage onto your planes save them money?! Aren't you doing the exact OPPOSITE by making your customers pay more rather than actually saving them money?! The only way they will save money is not to fly on your freakin' airplanes!

Maybe the airlines should go ahead and seek a government bailout? Seems like a good possibility based on how the election is likely to go. If banks and the auto industry can do it, why not the airline industry (which has been in decline for the last couple of decades)? Then people can pay more in taxes AND the same ridiculous fees that the airlines are making up as they go along...

Really, who is the racist?

As I have pointed out on this blog a few times before, I have a hard time understanding how it is that, in the political landscape, Republicans are racist and Democrats are the new party of Abraham Lincoln come to rescue the downtrodden blacks.

And apparently I'm not the only one is willing to point this out as this one gentleman did. And he did a good job in pointing out that he doesn't necessarily have to agree with her choice or her reasoning in making said choice (and he doesn't on both counts). But to suggest that she is a race traitor or worse because she is expressing her freedom to choose someone else and to stand outside the mainstream is not wrong but is a step that shows that the color of one's skin should not be the determining factor in one's political affiliation. After all, wasn't that the point of the Civil Rights Movement?

Unfortunately, I suspect that such a nuanced point of view will continue to be ignored because it's an uncomfortable thing to reflect upon contradictions in our views. Well, for most people, anyway...

That says a lot...

But probably not what the perpetrators intended it to say.

No, what they intended to say was that "Hey, we can kill anyone who disagrees with us, even 14-year old girls who think they should be educated when the laws of God insist that they should be barefoot and pregnant." Instead, what they said was, "Hey, we are a bunch of grown men with guns who are afraid of a 14-year old girl who might convince people that we're grown idiots with guns who are afraid of a smart 14-year old girl."

And the fact that this guy sent a hit team to kill her speaks of desperation.

Now I just hope that this tragedy can serve a greater good and wake people up to recognize the dangers inherent in not opposing ignorance and the violence that it so often breeds. It is sad that it has cost this young woman so much but perhaps good may come of it after all. At least we can hope that it will...

History being a useful predictor of the future, however, I am not entirely encouraged.

What is fair and what do we deserve?

It's the high point of the political season in the United States and there is a steady refrain of how things should be more fair and clearly the poor (or insert your own group here) deserve more than what they have. I have to admit that this is a subjective subject at best (is it really possible to say "subjective subject"?). When we talk about "fair", what is fair? Fair to whom? The idea that it is fair to take from some and give to others is a Robin Hood-esque idea that makes everyone feel all warm and fuzzy. And I say that as a fan of the story of Robin Hood. However, there is a significant difference between Robin Hood that should be pointed out. Namely, Robin Hood was an individual who sought to assist people from the tyranny of the governing power. However, in many of the arguments bandied about today, the suggestion is that government should be taking from the rich and re-distributing to the poor, or protecting the poor from rich. Should the government take that role? Doesn't that make the government tyrranical - to at least a part of the society that it alleges to represent? At the very least, the Robin Hood comparison is a poor one.

But to cut to the idea of fair, it would be more appropriate to ask if fairness can ever truly be achieved. After all, the reality is that life is not fair. Some people are better looking than others. Some people are taller than others. Some men have more hair than others. Some people are smarter than others. There is no equality in life as people may wish for and it is not possible to make people equal in this fashion no matter how much they may think they deserve it. Yet the refrain is that we should strive for equality, particularly in terms of economics. While I would not argue against striving for equality and giving people equal opportunities, it makes no sense that the fairness being argued for only deprives those with (money) unfairly to give it to those without. Instead of giving people money to make it "fair", give them the same opportunities to make money. Those who can take advantage of those opportunities will get what is both fair and what they deserve. Those people deserve the opportunity to succeed, not the money or the goods that others have earned.

Somehow, though, I fear that this may not make it into the political discourse. *sigh*

Day off

Today was a day off and I had fully intended to take the unexpected reprieve from anything pressing to do to do things that were not quite so pressing. You know, things like writing, reading and generally nothing at all. One thing that was definitely at the top of my list of things not to do - watch television. Yes, I have found that is taking up way too much of time lately for reasons I can't really fathom since I normally do not watch a lot  to begin with. However, there are some shows that I do enjoy watching and Netflix is not proving to be very helpful, either. For me, it's The Big Bang Theory, Law & Order (I've been a huge fan of all of them for years), and a new show this year called Revolution (which grabbed my attention with the numerous commercials that were tied to it during the Olympics). You would think that would be fine since that does not seem like a lot of tv. However, you would be wrong. I am also a bit of a sports fan and my two favorite sports are football and football - the American and the international variety. So I watch the British Premier League during the week and on Saturdays and then American NFL on Sundays, Monday and Thursday nights. And that doesn't even count the occasional things that may pop up that I find interesting.

However, I have been working to reduce that and have gone an entire day without even turning on a television. Instead, I got out of bed and started my day working around the internet - a guilty pleasure that I've not been able to do a great deal of recently. After breakfast, I then did some work for the office (I know, I know, what was I thinking - but I did have some deadlines that were creeping up and I had to get them done because I know I'll be interrupted as soon as I get back to the office) for a couple of hours but that is ok because I wasn't in the office and not pushed to do so. Then I ran a few errands, read for a little while and even managed to take a short nap of about an hour (for me, that can be a short nap, even though I don't like to nap in the first place).

A couple of quick meals mixed in there and now some free writing time this evening. I'm even going to skip the football game this evening (because nothing can make me want to watch the disaster that the New York Jets are becoming this season) and then tomorrow should find me somewhat refreshed and recharged. And, at the end (and even the beginning) of the day, isn't that what we all want?

Books

On my reading list are three that I am really either currently enjoying (yeah, I know, I have a tendency to read a few books concurrently) or looking forward to reading.

• A Storm of Swords by George R. R. Martin
• Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom by Stephen R. Platt
• Beijing Coma by Ma Jian

I'm about halfway through the first two and both are good in their own ways. Martin's book is one of the Game of Thrones series (no, I've never seen the HBO show and no intention of doing so) and I have found it to be a very interesting series. His writing style reminds me of James Clavell in how he handles each of the characters and we get any different perspectives. And since Clavell is one of my all-time favorite authors, Martin is currently moving his way up my list of faves.

I'm also about halfway through the Platt's novel which is an engaging recitation of the Taiping Revolution in China and the interaction of the Western powers at that time. Thus far, I have not found it to be a flattering portrayal but, considering the times, that should not be entirely unexpected. Though, I have to admit that I was thinking about this earlier today - how is it that so many ministers spent so much time going to foreign countries to convert the "heathens" and held such low opinions of those same "heathens" yet they were charitable "Christian" souls? Maybe I'm just simple-minded or my opinions on those who convert others to their beliefs do not easily lend themselves to being kind. However, I digress...

I recently saw a review of Beijing Coma and thought it sounded pretty good. Turns out that the local library (though not the branch I normally I visit) has a copy so I've requested it. Hopefully shows up in the next couple of days and that will be something else to enjoy.

I've tried to switch away from the history and social science books that have been more of my interest in recent years to a little more fiction in order to help resuscitate my ability to do more writing on my part. I've got about 5 different short stories going right now (on paper, no less!) and trying to finish at least one (I'm sure Heather is beginning to wonder about this). But I'll get there - have faith (ok, that does sound funny when you consider my religious views at times)!