Reality to Earth . . . Just for a laugh, can we try to keep deadly weapons from being acquired by crazy people?
Automatic rifles . . . That's a good start. Can we keep automatic rifles out of the hands of lunatics, just to make life a little less interesting? Or to possibly make life spans in the general vicinity of these lunatics longer?
I'm not entirely sure what level or brand of crazy we should limit this restriction to, but until we can be sure, until some government ciphers can spend too much money on a definitive study, how about all kinds? If you're certifiable, and especially if you're writing 1200 page manifestos quoting the Unabomber and railing against any of your neighbors (Race, color and creed notwithstanding) you shouldn't have province over a weapon capable of rapid fire against a group of unarmed civilians.
Just saying, folks. And while we're at it, how about restricting the sale of everyone's favorite horse manure replacement, ammonium nitrate fertilizer, to people who actually have large plots of confirmed farm acreage which are producing crops and feeding people? True, in the case of the Oslo bombing this past weekend we had a crazy farmer at work, but that's the exception rather than the norm. You don't need drums of highly explosive materials to fertilize a backyard. Let those weekend grass-cutters stick to something which can't take out half of an office building when mixed with other easy to find materials.
I know if I'm going to hear it from anyone, it'll be from those who believe in the right to bear arms. I'm here to tell you I'm pretty big on the free speech elements of the same document that comes from, as well as the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness we all agree is a good thing. And I'm also sure someone bearing arms could have stopped the madness the other day . . . Just not someone crazy with an automatic weapon.
Common sense doesn't seem to always mesh well with what we perceive to be reality, but let's shove the two of them into a room together for a while (Unarmed would be nice)and see if we can make them get along.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Some Lives Will Not Be Saved
The headline out of England was as sad as it seemed inevitable. There was another talent, both brilliant and out of kilter, who wasn't going to see the somewhat mystic age of 28.
When I was a youngster, I saw the train wreck which was Amy Winehouse acted out at least twice for public consumption with The Pearl, Janis Joplin, falling to heroin on an October day in 1970 which was only two weeks after Jimi Hendrix dies choking on the contents of his own stomach. Back then it was treated as the inevitable tragedy which happened when the 'scourge of illegal drugs' was involved . . . What's commonly referred to as a cautionary tale.
Cautionary tale . . . Warning. There are those who will not be warned and eventually join the ranks of those who could not be saved. John Belushi, who could draw laughter with a smile, a flick of an eyebrow and a samurai sword, and didn't have a bad Chicago blues growl either, crashed into the ground with the impact of a mile long meteor; an impact which said 'This is what you could do to yourself. I'm Dead' with very little room for misinterpretation.
While I detest the sort of tabloid paper which leads with this kind of headline, it has to be said. The title of this warning goes 'They tried to make me go to rehab, and I said, No, no, no . . . And then I paid the price.'
Trying to save every life which runs down this road is a fools errand, but one which has to be undertaken, like it or not. Some won't be saved at any cost or any amount of effort, but the ones which are saved cut the sting of those losses, however many that turns out to be.
If people have the talent to grab a corner of the world, shake it, and make people pay attention . . . Take it from someone who most days is scratching around on the outside of that snow globe looking in . . . There's no greater creative gift. I'd like to see more people make that their drug.
When I was a youngster, I saw the train wreck which was Amy Winehouse acted out at least twice for public consumption with The Pearl, Janis Joplin, falling to heroin on an October day in 1970 which was only two weeks after Jimi Hendrix dies choking on the contents of his own stomach. Back then it was treated as the inevitable tragedy which happened when the 'scourge of illegal drugs' was involved . . . What's commonly referred to as a cautionary tale.
Cautionary tale . . . Warning. There are those who will not be warned and eventually join the ranks of those who could not be saved. John Belushi, who could draw laughter with a smile, a flick of an eyebrow and a samurai sword, and didn't have a bad Chicago blues growl either, crashed into the ground with the impact of a mile long meteor; an impact which said 'This is what you could do to yourself. I'm Dead' with very little room for misinterpretation.
While I detest the sort of tabloid paper which leads with this kind of headline, it has to be said. The title of this warning goes 'They tried to make me go to rehab, and I said, No, no, no . . . And then I paid the price.'
Trying to save every life which runs down this road is a fools errand, but one which has to be undertaken, like it or not. Some won't be saved at any cost or any amount of effort, but the ones which are saved cut the sting of those losses, however many that turns out to be.
If people have the talent to grab a corner of the world, shake it, and make people pay attention . . . Take it from someone who most days is scratching around on the outside of that snow globe looking in . . . There's no greater creative gift. I'd like to see more people make that their drug.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
The Legal System Will Drive You Crazy (When It Works To Design Specs)
Reality To Earth . . . Reasonable doubt is a good idea. Even when it seems it isn't.
There are plenty of other examples, but for a lot of people in my generation it goes back to the trial of OJ Simpson. Months of testimony, tons of evidence, gloves that wouldn't fit and a whole other pile of things which a jury seemed to magically distill in only four hours of sitting together in a room. The word was not guilty, the innocent dead all these years later still haven't had some form of justice done for the crimes committed against them, and a defendant those of us sitting on the outside looking in considered as guilty as could possibly be determined walked away.
The wrath of public opinion and righteous indignation have found a new "What were those twelve people thinking" watermark in the trial of a smiling, somewhat smug defendant and a dead innocent, a doe-eyed two year old who practically redefines the term. From what the evidence shows, we can only hope she never knew or never suffered due to what was done, but there will always be that underlying, nagging feeling she might have.
I've resisted writing on this subject for a few days. I wanted to see whether the 'lay of the land' was much the same as during the trial, with public opinion coming down like a hammer on the prosecution, the defendant and the jury.
I think the outside headline "No Justice" and the interior "Monster Mom beats Slay Rap" in Wednesday's July 6th's NY Daily News pretty much crystallized what I've been seeing since. The only people who seem to have doubted the defendant was guilty of murdering her daughter were the twelve whose opinions counted in this case. They saw the evidence presented, they weighed it, and they came to a decision which was largely based on the phrase every judge charges a jury with . . . "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt".
There are two thing no one can consider beyond that reasonable doubt. One is that Caylee Anthony is dead. Casey Anthony, amidst the clouds of stories, obfuscation and defenses walks away with time served. Just as with the case which I began the column with, the service of justice has been relegated to the court those of faith consider the final one, as there's little chance of anyone else being charged with the crimes.
The second fact, even if it currently irritates us, is that the term reasonable doubt is set within the legal system to protect the innocent accused of crimes in this country, if not always the innocent who are the victims of crime.
Stated simply . . . If the umpires blew the call, the ones they don't miss are what keeps the game on the field fair. And if I'm resorting to sports analogies, it's time to call a -30- to this entry.
There are plenty of other examples, but for a lot of people in my generation it goes back to the trial of OJ Simpson. Months of testimony, tons of evidence, gloves that wouldn't fit and a whole other pile of things which a jury seemed to magically distill in only four hours of sitting together in a room. The word was not guilty, the innocent dead all these years later still haven't had some form of justice done for the crimes committed against them, and a defendant those of us sitting on the outside looking in considered as guilty as could possibly be determined walked away.
The wrath of public opinion and righteous indignation have found a new "What were those twelve people thinking" watermark in the trial of a smiling, somewhat smug defendant and a dead innocent, a doe-eyed two year old who practically redefines the term. From what the evidence shows, we can only hope she never knew or never suffered due to what was done, but there will always be that underlying, nagging feeling she might have.
I've resisted writing on this subject for a few days. I wanted to see whether the 'lay of the land' was much the same as during the trial, with public opinion coming down like a hammer on the prosecution, the defendant and the jury.
I think the outside headline "No Justice" and the interior "Monster Mom beats Slay Rap" in Wednesday's July 6th's NY Daily News pretty much crystallized what I've been seeing since. The only people who seem to have doubted the defendant was guilty of murdering her daughter were the twelve whose opinions counted in this case. They saw the evidence presented, they weighed it, and they came to a decision which was largely based on the phrase every judge charges a jury with . . . "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt".
There are two thing no one can consider beyond that reasonable doubt. One is that Caylee Anthony is dead. Casey Anthony, amidst the clouds of stories, obfuscation and defenses walks away with time served. Just as with the case which I began the column with, the service of justice has been relegated to the court those of faith consider the final one, as there's little chance of anyone else being charged with the crimes.
The second fact, even if it currently irritates us, is that the term reasonable doubt is set within the legal system to protect the innocent accused of crimes in this country, if not always the innocent who are the victims of crime.
Stated simply . . . If the umpires blew the call, the ones they don't miss are what keeps the game on the field fair. And if I'm resorting to sports analogies, it's time to call a -30- to this entry.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
A Fore Which Has Nothing To Do With Golf
Reality to Earth . . . The summer of the superheroes just took an ugly turn.
I have very little problem with people who take sides in an issue, no matter how odd the issue might be. Taking a side in an issue means taking the time to stand up and be counted, and God knows we need every cerebral cortex out there firing on all cylinders to help steer this planet in the right direction.
That said, I think we could probably do with one or two less of the ones we have. Out in San Francisco there is a current movement to ban circumcision within the city which, in itself, is a legislative intrusion on an issue of choice made by a family . . . A very un-San Francisco item given the counter-culture history of a city which believes in the rights proffered by constitutional amendment . . . And that means all of them, including freedom of religion.
What started as a attempt to prevent circumcision by something called the "Intactivist" movement has gone from a complex civil issue to a monumentally ugly subject, as in Anti-Semitic ugly, as in . . . And I swear to you on my blessed keyboard as a fiction writer I didn't make this up . . . "Monster Mohel vs. Foreskin Man" ugly.
Look it up, ladies, gentlemen and kiddies. A comic book called "Foreskin Man" (!), in its second issue, depicts a bris as a religious ceremony taking place under the auspices of a vicious, blank-eyed psychopath with two yarmulke-wearing thugs at his beck and call. The father who insists upon it is considered strange and the mother doesn't survive the 'evil onslaught'. The child in all of this is taken by the good guys to be raised "Intactivist" as burning circumcision equipment forms the movement logo in the background.
Really, people? You're kidding me, right? This is, and always has been, a choice the parents make, whether it has to do with religious tradition or medical maintenance. This may also be the rare occasion you can put Jews, Muslims and Christians in the same room, have them point back through time to Abraham and say "Yeah . . . This we agree on." (Even if in Christian circles it's a medical option rather than a religious ceremony.)
If you have a problem with circumcision, and I can certainly understand having a problem with any form of elective surgical procedure, don't have it done to you and yours. There, OK? I solved things for you. I offered a simple, bottom line solution. The constitutional amendments apply to your choices just the same way they apply to mine.
Indulgence in blatant anti-religious propaganda, however, is where you not only lose me, it's where you put me and the "nipped before I knew where my bud was" subject of this rigmarole on the line against you. I have a son, daughter-in-law, granddaughter and someday I'm probably going to have a grandson, to all of whom any form of Anti-Semitic garbage is or will be one hell of a personal issue. That makes it a personal issue to me, and I find the people on my side a lot better equipped for this kind of argument than the ones on yours; people who seem to literally and figuratively be unable to do anything but go for the groin.
Take your hate and go away. Go far away. Stay there.
I have very little problem with people who take sides in an issue, no matter how odd the issue might be. Taking a side in an issue means taking the time to stand up and be counted, and God knows we need every cerebral cortex out there firing on all cylinders to help steer this planet in the right direction.
That said, I think we could probably do with one or two less of the ones we have. Out in San Francisco there is a current movement to ban circumcision within the city which, in itself, is a legislative intrusion on an issue of choice made by a family . . . A very un-San Francisco item given the counter-culture history of a city which believes in the rights proffered by constitutional amendment . . . And that means all of them, including freedom of religion.
What started as a attempt to prevent circumcision by something called the "Intactivist" movement has gone from a complex civil issue to a monumentally ugly subject, as in Anti-Semitic ugly, as in . . . And I swear to you on my blessed keyboard as a fiction writer I didn't make this up . . . "Monster Mohel vs. Foreskin Man" ugly.
Look it up, ladies, gentlemen and kiddies. A comic book called "Foreskin Man" (!), in its second issue, depicts a bris as a religious ceremony taking place under the auspices of a vicious, blank-eyed psychopath with two yarmulke-wearing thugs at his beck and call. The father who insists upon it is considered strange and the mother doesn't survive the 'evil onslaught'. The child in all of this is taken by the good guys to be raised "Intactivist" as burning circumcision equipment forms the movement logo in the background.
Really, people? You're kidding me, right? This is, and always has been, a choice the parents make, whether it has to do with religious tradition or medical maintenance. This may also be the rare occasion you can put Jews, Muslims and Christians in the same room, have them point back through time to Abraham and say "Yeah . . . This we agree on." (Even if in Christian circles it's a medical option rather than a religious ceremony.)
If you have a problem with circumcision, and I can certainly understand having a problem with any form of elective surgical procedure, don't have it done to you and yours. There, OK? I solved things for you. I offered a simple, bottom line solution. The constitutional amendments apply to your choices just the same way they apply to mine.
Indulgence in blatant anti-religious propaganda, however, is where you not only lose me, it's where you put me and the "nipped before I knew where my bud was" subject of this rigmarole on the line against you. I have a son, daughter-in-law, granddaughter and someday I'm probably going to have a grandson, to all of whom any form of Anti-Semitic garbage is or will be one hell of a personal issue. That makes it a personal issue to me, and I find the people on my side a lot better equipped for this kind of argument than the ones on yours; people who seem to literally and figuratively be unable to do anything but go for the groin.
Take your hate and go away. Go far away. Stay there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)