2000 Redux?

So Ralph Nader is going to do it again. I honestly think he can't help himself; he just has to think he's relevant. He says that if the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they deserve to lose. The real problem with Nader is not his positions on issues; he's right on most of them. The problem is that Nader either doesn't or won't live in the real world. He absolutely refuses to admit he was the real reason that Gore lost in 2000. He goes on & on about all the other stuff that happened in that election. Sure, it all came together in a perfect storm for the Republicans, but had he not been in the race, stealing that election would have been a whole lot harder for them. Sure, Gore & the Democrats made a lot of mistakes; Democrats seem to love to shoot themselves in the foot. But there is no perfect candidate or perfect campaign. We just have to vote for the person who holds positions closest to our own, & who we believe can do the best job as president.

Nader's on an ego trip once more, & you can't convince me otherwise. He's sort of like the little kid that has to have his own way, or he takes his toys & leaves, only he doesn't leave; he stays & makes life miserable for everyone else. Maybe he just doesn't care whether or not he fucks up the presidential race again, just as long as his voice is heard. It would be kind of sad if it wasn't so infuriating. Here's this 74 year old man, never married or with any close relationships, who once was REALLY relevant (when he was a consumer watchdog), who got a taste of politics & was apparently seduced by it. It really kind of negates all the good things he did before, which is a shame. Of course, the real shame is all those people out there who'll probably vote for him (if he can get on the ballot) as either some misguided form of protest, or as a deliberate way to sabotage the election. That's the real problem with independent/third party candidates & the people who vote for them; it doesn't matter what their motives are, because the results are the same: chaos. This year, of all years, we can't afford chaos. The stakes are just too high. It's been a long, long time since a presidential election mattered this much. This election won't just have the potential of changing our country; it could actually change our world. I honestly think that to do whatever it takes to keep Nader off the ballot in every state would be an act of patriotism this year. Let's just hope the Democrats have the guts to do it.

The Right to Terrorize & Hope Reborn

So, another campus/school/mall/wherever shooting. Ho hum. It's become so common that we barely react anymore ; we're certainly not shocked anymore. What does that say about us & our culture? Are there any people left who actually are horrified & angry that these things both continue to happen & that everyone just accepts it as something we can't do anything about? Is there anyone besides me who lays this squarely at the feet (or more to the point, the trigger fingers) of the NRA? The "right to bear arms" does not include the right to terrorize. Yet that's what our supposed "gun laws" have failed to address. About the only thing I disagree with Barack Obama about is what the second amendment actually means. I know he's a lawyer who taught constitutional law, & I know there's been controversy forever about the interpretation of that amendment. But surely the outdated notion that we need guns to protect us from the federal government (even though with our current administration, it has crossed my mind more than once-just kidding) is incredibly outdated & just plain stupid. And don't get me started on how our treatment of mental health issues is insufficient & very often dangerous, leaving extremely damaged & sometimes extremely violent people to fend for themselves when they're obviously completely unable to do so. Not to mention putting everyone else at the mercy of these unstable, confused & often destructive people.

What's the answer? I guess that depends on how we frame the question(s). Guns are by definition violent, & giving those with mental health problems access to them should be seen as ludicrous as it actually is. Actually, in my view, giving anyone other than police & military access to guns is ridiculous. Ok, there are people out there who like to hunt. I understand that it was necessary for survival at one time, but come on, people, there are supermarkets now. I do have to admit that in the past I've been somewhat of a hypocrite about this. I had two uncles who were hunters, & I did eat my share of deer, rabbit & perhaps other poor, pathetic creatures. But that still doesn't make hunting right. And please don't call it a sport unless you also give guns to the wildlife who are being hunted (that's an interesting visual, right?). Anyway, I don't remember my uncles having a whole arsenal of guns. They just had what they needed for hunting particular animals, whatever they might have been. The point is that the NRA has overstepped its boundaries, defending all kinds of gun ownership without regard to what they're being used for. No one ever needs assault weapons or rocket launchers or other highly destructive types of weapons. If you want to either hunt or do target shooting, you just need weapons made for that particular purpose, & not a whole arsenal of them, either. The ideal solution to gun violence is articulated by the brilliant comedian Chris Rock, who is always right on about so many of society's problems. He says that guns don't need to be regulated, but bullets should cost $5000.00 apiece. That way, you'll have to think long & hard about whether whoever you plan to shoot is actually worth it. Think about it. Genius.

Notwithstanding Chris Rock's solution, access to guns is way too easy; in almost every state, gun shows are the one venue where you don't have a waiting period. I'm sure there are lots of other loopholes in the state laws. We really need a national law regarding access to both guns & ammunition, even though that idea would cause way too much controversy. And as far as mental health treatment goes, there are too many loopholes in those laws, too, to have any sort of cohesive treatment plans for individuals. So I guess unless we get really serious about both of these problems, we'll continue to have crazy people with guns shooting up all kinds of venues, causing tragedies that we deplore, which is all we'll do about it. When is enough finally enough?

On a lighter note, I'm crazy excited about my state (Ohio) being possibly the decider (sorry, Dubya) concerning the Democratic presidential nomination. Everyone said that it would be a done deal after Super Tuesday, but everybody was wrong (imagine that). Anyway, I hope everyone gets out & votes, not only in Ohio, but in all the states that are left. I really hope & pray that the Democrats don't find a way to shoot themselves in the foot AGAIN this year.

I just heard Barack speak at a rally in Houston after his win in Wisconsin. It was way more than inspiring; he touched on every issue that concerns people, & he was brilliant. We need this man as President; it's like he's the second coming of Robert Kennedy: his passion, his intelligance, his compassion. And don't think he's naive about the rough & tumble of politics. I'm reading his book (The Audacity of Hope), & he really has a grasp on politics; he understands it in a way not too many politicians do. I'm excited about what we can start to achieve in this country with Barack as president. Yes we (REALLY) can!

P.S. I don't know if I just misheard this on the news or not (I hope I did). Someone, somewhere is advocating arming college students to combat campus shooters. I don't even know what to say about that. I'm dumbstruck.