RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | The Legacy of Watertown Print
Friday, 19 April 2013 11:26

Blady writes: "As I write this, law enforcement agencies are searching Watertown, Massachusetts door-to-door, looking for a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing who is apparently Chechnyan. His brother, the other suspect, is already dead."

Officials stand guard at Massachusetts Institute of Technology following a shooting, 04/19/13. (photo: Julio Cortez/AP)
Officials stand guard at Massachusetts Institute of Technology following a shooting, 04/19/13. (photo: Julio Cortez/AP)


The Legacy of Watertown

By Joseph Blady, Reader Supported News

19 April 13

 

s I write this, law enforcement agencies are searching Watertown, Massachusetts door-to-door, looking for a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing who is apparently Chechnyan. His brother, the other suspect, is already dead.

My first thought was, "How proud John Cornyn must be that these guys seemed to have no problem getting the firearms they used to kill an MIT campus policeman, rob a 7-Eleven, carjack an SUV, and shoot it out with local police. Cornyn, the senior senator from Texas, felt obliged to take to the Senate floor yesterday to castigate the president for calling the Senate's performance shameful when it turned down background checks for gun purchases.

Didn't we just see an American Jihadi talking on YouTube about how easy it is to get guns in this country? I admit that I have no idea as to how these miscreants got their guns, but I am willing to say without reservation that there's something seriously wrong in a country where private citizens own 300,000,000 guns and are still bitching that their 2nd Amendment rights are being threatened.

I'm a gun owner. I went through eight weeks of background checks for which I had to pay. I had to supply a number of references. I was fingerprinted. My guns were registered. I have no problem with any of this. Then I turned on CSPAN and watched Ted Cruz, the junior senator from Texas, and supposedly a Harvard-trained attorney, dispensing garbage about slippery slopes and how background checks will lead to a gun Gestapo that will hound gun owners at every opportunity. Four woman senators voted against background checks. Are they, all mothers so able to detach from Sandy Hook? What were they thinking? Other senators talked about the Constitutional right to sell guns to family members. Really? It sort of made me conjure up images of members of the family in Texas Chainsaw Massacre selling each other shotguns because it's their Constitutional right.



Dozens of officers converged in Watertown early Friday. (photo: Matt Rourke/AP)


I would not want to give the impression that politics is more important or immediate than the horrible tragedies of Boston, and the slaying of one police officer and wounding of another. However, if there was ever a moment that demanded striking while the iron is hot, this is it. Senator Diane Feinstein had it right by trying again with an assault weapons ban. Friends of mine tell me that the AR-15 assault rifle is a terrific weapon for hunting, but some of the most successful hunters I know have never used anything other than low-capacity bolt action rifles, and bows and arrows.

A mail order house from which I buy ammunition (I have to supply copies of my driver's license and firearms card whenever I do so) recently mailed me a catalogue featuring 100-round drums that fit all sorts of weapons. It was in obvious response to the impending Senate gun debate. "Get 'em before they're banned," was the obvious implication.

If home defense is so important that it needs military weapons, does Cornyn's home have sandbag barricades at the front door? Are all his windows bulletproof? Does he drive around in an MRAP? I would be the first to agree that it's okay to keep a handgun or shotgun for home defense, but we're either going to go back to the Dodge City days, or we're going to try our best to restore sanity to the national dialogue, and trust our local and federal governments to handle at least some of the law enforcement. By the way, I hate paying taxes as much as the next man. The solution is not to disappear into the woods and become a paramilitary.

I'm not smart enough to figure out what to do about firearms legislation. This isn't about whether guns are like cars, because most people really need cars, and very few people really need guns. This nation was born in an aberrant manner, the first to ever break away from its colonial ruler. The result was a rough, independent society that needed to continue to defend itself. Guns in every home made sense two-and-a-half centuries ago. It makes less sense now, but it is the law of the land. Nonetheless, every portion of the Constitution is modified by laws that show that times change. There are gun laws of various types, and yet, no one is trying to take away everyone's guns. Can no sanity, no moderation, be brought to this debate? Does the American Jihadi in the video have to have the last laugh?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Time for a Sales Tax on Wall Street Print
Thursday, 18 April 2013 14:39

Nader writes: "Despite all the lasting harm caused by the casino capitalists, the big banks are now bigger, richer and more powerful than they were when they were bailed out in late 2008."

Ralph Nader being interviewed during his 2008 presidential campaign, 08/01/08.  (photo: Scrape TV)
Ralph Nader being interviewed during his 2008 presidential campaign, 08/01/08. (photo: Scrape TV)


Time for a Sales Tax on Wall Street

By Ralph Nader, Reader Supported News

18 April 13

 

ere are some questions to consider: What do the Wall Street firms do that is so vital for the national interest? How does speculation contribute to our society? It's time for Wall Street to step up and provide some answers.

The reckless actions of Wall Street institutions led to the collapse of the the U.S. economy and the deep recession of 2008-09. The Wall Street firms looted and gambled trillions in worker pensions and mutual fund savings. The Wall Street traders made billions of dollars in speculative money - bets on bets - holding hostage the real economy where money is made by providing goods and services. And the actions of Wall Street resulted in the loss of more than 8 million jobs.

Despite all the lasting harm caused by the casino capitalists, the big banks are now bigger, richer and more powerful than they were when they were bailed out in late 2008. The only ones who were punished were the U.S. taxpayers, who footed the $600 billion bill for the excesses of Wall Street. Brazenly, many firms still continue to gamble with other people's money.

Something needs to change. One necessary change lies in a financial transaction tax - often referred to as the "Robin Hood Tax." The Robin Hood Tax movement began in the United Kingdom in 2010 with the support of hundreds of economists, prominent public figures and social justice organizations.

Yesterday, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) reintroduced "The Inclusive Prosperity Act" - inspired by the Robin Hood Tax. If passed, the bill (H.R. 1579) would create a minuscule tax on the purchase and sale of derivatives, options and stocks. The tax would be small, half a percent or less of the transaction value, depending on the product. This amounts to half a penny or less per dollar.

Consider this fact: American consumers in most states pay sales taxes on the necessities they purchase - cars, appliances, clothes, etc. The rate of such sales tax is, in some areas, as high as 7 percent. For example, a schoolteacher or police officer who buys a $100 pair of shoes pays up to $7 in sales taxes. Most people accept the idea of paying such a tax. But what about the folks on Wall Street? A trader can buy and sell millions of dollars of financial products each day without paying a cent in sales taxes. Why should financial transactions be exempt from a small sales tax?

A financial transaction tax could raise $350 billion annually - money that could be used to repair critical infrastructure, create decent paying jobs, reduce the tax burden on individuals and start to rein in frivolous high-volume trading.

At the news conference announcing the legislation, Rep. Ellison said: "This is a small tax on financial transactions that will allow us to meet the needs of our nation. And didn't America step up, on very short notice, for Wall Street when it needed help? Well, now the American people need help."

Critics of a financial transaction tax have all sorts of excuses. They argue it would harm ordinary investors; it wouldn't, there are protections in place for small investors. Some say it would drive trading to offshore tax havens; but forty countries already have such a tax in place with little compelling evidence showing an adverse effect.

It's obvious that the casino capitalists won't give an ounce of their moral obligation without a fight. However, the endorsement of more than a thousand economists speaks volumes. One supporter, the Capital Institute's John Fullerton (a former managing director at JPMorgan), has stated that a financial transaction tax could have significant impact in lessening the use of high-frequency trading. He has estimated that nearly 70 percent of equity-trading volume falls under this category of highly speculative trading. In June 2012, Fullerton and over 50 other financial industry professionals wrote a letter to the G20 and European leaders advocating for small financial transaction taxes.

The United States had a financial transaction tax from 1914 until 1966. It imposed a tax of 2 cents on every $100 sale or transfer of stock.

The question I posed at the outset was: What does Wall Street do that is so vital for the national interest? To begin to answer it, they can start paying this small tax. As the Robin Hood tax website succinctly puts it with their slogan, it would be "small change for the banks and big change for the people." The $350 billion raised annually with a financial transaction tax would go a long way in helping American workers and bolstering the economy.

If you agree, stop practicing futility. Show a civic pulse. Write and call your Congressional Representative. Tell them you support "The Inclusive Prosperity Act" and they should support it as well. National Nurses United, the largest union and professional association of registered nurses in the United States, has already done this and much more with their national Robin Hood Tax campaign. Visit robinhoodtax.org to learn more.



Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Pit Closures Print
Thursday, 18 April 2013 14:34

Dipple writes: "Thatcher comes to me in a coffin, proceeds to re-write my poem begun that morning."

Deceased former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. (photo: unknown)
Deceased former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. (photo: unknown)


Pit Closures

By Leni Dipple, Reader Supported News

18 April 13

 

Pit Closures

The wall of my mind
is lined with picks
stood out against
a seam of night.
The present is eerie,
lamps dead. My room
a pit of solidarity
from which I write darkly,
incubating pictures
in my head. Thatcher
comes to me in a coffin,
proceeds to re-write
my poem begun that
morning. Taking my
clutch of nascent images,
she cracks them open
one by one. And lays
them on the table
'the centre piece
is a table, massive
made of English oak
its surface masked
by dark red leather
except a strip
around the rim
where the close
grain of an oak's
slow growth is seen'
'against the grain
the growth is cut
and tongues cut out
cured, blood darkening
on the table
under the tongues
lay the hides of those
who were felled
before hands ringed
in hollowness'
Before hands ringed
in hollowness
I heave the blackened
mass to surface now
around the rim. Tell
Thatcher she may go
to the Devil - a poet too
has tongue and teeth.
And the morning poem
returns intact, cuts a
new face of Arthur's
Britain, which laps
at the lake of dark
red leather, drawing
it into a damask sleeve
around the outstretched
hand. And the picks gleam

 


Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.


Leni Dipple is a British poet currently living in south west France. Educated at King's College, London where she read Portuguese and Brazilian Studies. Her multi media installation in Luton's Arndale in 2001 was part of the Year of the Artist series. She co-founded Mole Jazz in the 70's with her late husband, Edward Dipple, and Graham Griffiths. A radio programme about the jazz business, and featuring poetry commissioned for the occasion, was broadcast by BBC3 in 2008. Her work has been published in several magazines and by the Priapus Press.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Violence on the Home Front Print
Thursday, 18 April 2013 14:32

Eichelberger writes: "Since the Newtown massacre, visions of unfathomable crazy mass killers and armed strangers in the night have colonized the American mind."

Eichelberger: 'The danger out there is both more mundane and more terrible: you're more likely to be hurt or killed by someone you know or love.' (photo: Getty Images)
Eichelberger: 'The danger out there is both more mundane and more terrible: you're more likely to be hurt or killed by someone you know or love.' (photo: Getty Images)


Violence on the Home Front

By Erika Eichelberger, TomDispatch

18 April 13

 

ince the Newtown massacre, visions of unfathomable crazy mass killers and armed strangers in the night have colonized the American mind. Proposed laws have been drawn up that would keep potential mass murderers from getting their hands on assault weapons and high-capacity clips, or that would stop hardened criminals from buying guns. But the danger out there is both more mundane and more terrible: you're more likely to be hurt or killed by someone you know or love. And you'll probably be at home when it happens.

Between 2005 and 2010, 60% of all violent injuries in this country were inflicted by loved ones or acquaintances. And 60% of the time those victimizations happened in the home. In 2011, 79% of murders reported to the FBI (in which the victim-offender relationship was known) were committed by friends, loved ones, or acquaintances. Of the 3.5 million assaults and murders against family members between 1998 and 2002 (the last time such a study was done), almost half were crimes against spouses. Eleven percent were against children. But the majority of violent deaths are self-imposed. Suicide is the leading cause of violent death in the U.S., and most of those self-killings happen at home.

Violence Against Women

Vanette has plastic, rose-tinted glasses on and cowrie shells weaved into her braids. Her nails are long and thick and painted purple-brown. She has ample gaps in her teeth, and she's sitting at the communal dining table at a "transitional home" in Washington, D.C., telling me about the time her boyfriend broke her knee.

Vanette doesn't really think of that as domestic violence, though. "When I think of physical violence, I think of punchin' and smackin'," she says. The fat silver chain bracelets on her wrists jangle against the table as she talks. Besides, she says, she was the one who started the fight. Her boyfriend had polyps in his lungs and was supposed to carry around an oxygen tank, flush his lungs twice a week with a machine, and not smoke. One night in 2010, when Vanette got home, there he was, smoking weed in the living room with friends. "I was like, yeah, well, whatever, you're gonna kill yourself anyway." And then he shoved her over the back of the couch.

Domestic violence is the number one cause of injury to women. The incidents add up to more than all the rapes, muggings, and car accidents women experience each year. One out of every four women in the U.S. will be physically injured by a lover in her lifetime. That translates into a woman being assaulted every nine seconds in America. Immigrant women are beaten at higher rates than U.S. citizens, and African-American women are subjected to the most severe forms of violence. Not surprisingly, a shaky economy just makes these numbers worse.

And then there are the rapes. Over a lifetime, one out of every six American women is raped. For Native Americans, that number is one in three. For Native Alaskans, it can be up to 12 times the national rate.

And don't forget the killings. Sixty-four percent of the women killed every year are murdered by family members or lovers. There are more than 1,000 homicides of that kind annually, or approximately three a day. If there's a gun in a home where domestic abuse is a common thing, a woman is eight times more likely to be killed.

Faced with this grim pile of data, the American home begins to look less like a "castle" and more like a slaughterhouse.

At the same time, these numbers actually represent a vast improvement in domestic violence rates compared with a decade and a half ago. Since 1994, the rate of violence against women in the home is down 64%.

That percentage isn't quite as dramatic as it looks, because it coincides with a parallel decline in overall violence during the same period, and excludes the homeless, up to 40% of whom report going to the streets or someone's couch because of violence in the home. Still, the drop is significant and is likely due to, among other things, a public coming to terms with the reality of domestic violence, relatively recent federal laws meant to protect victims in the home, and the training of police and prosecutors to treat such violence as a crime, not a private affair.

For much of American history, the legal system didn't recognize most domestic violence, or date rape, or acquaintance rape, or marital rape as crimes. For a century, American men had the explicit right to beat their wives. They lost that right by the late 1870s, but long after that, the police would often respond to reports of wife-beatings by telling the husband to "walk around the block" and cool off. Public aversion to acknowledging violence in the home was so intense for so long that the anti-animal cruelty movement preceded the anti-domestic violence movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Even today, a residual urge to respect the supposed sanctity of the home and marriage helps shield men from laws now on the books.

In 1994, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). It was a landmark in bringing domestic violence out of the house and into the public space. Among other things, it provided money for the legal representation of victims of domestic violence, and for police training on the subject, and it helped enforce judicial restraining orders. The law also funded states to adopt mandatory arrest policies, which require that police arrest suspects in cases in which there is probable cause to believe domestic violence has taken place. Such laws now exist in 22 states and the District of Columbia.

Nationwide, however, arrest rates for domestic violence remain low. Only about half of reported domestic violence incidents result in arrest.

Even when states do have mandatory arrest laws, they don't always play out so well. If an arrest results in the elimination of the breadwinner in a household, it can leave an already battered woman broke as well. And the threat of certain punishment for a husband or boyfriend can actually make women reluctant to report abuse, which means they remain in violent homes. Immigrant and minority victims are even less inclined to call 911, since they have a stronger distrust of the police. Which means that sometimes mandatory arrest laws can backfire, resulting in fewer arrests, continued violence, and more deaths. A 2007 Harvard study found that the murder rate among domestic partners was 60% greater in states with mandatory arrest laws.

Once Vanette had landed on the floor behind the couch with one leg crumpled under her, it was her boyfriend who called 911. He was scared to death. When the ambulance came and the EMTs questioned her, she claimed it had been an accident. (Washington, D.C. has a mandatory arrest law). They kept her in the hospital for two days. And then she was on a cane. And out of a job. And shuttling between homeless shelters for months because her girlfriends told her she had to get out of that house.

Violence Against Children

Deon, who is now 27, doesn't cry. Ever. And he doesn't get angry. His eyes are wide apart and impassive. He talks matter-of-factly about how, when he was 14, his mother tried to kill him. She said it was because he hadn't done his homework. One day too many. She lashed him with an extension cord and threw a glass at him. She screamed that she'd call the police and then came at him with a knife. But she missed - deliberately or accidentally - and stabbed the wall instead. He says she meant to hit that wall. His little niece, his two sisters, and his mother's boyfriend were all in the apartment. His older sister kept pleading, "Mummy, that's enough." But no one ever reported the incident.

Child Protective Services may not have gotten a call about Deon, but it does respond to millions of reports of alleged abuse: 3.4 million in 2011. There were 681,000 unique victims that year. Seventy-nine percent of those kids suffered from neglect at home. Eighteen percent were physically abused, and 9% were sexually abused. Babies under age one were assaulted most often; 1,570 of those children died from abuse and neglect that year. Eighty-two percent of child victims in 2011 were younger than four.

While the rate of assault on children (as with women) has dropped over the past two decades, a recent Yale School of Medicine study found that serious child abuse - the kind that results in fractures, head injuries, burns, open wounds, or abdominal injuries - is actually up.

Being poor is a good way to increase your chances of being hurt by your parents. The same Yale study of severe abuse found that over the past 12 years, parental punching, thrashing, or burning of children has jumped by 15% for kids on Medicaid, the government health insurance program for families in poverty, but by 5% for the general population. Another recent Yale study suggested that child Medicaid recipients were six times more likely to be victims of abuse than those not on Medicaid.

Kids in violent homes have sleeping, eating, and attention problems. They are generally more withdrawn, anxious, and depressed than children with parents who don't abuse them. A 2012 Harvard study of the brain scans of 200 people found that childhood abuse can be associated with damage to the brain's hippocampus, which plays a major role in short- and long-term memory. Such kids are also more vulnerable to chronic illnesses like heart disease and diabetes, leading some to call child abuse the tobacco industry of mental health. One National Institute of Justice study of 1,500 kids found that abused children were also more likely to become violent criminals.

Child abuse first received national attention in 1874, due to the case of Mary Ellen McCormack, a 10-year-old orphan in Manhattan's Hell's Kitchen who was abused by an adoptive mother. No laws then existed to keep parents from beating their children, so the case was brought to court by, yes, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. "I have now on my head two black-and-blue marks which were made by Mamma with the whip," McCormack testified, "and a cut on the left side of my forehead which was made by a pair of scissors in Mamma's hand; she struck me with the scissors and cut me."

The McCormack case spurred a reformers' crusade. In 1912, the U.S. Children's Bureau was created to research and publicize the issue of violence against children. After World War II, more research led to the system of child-abuse reporting we have now, in which various professionals - doctors, teachers, daycare workers - are required to report suspicions of abuse. Child Protective Services does screenings and investigations and has the power to remove a child from a home, if necessary.

Deon didn't have his day in court, but even if he had, research shows that, again and again, courts return abused children to parents with a history of violence. A 2005 study by the New England Research Institutes found that, even in states with laws that tilt against custody for an abusive parent, 40% of adjudicated wife-beaters got joint custody of children. The American Judges Association says that about 70% of wife-abusers are able to convince a court that the mother is unfit for sole custody. Nationwide, some 58,000 children a year are put back into the unsupervised care of alleged abusers after a divorce.

Deon left his mother's apartment in Brooklyn at 18 and moved in with a coworker in Harlem. He visits his mother maybe once a year. Her place is windowless, wall-to-wall carpeted, and tight with too much furniture. He and his mother don't ever talk about what happened with the homework and the knife and the wall. When he stops by, he'll hover in her apartment for 20 minutes or so. And then he has to leave.

Self-Violence

Mark was 25, handsome, rich, and smart. He had a trust fund and spent $10,000 of it a month. He was really popular - there must have been 400 people at his funeral.

When Mark was a kid, his father once made him cry for not finishing a sandwich in a restaurant. He also showed him just how to treat his mother and younger brother, so that Mark would grow up to be a good bully, too. When he graduated from college, his dad insisted that he also go to law school. But he couldn't get in.

Mark started binge drinking at age 13. He had a history of getting into trouble (at school, with the law), but his dad was usually able to get him out of it - until the bar fight that landed a guy in the hospital. A couple of weeks after that, Mark was drunk at his apartment and fighting with his girlfriend. His dad had given him a .38 revolver because he thought the upscale neighborhood Mark lived in was dangerous. He pulled out the gun and shot himself. In his eulogy, his dad told the congregation that Mark was trying to live up to him and couldn't do it.

Of the approximately 55,000 people each year who die a violent death in the United States, most - like Mark - take their own lives: about 38,000 annually. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of American death, behind cancer and heart attacks but ahead of car accidents. There is a suicide every 13.7 minutes. And 77% of the time, as in Mark's case, it happens at home. In 2010, the highest suicide rate was among 45- to 64-year-olds. Men kill themselves four times more often than women, whites more often than other races.

There are known contributors. Ninety percent of those who kill themselves have mental disorders. Many have physical pain. Being unemployed is associated with as much as a three-fold increased risk of death by suicide. Having a means of suicide in the home, like a gun, also makes it more likely to happen. In that sense, Mark killed himself in the most common way.

Often enough, suicides fail. Nearly one million people attempt suicide every year. In 2010, 464,995 people visited a hospital for injuries due to suicidal behavior. Even though men succeed in killing themselves more often, women attempt suicide three times as often as men. According to researchers, that's because a woman is more likely to use the act as a cry for help, rather than to end her life.

Suicide is not a pretty thing to talk about. That's one reason why federal policy on suicide prevention is still in its infancy. A movement organized by the families and friends of victims began to build throughout the 1990s, however, and eventually got the attention of Surgeon General David Satcher. In 2001, he laid out the first national strategy for suicide prevention. But 12 years later, advocates say federal funding for suicide prevention and research is still insufficient.

Oddly enough, since the federal government instituted its response, suicide rates have been climbing. The national suicide rate had been on the decline for decades: between 1990 and 2000, it dropped from 12.5 to 10.4 deaths per 100,000. In the next decade, it started to rise again and stood at 12.1 per 100,000 in 2010.

Suicide is up. Severe child abuse is on the rise. Domestic violence is still the number one injurer of women. The classic notion of the home as a refuge, not an abattoir, seems more and more like a joke.

Feel free to cut through that dark alley on your way home. Or maybe just don't go home.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Barbarism in the American Soul Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Thursday, 18 April 2013 12:53

Pierce writes: "The bomb goes off and we vow to move heaven and earth to catch the barbarian. We take all the wounds onto ourselves. We bargain for time-shares on Golgotha. We congratulate ourselves on making so measured a choice. Then we go back to slaughtering each other on the streets because that's what we have to tolerate on order to remain free."

 (photo: Time Magazine)
(photo: Time Magazine)


Barbarism in the American Soul

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

18 April 13

 

t is an odd day to be looking out at Our Nation's Capital, cherry blossoms lost in the murk and the gloom, from the steps of the Senate side of the Capitol building. It has been an odd week in Our Nation's Capital. It has been a week in which the national government, responding to the will of practically nobody, has determined on its own that our society will tolerate a level of violence in it that is beyond the reach of the national government to do very much about. Moreover, it has been a week in which, by means subtle and overt, the national government has determined which types of violence our society must tolerate in order to remain the freest country in the world. It has done so quite on its own. It has done so against the expressed will of the vast majority of the people out in a country as expressed in the only way they can, now that elections have been determined to have very few real consequences in regard to the levels and types of violence that our society must tolerate in order to remain free. They have told the pollsters, over and over again, because, as far as the violence in America is concerned, the pollsters are the only people listening.

Earlier this week, the report of a nonpartisan commission was released detailing the fact that, in contravention of international treaties freely signed, and in contravention of over 200 years of formal and informal precedent, the United States enthusiastically constructed and ran a regime of torture in the wake of the attacks of Septenber 11, 2001. The 577-page report's description of the violence that the national government committed in the name of its people was quickly devoured by the endless news cycle created by the murderous bombing of the finish line at the Boston Marathon. Then, on Wednesday, as a perfect statement of what the national government of the United States believes that the people of the United States will have to tolerate in order to remain free, the Senate refused even to vote on the diluted Manchin-Toomey compromise on regulating the country's firearms. We congratulate ourselves on our ability to take events like Boston in stride. We congratulate ourselves on recognizing that certain forms of barbarism are intolerable in an advanced democracy. But given a choice truly to take things in stride, to be as indomitable as we say we are, by maintaining our principles in the face of that barbarism, we allow the waterboard and the black site to replace the rule of law, wink at barbarism by memorandum, by legal opinion, by political sophistry.

The bomb goes off and we vow to move heaven and earth to catch the barbarian. We take all the wounds onto ourselves. We bargain for time-shares on Golgotha. We congratulate ourselves on making so measured a choice. Then we go back to slaughtering each other on the streets because that's what we have to tolerate on order to remain free. We are a curious people that way.

I wish I believed it was just all about money. Then Gabrielle Giffords, Michael Bloomberg and the other millionnaires lining up on the other side would have a fighting chance. I wish I believed that it was just all about power, and the threat of losing elections, because then the money now lining up on the other side could even the odds. But I don't believe it is. There is a strong, coherent bloc in this building that believes that a certain level of violence is so inherent in this country that it is shielded absolutely by the Constitution, and that it is so essential to who we are as a people that to try to control it - let alone eliminate it - weakens our national institutions and blights our national character. There is nothing Machiavellian about this. It is what people believe is part of what makes America what it is. It is an essential article of faith. It is unshakable. It is implacable. And it is triumphant.

Make no mistake. That is what was determined down there this week among the bright, white buildings. There is a barbarism in the American soul and we must protect some of it by law. To root it out is to endanger our lives on the one hand, and our liberty on the other. We must tolerate the barbarism of the black sites to stay alive, and we must tolerate the occasional mass shooting in order to maintain our liberty. We will find the barbarian who killed and maimed the people along Boylston Street in Boston because his barbarism was not sanctioned, nor was it sanctified by law. That is the simple basic equation of where we are right now.

Gabrielle Giffords was told this. The families of the children of Newtown were told this. The 91 percent of the American people who want something that they now have no hope of getting were told this, The president of the United States, fairly shaking with impotent anger in the Rose Garden, was told this. We are a violent people. We are an armed people. We are a people intent on permitting mayhem and slaughter. We are a people intent on providing the means for mayhem and slaughter. And because of all of this, we are a free people. It is an odd day to be looking down at Our Nation's Capital, where barbarism has become so tailored and manicured, and so utterly unremarkable. We might as well speak honestly about it. We might as well speak about it here.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3131 3132 3133 3134 3135 3136 3137 3138 3139 3140 Next > End >>

Page 3131 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN