RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Why Are Democrats so Bad at Talking About Climate Change? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=39043"><span class="small">Rebecca Leber, Grist</span></a>   
Wednesday, 03 August 2016 08:10

Leber writes: "Though the party has supposedly put climate change front and center, Democratic politicians still talk about it as a far-off problem that will affect future generations."

Christine Leinonen, whose son was killed in the Pulse attack in Orlando, spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. (photo: Mark Kauzlarich/Reuters)
Christine Leinonen, whose son was killed in the Pulse attack in Orlando, spoke at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. (photo: Mark Kauzlarich/Reuters)


Why Are Democrats so Bad at Talking About Climate Change?

By Rebecca Leber, Grist

03 August 16

 

t was a jarring transition. At the Democratic National Convention last Wednesday, a video by James Cameron depicted the impacts of climate change against a dramatic score — global warming as disaster movie, essentially. Then California Gov. Jerry Brown took the stage and said climate change “affects the entire earth and all living things. It’s slow. It’s relentless.” But even as they tried to emphasize the importance of climate change, speakers struggled to make it resonate.

The evening became much more powerful when it turned to an emotional string of speeches about gun violence. Christine Leinonen, the mother of an Orlando nightclub shooting victim, spoke, as did Erica Smegielski, the daughter of a Sandy Hook victim, and two survivors of the Charleston church shooting, Felicia Sanders and Polly Sheppard. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, who’s advocated for gun control legislation since the Sandy Hook shooting, also gave a passionate speech, as well as former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who is still recovering from a 2011 shooting. Each had a story to tell of how gun violence has hurt them and loved ones. And it wasn’t the only night Democrats zeroed in on gun control, highlighting personal stories to show why many Americans have had enough of lax policies.

I couldn’t help but wonder: Where are the personal, powerful stories about climate change?

Though the party has supposedly put climate change front and center, Democratic politicians still talk about it as a far-off problem that will affect future generations. Even Bernie Sanders, who gets a lot of credit for pushing the issue onto the national stage, said in his convention speech that we must address climate change so we can “leave this world in a way that is healthy and habitable for our kids and future generations.” Or Democrats just affirm their belief in climate science, as Hillary Clinton did in her speech, and then they move on. These dry nods to the future and to science paled in comparison to the personal stories recounted about other issues, from gun violence to Black Lives Matter to the sacrifices of a Muslim soldier’s family.

But people are suffering from extreme climate impacts today, too, and they would make much better spokespeople for the problem than politicians and movie directors.

Five thousand California residents, many of them Latino, had to live without any running water at least part of last year because of the state’s prolonged drought. Alaskan Native communities are losing their land to rising sea levels and erosion and are being forced to relocate. Residents of Isle de Jean Charles in southeastern Louisiana are considered by some to be the first officially recognized “climate refugees” in the U.S. because they will receive federal grants to help them move away from their flood-ravaged community. Many people have lost their homes to increasingly intense wildfires, and lost loved ones to flash floods.

There are a lot of reasons why it is difficult to find people to tell stories about how climate change is negatively affecting their lives. For one, weather has a complicated relationship to climate change. Your average American might not understand the connection between these disasters and greenhouse gas emissions, even though scientists agree that as global temperatures go up, weather will get more extreme. Connecting personal climate stories to politics can be hard, too: It’s not like electing another Democrat would make any of these problems disappear.

All of this helps to explain why it’s so difficult to communicate with voters and the public about climate change. Climate journalism has the same problem of focusing too little on people’s stories, which are going to become much more common over the next few decades. But we should try harder to tell them now in order to prevent a future where they become routine.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
As Israel Prospers, Obama Set to Give Billions More in Aid While Netanyahu Demands Even More Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=29455"><span class="small">Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept</span></a>   
Tuesday, 02 August 2016 14:33

Greenwald writes: "For all the chatter about animosity between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Washington Post reports that 'a senior Israeli official will arrive in Washington next week for a final round of negotiations involving the largest military aid package the United States has ever given any country and that will last more than a decade after President Obama leaves office.'"

Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: Abir Sultan/AP)
Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: Abir Sultan/AP)


As Israel Prospers, Obama Set to Give Billions More in Aid While Netanyahu Demands Even More

By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

02 August 16

 

or all the chatter about animosity between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Washington Post reports that “a senior Israeli official will arrive in Washington next week for a final round of negotiations involving the largest military aid package the United States has ever given any country and that will last more than a decade after President Obama leaves office.” The U.S. already transfers $3.1 billion in taxpayer money every year to Israel — more than any other country by far — but the new agreement Obama is set to sign “significantly raises” that amount, and guarantees it for 10 years.

(photo: The Intercept)

In response to this massive windfall, Netanyahu is angry that he is not getting even more. For some time, “Netanyahu was holding out for as much as $5 billion a year.” Also, Israel has been opposed to efforts to direct more of that aid to U.S. military contractors rather than Israeli ones (so this “aid” package is as much a transfer of U.S. taxpayer money to weapons manufacturers in both countries as it is to Israel itself). Moreover, “Israelis are also said to be displeased with a U.S. position that whatever amount of money they agree on will be final and that Israel will not go to Congress requesting more money.”

Usually, when someone hands you billions of dollars in aid, you’re not in much of a position to demand more. But the rules for Israel when it comes to U.S. policy, as is so often the case, are simply different. Even as Israel has aggressively expanded settlements of the West Bank (often in a way designed to most humiliate the U.S.) and slaughtered civilians in Gaza, U.S. aid simply increases more and more. What’s particularly fascinating about all of this is that Netanyahu originally intended to wait until the “next administration” to finalize the deal — because, assuming that would be Hillary Clinton, he believed (with good reason) he would get an even better deal — but is now worried about an “unpredictable” Donald Trump, who has spouted standard pro-Israel rhetoric before AIPAC (and worse) but had previously espoused the need for “neutrality” on the Israel/Palestine question and has made “America First” the rhetorical centerpiece of his campaign.

All of this means that the U.S. generally, and Democrats specifically, bear direct responsibility for the hideous brutality and oppression imposed by Israel on Palestinians through decades of occupation. That’s because, as a 2012 Congressional Resources Service report documented, “Almost all U.S. aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance. U.S. military aid has helped transform Israel’s armed forces into one of the most technologically sophisticated militaries in the world. U.S. military aid for Israel has been designed to maintain Israel’s ‘qualitative military edge’ over neighboring militaries.” And, of course, Clinton herself vowed in a letter to Democratic Party billionaire funder Haim Saban and her speech to AIPAC to do everything possible to oppose a boycott of Israel in order to end the occupation.

What’s perhaps most shocking of all is how little attention or debate any of this receives. Would Americans really be supportive of transferring billions of dollars every year to Israel, and then entering into a new agreement to significantly increase that amount and guaranteeing it — placing it beyond debate — for 10 more years? That seems doubtful. To begin with, Israel enjoys universal health care coverage, while “33 million Americans, 10.4 percent of the U.S. population,” remain without health insurance. That disparity is captured in headlines such as this one:

(photo: The Intercept)

As The Forward put it in 2012: “Israeli citizens appear to be getting better care [than Americans] for their lower expenditures.” Fortunately for Israel, the people of that country enjoy a much higher life expectancy than the citizens of the country that transfers billions to them every year. According to the most recent CIA statistics, Israelis can expect to live 82.27 years — 11th best in the world — while Americans can expect only 79.68 years, which is 43rd in the world.

(photo: The Intercept)

Israeli infants also fare much better than American infants. Israel has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world (3.55 deaths for every 1,000 births), while 5.87 American babies die for every 1,000 births. Just last month, unemployment in Israel fell to the lowest level in decades (4.8 percent, which “is not only low historically but low by international standards, and by conventional economic definitions there’s no unemployment at all in Israel”), while U.S. workers, despite declining unemployment rates, continue to struggle when “the underemployed and the discouraged” are counted.

In sum, U.S. politicians in both parties endlessly pay lip service to how much Americans are struggling while the Obama administration prepares to transfer more and more billions of their money to Israel. The U.S. does so even as Israel pursues with more aggression than ever the very policies that the U.S. claims to find so objectionable and destructive (just two days ago, the State Department said Israel “is systematically undermining the prospects for a two-state solution” by continuing to expand illegal settlements).

Just compare (a) the rhetoric Democrats love to spout about themselves to (b) their treatment of Palestinians to see how empty the former is. And just imagine what would happen if this policy of transferring even more billions of American taxpayer money to Israel were widely debated instead of ignored as Bipartisan Consensus.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Pow, Pow, Yous Are Dead! Children, Toy Guns, and the Real Thing Print
Tuesday, 02 August 2016 14:19

Berrigan writes: "It was a beautiful evening and the kids - Madeline, two; Seamus, almost four; and Rosena, nine - were running across a well-tended town green. Seamus pointed his rainbow flag with the feather handle at his sisters and 'pow-powed' them, calling out, 'Yous are dead now, guys. I shot yous.'"

Friends and family members embrace outside the Orlando Police Headquarters during the investigation of a shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, June 13, 2016. (photo: Steve Nesius/Reuters)
Friends and family members embrace outside the Orlando Police Headquarters during the investigation of a shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, June 13, 2016. (photo: Steve Nesius/Reuters)


Pow, Pow, Yous Are Dead! Children, Toy Guns, and the Real Thing

By Frida Berrigan, TomDispatch

02 August 16

 


I remember well going to the rodeo at Madison Square Garden in New York City with my six-guns proudly strapped to my hips.  I was probably eight or nine years old and those two ivory-handled -- okay, undoubtedly plastic -- revolvers were probably from a Hopalong Cassidy line of toys.  That cowboy character was a favorite of mine on TV and, of course, with my friends I regularly played “cowboys and Indians.”  But far more of my war play -- we’re talking the early 1950s -- came out of World War II, my father’s war, even though the country was then involved in a bloody stalemate of a conflict in Korea.

Imagine me, an eight or nine year old, running through the potato fields behind a friend’s house on Long Island.  The year is probably 1952.  America is enmeshed in its second Asian war of the century, this time against -- to a child -- a horrific but blurry enemy.  Fortunately, the fighting that goes on and on in a faraway land called Korea is unimaginably distant from this moment.  My friend and I crouch down, furrowed dirt and leafy potato plants as far as the eye can see.  The two of us scan the horizon.  Somewhere out there the enemy is approaching -- not the one in Korea, but a real enemy, the “Japs” or Nazis (“Japanazis,” as World War II comic books sometimes called them) or maybe even those Indians.  The choice is ours.  No parents nearby to tell us what to do, no teachers to instruct us, and we’re armed.  I grip a stick.  I can feel the curve where it fits into my palm, and what more do I need than a good eye, the ability to make battle sounds -- the sharp rat-a-tat of a machine gun, the budda-budda of ack-ack fire, or the long whistle of incoming artillery?  We’ve been at this for an hour already, beating back attack after attack, then diving for our “foxholes” between the rows of plants.  “Watch out!” my friend shouts as loud as he wants, because no one cares that we, and the invisible but palpable enemy, are here at war in these fields.  Yes, I notice it now, too: the faint motion of leaves that might pass for the wind. It’s them! A banzai charge! We leap up, firing madly, but with deadly accuracy. The enemy begins to fall.

It was all so obvious to us then, millions of kids whose fathers had come home, often grim and silent, from a terrible world war.  Films glorifying that war were a commonplace of our lives. The good guys and the bad guys were clear.  We could be left to our own devices because who should die and why seemed so obvious, not only to us but to the adults around us. The world of American war was, in fact, already growing increasingly complicated and, more than a decade later, many of us would find ourselves in the streets in opposition to just such a war, but we didn’t have to worry about such things then.  What, I wonder now, thinking about TomDispatch regular Frida Berrigan’s latest essay on her children and our world, goes on in the junior version of gun culture these days?  What script or scripts are today’s children playing off of?  How do zombies, terrorists, space aliens, and god knows who or what else sort themselves out at the point of a gun when kids begin to go pow-pow in 2016?  What exactly are they powing in a world too strange for words, one armed to the teeth and ready to kill right here at home in ways inconceivable in 1952?  In a world littered with dead bodies from Orlando and St. Paul to Baton Rouge, Dallas, and Nice, not to speak of Baghdad, Kabul, Tripoli, and Istanbul, in a world of drone assassinations and god knows what else, what can they possibly be playing? Tom

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch


“Pow, Pow, Yous Are Dead!”
Children, Toy Guns, and the Real Thing

t was a beautiful evening and the kids -- Madeline, two; Seamus, almost four; and Rosena, nine -- were running across a well-tended town green. Seamus pointed his rainbow flag with the feather handle at his sisters and “pow-powed” them, calling out, “Yous are dead now, guys. I shot yous.”

Madeline and Rosena laughed and just kept on running, with Seamus at their heels. I hid my face in my hands. It wasn’t just that he was playing guns, but that he was using a Pride flag as his gun at a vigil to mourn those killed at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. My pacifist husband Patrick ran to redirect their activities, replacing the flag with a ball and glove and beginning a game of catch. Vigil organizers were taking turns reading the names of those killed into a microphone.

“... Juan Ramon Guerrero, 22
Eric Ivan Ortiz-Rivera, 36
Luis S. Vielma, 22...”

Those three men and 46 others were massacred on June 12th. Another 50 people were wounded. Omar Mateen, who killed them, was armed with a Sig Sauer MCX assault rifle and a Glock 17 9mm semi-automatic pistol. He bought those two weapons legally in the days leading up to the attack.

The carnage brought politicians and pundits out in force, using all the usual arguments for and against guns. Because the victims were mostly gay and mostly Latino, and because the attack was carried out by an American citizen with an ethnic last name who may have been enthralled by Islamic terrorism, or a closeted, self-hating homosexual (or both), the commentary quickly became muddled. Was it a hate crime, Islamic terrorism, or a strange double-bonus hit for the haters? Mateen was killed in a shootout with police and so can't speak to his motives. Investigators were left to sift through the material evidence and a dizzying compilation of online comments, Facebook likes, and recollections from old co-workers, family members, and possible lovers in their search for answers.

The most essential facts are, however, not that complicated: Mateen had a license to carry a gun, training as a private security guard, and hatreds to act upon. He armed himself and he killed.

And all over the country, since that fateful day that elicited the usual cries of “never again,” the killing continues: Alton Sterling and Philando Castille by the police; Dallas Area Rapid Transit Police Officer Brent Thompson and four Dallas Police officers, Lorne Ahrens, Michael Smith, Michael Krol, and Patrick Zamarripa, by a lone sniper, Micah Johnson, who himself was then killed by an armed police robot; three more police officers in Baton Rouge on July 17th.

“... Montrell Jackson, 32
Matthew Gerald, 41
Brad Garafola, 45...”

And the killing continues. Using the Gun Violence Archive, I counted another 306 deaths by guns throughout the United States in the first eight days of July alone. Most of them weren’t high-profile police shootings or mass tragedies, but in a small-scale and localized way, the grief and outrage of Baton Rouge, St. Paul, and Dallas were replicated in every corner of this country, including Ticfaw, Louisiana; Woodland, California; Tabernacle, New Jersey; and Harvey, Illinois. More than 300 deaths by gun in just eight days.

“Stabbin’ My Bunny”: Teaching Kids About Guns and Violence

And then, of course, there were my kids, my husband, and those “guns.”  As a boy, Patrick wasn’t allowed to play with toy guns. Instead, he, his parents, and their friends would go to the mall during the Christmas buying spree to put “Stop War Toys” stickers on Rambo and G.I. Joe action figures. When he went to his friends’ houses, he had to tell them that war toys were verboten.

I grew up in a similar family of activists.  We, too, were forbidden toy guns and other war toys.  My brother and I were more likely to play games like “protester at the Pentagon” than cops and robbers. I’ve been thinking recently about why toy guns didn’t have a grip on our imaginations as kids. I suspect it was because we understood -- were made to understand -- what the big gun of U.S. militarism had done in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Indochina, and throughout Central America. Our dad had seen the big gun of war up close and personal. His finger -- the same one he pointed at us when we were in trouble -- had pulled the trigger again and again in France during World War II. He was decorated there, but had zero nostalgia for the experience. He was, in fact, deeply ashamed of the dashing figure he had once cut when home from the front. And so, Dad screwed up a new kind of courage to say no to war and violence, to killing of any kind. His knowledge of war imbued his nonviolent peace activist mission with a genuine, badass, superhero style swagger.

Our parents -- our community of ragtag, countercultural Catholic peace activists -- made that no-violence, no-killing, no-matter-what point again and again. In fact, my early experience of guns was the chilling fear of knowing that, in protest, my father, mother, and their friends were walking into what they called “free fire zones” on military bases, where well-armed, well-trained soldiers were licensed to kill intruders. So we didn’t point toy guns at each other. We didn’t pow-pow with our fingers or sticks. We crossed those fingers and hoped that the people we loved would be safe.

Our inner city Baltimore neighborhood, where crack cocaine madness was just taking hold, drove that point home on a micro level. Our house was robbed at gunpoint more than once -- and we had so little worth taking. We watched a man across the street bleed to death after being stabbed repeatedly in a fight over nothing. People from our house ran to help and were there for far too long before an ambulance even arrived. We knew as little kids that violence was no laughing matter, nor child’s play. It was serious business and was to be resisted.

As parents tend to do, Patrick and I are passing this tradition on to our kids, hopefully without the emotional scarring that went with our childhoods of resistance.  They don’t have guns or action figures or any other toy implements of death. Still, we’ve been watching Seamus, our Team Elsa (from the Disney blockbuster Frozen) son, as he’s recently begun turning every stick into an imaginary gun. This is, of course, happening just as, in the headlines of the moment, actual guns are turning so many previously real people into statistics. Under the circumstances, how could I not find myself thinking about toy guns, real guns, the nature of play, the role of imagination, the place of parents, and how to (or whether to) police (ha!) that imaginary play?

When my stepdaughter Rosena was about four, she found a toy dagger at the playground, somehow smuggled it home, and was stabbing one of her beloved stuffed animals, a bunny, repeatedly with it.

In the other room, I could hear the thumps on the bedroom floor and called out, “What are you doing?” 

“Stabbin’ my bunny. I kilt her,” she responded matter-of-factly.

Seizing a “teaching moment” and undoubtedly gripped by my own childhood experiences and memories of my parents, I blustered into the bedroom with a shoebox. “Now, your bunny is dead,” I announced in my version of over-the-top momism. “You know what happens when living things die, right? It’s forever, right? Now, we have to bury her.” Rosena and I then “buried” the doll on a high shelf in her closet. I told her that we cannot hurt or kill the things (or people) we love. I told her that, because she had “killed” that bunny, she could never play with it again.

About a week later, I slipped it back into her toy basket and, when she asked why, assured her that I thought she wouldn’t hurt her toys like that again. She agreed. I recall that episode now with a certain embarrassment, but when I recently heard Rosena explaining death and loss to her little brother and sister, I thought: oh, maybe the drama of the shoebox burial was actually helpful in some fashion.

Toys matter. We’ve put a fair amount of thought into what might be called toy curation in our household.  We’ve bought nothing new and little used.  Mostly, we’ve accepted shipments of hand-me-downs from friends who just wanted “this crap” out of their houses. No guns came with them, thankfully. After all, even toy guns can mean death under the wrong circumstances.

A year ago, I visited the Cuddell Recreation Center in Cleveland with my daughter Madeline and a group of friends. That broad stretch of ball fields and paths, anchored by a gazebo and a playground, was where 12-year-old Tamir Rice was fatally shot by Officer Timothy Loehmann in November 2014. Rice, an African American, was playing with an Airsoft pellet gun that a friend’s dad had bought at Walmart. A replica of an actual Colt pistol, it shot plastic pellets and looked pretty real, since the orange tip signifying “toy” was missing. However, Officer Loehmann, investigating a report that a man was carrying a gun in the park, was moving too fast to notice much. He sped up and began shooting even before his squad car stopped moving. Rice’s hands were still reportedly in his pockets. 

Though Loehmann was not indicted, the city of Cleveland paid a $6 million settlement to the Rice family and demolished the gazebo where the boy was shot. In the park that day, local activists described the shooting and its aftermath to our group. Half listening, I followed Madeline as she toddled into the playground. I tried to imagine Samaria Rice’s pain in this unremarkable place made part shrine, part soapbox by a police officer’s quick trigger finger, racism, and her son’s blood.

I thought about that toy gun in Tamir Rice’s hand and what might have been going through his head as he pointed it and played with it. Despite the age difference, it couldn’t have been that far from what regularly goes through my son’s head when he picks up a stick and points it: pop, boom, wow! The difference, of course, is that Seamus, blond and freckled and unmistakably white, would run little risk of being shot down by a policeman, even eight years from now with a replica toy gun in his hands.

Blasters, Blasters, Everywhere

Toys are a big business in this country, raking in $19.4 billion in 2015, according to the retail tracking firm NPD Group. Our family is not responsible for even a dime of this. Not surprisingly, then, my announcement that we were all going to spend a rainy afternoon at a local Toys “R” Us store came like a bolt from the blue for the kids.

I wanted to see what kind of toy weaponry was for sale there. I was curious, among other things, about whether the boys at school who had taught Seamus about superheroes, bad guys, and Star Wars had ignited in my son a love of weaponry; I was curious, that is, as to how he would react to the walls of guns I imagined Toys “R” Us displaying.

We got into our car as if it were Christmas Eve, Seamus beside himself with excitement, Madeline on a contact high from her brother.  I was experiencing my own contact high, taking my kids on their first research trip.

What we found was not exactly what I expected -- on many levels.

Seamus was quickly overwhelmed by the glut of everything -- lots of pictures of toys on boxes, but not a lot to pick up. (It was, in that sense, the very opposite of our visits to the Goodwill store, where you can sit on the floor and play with all those second-hand toys as long as you put them back afterwards.) Not so surprisingly, in retrospect, he went straight for what was familiar, what he could grab in his hand and actually look at: the books. It took some effort to wrestle him away from Five Stories About Princesses and enlist him in my quest for bad toys. (Madeline had, by then, fallen asleep.)

I had finally found the Nerf “blasters,” but he wasn’t interested.  “Let’s not go down this aisle, okay, Mom?” 

I was, of course, looking for the worst of the worst when it came to weaponry, but it proved remarkably hard to find.  The aisle did, admittedly, have the Nerf Zombie Strike Doominator and the Nerf Modulus Recon MKII for $34.99 each. Those certainly sounded grim, given the eternal war against the undead, but the bright orange, cartoonish, completely unrealistic “blasters” on display and marketed to kids “eight and up” seemed distant indeed from American gun carnage (and our wars in distant lands), nor was there anything on the packaging that even hinted at real people getting shot in real encounters or real wars. I must admit that I don’t like the idea of Seamus shooting anything at anyone -- even a brain-hungry zombie -- but as it turned out, I needn’t have worried, not this time around anyway.  Zombie-killing wasn’t in his wheelhouse.

Still, I kept looking for the real gun aisle, and I did come across more blasters, dart shooters, and the like, none with the word “gun” on them. Of course, we do live in Connecticut, less than 100 miles from Newtown where, in 2012, Adam Lanza, a devotee of violent video games who grew up in a gun-filled house, killed 20 kids just a little older than Seamus along with six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School. So maybe our local toy outlet was being sensitive, but I doubt it.  There was the Halo UNSC SMG Blaster (the initials make it sound extra tough but stand for nothing) for $19.99, and the NERF Star Wars Episode VII First Order Stormtrooper Deluxe Blaster, which fires 12 darts up to 65 feet without reloading, for $41.99. The worst thing I could find was the Xploderz Mayhem, with “more distance, more ammo,” which shoots easy-to-wash off mini-water pellets. It was on clearance for $18.89.

By then, Seamus was pulling me frantically toward the aisle with the full Frozen franchise on display.  Madeline was now awake and in heaven.

So I left them there briefly and snuck off to do a last check for “real” toy guns. No such luck. I didn’t find the kind of Airsoft gun Tamir Rice was playing with when he was killed. I didn’t find an ersatz Sig Sauer either.

It turns out that most brick-and-mortar toy stores don’t seem to offer realistic-looking toy weaponry anymore, nor is there the toy store equivalent of the curtained-off area in the old neighborhood video rental shop where the porn was available. For such toys, you have to turn to an online world of websites like Kids-Army.com, where you can indeed buy realistic-looking toy rifles, shotguns, and pistols, or even to Amazon, where you can find an Airsoft version of the Sig Sauer rifle for $249.99.

“Start Them Young”

The National Rifle Association (NRA) would undoubtedly have been disappointed by my local Toys “R” Us outlet -- just as its officials undoubtedly are by the way most big toy merchants seem to have left their more realistic guns for the online world. This happened, in part, in response to the sort of social pressure that my husband engaged in when in high school and -- more critically -- the almost routine horror of the blurred line between toy guns and real ones. You know we’re a quirky, gun-crazy nation when Cleveland could ban toy guns and umbrellas with pointy tips from the area around the Republican Convention in the name of security, but couldn't keep out the real guns in open-carry Ohio.

The NRA wants kids to play with realistic toy guns and BB guns, since they believe that such toys are part of a child’s initiation into the future ownership of perfectly real guns. At the moment, the gun lobby is concerned that not enough people have guns -- even though the 270 million to 310 million of them already amassed around this country (according to the Pew Research Center) could arm just about every man, woman, transgendered person, and child around. Still, despite the fact that Americans can now carry guns in all 50 states and the NRA continues to win most of the big political fights, the number of households with guns is actually down from its peak in the late 1960s (though those that are armed have more and deadlier weapons than ever before).  No wonder the gun industry and the gun lobby are fighting to produce an army of toddlers.

Start Them Young,” a February 2016 report from the Violence Policy Center, details how gun manufacturers and the NRA are eager to market real guns to younger and younger consumers. The report starts with a selection of quotes from the industry: including this gem from Craig Cushman, marketing director for Thompson/Center Arms, about their Hot Shot rifle for kids: “[We’re] talking about a tiny gun intended for the very youngest shooters -- the ultimate first gun. We’re targeting the six- to 12-year-old range.” In other words, kids are literally in their sights.

It’s a strange world we live in. The toy industry has puffed up and candy-colored its play guns, turned up the volume on the violence online and in video games, and wrapped everything in plastic and safety warnings. At the same time, the gun industry is making its guns smaller and cuter for kids, while putting its energy into the all-important junior market.

Can we be safe -- any of us -- in a nation awash in guns? The gun-and-ammo industry boasted $16 billion in revenue for 2015. Gun stores -- from brick-and-mortar shops to online retailers – had $3.1 billion in revenue that same year. The industry as a whole claimed responsibility for nearly $50 billion in “economic activity” in 2015 alone. That represents a fair number of jobs, but here is the number that really goes boom: $229 billion. That’s the annual cost of fatal and non-fatal gun violence in this country, according to Mother Jones and analyst Ted Miller of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation who teamed up to crunch the numbers. That figure includes both the direct costs of gun injuries and deaths -- police investigations, emergency personnel, hospital bills, long-term care for the injured, funeral expenses for the dead, and the costs of prosecuting and imprisoning the perpetrators. As the report concludes: “Even before accounting for the more intangible costs of the violence... the average cost to taxpayers for a single gun homicide in America is nearly $400,000. And we pay for 32 of them every single day.”

We are awash in guns. Where does it end? Gun violence is imbedded in our national mythology, our foreign policy, our notions of masculinity, our entertainment industry, and our children’s play. We see violence solving problems on every screen -- from the zombie apocalypse to the rise of ISIS. Russian playwright Anton Chekhov’s maxim still applies: “One should not put a loaded rifle onto the stage if no one is thinking of firing it.”  Sooner or later, that rifle is sure to go off. It might be an accident; it might be terrorism; it might be hate. But it will go off.  Somewhere, as you read this, it’s going off right now. 

I don’t want to police my kids’ imagination. And there is a whole strain of parenting literature that assures me I don’t have to. It says don’t interfere with your kid’s play, even if it includes guns and shooting and killing. Imagination is imagination and the violence isn’t real. It might even, so this line of thinking goes, be a healthy way for them to process feelings of aggression.

I get what they're saying, but it seems like a cop-out to me. To my mind, nonintervention is often a missed opportunity to be a parent. Sure, the violence isn’t real. The pow-pows don’t actually rip skin and tendon or stop hearts from beating, but the United States, which has been fighting distant wars nonstop for 15 years now, does have a violence problem and a man problem and a gun problem.

We know where that problem ends, but it starts somewhere, too. One place to begin to look, at least, is at how our kids -- particularly our boys -- play, and how they are nurtured (or not), and taught to express their emotions (or not). It is, at least in part, up to us, their parents, to decide whether they are going to be the ones who help repair our society and reorient us (or not). And it begins with the kinds of care and love they receive, the kinds of conversations they are invited into, the kinds of expectations they are given about behavior and relationships.

I don’t want to raise Seamus, Madeline, or Rosena in the austere, ripped from the headlines of horror, polemical atmosphere that was the essence of my own childhood. But I don’t want them to get comfortable with killing either.

I want so much more for, and from, my little boy than “Pow, pow, yous are dead now!” And that starts with taking the gun or the stick or the rainbow flag out of his hands, sitting him down, and having a hard conversation about what guns actually do to people-- and how much killing hurts us all.



Frida Berrigan, a TomDispatch regular, writes the Little Insurrections blog for WagingNonviolence.org, is the author of It Runs In The Family: On Being Raised By Radicals and Growing Into Rebellious Motherhood, and lives in New London, Connecticut.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | In the Streets of Philadelphia: Is the Democratic Party Alienating Its Base? Print
Tuesday, 02 August 2016 12:05

Stefan writes: "Last Tuesday, amid conditions of sweltering heat and humidity, Black Lives Matter protesters marched south on Philadelphia's Broad Street toward City Hall. Thousands chanted in rhythm: 'Don't vote for Hillary! She's killing Black people!' At the front of the march, young women raised a long banner reading 'Hillary, Delete Yourself.'"

Protesters gather outside City Hall in Philadelphia for the Shutdown the DNC rally. (photo: Andrew Stefan/RSN)
Protesters gather outside City Hall in Philadelphia for the Shutdown the DNC rally. (photo: Andrew Stefan/RSN)


In the Streets of Philadelphia: Is the Democratic Party Alienating Its Base?

By Andrew Stefan, Reader Supported News

02 August 16

 

ast Tuesday, amid conditions of sweltering heat and humidity, Black Lives Matter protesters marched south on Philadelphia’s Broad Street toward City Hall. Thousands chanted in rhythm: “Don’t vote for Hillary! She’s killing Black people!” At the front of the march, young women raised a long banner reading “Hillary, Delete Yourself.”

Meanwhile, at City Hall, thousands more were already gathered as part of a rally calling itself “Shutdown the DNC.” The event was attended by activists of all stripes – Berners, Green Party supporters, socialists, and anti-war progressives, among others. For hours, the protesters mingled, chanted, and sang together. The crowd broke into wild cheers and applause when two young men hoisted a large cardboard coffin and carried it through the throng. The coffin was emblazoned – in red, white, and blue paint – with upside down donkeys, an image proclaiming the demise of the Democratic Party.

In the thick of the mass protests around the DNC last week, the symbolism, dramatic as it was, looked a lot more like a prophecy than hyperbole.

(photo: Reader Supported New)

Word on the Street

While the Democratic Party’s literal end may still be unimaginable, the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia certainly saw significant, mass-scale rumblings in that direction. Deep discontent spilled across the city for four days straight, taking the form of marches, chants, incendiary speeches, discussion forums, and civil disobedience actions. At the center of the outrage, of course, was the Democratic Party – its platform, its rigging of the primary process (now more fully understood in light of recent email leaks), and growing concerns over the party’s general trajectory with Hillary Clinton as the Democrats’ 2016 presidential nominee. Notable intellectuals like Cornel West and Rosa Clemente made appearances at events around the city, encouraging progressive voters to walk out on the Democratic Party. Their words, more often than not, were met with thundering applause. And among those in the streets, the grievances were clear.

“They’re just another party for oligarchy,” one man commented through a megaphone at the Shutdown the DNC rally. “They don’t represent the common person.”

Criticisms against Hillary Clinton for her neoliberal leanings and right-wing foreign policy record were often front-and-center. Protesters called attention to Clinton’s support for “free trade” policies like the TPP, her vote for the Iraq War, her support for the 2009 Honduran military coup, and her role in the US bombing of Libya.

On Monday, members of a Haitian-American community group rallied near Franklin Delano Roosevelt Park and disseminated literature regarding Hillary Clinton’s involvement in suppressing wages in Haiti. They spoke with marchers, attempting to demonstrate that Clinton should be deemed unsupportable for her policies in the island country and elsewhere. Out of the conversations I heard, few people needed convincing.

Now that Bernie Sanders is officially out of the running, many progressives and other leftists feel the Democratic Party is not capable of representing their political interests or aims. Some voters are leaving the party behind.

“I have not yet decided where my vote will go in November, but it will not go to either Clinton or Trump,” Deb Ennis, an educator and Bernie Sanders supporter from Yipsilanti, Michigan, told me as we walked down Broad Street during the March for Our Lives. “I am happy to watch the ‘Democratic’ Party get what it deserves.”

(photo: Reader Supported New)

Inside the Convention and Around the Internet

According to reports, the situation inside the Wells Fargo Convention Center was only slightly less tumultuous.

Following Hillary Clinton’s nomination, several Bernie Sanders delegates walked out of the convention in a concerted action to protest the decision. Some, like Shane Harris, are continuing to speak out against Hillary Clinton, even after her nomination. Other delegates have stated that they plan to abandon the Democratic Party entirely.

Meanwhile, the greater movement to reject Clinton’s nomination – and the Democratic Party as a whole – is now gaining significant traction on social media among dissatisfied would-be Democrats. Hashtags like “#DNCWalkout” and “#DemExit” are booming in popularity. They are often attached to scathing commentaries aimed at the party.

A Party Unresponsive?

With Donald Trump now outperforming Hillary Clinton in recent polls, the Democratic Party’s crisis of division and progressive alienation seems more dire than ever. And nowhere has this crisis been louder and more visible than in Philadelphia last week.

The Democratic Party, however, is proving tone-deaf to all of this. With each step toward November, it seems the party’s leaders aim to further drive away potential supporters. Consider the selection of Tim Kaine as Hillary Clinton’s vice-presidential nominee and the reopening of the party to corporate lobbyist money last week. The list goes on.

Democrats ignore the mounting discontent at their own peril. To date, those who’ve underestimated the Trump campaign have largely eaten their words. If Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party believe they can beat Donald Trump without the help of the progressives and left-independents who backed Bernie Sanders during the primary cycle, they may be setting themselves up for a crushing surprise with grave consequences come November.



Andrew Stefan is an editor and staff reporter at Reader Supported News. He lives in Washington DC and can be reached via email at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

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
 
FOCUS: The Real Work Begins Nov. 9 Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=24462"><span class="small">Bill McKibben, EcoWatch</span></a>   
Tuesday, 02 August 2016 10:33

McKibben writes: "Our job is not to elect a savior. Our job is to elect someone we can effectively pressure. And as tough as the work of this election will be - the real work starts on Wednesday, Nov. 9."

Climate activist Bill McKibben. (photo: 350.org)
Climate activist Bill McKibben. (photo: 350.org)


The Real Work Begins Nov. 9

By Bill McKibben, EcoWatch

02 August 16

 

he Democratic and Republican conventions are history and the epochal 2016 election is now before us. My general theory is less talk and more action, so I hope you'll join me in taking this climate pledge, one that will power our efforts into the fall.

But since I've got the microphone, maybe I'll say a few more words.

One is, Trump is truly bad news. His insistence that global warming is a Chinese manufactured hoax and his declaration that he will abrogate the Paris treaty mean that he's as much a nihilist on climate change as he is on anything else. In fact, no major party candidate since the start of the global warming era has been as bad on this issue, not even close. He's also terrifying for many other obvious reasons.

Second is, it was a little hard for me to watch Bernie's bittersweet speech to the Democratic convention. He's my Vermont neighbor (where 350.org was born) and he was my candidate and he talked about climate change as no presidential candidate ever has before, declaring forthrightly that it was the greatest problem the planet faced. I wish he'd won.

But his powerful showing meant, among other things, that he had a significant hand in writing the Democratic party platform for 2016. (In fact, he named me as one of 15 platform writers. Did I say we were neighbors?) And though it's far from perfect it is by far the strongest party platform on climate issues Americans have ever seen.

This is my third thought. In four years we've gone from an "all of the above" energy strategy to one that explicitly favors sun and wind over natural gas. The platform promises a Keystone-style test for all federal policy: If it makes global warming worse, it won't be built. And it calls for an emergency climate summit in the first hundred days of the new administration. All those changes are the direct result of your work, showing up to demand action over many months and years.

Thursday night Hillary Clinton pledged to enact that platform and she said "we have to hold every country accountable to their commitments, including ourselves."

"Accountability" is the right word. Will this platform mean anything more than words? That actually depends on you. If we vote as climate voters this fall—and if we then show up to demand that those promises are kept—this could turn out to be a ground-breaking political season. That's why we need you signed on to this pledge and lined up to get out the vote and do the other chores of an election.

But remember: election day is just one day in the political calendar. The other 364 count just as much.

Our job is not to elect a savior. Our job is to elect someone we can effectively pressure. And as tough as the work of this election will be—the real work starts on Wednesday, Nov. 9.

That's how it seems to me, anyway. There's plenty to be scared of this election season and plenty to hope for. And most of all there's plenty of work to be done.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 Next > End >>

Page 1950 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