Guns Without Roses

There are many examples of the rapacious nature of capitalism — its democratic trappings notwithstanding — but none so blatant as the so-called gun debate. I use the term “so-called” because it isn't really a debate; it's inhumanity vs. humanity.

To begin with, no one advocating greater control over the manufacture and distribution of firearms is calling for repeal — or even modification — of the Second Amendment. I'd like to note, however, the historical context in which that amendment was written. It was post-revolution, a still fragile time for our new nation. That's why the amendment begins, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” and then follows with, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So let's leave the Second Amendment out of this “debate,” and consider why the National Rifle Association, gun manufacturers and their mouthpieces in Congress want to keep the doors to gun sales wide open. It has nothing to do with self-defense, or the right “to bear arms.” It has everything to do with sales. With profits. In the case of members of Congress — mostly Republicans — it's called “reelection.”

Weapons that fire many bullets in a matter of seconds were intended for military and police use, not for bringing down a burglar in the middle of the night. If those weapons were outlawed for civilian purchase, and if background checks were more strict before anyone could buy a gun, no one could argue that it wouldn't have made a difference in the number of mass slaughters which have plagued this country over the last few years.

As long as there are lethal weapons — whether they be guns or knives — there will be killings. No one disputes that. But neither could anyone dispute the obvious truth that greater control over manufacture, sales and background checks would minimize such horrific events as the slaughter of 20 school children and six teachers in Newtown or 49 people in Orlando.

Yes, Mr. La Pierre, people kill people. But need they be so efficient at it?  

‘Is the wall here yet?'

The Southern Poverty Law Center recently published a report on the “profoundly negative effect” that Donald Trump's candidacy is having on our nation's schools and children. The report was based on an online survey by Teaching Tolerance. While it notes that the survey of approximately 2,000 K-12 teachers was not scientific, it shows “a disturbing nationwide problem, one that is particularly acute in schools with high concentrations of minority children.”

The report says that more than two-thirds of the teachers reported that students, “mainly immigrants, children of immigrants and Muslims,” expressed concerns about “what might happen to them or their families after the election.”

“My students are terrified of Donald Trump,” says one teacher from a middle school with a large population of African-American Muslims. “They think that if he's elected, all black people will get sent back to Africa.”

In Tennessee, a kindergarten teacher says a Latino child — told by classmates that he will be deported and trapped behind a wall — asks every day, “Is the wall here yet?”

The other side of the coin is equally disturbing. One teacher reported that a fifth-grader told a Muslim student he was supporting Donald Trump because “he was going to kill all of the Muslims if he became president.”

In Merrillville, Indiana, students began chanting “Build a wall!” during a basketball game against a rival team made up mostly of Latino players.

At this writing, Donald Trump is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. There is a movement within the GOP, however, to prevent that from happening at its convention in late July. But that movement is based more on embarrassment than conviction. Despite denials by GOP leaders that Trump's behavior doesn't reflect their own views, an examination of their positions reveals otherwise — albeit in subtler form.

A word from our sponsor…

First, a word of praise. The imagination and computerization that goes into the creation of today’s commercials hawking skin creams or peanuts is astounding. Despite my distaste for commercials generally, I’m often mesmerized by the incredible productions involved. That being said…

According to Section 5 of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice, there are limits on how much time may be spent for commercials. Depending on the time of day, it ranges from 13 to 16 minutes per hour. That’s one-quarter of the show. And who do you think pays for those very expensive commercials? We do, in the price we pay for the advertised products.

Excuse me?

Frequently, when I select a column in the Internet edition of the Washington Post, a video commercial would appear before the column does. It either gives me the option to click onto an “X” in the upper right-hand corner, thereby cancelling the commercial, or it informs me that the commercial will end in 15-or-so seconds. I grit my teeth and wait to read the column.

Bad enough. But one morning, while reading a Post column, a video commercial popped up in mid-sentence. For a split-second I thought a virus had taken over. It’s one thing to have commercials at the top, on the side, and sometimes right in the middle of the column, but to be reading when, without warning, a video pops up is the last straw.

I suppose it’s legal, and that a lot of money is involved, but while we tolerate commercials as the price we pay for watching “CSI” or “Survivor,” the intrusiveness of commercials has gotten out of hand.

Now hear this

There is an act called the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act — the CALM Act. This act ostensibly prohibits advertisers from raising the decibel level of their ads higher than that of the program. This is as useless as prohibition was.

First of all, decibel levels rise and fall with the type of sound being delivered. An actress letting out a scream is far different than the sound of two lovers whispering sweet nothings to one another. It’s the same with commercials. I’m hard of hearing, so I watch TV with headphones. I don’t know how many times I’ve had to take them off when a blaring commercial comes on. The ad agencies that create those commercials know how to get your attention, both with sound and content, even while staying within the rules of the CALM act.

What’s this about?

Something strange has happened to commercials. Time was when a commercial would introduce a product, tell you how good it is, and urge you to buy it. They were straightforward: “Pepsi-Cola hits the spot, twelve full ounces, that’s a lot…” Today the expensive scenarios of most commercials have little or nothing to do with the product; their aim is to get you to remember the product’s name, which is flashed on the screen at the end of the commercial. Example: one of the many different GEICO commercials features a hobo chicken. The chicken has left the farm and is seen first in a photograph held by the farmer, and then aboard a train heading for who knows where. Nothing to do with insurance. On TV these days a product’s logo is not necessarily an abstract design, it’s a duck, a gecko — or a chicken.

Wanna buy a warplane?

Then there are a bunch of commericals with no product for sale. Well, not the kinds of products on store shelves. “My mom works at GE,” says the cute girl after screen images of airplane engines and other contrivances made by GE. What’s this all about, I wondered. Why, of course, invest in the company!

The airplane manufacturer Northrup-Grumman has come out with a number of mysterious-looking commercials featuring sleek military aircraft, with ominous percussive sound effects accompanied by imaginative lighting. Anyone in the market for an enormous deadly airplane? I didn’t think so. Again, investment is the aim.

This tirade is over. But, like Howard Beale in the film “Network,” I’m mad as hell. Until there’s a successful movement against all this nonsense, I guess I’ll have to take those tedious, barely comprehensible commercials — plus two Aleves…or should I stay with six Tylenols?

Danger Time

I’m concerned about recent developments in this election campaign, developments that endanger the possibility of defeating Donald Trump, the GOP’s “presumptive nominee.”

The ruckus that occurred at the Nevada Democratic Party’s convention was scary. And Bernie Sanders’ reaction to it made it scarier. Yes, he condemned whatever violence may have been triggered by his supporters, as well as subsequent threats against the party’s chairwoman and her family, but that was overshadowed by his emphatic criticism of the Nevada Democratic Party.

What did or did not occur at that convention may be arguable, but as we draw closer to the last primaries and the two national conventions, it’s time for reality to subdue animosity. Bernie should continue his vital campaign, stressing his relatively revolutionary program. But he should not do it at the risk of undermining the critical need of defeating Trump. In short, Sanders should tone down, not ramp up, his criticism of Hillary Clinton — who, according to the math, will be the Democratic nominee. He has already served the positive role of pushing her leftward in her pronouncements. And he should fight for his program at the Democratic Convention.

Bernie constantly reminds his audience that polls show that he would have a better chance of defeating Trump than Hillary would. Perhaps he would, perhaps he wouldn’t. At this stage of the campaign that can’t be assured. Nevertheless, it’s all the more reason for him to lend to her campaign all the political heft he has earned. I disagree completely with the attitude expressed by Sanders supporter Mayor Bao Nguyen of Garden Grove, California, who was quoted in The New York Times (5/19) as saying: “Senator Sanders isn’t obliged to help Secretary Clinton if she wins.”

A powerful column against Trump’s candidacy appeared in the Washington Post (5/19), written by Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. The headline read: “This is how fascism comes to America.” No more quotation is needed.

In any struggle — electoral, generally political or labor — the imperative aims must dominate all other considerations and actions. In this case, it’s making sure that Donald Trump doesn’t occupy the Oval Office. We should not be complacent about the danger he represents. He has stirred up deep dissatisfaction among large sections of the population — some of it warranted by economic inequality (Bernie’s major thrust), but much of it xenophobic and racist. (Didn’t they laugh at Hitler during his early rise?)

It’s time for Bernie to direct his main fire on the main enemy, and to do all he can to encourage his supporters to do likewise.

No Laughing Matter

One thing is clear about this election campaign: Donald Trump does not have the qualities of a decent human being, much less those required to be president of the United States, and today’s Republican Party is more concerned about taking over the government than about the country’s welfare.

While some voices within the GOP and among conservative pundits have been raised against a Trump candidacy, the party has begun to fall into line behind the man with the funny hair and neo-fascist bluster. Even Ted Cruz, who called Trump a “pathological liar,” refused to say he would not support Trump if he became the GOP standard bearer in the presidential race. The GOP uber alles!

The first step on the path to Trump was taken well before this campaign. It began by Mitch McConnell in 2010 when he declared that the GOP’s top priority was to limit Obama’s presidency to one term. Not to legislate for the good of the nation, mind you, but to prevent a second term for Obama when his first term had barely gotten off the ground!

That “priority” sowed the seeds for the obstructionism by Congressional Republicans, which in turn led to popular discontent with “Washington” — or, its synonym, “the establishment.”

And so along comes “The Donald,” a bull in the China shop of politics. No candidate has ever appeared to be more “anti-establishment” than this heir to a real estate fortune. Do we care that he’s one of the one-percent? That he’s all slogans and no substance? Nah. He hates “the establishment;” that’s good enough for us. In an interview with a Trump supporter after he had delivered one of his trademark tirades, she was reminded that much of what he said was not true. Her response? “Yes… but he’ll get things done.”

In the Democratic corner, the same nationwide discontent that underpins Trump’s rise has also given the Sanders campaign a heft to the left, which surprised everyone — probably even the senator himself. But while the two campaigns have been built on discontent, there’s a big difference between them. Trump’s campaign is one of xenophobia, isolationism, racism, sexism, and even anti-intellectualism. Sanders, on the other hand, in his role in Congress and in his campaign for the Democratic nomination, stands firmly on the side of middle- and workingclass Americans.

So here we are, in a campaign that is giving the GOP fits, causing sharp splits among the American people, and frightening foreign leaders who fear the damage a Trump presidency would do internationally.

It is imperative that unity against Trump must be swift and strong — and that includes independents as well as Republicans who care more about their country than they do about their party.

Repeat after me…

I solemnly swear…

that as I respect myself…

I will respect all others…

however different they are from me…

in race, religion, nationality…

or sexual orientation…

recognizing that self-respect is justifiable…

only in the context of universal respect.

I further swear…

that at no time will I countenance…

any act or action…

that demeans, degrades or punishes…

any individual or group…

absent evidence of wrongdoing…

and that I will fight against…

obstructions or laws…

that restrict the rights…

of individuals or groups…

who pose no threat…

to other individuals or groups…

these rights to include…

the right to vote…

the right to protest injustice…

and the right to equality.

This oath I swear as the true path…
to self-respect and dignity.

Money and Half-Truths

Probably the most famous linguistic redundancy is the oath taken by witnesses before they take the stand in court: “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?” Wouldn’t one “truth” be sufficient? Not according to the jurisprudential smartypants who came up with that oath. Nothing like a legal mind to feel it necessary to dot every I and cross every T three times over.

However, an oath of that kind should be given to political candidates the moment they declare their candidacy. Half-truths abound in their pronouncements. For this diatribe, forget about outright lies and wild distortions. Those are usually exposed in the course of a campaign. It’s the half-truths that may not be brought to light and sully political discourse, even in the best candidates.

Take the claims by those politically polar opposites, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Bernie repeatedly boasts that he has no super PAC funding his campaign, that it is financed solely through average donations of $27. That may be true, but when he chastises Hillary Clinton for taking money from the fossil fuel industry, shouldn’t he also admit that individuals from that industry have contributed to his campaign? And Donald Trump keeps telling us that no one but he is financing his campaign. I have read that he has actually lent his campaign a huge sum and that he expects to be reimbursed — if not for all of it, at least a big chunk. And he is also receiving donations from individuals with Trumpian venom.

But money aside, my main concern is that Bernie and Hillary not damage each other so with half-truths and innuendos that they endanger whichever one wins the Democratic nomination. Instead of ramping up assaults on each other — which they are doing — they should continue to promote their programs as being better for our country, and ramp up their assaults on the dangerous crew under the banner of the GOP (Gangsters On Parade).