The Picture of Our Violent Society

              Here is a picture of how the Vice President's committee needs to address the problem of violence recently brought to everyone's attention through the Newtown, Connecticut massacre. Unfortunately, all our problems boil down to politics (as opposed to common sense). Surely, there are things that can be done to address the causes of violence. We just have to get politics out of the way.

This drawing describes the areas that need to be addressed to minimize violence in our society. I say minimize because violence cannot be completely eliminated. However, the fact that violence cannot be completely solved does not mean that it should not be addressed in a meaningful manner. From my perspective, guns are the area where we could make the quickest progress. However, a comprehensive approach (as I lay out in my last post) is absolutely needed.

The areas of the picture that indicate a “Danger” zone could very well include violence. There are evil people in this world that do not require mental illness or guns to commit violence. However, to commit violence on the scale that has occurred all too frequently this year, guns and mental health must be factors.

So Mr. Vice President, this picture is for you. If you can eliminate the "Inaction" with "Solutions" you will have completed your task. With “Solutions” in the picture, the “Danger” can be replaced with ‘Warning – Take Action”. Mr. Vice President, we all are pulling for you to be successful.

Gun Culture, Violent Culture, and Political Correctness

              Bob Costas was excoriated for his Sunday Night Football halftime commentary stating that we had a “gun culture” in America that needed to be addressed. Many people took his comments to be a call for gun control and took exception to his comments based on the 2^nd Amendment of our Constitution. I believe that Bob Costas has been exonerated. Following the Newtown, Connecticut massacre of twenty children, most Americans now believe that we have an unacceptable gun culture.

The 2^nd Amendment is very clear that its purpose is to keep the populace armed so that our nation never has a government that morphs into a dictatorship. Its purpose is to prevent tyranny. However, when most people talk about their right to “bear arms” it is usually based on their right to hunt, or to protect themselves from other civilians. Rarely do you hear people state that they need guns to prevent tyranny (although there are some whacko survivalists that do believe in this possibility). However, if every American citizen owned automatic assault riffles there would still be no chance for the populace militia to stop the American military from completing a coup de dat (if they so desired). Our military not only has assault riffles, it has tanks, armored personnel carriers, gun ship helicopters, jet fighters, missiles, nuclear weapons, drones, and an organized command and control structure. The 2^nd Amendment was practical and useful when it was written but it can no longer prevent tyranny. With that said, I support the 2^nd Amendment for the purpose of civilians protecting themselves from other civilians.

The good news is, we are a very open society and our soldiers are not only a part of the military, they are a part of our open society. Therefore, we have no need to worry about our military supporting a dictatorship.

In the light of Newtown, Connecticut, we must reevaluate many aspects of our society. We not only have a gun culture, we have a violent culture, and we have an overly political correct culture. Our political correctness prevents people from stating when they see something that would not have been acceptable only forty years ago. Political correctness has been good in some areas. It is good that we do no longer expect a woman to aspire to the traditional role of housewife (it’s also good that we admire those that do). It is also good that we do not shame people for having a mental illness. However, it is not okay to look the other way when our entertainment industry glorifies killing and even teaches our children how to kill through video games.

When the Supreme Court ruled on pornography they stated that they could not define pornography, but they knew it when they saw it. Somewhere along the way (through political correctness) we lost the ability to see pornography. Pornography does not have to be sexual in nature. The glorification of violence in ‘art” is a form of pornography.  We may not be able to define it, but we know it when we see it (or hear it as in the case of hip-hop music).

Here is a political correctness issue to ponder: If gangster-hip-hop music was initiated and proliferated by middle-class white people, would it have been considered acceptable? Does the fact that (at least in its infancy) it was dominated by African Americans have anything to do with why it was accepted? The unfortunate answer is yes. It is yes because African Americans see much more violence than non-African Americans and it was viewed as artists reflecting the life they experience. But should we allow the portrayal of violence to be glorified? Why is this accepted? The rhythm of the music is art. That art should be used in an uplifting manner to better people's lives (and some of it does) - not in a manner that encourages more violence.

During World War II, our military determined that only 20% of our soldiers could actually shoot to kill. To increase this percentage, the military now uses video games to desensitize our soldiers to killing – and they have experienced a very high success rate. Fortunately, the military fosters this desensitization in the context of war. The military conditions our soldiers to know that the desensitization does not extend to ordinary life. Who is conditioning our children on when the desensitization is inappropriate? Parents should be doing this – but how many children do not have the parental guidance they desperately require? Or to be even more politically incorrect, how many parents do not have the capacity to teach their children?

After 9/11 the catch phrase “If you see something, say something” came into popular usage. It was a call for civilians to be mindful of potential terrorist activities and to alert law enforcement officials as soon as possible in order to investigate and to stop any potential threats before they were carried out. We need the same policy for people who may pose a threat because of potentially diminished mental capacity, mental delusions and/or unreasonable anger. This is a “politically correct” sensitive area. However, we are rational people and we can do this. For example, if you see a person acting in a strange manner, you can assess whether he has the potential to do harm (and it should be okay to err on the side of caution). If you think he could possibly do harm, you should contact someone in his or her life to alert them for further evaluation. This could be the individual’s parent, spouse, their school principal, their place of worship, or (if in a work setting) their boss. If you do not know the person, tell the police. If we normalize this type of reporting into our society; it would not be considered “out of bounds” to identify someone as possibly needing help. There would be no stigma attached to the reported individual or to the reporter. (At least I would hope not because I am confident that someone would call my wife and ask: what the heck is up with Frank?)  Such reports should be viewed as just a check that the reporter realizes could be completely off-base. If we operated under this condition there would be no negative impact on the reported individual or on the reporter. Without this being a societal norm, it takes a lot of courage for someone to speak up (it’s just not politically correct).

The point is; if you see something, say something! And, it does not have to be a young man wearing a suicide vest. It may be some young, disoriented person with an angry look on his face. Rather than walk by and forget about him, think of the Newtown children - and do something.

If we do become less political correct, our civilian commitment laws will need to be reviewed so that a potentially dangerous person could be provided with treatment before they actually commit a violent act.

Then; there are our gun laws. I do believe in the 2^nd Amendment right for people to own guns for their own protection. However, along with this right comes responsibility. Strict permitting requirements should be in place for every gun purchase. The individual must pass both a criminal background check and a psychological test (no matter how politically incorrect this may be). Then, the gun owner must be held responsible for the safe keeping of that gun so that no other individual can gain access to it. If a gun owner becomes aware that his or her gun is missing, they must report that to the police immediately.

All guns must be registered. If an individual moves to a new area, their guns must be registered with the new local law enforcement organization. I would like to see a bullet shot from each new gun purchased and for that bullet to be digitally scanned for its “gun barrel fingerprint” so that bullets found at crime scenes could be matched to the gun used. This may be too expensive or not yet technologically possible – but it would be a great law enforcement tool. People caught with guns in their homes that are not properly registered should face stiff penalties. People caught with guns on their person without a permit for carrying a gun should face even stiffer penalties. People that use a gun to commit a crime should be given long prison sentences. We must enact public policy that reflects society’s values that our gun culture is no longer acceptable.

In New Zealand, the gun purchaser and everyone that lives with the gun purchaser is interviewed prior to issuing a permit for obtaining a gun. The purchaser must also take and pass a course on how to use and safely store the gun. After that, the gun owner must renew their gun license every five years by going through the same process. We should consider measures like this.

I agree that guns do not kill people. People kill people. However, we should not make it as easy for people to kill people as we do. People should have the right to own guns – but not military assault riffles. We should define a short list of acceptable types of guns that people are allowed to own, codify that list into law and strictly enforce the law.

The death of twenty children in Newtown, Connecticut has heightened our realization that guns have gotten out of control. However, even if all the above measures were already embedded into our society – the lives of those twenty children may still have been lost. There is no perfect solution. However, with the above measure, we most likely will prevent some (if not most) of the future horror stories (similar to the one Newtown, Connecticut is living through right now). And, we should be able to significantly reduce the 12,000 people that are killed via gun violence each and every year in our great country.

                                           *                              *                          *

By the way, my book is available as a free Kindle download today (12/19/2012).  It has a lot of common sense solutions to the many problems facing America today.  It is a quick and refreshing read.

The Fiscal Cliff – Fairway Frank Style

My book included 51 issues – but failed to include the “Fiscal Cliff”.  So, here it is; defined and discussed in Fairway Frank’s unique style:

 

Definition:  Last year when the debt ceiling had to be raised, the Republican controlled House of Representatives demanded measures to get the national debt under control before approving an increase to the debt limit.  This demand resulted in the President and the Speaker of the House negotiating a deal to bring our fiscal house to order.  When the “Grand Bargain” negotiations between Speaker Boehner and President Obama fell apart, a bill was passed to create a “Super Committee” of twelve Republican and Democratic Senators and Representatives.  The Super Committee was to craft a bill that would reduce the growth of our national debt (growth not the actual debt itself).  Following the completion of the Super Committee’s work there could be no changes by the remaining members of our robust legislative bodies.  The bill that was to be crafted by the Super Committee would only get an up or down vote in Congress.  If the bill did not pass; mandatory spending cuts (referred to as “sequestration”) would kick in on January 1, 2013.  The sequestration option was referred to as “kicking the can down the road” – meaning that we would fix things later.  Well - the Super Committee failed to craft a bill to be brought to Congress for a vote.  Therefore, the mandatory spending cuts (sequestration) are 26 days away from being reality.

At the time the sequestration option was developed, everybody believed that it was so horrible that Congress would come up with a better plan before it was scheduled to take effect.  At the same time, nobody was thinking about the coincidence of the timing that sequestration had with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.  Yes, both the spending cuts of sequestration and the Bush tax cuts expiration take effect on January 1, 2012.  The 2% social security payroll tax holiday also expires on that very day – Happy New Year. 

Approximately $600 billion of combined spending cuts increased taxes will affect the economy.  Many economists are predicting that we will fall back into a recession with the unemployment rate rising above 9% again.  By the way, one of the sequestration spending cuts is the elimination of the extended unemployment benefits. This complete mess is now called the “Fiscal Cliff” and we are scheduled to roll over the edge of this fiscal cliff at midnight, December 31^st – what a hangover

Far Left:  The President won the election on the platform of raising taxes on the wealthy.  The tax rates on the upper 2% of income earners ($250K or more) must be increased.  Furthermore, Congress should no longer have control over the national debt.  The President should not have to ask Congress to borrow more money.  Congress acted irresponsibly last year and it resulted in our debt rating being lowered.  And, by the way, we have a couple stimulus projects we would like funded – but only about $50 billion a year to start.  If the Republicans do not agree to these terms we are prepared to go over the cliff.  And, the best part of this is - if we do go over the cliff, everyone will blame the Republicans.

Far Right:  The Republicans retained its majority in the House of Representatives on the platform of a smaller government.  We are willing to generate more revenue by eliminating tax loop-holes for the wealthy – NOT by raising tax rates.  The real problem facing America is spending – spending is out of control.  The entitlement programs already approved by Congress are unsustainable.  We must have entitlement reform and a tax code overhaul.  If the Democrats are not willing to negotiate a framework for overhauling our tax code and for reforming our entitlement programs – we are prepared to go over the cliff.  And, the best part of this is - if we do go over the cliff, President Obama will be staring at the need for another debt ceiling increase and we will be holding all the cards (because we have not learned that threatening to default on the debt of the United States of America is not good for Americans - or for the rest of the world).

From the Middle:  We are screwed.  Buy a parachute. 

 

                                                *                      *                      *

It is hard to believe that we have devolved to the point of practicing mutual mass-destruction in our domestic policy making.

My book predicted that the massive amount of negative campaigning would polarize our nation even more than it was before the campaigning began (and, it was already more polarized than I could ever remember at that time).  Unfortunately, I was correct.

For a short duration following the election, there was a cease fire.  I had a lapse in judgment that led me to think that maybe all the negativity had numbed us.  Maybe it had made us (and our elected leaders) realize that we needed to unite and work together in good faith towards the goal of keeping America the greatest nation on earth.  I even wrote a blog entry to that effect.  That momentary lapse of judgment gave me a great feeling of hope.  However, after allowing myself to be fooled into a false sense of hope, this new round of political hostility has brought me down hard.  Words cannot convey the depth of my disappointment.

As predicted in my book, this election has provided no mandate and it has left us adrift at sea without any leaders capable of taking the helm.  Where are leaders like Tip O’Neil and Ronnie Reagan when you need them?  Are they gone forever?  With that said, I still hope that President Obama and Speaker Boehner can muster the statesmanship required to solve our problems.  And, once they do, that they can use that statesmanship and resulting accomplishments to reunite all Americans.  However, to this point, I have not seen any evidence that statesmanship still exists in Washington.

Congress cannot develop and agree to frameworks to overhaul our tax code and to reform our entitlement programs in 26 days.  Heck, they probably will only be working on ten of those remaining 26 days.  Just imagine if the company you work for, or the business you own, or even your family finances were left unattended with such enormous problems – for eighteen months.  You company would have gone out of business, you would have lost your job and/or your family would be destitute.  Congress has known for eighteen months that these deadlines were coming – but they were too busy campaigning to work on our real problems.

Now that the campaigning is over, we Americans do not expect a “Grand Bargain” solution to solve our enormous problems before we are at the precipice.  There is not enough time or creativity in Washington for a true solution to our economic troubles to be developed before the fiscal cliff causes true human hardship.  Therefore, to prevent this human hardship, please just do the stuff that everybody agrees on:

1. Extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone earning less than $250K (without precluding the extension of the Bush tax cuts for those earning $250K in the future through other means of revenue generation);
2. Extend the unemployment benefits;
3. Extend the estate tax cuts;
4. Extend the capital gains tax cuts;
5. Agree on a spending number (a percentage of Gross Domestic Product) where our government must limit its average annual expenditures; and,
6. Agree to future (next year) overhauls of our tax code and entitlement programs (that does not preclude lowering tax rates).

When we had the Clinton tax rates we had a budget surplus.  We have not had a surplus since Clinton was president.  In fact, we have had deficits of over $1 trillion in each of the past five years.  When you look at the numbers, it is clear that the major factor that enabled Clinton to achieve a budget surplus was not higher taxes – it was lower spending.  BUT TAXES HELPED!  During the Clinton years, our government spent 19% of the GDP.  We are now spending 23% of our GDP on government programs.

My book stated that the negative political campaigning would cause Americans to despise the “other side” - and to despise fellow Americans that support the ‘other side”.  This prediction has also, unfortunately, become a reality.  I have felt it in my own family.  This fiscal cliff is not only economically damaging - it is damaging civility.

Please President Obama and Speaker Boehner; start talking to each other instead of at each other through the press.  What ‘we the people’ want is a good-faith, honest effort to put the sacred-cows aside and come up with a plan that will save us from ourselves.  Just some cordial conversation would give us some encouragement.  Do the minimum items stated above to prevent true human hardship.  Finally, please commit to a more civilized discourse.  We the people want to be united in carrying out the solution that you develop for our future.  Mutual mass-destruction is not a plausible negotiating tactic for achieving compromise.

                                                *                      *                      *

If you liked the above discussion, you will find my book just as enlightening on fifty-one other issues facing America.  The election is over, but the issues still remain.  The book will give you insight on the problems that still need to be solved and a lot of ideas on how to solve them.  If you read the entire book, you will learn how you can be a part of the solution.  The book is a quick read.  This blog entry is about 1,600 words – the book is 24,000 words.  That means the book is about 15 times longer than this blog entry – it is an easy, refreshing read!