Umbrella-gate. No, Seriously

Last week, President Obama hosted Turkey’s Prime Minister at the White House. As is common in these sorts of affairs, following their meeting, they two held a brief press conference. And it started to rain. So President Obama asked two Marines to bring some umbrellas.

No big deal, right? Well, not to most of the world. But I wonder what the right-wing might think of this?

Let’s look at the article Obama breaches Marine protocol from the Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller website:

The commander in chief of the American armed forces today forced a violation of Marine Corps regulations, so he wouldn’t get wet.

According to Marine Corps regulation MCO P1020.34F of the Marine Corps Uniform Regulations chapter 3, a male Marine is not allowed to carry an umbrella while in uniform. There is no provision in the Marine Corps uniform regulation guidelines that allows a male Marine to carry an umbrella.

Nevertheless, during a press conference under a light drizzle with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan this morning, President Obama allowed the First Head to be protected from the elements by an umbrella held by a male Marine corporal.

The relevant portion of the regulation reads, “3035. UMBRELLAS (Female Marines). Female Marines may carry an all-black, plain standard or collapsible umbrella at their option during inclement weather with the service and dress uniforms. It will be carried in the left hand so that the hand salute can be properly rendered. Umbrellas may not be used/carried in formation nor will they be carried with the utility uniform.”

Items not expressly delineated as authorized components of the Marine Corps uniform are prohibited. Male Marines are informed never to carry an umbrella from the earliest phases of training.

Not even the President of the United States can request a Marine to carry an umbrella without the express consent of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, according to the Marine Corps Manual.

The Marine Corps Manual, the guidebook that defines protocol for officers and enlisted Marines, in section 2806 paragraph 2, specifically states: “The Marine Corps Uniform Regulations, published by the Commandant of the Marine Corps, shall be binding on all Marines. No officer or official shall issue instructions which conflict with, alter, or amend any provision without the approval of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.”

Yes, you read that correctly. Daily Caller is criticizing President Obama for making two Marines violate Marine Corps regulations by holding umbrellas. Daily Caller even suggests that the President doesn’t have the authority to request that a Marine carry an umbrella. Seriously. This is what passes for journalism in the far right echo chamber.

Out of curiosity, what do you suppose the purpose of that regulation is? Was the regulation adopted to prohibit Marines from ever carrying an umbrella or from carrying an umbrella to protect themselves? Note that in the rule pertaining to female Marines, the regulation requires that the umbrella be held in the left hand so that the hand salute can be properly rendered.

Anyway, you know what’s coming, don’t you?

First, “[s]eeing a Marine with this particular accessory is ‘extremely rare,’ Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Greg Wolf explained, but because the president’s the commander in chief of the Armed Forces, if he says ‘hold my umbrella,’ it’s permissible.”

Second, I wonder why The Daily Caller included the above-quoted portion of the Marine Corps Uniform Regulations but didn’t bother to include the following:

Articles that are not authorized for wear as a part of a regulation uniform will not be worn exposed with the uniform unless otherwise authorized by the Commandant or higher authority.

It would seem to me that the Commander-in-Chief qualifies as a “higher authority” wouldn’t you?

More importantly, why do you suppose that people are noting that President Obama asked Marines to hold umbrellas in the first place? Is it because they’re that worked up over a highly technical interpretation of Marine rules? How worked up are these same people when our military desecrates enemy corpses, engages in torture, or kills civilians?

So, might something else be involved? Hmm. I know. Let’s look at some of the comments posted at Daily Caller in response to the article (helpfully compiled at Little Green Footballs):

I thought afro-sheen was waterproof?

[…]

Just another occasion where Obama shows his “superiority” to any and everyone around him. Shameful.

[…]

Just another example of the illegitimate Kenyan illegal alien’s arrogance, ignorance, and contempt for the military - and the Marine Corps in particular.

[…]

Next they’ll be carrying shopping bags for Michelle as she strolls ‘Miracle Mile’ looking for a bargain.

[…]

I would roll that umbrella up and shove it where the sun don’t shine. Kenyan Fraud. III%

[…]

The MONKEY BOY BATH HOUSE QUEEN WOULD MELT if SHE GOT WET!!!!!

[…]

Too funny! The first black man given the opportunity to run the most powerful country on earth and he turns out to be no different than all the other two bit corrupt black dictators around the world. For all the world to see no less. Way to go BO!

[…]

Someone…please throw some shoes at this Kenyan clown!!

Those are a few days old now. There are more. Many, many more. An no, not every comment at Daily Caller reads like these; there are even some that defend President Obama. But to say that the vast majority of comments are both unfriendly and disrespectful would be an understatement. You can also find comments advocating virtually every anti-Obama conspiracy you can contemplate (from disbarment to forged absentee voting records and so on); some even refer to President Obama as a traitor.

Even Sarah “My Head Is Stuck So Far Up a Polar Bear’s Ass That I Can’t See Russia Anymore” Palin chimed in on Facebook, telling President Obama that “most Americans hold their own umbrellas.” Like this:

No, not a Marine; just a campaign aid. This is, of course, in contrast to President Obama who would never hold his own umbrella when walking down the steps of an airplane.

Oops.

But certainly other Presidents haven’t had to rely on others to hold their umbrellas, right?

By the way: See those photos of both Presidents Bush under umbrellas being held by members of the Army? Hmm. I wonder why the right wing didn’t go ballistic when those “transgressions” occurred? After all, the Army’s uniform regulations are substantially similar to those of the Marines:

Females may carry and use an umbrella, only during inclement weather, when wearing the service (class A and B), dress, and mess uniforms. Umbrellas are not authorized in formations or when wearing field or utility uniforms.

Seriously, how do people rationalize criticizing President Obama for asking the Marines to hold umbrellas but aren’t critical of Presidents Bush for allowing members of the Army to do so?

Oh, and as long as we’re talking about Presidents and umbrellas, I couldn’t resist this photo:

I will resist the urge to make any comment. Nope. Lips are sealed. Not gonna happen.

So why do you think that there is such outrage (feigned or otherwise) over President Obama asking the Marines to hold up umbrellas for he and the Turkish Prime Minister?

With incidents like this, it gets harder and harder not to attribute the right wing’s animus toward President Obama, at least in part, to racism.

Perhaps we need to add a verse to the Marine Corps Hymn:

From the Halls of Montezuma

To the shores of Tripoli

If you hold the President’s umbrella

The rage of the right you’ll see.

Two Christian Pastors Share Their Diametrically Opposed Views on Gay Marriage

I want to compare two letters to the editor that were printed in The Indianapolis Star on May 14, 2013, and May 20, 2013, respectively. Both letters concerned the story Former WNBA player Tully Bevilaqua commits to her partner from the May 14, 2013, edition of The Indianapolis Star. And both letters were written by Christian clergy.

Story about Tully Bevilaqua's marriage was repulsive Everyone is entitled to their opinion but that does not mean that I want to read and or see stories about subjects that I find repulsive and the May 14 story, “Celebrating a couple’s love” about former Indiana Fever player Tully Bevilaqua getting married was repulsive to me. Is The Star so depleted of newsworthy articles that it has to run such stories? If you must run them, please relegate them to the opinion section, where they should be, not on the first page of one of my favorite sections of The Star. Pastor David Vaughn Martinsville

Ban on same-sex marriage is truly repulsive Like Pastor David Vaughn of Martinsville, I was repulsed by The Star’s article about Tully Bevilaqua and the celebration of her commitment to her lesbian partner. I am repulsed because these two Hoosier women, a credit to our city and state, do not have the legal freedom to marry one another because of their sexual orientation. I am repulsed that so many people of faith speak in hallowed tones of marriage, elevate it as the central relationship in their own lives, then selfishly deny that same blessing to others. I am repulsed that as other states are committing to marriage equality, Indiana’s political leaders are hard at work making sure a group caring for gay and lesbian youth can’t support its noble efforts with a license plate. And I will be repulsed until our state, and indeed our nation, takes seriously its constitutional promise of liberty and justice for all. Philip Gulley Quaker pastor Danville

I don’t know about you, but the attitudes expressed in one of those letters sound much more like what I expect to hear when I think of “clergy” or “pastor”. So what I’d like to hear from my Christian friends, is how they think Jesus would have reacted to these letters. Which letter would have made him smile and nod in agreement; which would have made him scowl? Which author’s ideas embody what Christianity (or Judaism, for that matter) is really supposed to stand for?

Anyway, these two letters do a nice job of summing up an entire aspect of the debate over gay marriage.

Benghazi as an Excuse for Impeachment Shenanigans

Remember the late ’90s and the impeachment of President Bill Clinton? After spending years looking into his financial dealings (Whitewater), the “murder” of Vince Foster, and anything else that they thought might stick, Republicans eventually impeached President Clinton for lying about getting a blowjob. Now, they’re at it again, but this time their ire is focused on both President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

It seems that Republicans have actually been trying to find a basis to impeach President Obama since about the time that he was initially inaugurated. But I guess that someone with a functioning brain in the GOP suggested that passing popular legislation probably didn’t quality as a high crime or misdemeanor. And then Benghazi.

I’ve tried to avoid writing much (if anything about Benghazi), and I still don’t really want to get bogged down in the facts as, frankly, I’m not sure that I know all of the facts (not that Republicans have let facts or a lack thereof deter their conspiracy-mongering). Rather, I want to focus on the Republican need to find a scandal that they can use to tarnish President Obama or even use as the basis of impeachment. And that scandal seems to be Benghazi.*

Unless I’m mistaken, I don’t think that Republicans are actually blaming President Obama for the attack on the compound in Benghazi (though I suspect that it wouldn’t take too much searching to find some who are making that allegation … after all, some on the far right conspiracy fringe have recently accused President Obama of secretly being the worldwide head of al-Qaeda). Instead, the allegation seems to be that President Obama didn’t send proper reinforcements to try to stop the attack (notwithstanding that the military says that there was nothing that could have been done) and/or that his administration edited talking points to try to cover up that it was a terrorist attack (even though he said it was an “act of terror”).

That appears to be the extent and gist of the allegation. I think. (I must admit that I have some degree of difficulty fully understanding right-wing conspiracy theories; after all, they make little logical sense and there are just so damn many of them.) Apparently, from what I’ve been able to glean, it appears that the “conspiracy” was maybe to let the Americans die in order to … er, well … actually, I haven’t figured that part out yet. But then the conspiracy was to deny that the attack was a terrorist attack (you know, by calling it an act of terror, instead) because if it was a terrorist attack, it would prove that President Obama wasn’t doing a good job against terrorists and he would have therefore lost the 2012 election. Or something. And this conspiracy lasted for a whole week. Or three days. Or something. And it involved withholding emails from Congress that were actually given to Congress or refusing to brief Congress except for the briefings that were given to Congress. Or something.

Yesterday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California), tried to clarify when he helpfully noted, as part of his explanation of what it is that President Obama did wrong, that “an act of terror is different than a terrorist attack”. Yep. Read that one again, folks.

But Republicans really seem to think that this is a big deal. Some have been talking about impeachment recently. Some have suggested that this is such a big deal that they don’t think that President Obama will be able to serve out his full term. Others have compared the “conspiracy” to Watergate (but, of course, Benghazi is worse and will “make Watergate look like kindergarten”) and even to 9/11 but found that President Obama’s actions and “Benghazi” were much, much worse. Seriously. Benghazi is worse than Watergate and worse than 9/11 because … um … because, yeah. Some Republicans in Congress want a “select committee” to investigate the whole mess.

So do you know what I find odd about all of this? Think back to the 8 years of the Bush administration. I know you don’t want to; I know you’ve tried to block it from your mind. But work with me here, people. Think back to those long, dark years and remember all of the Republican outrage, committee hearings, select committees, and impeachment talk after the following:

• January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
• June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
• October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities.
• February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.
• May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
• July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
• December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
• March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers.
• September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.
• January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
• March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.
• July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.
• September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband.

Hmm. Now that I think about it, I don’t recall the committee hearings or select committees, let alone the outrage, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, and talk of impeachment.

And think about what isn’t included in the foregoing list. First of all, that list doesn’t include anything from Afghanistan or Iraq including multiple attacks on our diplomatic compounds in those countries. More importantly, I don’t recall hearing Republicans calling for hearings or impeachment of President Bush for using lies as the basis for invading Iraq in the first place. Or for “outing” covert CIA agent Valerie Plame. Or for authorizing torture, warrantless wiretaps, and indefinite detention without access to counsel (you know, good ol’ Amurican values). As we learn more about the AP subpoena scandal, we should recall how angry Republicans were about warrantless wiretaps during the Bush administration. Oh, wait.

Hmm. It seems that there was something else that happened during the Bush administration for which there were hearings but not talk of impeachment. What am I missing? Think. Think.

Oh, yeah. I seem to recall this little incident in which 3,000 people were killed in the largest terrorist attack of all time and for which President Bush had been given a warning that al-Qaeda intended to strike inside the US and might use airplanes to do so. But Benghazi was worse.

So you see, to Republicans, there isn’t much (if anything) that a Republican President can do wrong. He can lie us into a war that costs thousands of American lives (not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives). He can allow Americans to be killed. He can approve torture and permit a covert CIA operative to be outed. All of that is fine. But if a Democratic President lies, about something as innocuous as a blowjob or why a particular terrorist attack occurred … well, then, stop the presses and start the impeachment process. “Mission Accomplished”? Bah, who cares. Not putting out every known fact, even as evidence was still coming in, on why an attack occurred? Watergate! 9/11! Impeach!

You know, I really hope that the Republicans keep pushing on this. I do. I hope that the House GOP decides to start impeachment proceedings. Because maybe, just maybe, under those circumstances, the American electorate will come to realize that the GOP really doesn’t care about right or wrong or even the best interests of America. Perhaps the electorate will finally learn that facts and truth are anathema to the GOP. Nope. What the GOP cares about is damaging Democratic Presidents with whatever flimsy excuse they can find in order to have a better chance of exercising power themselves.

Maybe I’m crazy; maybe I’m just too cynical. But it seems clear to me that when far more egregious, far more deadly conduct is ignored, but less serious conduct amounting (if proven…) to little more than a lie, is subject to extreme levels of scrutiny, rhetoric, and calls for punishment, not to mention comparisons to things that are far more serious, then what we have is nothing more than political posturing dressed up in hyperbolic hypocrisy.

The comparison between these sorts of events is, I believe, damaging to the process and to our governmental system. Just as every bad person ought not to be compared to Hitler, not everything done wrong by a Democratic President is automatically and immediately comparable to Watergate or 9/11. The comparison of virtually everything to those things that truly were the pinnacle of scandal or evil means that we’ve lost all perspective. And without perspective, there is no way to understand, approach, or resolve important questions, issues, or problems.

---

*Well, at least it was Benghazi until the Obama administration handed Republicans two new scandals to chase with the IRS’ allegedly targeting Tea Party 501(c)(4) applications and the Department of Justice subpoenaing the phone records of some reporters for Associated Press.

Abercrombie & Fitch: Unattractive Kids “Can’t Belong”

This graphic has been making the rounds on Facebook and the Web over the last few days:

I don’t know about you, but I’m troubled by the exclusionary attitude expressed by Abercrombie & Fitch’s CEO Mike Jeffries.* “A lot of people don’t belong in our clothes, and they can’t belong.” Seriously? A&F is only going after the “cool kids” and the “attractive all-American kid”? And just what does that mean?

Let’s imagine that, instead of talking about “cool kids” or “all-American kids”, Jeffries spoke instead of “white kids”. Would you be troubled then? Or if his quotation had been that “black people don’t belong in our clothes, and they can’t belong”… Would that trouble you? Of course it would. So query just what an “attractive all-American kid” is? Is that sort of like Sarah Palin’s “real America” where certain categories of people are excluded?

When I do a Google image search for Abercrombie Fitch Models (models are what the retailer calls their in-store employees), I don’t see many African Americans, Latinos, or Asians. But I do see a lot of white guys and girls. Is that what Jeffries means when he talks about an “attractive all-American kid”? Just look at the plastic surgery that he’s had; the “ideal” into which he’s tried to transform himself…

And even if he’s not talking race or ethnicity, he is talking weight and appearance. Can an unattractive kid also be “all-American” or is that reserved for the attractive kids? Perhaps even more importantly, can someone who isn’t a muscle-bound guy or a size 2 girl be considered attractive? Or, in the Abercrombie & Fitch world, do a few extra pounds or the type of body that isn’t found outside the pages of a fashion magazine disqualify someone from being “attractive” or “all-American”?

Now, I do recognize that one aspect of this argument can break down if taken too far. For example, I don’t think that we would be dismayed by a sporting goods retailer saying that they were targeting athletes; then again, I don’t think a store like Dick’s Sporting Goods would say that non-athletes “can’t belong”. Rather, I suspect that a store like Dick’s would welcome to opportunity to help transform a non-athlete into an athlete.

I guess the real problem that I have here is that we know that we live in a society that is overly image conscious. And who is most impacted by that? I’d guess teens — the very clientele attracted to Abercrombie, some of who are being told that they “can’t belong”. Should a girl with a few extra pounds develop an eating disorder in order to dress like the “cool kids”? Or should a boy who is more of an academic and less of a jock, perhaps with a little teen acne, just resolve to live a life where he knows that he “can’t belong” because he can’t press 250 pounds?

Are those the sorts of messages that we want to send to our kids?

It’s bad enough that Abercrombie & Fitch’s adds are almost soft core porn. But when you add to the images of those bare-chested models the suggestion that only people who look like those models are “worthy” of shopping at the store, then we’ve crossed over a line into something … well, dangerous to our kids.

It’s not just bullying that leads teens to depression and suicide. Being on “the outside” can be devastating to a teen’s developing persona. And here we have a multi-billion dollar company not just perpetuating body image stereotypes but going further and saying that those who can’t meet certain standards “can’t belong”. If you’re fat, go to Dress Barn and live your life as an unpopular cow. If you’re not “cool”, go shop at Walmart or Goodwill. Abercrombie & Fitch doesn’t think that you’re a part of the “all-American” society.

I don’t think that a boycott of Abercrombie will do much good. Their marketing is tied directly to their products and business plan. So what can people do? Well, I suppose that “ugly” people who might not match the “all-American” ideal could start hanging out in Abercrombie stores or “proudly” wearing Abercrombie apparel in an effort to make it “not cool”. But that doesn’t seem like a winning strategy. But I think that I have a three-step idea that just might put some pressure on the company:

• When you see an Abercrombie & Fitch add in a newspaper or magazine, write to the editor and suggest that they not accept ads from Abercrombie & Fitch anymore. Ask the editor if they’d accept advertising from a company that espoused open racism or sexism and suggest that advertising from a company that says that certain people “can’t belong” is equally damaging to our society.
• Shop at other stores … but do something else, too. When you buy something at one of those other stores, be sure to tell the employees that you’ve purposefully made the decision to shop at that store instead of Abercrombie because of its exclusionary worldview. If stores start to hear that inclusion is valuable it will become something to strive for and Abercrombie will be left out.
• Finally, ask the owners of the malls in which Abercrombie’s stores are located why they continue to permit that sort of company in their buildings. Again, would they allow a store that espoused racism or some other form of bigotry? Tell the mall owners that you might choose to boycott, not Abercrombie, but the mall itself. Or, if you’re feeling particularly confrontational, get some of your unattractive non-all-American friends together and try picketing on the outside of the mall. Those sorts of activities will make the mall owners very uncomfortable.

If you do find yourself at an Abercrombie & Fitch store, don’t remain silent. Tell the “models” what you think of their CEO’s exclusionary comments. Be sure that they know that it’s not acceptable. Be polite. But be firm. And leave. Without spending your money.

We can’t make everyone feel good about themselves. But we don’t need to tolerate a business that chooses to succeed by making some people feel bad about themselves, especially teens and especially teens who may already have low self-confidence or image issues.

We strive to live by the notion that “all men are created equal”; so do we really want to reward a store that thinks only “attractive all-American” kids belong?

---

*And yes, I know that at least part of this quotation was from back in 2006, but that it's just now gone viral.

B’nai Mitzvah

Those of you who follow me on Twitter or Facebook are no doubt aware that this past weekend our family celebrated the bar mitzvah of our son and bat mitzvah of our daughter (collectively referred to as a b’nai mitzvah). The b’nai mitzvah was non-traditional. We held the service at a country club instead of a synagogue and we weren’t led by a rabbi or cantor.* Instead, we designed the service to incorporate family members (and friends) as much as possible. And I think that the service was very meaningful to our children and to those who attended.

We were all very, very proud of the the hard work that our children put into preparing for the big day and they both did a wonderful job as they were called to the Torah.

For the service, I prepared a booklet with the prayers and readings. I received a number of compliments on the book and I’ve had quite a few requests by people who couldn’t attend the ceremony for a copy of the book. So I’ve attached a .pdf version of below. I’ve corrected a few errors that were pointed out to me after the service, including changing the word “peach” to “peace” even though it was really cute when my daughter just read the line as written: “peach and happiness”.

The English readings in the book were adapted from several sources on the web and, where possible, I’ve included the identity of the original author.

In preparing this book, I had several goals. First, I (obviously) wanted to be sure that I included those elements of a Shabbat and b’nai mitzvah service that were essential to it being a true Shabbat and b’nai mitzvah service. Second, I wanted to include Hebrew, transliteration, and English translation for all of the Hebrew prayers so that our participants and guests could follow along and understand the meanings. When we made the final decision to make this a family service instead of a clergy-led service, I realized that I needed to find readings (in English!) that would be appropriate for our family members. I wanted to find readings that felt both meaningful and authentic to those who were asked to read. Knowing that we would have many guests who were not Jewish and who may have never attended a bar or bat mitzvah previously, I wanted to try to offer some explanation for some of the prayers and proceedings. Finally, I wanted this to be a Jewish service, but I also wanted to avoid making anyone who wasn’t Jewish uncomfortable.

I don’t know if I succeeded in all of those goals, but I feel good about the final product.

I’ve also been asked to reprint the toast that I made at the party Saturday night.

Your mother and I want you to know how very proud we both are of the two of you. You’ve each worked very hard to make today’s accomplishments a reality. The extra effort of having to do so much in such a short period time was understandably difficult but you both handled it very well. Well, with a few exceptions that is. But we’ll keep that a secret. Oops.

You may not realize it but your cousin Connor’s bar mitzvah was on my birthday and your B’nai mitzvah is on your aunt Wendy and uncle Gavin’s anniversary. We should congratulate them for that.

What I find truly remarkable about today though is what it says about who we are as a family and as a people. Ian like your father, like your grandfathers, like your great grandfathers and like countless generations before them, today you were called to the Torah. Lily, your mother did not become bat mitzvah, your grandmothers did not become bat mitzvah, none of your aunts or ancestors did. You were the first.

So today, in one moment, the two of you standing side-by-side renewed an ancient tradition and, at the same time and with the same breath began a new tradition; the old and the new together reflecting ancient tradition and modern sensibilities. With our service we combined the traditional with the modern. And you learned to recite ancient texts by the time-honored tradition of using Skype.

I hope as you go forward in your lives you can continue to incorporate those ideals and values core to who we are as a community, people, and family, and adapt those to our ever-changing modern lives. L’chaim.

Thanks again to all who helped make the b’nai mitzvah weekend a special and memorable weekend for our family.

I also want to take a brief moment to give special thanks to Cantor Janine Starr for her work with our children to help them prepare for their b’nai mitzvah. Cantor Starr has a relatively new bar mitzvah tutoring business (new website coming soon!). If you’re looking for private tutoring for your children, please contact Cantor Starr (she tutors via the time-honored tradition of Skype).

I also want to thank Goldman Union Camp Institute (GUCI) and Rabbi Mark Covitz for allowing us the use of a Torah for the ceremony.

---

*I may write more about our decision to have a non-traditional b’nai mitzvah another time. But not today.

Guns in America: “Just One of Those Crazy Accidents” (update)

In last week’s post Guns in America: “Just One of Those Crazy Accidents” I wrote about 12 children who were either killed or wounded by “accidental” gunfire and/or who were responsible for killing or wounding someone else with accidental gunfire all in the month of April 2013. None of these children was even a teenager yet. Unfortunately, my compilation of these tragic stories was incomplete.

KTUU (Alaska’s NBC affiliate) (April 30, 2013)

Mountain Village Girl, 5, Fatally Shot by Brother

A 5-year-old Mountain Village girl died Monday afternoon in a shooting by her older brother, according to Alaska State Troopers.

A Tuesday AST dispatch says troopers from St. Mary's responded at about 2:20 p.m. Monday to the shooting.

“Investigation revealed that an 8-year-old boy was playing with a Ruger 10/22 (rifle) that he had used the day before to go hunting, when he shot his 5-year-old sister, killing her,” troopers wrote.

AST spokesperson Megan Peters says troopers can’t or won’t release many details about the shooting, which remains under investigation. She says the boy was unsupervised at the time of the incident.

“The boy was home, his 5-year-old sister came home and within the span of 15 minutes she was dead,” Peters said.

While troopers have notified the state Office of Children’s Services and the district attorney’s office, there isn’t any immediate word on actions taken by those agencies.

“It's too early to know whether charges are warranted against anybody,” Peters said.

Peters emphasizes that much of what troopers know about the shooting is preliminary, and asks the public not to rush to judgment on the case.

“There's no easy answer to it, and obviously no one thinks it's going to happen,” Peters said. “It's a very good opportunity to realize how much can go wrong in a very short time.”

The girl’s body will undergo an autopsy at the state medical examiner’s office.

So, by my count, that makes at least 14 children, aged 12 and under, killed or wounded by accidental gunfire or who were responsible for killing or wounding someone with accidental gunfire within the span of one month. That number omits children killed in criminal violence and in murder-suicides. It is “just” those killed, wounded, or involved in “accidental” shootings.

By comparison, during that same month of April 2013, guess how many Americans were killed in Afghanistan. Go ahead. Guess. The answer? 14.

I don’t know about you, but I think we should be ashamed that the number of Americans killed in a war zone could even possibly be comparable to the number of American children involved in accidental shootings.

But, nooooo, we don’t have a problem with guns, do we? We need more guns on our streets! We need guns in our schools! Maybe we need to be sure that all of our children, toddlers included, are armed or at least wearing protective body armor.

Query whether I, as a parent, am being irresponsible if I allow my kids to go play (er, I guess now that they’re teenagers, they “hang out” instead of “play”) at a friend’s house without first inquiring as to the presence of guns in that house? You see, I don’t want to put my child’s life at risk because you are irresponsible with how you store your gun or because your child has access to that gun. Talk about freedom and tyranny and self-defense all you want; my kids’ lives are more important.

I also wanted to note that the website for Crickett Rifles (the type of rifle marketed to children and which was involved in the shooting of a 2-year-old by her 5-year-old brother), has been taken offline. But before the website vanished, Business Insider had a chance to capture a few images from the “Kids Corner” portion of the website:

Or perhaps this video advertisement for Crickett rifles is a better example:

And you know how gun rights folks are always talking about “gun safety” and “trigger protocol” or whatever the fuck it is that they think makes it OK for a kid to have a gun? Well, take a look at this screen shot that Business Insider took from the Crickett commercial:

That’s right, mom. Focus so much on daughter that you don’t realize that you’re pointing your rifle at your son’s head! Thankfully, her finger isn’t on the trigger…

Ah, but don’t worry. Because if you still want to get your kid a gun, just go to the website for the other gun manufacturer making “quality firearms for America’s youth”: Chipmunk Rifles. Hmm. Now why does that tagline sound so familiar? For that matter, why does Chipmunk’s webpage look so familiar? Oh, right. Chipmunk Rifles is also owned by Keystone Sporting Arms, the same company that owns Crickett Rifles. So, no, they haven’t stopped marketing rifles for children; they’ve just removed one of the brand names that is getting a bad rap just because some careless Kentucky 5-year-old used his prized Crickett rifle to kill his 2-year-old sister.

Guns in America: “Just One of Those Crazy Accidents”

I’m going to post several stories from news sources across the country. I’ll withhold comment until after the stories.

1) Lexington Herald-Leader (April 30, 2013)

5-year-old boy accidentally shoots, kills 2-year-old sister in Cumberland County

A 5-year-old boy who was playing with a .22-caliber rifle accidentally shot and killed his 2-year-old sister in Cumberland County on Tuesday afternoon, according to a news release from the state police.

The shooting happened just after 1 p.m. at a home on Lawson’s Bottom Road.

The 2-year-old was taken to Cumberland County Hospital, where she was later pronounced dead. An autopsy has been scheduled for Wednesday.

Cumberland County Coroner Gary White identified the girl as Caroline Starks.

He said the children’s mother was at home when the shooting occurred, and the gun was a gift the boy received last year.

“It’s a Crickett,” he said. “It’s a little rifle for a kid. … The little boy’s used to shooting the little gun.”

White said the gun was kept in a corner, and the family did not realize a shell had been left in it.

He said the shooting will be ruled accidental.

“Just one of those crazy accidents,” White said.

2) Tennessean (April 8, 2013)

Wife of deputy shot, killed in Wilson County accident

A 4-year-old gained access to a gun at family gathering

The wife of a Wilson County Sheriff’s Office deputy was shot to death Saturday at their Lebanon home by a 4-year-old who gained access to a gun at a family cookout, police said.

Josephine G. Fanning, 48, was pronounced dead at the home at 6710 S.E. Tater Peeler Road, according to the Wilson County Sheriff’s Office.

The shooting occurred while Wilson County Deputy Daniel Fanning, 51, was with another relative looking at guns in a bedroom of the home, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation.

The 4-year-old and Josephine Fanning walked into the bedroom where a loaded weapon was on top of the bed, TBI spokeswoman Kristin Helm said. The child picked up the gun and fired one round, which killed Josephine Fanning.

Alcohol was present at the gathering, Helm said. Daniel Fanning was not on duty at the time of the shooting.

The gun fired by the 4-year-old was Fanning’s personal weapon and not a police gun, Helm said. The 4-year-old was a relative of Daniel and Josephine Fanning, police said.

The TBI will continue investigating and turn over its findings to the district attorney’s office, Helm said. Charges aren’t pending.

“(It) appears accidental at this time,” Helm said.

Daniel Fanning was hired by former longtime Wilson County Sheriff Terry Ashe, who resigned last year to become executive director of the Tennessee Sheriffs’ Association.

3) WBBJ (ABC affiliate in Western Tennessee) (April 8, 2013)

Woman Reportedly Shot by her 2-Year-Old

CARROLL COUNTY, Tenn.- Carroll County Sheriff Deputies are investigating after a new mother was hospitalized for a gunshot wound to her stomach, Sunday.

Carroll County Sheriff Andy Dickson told WBBJ 7 Eyewitness News that the mother Rekia Kid, 22, was shot in the stomach by her 2-year-old son at her Lavinia home, Sunday. Investigators said the mother was sleeping with her three-week-old baby and toddler at the time of the shooting. Dickson said they believe the toddler accidentally shot his mother after finding a Glock 9 mm stored underneath Kid’s pillow.

“I’ve been with the Sheriffs Department for 20 years and never seen an accidental discharge like this. I have seen several accidental discharges but never one like this,” said Sheriff Dickson. “I would love to encourage any firearm owner to treat their weapon with respect, to keep it to where children can not get a hold of it.”

Neighbor Michael Jeter said somehow Kid was able to make it down her steps,across their yard to his front porch where his four year old son found her.

“She was laying on my porch bleeding and she was screaming that her 2 year old found their gun and shot her,” said Jeter. “It was horrible, I’ve never seen anything like that, I actually thought she was going to die right there on the porch.”

Neighbors banded together, Jeter said some held pressure onto the gunshot wound while others called 911.

“All I could think was the kid was still over there with the gun so I ran into her house, i didn’t know if he still had the gun or not,” said Jeter.

Jeter carefully went back into the house, and grabbed the toddler to safety. Then his wife then ran in to get the newborn baby out of the bed.

“She just kept screaming that she didn't think she was going to make it, she didn't think she was going to make it and to please please take care of my children,” said Jeter.

After hearing that it would take a while for an ambulance, neighbors formed a plan and helped carry her to a car. Jeter said a neighbor drove her at least 30 minutes to the nearest hospital in Milan. Sheriff Dickson said the neighborhood’s quick reaction to get Kid to a hospital saved her life.

“She lives in a remote area of the county and it would have taken a long time for an ambulance to get there,” said Dickson. “So I think she made a wise decision to put her in a private vehicle and carry her on.”

Deputies said Kid was airlifted to the MED, Regional Medical Center at Memphis, where she is currently listed in serious but stable condition. Authorities said Kid’s spouse was away at guard training in Trenton when the shooting happened. Neighbors said she was left with the children at home without a phone.

“If it wouldn’t have been for everybody out here coming together I don’t know that we would have got her took care of, it was completely scary,” said Jeter.

Dickson said per protocol they've notified the Department of Child Protective Services to investigate.

4) Toms River Patch (April 9, 2013)

UPDATE: Toms River 6-Year-Old, Shot By 4-Year-Old, Dies

“There were other weapons,” chief says as police continue to investigate scene of Monday night tragedy

JERSEY SHORE– A Toms River 6-year-old who was shot in the head by a 4-year-old died Tuesday, according to Toms River police.

Brandon Holt died almost a day after he was shot in the McCormick Drive yard of the 4-year-old.

Other weapons were found at the scene of the Monday night shooting, according to Toms River Chief of Police Michael Mastronardy.

Mastronardy said that the boy obtained a .22 caliber rifle from inside the residence. The state Division of Youth and Family Services were also called to the scene because there were three other children in the home.

The parents were “nearby” when the incident occurred, the chief said. The mother of the 4-year-old called 911.

The 6-year-old was flown to Jersey Shore Medical Center in Neptune with a head injury and was in serious condition until around 5 p.m. Tuesday, the chief said.

The shooting occurred in the Cedar Grove area of the township, according to Toms River schools Assistant Superintendent James Hauenstein, who received the news during a New Jersey School Boards Association meeting Monday night.

The children were outside the home when the 4-year-old boy went inside to get the rifle, and then shot the 6-year-old about 15 yards away, the chief said. Mastronardy did not say if the 4-year-old pulled the trigger, or if the rifle accidentally discharged.

The 4-year-old’s parents were home at the time, but no names have been released.

Authorities were on scene at a McCormick Drive home Monday night and had the yard cordoned off with yellow tape. Toms River police and county vehicles remained on the scene.

Hauenstein said that the victim is a student at Saint Joseph’s Grade School. He said that Toms River schools officials will be available to provide counseling services to students at Cedar Grove Elementary and Saint Joseph’s.

Like a bad late night infomercial, there’s more.

5) WSYX (ABC affiliate in central Ohio) (April 26, 2013)

10 YO Accidentally Shot & Killed in Marengo

MARENGO — The Morrow County Sheriff’s Office is investigating the death of a 10-year-old boy in Marengo.

Sheriff’s deputies got a call from the home at 2957 County Road 107 just after 6 p.m. Thursday saying the boy had been shot.

When they got to the home, they searched it and questioned the people inside at the time of the shooting.

Sheriff’s detectives are not releasing any other details about what they have gathered from the scene, but they say it appears the shooting was an accident.

No word on how many people were inside the home, or how the gun was fired.

Deputies are also not releasing any names associated with this shooting.

6) KATU (Oregon) (April 22, 2013)

Boy, 4, dies of gunshot wound in Donald, Ore.

DONALD, Ore. — A four-year-old boy died of a gunshot wound in his home Saturday, investigators said.

It happened in Donald in the 10000 block of Main Street NE at around 5:30 p.m.

Cody R. Hall died from a single gunshot wound, Marion County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Don Thomson said. Investigators on Saturday said the shooting appeared to be an accident. They are not looking for any suspects in connection with Hall’s death.

The medical examiner’s office said an autopsy is scheduled for Monday. Investigators have not released any details about how the boy was shot.

Word of the tragedy spread fast in the town of 1,000 people where crime scene tape is almost unheard of.

Neighbor Art Wiles knows Hall’s family well. He said the boy’s father and uncle returned from a fishing trip Saturday evening. The shooting occurred while they were unloading their gear.

“They hadn’t been home for five minutes, and they were unloading their fishing gear, when somehow it happened,” Wiles said. “Very loving family with their kids. Very careful with their kids.”

Chuck Baker also lives nearby. He said he’d see Hall every week.

“I’d see the kid in the window, he’d wave at me and I’d wave back. Big ol’ smile and everything,” Baker said.

Saturday, he saw the boy’s mother in a panic.

“She came out of the house and she was hysterical. Shaking and crying and all that,” he said. “Really heartbreaking.”

Neighbors left flowers and candles near the home Saturday night.

Hall’s death is the second accidental shooting death of a young child in our area in the last week. On April 14, nine-year-old Shayla Shonneker was shot and killed in her back yard by a stray bullet in Oregon City. Her mother’s boyfriend was inside the home practicing drawing a gun when it fired, investigators said. He does not face charges at this time.

7) The Oregonian (April 15, 2013)

Oregon City police identify 9-year-old girl, shooter in Sunday's accidental shooting death

Oregon City police have identified the 9-year-girl accidentally shot and killed Sunday as Shayla May Schonneker, a fourth-grader in the Gladstone School District.

Police also identified the shooter as Joseph Wade Wolters, 32, the live-in boyfriend of Shayla’s mother.

Lt. Jim Band, Oregon City police spokesman, said investigators plan to search the home Monday and have not yet finished interviewing all the witnesses. He said the Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office would determine whether to file charges against Wolters.

Band said Shayla was playing out in the backyard of her home near 12th and Division streets around 5 p.m. Meanwhile, Wolters was practicing holstering and unholstering a loaded handgun, in preparation for his new job as an armed security guard with an armored transport company.

The gun accidentally discharged, shooting through the wall of the house and striking Shayla in the face, Band said. She was about 50 yards away from the house.

Shayla was rushed by helicopter ambulance to OHSU Hospital, where she died shortly after arrival.

Shayla was a student at John Wetten Elementary School, which was rocked by grief Monday. Gladstone School District Superintendent Bob Stewart said the district has activated its crisis-response team and has established a safe room for both adults and students.

“Many people on our staff were highly impacted by the news because of the close relationships they establish with the students,” Stewart said. “We have made counselors available for anyone who wants to talk this over.”

Stewart said Shayla was a student at John Wetten since kindergarten.

Band said Wolters was arrested in 2007, after going absent without leave from the U.S. Army. However, Wolters, a decorated Iraq War veteran who already had been honorably discharged, was released as soon as the mix-up was discovered.

Wolters received about 10 medals during his three years of Army service. He currently is a member of the military reserve.

8) KSN (Kansas) (April 15, 2013)

Salina boy dies after shooting accident with family

SALINA, Kansas  – A 7-year-old Salina boy died Saturday night after accidentally shooting himself Friday afternoon.

Gavin Brummett was shot in the head while handling a handgun with his dad and brother on their rural property near Salina.

Saline County Sheriff’s officials said that’s when Brummett’s father heard two shots and saw that Gavin had shot himself. He was rushed to Salina Regional Health Center, and then airlifted to Wesley Medical Center in Wichita, where he died.

Deputies say the incident highlights the importance of extreme caution with firearms–especially around children.

“Just the basic firearm safety,” Rick Heinrich of the Saline County Sheriff’s Office said. “Where the parents are with the child and supervising very closely watching what they do and working with them and having that close parental supervision right there with them.”

Sheriff’s investigators are awaiting the results of an autopsy on Monday and will be holding a briefing then with more information.

Family friends have set up a memorial page where people can donate to a fund for the Brummett family to cover funeral expenses and other incidental costs.

9) WLTX (Columbia, South Carolina)

Coroner Identifies 3-Year-Old Shooting Victim

Sumter, SC (WLTX) - The Sumter County Coroner has identified the three-year-old boy who was shot and killed Tuesday.

Harvin Bullock says the boy was Qui’ontrez Moss of Georgia.

Moss was visiting the Magnolia Manor Apartments on Pike Road when the incident took place.

A preliminary investigation determined the child found a gun and shot himself. Police are still investgating [sic] what led up to the incident.

No charges have been filed in the case.

10) The Dispatch (North Carolina) (May 1, 2013)

Sheriff: No charges to be filed in accidental shooting

No charges will be filed in the accidental shooting that landed a 10-year-old in the hospital Friday afternoon, Davidson County Sheriff David Grice said Wednesday morning.

The sheriff said a neighbor who lives about 1,200 feet away from the residence of the child, Zack Reno, was performing maintenance to his weapon when the accident occurred. Deputies were dispatched to the shooting that occurred in a field in the 1000 block of Clark Road about 4 p.m. Friday.

“We located the individual who did the shooting,” Grice said. “He was shooting from his front porch. He fired one round after cleaning his gun in what he thought was a safe direction and hit that kid.”

The sheriff said deputies have reviewed the case with representatives from the Davidson County District Attorney’s Office and do not believe charges are warranted. The man’s name will not be released, the sheriff said.

The sheriff previously said it appeared the boy and another juvenile were showing their uncle a hole in a field when all of a sudden Zack felt a sting. The bullet, the sheriff said, entered and exited the boy’s hip before traveling through his arm, where it stopped. The boy was treated and released at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem.

There is a strip of woods between the field where the boy was shot and from where the man fired, Grice said.

“He was unlucky that he got hit, but he was lucky he got hit the way he did,” the sheriff said of Zack.

So that makes 10 children, under the age of 12, who were either killed in accidental shootings and/or who shot someone accidentally (well, I guess, the number is really 12 because two stories involved two kids each, one being the shooter and one being the victim) all in the month of April 2013. Plus a bonus accidental gunshot victim of survived.

But no, we don’t have a problem with guns in America, do we?

Before reading the story about the Kentucky boy who shot his sister, I’d never heard of a Crickett Rifle. They tout themselves as “quality firearms for America’s youth”. Because that’s just what America’s youth need: Guns. Oh, and when I went to read a little bit about Crickett firearms, imagine my surprise (not) to find that they even make a cute pink rifle.

And apparently people actually buy these sorts of pink rifles for their children (and, yes, I noticed that the gun in the picture below is not the same model picture above; and, no, I don’t really give a shit):

After posting the above photo, I came across this even crazier image (and the caption indicates that the child has been using her M4 carbine since she was 9):

Yeesh. But I do like the fancy dress with the pink assault rifle.

Oh, and this image too:

What do you think? Is that gun going to keep her safe … or is it going to put her and her family at greater risk? Hey, I’m going through the moodiness of a teenage daughter right now. I can’t fathom what that would be like if she was armed with an assault rifle!

So anyway, back to the main point. Children are finding guns. And wounding or killing other people, including other innocent children. And some adults, people who should know better, are “accidentally” shooting children. Apparently, the boy in the field was simply “unlucky” that some idiot with a gun fired off a round into the wilderness without first making sure that, you know, there weren’t any people in the direction he was aiming. Unlucky.

I recognize that enhanced background checks wouldn’t have stopped these tragic events (probably). Nor would a ban on assault rifles or high capacity magazines or any of the host of other gun control laws that are being discussed. On the other hand, it also doesn’t appear that restrictions on violent video games or better mental health screening would have stopped these events either. The only things that might have prevented these tragedies would have been parents who took better care of their guns or fewer guns in the first place. The NRA may say that it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun; but what does it take to stop an innocent toddler with a gun?

For every Sandy Hook there are many, many more incidents of “accidental” shootings involving children. Think about how many times you’ve heard or read about children finding a gun and “playing” with it with an outcome of one child being wounded or killed. It happens far, far too often in our country. According to a study by HealthyChildren.org:

Every two hours, someone’s child is killed with a gun, ei­ther in a homicide, a suicide, or as a result of an unintentional injury. In addition, an unknown but large number of children are seriously injured — of­ten irreversibly disabled — by guns but survive. Major urban trauma centers are reporting an increase of 300 percent in the number of children treated for gunshot wounds; in fact, one in every twenty-five admissions to pediatric trauma centers in the United States is due to gunshot wounds.

Parents should realize that a gun in the home is forty-three times more likely to be used to kill a friend or family member than a burglar or other criminal. To compound this problem, depressed preteenagers and teenagers commit suicide with guns more frequently than by any other means.

Read that one statistic again: “one in every twenty-five admissions to pediatric trauma centers in the United States is due to gunshot wounds.” (Emphasis added.)

If children were being wounded or dying this frequently in car accidents, we’d probably consider mandating special safety seats for them to sit in. If they were being injured in bike accidents, we’d probably consider doing something to encourage them to wear helmets. If their toys were choking them or injuring them in some other way, I have no doubt that we’d find ways to reduce or eliminate those injuries, too.

Apparently, though, as long as the injury is caused by a gun … well, then it’s an “accident” and that’s just too fucking bad because “tyranny” and “freedom” and shit, right? It seems clear that we value the rights of adults over the lives of children. I don’t know about you, but I’m more than willing to inconvenience and adult here and there if it would help prevent more kids from, you know, dying.

Update (May 7, 2013): I just posted Guns in America: “Just One of Those Crazy Accidents” (update) which (sadly) includes another child killed in an accidental shooting in April 2013 (a 5-year-old girl killed by her 8-year-old brother) as well as some information about Crickett Rifles taking down their website (but leaving up the companion Chipmunk Rifles website which also markets to children).

Protecting Businesses From People

Last week, in the closing hours of the 2013 Indiana General Assembly session, one the bills being hotly debated was the so-called “ag-gag” bill (Senate Bill 373) that, as originally written, was intended to stop people from taking secret photos or videos of farms or industrial operations that might prove damaging or embarrassing to the owners of those operations. It appears that the principal motivation behind the bill was the concern expressed by some large-scale farming operations that animal rights activists were finding their way onto the farms (including by “fraudulently” applying for jobs) and then taking photos of inhumane treatment of animals. Similarly, within the industrial community, there is apparently concern about photos of poor working conditions being taken by whistleblowers.

As the legislative sessions progressed, the bill was expanded and restricted, modified and un-modified, and subject to all sorts of changes. It was the subject of fairly intensive debate. At one point, reporters began briefly referring to the bill not as the “ag-gag” bill but as the “gag all” bill after it was expanded to cover far, far more situations and to remove some of the safe harbors. In the end, the bill died because the House and Senate weren’t able (at least not within the fixed time available before the session was scheduled to end) to agree upon compromise language (though Speaker Brian Bosma today told reporters that it wasn’t his intent for the bill to die; he’d hoped that the Senate would approve the House version). I suspect, however, that this bill will be resurrected for the 2014 session.

However, it’s not the actual content of the “ag-gag” bill that I want to discuss. Rather, I want to look at this bill as a concrete example of a simple difference between Republicans and Democrats. In case you can’t guess, Republicans supported the bill (with a handful of defections) while Democrats opposed it. I followed the debate about the “ag-gag” bill via Twitter (largely based on the excellent Twitter reporting of Mary Beth Schneider of The Indianapolis Star, who is able to tweet at a speed that rivals the texting skills of a teenage girl). It was this tweet that really caught my attention and got me thinking of how this bill fit into the proverbial “big picture”:

Text of the tweet (in case the embedding fails):

2:41pm 26 Apr 2013: Holdman says the bill has always been about protecting business in Indiana from people who secretively take video solely to do harm to biz.

Holdman is Sen. Travis Holdman (R-Northeast Indiana).

Go back and read that tweet again. Do you see why it caught my eye? Essentially, as I read it, Sen. Holdman was saying that it is the responsibility of the Indiana General Assembly to protect businesses from people. Sure, he couches it in terms of people who act “to do harm to biz”. But is that really (a) how people act and (b) why they act? I mean, do people take photos of farms being cruel to animals because they want to hurt the business or because they want people to know how the animals are being treated so that, perhaps, the animals might be treated more humanely? Does a whistleblower take a photo of poor (or even illegal work conditions) in order to harm the business or in order to force corrections and improvements? Or maybe you can turn it around backwards to think about it. Shouldn’t it, for example, be the job of government to protect people from businesses? Shouldn’t we be rewarding whistleblowers for alerting the public to unsafe working conditions?

I just don’t see people acting in a way with a primary focus or intent of doing harm to businesses; rather, I perceive the primary intent to be to inform people of how businesses are acting or to try to get businesses to change how they operate. But a change in operation is different than “harming” a business, isn’t it? If my friend has a poor diet and I try to get him to change his diet so that his kids will have a parent for a longer time, is my principal goal to “harm” my friend by making him eat more of things he doesn’t want to? Think of it in terms of the fertilizer plant that exploded a few weeks ago in Texas; a plant that apparently hadn’t reported having 1300 times the allowable limit of ammonium nitrate, didn’t have standard safety features (like sprinklers), and hadn’t been inspected by OHSA since 1985. Is it the job of government to protect that business from people who might have wanted to improve working conditions or to protect the neighbors from the possible bad results of a business handling dangerous materials?

When I read this tweet, I started thinking more broadly about the distinction between Republicans and Democrats. Let me ask this: If I told you that a legislator suggested that it was the job of government to pass laws to protect businesses from people, would you presume, knowing nothing else, that the speaker was a Republican or a Democrat? And if I told you that a legislator said, instead, that it was the job of government to protect people from businesses, would you presume that the speaker was a Republican or a Democrat? The answer to both hypothetical queries seems pretty easy to me. Republicans are constantly bemoaning “excess regulations” that “hinder business growth” or some other similar concepts, as if the purpose of those regulations was to prevent businesses from succeeding. By contrast, Democrats seek to impose regulations in order, not to restrict business growth, but to protect people from the unchecked activity of businesses.

Would we have things like the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act if it was the job of government to protect businesses from people? Rather, those sorts of laws are designed to restrict businesses in order to protect people. Today, it’s Democrats who want to talk about climate change and how to take steps to mitigate against its possible ramifications on people while Republicans refuse to even believe that it might be real. It’s Republicans who want to build an oil tar pipeline from Canada to Texas (where the oil can then be sold, not in America, but shipped overseas) and Democrats who are concerned about the possible environmental impact, such as damage to aquifers that supply drinking water to people. It’s Republicans who want to continue to allow gun manufacturers to sell their products with limited regulation while Democrats want to restrict the sale of weapons and high capacity magazines and such in order to protect people.

I don’t think that he really intended to do so, but Sen. Holdman quite succinctly summed up the governing philosophy of Republicans and put it in stark contrast to Democrats. One party believes that it is the role of government to protect businesses from people while the other views its responsibility as helping to protect people from businesses. What do you think the proper role of government should be with regard to the relationship of businesses and people?

Dinosaurs and Humans: Parochial Education Teaching That Science Is Wrong

As readers of this blog probably know, I am an opponent of school vouchers (see, for example, School Vouchers — Why I Oppose Them). My opposition stems from several concerns, including (but not limited to):

• Taking away money from public schools;
• Private schools being able to choose their students (where public schools have to take everyone);
• Lack of academic standards for parochial schools; and
• Use of taxpayer dollars to fund parochial/religious education.

Anyway, a story that I read last night (and the accompanying images) got me thinking about vouchers and a few other issues as well. The story comes from Snopes (which fact-checked it and found it “probably true”). The images that follow (copied from the article) are of a test given to 4th grade students in an unnamed (at least until the end of the school year) parochial school in South Carolina:

Note that the child received a perfect score! And a Smile! sticker.

I have no idea if any parochial schools in Indiana teach material similar to that which is reflected on this test, but I have my suspicions that the answer would be yes. And I have no idea if any Indiana parochial schools that are teaching this sort of material are accepting students who pay all or a portion of their tuition via taxpayer-funded vouchers. But again, I have my suspicions that the answer would again be yes.

If we were to discover that taxpayer-funded vouchers were being used to send children to a school that taught this sort of material, would that impact your view of the voucher program?

Ask yourself this: How well are children raised on this sort of education going to be able to compete on the global market? When employers are looking for intelligent, skilled workers, how well will people who received this sort of educational background fare against people from China or Europe? I doubt kids in China are learning about dinosaurs helping build the Great Wall; they’re learning math and science and skills that will help them compete … and thrive. America didn’t become the world’s superpower and dominant economy by rejecting science. The Bible didn’t split the atom or fly man to the moon; mistrust in science didn’t build the Internet or the computer; and trust in G-d didn’t create a vaccine for polio or enable organ transplants.

And yet we have parents willfully sending their children to schools where science is viewed as some sort of evil, liberal construct.

Moreover, don’t think that it’s just a few isolated religious schools. Just two hours southeast of Indianapolis, you can find the Creation Museum which says of itself (emphasis addedd):

The state-of-the-art 70,000 square foot museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in dynamic form and placing them in familiar settings. Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden. Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers. The serpent coils cunningly in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Majestic murals, great masterpieces brimming with pulsating colors and details, provide a backdrop for many of the settings.

It also has exhibits depicting humans living with dinosaurs:

I shit you not.

But some people actually believe this dreck.

And they teach it to their children.

In schools.

Maybe even using your tax dollars.

Part of me says, hey, if these people really want to stunt their children’s intellectual growth, that’s not my problem. Have at it. It will just make it that much easier for my kids to climb one rung higher on the ladder. But the better part of me understands (and I know that this sort of claim will infuriate the right-wingers in the room) that in a way, children belong to all of us. They represent the future, not just of their parents’ bloodline, but of our communities and our culture. That is one of the primary reasons that we have public education in the first place, why we demand that even those without children help pay (via taxes) to educate all of our children, and why we make it the law that children must be educated (even if only via so-called “home schooling”). So, no, I’m not really OK with the idea that we have schools teaching our children that science is wrong. Would you object to a school teaching kids that 2+2=5 or that the Sun orbits the Earth? Exactly.

But even if I could get by that problem, I see no way around my objection to tax dollars — money that should be used to pay for a public education for all children, regardless of race, income, socio-economic status, or disability — being diverted to allow some parents to teach their children that science is evil, wrong, or the enemy, so that their children will grow up to help lead us into the past rather than forward to the future. Similarly, those tax dollars shouldn’t be spent to teach kids that Jesus is the only way to heaven or that Muhammad ascended to heaven on a winged horse or that Moses spoke to a burning bush.* Leave that for church, mosque, and temple. Not school. Or at least not using our tax dollars.

Education that denies science is wrong. It’s dangerous. And using tax dollars to pay for any sort of religious education is also wrong.

For an interesting look at the Creation Museum, please take a few minutes to watch the video Atheists at the Creation Museum.

Updated to correct errors in links.

---

*I’m still waiting for the outcry when someone finds a voucher being used to pay for an education at a Muslim madrassa that teaches a fundamentalist form of Islam of the same sort that has been at the root of many terrorist attacks. I’m sure that people who want their children to learn that Adam rode a dinosaur will love knowing that their tax dollars are being used to pay to teach some kids that America is the Great Satan, that democracy is incompatible with Islam, and that jihad against America is good.

Guns in America: Background Check System Excludes Those on the Terrorist Watch Lists

In last week’s post Guns in America: Background Checks, I made the following statement with regard to the current National Instant Background Criminal Check System (NICS): “There is also one glaring omission from the list of people who will be denied the right to purchase a gun: Those on a terrorist watch list.” Several people have asked me about this and, when I’ve mentioned the omission to gun rights proponents, they’ve been either doubtful or incredulous. Well, this morning National Public Radio had a story on the exclusion of the those on terrorism watch lists from the NICS background check system.

But first, this video from al-Qaeda’s American spokesman Adam Gadahn:

So, no, the fact that background checks aren’t required to purchase weapons at a gun show is not a well-guarded secret. But what about the notion that the NICS system doesn’t prevent the purchase of a gun, from a licensed dealer, by someone who has been placed on one of the terror watch lists?

Here’s the story from NPR’s Alisa Chang (listen to the story here):

Even al-Qaida gloats about what's possible under U.S. gun laws. In June 2011, a senior al-Qaida operative, Adam Gadahn, released a video message rallying people to take advantage of opportunities those laws provide.

“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms,” Gadahn says, explaining that “you can go down to a gun show at the local convention center” and buy a gun without a background check.

Then a faint smile crosses Gadahn’s face. “So what are you waiting for?” he asks.

Under current laws, if a background check reveals that your name is on the national terrorism watch list, you’re still free to walk out of a gun dealership with a firearm in your hands — as long as you don’t have a criminal or mental health record.

Data from the Government Accountability Office show that between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists tried to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times. They succeeded in more than 90 percent of those cases, or 1,321 times.

“It’s absurd that we allow people to buy unlimited AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis, even if we feel they are too dangerous to be allowed on a plane, even after they've gone through a security check,” says Jon Lowy, a lawyer for the Brady Campaign, a gun control group.

But Michael James Barton, a White House counterterrorism official during the Bush administration, points out that there’s a lot more leeway to limit someone’s right to get on a plane.

“The U.S. Constitution specifically protects the right to purchase firearms. The Constitution has no specific right to use transportation of any mode,” Barton says.

Before the government can limit anybody’s Second Amendment rights, he says, it needs a pretty good reason. And in his experience, a lot of totally innocent people end up on the terrorism watch list — such as business associates, roommates or landlords of suspected terrorists.

“Some of them are merely individuals who have proximity to terrorism suspects and are not themselves the focus of any investigation or any suspicion whatsoever,” he says.

Barton says the terrorism watch “list” actually refers to several lists of names, including the “no fly” list. All of the lists are secret, and no one can control getting on or off them. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina says that’s why the lists shouldn't determine whether someone should buy a gun.

“I think anyone who's on the terrorist watch list should not lose their Second Amendment right without the ability to challenge that determination,” says Graham, noting that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy showed up on the no-fly list in 2004 because a suspected terrorist was using the alias Edward Kennedy.

Gun rights supporters also ask: Why tip off an actual terrorist that we're on to him by telling him he failed a background check?

“We're gonna go, ‘Boy, we're so good, we prevented those terrorists from getting the guns.’ No, we didn’t! We prevented them from getting them from a legitimate source, where we had an opportunity to follow them,” says Richard Feldman, who heads the Independent Firearm Owners Association. “Now we don’t know if they're ever going to get them, when they get them, where they got them.”

But gun control supporters are scratching their heads at that logic. Why not just pass a law giving the government discretion to block a dangerous person on the terrorism watch list from buying a gun? The gun lobby has pushed back hard on that idea.

“This is yet another example of zealots on the far right of the gun movement throwing away the baby with the bath water,” says Mark Glaze, the director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which supports tighter gun laws.

Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey has tried since 2007 to push for legislation that would close the terrorism loophole. Under the bill, if a background check reveals a gun buyer is on the terrorism watch list, the U.S. attorney general would have the discretion to block the gun sale.

The Department of Justice under the Bush administration had supported the legislation.

The proposal was filed as an amendment to the gun control bill last week, but things ground to a halt in the Senate after every major gun control proposal failed.

First, I want to address an wildly inaccurate claim made in the NPR story. Michael James Barton, identified as a White House counterterrorism official during the Bush administration, says:

The U.S. Constitution specifically protects the right to purchase firearms.

Um, no, Mr. Barton. It doesn’t. Not even close. The Second Amendment actually says:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Do you see anything about a right to purchase in that language?* Nor do I. For that matter, I don’t see an exclusion in the Second Amendment for felons, the mentally ill, those who’ve engaged in domestic violence, or even children, to keep and bear arms. Yet, we don’t seem to have a problem with those exclusions, do we (well, other than some in the pro-gun movement who really do think that “shall not be infringed” is an absolute prohibition).

It’s probably also worth remembering that President Bush’s Department of Justice also supported adding people on the terrorist watch lists to the NICS system.

So what do you think? Which is worse: Allowing people who are on a terrorism watch list to legally purchase weapons or to (possibly) inconvenience someone who wants to purchase a gun but who has mistakenly been placed on a terrorism watch list? I guess I can see the problem if someone can find themselves mistakenly placed on this list with no way to get taken off. But if there is an appeal process, either to say “take me off the list” or even just “let me buy a gun” then I find that I’m not terribly sympathetic to the notion that the harm to the innocent purchaser outweighs public safety. Remember, of course, that opponents to expanded background checks have used “inconvenience” and “cost” as reasons not to close the gun show or private sale loopholes.

On the other hand, whether or not a possible terrorist would be blocked from buying a gun at a licensed dealer because of the NICS system is probably irrelevant. Why? Because as al-Qaeda’s spokesman noted in the video above, all a wannabe terrorist has to do is go to a gun show and avoid the background check system altogether.

So, if your Senator voted against the increased background check bill last week, be sure to call and thank them for being sure that terrorists still have easy access to guns. After all, we wouldn’t want to wipe that little smile off Adam Gadahn’s face, now would we? 

---

*Barton is also being disingenuous when he says that “The Constitution has no specific right to use transportation of any mode” forgetting that the Supreme Court long, long ago held that freedom of movement was a fundamental right under the Constitution. So no, it doesn’t make reference to “any mode” of travel any more than it talks about a right to “purchase firearms”, but it does protect freedom of movement.

One Child Is Holding Something That’s Been Banned in America to Protect Them: Commenting on a Comment

Every now and then, I like to highlight some of the comments that I receive on this blog. Today, I’d like to look at a comment that I received this morning to last week’s post One Child Is Holding Something That’s Been Banned in America to Protect Them: Powerful Gun Control PSAs from Moms Demand Action. The comment was posted anonymously (gee, I wonder why?):

Typical libtard bullcrap. Giving a child a gun to hold and not even teaching them proper trigger discipline. You can all go choke on a dick, asswipes.

Now it’s always a smart move, I think, to begin your comment with not just an insult, but a double insult: “libtard bullcrap”. This way, those reading your comment well recognize immediately that you are a serious person interested in an intellectual discussion of important issues. (By the way, what precisely is the “bullcrap” in my post?)

Then, of course, it’s important to move on to the totally trivial and completely irrelevant without any sort of notion of what you’re actually looking at or reading. As in, do you really think that Moms Demand Action gave those children loaded guns to hold in the PSAs? For that matter, what is the likelihood that these children will be exposed to guns such that they need to learn “proper trigger discipline”? And, of course, might it just be possible that the children were asked to put their fingers on the triggers for effect? You know, to make people even more nervous? But apparently Mr. Anonymous can’t get past the notion of poor “trigger discipline” to even contemplate the issue of reasonable gun control legislation.

Finally, it’s important to finish your comment with additional insults and, when possible, the use of either threats or a desire for something bad to happen to the author of the post upon which you are commenting. If you can make the insult racist or homophobic, all the better. I haven’t quite determined why the insults suggesting death by homosexual act are so frequent, but there you have it.

Most important, though, when posting a comment, is to be sure never to discuss the actual content of the post or the issues raised therein. Why bother with discussion of substance when you can just hurl insults? I mean, what fun is that? If you actually take on the substance, the author just might engage you or try to get you to elucidate on your ideas. It’s so much better to represent your side of an issue by framing the position as one of insult, avoidance, and more insult. That way the world can see just how that particular viewpoint is represented.

In all seriousness, I look forward to engaging in discussions of the issues that I raise, whether via comments, email, or even in person. That is part of why I write this blog. Yes, I want to influence people, but I also want to hear opposing viewpoints and to commence dialogue to see where we might find common ground, maybe even to tease out the strengths and weaknesses of my position (and of those who disagree with me). And I want to learn. I’ve been known to (occasionally…) change my mind or alter my perspective on an issue. Present me with a valid, well-reasoned argument, and who knows what might happen. If I make a mistake, show me (with some evidence, preferably…). But this sort of comment, to quote a current Internet meme, shows us “why we can’t have nice things”.

And it suggests that the commenter has no legitimate argument to make.

One other odd thing worth noting: The comment appears to have been posted by someone in Zurich, Switzerland.

I Don’t Have a Single … Friend, I Don’t Understand Them

There are several reports that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older of the brothers accused of responsibility for the Boston Marathon bombing (and related violent incidents), said:

I don't have a single American friend, I don't understand them.

I find that statement to be chilling, but not for the reason that you might think. Let me make one slight edit to the statement and then I’ll ask you to read it again:

I don't have a single … friend, I don't understand them.

How many American teenagers go to sleep every night thinking just that sort of thought?

Fortunately, most American teens who feel this way don’t build bombs and look for ways to hurt their fellow citizens.

They just kill themselves.

When they tire of being alone or of being bullied or of thinking that nobody understands or cares, they pull the trigger or pop the pills or put the noose around their neck.

But what if they didn’t? What if, instead of finding a way to commit suicide, they lashed out at society? What if the victims of bullying decided to go out in a “blaze of glory” … and to take the bullies with them? What if they sought revenge on the system that didn’t protect them or the society that they felt didn’t care about them?

Perhaps the reason for this terrorist incident is religious fanaticism or extremism. Perhaps. But might it have been triggered or the radicalization have been enabled by a sense of not belonging?

I don’t know.

But I think that I can safely say that, among all of the other possible lessons to take from this horrible series of events, is the idea that we, as a society, need to reach out to those around us who might not fit in, who might not be part of the “popular crowd”, who might look a little different. That small effort of reaching out a hand of friendship or even simple caring and concern to those who might feel that society doesn’t care about them, might be all that it takes to begin to bring someone back from that dangerous precipice. Perhaps a kind word, maybe telling a bully to back off, some kind of random of act of kindness might be all that is needed help someone know that they’re not alone in the world.

Will those simple acts stop acts of terror? No. Probably not. But I doubt that it would make the situation worse. And, especially as it relates to Muslim kids our our communities, how might they react to the Islamophobia that is so rampant in our society? If you watch Fox News or listen to right wing radio, there is an almost palpable blood lust being expressed toward Muslims. How comfortable would you be if everyone thought that you and people like you were terrorists or capable of horrible violence just because of your religion (or your skin color or any other train)? Perhaps just letting our Muslim acquaintances know that we don’t blame them for the acts of other Muslims, would lessen the likelihood that they’d take solace in the message of radical anti-American belief. Perhaps.

But might simple acts of friendship and kindness help stop a teen’s depression from growing so severe that suicide seems the only response? I’d like to hope so. Friendship may not stop terrorism, but I’d like to think that it will help teenagers get through … well, life.

Please take time over the next days and weeks to look around you. Look at people, especially teens, who seem to be alone or disaffected. And reach out a hand in friendship or caring. Try. And suggest that your children do the same. Ask your kids to do something as small as saying something nice to their classmates or maybe sit at lunch with someone who usually sits alone. Maybe even just a smile.

It can’t hurt, can it?

Update: Almost immediately after posting the foregoing, I realized that some might think that I’m excusing these acts of terror. I’m not. Not in any way, shape, or form. I don’t condone terrorism for any reason (and I’d think that readers of this blog would recognize that). My point, with regard to the Tsarnaev brothers (and others like them) is that perhaps if we were able to find ways to help them feel as if they are a part of the community as opposed to apart from it, they might not be so easily swayed by the lure of radical Islam in the first place.