Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Simple Answers to Complexed Issues

A friend sent me an essay by the religious, moralist and self-defined conservative writer Wendell Berry. The essay, "Caught in the Middle", addresses abortion and homosexuality. It's available to those who subscribe to Berry's writings, which I assume my friend does, since he sent me the entire essay. Here's the link, should you wish to subscribe. 

http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2013-03/caught-middle

It is a thoughtful -- and very long piece -- that gives both issues much debate. After reading it, however, my own opinions remain unchanged. 

Here are the first few paragraphs:

"In the present political atmosphere it is assumed that everybody must be on one of only two sides, liberal or conservative. It doesn’t matter that neither of these labels signifies much in the way of intellectual responsibility or that both are paralyzed in the face of the overpowering issue of our time: the destruction of land and people, of life itself, by means either economic or military. What does matter is that a person should choose one side or the other, accept the “thinking” and the “positions” of that side and its institutions and be so identified forevermore. How you vote is who you are.



We appear thus to have evolved into a sort of teenage culture of wishful thinking, of contending “positions,” oversimplified and absolute, requiring no knowledge and no thought, no loss, no tragedy, no strenuous effort, no bewilderment, no hard choices.
Depending on the issues, I am often in disagreement with both of the current political sides. I am especially in disagreement with them when they invoke the power and authority of government to enforce the moral responsibilities of persons. The appeal to government is made, whether or not it is defensible, when families and communities fail to meet their moral responsibilities. Between the two moralities now contending for political dominance, the middle ground is so shaken as to be almost no ground at all. The middle ground is the ground once occupied by communities and families whose coherence and authority have now been destroyed, with the connivance of both sides, by the economic determinism of the corporate industrialists. The fault of both sides is that, after accepting and abetting the dissolution of the necessary structures of family and community as an acceptable “price of progress,” they turn to government to fill the vacancy, or they allow government to be sucked into the vacuum. This, I think, explains both Prohibition and the war on drugs, to name two failed government remedies."

This is my reply to my friend:

(Some) might consider me simple minded, but I believe both issues have simple answers.

1.  When life begins is defined in the Bible, the book most pro-fetus advocates claim to be the basis of their beliefs: 

Genesis 2:7
King James Version (KJV)
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 

Some versions use the word "being" instead of "soul", and this book does use the word "man" which I assume pro-fetus and Bible literalists will allow means "human" -- otherwise women are off the hook for all manner of sins, acts and admonitions. The salient fact in this passage is that when the human breathes via his/her nostrils, s/he becomes a "living being/soul". So as long as the fetus cannot sustain life independent of its host, it is not a "living being/soul".

2.  The great fallacy in debating the legality of marriage, same-gender or otherwise, is that the whole concept has has been distorted over time so that it violates the First Amendment's separation of church and state. Marriage is a religious rite and should not be related to how a person is taxed or to her/his government-granted rights. What- or whoever any church wants to perform marriage ceremonies for should be up to that church. That, however, should not determine the taxes, employment opportunities/restrictions or any other government benefits or guaranteed rights individuals who have participated in that religious rite pay or are entitled to -- just as whether or not a person is baptized/christened, takes communion, pledges celibacy, or whatever should have no bearing on her/his rights as an American citizen. Civil unions should be the way for governments to go if they want to recognize/legalize specific living/conjugal arrangements.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Sacrificing Children to Moloch.

A good friend and retired U.S. Air Force chaplain sent me the link to a sermon given at First Baptist Church in Austin the Sunday after the Newtown shootings.  I listened and was gripped with almost as much grief as when that unspeakable tragedy occurred. My chaplain friend has now sent a transcript of that sermon. You can still listen to this profoundly moving sermon by going to this link:



 When you get on the web site the current sermon will begin to play.  You must click on the button for "12-12-16" to hear this sermon.
 
It will begin with scripture readings. Here is the transcript:

An Advent Word for Newtown 
Sermon by Rev. Dr. Roger Paynter
Senior Pastor 
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Jeremiah 31:15 
Luke 3:8020 

It happened in a place called Newtown. Yet, what occurred on Friday of this week was the oldest story known to humanity; Cain killed Abel. Only this time, for reasons unknown to us, and unlike Cain and Abel, no one stood a chance. 

According to the play 6 Degrees of Separation everyone is approximately 6 or few steps away, by way of introduction, from any other person in the world. The “friend of a friend of a friend” can connect any two people in 6 steps or less. If there is any truth to that, then the shooter, who grew up in the same small, idyllic Connecticut town with these children, was, in essence, killing his own brothers and sisters. 

Even more, in the days and weeks and months ahead, we will relive this tragedy in so many random conversations and occasions that we may well discover our own connection to people whose lives have been directly affected. But all of that matters little because the truth is:  these babies…these “innocents” belong to all of us. Just as we say when we dedicate a newborn infant into our congregation, “they belong to all of us.” And so, this morning we gather in heartbreaking grief because these are our babies. 

The idea of these being our children is addressed so beautifully by our own Linda Miller Raff in a poem she wrote last Friday: 

They will walk now with their bodies forever leaning-
their balance 
gone-
their imagined worlds tilted and spun 
to a lunatic axis. 

They will wake every agonized morning to an unanswerable 
why shattering their lives over and over. 

They will clutch to their breasts 
every scrap of left-behind life 
and sob and curse and wail and pray for this please oh please not to have happened,
for one more chance 
for what might have been.

They will 
never 
ever 
be the same. 

Yet in their brokenness today and in the worse days yet to come they will be held together by love more fierce than any violence,
by grace more deep than any wound.

They will not recognize it,
or maybe even want it,
this love and grace,
in their tilted and shattered world, 
but it will be there 
standing in strong and holy vigil with them.

As will we. 

God, my God, bless these your children. 

Amen. 

There are days when sermons flow. And there are days when one stares at a blank screen forever. But there are some days, some moments, when you simply want to runaway as fast as you can from the task at hand. 

Reading Linda’s poem made me want to say, “Maybe today we’ll just read poetry and grieve.” I wrote another sermon for Advent Conspiracy. I was actually finished ahead of time! 

But I threw it away and started over. I tried Friday evening to write, but it took me until yesterday afternoon to find it within myself to stay in my seat and write. I needed to be 
quiet, to listen, to listen to my own immense sadness AND my outrage. I needed to listen to Scripture and its profound words, to listen to what others in our nation were saying, some helpful, some purely evil. But most of all, I need to listen quietly for and to the Spirit of the Living God. 

Where was God in all of this? Well, Mike Huckabee, whom I knew in a former life and whom I once admired even if we differed on some fine points, Mike Huckabee, attempting to answer that question, sought to answer as a conservative politician and not as the pastor he once was. But he gave a theological answer with a political twist. “God was not in that school because we no longer allow prayer in public schools.” 

What an idiotic answer to give, especially for a Baptist.

Baptists NEVER supported prayer in public school because it is always COERCED prayer. Which prayers would have been prayed over the intercom at Newtown? Catholic prayers? Buddhist prayers? Hindu prayers? Islamic prayers? You think in a town that is essentially a short train ride from New York City that ALL of these faith traditions are not represented in that school? Of course they are! But Huckabee wasn’t just showing his ignorance as a Baptist; he was making political hay over this. 

So let me ask you…that extraordinary woman who was the principal at that school lunged forward to stop this insane killer and sacrificed her life on behalf of these precious children, and you DARE say God wasn’t in that school?  

Teachers throughout the school hid the children, held the children, some of them staying with the children as they themselves were being killed. They gave their LIVES for these children. Is there anything MORE CHRISTLIKE than that? And you say God wasn’t in that school? 

And Brian Fisher, a right wing nut job from the American Family Association (the most poorly named political organization in America) said that because there was no “prayer” over the intercom that Satan was there and God was not? I do not doubt that Satan or Evil was deeply present in this. But where Evil is present, God is there, even more strongly,
suffering with us all the more strongly. 

Pat Anderson is the Executive Director of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and he writes: 

For many who will go to church today, the words they hear will be about the fault of taking God out of the public square, as though this is a THING one can move about at will. REALLY? God can be PUT somewhere? Or REMOVED from somewhere? Who do you think you are, that you have the power to determine the Presence or the Absence of Almighty God? 

I do not want or need to hear from religious blowhards who find in every tragedy, evidence of God’s absence and our sin of “putting” God somewhere. We need to grieve. Our sins and the role they play in the evil that surrounds us will be evident enough later. 

I agree so strongly with Pat. First, we need to grieve. We NEED to grieve. And grief includes shock and anger and paralyzing sadness and fear and disorientation and leaning on each other and looking to God for strength and looking to God for answers, for a way to be in the world. 

Those children who survived this event have had their innocence ripped from them. They will need our prayers and the care of their parents, their faith leaders, trained counselors, their teachers…and the healing Spirit of God, as will all those teachers and administrators who were in the midst of the nightmare. 

And the parents, what will they need? They will need endless love and caring and they will need permission to be outraged and devastated and permission to express it all. They will need long-term care, which mostly comes from long-term friends and family and communities in which they participate. 

Some of those communities, maybe most, will be faith communities. They will not need to be told that “God needed another angel” or “they are now twinkling stars in the heavens” or “thank goodness you have other children or you are young enough to have more” or “he/she was on loan to you from God” or “God doesn’t give you more than you can handle” (which, by the way, is NOT scriptural), or, worst of all, “This was God’s will” (which is utter blasphemy!). 

They will be and probably already have been told some of these things. And those who say them are at a loss for words and so they say what they think needs to be said. And most mean no harm and don’t know what else to say (maybe nothing?), but they need to listen carefully to what they are saying. 

Mostly, they need love. They need love that hangs in, love that does not abandon, love that endures everything, hopes everything, suffers everything, receives everything, the kind of love that St. Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 13…the kind of love that is seen in Christ. 

And the first thing love allows to happen being grief. Rachel weeps for her children. This was screamed by the Israelites in captivity as “Rachel WAILS for the fate of her children,”and it was quoted in Matthew as Herod the Brutal killed all the little boy children under age 2 and Rachel refused to be consoled because they were no more. I can imagine not wanting to be consoled, can’t you? 

In Herman Melville’s classic novel Moby Dick a desperate captain of another whaling ship approaches the infamous Captain Ahab. He’s looking for a small vessel that is lost at sea…a boat whose crew includes his own son. He’s frantically searching for his lost child. As the whaling ship turns to leave, Ahab sees the name of the boat: Rachel. 

Rachel, who was “buried on the way to Ephrath” (Genesis 35), who later is pictured weeping as she “watches” her great, great grandchildren led away into exile by the power hungry, violent Babylonians (Jeremiah 31). Rachel who is remembered by Matthew when mothers around Bethlehem were weeping at the senseless slaughter of the innocents by the madman Herod (Matthew 2). 

In Genesis, Rachel is not buried in Hebron with her husband and relatives; rather, she’s buried out there, all alone. Lonely tomb, but alive in the Hebrew tradition. She’s there in the biblical witness as the patron saint of all those who have lost a child, all those who’ve suffered greatly, all those who think God has forgotten them. 

Where is God? According to the extraordinary theologian, Jurgen Moltmann, in his book The Crucified God, God suffers WITH us. God in Christ, Moltmann reminds us, weeps with us, absorbs evil for us, endures hate and lays down his life willingly. God in Christ teaches us what Dawn Hocksprung and Victoria Soto and all those other teachers taught us, “Greater love has no person than they lay down their life for a sister, a brother, a child, a parent.” 

The other text for this day is that lectionary text of John the Baptist calling the religious fundamentalists of his day,“You brood of vipers! Bear fruit that demonstrates repentance. Even the axe is laid to the root of the tree; every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” 

As I said, I agree with Pat Anderson, first we grieve…but from there, we repent. And there is need for repentance all around us. 

I recognize that what I am about to say will undoubtedly make some of you angry. But I am not alone in being outraged at the violence of our culture, fueled by this endless need for revenge found at every level. Politics these days is founded upon revenge. Sports is all about revenge.

Families are too often about revenge. Business dealings are very often driven by revenge. The story line of most video games seems to be about revenge. Too much of the violence in our culture is aimed at impressionable males in video games and movies that numb us to the sacred value of each human life and fed endlessly by the easy access of all kinds of guns. 

Before you tune me out, please know that I am a gun owner myself, having a .22 rifle my father left me at his death, which I have never used since, a .270 deer rifle I was given for performing a funeral, and a 12 gauge shotgun I purchased for myself to go bird hunting. I enjoy hunting. I’ve had fun firing pistols once or twice. I applaud the need for registering handguns. But the gun culture is out of control, especially around the easy access to assault weapons. 

The following statistics are from a report by National Public Radio and war statistics from the various military websites. 

Almost 30,000 Americans die each year due to senseless gun violence in this country. To put this in perspective, the Viet Nam War claimed 58,000 lives; the Iraq War claimed 4 486 between 2003 and 2012; the war in Afghanistan, as of September, claimed over 2,000 American lives. In our country we have an average of 150 mass shootings per year(which the police forces define as more than two people killed by gunfire.) Time and again, those armed enter shopping malls, college campuses and secondary schools, armed with semi-automatic rifles, ready to kill, yet armed to the teeth to protect themselves. They are cowards of the highest order. 

We criticize the suicide bomber in and from other countries, and have spent TRILLIONS to stop them, yet in our own country, WE DO NOTHING. One terrorist boarded a plane ten years ago with a bomb in his shoe, which fortunately, did not detonate. From that point forward, we cannot board a plane without taking off our shoes. Yet, 30,000 Americans die each year in senseless gun violence and I repeat, WE TAKE NO ACTION. WE ARE ALL A PART OF THIS MADNESS!!!

Twenty children, between the ages of 6 & 7 died on Friday. Our right to “bear arms” does NOT include this insanity. “Bearing arms” is a military term that was meant for a militia. Yet it has become the slogan of the NRA that spends endless amounts of money to buy our political conscience while helpless youth and children and adults are gunned down by people owning semi-automatic weapons that should be in nobody’s hands, EVER, other than military and police. 

Few crimes are more harshly forbidden in the Old Testament than sacrifice to the god Moloch (see Leviticus 18& 20). The sacrifice referred to was of living children consumed in the fires of offering to Moloch. Ever since then, according to historian Gary Wills, the worship of Moloch has been a sign of a deeply depraved culture. NO OTHER COUNTRY has the terrible record of gun deaths that we do.  OUR COUNTRY CAN DO BETTER, BE BETTER, ACT BETTER. But until we choose to have the courage and spine to deal with this issue, (and a whole other sermon could be preached on the issues of care for mental illness) until we have the willingness to repent that John the Baptist calls for and the courage to change, then the almighty gun will be the god Moloch in our midst.

Guns have the power to destroy the reasoning process. It forbids making logical connections. We who worship guns are required to DENY that there is a direct connection between the fact that we have the greatest number of guns in private hands and the greatest number of deaths from them. 

Guns have the power to turn ALL POLITICIANS into a class of invertebrate and mute servants of Moloch. If any politician goes against Moloch, they are called un-American, huge amounts of money are spent against them by the NRA in their next campaigns, they are accused of wanting to do away with ALL guns (which is not what I am suggesting), and they claim they never entertained such heresy. Up until now, it’s been far better to allow students or shoppers or moviegoers to die than for a politician to risk an election by being against illegal weapons. They put their damned reelection concerns over our children EVERY TIME because they are terrified of and owned by the gun lobbies! 

But maybe if there is anything redemptive in this tragedy, maybe the sickening feeling running through this country will be the tipping point. 741 mayors of small to large to metropolitan cities around the country are forming a coalition to deal with illegal weapons. And why not? The mayors are politicians who are on the front lines. They deal with their local schools, with their police forces, with the endless killings. 

Mayor Bloomberg of New York is taking the lead. Good for him. In Texas, only the mayors of Austin, Brownsville, DeSoto, and Hurst have signed on. Surely the mayors of Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Waco, Lubbock,Amarillo, Ft. Worth and El Paso will join them! 

Surely, surely, surely we have had enough. Our babies were murdered, by an assault rifle that was LEGAL. The shooter did not even use his pistols. He used a Bushmaster assault rifle with hundreds of rounds of bullets against 6 and 7 year old children and their teachers.

Our teachers, the most underpaid and under appreciated professionals in the world, are on the front line. You think we don’t need SERIOUS REPENTANCE?! 

We are a broken people. And we cannot afford to just be sad. WE must find courage and organize and speak up and wield our votes and write our congressman, and we must, above all, hold to that sacred duty of prophets…righteous indignation! 

Our hope for healing lies in the Resurrection of Christ. In the midst of death, there is life. This is our faith. In the face of a culture of death, we must be Easter people who have already died to Christ and find our life in serving him and his children. We are a Resurrection people who, like Victoria Soto, must we be willing to risk everything, that our precious children will live and know joy and discover their purpose and bring goodness into the world. May God give us courage and fill us with hope and may all things be done in the Love that is willing to suffer for the sake of the Gospel and for the sake of God’s children. Amen. 

Rev. Dr. Roger A. Paynter Preached on Sunday, May 16, 2012 following the massacre 
of 26 people at Sandy Hook elementary, Newtown,Connecticut. 

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Euphemisming

Epiphanies can strike at odd times.

One hit me the other day as I listened to an interview with the author of a book about the multi-racial descendants of her slave-owning and enslaved fore bearers.

The epiphany was how people perpetuate the denigration of others by the unwitting use of commonly accepted terms and by being blind to hypocrisies that apply to so many aspects of the humankind.

In the interview, the author, who is classified as black because black trumps when both black heritage and white heritage comprise a person's ancestry, referred to her great-grandfather several times removed alternately as a plantation owner and as a slave owner, and to the black woman he impregnated as a slave.

It struck me as she talked that referring to people from Africa who were brought to the Americas lo those centuries ago as "slaves" brands them -- and thus their descendants -- as a lower form of existence than their "owners", as not being entitled to the same kind of human rights as other people.

What do we think of when we hear or read the word "slave"? If not that the person is subhuman, than at least that it is someone who does not have equal standing with a person who is not a slave. The word "slave" doesn't fully describe the condition of human beings who have been sold like livestock to other human beings. It doesn't convey the full impact of a person who has been captured and is being held against her/his will.

Rather than use the word slave when referring to prisoners of Southern and Caribbean plantation owners, I am going to try to remember to use the word "captive", because that's what those African people and their descendants were. Captives.

Something else that author said that raised my dander (whatever that is), was referring to plantation owners having "sexual relations" with their female captives (my word, not hers).

Sexual relations? Those plantation owners weren't having "sexual relations" with their female captives. They were raping them. And that's how it should be described. Why make such acts of violence and control sound more acceptable or less horrendous than they were? Even though the females most likely didn't fight back, no doubt they were not participating in "consensual" acts. They submitted because they knew the penalty if they did not.

Then the author said that plantation owners, at least those in Barbados where her ancestors lived, had female captives baptized if they wanted to have sex with (rape) them on any consistent basis (a single time apparently didn't count), because they didn't want to have sex with a "heathen".  Yet, the author said, they had no aversion to raping (her word this time) underage girls (and I would add, women, not just underage girls).

I realized I was having a multiple-faceted epiphany when it dawned on me that people use that kind of euphemisming and rationalizing for all kinds of situations. 

Many people who put themselves in the "pro-life"camp, for instance, have no problem with our military killing people, if they are "collateral damage" in war -- no matter that many are pregnant women carrying fetuses the so-called pro-lifers care so passionately about. Apparently if they are fetuses in the uteri of American females, condemned to death by a U.S. court, or on the wrong end of a gun that has been bought legally and is being carried legally. 

How about the term "birth control"? Isn't the objective of so-called "birth control" really to prevent pregnancy? Why don't we say so then. That's something else I'm going to try to remember to say: pregnancy prevention in lieu of birth control.

The type of cognitive dissidence permeates our mentality and discourse as we euphemize ourselves silly over gun violence (NRA: (1) "We don't need ban assault guns and/or high capacity magazines, we need to keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. (2) "We oppose universal background checks in gun sales."  Logic: If we don't have universal background checks, how the hect do we know if the buyer is a felon or mentally ill?) Similar euphemizing occurs in thinking and discussing war; evolution vs. creationism; Bible literalism; Constitutional purism and so much more.

Maybe I'm swinging at paper tigers, but I do feel good about having epiphanized such lofty thoughts.







Monday, January 28, 2013

Addressing Local Paper's Tone Deafness

So much to say, so little time to say it. That's how it is these days.

I've composed in my head and in the little notebook I carry around posts about a number of issues; gun violence, repression of women and more. I did, however, take time to send a letter to the local newspaper here -- I can get away with saying THE local paper, since there is only one. This time, unlike several previous letters, this one was published. It was in response to what to my mind was a particularly narrow and ostensibly partisan editorial on President Obama's Inaugural speech.

Here's my letter (w/the newspaper's heading):


Editorial, not Obama, was what fell short

By what measure did the Journal Sentinel Editorial Board conclude that the "President's speech fell short of what the nation needed" or that "he lacked an overarching idea" (Our View, Jan. 22)?
Was President Barack Obama's remarks not exclusive enough for the Editorial Board? Was it not elitist enough? Is a theme that embraces we, the people, equality for all and the journey is not finished not enough of an overarching idea?
Perhaps the Journal Sentinel editorial brain trust, rather than tuning in on the content of Obama's speech, was still tasting the sour grapes of the president's electoral victory.
While much of the country and, indeed, the world, praised Obama for the soaring tone and visionary direction of his speech, the Editorial Board trivialized it with a backhanded comparison to another president's hair.
No, the president's speech did not fall short of what the nation needed, but the Journal Sentinel editorial did fall short of what the community needed.
Jerrianne Hayslett 
South Milwaukee
The link is http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/letters28-vv8h5r8-188603691.html
The link to the editorial is http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/presidents-speech-fell-short-of-what-the-nation-needed-ih8fgd5-187814971.html


Monday, December 24, 2012

Rose Parade Float Driving

This essay about driving a float in the Rose Parade aired over the weekend on the Milwaukee Public Radio Station and is on the WUWM 89.7 FM website here:

http://www.wuwm.com/programs/lake_effect/lake_effect_segment.php?segmentid=9992


Saturday, December 22, 2012

People Use Guns to Kill People


This is a letter I sent to U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) yesterday that addresses some of the absurdities proponents of the little-to-no-gun regulations espouse. It points out some of the conclusions their arguments imply. If you agree with or want to use any part of the letter, please feel free to share anyway you like.

Sen. Ron Johnson
United States Senate, Wisconsin
517 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 408
Milwaukee WI 53202
Re: Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre
Dear Sen. Johnson:
For the love of God – and our children – I, as a parent, a grandparent, a school volunteer and a lover of children, beg of you to please support sane, responsible, effective gun-safety and gun-and-ammunition access laws that will stem the hemorrhaging of Americans’ blood in these ever-more frequent, tragic, traumatic and senseless shooting rampages.
Opponents of such laws constantly echo the NRA’s canard that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” If that were true, given that the United States has more than 10,000 more gun-related homicides annually than most other countries in the so-called developed world combined, that would mean that way more people in the United States are killers than in those countries. Do you really believe that’s true? Do you really believe that America has that many more criminals, mentally unhinged or maniacal individuals than the rest of the “civilized” world?
Children in the United States are 14 times more likely to die by gunshot than children in the rest of the “developed” world. Since NRA parrots insist that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” that has to mean than 14 times more Americans kill their children than do Britons, Scots, Israelis, Germans, Australians, Japanese and Canadians. Does that mean that 14 times more Americans hate their children and want to do away with them than individuals in other countries? Do you really believe that?

  • First, those words were written 250 years ago before this country had extensive or effective organized law-enforcement agencies and little in the way of a standing army to protect its citizens. The “well-regulated militia” was akin to today’s volunteer fire departments in areas that can’t or choose not to fund paid firefighters.
  • Second, what part of individuals stockpiling automatic and semi-automatic weapons that can fire multiple rounds in a few short seconds relates to a “well-regulated militia”? No,
Sen. Ron Johnson
Sandy Hook School Massacre
Page 2
        what NRA acolytes would have citizens of this country believe is that the 2nd
        Amendment really means “Every man for himself.” That is antithetical to even the
        name of our country. We are the United States of America, not the Individuals of
        America.

  •      Third, the twisted misinterpretation of that Amendment has turned this country into the exact opposite of what the Founders’ words, “being necessary for the security of a free state” say. Instead of being secure, this country has become a profoundly insecure state and society, with responsible, law-abiding citizens being held hostage by what has become a grotesque distortion of the Founders’ intent. No other country in the “developed” world has a higher homicide rate than the United States and the vast majority of homicides in the United States are gun-related. If you buy the logic that it isn’t guns that are killing people, but people who are killing people, then it follows that Americans are significantly more homicidal than residents of other countries. Do you really believe that is true?
Calls for teachers and/or school staff to be armed and, supposedly, at the ready to take down any invading gunman is complete lunacy. Anyone who proposes such an idea has simply not thought it through and/or has no concept of what such a real-life scenario is actually like. Three stark examples of how training and arming a teacher or school staff wouldn’t work is:
(1)   Four armed Seattle-area police officers were sitting in a coffee shop discussing their shifts and schedules when a gunman burst in and shot them all dead. All four of them. If being armed is a way to prevent such tragedies, why didn’t one or more of those officers pull their guns and shoot the shooter? Answer: they did not have time. Not just one didn’t have time, none of the four had time. Not because they weren’t well trained or weren’t competent. It’s because the gunman got the drop on them. On all four of them.
(2)   Four Army officers, eight enlisted personnel and a civilian physician assistant were shot dead and 29 other soldiers and installation staff were wounded by a single gunman at Fort Hood, Texas, a facility that has an arsenal of fire power. How could that happen? I’ll tell you how. The gunman took them all by surprise. He got the drop on them. No one had time to go grab his gun and shoot him.
(3)   A Newtown, Connecticut, woman well trained in the handling and use of firearms, including semi-automatic guns, was shot dead in her home where she had numerous guns. If being armed is the answer, why didn’t she defend herself with her guns?
What school teacher or staff member, going about her or his business – i.e. primary duties – of teaching or tending to the school operations when someone covered from ears to toes in Kevlar storms the building with guns blazing, is going to have time, once she or he realizes what’s going on, to get to where ever his or her gun is kept and get to the location where the gunman is shooting students and teachers and stop him – especially when that teacher/staff person is not protected by bulletproof gear like the gunman is? Even if the teacher or staff person has a loaded gun strapped to his hip, he is going to be on the losing end of the proposition.
Sen. Ron Johnson
Sandy Hook School Massacre
Page 3
NRA head, Wayne LaPierre, said today that the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre “could have been prevented or stopped if there had been armed, trained security personnel on site” and that "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Both statements are pure baloney as the four dead Lakewood, Washington, police officers evince.

Any armed, trained security personnel on site at Sandy Hook Elementary would have been mowed down in less than a second by the shooter who stormed that school – before they could have even gotten a gun raised to get a shot off at him. 
Mass shootings have occurred in other developed countries. Scotland and Australia are examples.

  • On March 13, 1996, a man with four handguns walked into a Dunblane, Scotland, elementary school and killed 16 children and one adult, and injured 15 other individuals.
  • On April 28, 1996, a gunman killed 35 individuals and wounded 23 in Port Arthur, Australia.
Both countries have proved that the only thing that stops a bad guy is to prevent him from having access to guns. Both Australia and Scotland imposed gun-safety laws after the 1996 massacres in their countries that have effectively eliminated the repeat of such carnage. The conservative prime minister of Australia, which prior to the Port Arthur killings had lax laws regarding firearm access, said in supporting strict gun laws that he didn’t want his country invaded by the “American sickness.”
If guns don’t kill people, what accounts for fact that no mass murders have occurred in those two countries since gun access was limited after those massacres? If it really is people who kill and not guns, what did Scotland and Australia do, aside from restricting gun access, to cause residents in their countries to stop committing mass murder? Don’t you think it has more to do with opportunity, i.e. the availability of high-capacity firearms and ammunition, than any change in the psyche, intent or motivation of those countries’ populations?
I heard a man say a few days ago that calls for more effective gun-safety laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook children’s massacre was a “knee-jerk reaction.” Surely a debate that has raged since the April 20, 1999, shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado in which two shooters killed 13 and wounded 21 – and has been reignited time and time again in the wake of the many subsequent mass murders in this country is anything but a “knee-jerk reaction.”
Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard was right. America is afflicted by a deadly sickness. And too many Americans and public officials are in denial about that sickness, just as so many substance abusers and mentally afflicted individuals are in denial about their addictions and psychoses.
Sen. Ron Johnson
Sandy Hook School Massacre
Page 4
One measure that might be a move toward addressing that sickness is to mandate a background check on any person who buys a firearm, no matter what the venue – gun store, gun show, over the internet, in a personal transaction or by any other means. And put teeth into that law by making any seller – whether individual or commercial enterprise – that does not conduct the required background check subject to the same criminal charges, prosecution and penalties as the person who buys a firearm that is used in a crime.
Again, I beg you to support laws that will serve as an intervention to those who are afflicted with America’s deadly disease and that will accurately reflect the intention of the 2nd Amendment. By doing so you will be doing a tremendous public service by contributing to saving the lives of others – including little children – who otherwise will be victims in the next mass shooting in this country, and the next one and the next one and the next.
I thank you in honor of the memories of the 20 dead children and six dead adults of Newtown, Connecticut, and on behalf of all the children, teens and adults whose lives you might be able to help save.
Respectfully,
Jerrianne Hayslett
C:       Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States
Dianne Feinstein, Senator, California, United States Senate
          Tammy Baldwin, Senator-Elect, Wisconsin, United States Senate
Gwen Moore, Congresswoman, Wisconsin-Fourth District, United States House of Representatives
Tom Barrett, Mayor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Pogo Would Recognize Us


My hometown newspaper, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, often publishes a column or editorial from elsewhere as a counter, parallel or completely unrelated view of the paper's editorial position, which the JS labels "Another View". Such was the case in its Nov. 30 edition.

The paper's editorial headline that day was "GOP claims on tax effects overstated and misleading". The subhead said, "We're not persuaded that a slight increase in the top marginal tax rates will ensnare many 'job creators'." http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/gop-claims-on-tax-effects-overstated-and-misleading-pj7rhcc-181450841.html.

The other view, "Obama's demeaning ways don't help the 'job creators', (http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/obamas-demeaning-ways-dont-help-the-job-creators-q57relj-181450851.html) was written by a man named Peter Rush, who was identified as the author of Class Tax, Mass Tax. Rush's book bio says he is chairman and CEO of Kellen Company, a global professional services firm and that he has worked as a journalist, teacher, public relations executive and small business owner.

The word that got me was "demeaning," which I considered pejorative and, frankly, whining. Here's the letter I sent to the Journal Sentinel, as yet and probably forever, unpublished:

We have met the job creators and they are us. That play on the "We have met the enemy and it is us" epiphany of Walt Kelly's wise comic character, Pogo, came to mind when I read Peter Rush's "Another View" on Nov. 30's editorial page. Mr. Rush and so many others who have bought into the notion that rich people are "job creators," thus mustn't be taxed too much, (i.e. equal to the rest of us), don't seem to realize that without us, the consumers of goods and services, the wealthy would not be. It is consumers' buying power that enriches corporate owners and CEOs, hedge funders, entertainers and sports stars and rewards them for their talents and good fortune. Rather than demeaning the people Rush, etal, place in such elevated strata, President Obama is recognizing the value and contribution of the "real" working Americans, whom Rush, etc., do demean and don't acknowledge as being the engine of true job-creation power; American workers who deserve to be dignified with adequate pay and benefits.