Gunning For Freedom

OK, folks...so here's the deal.  I'm assured by my liberal colleagues that any legislation coming down the pike on gun control in the coming weeks will deal ONLY with so-called "assault weapons."  I am touched by the number of them who assure me they have no objections to handguns, shotguns low-powered rifles, etc.  Well that's a relief!

There are several potential pratfalls, though.  Number one---the definition of an "assault weapon."  I shiver at the prospect of people who sh*t their pants every time the word "gun" is mentioned, being charged with defining something that can be fairly complicated even for a gun enthusiast.  Sorta like having a life-long vegan determine what's a good cut of veal.

Secondly, we have evidence of the efficacy of an assault weapon ban.  In short, it didn't work.  All it did was drive up the cost of assault weapons.  Shockingly, criminals were still able to obtain them---in large numbers.   If only they would follow the law!!

There's the "camel's nose under the tent" argument.  It's a cliche---but its a cliche for a reason.  It is ALWAYS the way freedoms are diminished.  Thirty years ago, the thought of requiring restaurants to even have non-smoking sections was laughable.  After they were established, the move began to outlaw smoking all together.

Regardless of your stance on smoking in restaurants, the point is this.  Freedoms are rarely taken away in one fell swoop.  They erode over time as opportunists wear away opposition like waves lapping at a shoreline.  As long as people continue to get their Bread and Circuses, they are only too willing to go along.

And finally, there's this.  Mr. President and other Statists in Washington...WE DO NOT TRUST YOU.  You have proven yourself to be yet another slimeball politician instead of a leader.  You and your ilk are all-too-ready to take advantage of a tragedy to shift more of our basic decision-making power from our homes to Washington.   Have you EVER come up with a solution that would have resulted in less government oversight?  No.  Your default setting is to make as many decisions as possible for us---while providing the requisite amount of Bread and Circuses to placate the masses.

Fortunately, there remain enough of us for whom Bread and Circuses is NOT adequate sustenance.

Letting go...

I have an odd sense of pride about the number of friends I have left of the political center. Especially when one considers how far right I am on fiscal issues. I guess its as close as I'll ever come to being considered open-minded.

As I've tooled up and down my Facebook feed the past couple of days, my Democratic friends have been conspicuous in their silence. Oh, there are a few posts about "binders" "big birds" and the latest idiot GOP candidate to open his mouth on abortion. You know, the "important" stuff. They've had nothing to say about the mounting evidence that the Benghazi controversy is more than just a Presidential miscalculation.

As a sports fan since my childhood, I know a little bit about heroes. Mine growing up were the likes of Pete Maravich, David Thompson, Rod Carew, Hank Aaron, and Kenny Stabler...just to name a few. I worshiped them as only a child could...convinced they were incapable of error, and ready to pounce on anyone who suggested otherwise.

As I grew older I realized this was not the case. It slowly dawned upon me that---yes indeed---Pistol Pete and Skywalker could miss a shot. Hammerin' Hank and Sweet Rod could strike out. The Snake could throw an interception. It was a hard epiphany for a little boy, but I accepted it and moved on. I learned that those I admired on the field of play were like all men...both good and bad, sinner and saint, success and failure. That is as it should be.

I'm worried that some otherwise well-adjusted adults seem to have trouble coming to grips with the notion that their political and social hero is also a flawed man. Barack Obama was presented to the American public as a Demigod four years ago...a man capable of ending racism, cancer, global warming, and canker sores. Many took the bait and have yet to let go, despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary. In fact, the latest evidence suggests very pronounced "flaws" in judgement.

I say this because I want to help. I know its hard to watch heroes fall. It's hard to see someone in whom you're so emotionally invested prove that he's mortal. Its a hell of a thing to have cold reality flung in your face. "If he could just get four more years, he'll show you!!" Much like I used to say, "If Stabler had two minutes he'd win the game!!"

What I'm saying is: its OK to let go. Its alright to admit that things didn't quite work out. No one will blame you if you look at the relationship four years in and decide that you're not where you want to be.

If I could accept my hero's flaws at age ten, you can sure as hell do it as an adult.

A nation of Katrina victims

The Sunday night before Hurricane Katrina hit in 2004, I spent most of the evening gathering as much information as I could on the storm.  Even though I didn't live in the line of fire, I knew that it would be a critical story for our FM station's news the next morning.  The warning bulletins from the usually-reserved National Weather Service were scary.  "Human suffering catastrophic by modern standards" was one that stood out.  It was clear we were dealing with a monster.

We all know what happened.  The storm hit.  The flood waters rose. People died.  Looting began.  Help arrived far too late for most people's taste.

When I saw the news coverage of the mass of humanity inside and outside the Superdome, I didn't see poor, helpless black people.  I saw a group of people that had been sold a bill of goods.  I saw people who had been trained like animals to rely on the state for their most basic needs.  I saw folks who had lived their entire lives under the auspices of bureaucrats---folks who were utterly incapable of helping themselves when the government they had relied on was suddenly not there.

People feel uncomfortable talking about things like this because the overwhelming majority of the victims were black.  We MUST get past this "soft racism."  Fear of making people angry or uncomfortable might be our biggest obstacle to coming up with real solutions to our most vexing social problems.

I find it curious that some on the extreme left claim GOP policy proposals would put blacks back in "slavery."  What is blind and complete dependence on the state, if not slavery?  Is it slavery when you are incapable of providing yourself with the necessities of life without The State stepping in?  Is it charity to assist a group of people to such a degree that they have to make virtually "no" decisions about their day-to-day lives?

At the risk of sounding alarmist and melodramatic, I fear this could be what's in store for the nation at large if we're not careful.  Under the worst case scenario, I see a nation populated by people whose lives are so closely intertwined with the Government that it is impossible to determine where one ends and the other begins.  I see a once-great country with people living in the equivalent of FEMA trailers, waiting for the next check to arrive in the mail.  That nightmare also includes a populace that throws up its hands and wails when disaster strikes---and the entity on which they've relied completely is suddenly unavailable.

A blank check from a nameless and faceless entity is NOT the answer!  Engagement is the answer.  We as Americans and Christians had better get off our collective asses and work directly with those in need.  Sitting back and letting The State handle it is cowardly, counter-productive, and will end up costing us more than we could ever imagine in terms of our liberty and individual freedom.

Wither a playoff...

My two cents on a College Football Playoff...worth every penny!   Unless it includes ONLY conference champions, I'm not interested.  

Yes, I realize that the SEC routinely has two or three of the top ten teams in the nation.   But limiting it to conference champions-only would create unprecedented excitement at the various conference championship games, which would become the equivalent of national quarterfinals.
Think of this scenario.   #1 Alabama and  #2 Florida square off for the SEC Championship.   If at-large teams are allowed into the National Playoff, the SEC Championship simply becomes at battle for seeding...much like every one of the major-conference basketball tournaments.  
Say what you will about the storied Duke-North Carolina rivalry in basketball, but their regular-season and conference tournament games are essentially for bragging rights only.   Both are going to make the NCAA tournament field each year.  The only question is will they be a one-two-or-three seed.

Because of this the ACC will NEVER be able to duplicate the excitement the conference tournament generated when only the winner advanced.   The much-ballyhooed 1974 title game between N.C. State and Maryland is remembered in large part because the loser was stuck in the NIT.  Now THAT'S pressure.
Whether you realize it or not, that "winner-takes-all" scenario is what makes college football so attractive.   It's why fans like me lose sleep over regular-season games that determine if you have a shot at the Crystal Football Trophy or the Music City Bowl Trophy.   A champions-only playoff maintains that pressure while giving us an undisputed National Champion.
I know the devil is in the details.  Will it be a four-team playoff or eight teams?   If it's conference champions only, then which conferences?   What about the existing bowl games...what role will they play?   Good questions, one and all.
But any playoff that allows at-large teams to play for the ultimate title will be a pale simulacrum of the existing system, and subject us to endless hours of arguing which at-large teams get hosed.   No thanks...the basketball tournament has that market cornered.

The 'ol Razzle-Dazzle

Its hard to pick my favorite part of the movie, "Chicago." There's Catherine Zeta-Jones mincing around in a short-dress and a too-cute bob haircut, announcing plans to "rouge her knees." That was nice. There's also Queen Latifah sexily reminding me, "When You're Good to Mama, Mama's Good to You." That's always encouraging.

The part I've been thinking about the most this week is Richard Gere's God-Awful attempt at singing. Don't get me wrong---Shatner's worse. But Gere's turn on "Razzle Dazzle" is reminding me too much of the modern political landscape.

I try my best to avoid social debates. Try as I might, I just can't give a tinker's dam about what someone does in their bedroom. I cannot make myself give two spits about someone's sexual orientation. So long as children and non-consent aren't involved, go for it. I have better things to think about.

Then along comes Sandra Fluke. Her portryal as an innocent law school student who has been denied contraception by the meanies at a Jesuit school would make Billy Flynn proud. Her insertion (no pun intended) into the national political debate is little more than highly-calculated bread and circuses.

When Fluke was denied a chance to speak before a Congressional panel on insurance coverage of contraception; she instead was invited to a "democrats-only" meeting to tell her sob story. The 30-year old woman who can afford a $50,000 a year Law School education complained about not having mandatory contraception coverage into in her health care plan; administered by a Jesuit school. Razzle-Dazzle, folks.

I guess I'm more disturbed that social conservatives would take the obvious bait. Those who are monomanical about abortion and contraception are not known for political restraint. They fell for it, hook line and sinker, and vaulted this obvious plant into the national consciousness. In doing so, they have doggedly kept social issues at the forefront of this Presidential campaign, in spite of the worst economy in over a generation. Way to go, guys.

If you think Fluke is an innocent victim of mean-'ol health insurance companies who refuse to pay for condoms; then I can't help you. Consider this. Less than two miles from Fluke's apartment is a Planned Parenthood chapter. You know, the place that gives away FREE CONDOMS!?!?

This is nothing more than an orchestrated attempt to bring social issues to the front of the table over economic policies. Democrats usually score points when the debate is over condoms, abortion, and reproductive rights. Republicans often win the debate over fiscal policy.

As an aside, I'm old enough to remember when condoms were kept behind the counters and cigarettes were sold out front. How far we've come. BREAD AND CIRCUSES FOR ALL MY FRIENDS!!!"