Right to arm citizens an obsolete notion

I don't know if it is the fact that I have elementary aged kids, or if it is just a matter of remembering what elementary school was like, or the fact that it is so close to the holiday season. But the mass shooting of grade one kids in Newtown, Conn. this past Friday is keeping me up at night, and pulling at my heart like none of the all too common mass shootings in the US has done in the past. And my sadness and discomfort is a flickering candle flame when compared to the roaring inferno of grief that must me engulfing the small community of  Newtown this week.

My hope is that heartbreak of knowing that the most innocent among us were targeted in this shooting will be enough to shake the collective consciousness of the American people to a point that they will finally see that they need to abandon their gun culture. Surely, there can be no one able to argue that this tragedy would not have been prevented, or at least much less severe, if guns were not so readily available. Who could possible say that the right to own a gun is more precious than the lives of 6 and 7 year olds?

As with so many things in the US, the protection of this right must surely be based on the massive business that has built up around private gun ownership in the US. The massive scale of the business, as happens, has attracted a very large lobby contingency in Washington, and thus has lead to the illogical and extreme protection of the right to own firearms. The legal arguments seem to evolve for many around the one sentence in the US constitution that addresses the right to bear arms. This has been taken to mean that any American should be allowed to own as many guns as they want. This is so obviously a part of the constitution that has become obsolete.

In 1776, you needed the right to own a musket, because there was no 911 to call or phones to call it on, or no organized police presence.  But in 2012, police are very well organized and you are well protected by civil rights, and in the US, a large military complex. There is a very minute threat of a civil war breaking out in most developed countries, and the sovereignty of the nation is definitely no longer defined by the number of armed citizens you have.

In recent days, many gun death statistics have been quoted, but there is one in particular struck home to me, and I don't even recall the source. In 2009, there was 9,000+ gun deaths in the USA; but only 18 in the UK, 30 in Australia, 170 in Canada, and 142 in France. When you look at the much higher gun control laws in these countries, it becomes apparent that gun control laws do, in fact, save lives. And last time I checked, the sovereignty of France, the UK, Australia or Canada has been threatened because of the lack of guns in every home. I will also wager that home invasions are no higher in these countries either.

President Obama appears to be as moved by the Newtown tragedy as I am, if not more so, so hopefully he takes advantage of the focus this tragedy has put on the need for stricter gun controls, and does something to prevent this type of thing from happening.

Are we getting dumber? 2012 US Election as a case study

I worry about the combined intelligence of the human race, and whether or not it is on the decrease. The promise of the information age, with easier access to the collective knowledge, and was to make for a more intelligent and aware human race. Perhaps I am unduly colored by the fact that I live and work so closely to the USA. Perhaps it is a North American plight...I hope so. The state of public debates in recent years has lead to my concern. The current election campaign in the USA is a prime example, and perhaps the fact that I am paying more attention this time around is causing me to over react...I hope so.

I have watched the debates, and have had the pleasure(?) to spend a fair amount of time in the country and watch the news coverage, and I don't get how the race is even close. It seems to me that the incumbent is trying to provide actual plans with numbers and specifics. President Obama is running for re-election after 4 of the toughest economic years since the great depression. Some could argue that his predecessors handling of the US economy was a prime cause of the recent economic woes, but I will leave that alone for now.

Mr. Romney has run mainly on bashing Obama's record and blaming America's part in the recent economic meltdown on Obama's policies or lack thereof. He has what seems to me to be a very vague 5 point plan to fix the economy, which seem to be based on letting corporate America off the leash. But the problem is, unbridled capitalism is what caused the meltdown in the first place.

Now don't write me off as a socialist because of that last statement. I am a supporter of private business and capitalist principles, and I am a believer that the government should be arms length. In fact, I don't agree with government's propping up failing industries (the New Brunswick pulp and paper industry is a good example). If an industry as a whole is failing, that usually means it is because the business has run its course and is no longer profitable. So let it die and be replaced by industries that have not run their course. Industry is cyclical and the economy is evolutionary, no business last forever in its same form. The US cotton industry of the 1800s, the Canadian ship building industry of the 1800s, and the newspaper industry in recent years, are all fine examples of industries running their course and being replaced by new technologies, or moved to a geographic area that makes better business sense. But I digress...that is another discussion.

In the debates, anyone who has read anything about the recent economy, or even listens carefully to what is being said, should be able to see that Romney is doing a sales job. I am reminded of the Simpson's TV show episodes were Mayor Quimby gets up and just says a bunch of disjointed catch phrases and the crowd goes wild. Romney says "more jobs", "bringing America back" and "the USA should be telling other countries what to do", and the fiercely patriotic American voter eats it up. But look closer at what he is saying, it doesn't make sense. 

Holding Obama responsible for all the jobs lost in the US over the last 4 years is ridiculous. Very few economies in the world added jobs. Gauging the state of the military on the number of ships shows a quaint understanding of how the modern military works. Saying Israel noticed when the president did not visit when he was in the neighborhood shows a complete lack of understanding on how modern diplomacy works. Chastising the current administration over taking 2 days to call the attack on the American embassy in Libya a terrorist attack is playing politics. Who cares if it was a terrorist attack or a demonstration; the people are still dead, and whether the public knows what it is has nothing to do with investigating the attack and bringing those responsible to justice.

Romney's lack of knowledge of foreign policy is the scariest thing to me. Traditionally, Americans tend to be very inward looking, so when they vote they put less weight on the candidates ability to negotiate the shark infested waters that is the current state of foreign affairs. But for the rest of the world, this is the most important attribute for the man (or woman) who still is "the leader of the free world". This person manages the largest military in the world, and has the capability to start and end conflicts that can save or destroy us all. If you get a president who doesn't understand the complexities of the Muslim world, we could all be in serious trouble. And I personally think Romney could be dangerous to us all if he wins this thing.

Syria is  a good example of the sticky situation that is global politics these days. You have a government that is obviously at war with its own people, but because of where it is, and its political allies, marching US troops into Syrian to help overthrow the government (as they did in Libya) would have lead to a much larger conflict. So what do you do; I wouldn't want to decide. You want to keep a government from killing its own, but you don't want to start a global conflict. We have the UN, who is supposed to make sure this doesn't happen, but it is tied up in knots because of the politics of its members and the way it is run. I am not going to suggest a solution to this problem, but I want to point out that we need someone "leading the free world" who understands the complexities, and doesn't try to "dictate to other countries".

And I am convinced that the only reason this is a close race is that the average American doesn't spend the time to research the issues. To compound the problem, the media is more about sensationalism than delivering the facts. And most Americans form their opinions based on what their favorite news anchor or pundit has to say. Thinking for oneself has become way less common than it used to be....but maybe I am wrong...I hope so.