Another Tragedy

This time in Connecticut, where a gunman opened fire in an elementary school and killed 27 people, including, apparently, himself.  There will be lots of pundits pontificating on why and how it happened, and the NRA can be counted on to repeat it's tired "guns don't kill, people kill" mantra. 

There was a comment thread on the Democracy for America Facebook page that called for "serious dialogue about gun control."  My comment was: "We're way past time for "a serious dialogue about gun control." It's time to tell the NRA to get lost and enact serious control measures. We don't live in the late 18th century anymore. We have way too many people living in much more dense communities than 1789 and it's time to recognize that."

I'm dismayed that so many people on a liberal page like DFA were still mouthing NRA  platitudes and refusing to recognize that the Founders didn't do as great a job on the Second Amendment as they did on the rest of the Constitution.   Times have changed.   A lot.  

Back during the formation of our nation, we had essentially a foreign army on our soil (the British army and its hired mercenaries) and we were largely an agrarian society.  In that context, it may have made sense to guarantee "the right to bear arms" for the citizens who were largely on their own for defense.  And when the new country declared independence and needed to quickly pull together an army to drive out the "foreign" troops, the American recruits brought their own weapons with them.

Times have changed and the context has changed.  We have robust police departments at the local and state levels to protect us, but the odds are currently stacked against them.
 
Life is a lot more crowded these days.   US Population in 1790: 3.9 Million.  US Population in 2010: 308.7 Million. That's an increase of nearly 800% (although my math skills may not be up to par; correct me if my arithmetic is off).  Population density has also changed drastically.  In 1790, we had our population spread across about 865,000 square miles, or 4.5 persons per sq. mile.  In 2000, our population was spread across 3.5 million sq. miles, or about 80 persons per sq. mile.  We live much closer together and with the huge increase in sheer numbers, IMO there are simply a lot more unbalanced people out there.  

We can no longer justify the rationale that had merit 223 years ago.  The rest of the developed world has nowhere near our firearm murder rates and it's past time for us to grow up and pass serious, nationwide, gun control laws. 

Where's The Do Not Fly List When We Need It?

OK, it's Crazy News Day apparently.

So, a local software consultant has been convicted of "sexually groping" the thigh of a fellow passenger on a flight from Las Vegas to Chicago.   He was convicted by a Federal jury after a 3 day trial in Chicago.   But wait, there's more.

The guy was seated between a woman (in the window seat) and the woman's husband (aisle seat) for this flight.   The woman planned to sleep during the flight and woke up several times when feeling something on her leg.  The third time, she woke to discover the guy's hand up the leg of her shorts, at which point the woman "struck" the consultant and yelled at him.  Fellow passengers and flight attendants on the 2011 Southwest Airlines flight also testified.     But wait there's more.

It appears that the offender has been convicted twice before for virtually identical crimes.   In 2000, he pleaded guilty in Cook County Court to groping the breast of a passenger in the seat in front of him on a flight from Detroit to Chicago.  In 2002, he was convicted in Federal Court in Detroit for groping the breast of a fellow passenger on a flight from San Jose to Detroit.

So, we have a secret "No Fly List" in this country.  If your name gets on this list, you're banned from boarding flights, allegedly because you might be a terrorist and harm people.  So if we already have this list, why isn't this jerk, a serial sexual groper with three convictions on his record, banned from flying anywhere?   He's a clear and present danger to female passengers.  How many felony convictions are required before you get jail time?
 

I'm Going With Creepy

So the latest toy foisted on our kids is another baby doll, but this one apparently makes noisy suckling sounds when, and here's the critical point, the child dons a special halter top that has sensors embedded behind "petal appliques" located in the nipple area of the halter.  Yes, you read that correctly.  The AP story (Creepy or Groundbreaking?) is here.  

Bill O'Reilly has already come out against the dolls, which retail for $89 each.  While they have sold well in Europe, the manufacturer hasn't been able to market them through mainstream retailers in the U.S. due to the retailers' desire to "avoid controversy."  The manufacturer believes the controversy in this country is based on Americans' discomfort with breast-feeding.  Of course, the "petal appliques" do tend to conjure up images of strippers, but...

I can't speak for American toy retailers, and I generally think Bill O'Reilly is full of hot air, but I'm going with "creepy" on this one.   I'm perfectly OK with breast-feeding and I don't think anything about it sexualizes anything, but this doll does something else.   It would seem to be yet another pressure on our children to grow up too fast.   I mean, it's one thing to play at feeding a baby doll, but carrying a doll around pressed to an 8 year old's breast seems to be something other than play.  According to the manufacturer (Lewis):

Lewis considers Breast Milk Baby "very much less sexualized" than Barbie dolls or the sassy Bratz pack.

Small comfort.  Those toys are often just as creepy.  He may be right, but sexualization isn't my point; growing up too fast is.

Pat Boone Says What?

OK, so I think people should vote and be civically involved, but I'm nervous about all the promoting that "everyone" should vote.  I think those who vote should be at least minimally informed of who and what they're voting on.   If you don't care enough to learn at least something factual about the issues of the day, I say stay home.

I just got a robo-call from Pat Boone (I swear he said "Yes, that Pat Boone.  I'm still singing Love Letters In the Sand").  He was calling to "sing the praise of" and encourage us to vote for Joe Walsh, who is (IMO) the biggest tea party dipshit in Congress.  

Now, if encouraging "everyone" to vote means encouraging people who would be influenced by a recorded message from Pat Boone on who to vote for, then I'm against encouraging "everyone" to vote.   I mean, really, Pat Boone was considered to be a worthwhile influence for the Walsh campaign?  Really?  

I shudder to think about the type of person who would get this message and then say, "I'm no longer undecided, I'm gonna do what Pat Boone asked and vote for Walsh."