Bobby Would Say Something

As some of you know, we do a radio show on the Internet (http://www.GoingBeyondRadio.com) on Wednesday evenings. A couple of weeks ago, a news story came out that talked about an upcoming documentary that ridiculously suggests a Secret Service agent may have fired the second shot at President Kennedy.

That caused us to re-interview Sherry Fiester, a forensics expert who's studied the JFK killing in great depth. That, of course, made me think of the Kennedys and the so-called Camelot period in U.S. history.

A few years after the president's assassination, Robert Kennedy ran for the presidency, from his position in the U.S. Senate. Bobby Kennedy toured the country and went to some of the poorest areas of the nation (including Appalachia) to bring attention to how the country was neglecting the poor, whether they were poor Whites, Blacks, Browns, etc.

The problem of homelessness wasn't very common in the 1960s, but it became very noticeable in the 1980s and many people talked about the people who lived on the streets for the next 10-15 years. There were news stories, magazine pieces and documentaries.

But no one's talking about this problem anymore.

So we obviously solved this problem, or people would still be concerned, right?

Apparently not. If you go into any reasonably-sized community, especially those in the sunbelt during the winter, you'll see them. The folks who live on the streets and are or aren't on drugs, who are or aren't mentally disabled are around us. The nicer people among us may give them a quarter or a buck from time-to-time, while the rest of us tell them to get a job or claim we lack sufficient resources to give them anything.

Many of us just ignore them.

But more shocking, in at least the last two election cycles, no one's mentioned the homeless. No one, whether liberal or conservative seems to give a damn about either these people or the social problems their existence represents.

If this were 1968, surely someone would say something. If no one else, it would've been Bobby. For those who think assassinations don't have much effect on history, let them look at homelessness. Let them look at Bobby. Let them see Appalachia.

Syria - Additional Thoughts

That the United Kingdom, through its Parliament, decided it would not intervene in Syria (at least for now) by striking against the government for use of chemical weapons, comes as no surprise.

What was a surprise and disappointment is that President Obama decided to seek Congressional approval before we made a move against Assad's government.

While I generally support Obama, this step demonstrates (dare I say "again"?) a lack of courage or intestinal fortitude. The other phrase isn't suitable for work or children. We don't have a parliamentary system. While Congressional approval should be sought in many situations, every other president has stated that the War Powers Act that was passed after the Viet Nam insanity, in unconstitutional.

The fact that the president isn't required to seek Congressional approval for this strike is clear. We are not going to war; we're talking about a single bombing or drone attack.

All of the above said, I recognize that some very intelligent people, including my lovely bride, think we shouldn't attack Syria. While I disagree (see immediately prior post), I understand. These people (other than those who disagree with anything and everything Obama wants to do, just because it's Obama who wants to do it) fear that Syria may react against Israel, for example - or that Hezbollah or Iran may - and that would require a response from us and Russia and China could respond, etc.

While that's possible, it's obviously unlikely that China and Russia would want to be involved, directly or by proxy, in a military engagement with the U.S. Still, there are dangers connected to an attack on Syria.

My opinion, however, is that there's a greater danger in doing nothing.

As said in the prior edition, if we allow chemical weapon use to go unpunished, it encourages - or at least fails to discourage - those who will be tempted in the future to use them. And that's a very unacceptable risk.

Getting back to the president. I understand that he wants Congressional approval so that no one can later claim, should the situation deteriorate, that he was acting on his own. But he doesn't have to run again, and leaders with courage act.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Two little bits of self-advertisement here. Since internal links don't seem to work, if you'd like to take a glance at my three e-books, please go to the first posting in this blog. It will let you see those books and order them, if you'd like. The three books are a guide to mobile home investment, a compilation of the columns I've written on the subject of sex for a local magazine, and a mystery novel which kind of involves Robert Kennedy. Unrelated to that novel, so does my next posting. Secondly, if you haven't please give a listen to our radio program. It's at http://www.GoingBeyondRadio.com. We're live on Wednesday nights and you can call in, if you listen live. You can also listen to the archived recordings of the show at any time, though you obviously can't call in if you're not listening while we're "on air."

Syria - Part One?

I titled this as "Part One?" because I have a hunch it won't be the last time we visit this subject.

I agree with those who think we need to do something about the government of Syria using chemical weapons, assuming that can be established as fact.

I'll go into my reasoning for that (and it's mine, since I haven't listened to the talking heads on TV and radio on this subject - so if it agrees with someone else I didn't copy it) in a moment, but first, if you'd like to see my other writing (including books), please go to the beginning of the blog or the post of April 22, 2013

Also, on the date this is written, 8/28/13, it's before the radio show we're doing tonight with Morgan St. James and Bella Capo. The latter is the subject of and the co-author (with Morgan) of La Bella Mafia, which is about to be published. The interview should be fascinating, in spite of the interviewer. Tune in tonight at 9:00 PM Central, 6:00 Pacific, or listen to the recorded program afterwards. http://GoingBeyondRadio.com/JeffBushman.

Now to the posting....

In the mid '80s, Iraq fought a war with Iran. We "tilted" towards Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein so when he used chemical weapons against Iran, we didn't object. In fact, when the Iranian representative brought evidence of the chemical weapon use to the UN, he couldn't get anyone to listen.

It's my belief that if we had done something meaningful then, Syria wouldn't have used chemical weapons now. But we didn't.

If Syria used chemical weapons, that country should receive a meaningful punishment. My suggestion would be to use a drone or other un-staffed weapon to damage their command and control capability or we should severely damage their government offices or the home of Assad.

But something.

If we don't, there's a better-than-even chance that in some future war, at some future time, these chemicals will be used against American people or the people of one of our allies.

While there's a good argument that punishment of one person doesn't work as a deterrent for others, when it comes to countries it's a bit different. If the world sees that those who use chemical weapons will die or be severely damaged, those who might consider the use of such weapons in the future, will decide against that approach.

Maybe.

What we have is a group of bad choices, but some attack, without troops seems to be the least bad option.

More Idiocy - Guns

I'm among the group of progressive thinkers (though to call me a "thinker" might be overly praising) who believes that Americans ought to be able to own guns of almost any variety. I say "almost" because I can't see a reason to own an Uzi or other machine gun. Other than that, though, I say enjoy it and please don't shoot me.

But we have to do something about the morons like the guy today who went and fired shots at a Georgia (the U.S. state, not the country that used to be part of the Soviet Union) elementary school. The fact that no one was hurt and the shooter was taken alive, was amazing and rare. The latter fact suggests that the police there deserve a lot of praise.

But come on. I don't know if this guy was certifiably insane prior to the shooting, but if he was and we don't have background checks on gun buyers, why not? Lots of people objected to the legislation last year that would require buyers to be background checked, even when the purchase takes place through a private sale or a gun show.

Why the objection? People already have to get background checked if they buy through a dealer and most sales take place at dealers.

Do those who object to background checks just feel more secure because they know they could obtain some serious firepower without the government knowing about it?

As we all now know, if they listen to your phone conversations and read your e-mail through the NSA, they'll know anyway.

But aside from that, the gun show and private sale exceptions mean that a nut can go buy a gun. A person who's got a serious felony record can buy a gun. Someone who's been convicted of domestic violence can purchase a gun.

I believe you should be able to buy a gun if you perceive you need one. I don't think you should be able to buy a gun and then qualify for food stamps or that you should be able to buy a gun and have the taxpayers support you with disability payments, but I think otherwise you should be able to get a gun.

Unless you're a convicted felon or a spouse-beater or certifiably nutso (on 2 of those 3 my ex-wife might be prohibited). Then you shouldn't be able to get a firearm. And if you agree with that (and why wouldn't you?), I don't know how you can be against the legislation that would've required those background checks. I guess the question can best be put as: What Is Your Problem?

Please tune in to our radio program, The Jeff Bushman Show at http://GoingBeyondRadio.com on Wednesday evenings, starting at 9:00 PM Eastern time, or the archived programs, anytime. Also, if you'd like to see our other writing (on the subject of Radio), let me invite you to: JeffOnRadio.blogspot.com.

Thanks.

Please - No PDR

Today's post is about something we've all run across and of which I have an enormous dislike.

Before that, however, if you'd like to see my other writing (including books), please click here


The PDR is taken from what's been referred to as PDA - Public Displays of Affection. I have mixed feelings about affection in public. I suppose it's okay as long as everyone's clothes stay on.

PDR, however is different. It's Public Display (or Discussion) of Religion. I suppose I don't mind Christmas displays or Easter observances that don't hit viewers over the head, but some people apparently believe that you and I are vitally interested in their religious views.

I'm not. At all.

I was brought up in a society where it was considered rude to ask someone their religion. That was private (of course, what someone paid for a house was private too, and that seems to have gone away, too). If someone's from a specific country, I might make reference to her/his religious background, but other than that, I'm more concerned with someone's character than where they go to a mosque, temple, synagogue, or church.

Two recent incidents, however, suggest that if I'm not in the minority on this, I'm in a diminishing majority. Recently, I was involved in a minor business transaction with someone and he asked me if I was a Christian. I said I don't discuss religion or politics.

As a side note, I discuss a lot of the latter on my radio program, which you can find at http://www.GoingBeyondRadio.com/JeffBushman.

He was a bit insistent, but so was I and he eventually got the message that I wasn't answering his question. But the fact is that the question was rude and an imposition. What business was it of his, what my religion is, or if I have one? I understand that if I'd answered in the affirmative, he'd have established a type of rapport, but it's still rude. It's even ruder after the first time I said I didn't want to discuss it.

There's the milder form of the same thing when someone tells me that "the Good Lord will take care of that." Oh, please. I don't doubt the sincerity of your beliefs, but why impose them on other people?

There's also the more harsh version of publicly displaying or discussing religion, and I got a dose of that recently, too. I'd given a ride to a lady and as she was getting out, she offered me a "God Bless You." I said "thank you," and didn't point out that I hadn't sneezed (great self-restraint). She seemed hesitant to get out and I wished her a good day. She then told me that Jesus had died for my sins (which was somewhat prescient of him, if true, since I hadn't committed any yet). I said, "that's nice, thank you. Have a good day."

She then, in a louder voice told me that he shed his blood for me.

Also, at the risk of being accused of wanting to war against Christmas, if it's November or December and you want to wish someone a happy holiday, do so. Please don't wish me a Merry Christmas or a Happy Hannukah. I don't want to assume I know your religious beliefs, and you shouldn't assume you know mine. More than half of the people in this country are agnostic, atheistic, or a member of a religion other than Christianity.

Hearing Merry Christmas is a small thing, but it's still an (admittedly unintentional) act of presumptuousness and rudeness.

PDR is wrong, unless someone invites it. If you feel you must evangelize, ask if someone's interested and if they're not, please follow the simple rule: STFU. If you don't know what that stands for, my guess is you could Google it.

Thanks for reading this and Allah/God/Buddha Bless.

Voting Rights

As promised, and now that some time has passed, let's discuss what the U.S. Supreme Court did with regard to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Before that, however,if you'd like to see my other writing (including books), please click here


Getting back to the decision, the Court didn't kill the Voting Rights Act, but they did emasculate it to some extent. Prior to the decision, several states (mostly in the deep South and Arizona), and parts of others, had to get clearance from the Justice Department before implementing changes in their voting rules or laws.

The decision said that because much has changed since 1965, the pre-clearance section was unconstitutional.

While that makes no sense (what harm would it do anyone to get pre-clearance?) to me, neither - I think - is this a disaster for voting rights of minorities.

If it's still illegal - and it is - to pass a law that restricts the rights of African-Americans or Latinos to vote, people can bring suit and seek an injunction to bar the law from going into effect.

The reality is that states do try to restrict voting rights. Whether a state requires identification or closes polling places in minority areas, that works to restrict voting rights of racial minorities and/or poor people. Typically, these laws are passed by Republican legislators to reduce the number of votes in favor of Democrats.

But that doesn't matter.

If you restrict the right to vote, you're wrong, and should be subject to legal action based on the Voting Rights Act.

Another decision made recently by the Supreme Court established that an Arizona law requiring identification to vote in federal elections was contrary to the constitution, because it interfered with the federal law requiring less.

What next? Who knows? But this issue is not dead.

By the way, please listen to our radio show. We're live on Wednesday evenings, starting at 9:00 PM, Eastern time. You can hear us at http://www.GoingBeyondRadio.com (not case sensitive). If you miss the show, you can hear the recording afterwards at http://www.GoingBeyondRadio.com/JeffBushman. You can also download us through the smart phone application (app), Stitcher.

Thanks.

The Supremes - June 2013

In two days, the Supreme Court of the U.S. issued three momentous decisions. One was to strike a portion of the 1965-enacted Voting Rights Act, and the other two had to do with same-sex marriage. I'll address the Voting Rights Act in a later post.

But first, if you'd like to see my other writing (including books), please click here

For now let's talk about DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and California's Proposition 8. Both decisions were seen by most commentators as positive results for gay and lesbian rights.

DOMA - The court ruled as unconstitutional the provision that stated that even if a same-sex couple was legally married in a state recognizing such marriages, the couple would receive no marriage-related benefits from the federal (national) government.

Another provision of the Act not dealt with by today's decision also allows State X which doesn't recognize same-sex marriage to disregard a marriage performed in State Y which does.

The case the court decided stems from the death of one member of a lesbian marriage, resulting in an inheritance by her spouse and a huge estate tax bill that would not be charged if the marriage were recognized. The court ruled that the federal government had no right to not recognize the marriage that was allowed by law in the state where the couple lived.

In part, that's because other states and the federal government are obligated to give "full faith and credit" to the laws of the states, so long as those state laws are constitutional. The full faith and credit provision is part of the constitution.

My only quarrel with the court's opinion is that they should have ruled all of DOMA unconstitutional. If a gay couple is legally married in Vermont, Maine should have no right to choose to not recognize that marriage. That question is left unresolved by today's decision.

Proposition 8 - The ballot proposition was victorious in a statewide election in California. Prior to Prop. 8, the state's supreme court had ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, and gay and lesbian couples were allowed to wed.

Prop. 8 was supported by various religious groups and was designed to do away with same-sex marriages.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes California and some other states ruled that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. The constitution says that all citizens will receive equal protection under the law.

Normally, when a state passes a law by legislation or initiative, the state defends that law if challenged in court. In this case, two governors of California - one from each party - believed that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional, so refused to defend it in the courts.

A group consisting of folks who'd sponsored the proposition stepped in.

The Court of Appeals, as indicated above, ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional. The Supremes did something different. In a 5-4 decision, they dismissed the appeal from the Court of Appeals' decision, because the people representing the initiative didn't have "standing" to defend the proposition.

Standing is a legal concept that says you have to be a party who's "aggrieved," i.e., you have to be more at risk than any average citizen. The Court said that the state would have a right to defend the proposition, but the defenders who stepped in - to the extent there is/was a risk to anyone - were no more at risk than any other citizen.

While the Court was right and many of us applaud their decision, the reason for that decision is a bit troubling (I wished they had ruled as the appellate court did). Let's imagine voters in the state of Texas deciding through the initiative process, that there should be no additional restrictions on a woman who wants an abortion. If that were challenged in a lawsuit, it's a fair guess that Governor Perry of that state wouldn't defend it. Does that mean the will of the voters is shot down because no one else has standing to defend the new law?  Based on today's reasoning, the answer would be yes, that's exactly what it means.

Thanks.