Thursday, October 18, 2018

RANDOM THOUGHTS FROM THE LONG ABSENT

After a contentious confirmation for a new Justice of the Supreme Court, we are plunging headlong into election season. Both factions have said that the confirmation has energized their side, ensuring victory in November.
Both sides are wrong.
But first, let's say a few words about the Kavanaugh confirmation. As long time readers of "Telegrams" are aware, I've been away for awhile with ongoing health concerns, so I did not get a chance to weigh in on a story that's tailor made for, well, weighing in. on. (ouch, that was awkward). Here a few quick thoughts:
1. Nominee Kavanaugh was repeatedly asked to rule on cases he had not yet heard. Imagine having to go to court, preparing the greatest case of your life, only to have the judge slam down his gavel and render his verdict before the trial begins. "No need to present your case, I've already made my decision," he says. That's what the liberal Democrats wanted Kavanaugh to do. "Tell me now how you will decide on Roe v. Wade," they asked. And when he answered that he would not make those kinds of pronouncements, they went away very unsatisfied, saying, "Since Kavanaugh will not commit to the unqualified upholding of Roe v. Wade, we will vote against him." That doesn't seem right, does it?
2. Does anybody really think that the sexual assault allegation against the nominee was not a political maneuver? After trying to find the proverbial "smoking gun" in Kavanaugh's possession, Diane Feinstein takes a letter she has had for months and coyly says, "Oh hey...got something here that is troubling." Seriously? This wasn't political?
3. Sexual assault and harassment are, sadly, very real. I don't think we should minimize the problem, nor shift blame to the victims. However, I challenge the assumption that questioning the victim about what exactly happened is the same as rank mistreatment. "Forget facts, just take my word for it," is not adequate enough to destroy someone's career, either in a trial or in a job interview (and for the Democrats, the whole "job interview" thing makes it okay to be totally unfair and heavy handed, because, hey, it's not a trial.).
4. It became clear that the facts did not back up the accusation. Unfortunately, Judge Kavanaugh had had enough and snipped back at the Democrats. Yeah, not a smart move and not a good showing, but also very understandable given the circumstances. At this point, the Democrats said, "Okay, maybe we don't have the facts, but hoo boy, did you see the Judge's temper? Can't have a man like that on the bench, no way." As if there were Democrats who were sitting on the fence, undecided on the nomination, and then they see this.
5. The fact is, the Democrats were pre-determined to reject the Kavanaugh nomination. It wasn't his refusal to pledge to reach a particular verdict. It wasn't the decades old accusations against him. It wasn't his flash of ire before the committee. It was strictly a political decision, made largely because...Trump.
But now we come to the elections and both the Republicans and Democrats are saying this will be the most important election maybe in history. 
And (as stated before) they're both wrong.
Maybe the lens of history will bring 2018 into focus, but my "gut," honed by years of observation, is telling me that very little will change. If the Democrats come into power, they still have to win over the citizens of the country who are largely convinced that politicians are no good. For all the talk about impeaching Trump and impeaching Kavanaugh, they run the risk of half the country saying, "Told you so...I knew they would do that." If the Republicans retain their margin, they may ease up a little so as not to rub it in. At least I would hope they would. A hand offered in bi-partisan respect and friendship would be incredibly refreshing.
But even if the mid-terms don't end peacefully, there's always the next election. And the next one. Our country survived pistol duals between political opponents, so I'm sure today's enlightened lawmakers will get through this as well.

Thursday, February 15, 2018

FLORIDA: STOPPING THE CYCLE

The date is February 15. Another school shooting, this time in Florida. Seventeen people dead.

Sorry, I can't say I'm sorry.

Correction: I am sorry. I'm horrified and saddened and shocked. As the news broke and as the events were unfolded in the evening news and morning shows, I found myself weeping more than once. I prayed. For the families and school district; indeed, for the community and nation as a whole, I am so sorry.

But according to many pundits and politicians, as well as quite a few on social media, they don't want my sympathy. "I am so fed up with 'thoughts and prayers'," is the common sentiment. In the wake of previous tragedies, some lawmakers have even walked out of the customary "moment of silence" in protest. And as I expressed my condolences on Facebook (under my civilian identity), some of my contacts thrashed me for offering words of comfort instead of  writing angry letters to my congressman. A common meme purports to show the cycle in this country of "shooting--thoughts and prayers--calm--forgetfulness--shooting."

So, no, I'm not going to give public voice to my "thoughts and prayers." Instead, it's time to do what my liberal friends and left leaning commentators demand every time there is a terrible mass shooting in our country: have a conversation, once and for all, about gun violence in America. Since conservatives are fond of saying "now is not the time to fight about gun control,"--because, as we all know, people in crisis don't need hugs, they need hard-hitting partisan debate--I'm going to jump in the fray. To heck with "weeping with those who weep." It's time for a no-holds barred debate on gun violence. Bring it.

Except. . .when liberal pundits talk about a "conversation" or "debate" on gun violence, they usually are thinking of one thing: ban guns. To them, that is the only acceptable outcome of any conversation or legislation. The very thought that that is a somewhat naïve position or that there may be other ways of dealing with the issue either escapes their notice or is mentally repugnant to them. They want to open the gun debate, but they only want one solution: a solution that will alienate a great segment of our population and possibly raise Constitutional questions. "Let's discuss this, as long as you agree with me in the end," is sort of a lop-sided debate, in my humble opinion.

But by all means, let's do this. Yes, let's be serious about gun violence. Let's work on real solutions instead of spewing angry demands that the country acquiesce to our own social agenda. The real cycle in this country is "shooting--angry demands for liberal change--calm--forgetfulness--shooting."

And it's a cycle that needs to stop.