Head in the Sand

You may have seen this photo before.

It has an interesting story to tell.

According to adweek.com, this advertisement was published following the assassination of John Lennon.

His murderer, Mark David Chapman, shot him with a .38 special revolver.

On March 30, 1981, the same year this ad was apparently published; John Hinckley nearly assassinated Ronald Reagan.

He was armed that day with a .22 caliber handgun.

Grievously wounded during the shooting was White House Press Secretary James Brady; whose injuries left him permanently disabled.

Surviving the near-fatal encounter, Brady, along with his wife Sarah, went on to found the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; the organization the Brady Act - which mandates a five-day waiting period and background check for all federally registered handgun purchases - originated from.

The Brady Campaign was formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc.; the same organization that paid for the ad above.

Since that time, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a legally purchased handgun (see D.C. v. Heller.).

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."

He also wrote, "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns...It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause."

Therefore, the U.S. Constitution protects only the right to own a gun, but not a particular type.

So, why is there such hostility by gun-rights advocates towards a mere magazine-clip measure?

By far, that would be the least restrictive ownership related provision; which is to say nothing of an assault weapons ban reinstatement.

The above poster suggests it is not gun-ownership, but dangerously permissive laws and our perverse and boastful gun-culture that have lent themselves considerably towards the innumerable deaths caused by firearms in the U.S.

Why else is the CDC banned from conducting research on gun-violence?

Why else is the ATF's National Tracing Center using an outdated paper filing system instead of a national database to track federally registered gun-sales?

Why else are licensed gun owners allowed to carry their firearms on-board an Amtrak train, or at a National Park?

These are the questions that overzealous organizations like the NRA have managed to evade by railing against so-called "elitists" - like city mayors and police captains - who would dare attempt to trample on our constitutional liberties.

Worse still, too many of our lawmakers in Congress equivocate on the question of whether they would support gun-safety legislation.

They try to defer any thoughtful conversation about the issue; often suggesting any gun-safety bill focus exclusively on mental health, which is a total cop-out.

Yes, the access and quality of mental health services in America still leaves much to be desired; and should be scrutinized.

But the issue is not only about preventing another Newtown, Aurora, or Tucson.

It's also about getting illegally purchased firearms off the streets of rural and urban communities, alike.

It's about preventing another Hadiya Pendleton.

It's about preventing another Brian Terry...

or Operation Fast & Furious.

So, why can't we agree to help the police from being outgunned by dangerous felons?

Why can't we agree to make suicides or acts of domestic violence by firearms preventable?

How many more people have to die before we can all agree that we need to take reasonable steps to reduce gun-violence?

It's been time enough.

Hotel Tangier Inaugural Podcast - The Social Media Revolution

No event occurs in a vacuum. The catalyst that has ignited passions throughout the Middle East began nearly two months ago in Tunis. Twenty-six year old merchant Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire after an earlier incident occurred where he was harassed and humiliated by city officials. As word of his act spread, Tunisians across the country cried out in anger against their government’s chief oppressor--President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. Using mostly digital handheld devices to record videos, footage of their protests were uploaded to the internet--and the people’s outrage spawned what is referred to as the “Jasmine Revolution”. Weeks of continuously violent clashes with Ben Ali’s security forces eventually drove the dictator into exile--halting his twenty-three year reign. Soon after, a regional wave of anti-government protests by citizens weary from generations of despotic rule ensued.

Last June--before the events in Tunisia--an Egyptian businessman was reportedly bludgeoned to death by two policemen in Alexandria. The cause of twenty-eight year old Khaled Said’s death was officially listed as asphyxia. Authorities suggested he choked to death while swallowing a bag of drugs he allegedly had been concealing while in custody. Countering those claims was a picture of Said’s battered corpse--which went viral after being posted on the internet. His friends and relatives believe he was murdered to stop the release of a video he supposedly possessed--depicting police corruption. Heeding calls issued via Twitter and Facebook, Scores of enraged protestors took to the streets to demand justice for Said’s anguished family. Social media was vital in publicizing those stories. Without it, the world may never have known about either incident.

The opposition movement that eventually toppled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s thirty-year regime was deeply rooted in social media. After his release from government captivity, the now famous Egyptian Google marketing executive--Wael Ghonim--revealed that he created the Facebook page We Are All Khaled Said--which he used to mobilize his fellow citizens, and organize mass demonstrations against the government. Recognizing social media’s effectiveness as a tool for dissidents to coordinate and synchronize their actions, the Mubarak regime cut internet service everywhere in the country--pinning its hopes on the blackout to disable the protestors.

The failed attempt to suppress the insurrection is believed to have resulted from Al-Jazeera’s round-the-clock coverage of the “Lotus Revolution”. Its status as the predominant satellite network in the region--as well as its good standing with the public--concerned the government so greatly, it moved to shut down Al-Jazeera’s Cairo office. Despite the restriction, its correspondents continued reporting on the crisis---which further emboldened the protestors.

Desperate to stem the tide of opposition threatening to engulf the regime, the government’s secret police and other Mubarak loyalists conspired to intimidate western journalists--to keep them away from Tahrir Square, where they later ambushed demonstrators, and tried to chase them away. Dozens of reporters were either attacked in the streets by angry mobs or seized by the police during the offensive. Some were brought to detention centers--where a number of them were interrogated, beaten, and kept in solitary confinement for several hours before being released. In response, the international community blistered Mubarak, and demanded all ruthless tactics to quell the rebellion cease. With every last arrow in his quiver deployed--and having lost the military’s political support--Hosni Mubarak conceded, and stepped down as president of Egypt.

In the hours following his unceremonious exit--Egyptian state-run media lauded the demonstrators who courageously faced down the regime’s brutal attempts at reprisal with largely nonviolent acts of passive resistance. At the crisis’ onset, the government operated network--Nile TV--spread disinformation and propaganda that belittled the tens of thousands of protestors in the city square, by labeling them as a small band of saboteurs and troublemakers.

Since Iran’s 2009 “Green Revolution”, social media has emerged as the primary weapon for the freedom movement that is now coursing through the Middle East. Tools of the twenty-first century are being implemented to upend decrepit, twentieth century, autocratic regimes. Like today’s flash mobs, activists are able to use social media to organize rallies and protests at a moment’s notice--which may catch government officials off guard--and potentially attract thousands upon thousands of participants. The rate at which the revolt has spread across the region is a reflection of digital technology’s incredible speed. Given the recent success of this model, future opposition movements will be expected to emulate it.

The Beast is Out of the Cage

"Cordoba House"..."Park51"..."Islamic community center"..."Ground Zero Mosque."

However the property in lower Manhattan that has polarized America's electorate is characterized, one thing appears certain: virtually everyone in the country has an opinion on the subject, and most polls suggest the majority is opposed to its construction.

For the people forever linked to one another by the loss of their loved ones on September 11th, the notion of an Islamic cultural center - which hardly qualifies as a mosque by any traditional definition - being erected two blocks from where the Twin Towers stood - where their friends and family members were slain - profoundly impacts their emotions.

Though lamentable, it'd be ill advised to pass judgment on those among them whose grief has bred immense distrust of those who practice the very faith the attacks were committed in the name of.

Try to imagine walking a mile in their shoes, if you dare.

Only, their heartache has been exploited by politicians like conservative blowhards Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Rick Lazio of late.

Their opportunism is without shame, and they've been among the most prominent figures to denounce the project.

The most vociferous opponent, however, is a little recognized overzealous right-wing blogger named Pamela Geller.

As the executive director of an anti-Islamic advocacy group named Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA); she is the chief bugler sounding the charge against the center's development.

Based on the views expressed on her website, the very presence of any mosque or so-called Islamic center - not merely the one whose proposed construction in lower Manhattan is hotly contested - poses a grave threat to both the country's security and its constitutional liberties.

Gellar portrays Islam as a barbaric religion absent of any virtue.

She asserts her ideology by displaying content which includes graphic photos of human remains that were shot in the aftermath of suicide bombings committed in Pakistan, testimonials of heinous acts perpetrated against (non-Muslim) Sudanese civilians by the Arab Janjaweed militia, and stories about honor killings committed right here in the United States; all of which are coupled with selectively chosen passages from the holy Qu'ran that reference the more rhetorically violent aspects of its teachings.

Combined, they depict a terribly frightening and unflattering image of a faith whose tenets - the belief in a single all-knowing and powerful God, the sanctity of Jerusalem, and a final Day of Judgment - are philosophically indistinguishable from those of its fellow Abrahamic religions: Christianity and Judaism.

These and so many other truths matter little now because the narrative has long been seized by the purveyors of religious intolerance, fear-mongering, and xenophobia.

They would impress upon on us the idea that western society and culture is being imperiled by the world's one and a half billion Muslims, yet the phenomenon of radical Islamic extremism that we as Americans have become all too accustomed since 9/11 was virtually without precedent prior to the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

Before being besmirched by his detractors, Park51 chief proponent Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf served with distinction as the spiritual leader of a Tribeca mosque located twelve blocks from Ground Zero, Masjid Al-Farah, since 1983.

Recently slandered as a "terrorist sympathizer," Rauf eulogized murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

The federal government has such admiration for his vision of a non-violent, tolerant, and inclusive Islam; many of his speaking engagements in the Middle East are financed by the U.S. State Department in a continuation of a message campaign first waged by the Bush administration to market a friendly image of America to the region's Muslim population.

The only gesture of compassion towards the families of 9/11 victims opponents of the mosque would be willing to accept is total acquiescence.

If this is to be the only resolution, then the real question is, as NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg asked recently, "...how big should the 'no mosque zone' be around the World Trade Center site?"

Muslims have been praying in the building located on the property of the proposed Islamic center for months now with hardly any acknowledgement of their presence.

Should they now be restricted from using the facility to practice their faith in order to appease the masses?

This is what some citizens are demanding in the city of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where the construction site for a mosque recently - and suspiciously - caught fire.

To commemorate the ninth anniversary of 9/11 this Saturday, a minister in Gainesville, Florida intends to burn copies of the holy Qu'ran.

A recently conducted Pew Research poll revealed that a 38% majority of Americans (compared to 30%) have an unfavorable view towards Islam; whereas, that same poll five years ago reflected a 41% (compared to 36%) favorable rating.

What has changed in that period of time?

Politics.

In the post September 11th world, the politics of making Americans fearful of one another, their neighbors, and that which they do not understand have supplanted the culture wars (abortion, gay marriage) that were used to great effect in certain parts of the country during the late 20th Century.

Islam has become the new Red Scare, and the American people’s fear of this illusive serpent that’s surreptitiously coiling itself around our constitutional liberties has masked the truth about the motives of those who proclaim themselves to be the vanguards of freedom.

If we are to continue to claim the mantle of exceptionalism among nations, we must recapture our focus, and center it on things of actual significance: jobs, clean energy, education, innovation.

That is unless we should discover that we've always been less than so.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

In my previous post, I suggested that President Obama's intimation that the creation of a government controlled public-option would not be a sticking-point in the ongoing negotiations between the Senate Finance Committee's "gang-of-six" on a health care reform draft bill was a shrewd tactic designed to galvanize his liberal base of supporters.

According to an article published today in the Washington Post, the White House has been taken aback by the fury expressed by its allies in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, AFL-CIO, et al. at the notion that a public-option may be scuttled.

An article in today's copy of the New York Times states that the White House has determined what they had long suspected, and quite frankly, feared: The Republican Party has no desire to forge bipartisan health care reform legislation, and seeks to politically damage President Obama.

Its claim has been advanced in recent days by the public comments of both Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on the palatability of any compromise bill to Senate Republicans. Additionally, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently wrote a letter to PhRMA CEO, Billy Tauzin, advising him against abiding by the terms of the agreement to reduce prescription drug costs that was reached between the pharmaceutical lobby and the president.

Unfortunately, President Obama has equivocated on his support for a health insurance exchange that includes a public-option, and now there is criticism abound regarding a perceived lack of intestinal fortitude by him.

I firmly believe that the president believes strongly in the merits of a public-option; as opposed to a cooperative. However, he seems to be willing, as a matter of practicality, to make some concessions in his effort to advance long advocated health care reform.

As a supporter of his, I would be extremely disappointed if he were to sign a reform bill that did not include a public-option, but I am not prepared to concede the public-option to either health insurance providers, corporately funded conservative interest groups, centrist Democrats, or Republicans without a fight. If Americans want a public-option, then they must be willing to go outside of their homes, beat the streets, and fight for it; because no one is going to deliver health care reform to them on a silver platter.

"I need your help. Change is never easy – and it never starts in Washington. It starts with you. I need you to knock on doors, talk to your neighbors, and spread the facts."

- President Barack Obama (Belgrade, Montana - August 14, 2009)

Public Debate

This past weekend, President Obama and officials of his administration suggested that a federally administered "public-option" is not an integral component for health-care reform legislation. Today, many of the president's liberal supporters are dismayed, if not outraged, that the White House may be intimating a willingness to concede on the creation of what they argue is a vital cost-controlling mechanism for any revamped health-care system. Some have said that any legislation devoid of a public-option that is enacted would not constitute reform.

I do not share these sentiments.

Contrarily, I wonder if President Obama is attempting to galvanize his liberal base; spurring them to mobilize and challenge the scurrilous accusations leveled at him by his political opponents.

One can only hope.

This Ain't No Game

I am neither an economist nor a financial expert, but I can say with total certainty that our workforce, the beating heart of America's economy, is dying.

Whatever the arguments against President Obama's stimulus plan, some qualified; others not, the government must act. The people demand it.

It can be agreed that robust debate and good faith negotiation are essential requirements for the passage of any legislation that can truly be deemed effective.

However, the arguments that are cited, either in support or opposition of a measure, must be relevant to the issue being addressed. Moreover, they must be dictated by the facts that bear themselves out over time; be it through the gathering of data, or mere observation.

These are the facts:

1. We are in a national state-of-emergency.

2. The size of America's economy is literally shrinking.

3. Only the federal government has the resources that are necessary to stem the tide of the economic tsunami that is threatening to engulf the country.

4. Government spending will incur greater deficits, and thus greater national debt; but the solution must be comparable to the size of the problem. Half-measures will not mitigate the damage that has already been wrought; much less reverse the effect.

5. If action is not taken soon, then our economy will collapse.

Please, don't take my word for it...

"The House stimulus plan will not reverse the current recession, but it will provide a vital boost to the flagging economy. Without stimulus, unemployment will rise well into the double digits by this time next year, and the economy will not return to full employment until 2014."

- Mark Zandi (Chief Economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com). "The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." Moody's Economy. January 21, 2009.

"We’re already closer to outright deflation than at any point since the Great Depression. In particular, the private sector is experiencing widespread wage cuts for the first time since the 1930s, and there will be much more of that if the economy continues to weaken.
As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out almost 80 years ago, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself. As dollar incomes fall in the face of a depressed economy, the burden of debt becomes harder to bear, while the expectation of further price declines discourages investment spending. These effects of deflation depress the economy further, which leads to more deflation, and so on."

- Paul Krugman. "On the Edge." The New York Times. February 5, 2009.

"CBO anticipates that implementation of H.R. 1 would have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years."

- Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. "H.R. 1, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." January 26, 2009.

"According to Gallup trends, the American public has been consistent in its reaction to the concept of a major economic stimulus package since the start of the new Congress in early January. A slight majority of Americans favor Congress passing such a plan...Moderate senators eager to contribute positively to the debate and to potentially influence the bill's provisions have made the case for a smaller version of Obama's package...However, at this point, the more talked-about $800 billion-plus plan receives slightly more public support than the smaller plan."

- Lydia Saad. "Public Support for Stimulus Package Unchanged at 52%." Gallup. February 5, 2009.

The oft-uttered refrain by the recovery plan's most vocal critics in Congress that economic stimulus must be "timely, targeted, and temporary" is mostly correct.

Nonetheless, the following should be noted:

"While there will be much more discussion about the size and mix of government spending increases and tax cuts to include, the House Democratic plan is a very good starting point. This is important, for while such debate is necessary it must be resolved quickly. Unless a stimulus plan is implemented beginning this spring, its effectiveness in lifting the economy will be significantly muted."

- Mark Zandi (Chief Economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com). "The Economic Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." Moody's Economy. January 21, 2009.

Stimulus now.

The Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama

President Barack Obama faces the most daunting challenges ever experienced by an American president in modern history. Our nation's armed forces have been stretched virtually beyond their capacity as they continue to prosecute two separate wars on two vastly different terrains. America's economy has been imperiled by a phenomenally crippling recession. The habitability of this planet is under increasing threat because of the radical changes to its climate. We are undoubtedly in the midst of a period lacking in certainty.

Barack Obama was not elected to the Oval Office with the expectation that he would work miracles. As he stated on the night of his election, "The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term...There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as president, and we know that government can’t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face."

In this era of immeasurable strife it is incumbent upon us to be patient with our government as it works diligently to resolve these conflicts.

It is also incumbent upon us to be demonstrative in the manner that we express our opinions on the myriad of issues that affect both our lives and livelihoods; especially when we take exception.

Americans should insist that their representatives in government act sensibly as they work alongside President Obama to address these concerns, and seek to work in concert with him whenever possible.

Liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, our fates are intertwined.