I am a week late on this, but I feel the need to post anyway. For the record, my opinion hasn't changed since I first found out about the shooting. Of course the shooting is tragic - and a little scary for those of us that work for elected officials. But in the press the shooting was seen through the lens of a few different issues, which I will give my comments on.
Political Discourse
I think Jon Stewart handled this better than almost anyone (Obama's speech was pretty good, too, but his was more inspiring while Stewart was more honest and without pretense). Basically, I don't think there is any evidence that the shooter was inspired by over-the-top conservative rhetoric, and even if he claimed he was, I maintain that most people know that the commentary is nothing by hyperbole.
At the same time, I think our political rhetoric, while maybe not that unusual throughout our history, is ill-informed and hysterical. I think both sides are guilty. However - and feel free to take this with a grain of salt - I do think Republicans are worse and more hysterical. Or at least there are more lies and fake conspiracy theories than I remember coming from Democrats during the Bush Jr. years.
The point is that I would love it if we could have intelligent and honest debates about the issues. I don't intend to suggest that they should be dispassionate. They can be aggressive as long as they are not personal. It would be great if we lived in a world where we could fight political battles during the day and laugh about it over dinner and drinks at night.
Guns
I don't think guns are the big issue here. Granted, I support background checks and bans on assault weapons. But at some point, you won't be able to stop crazy people from getting a gun.
My bigger concern though is that most gun violence is not perpetrated by people with legal guns but by people with illegal guns. I don't care about guns in Starbucks or concealed weapons laws. I would much rather deal with laws to prevent people from getting guns on the black market.
This is a significant challenge though. Look around at activities that we have tried to ban and see if we have been successful. From prostitution to drugs to guns we are unable to stop market transactions that people want to engage in. This doesn't mean we should give up, but we need to realize that this is the challenge and is one that is far more difficult than our discourse suggests.
Congressman King's legislation is completely absurd and amazingly the rest of the GOP sees that. He wants to ban someone from taking a gun within 1000 feet of a judge or elected official. So King clearly wants to protect himself and people like him from guns, but seems uninterested in the hard fight to protect those that are actually dying from gun-related deaths - poor minorities in urban areas.
I still think that one of the best strategies for dealing with this would be to create a new gun rights group that protects rights of individuals that have passed basic background checks but is really tough on assault weapons and the black market. The NRA seems unwilling to help on that front - especially since the gun manufacturers don't care who buys their guns as long as they make money.
Sarah Palin, et al
Two quick things: Why do we respond and make a big deal about what the crazies say? Why are we obsessed with Sarah Palin's idiotic tweets? Why do we care about Glen Beck's absurd conspiracy theories? And why do we go crazy when Limbaugh makes another racist statement or bold-faced lie?
It's like training a dolphin - if you want it to stop misbehaving, ignore the bad behavior. Trying to condemn the bad behavior only gives it attention, which is what it really wants afterall.
Second - Palin's video after the shooting made it crystal clear to almost everyone that she cares most about herself. She wasn't confronting the issue. Instead she was playing the victim at a time when dozens of actual victims were dealing with a real nightmare.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Dear Conservative: Homeless
Dear Conservative,
It has been a while since I last addressed a post to you. But I feel I have an issue to raise: government spending - specifically social services spending.
Let me start by saying that I mostly understand the desire to reign in government spending. After all, being fiscally responsible is necessary in any facet of life. The problem though is how that desire is actually carried out.
First of all, when fiscal conservatives like yourself call for less government spending, rarely are you talking about the parts of government that are clearly public services - police, fire, transportation, water and sewer, or even military. Sure, in those areas you want to eliminate waste, and stick it to the unions sometimes, but you aren't really looking for deep cuts there. And let's be honest, both parties want to eliminate waste, which is why both parties employ budget analysts.
Instead, you are more often after services that don't benefit everyone but instead benefit those that need assistance. I gather that this feeling comes from two places. First, you think free money is a disincentive to work.
Let me comment on that briefly. I will acknowledge that people respond to incentives and so free benefits can be a disincentive to work. I imagine you would also concede though that some people want to work for its own sake but cannot find work (if not, I'd love to introduce you to the real world sometime).
If we accept both premises, than we accept that a policy that provides no help will hurt people that want to work but cannot and a policy that helps everyone will help some people avoid work. In this case, I would rather help those that might be undeserving than not help those that we would both agree are deserving. We'll never have a perfect policy - but ask yourself which way would you rather be wrong?
I would also say that you probably underestimate how many people want to work but cannot - I assume most people want to work even if they can stay home and make the same amount of money. Almost everyone values a job for its own sake - just like you and I do.
The second reason you want to see cuts in social services is that you think we are too generous in our services and could cut back while still providing basic services. That is the position of yours that I want to address because it is the most flawed.
Let me give you one example where we are not too generous and instead are far too stingy. Close your eyes and take an imaginary trip with me on the streets or subways of New York City. While we are walking, let's look for (as opposed to our usual habit of ignoring) the street homeless.
Okay, have you found a homeless individual yet? Let's see if we can describe him or her. Among other things, I assume you'll notice that the person's mental state is in some way troubled. You might in fact use the word crazy, although I would suggest the term mental illness*.
A quick survey of the research suggests that 25 percent of the homeless single adult population suffers from a severe and persistent mental illness. I think the number is higher among the chronically homeless in New York City. But let's focus on that 25 percent. Right now, those individuals are living on the street not because they are lazy or somehow value the freedom of the street, but because they need medical help. Unfortunately, we do not provide enough funding for the housing and health services they require.
I hope you see the point I am trying to make. The fact is that once you really look at the world around you - or maybe the world not around you - you will see how many people are in terrible situations that are not of their choosing. I am pointing to chronically homeless individuals, but we could also look at the foster care system, public assistance, affordable and safe housing, juvenile detention, and education. In each of these areas, more funding would help people that even you would agree are deserving and in need of help.
See, I am writing this to you because I know you share my values. I know that you are inspired to help those that are in need. I call it social justice but maybe you respond more to Jesus, who said that those that have helped the least among us have helped Jesus, and to them await the rewards of heaven. There are so many people in this world that need a hand - that need food, clothing, shelter or health support. Government is not always the solution, but when nothing else is working, we need to pool our collective resources and help.
*What if on your imaginary tour you came across someone that did not seem to have a mental illness? I would argue that the other 75 percent are unable to afford a place to live and are meanwhile choosing to avoid the shelters due to perceived or actual danger.
It has been a while since I last addressed a post to you. But I feel I have an issue to raise: government spending - specifically social services spending.
Let me start by saying that I mostly understand the desire to reign in government spending. After all, being fiscally responsible is necessary in any facet of life. The problem though is how that desire is actually carried out.
First of all, when fiscal conservatives like yourself call for less government spending, rarely are you talking about the parts of government that are clearly public services - police, fire, transportation, water and sewer, or even military. Sure, in those areas you want to eliminate waste, and stick it to the unions sometimes, but you aren't really looking for deep cuts there. And let's be honest, both parties want to eliminate waste, which is why both parties employ budget analysts.
Instead, you are more often after services that don't benefit everyone but instead benefit those that need assistance. I gather that this feeling comes from two places. First, you think free money is a disincentive to work.
Let me comment on that briefly. I will acknowledge that people respond to incentives and so free benefits can be a disincentive to work. I imagine you would also concede though that some people want to work for its own sake but cannot find work (if not, I'd love to introduce you to the real world sometime).
If we accept both premises, than we accept that a policy that provides no help will hurt people that want to work but cannot and a policy that helps everyone will help some people avoid work. In this case, I would rather help those that might be undeserving than not help those that we would both agree are deserving. We'll never have a perfect policy - but ask yourself which way would you rather be wrong?
I would also say that you probably underestimate how many people want to work but cannot - I assume most people want to work even if they can stay home and make the same amount of money. Almost everyone values a job for its own sake - just like you and I do.
The second reason you want to see cuts in social services is that you think we are too generous in our services and could cut back while still providing basic services. That is the position of yours that I want to address because it is the most flawed.
Let me give you one example where we are not too generous and instead are far too stingy. Close your eyes and take an imaginary trip with me on the streets or subways of New York City. While we are walking, let's look for (as opposed to our usual habit of ignoring) the street homeless.
Okay, have you found a homeless individual yet? Let's see if we can describe him or her. Among other things, I assume you'll notice that the person's mental state is in some way troubled. You might in fact use the word crazy, although I would suggest the term mental illness*.
A quick survey of the research suggests that 25 percent of the homeless single adult population suffers from a severe and persistent mental illness. I think the number is higher among the chronically homeless in New York City. But let's focus on that 25 percent. Right now, those individuals are living on the street not because they are lazy or somehow value the freedom of the street, but because they need medical help. Unfortunately, we do not provide enough funding for the housing and health services they require.
I hope you see the point I am trying to make. The fact is that once you really look at the world around you - or maybe the world not around you - you will see how many people are in terrible situations that are not of their choosing. I am pointing to chronically homeless individuals, but we could also look at the foster care system, public assistance, affordable and safe housing, juvenile detention, and education. In each of these areas, more funding would help people that even you would agree are deserving and in need of help.
See, I am writing this to you because I know you share my values. I know that you are inspired to help those that are in need. I call it social justice but maybe you respond more to Jesus, who said that those that have helped the least among us have helped Jesus, and to them await the rewards of heaven. There are so many people in this world that need a hand - that need food, clothing, shelter or health support. Government is not always the solution, but when nothing else is working, we need to pool our collective resources and help.
*What if on your imaginary tour you came across someone that did not seem to have a mental illness? I would argue that the other 75 percent are unable to afford a place to live and are meanwhile choosing to avoid the shelters due to perceived or actual danger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)