Liberal College Kid

Rudy Giuliani is the Republican front runner nationally, but trails Mitt Romney in New Hampshire. Here is his first ad of the campaign which will air in New Hampshire. In the ad he discusses his great success as a mayor in pre- 9/11 New York.

He tells us we are not to expect perfection, which I can understand. In fact, I don’t think there’s a person in this country that has come to expect perfection from any President. Our current President is now the most hated since the advent of the Gallop Poll, and the one before that lost any chance of being regarded as one of our best Presidents because he hooked up with an intern and then lied about it. The notion that Rudy even needs to tell us he’s not perfect seems silly, so I’ll leave it at that.

The rest of his message is hard to argue with. New York really was a crime and drug ridden place when he became the mayor. Those who have read Freakonomics know there are several theories as to why crime dropped off in New York. But for argument’s sake lets just say Rudy led New York out of a dark time. He’s still a lousy candidate.

First of all, and I hate to go there but I must, is the lisp. I’ve said it on this site before, why can’t the President be the brightest and best spoken person this country has to offer? Every time he says “city” I shudder. However, that’s not a fair argument, it is not his fault he doesn’t speak well, and if the Decider has taught us anything, its that speaking well is not a requirement to be President.

Rudy, however, has many flaws as a candidate. First, his experience is in the executive realm of governance, but he was a mayor. Granted the mayor of the largest city in America, but nonetheless he was only a mayor. Now I know there isn’t a list prerequisites somewhere for President, but I would hope that the American people would not want someone who’s claim to fame is being in New York during 9/11. Being New York’s mayor at a time of crises does not make someone qualified for our nation’s highest office.

Then comes Rudy’s baggage. This recent story about Judith Regan won’t help matters much. As the Huffington Post said:

“Judith Regan, the former book publisher, says in a lawsuit filed yesterday protesting her dismissal by the News Corporation, the media conglomerate, that a senior executive there encouraged her to lie to federal investigators about her past affair with Bernard B. Kerik after he had been nominated to become homeland security secretary in late 2004.

The lawsuit asserts that the News Corporation executive wanted to protect the presidential aspirations of Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Kerik’s mentor, who had appointed him New York City police commissioner and had recommended him for the federal post.”

Just another thing in the list of Rudy’s skeletons. Here I thought marrying his cousin was going to do him in, he’s actually picked up the endorsement of Pat Robertson even though he’s been Pro-choice and Pro-gay rights in the past. He’s also supported gun control, something his party hates, and he’s pro-immigration, something the racist side of the Republican party will not tolerate. And yes, I will make the claim that the anti-immigration movement in this country is based on racism.

For a more (read SCARY!!!) conservative take on Giuliani check out this article at Human Events.

All this said one would think the Republicans would make their way to another candidate. Regular readers know my stance that the only real Republican candidate in the race is Ron Paul. The fact that Giuliani keeps hanging around does give me some hope though: if the Republicans are ready for a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-immigration candidate there’s no way the Democrats can lose in 08!

• Leave a comment... (1)

The Virginia Tech shootings were down-right terrible and I am - like most others - struck by the senselessness of the incident. My thoughts go out to the victims and their families…and the family of the shooter, for they must confront the horrific deeds of their kin.

For the rest of the country, we must come to terms with our obsession with blaming guns. Yes, the media has already brought up the issue of gun control and how it could have prevented this incident and I think their argument is totally flawed. Yet, it won’t be long before politicians latch on to this issue as a possible campaign promise for the 2008 Presidential election. This is a mistake. Guns are the least of our concerns…instead proper care for the mentally unstable and an investment in the mental health field is what should be the topic of debate on CNN, MSMBC and Fox Noise…but mental health isn’t sexy. Guns are sexy…they make a lot of noise and have been glorified by movies for decades (speaking of that, if we’re going to attack radio hosts and rap music for offensive language, can we begin attacking movies for the over-simplification of gun use?).

Let’s begin from the start - The Brady Bill and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. For those of you unfamilar with the Brady Bill, it was named after White House staff member James Brady who took a bullet for Reagan during the failed 1981 attempt on the President’s life by John Hinckly. A major component of the Brady Bill was almost immediately ruled unconstitutional for it’s violation of federalism and the 10th Amendment because it required the states to conduct lengthy background checks to comply with the federal law. The Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that this section could not be enforced but that states were welcome to continue conducting them but this became a non-issue when the Gun Control Act of 1998 required Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers to check if the buyer is eligable to own a gun. The VT shooter passed his background check according to CNN and the purchase was unremarkable according to the shop owner. In the end…the Brady Bill did not prevent the VT shootings…even if the background check were longer and more in-depth, it would not have prevented this incident.

But what about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB)? One of my peers has already commented about the shooter’s usage of a high capacity magazine, which carried 15 bullets or more…possibly as many as 30. Many members of the media and the government will simplify the issue by saying - “If we still had the FAWB, this could have been prevented.” First let’s discuss what the FAWB did. Passed as a part of a crime control bill as a knee-jerk reaction to the crack-dealing violence of the late 80s and early 90, FAWB created a category of firearms known as “assault weapons” and prohibited their manufacture. “Assault weapons” were defined by their cosmetic features, which often included features that made them look like military weapons. None of these weapons were automatic - as fully automatic weapons have been restricted since the 1930s - but just standard semi-automatic weapons…meaning, one trigger pull - one bullet. These physical features did not necessarily pertain to their deadliness…for example, weapons with bayonet mounts were banned (When did you ever hear of a drive-by bayoneting?). As I mentioned earlier, the manufacture of large capacity magazines were also banned along with these “dangerous guns,” but “pre-ban” magazines and guns were permitted. Simply the creation of new high capacity magazines and scary-looking guns was banned - nothing more. Of course, the price of the banned weapons went up considerably. The Republican-controlled Congress and President Bush allowed the ban to lapse to make sure they got the NRA vote in 2004.

Even with the FAWB, you could still easily purchase a .50 caliber hunting rifle which was much more accurate and deadly than any of the weapons banned by the bill. Furthermore, most of the weapons that were covered in that bill were cheap, inaccurate weapons most likely to be in the hands of someone black, young and poor…but were rarely used in killings (specifically the much detested “drive-by shootings”). These guns were made infamous by their use in rap music videos and movies like “Menace 2 Society” and films of the sort.

The government cannot ban guns outright. Aside from the Constitutional ramifications, think of this country’s previous attempts at prohibition of an item…alcohol and the “War of Drugs” are clear examples of how impossible it is to completely outlaw something. I honestly believe state governments should make it mandatory to take a gun-safety course before one can purchase a gun. These classes would be paid for with a small (10 dollar or so) tax on the sale of every firearm. While the individual is taking the gun-safety course, an intense background check would be in progress - taking several days or weeks. In the case of individuals buying or selling guns illegally – make it a federal crime and make the sentence a minimum of 40 years or something crazy like that and it will cut down on illegal sales and hopefully some gun-related deaths…but mass shootings like VA Tech will still occur because of the real issue at hand here: mental health.

This country has serious mental health problems and we often ignore them. The blame is always deferred - it was an abusive parent, it was the ease of getting a gun, it was the campus police for not locking down campus. No, it was a health issue…like someone dropping to the floor with a heart attack, this guy had a serious chemical imbalance which resulted in a reaction of this nature…a break with reality, depression, obsessive-compulsive behavior, etc.  Reports are now surfacing of disturbing essays which were written for a creative writing class.  And his former room mates are on CNN, right now, recalling Cho’s “imaginary girlfriend” and having to call the cops when he harassed a girl to the point of tears. Let’s be honest here, if we had the mental health crisis under control - we wouldn’t have to worry about gun control.

Finally, I will leave you with a more radically political quote:

“Any unarmed people are slaves, or are subject to slavery at any given moment.” - Huey P. Newton

• Leave a comment... (5)

The coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings has been what one could expect from what is being touted as the largest shooting incident in American history.  Of course since the release of the killer’s name, Seung-hui Cho, the media has focused on his disturbing writings, suicide / why he did it note, and his gun purchases of the last two months.

The more disturbing topic that has been brought up, especially in the conservative media, though, is the idea that Virginia Tech is at fault.  This university has 26,000 students that attend it.  One does not close down a city when a shooting has taken place, nor should a school of the same size be expected to do so either.  Further, there is really no means of mass communication on universities.  Some buildings have intercoms, but most do not.  Truthfully, sending an email to every student probably is the quickest and most effective way of communicating with a student body.  The campus police who responded to the first incident concluded, based on the clues on hand, that this appeared to be a domestic dispute and acted accordingly.  The actions of Seung-hui Cho thereafter could not have been expected by campus officials.

What this boils down to is that this tragic event can be blamed on one person: Seung-hui Cho.  An English major who had immigrated to the United States with his parents at the age of eight.  He was a legal resident alien, not a citizen.  Regardless of his citizenship, his actions are without question one of the most diabolical events in modern history, and it is unacceptable that people are trying to blame this tragic event on the university.  We do not plan for the unexpected, and we certainly do not plan for the unimaginable.

I would like to propose something else for the conservative media to examine.  Tell me why, in this country, someone who is not a citizen can buy guns when they can’t even vote?  It is time for America to reexamine its beliefs and the freedoms that are truly worth protecting in this country.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I have a bone to pick with the media for the way they’ve sensationalized the tragedy at Virginia Tech but I’ll save that topic for another time. What is currently bothering me more than the complete lack of dignity with which the media is treating this atrocity is the way gun rights groups have come out on the offensive with such vigor. The website newsbusters.org, which I can always go to if I’m looking to get good and mad at conservatives, is a prime example of the way the Right has reacted to the mere suggestion that maybe letting the Assault Weapons Ban expire was a bad idea.

When, in 2003, there was a rash of deaths in nightclubs (the fire at the Great White concert in Rhode Island, the trampling deaths after pepper spray was used in a Chicago club) people, rightfully, asked if new policies should be put into place at nightclubs and debated if new restrictions should be placed on using pyrotechnic displays in enclosed areas. When SUV’s decided, seemingly all at once, to start rolling over and causing deaths across the nation people demanded that changes be made in order to increase the safety of these vehicles. After September 11th the government created an entire new cabinet position to deal with the problem of terrorism. The point is that we Americans are problem solvers. We see something wrong, we want to fix it, conquer it, take care of it. It’s our Manifest Destiny in the 21st century, the West has already been tamed so now we’re forced to get our kicks out of regulatory solutions which are aimed at making people safer, more productive, have a better quality of life, etc. Until, that is, it comes to gun control.

I’m not going to get started on the fact that the Bill of Rights grants the right to bear arms because a “well regulated militia” is “necessary [for] the security of a free State” (the next time Bush calls upon the New Hampshire Volunteers to extend their tour of duty in Iraq I’ll change my tune on this one) because that gets into the intent of the Framers and is too lengthy a discussion to have here. What matters is this, Cho Seung-Hui (the killer), had no need to have a gun, let alone two. The fact that news outlets reflect the views of common Americans and ask “will this lead to a change in gun control policy” isn’t politically motivated at all, it’s a logical question to ask after such a horrific event. Conservative sites, such as Newsbusters, however, apparently see this as a blatant attack on their civil liberties and they’ll be damned before they let this outrage go unchecked.

Newsbusters has said that the main stream media (code for “liberally biased media”… hey at least they concede that Fox isn’t main stream) has used this attack as “springboard for their attacks on guns” and that it “smacks of political opportunism”. I never knew that it “smacks of political opportunism” to ask why Virginia has few restrictions on gun purchases and doesn’t require a license to own one. I didn’t realize that it’s obviously a politically motivated attack to wonder why this student was able to get two guns and why he may have had extended ammo clips which can hold up to 30 rounds. Nor did I realize that I’m trying to stir up trouble by asking the follow up question of why on earth is it ever necessary to have a hand gun that hold 30 rounds of ammo. Newsbusters instead decided that it’s not the fact that guns are so readily available at all, rather, it’s our immigration policy that should be blamed. That’s right as of the time this article was being written Newsbusters had yet to update its article which claims that “it has been revealed that the killer is a Chinese national here under the student visa program to study in the USA”. The article then goes on to question why the US is so relaxed in its handing out of visas to foreign students, especially from “one of out ostensible enemies, China”. Apparently the site doesn’t feel the need to retract its statement that the student was A) Chinese (he was South Korean, I’m pretty sure we’re friends with those guys) and B) Here on a student visa (he was a resident alien) because, well in the end it doesn’t matter. Why doesn’t it matter?

It doesn’t matter because, according to Newsbusters as well as some other conservative groups, “there is no escaping the common sense realization that if some of the other students were armed, this murderer might not have been able to take out 30 some people without some response to his actions”. I’ll give you some time to read that again and try to comprehend how on earth that makes sense. Conservatives are claiming that if this tragedy teaches us anything it should be that we need to further deregulate gun control. The argument goes like this: Surely if we gave more people guns then someone in one of the classrooms would have had one and would have been cool headed enough to take out the killer before he was able to claim the amount of lives that he did. How is this more of a “common sense realization” than the one that maybe we should restrict access to guns? Conservatives somehow fail to realize that there will always be mentally unstable, angry or just plain evil people in this world. What they don’t understand is that if we make it difficult or impossible for them to get their hands on a weapon that can kill so easily we will be making our nation safer. The argument that if you restrict guns only the criminals will have them is the most defeatist argument ever. It’s like saying “it will be too hard to do so we might as well not even try”. It’s time that we as a country change the antiquated notion that everyone should have a gun. It’s a right that, I for one, have no problem giving up.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Today, April 16, 2007, the largest single shooting in American history took place on a college campus.  More than 50 people were killed or injured, 32 are dead at the time of this writing.  This horrific event is yet another in the chapter of school shootings, although this one is very different: it’s not a K-12 school.

Currently we know very little about the alleged killer and his motives.  Until more information becomes available, we will not comment on the suspect.

The idea, though, of someone coming on campus and murdering two people, than 30 more two hours later is unacceptable.  The school notified students via email about the first shooting while the second was taking place.  I will not deny that this does indicate a lack of planning and insight on the part of Virginia Tech University; but it is not the university’s fault that this happened.

If this event does not start a massive gun control effort, I fear we never will.  After Columbine, people thought there would be a gun control discussion.  We have actually now regressed from even that event, as the Republicans two years ago allowed the Brady Bill (which banned assault weapons) to expire.  Apparently, the clip that the alleged shooter used in one of his guns was illegal under the Brady Bill, but is now available for purchase.

We are not in the Wild West.  We are also no longer privately responsible for our own safety as both the military and police force are extensive.  It is time that America enacts real gun control that will stop people from getting guns who should not have them and who do not need them.  We have more deaths by shooting in this country than anywhere else.  And no, we do not own the most guns; we simply don’t have responsible law makers protecting us as best they should.

We at liberalcollegekid send our support to Virginia Tech and those impacted by this terrible tragedy.

• Leave a comment... (1)