When Amateurs Govern

On September 11, 2012, the U.S. State Department needlessly lost a seasoned and effective statesman, Chris Stevens, and three of his diplomatic companions in a Benghazi, Libya terrorist attack. Since then, no substantive information has been released that would even remotely explain what happened and why. Ambassador Stevens didn't have to pay the ultimate price, especially through smoke inhalation. Some serious questions need answering:

Why wasn't the "safe room" safe, allowing it to be breached (?) and filled with smoke?

Where were the security personnel? The Marines? The local security force?

Where were the smoke hoods, N-95 masks, or even gas masks?

What was the evacuation plan, if any?

Ambassador Stevens appears to have been working out of a plain house, not worthy of being called an Embassy or Consulate. The safe room wasn't safe and the evacuation "plan" so shoddy that Stevens became separated from his companions. Where was his security detail? If someone were to die in this attack, it should be security personnel and not the top guy. Everyone should have been focused on protecting him and, apparently, no one was.

Expecting an Ambassador to operate in such primitive conditions in a former combat zone, teeming with known extremists, is unconscionable and the work of amateurs. What could the Secretary of State have been thinking? So far, we've not seen anything that remotely resembles even basic security procedures. Even Ambassador Stevens should have taken some precautions to protect his staff. How many other American diplomats are sitting in targets so "soft" they could be breached with BB guns and water balloons?

This carnage is appalling and the perpetrators need to be neutralized; and fast! The fact is they did their job and the American government failed to protect its own is a time of crisis through planning, training and protective security. This incident isn't just about losing a fine diplomat, it's about the image of the United States as weak, ineffective and governed by amateurs who can't anticipate and plan; who just react.

It's clearly time to appoint a Secretary of State who does more than attend meetings. Her boss must share in the shame of this tragedy as well. Perhaps it is time to replace our current government with a whole new set of amateurs. After all, they could do no worse.

ON GUN CONTROLS

Recent tragic multi-death shootings in America have served to showcase America’s love affair with guns and have elicited the emotional response to legislate stricter gun controls, if not to eliminate firearms ownership in America altogether (perhaps requiring a Constitutional Amendment).

CNN dedicated much effort to comparing guns per citizen in America to other countries. They even interviewed American gun enthusiasts, attempting to establish that all Americans are “gun crazy” and live in an “old West,” cowboy fantasy world of “shoot first, ask questions later.” Perhaps a few do…

With freedom, especially the kind Americans enjoy, comes increased opportunity for aberrant behavior. Crime flourishes when the counter forces are weak or tolerant. Crime can be heavily suppressed when civil liberties are suppressed (think Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia). Not many of us would vote for that!

The American Constitution allows, if not encourages, American citizens to protect their country and themselves by bearing firearms. It’s simply impossible for armed police and security agents to protect all citizenry from insane, aggravated or terrorist attacks. If only bad guys have guns, the security balance is unfavorable to the good guys.

To repeat an old cliche, “Guns don’t kill; people do.” If someone decides to kill, he or she will use whatever weapon is available: gun, knife, poison, rock, poison gas, radiation, explosives, etc. Certainly, if guns are readily available and accessible, they will be used more frequently because of their lethality, ease of use, accuracy and range. The question that screams for answering is “Why would someone want to kill another in the first place?”

People were murdered long before there were guns. Weapons evolved from sticks and stones to knives, spears, arrows, each more sophisticated and lethal than the last. Why did lethality develop so efficiently and rapidly? The easy answers are security, aggression, deterrence, etc. I submit that humans developed weapons to facilitate their need for dominance.

Let’s briefly explore “dominance.” Since dominance is a subset of ego, it’s no real surprise that most mass killers are male. Expanding the concept of “my father can lick your father” to extremes, we try to dominate others politically, socially and religiously. “Honor” races forward as an excuse for even killing one’s own children. Conflicts, like the Hatfield and McCoy feud (still smoldering?), pit honor and dominance above all else; even human life. Killing has become a shortcut to achieving dominance, replacing tolerance, negotiation and compromise. This transition has intensified as we increasingly lose our respect for animal, especially human, life. (It’s no accident that we’re hunting or displacing one animal specie after another into extinction.)

We can’t, and shouldn’t, legislate morals. Murder is illegal because it attacks the rules of order, the rights to life and the rights to security. Whether murder is sinful is not a case for the courts. Moral strength is important to the survival of any country, but it must come from the culture, the family and the religious sectors. I submit that all three of these sectors are complicit in the violence that rages in America (and other parts of the world).

If all of the world’s guns were eliminated, murder would still prosper; albeit more slowly. We have become a folk of resorting to violence, often mortal violence, as the first solution. We tend to kill ourselves and others for insignificant reasons or we exaggerate our circumstance so that killing becomes a “logical” solution (racism, jihadism). Imagine the paradox of killing someone so we can be rewarded by God in heaven.

Unless, there are major changes to how we think and how we raise our children, the carnage will continue. If we can learn to respect life and tolerate difference in our fellow humans, we will have begun the healing process. We can keep our guns under those circumstances, or not. It wouldn’t matter.

I am confident, however, that we can improve gun control, if only to prevent some killings resulting from passion, insanity, and radicalism and coupled with easily accessible and efficient killing weapons. The cost of effective and consistent control will be expensive and must be largely carried by gun owners themselves; hence, the taxes on gun sales and ownership.

Consider a few possible solutions:

·      Raise the minimum age to purchase and conceal-carry weapons (to 25?);

·      At buyer’s expense, perform a National Agency Check for all gun buyers  (this assumes that all national law enforcement agencies exchange information); any negative, including juvenile infractions, would trigger a prohibition to gun ownership;

·      Prohibit gun ownership for all who have violated any gun regulation;

·      Require all gun buyers to complete a short psychological survey to be reviewed by a professional not under the influence of the gun seller (FBI?);

·      Prohibit gun sales to anyone who is taking certain medications, especially to control psychotic or emotional issues; require a doctor’s attest to support a waiver;

·      Require strict gun registrations to be maintained by a central national agency (the FBI?). Create a nationwide database accessible to all law enforcement agencies.

·      Place a high federal tax on new and used gun sales (50% and 30% respectively?);

·      Place an annual federal flat tax on each registered gun (eg. $100);

·      Substantially increase penalties and fines for possessing an illegal weapon (citizens and sellers);

·      Make registered gun owners fully responsible for how their guns are used. They must report stolen guns prior to the commission of a crime;

·      Pace heavy penalties on gun owners who allow a gun to fall into the hands of a juvenile or person otherwise not authorized to own a gun;

·      Place enforcement and administration of gun controls on local police with FBI oversight;

·      Make ownership of any weapon capable of automatic fire illegal;

·      Limit the number of registered guns in a household to one handgun, one shotgun and one rifle per adult family member who is living at the residence (not for each adult family member);

·      Restrict hunting licenses to only those with registered weapons relative to the game to be hunted. Check registration before issuing the hunting license.

·      Require a proficiency firing range test per gun owned for all gun owners every five years;

Who Cares Who Mohamed Merah Was?

 Publicity is the oxygen that fans the flames of jihadism and terrorism. The French police and countless media have successfully propagated and encouraged further acts of terrorism through their prolonged and detailed coverage of the stand-off leading to the death of this vicious terrorist. Even al Qaeda received lots of great press and coverage that is sure to enhance their image as an organization with international reach. Merah is almost certainly a "lone wolf," grass roots terrorist, associated with al Qaeda only through self proclamation. There must be dozens of young, potential jihadists who were impressed by the way Merah went down; jumping out a window, "guns a'blazing." I'm sure that Merah's family and admirers will have a full scrapbook of media coverage to add to their Merah shrine; the shrine of a martyr. Do you sense that there's something wrong with this picture?

Certainly, the public needs to know about terrorist threats and acts so they can be aware that jihadists are still around. In fact, they're never going to go away, especially as long as their exploits are so skillfully chronicled, complete with names and pictures, by the media and the police. When it comes to terrorism, especially at the hands of the lone wolves, the police can't do it all. They need the eyes, ears and minds of the general public who must exercise "situational awareness." When's the last time you read anything about how to practice situational awareness, if ever? You should know a lot about it so Google it. Your observations could save a life, or many lives. You just have to learn a few simple skills and care. It's the caring part that will make you effective and valuable in the effort to combat terrorism. Give it a try.

A small, but potentially powerful, step in the right direction would be to have the media and police avoid pictures and names of known or suspected terrorists. Why enshrine them as martyrs? Why create the desire in others to step up to the terrorist window? In the business world, a company often pays huge fees to get their name or product mentioned as much times as possible in as many forums as possible. Repetition works and professional advertisers know it. Every mention of al Qaeda in the press or on TV enhances their image and improves their financing. As private citizens, we have to recognize the negatives associated with mentioning terrorists' names and publishing their pictures and stop expecting the media to feed our morbid curiosity. Think about it. Once we know the name of a terrorist and see a picture, we're not any better off. The friends and family of the terrorist, however, will use the publicity to enshrine the terrorist and recruit look-alikes. Let's work to short circuit the flow of terrorism. Every little bit will help.

Was It Racism?

I am sick at the loss of Trayvon Martin, especially because the media has disclosed something of the circumstances of his needless death. Any loss of life is devastating. I wonder, though, how many young Black Americans died since Trayvon that I know nothing about. Facts would probably support that many of them were killed by other Black Americans. Thank God, the vast majority of these senseless deaths were not racially motivated. But they happened in nearly total obscurity. That injustices exist is irrefutable. There are racial bigots that exist in all racial groups and their warped views simply can't be tolerated; zero tolerance. That Trayvon was the victim of racial bigotry just isn't clear. I wonder if Zimmerman could have made a racial assessment, given what a hoodie hides. I'm not suggesting in any sense that Trayvon's death was justified. It wasn't, and nothing can change that! This tragedy could have resulted from extremely bad judgment, fear, panic, inexperience, trigger happiness, or even anger. That race was the only, or predominant, factor just isn't clear and still needs to be established. Until then, racial rhetoric and demands for lynch-mob justice are premature and unfair. To characterize this as racial murder is as unjust as when it were true. We owe it to the memories of Trayvon to be sure his death serves to eliminate injustice and guarantee the American dream for all.

Putting a Republican in the White House

As the Republican presidential nominee race unfolds, it pretty clear that a single nominee won't have wide enough appeal to become the next (Republican) president. CNN reports that the supporters of Santorum and Gingrich are essentially interchangeable, but will not support Romney. I suspect Paul's supports would go either way. For the Republicans to run a viable candidate against President Obama, the running mate will take on an importance seldom seen. I believe the strongest Republican position would be to field a Santorum/Gingrich ticket. The appeal combination (and combined electoral votes) just might do the trick. As the country's vice president, Gingrich would find time to really work the Congress as only he could be able to do. Let's face it, no matter what a candidate promises and feels is important, Congress will ultimately decide what gets done. In my opinion, Gingrich has the best chance of getting Congress to support the president's programs. As we've seen recently, unless one party can control both the Executive and Legislative branches of our government, gridlock sets in and no much will get done. Isn't it a dirty shame that Democrats and Republicans just can't put aside self-serving party politics to do what is good for America; to be patriots?! What a concept.

Health Care in America

If you intend to build a building on sand, you'd better lay the correct foundation. It's not impossible, but a true engineering challenge. For some reason, we insist on developing a much needed health care program for Americans without even beginning to determine if there's sufficient foundation and infrastructure to support a viable program.

The famed and ill-fated "Obama Care" was developed by politicians for politicians in a void without so much as a glance at existing programs that have worked over many years. In nearly every viable health care program there is a partnership between government, health care providers and private insurance agencies. Government's role is to control the costs of medical treatment, not allowing them to spin out of control. Health care providers must accept a relatively narrow pricing scope for their services. Insurance companies must be both protected and controlled so they can make a profit while insuring the health of America. The government needs to get into the act of collecting payments from both employers and employees. Unfortunately, there will be a time period before the health funds will mature to the point that it can pay medical costs for all Americans. During that transition period, the government has to step in and pay the bills. This simple fact makes government control of costs imperative. I hate to imagine what administrative monster would have to be created, but such a huge and complicated program can never work without strong guidance and management.

I don't have solutions. It's clear to me, however, that an American medical care program is essential and way overdue. How to keep it out of the political process will be the greatest challenge. Building a painful and radical infrastructure of price controls will be an equally challenging problem. Administering and controlling it all takes the prize as the most challenging. I wonder how close we really are and if we have legislators willing to do the non-partisan things necessary to help and protect all Americans. Somehow, I can't believe it's possible. But we must!

Republicans

This year's Republican primary race is a trip. If we could combine all four of the remaining contenders, we would have a strong and invincible candidate to face President Obama in November. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.

Romney has very successfully demonized "insiders" and painted both Santorum and Gingrich with the broad-brush "insider" label. Even Paul is "tainted" by this image. How wrong can we be? In today's nasty political environment, an "insider" has a much better chance of getting his or her way with Congress. After all, the promises political candidates make are only as good as their ability to convince (or cajole?) Congress to pass the necessary legislation. Even then, we'll need a favorable Supreme Court to make the legislation stick.

Sound complicated? It is. Our form of government has become extremely complicated and interdependent on all three branches. No single branch can "make it happen" alone. If a presidential candidate makes a bunch of wild and wonderful promises, the reality is that they will only see the light of day if Congress so desires. Are you beginning to see how an "insider" may have a better chance of getting things done? Gingrich may not be the most favored candidate, but he is probably the more knowledgeable about how to get legislation passed. In fact, I bet he knows enough about the many secrets in Congress to get just about any legislation passed that he wants. Did you ever wonder why so many Republicans cringe at the thought of Gingrich as President?