The Virginia Tech Massacre, The 2nd Amendment and the Coming Debate

As of my writing, there are 32 confirmed dead at Virginia Tech in what is the worst act of school violence in American History.

First, let me express my sympathy for all those involved. My thoughts go out to the students at Virginia Tech, both directly involved and those trapped in fear in their dorms - still not knowing if friends are among the dead. I cannot even begin to comprehend the anguish that parents and loved ones of those students at Virginia Tech stuck waiting to hear that their son, daughter, brother, sister, friend, is not among the dead or the wounded.

Second, let me apologize both for myself and on behalf of all of those that will in the coming days and weeks use this bloody backdrop to debate the state of gun laws in our country.

My impetuous for this diary is this statement from the White House:

A White House spokesman said President Bush was horrified by the rampage and offered his prayers to the victims and the people of Virginia.

"The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

I was amazed that even in the wake of this terrible tragedy, the politics of 'stoking the base' trumped humancompassion. Just hours after the shooting stopped, the White House felt compelled to remind 'the base' that the Republican Party supports everything that
the NRA tells them. Could this bit of political posturing not have waited until tomorrow? Could it not wait until parents had been notified?

I guess not. As per Redstate, it seems that Gun Control politics is the main story line of this tragedy.

From Redstate Poster CuttingCougar:

Obviously,
most of the facts are not yet known. Thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families.

But get ready for the nanny-staters and the next round of hand wringing over the second amendment. And get ready for willful ignoring of the fact that these are the same methods theIslamofascists use, and yet the far left wants us to sit out that fight.

Whatever happens, I'm sure it's Bush's fault.

That's right. Thoughts and prayers and all that, but the story her is thatthis'll lead to another effort to take our guns!

Another Redstate poster, David Kirby, had this to say:

Undoubtedly, the left will use this as ammunition for gun control. But I think it's the exact opposite. Put yourself in the situation of the victim in the residence hall. You're sitting in your room, probably just waking up. Someone walks in with a gun. Because of the law banning gun possession on campus, you only have one option: get shot.

Even if the victim had a gun, it's impossible for us to say that he could have reached it on time. But at least he'd have an option.

I don't know about the rest of those on the progressive side of theblogosphere, but my first thoughts (and only thoughts until I read Dana Perino's statement) were for the victims, their families and the students at Virginia Tech.

It seems that the other side of the blogosphere had a slightly different reaction.

I would imagine that this is because they know that every time a tragedy like this happens, it illustrates the complete failure of their position on gun control - yet rather than change their position they reduce human tragedy political problem. Their first reaction isn't sorrow or sadness or outrage or sympathy - it's to man thebarricades to defend their failed policy position.

I'll end with this:

For all those on the right wailing about how the left is subverting the 2nd Amendment, I will immediately drop any attempt to advocate for some sort of sanity in American gun laws - out of respect for the 2nd Amendment - if you immediately drop any attempt to co mingle religion and government, advocate for illegal wire tapping, allow for the unregulated use of 'Letters of National Security', deprive prisoners of the right to counsel or the ability to know the crime for which they are being imprisoned, the right to a jury trial, or the right to a detainment free of torture.

Virginia Tech School Shooting Second Amendment Gun Control

Democratic Defeatism

Mr. Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory has a wonderful post on the Baselessness of Defeatism among Democrats. An excerpt, though as with all his entries, you should read the whole thing:

...Americans didn't change their views because the media suddenly became adversarial or effective in its watchdog function (it didn't), nor because Democrats found a will or a way to provide meaningful opposition (they haven't), nor because the Bush administration's propaganda became any less ruthless or deceitful (it isn't). They changed their minds largely on their own, by simply looking at what is going on around them and using their critical faculties to compare what they see to the claims made by the Bush movement, and they have noticed the gaping disparities. And they are angry about it. Very angry.

The first time I was aware of what an election really meant for our country I had just started High School. Before then, elections were simply a time when the commercials on TV were terribly boring. When Clinton walked to re-election against Bob Dole in 1996, I was aware enough to form my own opinion about the candidates, (I liked Bill Clinton) though I was far more concerned with the worries and fears of a high school freshman than I was with politics.

Since then, I've watched my party, the Democrats, get beat routinely.

I didn't become a 'political person' until 2000 when I stayed up 'til 5 in the morning to find out if Gore beat Bush. When Gore threw in the towel in Florida, the tone for my entire political life was set: Republicans beat Democrats by being dishonest, cut-throat, better funded, and better at 'sound-bite' politics.

I've never seen Karl Rove lose.

Immediately after Kerry won the Democratic Nomination, he came to Harrisburg. I saw him speak to an excited crowd of 25,000 in a deep red part of my state. Months later, our hopes high to send W home after just one term (just like his father) Ohio replaced Florida and the losses continued.

I hope Mr. Greenwald will forgive me for not getting excited about the outcome of this election until the returns are in. I've been crushed to many times to raise my hopes. Democrats may be peaking at the right time, but I can't shake memories of Florida and Ohio.

Even charts like this feel like empty promises:

[Click to enlarge]
Republicans know that an opponent that expects to be beaten is already half way to defeat. Their talking heads have built a meme that purports that if Democrats don't win big, they are doomed to go the way of the Whig Party. If Democrats win control of the House by only one or two seats, the effort to paint them as losers, even in victory, will be strong.

On top of pre-existing Democratic insecurities, I watch the media attribute near mythic power to the Republican GOTV machine. Will this provide the cover needed for discrepancies between polls and Diebold machine vote tallies? We'll see.

Mr. Greenwald will have to forgive some of us 'Doubting Dems' for questioning the ability of the American Electorate to see the GOP for what it is. We've had 12 years of Rising Republicanism and voters have yet to repudiate it.

Hopefully now is the time.

Democrats Liberals 2006 Election

I am Proud to be a Liberal

Thanks to Shakespeare's Sister for pointing out the editorial Geoffrey R. Stone, law professor at the University of Chicago, has in today's Chicago Tribune. The majority of the article is a list of ten things that are central to Liberals.

1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)

3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; "one person, one vote;" limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people."

4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as "conservatives," share this value with liberals.)

5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people.

6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to "promote the general welfare."

7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.

8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)

9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.

10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: "Those who won our independence ... did not exalt order at the cost of liberty."

Stone acknowledges at the beginning that not every Liberal will embrace all of these tenets and that setting ten as the number is an arbitrary limit. Liberals embrace many varied and on occasion conflicting positions.

Stone ends his editorial with this:

Consider this an invitation. Are these propositions meaningful? Are they helpful? Are they simply wrong? As a liberal, how would you change them or modify the list? As a conservative, how would you draft a similar list for conservatives?

I would add this:

• Liberals believe that being a responsible world citizen, both individually and as a nation, furthers life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness both domestically and among all the people in the world.
  

• Liberals believe that future generations should not be shouldered with the costs of our lives today. Sustainability, protection of the environment, wise use of resources, and the responsible use of public funds is essential to the continued success of our nation and our world.
  

• Fundamentally, Liberals believe in the absolute equality of individuals. A person's worth is not defined by their wealth, their status, their lineage, their ethnicity, their sexual orientation, their religion or their nationality. The opportunities, rewards, services and protection of government and laws of the lands must be applied evenly and fairly across the entire population. It is the responsibility of the government to reach out to People and populations that are under-served by the government, to ensure that the people of America are treated equally by both government and in private enterprise.
  

If you're looking for something a bit shorter, more concise, John F. Kennedy provides this:

If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad; if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'

Oh, for a Democrat that could stand up and say that today...

Liberals Geoffrey Stone

Local News, Wingnut Press

Thanks Pam, for pointing out something taking place in my back yard that made it into the Agape Press:

Maryland County's Sex-Ed Material Not Yet Out of the Woods

CAUTION...This story contains terms that some may find offensive

By Jim Brown
September 19, 2006

(AgapePress) - A group that sued Maryland's largest school system over its controversial sex-education curriculum is applauding some proposed changes to the new curriculum and raising concerns about others.

Last year a federal judge issued an order blocking implementation of the Montgomery County, Maryland, sex-ed program. Michelle Turner is president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, one of the two groups that filed a successful lawsuit alleging the program denigrated conservative religious beliefs about homosexuality and contained misinformation about health risks posed by condom use.

[...]

"We're running into some concerns with the written part of the curriculum," Turner adds. "There still seems to be an interest on the part of the school system to introduce anal and oral sex."

According to Turner, liberal groups are still pushing for condom-based, homosexuality-affirming sex-ed in the classroom. For example, groups like the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and "Teach the Facts" want the county's new sex-education program to include discussion of anal and oral sex, she says. But if the changes advocated by those two groups are adopted, the citizens group leader contends the district may be in violation of the terms of last year's court-ordered settlement.

"It all depends on whether or not they are introducing homosexuality and homosexual acts and the homosexual lifestyle without telling students that it is possible to leave the lifestyle -- and that there are agencies and organizations that can assist with that," she says.

And yes, that big red warning was in the article.

It wasn't to long ago that I was in high school. I went to high school in Pennsylvania. The community was much more conservative than Montgomery County. The high school was literally right next to a cow field. When the wind blew just so, you knew it. And in that idyllic, pastoral version of the American High School, oral sex was something beyond common.

Montgomery County's sex ed program wants to address oral sex? GOOD! Most students (yes, most) are doing it. That's the facts on the ground. Students should know the risks and how to address them. And while I'm guessing anal sex is less pervasive, those who are having it should know what precautions to take.

That means condoms. I have yet to understand why schools shouldn't encourage condom use for students having sex. Do 'Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum' want students to end up pregnant or with STDs?

I would argue that they do. They want young people, especially women, punished for their sins. If that means they end up pregnant or infected, that's God's righteous punishment for sins of the flesh.

Vengeful Christianists aside, since when is oral sex (or anal sex for that matter) a 'homosexual act?' The sex lives of these people must be terrible. I mean, hell, if you want to wait until you're married, that's your business, but really! Not having oral sex because it's 'gay' is ridiculous. Can you say repression?

'Married and Missionary Only' efforts are the main thrust (ha!) of Agape's article, but the most alarming part is this:

"Last year a federal judge issued an order blocking implementation of the Montgomery County, Maryland, sex-ed program. Michelle Turner is president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, one of the two groups that filed a successful lawsuit alleging the program denigrated conservative religious beliefs about homosexuality and contained misinformation about health risks posed by condom use." Emphasis mine.

I have no evidence, but I'm guessing Montgomery County didn't write "thinking that sex is bad and that homosexuality is wrong is a foolish opinion held only by mindless twits stuck in the 18th century" into the curriculum. Presenting facts about practices the student population is engaging in IS NOT denigrating conservative religious beliefs.

It's frightening how successful mindless twits stuck in the 18th century have been in having any mention of something they find 'icky' removed from school curriculums.

Are these people afraid that their children will somehow discover that their parents have been keeping them in the dark all their lives? Are these people so afraid of their children thinking for themselves that they don't even want their children exposed to 'ungodly' ideas? If you're any sort of decent parent, your kid can go to school, hear that condoms are incredibly effective at preventing both disease and pregnancy, then come home and you, the parent, can explain to him or her that 'our family's religious beliefs teach us that even if the sex is 'safer' it should still be saved for marriage.'

Just because a kid knows what a condom is doesn't mean that he or she is going to start having sex! Knowing that there are homosexuals in the world doesn't turn a kid into one.

Luckily Montogomery County won't ever accept a 'abstinence only' approach to sex ed. There are lots of places that would. The kids living there are no less deserving of the facts than kids here in the rather progressive suburbs of D.C. Every time a young person who never had access to the information they needed ends up pregnant or with an STD, it's on the heads of people like Michelle Turner, president of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum.

Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum Sex Education Culture War

America's Four Gods

Money, Power, Status, and Success?

Not according to a new survey done by Baylor University, reported by the USA Today:

The United States calls itself one nation under God, but Americans don't all have the same image of the Almighty in mind.

A new survey of religion in the USA finds four very different images of God — from a wrathful deity thundering at sinful humanity to a distant power uninvolved in mankind's affairs.

[...]

Though 91.8% say they believe in God, a higher power or a cosmic force, they had four distinct views of God's personality and engagement in human affairs. These Four Gods — dubbed by researchers Authoritarian, Benevolent, Critical or Distant — tell more about people's social, moral and political views and personal piety than the familiar categories of Protestant/Catholic/Jew or even red state/blue state.

For example: 45.6% of all Americans say the federal government "should advocate Christian values," but 74.5% of believers in an authoritarian God do.

I like the fact that the study (and article) look at religion and belief not through labels but by examining patterns of belief. I was raised in the church, a centerist, mainline protestant one, and I'll be the first to say that all the Methodists in that one church cannot be lumped together, let alone all the Methodists in the United States.

Some findings:

• 10.8% of Americans have no religious affiliation.
• 12.2% of Americans believe a woman NEVER has a right to choose.
  
• Only 18.6% of Americans believe that God specifically favors the United States in world affairs. )I thought this would have been higher.)
• 82.9% want better efforts to protect the environment, including 75% of 'Authoritarian God' believers.
• Only 28.9% want funding for faith-based organizations.
• Only 20.3% of Americans believe that embryonic stem cell research is wrong.
• 57.8% of Americans believe the Federal Government should distribute wealth more evenly.
  

Some SCARY findings:

• 4 in 10 believe in "ancient advanced civilizations" a la Atlantis. (No wonder science is screwed.)
• 45.6% of all Americans say the federal government "should advocate Christian values," but 74.5% of believers in an authoritarian God do.
• Nearly 1 in 5 Americans has read at least one of the Left Behind books. (But 28.5% have read Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.)
  
• 69.9% of Americans want prayer in public schools.

The study was preformed by Baylor University, which is a Baptist affiliated school. More troubling, the survey was self selective: It was a 16 page questionnaire sent out at random. on 46% of those sent out (3,702) were returned (1,721). For a survey on religion, those least likely to spend the time filling out and returning a rather long survey would be those with the least interest in religion. I'm not accusing Baylor of twisting results, I'm just saying that their method might skew the results slightly. The survey's use of the word 'Church' exclusively, rather than 'house of worship' is a little problematic, though. According to the Baylor Lariat, the funding came from the Templeton Foundation which doesn't do much to encourage me either.

Overall, the study (and corresponding article) seem to make the point that BOTH 'Liberals' and 'Conservatives' are mostly believers, though they believe in different gods. I would like to see how the United States compares to other first world countries. According to this Lariat article, Baylor University plans to conduct the survey every two years.

If anybody has Lexis Nexisn and can provide a link to the actual paper, leave the link in the comments.

Religion Politics Conservatives Liberals

Our Iron Lady

Time has a profile of Nancy Pelosi:

"The 66-year-old San Francisco lawmaker is an aggressive, hyperpartisan liberal pol who is the Democrats' version of Tom DeLay, minus the ethical and legal problems of the former Republican House leader."

Overall, it's an even-handed profile. It shows an unapologetic liberal getting things done in congress. It points out the fact that there is no more logic in attacking somebody for being 'too liberal' than being 'too conservative,' if in a round-about way. It shows how opponents on both sides of the isle have tried to run against her a 'too liberal' and lost. That fact is one that the whole party would be better off having learned.

The profile really acts as an introduction to the woman that will be Speaker of the House. The first woman to be Speaker of the House. And that quote '... without the ethical and legal problems' was great.

Nancy Pelosi Democrats Liberals