Deserve What?

At the end of another media discussion about the failings of our Presidential candidates, one of the talking heads sighed and concluded, "The American public gets the kinds of candidates it deserves." Not the first time–nor most likely the last–hearing that.

Such statements are demeaning and off-putting. I'm not saying we deserve perfect candidates because we are a perfect people. People and nations are never perfect. But for the most part we are a decent people, trying our level best to make the good we are and have better, and to overcome what's wrong. We make mistakes, and sometimes worse than mistakes. But there is an impulse in the vast majority of us to create "a more perfect union." What we deserve is candidates who speak to our national aspirations, and who genuinely want to help us achieve them together.

When those who run for office are so compromised that we get lost in their faults and failures and no longer dare to entrust them with our hopes and dreams, we are getting far, far less than we deserve.

The Frustrating Hillary Clinton

I probably don't need to make public the fact that I plan to vote for Hillary Clinton in November. Not only do I think she is by far the best qualified candidate to serve as President, I also believe a Trump presidency would be disastrous for our country and world and the things I care about. And I am among those who believe that voting for either of the oft-mentioned third-party choices is not the way to go. Not only are they sadly lacking in qualifications, but Hillary Clinton will need every vote she can get to make it clear that our country does not want Donald Trump in the White House.

But I really wish there were something Ms. Clinton would or could do to make it easier for me to vote for her. For example, the email controversy. That it won't go away is in some ways as much her fault as it is the fault of her detractors. No doubt, there are people out to "get" her,  and they will not stop until they do.

Why did she use a personal email server in the first place? I've never understood it. You are one of the most influential persons in the whole world engaging in online communications about matters upon which the fate of millions depends, and you write from your home email? Come on!

But she did it. And now she tends to say things that make it worse, either because they are later shown to be untrue, or because they try to cast the blame somewhere other than with her. The latest example is claiming Colin Powell said it was okay. Did you ever let your kids off the hook because someone told them to do something they shouldn't have done? After a while most of us learn (usually the hard way) that such excuses hardly ever work. No she and Powell are into a "did not/did too/did not/did too" exercise.

I like Hillary Clinton for President. I like her a lot. But she is really frustrating...and the only real choice I have.

Presidential Vacations in a Changing Climate

I really do not mind that US Presidents take "vacations," since I cannot believe they are "vacations" in the sense most of us think of the word. I understand that they must choose locations where their security and the security of their families will not be compromised, and where they can be in touch with the whole world at any time they need to be. What fun is all that?

As to whether President Obama should have gone to Louisiana, the clear answer to that seems to be "No, not right away." All they needed was a whole 'nother set of complications to worry about in the immediate aftermath of the disaster.

Maybe we ought to spend our time evaluating politicians' responses to flooding in Louisiana (and to fires in California) by talking about what they plan to do to deal with climate change, since these two kinds of natural catastrophes are clearly what we've been told for decades that climate change will bring. The denial of a changing climate can no longer be accepted; the reality of it threatens us all. Who is going to lead us toward at least slowing it down? (Hint: not the guy who wants to revive the coal industry.)

No Ideas for the Future? Focus on the Past!

USA Today reports that Benghazi will be "the focus of one of the nights at next week's (Republican) convention."

It has struck me the past two weeks that although the focus of the nation's attention has been on bloodshed in our streets, the focus of the Congress has been on Benghazi and Clinton's emails. Even granting that these are important issues, they are in fact in the past, and nothing can undo them. We can learn from them, of course; but it is clear to everyone that the constant attention to them is not driven by what can be learned from them but by who might be ruined by them. The Republican leadership, lacking ideas about how to solve current problems, concentrates on selectively-chosen past mistakes.

The fact that the RNC will spend one whole evening of its air time on Benghazi is further proof of the lack of ideas in the Trump camp or in the leadership of the Republican party. It's disgusting.

Independence

This is what you shall do: Love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to every one that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the mothers of families, read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul; and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body.

Walt Whitman; Preface to 1855 edition of Leaves of Grass

Grabagun, Rob Duran!

A couple of days ago a Facebook friend shared a post by a man named Rob Duran. Mr. Duran began by saying he felt he had to "fix a few people on here because emotions are high and stupid shit is being supported." He wanted to "fix" folks confused about what is and what is not an assault rifle. As a guy who can't remember the last time I even held a gun, much less shot one, I am among those who need fixing.

Mr. Duran offers a brief history assault rifles, particularly AK-47s and M-16s, and writes that they have been banned for civilian use by several acts of Congress as far back as 1934. He then continues with information about the AR-15, stating that "it does the same thing as any other standard rifle." He claims that anyone who thinks the AR-15 is anything more than a standard rifle sporting some "aesthetic differences" is "pants-on-the-head-retarded." The AR-15 "isn't more dangerous that any other standard rifle," and the only reason it gets used so often in shootings is because it is "the most popular rifle in the country...the iPhone of rifles...affordable, accurate...(and) easy to personalize because everyone makes accessories for it."

Not wanting to be guilty of supporting stupid shit, I decided to do a little research via the Internet on Mr. Duran's views. If this is such a clear matter, why are so many otherwise well-informed people ignorant about it?

There's a lot out there about the issue, but perhaps the most interesting to me is the website maintained by Grabagun, a business that makes it as easy as possible to do just that in exchange for cash. I will simply quote from that website's introduction to its ads for "Complete AR and AK Rifles":

"To the average gun enthusiast, it is sometimes difficult to tell the differences among the various types of ARs and AKs. This issue is especially true when it comes to the AK-47 and the AR-15. It can be easy to get these confused, as many of the world’s strongest militaries are using one or the other, making it difficult to differentiate between the two.

"The AK-47 is the top-selling weapon on the globe. It is used by militaries and civilians the world over. The AR-15, however, is the top-selling rifle in the United States. It is a little longer and lighter than the AK, and fires more rounds per minute. The AK is a little less expensive, generally speaking, and is favored by European militaries more so than in the United States.

"Regardless of where your heart lies, the fact that a debate still rages on between these two shows the fierce loyalty they inspire. The same can be said for a great number of AR and AK rifles available to the public."

I conclude that since "the average gun enthusiast" is sometimes confused about the differences between "various types of ARs and AKs" (maybe because of the "accessories" easily available for the AR-15?), that I may be forgiven if I am "stupid" about the whole topic. Whatever, the people at Grabagun do not think the differences between the two are so great that they can't list both under one category. Maybe they need educating.

I am, in fact, willing to be educated by Mr. Duran himself if he'd like to try, although I don't respond well to teachers who consider me stupid, or an idiot, or (I can hardly type this a second time) "pants-on-head-retarded."

A Comprehensive Census of the Internet

The internet is largely populated by many who know everything and few who forgive anything. The Cincinnati Zoo story is but a single example.