American Gun Culture And The Murder Of Trayvon Martin

Trayvon Martin's death was the byproduct of the US gun culture. George Zimmerman lived out the fantasy that so many other gun fanatics in America share: chasing down a young black male when, as he perceived it, law enforcement had failed. And because of Florida's revolting, NRA-inspired "stand your ground" law, prosecutors will have a hard time proving the obvious: that Zimmerman gunned down Martin in a cold-blooded act of murder.

Americans are obsessed with the right to bear arms. Their obsession, however, comes at a time when gun ownership is nothing more than a recreational activity. It is a hobby. We don't live in the wild west. We pay for police officers, at least until the same people who are the most fervent "gun rights" advocates undermine the public sector to the point that state law enforcement becomes a thing of the past.

Our nation's obsession with guns is a symptom of America's collective arrested development. We're a country of overgrown children thinking we're playing cops and robbers. We can disguise it as a "constitutional right" or "self-defense," all we want. But let's not fool ourselves. We think guns are fucking cool, consequences be damned.

Blame the NRA. Blame the Tea Party. Blame the Republicans. They've made advocating for gun control an untenable position in politics. And blame the people who support these gun policies that lead to tragedies like the killing of Trayvon Martin. We should be ashamed. 

This story, however, won't prompt any changes in policies or a substantive discussion about our gun laws. Trite slogans like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" will rule the day. Compassion and common sense, once again, will be cast aside. The powerful interests and petty individuals obsessed with their constitutional right to a hobby will prevail. Trayvon's story will be gone in a couple more news cycles. Yet the threat from individuals like George Zimmerman will remain.

Sign Of The Times ...

Bob Englehart, Cagle

Don't Request A Cover From Bradford Cox ...

I saw Atlas Sound in Cleveland last week. There was certainly some playful interaction between Cox and the crowd, but nothing like this. At a show in Minnesota, an audience member requested 'My Sharona.' Cox obliged by performing a twisted one-hour rendition of the song. It was a memorable performance, to say the least.

Via Pitchfork

Election Results Forthcoming ...

Mr. Fish, Truthdig

Breaking News ...

If elected, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum vows to outlaw dancing. Shrewd move, considering what happened last time someone tried that.

Atlas Sound Was In Cleveland Last Night...

A Song ...

Nicolas Jarr's 'Space Is Only Noise If You Can See.'

On Andrew Breitbart

Conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart represented the worst in American politics. During his short time in the national spotlight, Breitbart managed to poison our country's political debate and ruin people's lives solely for his own benefit.

The self-described "reluctant culture warrior" was most famous for publishing misleading films that appealed to a mainstay of our country: racism. Breitbart published a video by conservative "filmmaker" James O'Keefe that eventually led to the collapse of Acorn, an organization that worked in underserved neighborhoods and assisted poor people and minorities. Breitbart also published a video that led to the firing of Shirley Sherrod, an African-American official from the USDA. The unifying theme of these videos was simple: race baiting. And, in the conservative media sphere, this can only garner one more support.

Which alludes to the real reason for Breitbart's provocations: His devotion was more to himself than the causes that he championed. Breitbart would say anything to cause a stir. His right-wing contrivances were simply the vehicles that allowed his star to shine the brightest.

Regardless of his motives, Breitbart's left an impact, however temporary, on American politics. In his brief window of fame, his actions created a culture of fear which prompted knee-jerk reactions by government officials in order to avoid being accused of "reverse racism." He succeeded in restricting the scope of public discussion and, in the process, bringing a dimwit version of conservatism even further into the mainstream. With his passing, American politics is a little better today.

What I Witnessed Last Night ...

I made the pilgrimage to New York City to witness Bjork's 'Biophilia' at the Roseland Ballroom. Simply put, it was phenomenal. Here is a video of 'Thunderbolt,' performed last November, similar to what I saw last night. 

Putting The Saving American Democracy Amendment In Perspective: A Look At Ratification And The ERA

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court of the United States held that political spending by incorporated entities is protected speech under the First Amendment. The Court held that the government may not limit such expenditures, so long as money is not given directly to candidates. Thus, a corporation may spend unlimited amounts of money to “indirectly” support its candidate of choice.

The Supreme Court's decision created a seismic shift in the American political landscape. We've witnessed wealthy donors single-handedly propping up the flailing campaigns of their candidates of choice, and bombarding the airwaves with attack ads. Super PACs have proliferated. In the last two years, these groups have raised almost $200 million. Demos reported that “[m]ore than half of itemized Super PAC money came from just 37 people giving at least $500,000.” Furthermore, a substantial amount of Super PAC money is untraceable.  

Citizens United has strengthened the worst elements of American politics. This decision threatens to hasten the unraveling of our democracy by further marginalizing the average voter while expanding corporate dominance in our elections. It all but guarantees that a handful of individuals will have more power than ever to decide who is elected to office. 

Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) has issued one of the strongest responses to Citizens United. He introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn the Court's decision. This is, after all, the only option opponents to Citizens have, aside from waiting for a new Court to overturn the decision. Sanders sums up his amendment as follows:

• Corporations are not persons with constitutional rights equal to real people.
• Corporations are subject to regulation by the people.
• Corporations may not make campaign contributions or any election expenditures.
• Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.

Amending the Constitution is, obviously, no simple task. Article V governs the process. It lays out two methods of proposing amendments. Congress may propose an amendment to the states with two-thirds approval of both houses. All of our amendments have been proposed this way. Alternatively, two-thirds of state legislatures may call a constitutional convention to propose an amendment. This has never been done. 

Ratification must follow proposal and, as with proposal, there are two ways to do it. Three-fourths of the states must ratify a proposed amendment either by way of their legislatures, or by holding a constitutional convention. Only the 21st Amendment, which abolished prohibition, was ratified by way of convention.

To illustrate the difficult path that Sanders' amendment will have to travel, it's worth revisiting the battle over the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The ERA was written by suffragist Alice Paul in 1921, and first introduced in Congress in 1923. Its introduction followed the 1920 ratification of the 19^th Amendment, which extended equal voting rights to women. It wasn't until 1970, after concerted actions by women's groups that included the instrumental Women's Strike for Equality, that Congress began hearings on the ERA. Two years, Congress passed it with two-thirds majorities and presented the amendment to the states for ratification. The text of the amendment is as follows:

• Section 1. Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.
• Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
• Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Congress imposed a seven-year deadline for the states to ratify the ERA. Even after Congress extended the deadline for three more years, the ERA only received 35 of the 38 states necessary to ratify the amendment. Some of those states have since rescinded their ratification, while others have amended their state constitutions with language similar or identical to the ERA. The ERA has been introduced during every session of Congress since 1982.

If the states couldn't even agree on an amendment that affords women basic formal equality under the law, they are unlikely to agree on the obviously contentious Saving American Democracy Amendment. It's certainly not impossible. We have, after all, amended our Constitution seventeen times since the initial ratification of the Bill of Rights. Yet in a highly polarized political climate, let's not expect much progress in the near future. Stay tuned for an upcoming post on what we can do in the meantime.

On The Prop 8 Ruling ...

In light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling on Proposition 8 (unconstitutional), it's worth considering the case's outlook if it finds its way to the Supreme Court. I wrote about this last November when the California Supreme Court ruled on the case. Here is the link to that entry, "Proposition 8 and Justice Kennedy's Legacy." Bottom line: Justice Kennedy will likely cast the deciding vote which, for Prop 8 opponents, isn't a bad thing.

The Deficit Of Truth And Collectivity In Our Democracy

 Many Americans believe that we are all entitled to our opinions, no matter how uninformed, incorrect, or immoral they may be. That's democracy, love it or leave it. 

The problem with that line of reasoning is that isn't how democracy works. In a democratic system of government, citizens have a duty to be well-informed and make decisions that benefit not only themselves, but the public as a whole. Self-government does not mean selfish government. And when citizens act in their self-interest, they should consider their interests not only as individuals, but as members of a community.

Many believe that things will simply come out in the wash, that democracy is a self-correcting system, and popularity of ideas is somehow tied to their validity. Yet they adopt this perverted version of the "marketplace of ideas" and use it as a way to abscond their civic duties. When people or politicians make decisions based on ignorance, selfishness, laziness, or bias, they affect the entire community. It is this faulty correlation between popularity and validity that allowed some of the worst injustices in American history to transpire.

Elected officials have been able to pursue the policies of slavery, segregation, imperialism, internment, McCarthyism, and the “war on terror” only with the support of the citizenry. Despicable viewpoints continue to serve as valid sides of “debates,” and sometimes result in formal policy. Consider some of the issues that have taken center stage over the past few years: Whether waterboarding is torture; whether global warming is real; whether Barack Obama is an American citizen, and; whether the 14^th Amendment should be repealed. We should be alarmed that any significant percentage of the population takes these ideas seriously enough that they dominate our national dialogue. These are not issues upon which reasonable minds can differ. The fact that Americans have adopted such deficient opinions illustrates their inability, or indeed unwillingness, to consider the facts or other viewpoints, much less put them into a context that extends beyond their own existence. 

In our world of moral relativism, the concepts of truth, justice, ethics, and morality carry little weight. Gays can be persecuted and marginalized because of "religious convictions" or "traditional sensibilities." Laissez-faire economic policies prevail because people cling to the beliefs of pseudo-intellectuals like Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan; that everyone acting in their unfettered self-interest somehow creates the best outcome for society. The concept of freedom, in fact, no longer relates to individual liberation, but economic activity. People think the right to choose which big box store they shop at, or the right to smoke in restaurants, or the right to bring their guns into Starbucks are liberties that merit defending. Advocating for universal notions of justice merely inhibit their childhood fantasies and hillbilly indulgences. Never mind that they think access to affordable health care is a luxury, but their right to use incandescent light bulbs is a freedom worth fighting for.

A growing number of uninformed, yet politically active, citizens are advocating positions and supporting candidates based on falsehoods, hatred, or no information at all. This poses a direct threat to our democracy. The “marketplace of ideas” isn't self-correcting, if it exists at all. The citizenry must acquire the information necessary to make informed decisions on matters that affect the community, and base their decisions with regard to the welfare of the community. A democracy is a collective undertaking, not simply a collection of people motivated by self-interest. If we fail to embrace the basic concepts of truth and collectivity, we will continue to bolster the anti-democratic elements of our society, and pave the way for demagogues and dictators.