Category: rant

And Don’t Call Me Late For Dinner

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Perhaps you remember the old saying, “I don’t care what you call me, but don’t call me late for dinner.” The truth of the matter, however, is that it is vitally important what you call me (and still, don’t call me late for dinner). A number of news articles and incidents have brought this home to me.

USA Today is reporting that President Trump has ramped up his rhetoric, and is now referring to undocumented immigrants as “animals”: Specifically, in a White House meeting, the President said, ““We have people coming into the country or trying to come in, we’re stopping a lot of them, but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals.”

Think about that last sentence. And then think about how we treat animals. We put them in cages without their permission. We euthanize them when they are terminal. We take their children away from them and give them to others to care for. This is how we treat animals. NPR reported back in 2011 how Germany during WWII refered to Jews as rats to dehumanize them. Referring to classes of people as animals opens the door to cruely, genocide, and other horrors.

Now put this into the context of the latest policy change of ICE: separating children from their parents at the border. That is the act of someone that sees an undocumented immigrant as an animal, who isn’t worthy of being a parent or capable of loving their children.

I’ve written before about the importance of treating people with respect, even if you disagree with their ideas. Even Conservatives will argue that human life has value — after all, I don’t see Conservatives arguing that abortion should be legal for undocumented immigrants. So why isn’t the entire country up in arms about this? Why don’t we insist that there is a minimum level of treatment any human on this planet deserves. People deserve to not be treated like animals, people deserve not to be forcibly separated from their children. Even if you feel you must refuse entry to this country, at least don’t separate families, provide humane living conditions, and treat people with respect during the process.

Mass murderers and serial killers start small, on animals, and work their way up. It desensitizes. Similarly, starting the treatment of undocumented “others” as animals is only a first step. Next comes similar treatment for documented others whose otherness we don’t like. I”ve already personally seen more hints of that against Jews; I’ve seen posts detailing that treatment against other minorities.

We fought against people who did that during WWII. We must never let that happen here, and so we must protest the treatment of undocumented immigrants as animals.

Share

Core Values

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy1 Comment

Let’s get this out of the way. My core values are 0 and 1.

Are we going out on that joke? No, we do reprise of song. That helps, but not much.

I’m here all week folks. Try the fish. Early in the week.

Being serious, a recent discussion on a friend’s FB threat that devolved into a discussion of religion and values got me thinking about my beliefs and values. As this is a discussion that comes up on a regular basis, I thought I would write them down so I could point others to them. Your values may differ, and that’s fine.

Respect. Let’s start with the basics: I attempt to respect others, and to keep discussions focused on ideas and not individuals. I encourage others to do the same. What this means is that I do my best to eschew ad hominem attacks and name calling. I do not feel it is ever appropriate to make fun of people, nor do I feel that someone else making fun of someone is an excuse to make fun of that person. And before you ask: Yes, that does extend to the President. As this post will discuss later, I do not agree with President Trump’s policy and approach. But I do not feel it is appropriate to make fun of his appearance or his children or staff’s appearance. There’s plenty to criticize on what they do that we don’t need to make fun of what they are.

Especially in my interactions on the Internet, I ask for (nay demand) mutual respect. Listen and consider other arguments, and let people make them (within reason). You do not have to agree to listen, but through listening there can be at least understanding.

This is something I have learned over many years, and I will admit that even 15 years ago, I wasn’t as good at living up to these ideas (translation: I regret how I behaved in political discussions during the Bush 43 presidency).

Belief. I am a life-long, 4th or 5th generation Reform Jew (not “Reformed”), which is called Progressive Judaism outside of the US. For those unfamiliar with term, I direct you to the FAQ. The key notion is that the Tanach (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) is not the literal writing of God, but divine inspiration written in the language and mores of its time, subject to reinterpretation to adapt the timeless values to today. With respect to God, I tend to take the Deist view of a disinterested God who may have started everything in motion and inspired the moral and legal system, but then let us take it from there. I strongly believe in personal choice and its importance, and that it is up to us to choose to do the right thing. More on that later.

As a result of the above, there are only a few places where I am truly spiritual. For me, Judaism is the moral and social justice precepts, which I find vitally important, and the community and the shared values and culture.

Is there a God? That’s an interesting question, and an issue that cannot be proved one way or the other (and please, don’t try). Those who try to prove God exists invariably do so by pointing to faith texts, which are not proof. Those who try to disprove God point to science, but science cannot disprove God — especially a disinterested God. Hence, to me, atheism is a belief system just built on a different faith. Some call that religion; I reserve the “religion” term for organized, structured, and formalized belief systems, often with central organizations. I’ll argue that the existence of God may not matter, for we should be good and moral whether or not God exists. I believe we have the capability to do good without the promise of reward or the threat of eternal damnation. To quote Penn Jillette, a noted atheist:

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don’t want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don’t want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you. You know what I mean?

Legislating Morality. This leads to the next subject: Is it our place to legislate morality? Do we need laws to prevent abortion or homosexuality or any of these myriad of things that various religions have taught over the years. To answer that question, we need to go down a few paths first.

Mutual respect, in my eyes, goes hand in hand with freedom of religion. That means you are welcome to practice your belief systems, and I mine, and we should be able to do so without interfering with each others. It is not your place to impose your religious values upon me, nor me to impose mine upon you. Furthermore, it is not Government’s place to impose a specific religion’s values over a different religion.

Morality means nothing when we do not choose to do the right thing. Even if abortion is legal, that does not mean it should be done or encouraged. That is up to the woman and her values, and most woman do not want to have abortions — situations and circumstances (often not of their choice) force them into it. We should build a society that values more than just the unborn life, but that supports life through out the lifecycle: from the children born into poverty and degradation to our seniors.

But if we legislate that only what we think is the right thing, then we remove the ability for people to be good and to choose the right thing. For those that so believe, I’ll note this is fundamental in Deuteronomy: “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. You shall choose life, so that you and your offspring will live;” You shall choose — not that society shall choose for you, but that you need to choose to do the right thing. You can’t choose if society takes that choice away from you.

In this, I subscribe to the talmudic and kabbalistic notion of ha-Satan, which the Christians mistakenly treat as Satan, the Devil. ha-Satan is a different notion: the notion that ha-Satan puts temptations in our path specifically so we have to make that choice to do the right thing.

Does this mean that I think murder should be legal, or that rape should be legal? No. I do believe there is a distinction between crimes against others without their choice, and things we do to ourselves. Murder, rape, theft, and such, are non-consensual crimes against others. Things like drugs and such are choice we make to ourselves. This invariably leads to the question of whether abortion is murder, and that really devolves quickly into when there is an other to commit a crime against. Note that I did not say “when life begins”, for cell division arguably begins the mechanics of life. But living — existence — being — is something different. There is a time during gestation — quite likely not exact — when that begins. When that occurs is a matter of belief, and this then becomes a matter of not pushing your beliefs onto me. Legally we impose a compromise: a time when we believe that existence independent of the mother is possible.  Recognize that is what it is: a compromise between differing beliefs, and one that — even though we might not like — it is what we can accept for society. Does that mean we should encourage abortion? Of course not, but it ultimately should be the mother’s choice, dictated by their beliefs and their relationship with God as they understand God. We must respect their beliefs. Does this mean some promising lives will be lost? Quite probably, but we seem to have no problem as a society when equally promising lives are lost on the battlefield or to poverty or to sickness. Argue with me about the sanctity of life and that we must value life when you demonstrably and through actions value it equally after birth. Then, and only then, will I respect your call for valuing the unborn life throughout its lifecycle.

Christianity. This, then, brings us to my views on Christianity. As I noted at the start, my fundamental value is respect. Judaism does recognize that other religions exist, and that other paths to enlightenment are valid. The Mi Chamocha prayer, recited regularly, acknowledges this when it asks, “Who is like unto you, O God, among the Gods that are worshipped?”

I have no problem with Christian beliefs, nor people who follow Christianity. I do not view them a backward or archaic. Their belief system is simply that — theirs. It is not mine, and as long as they do not attempt to “save” me or impose their belief system upon me, we can live harmoniously. I do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God or the Messiah (he doesn’t meet the job qualifications), but that doesn’t mean there isn’t value in his teachings. Just as the Torah contains divine inspiration, so do the teachings of Jesus (as a child of God, as are we all). They deserve study and interpretation for modern times.

On the other hand, there are some Christians….

I do believe that many Christians today do not act as Jesus taught. My understanding of Jesus is that he taught love for one’s fellow man (as a general term), to treat others as we want to be treated, to care for the fallen and the sick, to treat the least among us as an equal. It was Jesus who reached out to the whores and beggars to help them. It was Jesus who saw the good in people.

Far too many Christians in name fail to recall those ideas. Too many believe in the gospel of prosperity, and worship the god of wealth instead of the god of compassion. I think that notion — which is practiced by far too many of our political leaders — is wrong and non-Christian (at least as I understand things). I’ll gladly debate those ideas. Note that I didn’t say anything about the individuals — it is the notion I disagree with. They are welcome to their beliefs, but I don’t have to agree with them.

Armageddon and the End Days. One of the key differences between Judaism and Christianity is the view of the end days and the afterlife. Some have characterized the difference as Judaism focusing on this world and the rewards in this world, and Christianity focusing on doing good for the rewards in the world to come. The latter explains why Christianity became so popular during the middle ages: in horrible and horrid times, one gains comfort in trusting the world after you die will be a better one.

But does believing in the end days, Armageddon, and an uplifting of the dead to heaven a reason to hasten the end? Some in Salvation Christianity appear to believe that, and there appear to be leaders who are pushing that — or at least acting that way. I’ll argue that to do so is presumptuous and to put yourself in the place of God. If there is to be an end of days and such, it is God that must establish the timetable and bring it about, not man. Man’s job, as noted above, is to make the conscious choice to do the right thing and to make the world a better place. It is our job to be responsible stewards of the world and ensure its survival. It is our job to treat our fellows on this planet the best we can, to make this a world of justice and respect. If God then wants to end the world, it is his or her choice and timetable, not ours.

Life on Other Worlds. Is there life on other worlds? Probably, but it doesn’t make a difference. Given the billions and billions of worlds and conditions, it is statistically unlikely that some other form of life didn’t start on another world, and likely even evolved to be intelligent. But given how short of a time period intelligent life, able to communicate, has been on this world compared to the life of this world, the odds that our time period coincided with that on another world is small. Further, the distances between planets would make it such that even if our intelligent life periods overlapped, we likely could not communicate. As such, it really doesn’t make a difference. We shouldn’t think other worlds are coming to destroy us; nor should we believe that another world will come and get us out of our dilemmas. We have to choose to do the right thing.

Similarly, we should not be so presumptuous as to assume we are the only intelligent life on this planet. Other species do communicate with each other — in different ways. Other species are intelligent, but we just can’t communicate with them in the same way. Treating each other with respect includes doing the same for other species. I don’t go so far as to be vegetarian, but I do believe we should treat animals humanely, not kill just for the sport of it, and if we eat other animals, we should ensure that their life does not go to waste by wasting the food that they give us. If God exists, we can’t presume to fathom God’s plan for us and our world. In particular, we don’t know what species God might choose to promote next, and we shouldn’t put a stumbling block in front of those plans. We will be judged, if we are judged, by how we treat others, and that includes our animal brethren.

Wrapping It Up with a Bow. Ultimately, it comes back to where I started: Respect for others. Discuss the ideas and the actions, not the person. Consciously make the choices to do the right thing, as you have been taught through your belief systems; don’t depend on the law to impose it on you, nor use the law to impose what you think is the right thing upon others.

Oh, and my favorite adage: Never ascribe to malice what you can to stupidity.

 

Share

Criticizing the Message | Attacking the Messenger

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=trumpTwo thoughts on the current kerfuffle regarding Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Michelle Wolf:

  1. I think it is wrong to make jokes about anyone based on how they look (or other similarly protected categories) … ANYONE. In terms of doing it in a political venue: If you would be bothered if the “other side” did it to you, don’t do it to them. There’s plenty legitimate things (actions) to poke at and make fun of.
  2. I think it is wrong to attack the messenger when it is the message that bothers you. If Trump had sent a member of his staff that actually creates policy in some way, go for it on that policy. But SHS is just a mouthpiece attempting to report on that policy; she doesn’t create the policy. You can make fun of over the tops effort to defend the policy, but attack Trump if you disagree with the policy. Again, remember the real source of evil.

In this day and age — the age of #MeToo and worries about cyberbullying — I find that much of what passes for comedy is veiled bullying by those who were likely bullied in school. I’m referring to comedy that makes fun of people for their attributes, looks, size, intelligence, job, etc. Perhaps it is fun in the moment, but it is teasing and bullying none-the-less, and we are better than that. I prefer the gentler humor of folks like Bob Newhart, Red Skelton, George Carlin, Steven Wright, and such. There may be an argument that that aspect of the Correspondent’s Dinner might have outlived its day. I’d disagree with that — the last thing we need to do is censor reporters — but I do believe the comedy that is there needs to poke at the message and the press/newsmakers role with respect to it, and not do attacks on the messengers.

Share

Essay Prompt: What Did You Learn in School Today?

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

userpic=divided-nationI can always depend on my Conservative friends for essay prompts. Here is today’s:

Why are schools acting like they own our children? We are not sending them to school to be indoctrinated! They are there to learn…. we want history math grammar NOT walkouts … gun control .. and Hate towards our President.

Oh, there’s so much to unpack here.

I. That’s right, the place to indoctrinate our children is at home, where you get to teach your children your prejudices and your religion, your hatreds and biases. But then again, some do send their kids to school to be indoctrinated: witness the rise of private and religious schools, both of which indoctrinate children with specific values and beliefs systems. So what you are really saying is that you don’t want schools to indoctrinate children with values different than yours. Remember what they sang in South Pacific, “You have to be carefully taught.”  But then again, I don’t want my children to be indoctrinated with YOUR values.

II. You do want your children to learn history, and how to read and write. Guess what? That exposes them to the fact that protests and walkouts are a part of American History. It teaches them that guns have been a problem throughout American history, and that there have been numerous attempts to control them. It teaches them to read, and to be able to find political analysis and read that. It teaches them to write and to find their voice. It teaches them math, so that they can see the numbers of how many other children are being killed, and how much money the NRA is spending to prevent any regulations on weapons. Any regulation.  It teaches them to think critically, which is what a school should do. And these critical thinking students learn the power of their voice from history, and they use it.

III. There’s something that people (and especially the NRA) forgets: gun control isn’t all or nothing. Gun control does not mean the government is coming for everyone’s guns. Gun control is increased regulations on some guns, and perhaps the inability to purchase new models of some other types, and increased energy to go after the illegal guns out there. But it isn’t going after the legal gun owners that follow the rules. They aren’t the problem. However, the NRA wants you to think the government is coming after you, so you buy … well, you get it.

IV. As for teaching Hatred of the President: I think if there were staff actually teaching hatred during school hours, they would be called out for it. In fact, many have. These children may observe this hatred from society, or their parents, or for that matter, much of the free world. But the meme said specifically during school hours, and that rarely happens from school officials. Official school curriculum does not teach like or dislike of particular politicians. After all, that isn’t on the test. It might teach students about issues that are relevant to their education. But even this gun control debate is not necessarily hatred of the President, it is hatred of his policies. Yes: there is a distinction between policies and the person saying them.

In closing, again, we have Tom Paxton and Pete Seeger to take us out on a song, demonstrating that “indoctrination” has been more on the right, in any case:

What did you learn in school today
Dear little boy of mine?
What did you learn in school today
Dear little boy of mine?

I learned that Washington never told a lie
I learned that soldiers seldom die
I learned that everybody’s free
And that’s what the teacher said to me
That’s what I learned in school today
That’s what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today…?

I learned that policemen are my friends
I learned that justice never ends
I learned that murderers die for their crimes
Even if we make a mistake sometimes
That’s what I learned in school today
That’s what I learned in school.

What did you learn in school today…?

I learned Newt Gingrich has a plan
Of healthcare for every woman and man
It’ll cost far less and the reason why
Is all you have to do is DIE DIE DIE
That’s what I learned in school today
That’s what I learned in school

What did you learn in school today…?

I learned that Hillary Clinton is bad
For taking a thousand dollars she had
And running it up to a hundred grand
When that should only be done by a man.
That’s what I learned in school today
That’s what I learned in school

Share

Did You Ever Ask Yourself “Why?”

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

A post from a friend on FB about immigration inspired this morning rant, which has been percolating for a while.

Have you ever asked yourself “why?” with respect to immigration?

You hear about “immigrants are taking our jobs”, but why would this be happening?

  • Are they willing to work for less? But isn’t it good business to get the lowest priced workers? Would you be willing to work for less?
  • Perhaps they are more skilled then you? Are they? What can you do to improve your skills that you aren’t doing, but they are?
  • Perhaps they have a better work ethic? Show up on time, less sick days, less absences, more productive?
  • Is it is job you would be willing to do, or is it “beneath you”?

Often, the reason an immigrant is hired is not because of the immigrant, but because of what is lacking in the person who isn’t hired.

Oh, and if you think they are hiring undocumented immigrants, ask yourself who is hiring them? It isn’t any companies of any size who have to fill out and submit the government paperwork. It is those paying cash under the table to avoid taxes and other overhead. In other words: Businesses who think more about profit than anything else. It is those hiring day works or household workers, who can avoid paperwork. Perhaps that guy you picked up at Home Depot to help you build your wall. Then ask yourself: Who (or what) is pushing you in that direction, and why?

Now, ask yourself: Why are people opposed to letting in more legal immigrants? Hint: It isn’t due to jobs or crime or any of the reasons given. There are really just a few underlying reasons:

  • Fear of the other, of those who are different, those who have different customs.
  • Fear of dilution: that letting in those with different customs and practices will somehow weaken your majority position and your implicit privilege
  • Fear of loss of power: that those entering the country will be of a different political persuasion than you, and will dilute the power your party or faction has in running the country. That is also, by the way, why Puerto Rico can’t become a state: it will upset the balance.

That last one is the real reason immigration is opposed by the Conservatives: Most immigrants, when they come in the country, vote Progressive. More immigrants means dilution of the voting block, dilution of the last stand for $skin_color $political_value $religious_value. I think you can fill in the parameters. Sure, you’ll hear arguments about being fair to those that came before them, who have had to wait in line for years. But since when has this country really been fair to all?

What are my thoughts:  We should cut much of the immigration red tape and quotas. If you have a clean background (no violent or sexual crimes), if you are not connected with terrorist groups, and you have the ability to support yourself, you should be able to get a limited time work visa. If you can demonstrate by the end of that visa that you were able to be employed, sustain yourself, pay taxes, and pass the citizenship test, you should be able to become a citizen. I’d love to be able to add a minor change: You become a provisional citizen, which can become permanent by voting consistently in a two year election cycle.

Once you see the whole immigration debate — and indeed, much of what the party in power does (whatever the party in power is) — as a power play to retain their power, much becomes clear.

Share

Postcards in Pencil

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

In light of the Cambridge Analytics incident and the loss of privacy on Facebook, people have been going around deleting their Facebooks, left and right, for fear that their information has been released to the world. Never mind, of course, that they willingly gave up that information. This is all Facebook’s fault, and Facebook must pay.

Take a deep breath, world. This is nothing new. We’re dealing with postcards in pencil again. For those unfamiliar with the phrase, that was the analogy used to describe email to people. It was a postcard because anyone could read what you wrote. It was in pencil because anyone could change what your wrote without leaving much of a trace. Thinking of email as postcards in pencil, would you put sensitive information there?

The issue with Facebook isn’t a new one. It was there in the days of Livejournal. It was there in the days of My Space. If you don’t think of your web space as a postcard visible to all, even with controls, you are giving your information away, not the website.

Further, if you are participating in all these memes and quizzes that ask for personal information, and just think they are fun, you are naive. Why would a free quiz want personal information?  Why would a free quiz want access to your data and information? Remember the key adage: If you are getting it for free, you are not the customer, you are the product that is being sold.

The problem is not with Facebook, per se. It is with users who did not understand what they were doing, and had the belief that there information was security … that had the belief that those applications weren’t going to use their data. They gave away their data due to their stupidity and lack of knowledge, and now want to blame someone else.

Facebook is perfectly safe to use, if and only if you treat it as 100% public. If and only if you only put information on there that can be publicly disclosed. If and only if you are constantly alert for what information you are giving out. Oh, and be forewarned, there is information you are giving out even when you aren’t entering data. Everytime you linger on an image, every time you visit a website, everytime you click to open an article, you are giving away information about your interests that will be sold. Facebook is a free service. Remember what I said about getting stuff for free.

Delete your Facebook if you want, and run away and make the same mistakes on another service. Alternatively, just perhaps, you can understand the online world and how it markets you, and be much more careful about what you say and do online.

[ETA: Of course, society and Facebook itself make it difficult to leave Facebook. Just think of all the data you would need to reenter, all those logins to third-party sites you do via FB that you would have to recreate anew (including their data), all the relationships you would need to reestablish on other services. There’s just too much inertia and friction to deal with.]

Share

These Boots are Made for Walking

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

A lot of energy is being spent by folks blathering on about how students shouldn’t have walked out, they should have walked over, or in general, not walked at all. My thoughts? I have absolutely no problem with students — of any age — peaceably protesting about any political interest that is of concern to them. It teaches civic involvement; it teaches that one can stand up to the government when one believes differently; it teaches that one voice can start a change, and many voices can bring about change; it teaches our youth the value of political involvement. As for missing school, more time is wasted on pep rallies and similar school spirit idiocies that teach nothing than an hour of protest.

I’m a child of the 1960s. I remember the days when students across high school and college campuses stood up to protest the Vietnam War, because it was their lives that were being used as cannon fodder by the government. They brought about a change in attitude towards the war, they changed society. I remember the days when students across campuses protested for civil rights and equal treatment for minorities, when student idealism brought societal change that benefited everyone.

It was protest that started with walking out.

Your shoes, my shoes, 
Done walked a mile or two.
Your shoes, my shoes, 
Done all shoes can do.

They walked with Rosa to the front of the bus;
They walked with Martin when he prayed for us.
They walked with me and they walked with you;
They done all shoes can do.

There are those who say students should walk over instead of walking out. Those who say the bullies should make nice with the bullied, and that will solve all the problems. Although that’s a nice theory, it is full of holes (perhaps .44). Those who have been bullied know, once bullying has started, the bully can’t make nice and the problem will go away. The distrust and the hatred has been sown. Bullying must be stopped before it starts. Further, it is an example of blaming the victim, of saying it was the bully who does the shooting. It is an example of diversion of the discussion away from gun regulation. It is an example of black and white thinking: if you walk over and make nice, everyone will forget about the problem with guns and we don’t need to do anything about them. Nothing says you can’t do both: address bullying in schools, and improve regulation of guns. Nothing says you can’t make schools more secure and safe, and regulate guns. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

[ETA: For those who haven’t seen my thoughts on the issue: Here’s how I think the problem of school violence should be addressed, and it isn’t the arming of teachers, which is a bad idea.]

The children will lead us on this issue, because they are the ones bearing the brunt of this violence. It is their lives, and they are taking control of them. They are saying never again. They are saying not here. They are saying that we need to keep guns out of schools — be they in the hands of students, visitors, or teachers. They are saying we increase restrictions on the most dangerous and deadly guns: make them harder to obtain, make those who own them legally more responsible for securing them, and going after those who have them legally. They are telling the gun lobby that their lives are more important than the lobby’s profits or the politicians they own.

They are walking to make a statement.

Your shoes, my shoes, 
Done walked a mile or two.
Your shoes, my shoes, 
Done all shoes can do.

They’ve been up the mountain where the trees don’t grow,
Been ‘cross the desert where they never seen snow.
Been so tired that they can’t hardly go,
But they’re good enough to get us to glory.

It’s left shoe, right shoe, don’t know the size.
Shoes on the ground and eyes on the prize.
They’ve been to the river and they’ve been baptized,
And they’re good enough to get us to glory.

(Lyric credit: “Your shoes, My Shoes”, Tom Paxton, 1998)

Share

And You Thought Those Metal Rulers Were Bad

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

In response to the continuing scourge of school violence with weapons, there are those who believe the answer is not increased gun regulations, but increased armed guard and, in particular, arming school teachers. A few thoughts on that proposal:

  1. The right often quotes a statement by Benjamin Franklin about those who give up liberty for security get neither. This is usually in reference to proposals to ban or take away guns. But it is equally true to the notion of having increased armed presence in public and becoming a police state. Neither is the correct approach.
  2. Although the proposal is to arm the teachers, no one ever asks where those teachers would get the guns, and who would pay for them. Teachers are woefully underpaid as it is, using personal money for classroom supplies and educational material. Do we expect them to find the personal money to buy the guns; money that they don’t have? Do we expect the school districts, which are also underfunded, to supply them? What educational courses do you want cut this time; remember,  curriculum has also been cut to the bone due to lack of funds?
  3. In terms of hardening the schools themselves, ask yourself this: In the past — in the time of your parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents — schools were not fortified, and did not have guards let alone fences. Yet there weren’t school shootings. So what has changed?
  4. Would you be comfortable with loaded weaponry, out and accessible, being present in a classroom with curious children? If not, when the unthinkable happens, would you rather the teacher protect the children and get them to safety, or fumble to find the keys to unlock the gun safe to get out the gun, load it, and then shoot? Where should those precious minutes be spent?

Arming the teachers is not the answer, when you think about it critically. Think about what other solutions might work better. I have a few ideas.

[ETA: Over on FB, a friend shared a post that captured three other areas I missed: Training — who will train the teachers and who will pay for it; Liability — who will be liable if the teacher misses and hits someone else; and Psychological — there will be numerous psychological impacts of asking a teacher to potentially shoot a child or a former student, and who will pay for all the counseling afterwards. Yet more reasons this is a poor idea. Here’s the reference to that shared post.]

Share