Wednesday, July 25, 2012

James Holmes: The Darkest Knight!

It's time to Break It Down! 

Two brothers, Christopher and Jonathan Nolan co-wrote the screenplay for the latest summer blockbuster, TheDark Knight Rises.  The Dark Knight is a sobriquet for the Superhero more commonly known as Batman.  The Nolans, in TDKR (The Dark Knight Rises), present the 8th iteration of Batman on celluloid, including two others (Batman Begins2005, and The Dark Knight2008), in their own trilogy.  The complete list of Batman films includes:

  1. Batman1966 (Adam West/Also played the character in the TV Series, which preceded the movie)
  2. Batman1989 (Michael Keaton)
  3. Batman Returns1992 (Michael Keaton)
  4. Batman Forever1995 (Val Kilmer)
  5. Batman and Robin1997 (George Clooney)
  6. Batman Begins2005 (Christian Bale)
  7. The Dark Knight2008 (Christian Bale)
  8. The Dark Knight Rises2012 (Christian Bale)

Batman is known as a mysterious, brooding character; occasionally not clearly recognizable as one of the good guys.  He tends to do his best work at night, which of course is when bats are most active.  These are just a few of the back story reasons that resulted in the Nolans assigning the appellation The Dark Knight to their version of the superhero.

TDKR was eagerly anticipated by fans of the DC Comics character, the TV Show, and the movie series.  However, while the typical storyline would almost certainly have centered upon whether the film broke gross receipts and total attendance records, a Colorado gunman changed all that with a violent and tragic swoop.

For many gun lobbyists have used a quote that remains popular today:

“Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”

My tacit observation is that is a true statement…that just happens to be incomplete.  To place the discussion into proper context, the complete statement, from an American perspective anyway, should be:

“Guns don’t kill people; people (with guns) kill people.”

Last week, James Eagan Holmes made the Aurora, Colorado midnight screening of TDKR a colossal and catastrophic disaster.  In doing so, at least in Aurora, for that night for some, and forever for others, Holmes became the “Darkest Knight.”

Without rehashing the events of last Friday morning, or giving Mr. Holmes unwarranted star treatment, allow me to provide a brief overview of the results of the unsuspecting assault on a theater filled with innocent people; 70 of whom would soon become casualties, of which 12 lost their lives.  Holmes, dressed in black protective body armour from head to toe, entered the cinema through an exit near the front, unleashed two canisters of a tear gas/pepper spray-like substance, and began to spray those assembled with a barrage of bullets from three weapons; two Glock pistols, and an AR-15 shot gun.  The 12 dead were all fatally shot, and according to Aurora police officials, most of the remaining 58 casualties were shot.

As has been oft reported, James Holmes purchased all three weapons, 6,000 rounds of ammo, and an assortment of materials used to build an array of explosives, and he did so legally.  He used his cache to upon Aurora movie-goers the single biggest act of gun violence in American History.  The resulting Aurora shooting has become, instantly, the latest flashpoint for the great debate on Gun Control.

The only problem is there is no debate.  Oh, the media is certainly banging the drum.  A number of survivors and family members of victims are calling for action.  But for the most part, President Obama, his opponent in the Presidential race, Mitt Romney, and most members of both houses of Congress are AWOL on the subject.  Of course, not surprisingly, the few Republicans who are not seeking cover and moving about below the radar are in fact, gun rights advocates, and proclaim loudly, in essence, “Guns don’t kill people...”

The Second Amendment has long been the defining proviso that the gun lobby hangs its hat upon.  In his continued struggle to negate the influence of the NRA and gun rights advocate. Michael Moore likened the fixation with the concept of the unreduced sanctity of the Second Amendment as being as though it were written by God.  Moore, like many other supporters of more comprehensive Gun Control legislation, argues that the Founding Father’s, whose idea of arms consisted principally of muskets and single shot pistols, could never have fathomed semi-automatic or automatic weaponry.

Moore, in his 2002 Film, Bowling for Columbine, noted the stark contrast in the number of gun homicides in the United States per year and the comparable number in several other wealthy countries.  He examined some of the popular reasons offered as a rationale for why the rate in the United States is so high.  The reasons range from rampant Goth Rock Music, to violent movies, to video gaming, to having a violence-laden history.  In the end, there are countries that equal or exceed us in each category mentioned, but which have substantially fewer murders by gun violence each year.  And the difference is stunning:

  • United States – 11,127 (3.601/100,000)
  • Germany – 381 (0.466/100,000) – More Goth Rock listeners, violent history of its own
  • France – 255 (0.389/100,000) – Same violent movies, violent history of its own
  • Canada – 165 (0.484/100,000)
  • United Kingdom – 68 (0.109/100,000) – Violent history of its own
  • Australia – 65 (0.292/100,000)
  • Japan – 39 (0.30/100,000) – Makes many of the violent video games
If you understand and support the idea of American Exceptionalism, perhaps you can appreciate why even though, as Max Fisher wrote in an article in The Atlantic, the Japanese Constitution includes language that expressly precludes gun ownership (and swords for that matter), it’s perfectly logical for the Second Amendment to incorporate the right to bear arms.  Naturally, it is our inherent Exceptionalism that makes the difference, since we (Americans) wrote the Japanese Constitution.

Mr. Holmes was able to assemble an arsenal in a matter of about 60 days.  Financial resources aside, I don’t believe any individual should have such easy access to weapons and accessories as powerful as those he purchased.  While he did present himself at stores or gun shops to buy the shot gun and the Glocks, he bought most of the ammo and other accessories online.  In general, we should all be concerned by this level and degree of access.  Moreover, given the specific out come of Holmes’ access and subsequent rampage, we should be flat-out alarmed.

And if you are among those who believe the answer is if other in the theater had been armed, someone could have taken him out…I believe that is the wrong answer.  Despite your belief that you are the beneficiary of an abundance of Cool Hand Luke qualities, statistics suggest someone else in the crowded theater would have been killed by you, rather than by Holmes, or in the end, the number of folks killed would have exceeded the 12 who died Friday.  Remember, he dispensed tear gas; he was wearing a gas mask and body armour from head-to-toe.  Chances are, no one else would have been equally prepared for combat.  Ultimately, the more “other guns” in the theater, the higher the likely number of casualties.

I am willing to concede there are no easy solutions to resolving the problem of gun violence in our society.  However, I am convinced if we are to move in the right direction, that movement will spring from crafting and enacting thoughtful and comprehensive gun control policy.

Meanwhile, I am left to reflect that such a policy will have come too late to have prevented “John Holmes: The DarkestKnight!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:















http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Affordable Health Care Act: The Con Side

It's time to Break It Down!

In last week’s post I explored the pro side of Health Care Reform.  Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services, contributed an editorial in The Washington Post in which she laid bare key criticisms about the Affordable Health Care Act, complete with refuting evidence.

While I seldom do companion pieces the following week, a well-constructed pro position warrants an equally cogent and powerful con perspective.  As fate would have it, a close personal friend of mine dropped a cartoon in my e-inbox yesterday afternoon that virtually wrote today’s post for me.

To set it up, Editorial Cartoonist Stuart Carlson calls this brilliant six-cel cartoon which he published October 4, 2010, simply, “I like it, or not!”  The Cartoon has appeared in a number of publications, including DemocraticUnderground.com (March-April, 2012). 

He opens artfully, with a gruff character voicing expression of the complete an utter disdain that so many Americans profess for Obamacare; he saliently and powerfully closes with the character confessing the obvious point that drives so many to oppose the law that has now passed Constitutional muster as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court...Obama hate! 

In between, in cels 2-4, the character is guided by a completely different spirit.  Upon direct questioning, he replies that he likes and finds various elements of the law good; even great.

In the midst of this raucous irony lies the irrefutable conundrum that defines the con side of this argument.  Allow me to hasten to add, my narrative in no way does justice to the bare-knuckled wit in which Mr. Carlson cloaks this much discussed subject.  It is for that reason, of course, I invite you to view the cartoon for yourself: http://www.carlsontoons.com/i-like-it-or-not/.

There is more that could be said; but why?  The cartoon really says all that needs to be said.  It really does summarize aptly, "Affordable Health Care Act: The Con Side!"

A big up shout out to my friend and Frat, LA, for facilitating what may be my BPE (Briefest Post Ever).  I'm done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/125126820

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Health_and_Human_Services

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Underground

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/opinion/keller-five-obamacare-myths.html?pagewanted=all

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Affordable Health Care Act: The Pro Side

It's time to Break It Down!

A number of polls on a variety of subjects suggest that Americans’ opinion is roughly equally divided, regarding the direction of our Country, and the competing Democratic and Republican philosophies that serve to chart directionality.  Recent polling data shows, with less than four months to go until the General Election of 2012, the preference for either President Obama or Mitt Romney to lead the Country for the next for years is split 47% for the President, & 47% for Mr. Romney.  In a complementary data set, polling shows that 92% of voters have already decided for whom they will vote, or know for whom they are most likely to vote.  In other words, this election is shaping up as a virtual toss-up.

While it is clear the two campaigns are waging robust ad campaigns, including numerous highly charged negative ads, in the final analysis, the eventual decisive factor in the coming Presidential Election mostly likely will revolve around the respective voter turnout efforts.  To that end, buckle up and get ready for the relentless stream of ads.  Meanwhile, if you really care about the outcome, be sure that you do these four things:

  1. Register to vote
  2. Vote on election day, or during the Early Voting period
  3. Remember to be sure to obtain (and prominently display) your picture voter ID
  4. Make every effort to ensure that others do the same
Health Care Reform, like the Country’s political direction is another item about which opinions are fervent, varied, and roughly equally split.  On Monday of this week, Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services, weighed in on the matter in a Washington Post editorial with a view that I will summarize here, because I consider it both balanced and instructive.

Secretary Sebelius lifts up several of the usual assertions about negative aspects of the health care law that the U.S. Supreme Court validated with its June 28, 2012 ruling.  Here are those points and her counterpoints:

In the decade preceding the law, national health care expenditures increased on averaged about 7% per year.  While the rate continues to increase, in the past two years, the rate of increase has been less than 4% per year.  Americans have saved more than $220 billion and that trend is expected to continue thru 2013. 

  • The law will is causing insurance premiums to increase
Between the years 2000-2009, premiums more than doubled, rising from $6,438 to $13,375; an annual increase of 8.1%.  From 2009-2011, premiums did rise, but at a rate 25% lower.  This decrease equates to $1,200 per family.  At least two independent groups, Mercer, a Human Resources Consultant, and the nonprofit National Business Group on Health, say this trend will continue. 

The AHCA will provide even more relief in future years, including a tax cut averaging $4000 for 18 million middle class Americans.  A tax break, by the way, that would be eliminated, should the law be repealed. 

  • The law will place a greater burden on small businesses
In fact, the opposite is true.  Small businesses were struggling in the insurance market before the law passed, spending an average of 18% more than their large counterparts, annually.  Frequently, small businesses saw insurance bills skyrocket if even one person got sick.  Because of this, the number of small businesses offering coverage to employees was falling rapidly.  The number dropped from nearly 70% in the year 2000, to less than 60% in 2009, leaving millions without coverage. 

Since the law passed, the share of small business offering coverage has held steady at 59%.  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, hundreds of thousands of small businesses have in part, because of new tax credits in the law, saved thousands of dollars on their insurance costs.  Moreover, independent experts like the Rand Corporation predict the number of employers offering coverage will rise in 2014 – just as it did in Massachusetts after health care reform passed – when small business owners will have the choice of shopping for health coverage in new more competitive marketplaces. 

In truth Medicare is stronger than ever.  Seniors have new benefits such as free preventive care, as well as discounts on brand-name medications in the “doughnut hole” coverage gap.  Already, more than five million seniors with Medicare have saved about $600 each.  Medicare Advantage premiums have fallen two years in a row. 

As a result of new crackdowns on fraud and abuse, a record $5.4 billion have been returned to Medicare in 2010 and 2011.  The AHCA has strengthened Medicare’s long-term outlook, and has added eight additional years to the projected solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund. 

The Secretary observed that those calling for the repeal of the law have neglected to provide their own credible alternatives for lowering health care costs.  Moreover, interestingly enough, the same House Republicans who will vote today to repeal the Medicare savings, just voted in March to keep them in their budget. 

In framing her conclusion, Secretary Sebelius wrote, it is certainly acceptable to adhere to ones own opinion, but you are not permitted to construct you own facts.  In this case, the facts are clear: Since the AHCA was passed, national health spending is rising at a lower rate, health insurance premiums are increasing more slowly, small business coverage is holding steady, and Medicare is on stronger footing. 

The Democrats have constructed and approved a bill to reform health care, the President has signed the bill into law, and the Supreme Court has reviewed the merits of the AHCA, and ruled that the law stands.  The outlier in this scenario is the GOP.  Republicans, of course, are unalterably locked in on their long-standing commitment to make sure President Obama is a one-term President.  In the process of making this dream come true, they are duty-bound to oppose, and if possible deny the adoption and or implementation of anything that could be perceived as a victory for President Obama, regardless of whether it is in actually, a victory for the American people. 

In conclusion, I believe this aptly summarizes “Affordable HealthCare Act: The Pro Side!”  I’m done; holla back! 

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below: 























Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Independence Day; Free at Last Redux!

It's time to Break It Down!

(Today's post is a gently revised reprint of the July 9, 2008 Edition of "Break It Down!" Since today is the 4th of July, in some sense, this redux version is even more timely than the original submission in 2008. Enjoy the blog and have a wonderful Independence Day, 2012.)

History has given us the gift of some intriguing coincidences, as well as some compelling ironies. In observing both, there are times when, even though I hold him/her in great awe, I am convinced God is, if not a confirmed jokester, at least the owner of a genuinely robust sense of humor.

During a number of past holidays, I have addressed ad nauseam, the “principle of incompatibility” that divides holidays from structured endeavors such as reading, studying, and heaven forbid, working. To that end I usually try to ratchet it down a notch or two, or several, during holidays. The fact that today is July 4th, America’s official Independence Day, makes that messaging exceedingly apropos.

Looking back at Independence Days past, 1826 probably held one of the more noteworthy coincidences. July 4th, 1826, marked not only the 50th Anniversary of American Independence, but was a day two of our nation’s Founding Fathers, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, died. Yes, they died the same day in the same year. Such an occurrence today would almost certainly serve as a catalyst for rumors of a death pact.

Adams and Jefferson shared more than joint status as two of the fifty-six co-signers of the Declaration of Independence; they also went on to become the 2nd and 3rd Presidents of the United States, respectively. It is reported that Adams’ last words were, “Jefferson still survives.” However, unbeknownst to Adams, Jefferson had died earlier that day.

Adams and Jefferson had quite a concurrent history. Adams was the first to serve as America’s Vice President, he was the first President to live in the executive mansion (known today as the White House), and he was also the first President to be defeated in a re-election bid…by Jefferson, who had served as his Vice President.

Thomas Jefferson went on to become President after defeating Adams, but not without a bit of what we would think of today, as drama. Aaron Burr tied Jefferson with 73 electoral votes. As a result, the election was sent to the House of Representatives to determine the winner. After 36 ballots (that's right 36), Jefferson prevailed. In later developments, Burr, who served for a time as Jefferson's Vice President, killed Alexander Hamilton, who was also a Founding Father, in a duel. Not surprisingly, Burr's career in politics took a precipitous decline afterward, although he was never convicted of a crime for his role in the incident.

Burr's leaving the office meant Jefferson had to secure another Vice President for his second term as President. After 203 years, P-Funk fans still tip their hat to Jefferson, as he selected George Clinton to hold the second chair. (Funk-a-teers and P-Funk Mythology devotees will know what I mean...see Geoge Clinton, musician, and his anthem Atomic Dog, as a point of reference).  I digress!

The virtually concurrent deaths of Adams and Jefferson marked an intriguing Independence Day coincidence of considerable magnitude. This past Friday July 4, 2008), Independence Day again collaborated with the death of a prominent political figure, this time in what many consider a compellingly ironic twist. Former North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, popularly known as Senator No, a nickname he appeared to relish, died leaving a legacy that will be debated, by supporters and detractors for many years to come.

It is a fact that there are those who consider Helms a patriot. Others have cited his “courage” to stand against the forces of change, on issues ranging from gay rights to trade agreements, to foreign aid. Many of his most notable tirades focused on issues of civil rights and affirmative action, and funding for AIDS research. He was also a leading Senate opponent of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday, and he authored and/or approved the infamous, in North Carolina anyway (but highly effective), "white hands" commercial, aired during the first of two Senate campaign battles against former Charlotte Mayor, Harvey Gantt (1990).  For that moment in time at least, Senator No drove the concept of negative campaign advertising to a new and ugly low.

The Honorable Senator No appeared to take great pride in his predictable opposition to progressive ideals, and often needled the media when he felt he had bested their desired interests. He earned the distinction of being North Carolina’s longest serving Senator. That is a noteworthy accomplishment, and cannot be diminished.

However, it must be noted that many of the tributes and editorials that began streaming forth Friday (July 4, 2008) sanitized the bigotry and raw mean-spiritedness that marked so many of Helms’ political encounters; especially his triumphs. His was a divisive, zero-sum brand of politics that often targeted the historically disenfranchised for more abuse, insult, and exclusion. In that light, it is impossible to deny the essence of irony in the events of Independence Day, 2008. He was a bonafide Tea Party hero, before his time. One can almost envision the spirit of King, after having scaled the mountaintop, uttering that famous three-word phraseFree at Last!  Indeed, it's "Independence Day; Free at Last Redux!"

I’m done; holla back! 

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com. A new post is published each Wednesday. For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Burr


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clinton_(vice_president)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clinton_(funk_musician)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Helms

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=h000463

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1995/05/bates.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7490458.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/04/obit.helms/index.html

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1871