The 2nd Amendment Debate

The tragic incident at VA Tech inevitably raises gun control questions. However, Bush, rather tastelessly in my opinion, was quick to follow his condolences with assurances that the 2nd amendment would remain safely enshrined. By including such remarks in his statement he brings gun control to the forefront of the tragedy. Although questions will arise, the initial statement should have been confined to the usual "thoughts and prayers".

The 2nd amendment is often reduced to five simple words, "the right to bear arms". But to fully understand the amendment and our forefathers intent, you have to read it in its entirety, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This was written at a time of great uncertainty for our fledgling country. We had just declared ourselves independent of tyranny and were not sure when tyranny may present itself again. I may be wary of Bush, but I'm confident he won't impose a dictatorship.

So what is the case for keeping a gun today? Some would argue that if students had been able to carry one that maybe the degree of horror could have been lessened. I don't buy that. It sounds just as logical as arguing that with guns the number of incidents would have been greater and that the death toll from the sum of those incidents could have reached or exceeded this one event.

Other countries have had great success with tight gun restrictions. Britain, a country of 53 million and where guns are outlawed, had just 46 gun-related murders last year. New York City, a city of 8 million, had 579. These statistics also dent the argument that criminals will certainly have guns and that a well armed populace is both a good defence and a good deterrent. The NRA lobbies feverishly for their love of fire arms, but is a love of guns worth such prices as the VA Tech shootings and Columbine? I love guns as well, but I'm willing to give up that right if it means we achieve statistics closer to those of Britain and Australia.

Gov. Wastes Money to Find The Obvious

From the AP...

"Students who participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex a few years later as those who did not, according to a long-awaited study mandated by Congress"

Furthermore...

"those who attended one of the four abstinence classes reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes, and they first had sex at about the same age as their control group counterparts — 14 years and nine months, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc"

You mean abstinence programs cannot control teenagers hormons?! You mean we may need to teach them about safe sex and condoms in addition to abstinence?! I want to know how much money was wasted to find the obvious. The government already wastes $176 million each year on abstinence-only programs that are utterly worthless. Teenagers will have sex. I'd rather they know how to use a condom than simply learn the government's official stance against pre-marital sex.

S.C. Senate Committee Drops Ultrasound Measure

A S.C. senate subcommittee thankfully dropped a measure from an abortion bill that would have required women seeking an abortion to view an ultrasound of the fetus. Interestingly, the S.C. senate has only one female senator, meaning that once again conservative male groups are trying to decide what is best for women. But I'm sure those who drafted the measure will press on in their self-righteous quest to make the abortion process as painful as possible for women.

Sad State of Affairs

CBS has cancelled Imus' radio show, a day after Imus lost his TV show. His remarks were definitely stupid and reprehensible, and whatever else he described them as throughout his endless apologizing. But what about other radio personalities who most definitely cross the line not once in a while (as Imus did) but every day? Michael Savage immediately comes to mind. The man is delusional, hateful, a complete moron, and probably a closet homosexual (just to list a few apt adjectives), and it seems as though he makes offensive comments throughout his show nearly every day, with a great deal of vitriol directed towards gays. Furthermore, you could characterize his shows as inflammatory and him as an inciter. But where is the outrage and condemnation? In running Imus off we've passed over some more pressing individuals.

Nappy-Headed Hos

Are Don Imus' remarks by themselves enough to warrant serious action against the man? No. He's apologized to the point of his own detriment. Are Don Imus' remarks in conjunction with previous comments enough? Yes. If you look back at prior incidents, Imus, and his associate Sid Rosenberg, have made many racially-charged comments. Rosenberg was twice fired for offensive remarks, and each time he was rehired. It demonstrates a pattern of acceptance, that such behavior is not counter to Imus' true feelings as he contends but instead a Freudian slip.

His attempts to save his integrity and his show via endless apologies seem, at least to me, to be compounding the problem. From this little tidbit of wisdom..."Here's what I've learned: that you can't make fun of everybody, because some people don't deserve it" to a heated reference of "you people" (presumably the black community), Don Imus is tempting fate and yet another "slip of the tongue". Is a two week suspension enough punishment? Probably not. In the end though, those dashing good looks will probably get him off the hook, or the millions of listeners who tune in. I'm still waiting for him to announce that he'll be receiving counseling. Hell, if he gets Ted Haggard's counselors he could be cured in three weeks and we can put all of this behind us.

Teaching or Preaching

The Texas House is considering a bill that would make classes on the Bible available in public schools. Rep. Warren Chisum, sponsor of the bill, claims that "We're not going to preach the Bible, we're going to teach the Bible and how it affects all of our writings, documents and the formation of our government". If the classes were absolutely just going to teach the Bible, then I'm not sure I would have a problem with this bill. After all, the Bible has significantly impacted history and the classes would be optional.

But I don't think it's possible to bring the Bible into the classrooms without preaching. Some classes will inevitably evolve into sermons at some point. Critics are leveling that claim at some Georgia schools that have adopted similar programs. Teachers in any field have biases, and religious studies are no different. They major in the subject and write papers and a thesis that reflect their opinions.

Furthermore, you run the risk of a student signing up for a class who is genuinely interested in learning about the Bible and its impact, but not in being preached to. Teaching one particular brand of religion has no place in public schools. An interesting and more acceptable course could be one that explores all religions. I feel that too many students only know the Quran as the book of bin Laden.

If parents are so intent on providing their children with a religious education, then they can ingrain those teachings at home, in church, and/or at a private, religious school. Besides, we should be focusing our efforts on reversing frightening downward trends in math, science, and reading.

The Audacity

How dare Nancy Pelosi travel to Syria and try diplomacy, at which the administration has failed and seems to be completely inept. How dare she "embolden our enemies". I'm sick of all the Democrats' emboldening strategies to topple America. According to Bush, "Sending delegations doesn't work. It's simply been counterproductive". So what does work? His current policy, if he even has one, sure as hell does not. We have to be tough on Syria. We have to be firm with any country that backs a terrorist organization like Hezbollah. But where does turning our backs and thumbing our nose get us? It certainly does not stop Syria from supporting the group. If anything it "emboldens our enemies". Where has this administration succeeded diplomatically? I disagree with Pelosi on many things, if not most, but given this administration's growing impotence on the world stage, I have no problem with her seeking a peaceful compromise in the Middle East between Israel and Syria.