Guns and Bombs

Umpqua Community College

Responses to the Oregon gun massacre and the continuing failure of gun policy in America have continued, as President Obama once again becomes the Mourner-in-Chief.

Hillary Clinton was impressive in her town hall, talking with emotion about gun violence and in general about the changes in law and practice she advocates.  One of her bolder proposals she left to a staff member to explain to the media--something that can be done administratively by the President, which perked up a lot of ears in the general despair that anything will get done soon.  Here and here are articles on a couple of different proposals she made, or is said to make.  And here is some video on the subject from the town hall.

Of all the resonances--about Oregon gun laws, etc.--that have emerged, there's video of an appearance in this very Oregon town by Robert F. Kennedy during his campaign in 1968, in which he advocates for common sense gun control measures, and not to a friendly audience.

So this has been going on a long time.  The state of the debate is suggested in this series of opinion pieces from CNN: "Why We're Still Debating Guns in 2015." It doesn't actually answer that question but the accumulation of views demonstrates that we certainly are.  (Anyway everybody knows the answer: it's money.)

As usual it is the "humorists" who cut through the platitudes and tortured policy discussions.  Australian comic Jim Jeffries video on the subject has reputedly "gone viral."  Andy Borowitz at the New Yorker titles his latest column: Americans Opposed to Being Shot Seek Representation in Washington.

And while this ritual goes on, one of those stories that happens literally every day in America surfaces: an 11 year old shot and killed an 8 year old in an argument over puppies.  A moment that once might have ended with at worst a bloody nose has now forever deformed the lives of two families and their community, killed a child, and left an 11 year old with a murder charge.

Why has nothing been done on such an obvious and tragic problem, even as we learn of the lives ended in this latest massacre?

There is a lot of despair about this.  Some other problems that have been destroying lives for a long time but aren't discussed as much, aren't political issues as much, like mandatory prison sentences, capital punishment, the war on drugs, are actually being addressed at least somewhat, but quietly, or piecemeal in the states.

 It may be that these gun massacres that rivet attention on the topic for a few days or weeks are counterproductive because they force everyone into their rigid political positions, with the opportunity that outrage provides both sides, all sides, to raise money.  Unfortunately, they keep happening.  Plus the powers that are not opposed to people being shot (the NRA) are still powerful, or seem to be.

It may be that a woman President could be the right person to get something done, if she sticks with it. Something isn't enough, but at least it could be something.

Update 10/6: President Obama called for voters who are part of the coalition of  Americans Opposed to Being Shot (and forming such a group is actually not a bad idea) to take positions on gun regulations into account in the candidates they vote for.  Now some powerful Democrats in the Senate want to make those positions clearer by forcing votes on gun legislation. 

Now to bombs--specifically the bombs that rained down on a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan.  That organization and the UN have made a very good case for an international investigation, with possible charges of war crimes.

It seems undisputed that the coordinates of the hospital were known to all combatants, and that the US forces were notified while the bombing continued for some 30 minutes.  Doctors Without Borders denies that Taliban fighters were firing from the hospital grounds, and while the Afghans still maintain this, it seems the US is less willing to confirm.

 Nothing that the US military has said so far seems trustworthy (so I'm not bothering to link to anything.) Although my intuition was that the attack was prompted by Afghan forces, and the latest US statements finally say that, there is still no excuse for the US military to have begun this attack, and even less to have continued it.

There are screwups that kill people, including innocents and your own in every war--that's what letting lose "the dogs of war" means, and why it is such a fatal step.  But this is an extremely serious situation, because this is an international humanitarian organization that provides services that no government and no military provides.  It puts every such mission and every such organization everywhere in question.

 Right now everything coming out of the Pentagon sounds like ass-covering.  That has to stop.  An investigation with judicial powers by an impartial international entity is necessary and right.

Update 10/6: The Pentagon began singing a different tune, and the White House pledged review and changes. Whether this is higher ups throwing underlings under the bus or an accurate assessment of who is responsible remains to be seen.  An international review however is still appropriate.