Boston etc.

The event in Boston was truly shocking, but I am heartened by the response so far. Except for a few fringe types (A.J.), everyone has been surprisingly restrained, allowing the authorities to do their job and helping as much as possible.
A definite contrast to how the gun issue has been handled. Here we have two sides talking past each other, engaging in strong rhetoric and demonizing each other to a typical extent.
Perhaps I can see this as I am not strongly invested in this issue. Not that it isn't an important issue, but I have discovered you can really only put effort into so many things before you diminish your effectiveness everywhere.
So from my perspective, why not an all of the above approach, like Obama claims to be using with energy?
It seems to me that both sides have offered valuable partial solutions. Why not use them all? Armed guards in schools doesn't eliminate the need for background checks, or a ban on high capacity magazines the need for better mental health treatment (which, frankly, I don't think the NRA is pushing hard enough. If they had much sense, they would be talking about that nonstop.).Maybe some clever Congressperson could even link some of these ideas in a bill and see if both sides would support it. Or, if not, at least you could flush out the insincere.
Maybe this can be the issue where the polarization of our country begins to crumble.

MHP pt. 2

Further thoughts.
1. Of course, parents have rights which must be respected. For the most part, these are people who have chosen to give birth and commit to sacrifice to raise the child. Society does and should recognize this.
2. Children are people, not property. Therefore, Fox News, they don't 'belong' to anyone, except to society as members, not property.
3. As adults, these children will live in society, therefore, society has some rights to their teaching and socialization as well.
4.. These different facts must be reconciled. Society has not done the best job they could at this. Implicitly, we all know that parental rights are not absolute. People who abuse their child physically have those rights terminated. But we are squeamish about emotional and mental abuse. We need to get over that. It will take a long time and many cases to establish standards for these things, so we need to get started now.
This controversy may be a good place to start.

I'm with you Melissa

Melissa Harris-Perry has set off a firestorm with her simple suggestion that society has some role and some stake in the raising of children. I want to say I agree with her.
This seems to me to be an issue, like many others, that society has deliberately avoided for too long.
At one level, we all know that parental rights are not absolute. Face it, some parents are just not good parents. Society does not accept their right to abuse their children.
The real question is where do we draw the line? What rights DO parents have? What rights do children have? What rights does society, where these children will live after they are grown, have?
Do Klan members have the right to isolate their children in their communities, making sure their hateful rhetoric is all they will hear as they are growing?
The fact is, children are humans and IMO, should have defined rights and we should all know what they are.
They should not infringe on good parenting and good parents should not object to this.
This might be a good time to start thinking about these issues.
Thanks, Melissa

You have the power

I was shocked and saddened to see a group of liberals on TV celebrating the ticketing of a woman doing 63 in a 65 mph zone on the highway. I have heard progressives cheerfully admit to speeding before, but only in private.
Apparently these people don't practice what they preach. Certainly most, if not all, of these people believe in protecting the environment. But just as apparently they don't realize the power they have in their own lives to effect this.
The clear facts, documented in testing, are that engines burn gas most efficiently around 45 mph. The farther away you get from this speed, the more gas you bought goes right out the tailpipe, causing more pollution and powering your vehicle less. Which causes you to have to buy gas more frequently. Which puts more money in the pockets of the oil companies. You might as well pour some portion of your gas on the ground and set fire to it. Would you do that?
Well, that IS what you are doing when you speed. So I, driving 55 mph or less, am holding the cost or your gas down, and you tailgating me, speeding by me, and sometimes acting rudely or aggressively, are driving the cost of my fuel up.
If you want to hit the oil companies, you can very easily. JUST SLOW DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Right question, right answer

Much has been made of Rand Paul's quest for either the truth or more headlines, depending on your point of view. Personally, I will take the middle ground and say he was seeking both. I am quite noncommittal as to his filibuster, beyond being pleased that he went old school, even if it was self-serving. But I very much support him asking the question of AG Holder as to the U.S. drone policy within our borders. And I am also supportive of Mr. Holders answer.
Unlike Mr. Paul, I don't make the distinction of inside/outside the U.S. I am for the same policy either way.
And I don't think you can give a blanket statement blocking yourself from a particular action when we don't know what situation may arise in the future. I think Mr. Holder made just the right statement.
Score one for each side.

Big Gulp

Well, Sarah Palin has done it again. She 'protested' Bloomberg's soda ban with a Big Gulp, which was exempt under the plan. Par for the course for her, I would say.
And par for the course for her and her followers who seem to have taken the desire for freedom to a manic state. In Fla. the Tea Party is even fighting for the 'freedom' to ride manatees. Yep, no one can tell them what to do or not do anytime, ever.
They seem to thing they can just make society disappear by repealing the laws that hold it together. While that may work to make civilization disappear, the people who formerly made it up would still be there and they would continue to disagree with each other and need solutions to those disagreements.
What then?
With a completely unrestricted second amendment, I think we can all imagine.
The real choice facing the GOP these days is who do they want to represent? A decent proportion of the country who may be concerned about the cost and effectiveness of government, or who may think we need to mull things over a while longer before we change them - or a small group of people who want to live like frontiersmen with no one to please but themselves and the complete freedom that living outside the bounds of society can bring, but with all the benefits that society allows at the same time?
Personally, I think that last group doesn't  deserve a say in policy until they join the rest of us in the real world.

Goodbye Hugo

The death of Hugo Chavez has really raised some issues here in the U.S. While I don't agree with much of his rhetoric about my country, I do have some sympathy for his views.
The time has come, quite simply, for the U.S. to face up to its flaws, both past and present. In the past we have done terrible things, and even today we do not seem to recognize that the rest of the world has its own point of view and its own rights. Marco Rubio calls Chavez rule a disaster, but it certainly was not for the desperately poor of his own country and even ours who got discounted heating oil from him. Has Rubio done as much to help the needy?
How can we expect other people to support us if we treat them so? Or if we support cruel, evil leaders and oppose those who improve their peoples' lives? Can we call their anti-americanism evil under those circumstances?
I know it can be a difficult balancing act, preserving global human rights and our own interests and sometimes there is no easy answer and the necessary answer can be unpleasant, but surely some of the time we can do the right thing, even if it smarts a little.
The time has come.