Would I had phrases that are not known, utterances that are strange, in a new language that has not been used, free from repetition, not an utterance which has grown stale, which men of old have spoken. Khakheperresenb, an ancient Egyptian scribe
One of the things that I never took into account when I started a blog was that I would, from time to time, not know what to write – at least, what to write of substance. I have, perhaps, a greater desire or need to write than some of my friends or associates, and on the whole, I think I write more than they do. It has led me to consider to what extent people write. In an earlier blog, I questioned the impact of schools no longer teaching cursive writing. However, I’m now considering a wider range and general question. If it can be assumed that people are writing less, the natural question is – what is the impact?
When I did my masters’ thesis research, one of the greatest resources was the amount of letters, journals, diaries or other writings that people did on a daily basis. Everyone wrote and not just short jots but rather long, epic letters that were meant to catch the receiver up on long periods of time apart. Letters were carefully considered and painfully written to ensure comprehension and clarity. Indeed, letters were the lifeblood that connected settlers or travelers or missionaries in strange lands with the comfort of home and hearth they left behind. Additionally, for those back “home,” it was the source of information about the strange and exotic, the foreign and distant.
In the absence of photography or film, the diary and the journal were vivid and explicit reminders of what was experienced, what was felt and what was endured. It is the reason such documents are so important to historians. This helped draw my concern and attention to the lack of writing today. It will have a huge impact on future historians, who must, somehow, cull meaning and substance from snippets of information hurtled down the information superhighway in the form of texts and emails. With the democratization of technology and the increasing trivialization of communication, what will be conveyed to future generations?
More importantly, what is happening now? What do people write? Why do they write? Does the reason for writing impact the ability to do so and the growth of one’s thinking and skills? If one writes nothing but financial reports and organizes pie charts their entire career, do imaginative and creative writing skills deteriorate? Does the individual decline in their ability to express opinion or to create an argument? Does the wealth of information and the flood of image and text make us increasingly incapable of processing, chalking it up to too much information? Does the lack of writing show the damaging impact of what the Dalai Lama called the “paralyzation of choice?”
These are the questions that occupy my mind. In my earlier blog, I suggested the lack of proper writing by hand was eating away at our ability to concentrate but that is only a small part of the equation. I don’t have complete answers but I have concerns. Because I don’t have the answers to these questions, I cannot pose solutions but I’m detecting trends that must be considered. Over the course of the next couple of months, I will attempt to address these questions and figure out possible solutions. Perhaps, the readers have thoughts on the subject.
On some level, these are the questions that should be studied and analyzed by education experts. If there is one group of people who should have the experience and context of thousands of years of history, and knowledge of how the “newest thing” is affecting the skills and abilities of human beings, it should be education specialists. As teachers, we must consider how we teach and the impact it has on our students. As adults, we should consider the lack of writing as potentially problematic. A Faustian bargain suggests that as we embrace one thing, we surrender another. When considering more expedient forms of relating information an ersatz to the act of writing, what is the impact of this Faustian bargain?
Friday, January 27, 2012
Reading List – The D’s
If you have a suggestion that should be added to the D's, please post the title and an explanation. Thank you
Divine Comedy, Dante
La Vita Nuova, Dante
Poems, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz
Discourse on the Method, Rene Descartes
Meditations, Rene Descartes
Principles of Philosophy, Rene Descartes
Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, John Dewey
David Copperfield, Charles Dickens
Complete Poems, Emily Dickinson
On the Divine Names, Dionysius the Areopagite
On the Mystical Theology, Dionysius the Areopagite
Complete Poems, John Donne
The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Frederick Douglass
The Three Musketeers, Alexandre Dumas
An American Tragedy, Theodore Dreiser
Divine Comedy, Dante
La Vita Nuova, Dante
Poems, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz
Discourse on the Method, Rene Descartes
Meditations, Rene Descartes
Principles of Philosophy, Rene Descartes
Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, John Dewey
David Copperfield, Charles Dickens
Complete Poems, Emily Dickinson
On the Divine Names, Dionysius the Areopagite
On the Mystical Theology, Dionysius the Areopagite
Complete Poems, John Donne
The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Frederick Douglass
The Three Musketeers, Alexandre Dumas
An American Tragedy, Theodore Dreiser
Friday, January 20, 2012
The Renewed Battle for States’ Rights
Historically, South Carolina seldom misses a chance to rebel against federal intrusion. From the Tariff of 1828, to the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln to the 1948 states’ rights showdown with the Truman administration that formed the Dixiecrats, South Carolina has a collective, engrained sense of obdurateness that has done much to characterize the state. This week, as Republican candidates vie for the nomination of their party, the state has passed a law requiring the showing of photo identification prior to voting. To most states and many countries around the world, this might not seem strange or unusual, but in the United States and to the Justice Department, this is a malevolent attempt to keep minorities from voting.
Critics of such legislation have suggested that the cry for states’ rights is code for racism and that the law demanding photo identification will unfairly impact minority groups. First, no one linked race with respect to the identification card, code or otherwise, until the law’s opponents and the Obama administration did. Second, their assertion that only minorities will be impacted smacks of real racism. Why would minorities be adversely affected more than anyone else? They claim the cost of photo identification is prohibitive but if that is the case, would not any poor person, minority or otherwise, be equally affected? So, are we talking about race or economics? According to the state’s Department of Motor Vehicle’s website, the cost of a simple photo identification card in South Carolina is $5. Would not many declare the assertion that minorities could not afford $5 as racist? As seen in many political scenarios, the quickest way to shut down a conversation is to throw race into the debate.
What if the government paid for the identification card? Would opponents to the law and the Justice Department acquiesce? Given the level of vociferous condemnation, it seems unlikely. Therefore, what is the argument about? Regardless of their true intent, I’m not sure how much traction the Justice Department and opponents to the law can garner. Most Americans do not see an issue with asking for a photo identification to vote. Considering that countries ranging from the most dysfunctional electoral processes to the most advanced democracies use identification cards, there seems little that opponents can legitimately say without seeming capricious and irrational.
I’ve always thought that claims that certain laws adversely impact only minorities were a bit racist on their accord. This seems blatantly so. What about the idea of pulling together $5 over seven months is inherently prejudicial towards minorities? What about the process of getting said card beyond the money is particularly injurious towards minorities? It would seem that people should be more offended by the attack on the law than the law itself. This is not a question of policy; it is a question of race politics. It diminishes those who engage in it and the real examples of racism.
Critics of such legislation have suggested that the cry for states’ rights is code for racism and that the law demanding photo identification will unfairly impact minority groups. First, no one linked race with respect to the identification card, code or otherwise, until the law’s opponents and the Obama administration did. Second, their assertion that only minorities will be impacted smacks of real racism. Why would minorities be adversely affected more than anyone else? They claim the cost of photo identification is prohibitive but if that is the case, would not any poor person, minority or otherwise, be equally affected? So, are we talking about race or economics? According to the state’s Department of Motor Vehicle’s website, the cost of a simple photo identification card in South Carolina is $5. Would not many declare the assertion that minorities could not afford $5 as racist? As seen in many political scenarios, the quickest way to shut down a conversation is to throw race into the debate.
What if the government paid for the identification card? Would opponents to the law and the Justice Department acquiesce? Given the level of vociferous condemnation, it seems unlikely. Therefore, what is the argument about? Regardless of their true intent, I’m not sure how much traction the Justice Department and opponents to the law can garner. Most Americans do not see an issue with asking for a photo identification to vote. Considering that countries ranging from the most dysfunctional electoral processes to the most advanced democracies use identification cards, there seems little that opponents can legitimately say without seeming capricious and irrational.
I’ve always thought that claims that certain laws adversely impact only minorities were a bit racist on their accord. This seems blatantly so. What about the idea of pulling together $5 over seven months is inherently prejudicial towards minorities? What about the process of getting said card beyond the money is particularly injurious towards minorities? It would seem that people should be more offended by the attack on the law than the law itself. This is not a question of policy; it is a question of race politics. It diminishes those who engage in it and the real examples of racism.
The Troubles for the Discipline of History
Last week, a colleague of mine interviewed for a job as an advisor to social studies teachers within a local school district. People like this provide support, resources and in-service workshops on the topics of social studies. During the interview, he was asked what are the biggest troubles facing the discipline. Now, it would be easy to hit this one out of the park but my friend had to be careful. What troubles the discipline is something about which school officials do not want to hear anything negative.
If you are a regular reader of this blog, first, thanks, second, you have read my takes on technology. However, I do not want this is to be a tired refrain. I have what (I feel) are solid and common sense reasoning for my suspicions of technology. School districts throughout the country search desperately for something that could miraculously raise their test scores, gain special recognition and if they are really lucky, get a mention in U.S. News and World Report during its annual education issue. Yet, it is within their supposed salvation that school districts could be embracing its destruction.
The first of the two major problems facing social studies education is the prevalent use of technology. There is no discrimination or caution on how and what to use with regards to technology. In essence, technology could prove to be as destructive to the learning process as the teacher twenty years ago that just showed movies. What school districts fail to understand is that if technology is to be used, it must be as a tool, not as the means to the end. Often, in workshops, I hear about websites that bring the student into history. There are sites that allow the student to pretend they are settlers setting out to cross the plains. There are sites that allow the student to pretend they are soldiers in the trenches of World War I. Under the auspices of teaching the child more about its respective subject, it does the exact opposite. Remember, all websites and all programs are designed with a business paradigm, not an educational one. The other dangerous part of technology is the professed ease that it allows the student to explore history. The exploration of history is not easy. It has never been easy. It should not be easy. Our constant search to create “fun” and “easy” ways of studying history is destroying the subject and students’ ability to truly understand it.
The second major problem is that with the focus and reliance of technology, we are moving away from the tools traditionally used to better understand the subject. Each discipline requires particular skills to truly understand it. For history, a reading subject, students must be able to critically read a text, understand point of view and understand the information within a historical context. It is this last part that is most undermine by technology. Today, the internet is used as a fact gathering instrument (if it is used academically at all) and it is creating increasingly shallower well of information. To truly understand history includes an ability to work through an in-depth text and to forego, indeed to be suspicious of, snippets of information. Historically, dictators and manipulators have used bits of information, and people’s unwillingness to demand more, to sway people down horrible paths. Technologically, we are doing it to ourselves. History requires the taking in of large amounts of information. If our students lack the intellectual and academic stamina to endure this, it jeopardizes the future of the discipline.
Some might find this an odd thing to get worked up over. However, this is my discipline, my passion and, in some ways, my life. Furthermore, I care deeply about my students. I’m not interested in what is good for them now. I care about what is good for them five, ten, fifteen years down the road. The German philosopher Martin Buber once said that a teacher should not just instruct the child in front of them but the adult they will become. That is what I seek and not so much on what will allow them to pass a six-week period or a semester. Sadly, the opposite is the rule of thumb for education specialists and officials today. They search frantically for what will bring up scores today with little understanding or care for the long term impact of their decisions. This needs to change.
If you are a regular reader of this blog, first, thanks, second, you have read my takes on technology. However, I do not want this is to be a tired refrain. I have what (I feel) are solid and common sense reasoning for my suspicions of technology. School districts throughout the country search desperately for something that could miraculously raise their test scores, gain special recognition and if they are really lucky, get a mention in U.S. News and World Report during its annual education issue. Yet, it is within their supposed salvation that school districts could be embracing its destruction.
The first of the two major problems facing social studies education is the prevalent use of technology. There is no discrimination or caution on how and what to use with regards to technology. In essence, technology could prove to be as destructive to the learning process as the teacher twenty years ago that just showed movies. What school districts fail to understand is that if technology is to be used, it must be as a tool, not as the means to the end. Often, in workshops, I hear about websites that bring the student into history. There are sites that allow the student to pretend they are settlers setting out to cross the plains. There are sites that allow the student to pretend they are soldiers in the trenches of World War I. Under the auspices of teaching the child more about its respective subject, it does the exact opposite. Remember, all websites and all programs are designed with a business paradigm, not an educational one. The other dangerous part of technology is the professed ease that it allows the student to explore history. The exploration of history is not easy. It has never been easy. It should not be easy. Our constant search to create “fun” and “easy” ways of studying history is destroying the subject and students’ ability to truly understand it.
The second major problem is that with the focus and reliance of technology, we are moving away from the tools traditionally used to better understand the subject. Each discipline requires particular skills to truly understand it. For history, a reading subject, students must be able to critically read a text, understand point of view and understand the information within a historical context. It is this last part that is most undermine by technology. Today, the internet is used as a fact gathering instrument (if it is used academically at all) and it is creating increasingly shallower well of information. To truly understand history includes an ability to work through an in-depth text and to forego, indeed to be suspicious of, snippets of information. Historically, dictators and manipulators have used bits of information, and people’s unwillingness to demand more, to sway people down horrible paths. Technologically, we are doing it to ourselves. History requires the taking in of large amounts of information. If our students lack the intellectual and academic stamina to endure this, it jeopardizes the future of the discipline.
Some might find this an odd thing to get worked up over. However, this is my discipline, my passion and, in some ways, my life. Furthermore, I care deeply about my students. I’m not interested in what is good for them now. I care about what is good for them five, ten, fifteen years down the road. The German philosopher Martin Buber once said that a teacher should not just instruct the child in front of them but the adult they will become. That is what I seek and not so much on what will allow them to pass a six-week period or a semester. Sadly, the opposite is the rule of thumb for education specialists and officials today. They search frantically for what will bring up scores today with little understanding or care for the long term impact of their decisions. This needs to change.
Reading List - The C's
Here is the next installment of my “classical” reading list. Please feel free to suggest and explain an addition to the C’s.
Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin
The Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus
The Plague, Albert Camus
The Stranger, Albert Camus
The Horse’s Mouth, Joyce Cary
The Genius of Christianity, Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand
Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer
The Tales, Anton Chekhov
A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Winston Churchill
On Duties, Cicero
On the Commonwealth, Cicero
On War, Carl von Clausewitz
Miscellanies, St. Clement of Alexandria
The Code of Justinian,
The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Biographia Literaria, Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Autobiography, R.G. Collingwood
The Idea of Nature, R.G. Collingwood
Principles of Art, R.G. Collingwood
Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad
Lord Jim, Joseph Conrad
The Deerslayers, James Fenimore Cooper
The Epic Cosmos, Louise Cowan
The Terrain of Comedy, Louise Cowan
The Tragic Abyss, Louise Cowan
Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin
The Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus
The Plague, Albert Camus
The Stranger, Albert Camus
The Horse’s Mouth, Joyce Cary
The Genius of Christianity, Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand
Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer
The Tales, Anton Chekhov
A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Winston Churchill
On Duties, Cicero
On the Commonwealth, Cicero
On War, Carl von Clausewitz
Miscellanies, St. Clement of Alexandria
The Code of Justinian,
The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Biographia Literaria, Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Autobiography, R.G. Collingwood
The Idea of Nature, R.G. Collingwood
Principles of Art, R.G. Collingwood
Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad
Lord Jim, Joseph Conrad
The Deerslayers, James Fenimore Cooper
The Epic Cosmos, Louise Cowan
The Terrain of Comedy, Louise Cowan
The Tragic Abyss, Louise Cowan
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Iranian Cauldron
President Lyndon B. Johnson once said it was best to have your enemy in your tent, pissing out than to have them outside, pissing in. At the onset of his administration, President Obama suggested that the best course of action with regards to Iran was dialogue. He suggested that the isolation of Iran by previous administrations did not solve the problem, indeed, it made it worse. The best way to ensure Iran behaves itself and upholds international agreements was to be closer to them. This policy has met with mixed results.
The other week, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria suggested that increased sanctions and tough talk was not required as Iran was weak and posed no threat to anyone. As much as I admire Mr. Zakaria and enjoy his program and vast knowledge on international affairs, I’m not sure he could be more wrong. History is replete with examples of one country assuming weakness in another, only to be stung later by being unprepared. In U.S. history, we have been on both sides on the equation – Britain (1776) and Japan (1941) assumed our weakness and we did the same with the Philippines (1898) and Viet Nam (1968). To presume that Iran is weak because of internal strife and the devastating effect of international sanctions is foolish. The chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Force, Bennie Gantz, said before the Knesset that the extreme pressures on Iran does not mean they will knuckle under and he worries about possible actions from Iran.
Iran’s belligerence is the product of being backed into a corner and having a possible outlet with Iraq. I do not suggest we ease up – indeed, we should push harder. Iran is isolated in the region and long standing allies, China and Russia, are being pressured heavily to cut themselves off from the Islamic republic. The weaker its position becomes, the more dangerous it is to its neighbors, all Sunni Muslims, and the western powers. In order to calm or better control its increasingly restless population, Iran has the incentive of starting something internationally to take the attention away from its own crumbling house. We saw this with Syria. As protests grew there, the Syrian government blamed the civil unrest on everyone from the Israelis to al-Queda in hopes that a common enemy would nullify the anger in the streets and unify the people. So it is with the Iranian leadership.
With Iran teetering, we must now, more than ever, step up pressures with increased sanctions, increased pressure on China and Russia and greater cooperation with Iran’s Sunni neighbors. Additionally, as Iran edges closer to nuclear capability, we need to consider other options that would prevent a worse scenario from occurring. The U.S. should be planning a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and/or quietly encouraging the Israelis to do the same. There is enough concern in the Middle East to potentially bring certain Arab states into the planning so as to present a unified front against – whether it is diplomatically or militarily. The last part might be difficult to manage as the Arab states might be less incline to be seen supporting future American military action against a pre-dominantly Muslim nation.
If there is good news, it is that President Obama has options. As a combat veteran, I do not suggest a military option lightly but it might come to that and we should be prepared. Heightening our urgency for preparedness is the latest news of the captured American who traveled to Iran to visit a sick grandmother. The young man has been sentenced to death. If he is executed, Iran, as one State Department official told al-Jazeera news agency, will close any remaining doors to peace and cooperation. Iran is a country representing an impressive history and culture but currently controlled by competing forces and irrational policy makers. I hope the latter does not destroy the future of the former.
The other week, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria suggested that increased sanctions and tough talk was not required as Iran was weak and posed no threat to anyone. As much as I admire Mr. Zakaria and enjoy his program and vast knowledge on international affairs, I’m not sure he could be more wrong. History is replete with examples of one country assuming weakness in another, only to be stung later by being unprepared. In U.S. history, we have been on both sides on the equation – Britain (1776) and Japan (1941) assumed our weakness and we did the same with the Philippines (1898) and Viet Nam (1968). To presume that Iran is weak because of internal strife and the devastating effect of international sanctions is foolish. The chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Force, Bennie Gantz, said before the Knesset that the extreme pressures on Iran does not mean they will knuckle under and he worries about possible actions from Iran.
Iran’s belligerence is the product of being backed into a corner and having a possible outlet with Iraq. I do not suggest we ease up – indeed, we should push harder. Iran is isolated in the region and long standing allies, China and Russia, are being pressured heavily to cut themselves off from the Islamic republic. The weaker its position becomes, the more dangerous it is to its neighbors, all Sunni Muslims, and the western powers. In order to calm or better control its increasingly restless population, Iran has the incentive of starting something internationally to take the attention away from its own crumbling house. We saw this with Syria. As protests grew there, the Syrian government blamed the civil unrest on everyone from the Israelis to al-Queda in hopes that a common enemy would nullify the anger in the streets and unify the people. So it is with the Iranian leadership.
With Iran teetering, we must now, more than ever, step up pressures with increased sanctions, increased pressure on China and Russia and greater cooperation with Iran’s Sunni neighbors. Additionally, as Iran edges closer to nuclear capability, we need to consider other options that would prevent a worse scenario from occurring. The U.S. should be planning a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities and/or quietly encouraging the Israelis to do the same. There is enough concern in the Middle East to potentially bring certain Arab states into the planning so as to present a unified front against – whether it is diplomatically or militarily. The last part might be difficult to manage as the Arab states might be less incline to be seen supporting future American military action against a pre-dominantly Muslim nation.
If there is good news, it is that President Obama has options. As a combat veteran, I do not suggest a military option lightly but it might come to that and we should be prepared. Heightening our urgency for preparedness is the latest news of the captured American who traveled to Iran to visit a sick grandmother. The young man has been sentenced to death. If he is executed, Iran, as one State Department official told al-Jazeera news agency, will close any remaining doors to peace and cooperation. Iran is a country representing an impressive history and culture but currently controlled by competing forces and irrational policy makers. I hope the latter does not destroy the future of the former.
Reading List – The B’s
Here are the books on my classical list under the B's. As last time, please feel free to suggest and explain another book that should be listed. Thank you.
Essays, Francis Bacon
The Girl with the Golden Eyes, Honoré de Balzac
The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir
Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett
The Rule of St. Benedict, St. Benedict
The Rationale of Punishment, Jeremy Bentham
Beowulf,
The Steps of Humility, St. Bernard of Clairvaux
Bhagavad Gita,
The Bible,
Collected Writings, Ambrose Bierce
The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius
The Journey of the Mind to God, St. Bonaventure
Retracing the Arts of Theology, St. Bonaventure
Poems, Emily Brontë
Modern Poetry and the Tradition, Cleanth Brooks
The Well Wrought Urn, Cleanth Brooks
Between Man and Man, Martin Buber
I and Thou, Martin Buber
The Knowledge of Man, Martin Buber
The Master and Margarita, Mikhail Bulgakov
A Philosophical Enquiry…, Edmund Burke
Don Juan, Lord Byron
Poems, Lord Byron
Essays, Francis Bacon
The Girl with the Golden Eyes, Honoré de Balzac
The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir
Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett
The Rule of St. Benedict, St. Benedict
The Rationale of Punishment, Jeremy Bentham
Beowulf,
The Steps of Humility, St. Bernard of Clairvaux
Bhagavad Gita,
The Bible,
Collected Writings, Ambrose Bierce
The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius
The Journey of the Mind to God, St. Bonaventure
Retracing the Arts of Theology, St. Bonaventure
Poems, Emily Brontë
Modern Poetry and the Tradition, Cleanth Brooks
The Well Wrought Urn, Cleanth Brooks
Between Man and Man, Martin Buber
I and Thou, Martin Buber
The Knowledge of Man, Martin Buber
The Master and Margarita, Mikhail Bulgakov
A Philosophical Enquiry…, Edmund Burke
Don Juan, Lord Byron
Poems, Lord Byron
Friday, January 6, 2012
Reading List - The A's
Last year, I decided that, as a well-read individual, I should endeavor to read the classics. Periodically, I'd like to share on this blog the books that I placed on a "classical" list. The list is not meant to be complete and while there are many books of a classical nature dealing with Christianity, I've tried to add many other ideas as well. I will post them alphabetically, starting with the "A's." Please feel free to add a title and a thought about the title if you see something that should be added to my list. I'm always looking for good books to read.
Cheers
Ross
The Oresteia, Aeschylus
Prometheus Bound, Aeschylus
Tevye the Dairyman, Sholem Aleichem
Al-Qur’an,
Malmad, Jacob Anatoli
The Bridge on the Drina, Ivo Andric
Proslogion, St. Anselm
Why God Became Man, St. Anselm
On Being and Essence, St. Thomas Aquinas
On Kingship, St. Thomas Aquinas
On the Principles of Nature, St. Thomas Aquinas
On the Teacher, St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Contra Gentiles, St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas
Acharnians, Aristophanes
Frogs, Aristophanes
Peace, Aristophanes
Complete Works, Vol. I and II, Aristotle
On the Incarnation, St. Athanasius
Collected Poems, W.H. Auden
Against the Academicians, St. Augustine
City of God, St. Augustine
Confessions, St. Augustine
On Christian Doctrine, St. Augustine
On Free Choice of the Will, St. Augustine
On the Teacher, St. Augustine
On the Trinity, St. Augustine
The Rule of St. Augustine, St. Augustine
Cheers
Ross
The Oresteia, Aeschylus
Prometheus Bound, Aeschylus
Tevye the Dairyman, Sholem Aleichem
Al-Qur’an,
Malmad, Jacob Anatoli
The Bridge on the Drina, Ivo Andric
Proslogion, St. Anselm
Why God Became Man, St. Anselm
On Being and Essence, St. Thomas Aquinas
On Kingship, St. Thomas Aquinas
On the Principles of Nature, St. Thomas Aquinas
On the Teacher, St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Contra Gentiles, St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas
Acharnians, Aristophanes
Frogs, Aristophanes
Peace, Aristophanes
Complete Works, Vol. I and II, Aristotle
On the Incarnation, St. Athanasius
Collected Poems, W.H. Auden
Against the Academicians, St. Augustine
City of God, St. Augustine
Confessions, St. Augustine
On Christian Doctrine, St. Augustine
On Free Choice of the Will, St. Augustine
On the Teacher, St. Augustine
On the Trinity, St. Augustine
The Rule of St. Augustine, St. Augustine
Guns and the Constitutional Question
Last week, an Oklahoma woman shot and killed an intruder as he attempted to break into her house. In the state of Oklahoma, as with many other states, there is a “castle” law that allows for people to use deadly force when intruders force their way into a house. International observers often site this as part of the “barbarism” of American society (along with capital punishment). Indeed, there are some Americans who feel the same way. They use this argument as part of an overall philosophy against guns and its possession. It is short sighted and without thought of its natural consequences.
Gun advocates point naturally to the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Gun opponents point to the same document, the same amendment for their beliefs. For those not familiar, the second amendment to the Constitution reads, “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.” It is the first clause of this statement that is the source of much debate and consternation. Gun opponents argue that since we have no need for a militia, there is no need for the ownership of guns. However, my friends on the left choose this issue as the only one where they will read the Constitution literally. Typically, they will take a broader view of a constitutional question but not with regards to the ownership of guns. It makes their argument specious and therefore, invalid.
The discovery and settlement of our country was done with a gun either in hand or very close by. I believe the assumption of the founding fathers was the ownership of guns in perpetuity, notwithstanding a militia. At no point in the first 150 years or so of our country’s history was there a serious challenge to the idea of gun ownership. However, in the last forty years, there has been a concerted effort to nullify the constitutional protection. Typically, the rhetoric becomes more shrill after a horrific incident like a school shooting. It makes the argument of gun opponents seem reactionary, a reaction without thought. A person willing to kill with a gun will also kill with a knife. What are we really attempting to ban?
In several cities in the United States, strong anti-gun legislation has been attempted. However, it is interesting that these places, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. to name a couple, have also had some of the highest percentage of violence in the country. To hear gun opponents speak, it does not make sense that restrictive access to weapons should equate to greater gun violence. However, the only people who do not have access to weapons in such an environment are law abiding citizens. Bad people obtain their guns illegally, outside the restrictions of the state. If the Oklahoma woman had lived in the U.S. capital, she would likely have been killed in the defense of her baby son, with nothing more to fight with than her hands against two men.
When gun opponents make their cases, they typically bring up sub-machine guns or some other military-oriented weapon but their laws focus on pistols or rifles (laws on the more extreme weapons are already on the books). They are using the extreme to outlaw or heavily restrict the ordinary. Thankfully, these efforts are not working. Over the last couple of years, the Supreme Court has validated the tradition and has struck down as unconstitutional the laws that unduly restrict access to or ownership of guns. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court not only rejected the excessive restrictions on gun ownership but ensured it applied at all levels of the federal and state governments.
In the United States, we measure our freedoms by the amount of choices we have. We have economic freedoms, political freedoms and many social freedoms. The group that purports to defend as many freedoms as possible, the liberals, recoil at the freedom to own weapons. Their arguments are riddled with inconsistencies and irrationalities. I own a gun and would like to own a rifle. I have no reason to own anything beyond that but in a free society, I have no right and the government certainly has no right to dictate what law abiding citizens can and cannot have. When laws specifically put these same people in jeopardy, then the government has crossed the line. Our laws might not work for other countries. Perhaps my international readers could comment. However, for the United States, it is part and parcel to how we define our freedoms and our democracy.
Gun advocates point naturally to the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Gun opponents point to the same document, the same amendment for their beliefs. For those not familiar, the second amendment to the Constitution reads, “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.” It is the first clause of this statement that is the source of much debate and consternation. Gun opponents argue that since we have no need for a militia, there is no need for the ownership of guns. However, my friends on the left choose this issue as the only one where they will read the Constitution literally. Typically, they will take a broader view of a constitutional question but not with regards to the ownership of guns. It makes their argument specious and therefore, invalid.
The discovery and settlement of our country was done with a gun either in hand or very close by. I believe the assumption of the founding fathers was the ownership of guns in perpetuity, notwithstanding a militia. At no point in the first 150 years or so of our country’s history was there a serious challenge to the idea of gun ownership. However, in the last forty years, there has been a concerted effort to nullify the constitutional protection. Typically, the rhetoric becomes more shrill after a horrific incident like a school shooting. It makes the argument of gun opponents seem reactionary, a reaction without thought. A person willing to kill with a gun will also kill with a knife. What are we really attempting to ban?
In several cities in the United States, strong anti-gun legislation has been attempted. However, it is interesting that these places, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. to name a couple, have also had some of the highest percentage of violence in the country. To hear gun opponents speak, it does not make sense that restrictive access to weapons should equate to greater gun violence. However, the only people who do not have access to weapons in such an environment are law abiding citizens. Bad people obtain their guns illegally, outside the restrictions of the state. If the Oklahoma woman had lived in the U.S. capital, she would likely have been killed in the defense of her baby son, with nothing more to fight with than her hands against two men.
When gun opponents make their cases, they typically bring up sub-machine guns or some other military-oriented weapon but their laws focus on pistols or rifles (laws on the more extreme weapons are already on the books). They are using the extreme to outlaw or heavily restrict the ordinary. Thankfully, these efforts are not working. Over the last couple of years, the Supreme Court has validated the tradition and has struck down as unconstitutional the laws that unduly restrict access to or ownership of guns. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court not only rejected the excessive restrictions on gun ownership but ensured it applied at all levels of the federal and state governments.
In the United States, we measure our freedoms by the amount of choices we have. We have economic freedoms, political freedoms and many social freedoms. The group that purports to defend as many freedoms as possible, the liberals, recoil at the freedom to own weapons. Their arguments are riddled with inconsistencies and irrationalities. I own a gun and would like to own a rifle. I have no reason to own anything beyond that but in a free society, I have no right and the government certainly has no right to dictate what law abiding citizens can and cannot have. When laws specifically put these same people in jeopardy, then the government has crossed the line. Our laws might not work for other countries. Perhaps my international readers could comment. However, for the United States, it is part and parcel to how we define our freedoms and our democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)