In Lieu of Post, Read These

So sorry for the delay in breaking the news, but, sadly, there is no post this week. I'll spare you the excuses, but I do have some interesting articles I've been holding on to that should keep you entertained:

From Reason: MLK's Contested Yet Universal Blueprint for Freedom

From Think Progress:
Santorum: US Needs Immigrants to Grow Its Population
At Long Last, Fox News Admits the Stimulus Helped Everyday Americans

From Slate: The Conservative Left

Have a great week!

Gun Control: The Low-Hanging Fruit

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.—U.S.  Constitution, Article II

The spirit of the Second Amendment says that the people should bear arms to insure against a government from within or without imposing its will without the people’s consent. And, in this day and age, if we the people are going to go up against our own, or anyone else’s, military, then we definitely need semiautomatic and fully-automatic weapons and, generally, every manner of high tech weaponry we can get our hands on. I make that statement in all seriousness, yet, even as I write it, I find it ludicrous.

Our government is never going to allow us to put tanks in our garages or fighter jets on our own personal runways, and the all-weapons movement seems to accept those facts. But, they’ve chosen the next best line in the sand: semiautomatic weapons. If we choose to stockpile a few of those, it’s our Second Amendment right to do so. Still, I fail to understand that strategy. When the Marines or Green Berets throw grenades into our living rooms are these weapons supposed to protect us? Is the idea that we should all take up residence in the woods, so that we can more effectively stave off such an attack, should it occur? (Yes, my imagery is totally based on that 1984 Patrick Swayze classic Red Dawn. Although in that film, it was the USSR throwing grenades on American soil).

All of this thinking only goes as far as the Second Amendment implies. The Second Amendment stops short of insuring the right to hunt or to own any weapon we choose. Yet, proponents of the all-weapons movement argue that prohibiting the purchase of assault weapons (ill-defined term that it is (Goode)) is a slippery slope, a first step in the slide toward the loss of all kinds of freedoms (Bell). This argument is given despite that the government limits personal liberties regularly: Wear a seatbelt; don’t put your trash out too early; buy auto insurance; obey traffic signals; obey the speed limit; don’t slander; don’t take without purchasing; children must attend school between the ages of six and 18; don’t yell fire when there is no fire; etc. All of these rules, regulations, and laws are enacted to insure the safety and comfort of the whole. Why should rules about guns be any different?

Is the drive to obtain or to simply have the right to obtain semiautomatic weapons really about the best hunting tools, the potential for a someday revolt of the people or a military coup, or simply the desire to maintain the most vigorous interpretation of the Second Amendment because that amendment has become synonymous with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the NRA is fueled by the gun industry?

I’ve read and listened to David Keene, NRA President, in a couple of interviews. He’s well-spoken, calm, armed with plenty of historical knowledge and statistics that directly oppose statistics provided by the interviewers. In one interview, with PBS’s Judy Woodruff, he said:

Well, we tried a ban on assault weapons. The only thing that is different is—and, remember, Judy, that an assault weapon has to be listed because there’s no functional difference between a so-called assault weapon and any other semiautomatic rifle.

So, this time, they’re saying, well, if it has a pistol grip, it’s dangerous. If it doesn’t have a pistol grip, it isn’t dangerous. Now, that’s absurd from a functional standpoint, because it’s the same gun, the same rifle. And the only difference is cosmetic.

So, banning something for cosmetic reasons is not going to cause—is not going to cure the problem (Woodruff).

Well-played, Mr. Keene. You can just see him, like the Tasmanian Devil, running circles around Ms. Woodruff. Mr. Keene is arguing that the government is pulling a hoax. It is creating new rules that don’t solve the issue, and it’s doing it at the expense of civil liberties. Yet, when the dust settles, you realize that these bans are designed to limit the limits even as they aim to keep the bad guys from getting weapons. This balancing act is performed to protect the liberties of responsible current (and future) gun owners.

In fact, the government is doing what it’s supposed to do: Insure the safety of everyone without infringing any more than necessary on personal liberty—including the option to purchase a particular weapon. What the NRA calls the failure of government is actually the art of compromise. Unfortunately, compromise often means that the journey to real change is a slow one. Nevertheless, government is working as it was designed to work. It just doesn’t have the luxury of standing in its own rightness.

Of course, David Keene is right on at least one point: A ban on assault weapons alone won’t cure the problem, but, then, no one thing will. The goal is not to cure; it is to take preventive measures. The goal is to limit opportunities for these tragedies to take place. These tragedies rear their head at the intersection of some of this country’s most significant problems: guns, violence, and mental health care. Figuring out what guns should be legal is far simpler than tackling mental health. We can only hope that greater energy and time will go into that debate.

This conversation doesn’t even begin to touch on the violence occurring in our urban neighborhoods where our children live with violence and fear every day. Where school might be safe, but every where else is a danger zone.

The NRA argument is a distraction from the discussions that need to be taking place, and the politicians who cow tow to the NRA sell out their constituents even as they stock up their campaign war chests.

Sources:

Beekman, Daniel. “Connecticut Shooter Used Heavy-Duty Weapons Registered to His Mother to Kill Her and 25 Others.” New York Daily News. N.p. 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 20 Jan. 2013. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ct-school-shooter-made-combat-weapon-article-1.1220431

Bell, Larry. “The Slippery Slope of Gun Control: Time to Stand on Firm Ground.” Forbes. Forbes.com, LLC. 15 Jan. 2013. Web. 20 Jan. 2013. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/01/15/the-slippery-slope-of-gun-control-time-to-stand-on-firm-ground/

Block, Melissa. “NRA Head: Registry of Gun Owners Would be Very Dangerous.” NPR. N.p. 11 Jan. 2013. Web. 21. Jan. 2013. http://www.npr.org/2013/01/11/169172198/nra-head-registry-of-gun-owners-would-be-very-dangerous

Goode, Erica. “Even Defining ‘Assault Rifles’ Is Complicated.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company. 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 21 Jan. 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/even-defining-assault-weapons-is-complicated.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

“Jon Stewart Takes on NRA Over ATF Limitations on Enforcing Existing Gun Laws.” Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, Inc. 17 Jan. 2013. Web. 20 Jan. 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/jon-stewart-nra-limiting-atf-law-enforcement_n_2495301.html

Kempa, Darcy. “Assault Weapons Ban Would Not Have Prevented the Sandy Hook Shooting.” Policymic. Mic Network Inc. Dec 2012. Web. 20 Jan. 2013. http://www.policymic.com/articles/21139/assault-weapons-ban-would-not-have-prevented-the-sandy-hook-shooting

“Our View: Executive Orders on Gun Control Wouldn’t Stop Adam Lanza.” lenconnect.com. Gatehouse Media Inc. N.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2013. http://www.lenconnect.com/article/20130120/OPINION/130119361/1007

Red Dawn. IMDb.com. IMDb.com, Inc. N.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2013. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/

Red Dawn. IMDb. IMDb.com. N.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2013. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/

“Second Amendment.” The Free Dictionary. Farlex, Inc. N.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2013. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Second+Amendment

Spangler, Todd. “President Barack Obama’s Gun Proposals Raise Hope, Concern.” Detroit Free Press. Freep.com. 17 Jan. 2013. Web. 20 Jan. 2013. http://www.freep.com/article/20130117/NEWS15/301170293/President-Barack-Obama-s-gun-control-proposals-raise-hope-concern

Webb, Lee. “What Exactly Is an Assault Weapon?” CBN News. Christian Broadcasting Network. 19 Jan. 2013. Web. 21 Jan. 2013. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/January/What-Exactly-Is-an-Assault-Weapon/

Woodruff, Judy. “NRA President David Keene Rejects White House Gun Control Approach.” PBS NewsHour. MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. 15 Jan. 2013. Web. 20 Jan. 2013. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june13/keene_01-15.html

From Homogeneity to Diversity and Back

While it is well known that diversity is growing nationally overall, three Pennsylvania State University researchers set out to look at local diversity trends. In September 2012, they published their findings: Racial and Ethnic Diversity Goes Local: Charting Change in American Communities over Three Decades. They found that diversity is most prominent in coastal and southern regions with high populations, plenty of rental housing, many foreign-born residents, various occupation options, and military and/or government employment hubs. With or without these characteristics, though, ethnic diversity is on the rise everywhere. In the last 30 years, metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural areas have all experienced an increase in diversity.

Of course, if you’ve been anywhere in the last 30 years, you already knew this. Today, when I visit places I frequented in my youth, I can’t help but notice that the faces are far more diverse. Unfortunately, physical diversity of a space far outpaces the mindset of those living in that space. Basically, we have the appearance of diversity without the belief system to support it:

Whites’ responses to diversity are of particular concern. Studies of racial residential preferences indicate that those whites who associate the presence of minorities with a reduced quality of life are prone either to exit diverse neighborhoods or not to move into them at all (Lee).

This concern is the question on which the researchers concluded their study: Is the trend of growing ethnic diversity really a trend toward increasing homogeneity of particular ethnic groups:

Could this type of white avoidance, exacerbated by continued minority growth, portend a bleak prognosis for the racial and ethnic diversity of entire communities, not just neighborhoods? The increase in Hispanic and black minority places hints at potential departures from the diversity master trend. Moreover, a separate analysis identifies a few places that have already ‘bucked the trend’: they reached their peak diversity in 1980 or 1990 and have since become more homogenous (Lee).

History has shown that cordoning off any single population type, blacks, Jews, low-income, mentally ill, has detrimental consequences for society as a whole. However, given this study, the difference is that ethnic groups may end up self-cordoning. Therefore, despite personal, professional, and academic knowledge to the contrary, I felt obligated to ask the question: Is homogeneity really so bad?

To that end, I stumbled upon a Brookings Institution article, “Beyond Sushiology: Does Diversity Work?” Author Peter Skerry admonishes those who support diversity because it means a more colorful world where we all get to eat foreign food. (Full disclosure on this one: On my last visit to a Chinese restaurant, I ordered that oh-so-authentic Chinese delicacy known as General Tsao’s Chicken). Skerry does an excellent job of covering an array of research that advocates for both sides of the debate. He wisely argues that diversity is so often accepted as a good thing that we fail to address the challenges inherent in it. In fact, he suggests we are actually afraid to admit that diversity has as many pitfalls as homogeneity. I think he’s right.

Just as fear of the Other will prohibit honest dialogue, so will fear of questioning the challenges brought on by diversity. I remain a staunch advocate for diversity, and I agree with the Penn State researchers: If homogeneity is the long-term result of the rising diversity trend, then society is not improving. Yet, I am certain that without a respectful, thoughtful, and ongoing conversation about the realities of diversity—language barriers, truth in stereotypes, fear of assimilation, cultural behaviors, and fear of minority status (Skerry)—the genuine fulfillment of equality and acceptance will never materialize.

Sources:

Florida, Richard. “America’s Most and Least Diverse Metros.” The Atlantic Cities. The Atlantic Media Company. 9 Sep. 2012. Web. 13 Jan. 2013. http://m.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2012/09/americas-most-and-least-diverse-metros/3206/

Lee, Barrett A., John Iceland, Gregory Sharp. Racial and Ethnic Diversity Goes Local: Charting Change in American Communities over Three Decades. Pennsylvania State University. 2012. Web. http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/Report/report08292012.pdf

Skerry, Peter. “Beyond Sushiology: Does Diversity Work?” The Brookings Institution. N.p. Wint. 2002. Web. 14 Jan. 2013. http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2002/12/winter-affirmativeaction-skerry

Napoleon Celebrates Emancipation by Playing Race Card

Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. In that moment, he granted freedom to 50,000 slaves. As Union troops spread word of the Proclamation (carrying “miniature copies”), tens of thousands more slaves gained freedom (Holzer). But, as American history has proven since then, words and mindsets are just as binding as physical shackles. So it was with unintended irony that, 150 years to the day, prospective Detroit mayoral candidate, Benny Napoleon played the race card.

At a celebration marking the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation held at Detroit’s New Bethel Baptist Church, Benny Napoleon commented to reporters that, “’It’s our Detroit, and we’re going to keep it for Detroiters’” (Wilkinson). Asked if his competitor, Mike Duggan (former CEO of Detroit Medical Center), could effectively represent Detroit residents while living in the affluent Detroit neighborhood of Palmer Woods, Napoleon replied, “’Hell, no. Palmer Woods is not Detroit’” (Wilkinson).

Despite how often the race card is played in politics, I’m astounded every time. But the icing on the cake is always when the politicians attempt to walk the proverbial horse—no matter how large—back into the barn. Within 24 hours, Napoleon was on Twitter, Facebook, and WDET’s Craig Fahle Show attempting to do just that: What he really meant was that all people who support Detroit—whether they live in Detroit or not—are Detroiters. As for Palmer Woods, of course it is part of Detroit. In fact, all of Detroit should aspire to be like Palmer Woods. That’s all he was trying to say….Uh, what?

Napoleon, like every other politician to ever pull the race card, just needed a bogeyman. He tried to show his audience that he was like them by showing how his opponent is supposedly not like them. The bogeyman, Mike Duggan, is white, lived in Livonia, and then moved to a rich neighborhood in Detroit. Whereas Napoleon, “lived next to abandoned homes, dealt with high car insurance rates and felt the fear…stemming from the city’s high crime rate” (Wilkinson). Duggan is an outsider, and outsiders haven’t lived Detroit, so they can’t lead Detroit. The beauty of this tactic is that Napoleon never has to discuss the issues or his record or that of his opponent.

Despite the many critical issues facing Detroiters (lighting, security, economic vitality, and education), on the 150^th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, Benny Napoleon suggested that Detroiters should be primarily concerned with whether or not their mayoral candidate is street-enough. Napoleon’s words are not merely a gaffe; they are symbolic of the kind of leadership that has so often kept Detroit shackled to decay and stagnation.

Sources:

“Benny Napoleon Clarifies Palmer Woods Remarks.” The Detroit News. MediaNews Group, 2 Jan. 2013. Web. 6 Jan. 2013. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130102/METRO01/301020398

“Benny Napoleon Explains Comments about Palmer Woods.” Craig Fahle Show. WDET, 3 Jan. 2013. Radio. 7 Jan. 2013. http://www.wdet.org/shows/craig-fahle-show/episode/benny-napoleon-palmer-park/

Holzer, Harold. “A Mighty Act: The 150^th Anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation.” The Daily Beast. The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 6 Jan. 2013.  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/01/a-mighty-act-the-150th-anniversary-of-the-emancipation-proclamation.html

 “Update: Benny Napoleon Clarifies ‘Palmer Woods is not Detroit’ Remark.” Deadline Detroit. N.p. 2 Jan. 2013. Web. 6 Jan. 2013. http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/3209/napoleon_goes_after_duggan_in_mayoral_race_palmer_woods_is_not_detroit

Wattrick, Jeff. “The Mike Duggan Interview: ‘I expect to raise expectations.” Deadline Detroit. N.p. 11 Nov. 2012. Web. 6 Jan. 2013. http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/2613/the_mike_duggan_interview_i_expect_to_raise_expectations

Wilkinson, Mike. “Napoleon Takes Verbal Swipe at Duggan: ‘It’s our Detroit.’” The Detroit News. MediaNews Group, 2 Jan. 2013. Web. 4 Jan. 2013. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130102/METRO01/301020323/1409/metro/Napoleon-takes-verbal-swipe-Duggan-s-our-Detroit-