Rangers Survive Game 7 & Dominate Hurricanes in Carolina to Advance to Eastern Conference Finals

Wow! They did it again.

Not sure if the Rangers will be able to get past Tampa Bay, but they are at least in the Eastern Conference Finals, with a chance. As Marv Levy, the former head coach of the Buffalo Bills used to say, all you can ask for is the opportunity. Then, you have to do something about it once you get there.

The fact that the Rangers still are in this thing, still have the opportunity, is pretty impressive, when you think about it. Admittedly, I thought that they were done when they went down 3-1 in the series against the Pittsburgh Penguins. But they stormed back, winning the final three games to complete the turnaround and advance.

There, they met the Carolina Hurricanes, who were undefeated at home in the playoffs. The Rangers could not seem to break that, but they held serve at home in Madison Square Garden, as well. The series went the distance, to the deciding seventh game.

And here, the Rangers dominated the Hurricanes, handing them their first, and only, home loss of this postseason. What a time for them to do it!

New York took the lead early, and dominated the game, never allowing Carolina to get back into this one. It marked the second straight series that the Rangers faced elimination in consecutive games, and survived to ultimately win the series. 

Now, the Rangers will face their most serious test. The defending champion Tampa Bay Lightning, who swept the number one seed Florida Panthers. Not only do the Lightning have a ton of talent, but they also are well-rested. That could work either way. Sometimes, teams that have too much rest are surprisingly cold to start the next round, and the team that went the distance very focused. But it could easily go the other way, as well.

We shall see.

Nevertheless, what an impressive run by the Rangers! 

Meanwhile, I hope that Edmonton prevails in the Western Conference Finals against the Colorado Avalanche.

Let's see what happens...

How Hot Was It Today?

This was a punishing, oppressive day. It was very, very hot here in New Jersey, and with the humidity added to it, it was downright dangerous.

Luckily, I had disciplined myself enough to go for a walk earlier in the morning, before the temperatures really began to sore. It was still in the lower 70's (Fahrenheit) when I went for that walk. Still, it was already humid. Somehow, you could already feel how hot the day was going to be, and I got back probably before 9am, when it was still in the mid-70's.

It was a day off for me, so when I got back inside, I pulled the curtains and turned on the fan. Later, when it really got hot, I turned on the air conditioner. 

At some point, I went over to check just how hot it was. Then, I saw this:

Obviously, it was not actually quite that hot. The temperature gauge was surely in the sun, exaggerating just how hot it actually was.

Nevertheless, it was uncomfortably hot today in New Jersey, and through much of the northeast. If you are in one of these areas, take precautions and take care of yourself! It's no joke. 

Boston Celtics Head to NBA Finals After Surviving Heat in Miami in Game 7

The Boston Celtics, one of the most storied teams in the NBA, are heading to the NBA Finals for the 22nd time in franchise history. It also marks the first time that the Celtics have reached the NBA Finals since 2010, when they were looking to win a second NBA title in three years. However, the lost to the same team that they had defeated in 2008, their arch nemesis, the Los Angeles Lakers.  

For much of the game, Boston seemed to be comfortably in control. They sported a double-digit lead for much of the fourth quarter, including late in the quarter. It seemed like the game was out of reach for Miami.  

However, the Heat rallied and made a late run, at one point pulling within two points with less than a minute left to play. They actually managed to stop the Celtics with their defense, and got the ball back. Then, however, Jimmy Butler surprisingly took a 3-point attempt for the win, rather than remaining patient and going for the tie. It is a decision that some may criticize, and indeed, since he missed, it seems like perhaps it killed the chances for the Heat. However, he would have looked like an absolute genius had he made that shot, which would have given Miami a lead, and a ton of momentum, with little time left.  

Instead, he missed, and Boston got the ball back. The Heat fouled, and remained Smart cool and collected, and sank the two free throw shots to put his team up by four with less than 12 seconds.  

Game 1 of the NBA Finals will be played in Oakland, with the Golden State Warriors hosting the newly crowned Eastern Conference Champions, the Boston Celtics. The Warriors are slight favorites (3 points) to win the NBA Finals series over the Celtics. Golden State obviously has a lot of experience at this level. They made five straight NBA Finals appearances from 2015-2019, winning the NBA title three of those times. They will also enjoy home court advantage, meaning that they will play the first two games of the series at home, and will host four games if the series goes to seven, which of course means that the deciding Game 7 would be played at Golden State.

The Origins of Memorial Day

Now, I'll admit that I never really knew the origins of Memorial Day until I read this article.

No, that does not mean that I simply thought of it as a vacation day, or a day of barbecue and summer fun. I knew it had more reason than that.

But that it is a holiday that was originally created to honor black troops specifically, that much I did not know, admittedly.

Things you never know, until someone sheds some light on them.

And so, I felt it was something that deserved sharing, and I am helping to spread the word, so that more people understand the truth of the origins of this national holiday.






Forgetting Why We Remember by New York Times Op/Ed Contributor David W. Blight, May 29, 2011:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/opinion/30blight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Early Morning Sighting of Foxes

As I was leaving work this morning, there were a couple of foxes In the parking lot. It looked like it was a mother and her pup,  although I could be wrong about that. 

In any event, just thought it would be worth sharing the pictures of them:

More Pictures From My Father's Various Facebook Accounts

Since my father's passing a couple of weeks ago, it seems that I have been visiting the few Facebook accounts that he still had and did not outright cancel. There are at least three that I have found, but it is not impossible that there may be others.

In perusing through those Facebook profiles, I encountered some pictures, as well as a couple of cartoons, that seemed like they would be worth sharing here.

Today, it seemed like it might be fitting to publish them here. And so, without further ado, here are some of the cartoons (including one that I believe was his), as well as a couple of pictures of him that I found, as well.

Enjoy!

This was a cartoon that my father posted, actually, as a profile picture for one of his accounts. At first glance, it might look like a peace symbol, which it is. But it is also a cartoon rendering of the Eiffel Tower, and became somewhat popular, and as a symbol of solidarity with the victims of the terrorist attacks in France some years ago, including the Charlie Hebdo attack, the day of the Bataclan attacks, and also the Nice truck attack. There were also some shocking, albeit much smaller in scale, anti-Semitic attacks. This seemed like a positive cartoon to share here.

This is the other cartoon, which again, I believe was one of my father's cartoons, although I cannot be sure at this time, and apologies to whoever did publish this if this cartoon belonged to someone else. My father, like most artists, signed his artwork normally. Yet on this cartoon, which he posted via photo scan, presumably, on one of his Facebook accounts, had no signing, one way or the other. Not sure why. But again, my assumption (possibly a wrong one) is that this was one that my father drew, and so I am working and publishing this on that assumption. 

One last cartoon here. This is obviously some dark humor, which seems to be a specialty with my family. The king (of France) is about to lose his head, quite literally, one last time. Yet, the king seems surprisingly jovial, and asks the jester to make him laugh just one last time. Dark or not, it made me laugh. 

This was one of the most recent pictures of my father that I know of, even though it was taken either in 2007 or 2008. There is a picture with him kneeling with my son, who was a toddler at the time. I believe that this was during one of the Dassault company picnics that we went to as a family, in Ringwood, New Jersey. My father was still in relatively decent health then, at least in comparison to what would soon follow. he walked, although with some difficulty. Still, he was in good enough shape that he played ping pong on this picnic, which I believe marked the last time that he ever played pin pong (which he really enjoyed). 

Yes, these two are one and the same picture, although I altered it and tried to improve it (above) with some cropping and adjustment tools. My father left this description below (in French), and so I will leave that here. What I will say is that my father, uncharacteristically, is smoking a pipe (likely my grandfather's on my mother's side). This picture was taken in Liberty, New York, and my brother is sitting on my father's lap, while I am staring wide-eyed at the camera, with my old Amazing Spider-Man pajamas.  This particular picture brings me back to my childhood because it was taken in Liberty while my brother and I were still young kids. Plus, the pipe and especially the chess pieces really take me back to those times, in that particular house in Liberty. 

Père et fils 1980

A look at “George Carlin’s American Dream”

Ewan McGregor Defends ‘Star Wars’ Prequels - Especially Revenge of the Sith - Just Before Release of New Show

 

Picture courtesy of Global Panorama's Flickr Page - Star Wars Logo: https://www.flickr.com/photos/121483302@N02/14137284401

Creative Commons License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Okay, I will take a bit of a break from the grim news of the recent school shooting in Texas. It is a holiday weekend, a three day weekend for many. This is one of the most pleasant weekends of the year for many, marking the unofficial but de facto start of the summer season. 

Also, I already dedicated six straight blog entries about school shootings and gun violence. But talking about it too often feels like an exercise in futility. Admittedly, I have little to no faith that anything will change with that problem, or with many others, given the political climate and realities in the United States presently.

It is time to try and move on.

So today, I wanted to get a blog entry about Star Wars, since the new television series, Obi Wan Kenobi, is making all sorts of news. I will not see it for a while yet, but intend to.

Nevertheless, for any Star Wars fans out there possibly reading this, I thought that the following might be of particular interest. This was written earlier this week, and I meant to publish it earlier. But the events dominating the news distracted me. Now seems like a good time to let it finally see the light of day:

Ewan McGregor is starring in a new television show that many believe will be a smash hit, which is all around the title character that he portrayed in the prequels. And he is very aware of the criticisms that the prequels generally received by Star Wars fans. Yet, just as his television show is about to be released, McGregor is defending the prequels from the often harsh criticisms that they generate.

He is happy that the movies are beginning to be appreciated now, even though it took a decade and a half for that to happen. He is some of what he had to say about the matter recently:

“What we didn’t hear at the time was people your age, your generation. Those people now really love our films, but it’s taken us 15 years to hear that. It’s really nice, it’s changed my relationship with Star Wars. It’s different because of that I think. We really put our heart and soul into them, and they were difficult to make.”  

Elaborating on why the Republic era was difficult to make, the actor continued by explaining the reason Lucas leaned heavily on CG imagery.  

“There was so much green screen and blue screen because George was pushing into this new realm that he had designed, that he was responsible for. He wanted to max out that technology, but that meant for us that we were very much on blue screens and green screens, and it was hard work. To do that and be passionate about it and then for the films to be not very well received was really tough. So it’s really lovely to have that new relationship with them now.”

With his show set to be released in just a couple of days, McGregor reflected on the prequels, and was particularly adamant on defending the final movie of the prequel trilogy, Revenge of the Sith. He said:

“I hadn’t seen them since they came out. In preparation for this show, to watch them again was pretty cool. I like them, Episode III was a really good movie.”

Generally, I agree. Not only was Revenge of the Sith the best of the lot - by far - but it can still be quite captivating. First of all, it is when we finally see Anakin become Darth Vader. And we see the conclusion of what I recall was once described as the "lightsaber battle of the century" between Obi Wan and Anakin/Darth Vader. It is from the injuries that he sustained after losing that battle that Anakin/Darth Vader is forced into the armor which also serves as a life support system. The first time that he, lying on an operating table that moves to the upward position, so that he is now standing within that body armor/life support system, is addicting to watch, over and over again. At least if you are a Star Wars fan. Indeed, from the point when we first watch the Vader mask descending, offering a glimpse of seeing the world for the first time the way that Anakin/Darth Vader will see the world from here on out, to the point when the mask locks into place and he takes his first breath as the now familiar Darth Vader (and we can see some slight disturbance from his breath) to the moment when he speaks in that familiar voice (James Earl Jones), these rank as some of the most iconic moments of all Star Wars movies. 

That said, if you are a fan of the Star Wars movies and have not done so yet, I would highly recommend reading "Revenge of the Sith," the book form of what came to be the popular movie. It was written by Matthew Stover, and he really did a fantastic job on it. There are some differences between it and the movie. Admittedly, I tend to prefer the book version, and wish that the movie had not deviated so much from the book. There was more humor (including some really dark humor), and more drama in terms of that final battle. Also, the final moments, when Anakin now has fully and irrevocably become the now familiar Darth Vader, is really well done, and is just fantastic. More generally, you really get a better, more in depth look at all of the characters involved. I actually read this before seeing the movie, and am glad that I did. Not only is Anakin's conversion in becoming Darth Vader handled more capably than it is in the movies, but the way that he loses the battle makes a lot more sense, as well as the need for the iconic breathing mechanism. Read the book if you want to find out what I mean by that. 

After reading the book, I got the mistaken impression that maybe most, if not all, Star Wars books were like that, were that good. They are not. I tried reading some others, and even succeeded in some. But none ever came close to approaching how good this one proved to be. So again, I really cannot recommend it more. 

In any case, with the latest huge Star Wars show about to be released, this seemed like a good time to publish this particular entry. Take a look at the link below for more information on this story. 

All quotes used above were taken from this article by Jonathan Wright. Please take a look by clicking on the link below:

Ewan McGregor defends the divisive ‘Star Wars’ prequels by Jonathan Wright, May 11, 2022:

https://wegotthiscovered.com/news/ewan-mcgregor-defends-the-divisive-star-wars-prequels/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=starwarsrpw&fbclid=IwAR3STAhD7OusZjo9iEYt9LU6ufwBKCxCuPCUogiAuQM5VuBFKOLP7IOlIgU

Blatant Corruption in Washington Serves as Main Obstacle to Resolving Problem of Continual Excessive Gun Violence in the United States & Other Glaring National Problems

So the fallback against the NRA and NRA-backed Washington politicians continues in the aftermath of the recent Texas school shooting in Uvalde. Indeed, as there always is - and always should be - after such a mass shooting, there is anger, even rage, by millions of people.

Unfortunately, with the way things work in this country, it has not been enough to actually change things. It seems unlikely that this will be enough, for that matter. What would it take for things to change? I hate to even guess. In the past, my own feelings would be that it would take an unimaginable massacre that would grab the attention of Americans - even the most tone deaf, gun fanatics among us - like never before. Perhaps a mass shooting with over one thousand victims? Or maybe some kind of massacre at an NRA rally or gun show, or some kind of pro-guns political rally? Or maybe some kind of mass shooting that somehow is broadcast live before thousands, if not more, viewers, and which then goes viral, despite best official efforts to take it off the internet? 

Frankly, I just do not know. I mean, we have had numerous mass shootings where the victims number in the dozens, and I do not have to do internet research to remember some of them (and probably, neither do you). Columbine. Virginia Tech. Aurora. Sandy Hook. Orlando night club. Las Vegas. Sutherland Springs. Parkland. El Paso Walmart. And now, of course, Uvalde. That numbers 10, and I am probably forgetting a few of them. And again, those are only ones from memory that killed at least a dozen or more, and does not include any of the "smaller" shootings, where less than 12 people were killed. 

In other countries, there was a sense of urgency enough that political action to restrict gun access came almost immediately, and by popular demand. And you know what? Gun violence in those countries worked, and incidents of gun violence were significantly reduced. All of those conspiracy theories about how restricting access to guns would surely lead to the most brutal dictatorship in history proved not to be the case in any of those countries, either. Guns were restricted following mass shootings in Norway, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Not one of those countries is what anybody would describe as a totalitarian regime today, where citizens have been forced into concentration camps by an evil government suddenly springing into action once the population has been disarmed. 

Indeed, these countries listed above proved to be solid examples of countries that finally decided to restrict access to guns following a mass shooting. Did it work? Well, the proof is in the pudding. We rarely hear about mass shootings in other countries, but we hear about them all of the time here in the United States, where action to restrict guns never seems to happen anymore. So it does indeed appear that these countries more or less resolved their issues with mass shootings.

But some Americans absolutely loathe being compared with other countries. We're different. We're exceptional, right? Many Americans would not hesitate to say that and more, suggesting that this is the greatest country in the world. Personally, I think that this smacks of arrogance, mixed with no small amount of ignorance. Still, let's take it at face value. If indeed, for some reason, the United States is different, and some kind of serious limitation on access to guns happened here, would it work?

Well in fact, we did have legislation that effectively did just that. And we do not have to go back to the distant past to look at what might happen, and what the results were. It happened during the Clinton years, with the passing of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). It went into effect in 1994 and was valid for 10 years, but was allowed to  expire in 2004. In fairness, studies are mixed as to how effective it was, with some studies suggesting that gun violence did decline, while others (a number of others) suggested that there was no clear decline. That said, mass shootings in particular seemed to go down significantly. The one really huge mass shooting that I can remember during those years was Columbine. If you would like to look more into the specific findings of the various studies which were done (and which often seemed to contradict one another, here is where I went to find out more:

Wikipedia: Federal Assault Weapons Ban

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Yet still, far too many Americans ignore any and all evidence, in other countries or in the United States itself, that suggests that even moderate gun restrictions might lower gun violence. Many feel that the answer is, paradoxically, to bring in more guns into the country. That is the old "good guy with a gun" theory, in which advocates believe that violent people with guns will only be stopped by good and brave citizens carrying guns. These people believe that it is the duty for pretty much all Americans to not only own guns, but to know how to use them, and to carry and then use them as necessary. These are the people who believe that teachers should carry weapons in schools. In other words, teacher should not only be prepared to teach kids, but to kill them as well, if it is deemed necessary. 

Among the advocates of this theory is Ted Cruz, who was recently filmed giving a journalist platitudes about how great this country is while quickly running away to avoid the line of questioning that he clearly did not like. Between that, his licking Trump's boots after Trump had attacked both Cruz and members of his family personally during the 2016 presidential campaign, and running away for a short getaway in Cancún while his state of Texas faced a devastating winter storm, it is very difficult to take Cruz seriously as a strong man of character or serious moral fiber. Yet, he is from Texas, where many of these shootings seem to take place (the Dallas shooting in 2016 that killed five police officers, Sutherland Springs, El Paso, and now Uvalde), and so his voice is always one of the most prominent once we hear whenever there is a mass shooting like this (especially in his home state). Here is what he said to the media recently, in the aftermath of the Uvalde shooting:

“We know from past experiences that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus.”

Here's the thing: that's just Not true. Wishing it to be true does not make it so. In fact, the presence of armed guards did not work in a number of school shootings. Frankly, since a number of them have happened in Texas, it stands to reason that Cruz, of all people, should be well aware of that. What were some of the school shootings where armed guards did not work out as well as Republicans like Cruz would like you to believe? Here are some (and not all by any means) of the examples: Columbine (1999), Marshall County High School (Kentucky, 2018), Parkland (2018), Santa Fe High School (2018), and Great Mills High School in Maryland (2018). Also, let us not forget that Uvalde had what many considered a great deterrence plan against any potential school shooting, including four police officers  for the school district. Plus, police responded within minutes of the reports of the shooting at the elementary school. We are only too aware that this did not work out nearly as well as many would have believed and obviously hoped. Let us also not forget, also, that Uvalde in particular had a number of what sure seemed to be impressive measure specifically designed to either prevent such a school shooting or, in the event that one actually took place, to minimize the extent of the damage. 

Also, let us not forget that Virginia Tech had a police force on campur, but that did not prevent the school shooting there, which still ranks statistically as the deadliest school shooting in American history. Also, there have been not one, but two mass shootings at Fort Hood in Texas. That's a military base, and military bases tend to be very well secured. It did not prevent a horrific mass shooting in 2009, where 13 people were killed and another 30 people injured. Nor did it prevent another shooting at the very same military base in 2014, which killed 4 and injured 14, 12 by gunshot. True, Fort Hood was not a school, but it certainly had strong measures in place similar to what many gun enthusiasts are advocating for our schools. Yet, it did not prevent two horrific mass shootings there. 

Indeed Uvalde - and specifically Robb Elementary School, where the recent shooting actually took place, seemed to have addressed the danger of a mass shooting quite adequately. Here are some of the measure that were already in place before the recent shooting there earlier this week:

Robb Elementary School had measures in place to prevent this kind of violence. A fence lined the school property. Teachers were ordered to keep classroom doors closed and locked. Students faced regular lockdown and evacuation drills.

Also:

According to a district safety plan, Uvalde schools had a wide range of measures in place to prevent violence. The district had four police officers and four support counselors, according to the plan, which appears to be dated from the 2019-20 school year. The district had software to monitor social media for threats and software to screen school visitors.  

Some impressive steps had been in place that the school and the district took to address this issue. When the time came, however, not everything went as smoothly as planned:

Yet when the gunman arrived at the school, he hopped its fence and easily entered through a back door that had been propped open, officials said. Behind the locked door of a fourth-grade classroom, he gunned down children and teachers.

Okay, so armed guards do not appear to necessarily at least be the deciding factor in preventing school shootings, or even in limiting the damage once they begin. Some other people - it seems like a growing number - who also do not want to think about any kind of gun restrictions as an answer to this problem feel that schools themselves should be better secured. Armed guards are a no brainer, although of course, this has just been proven again to not be the fool proof answer. One coworker of mine suggested that all schools, across the country as a rule, should have tall fencing around them. He dismissed the idea that this would make them seem a bit like...well, prisons.

First of all, that would be very costly. They would have to be very tall indeed, because the shooter in Uvalde easily hopped that fence. Many of the very people who are opposed to any kind of restrictions on access to guns support candidates who are budget hawks (at least when it comes to spending on anything other than the greatly inflated military budget). Are they going to go for such fences? Also, are we sure that they will work? After all, ever since Columbine and especially since Sandy Hook, many advocated armed guards as the sure answer to prevent school shootings. But I already showed five examples of school shootings that nevertheless occurred despite the presence of armed guards. Four of them happened since Sandy Hook. Three of them - Columbine, Parkland, and Uvalde - now rank as among the deadliest school shootings in American history, and I was not including Virginia Tech, which had a police presence on campus which failed to prevent that horrific shooting, which ultimately killed over 30 people. But it is worth mentioning. So if this is the new cure all solution, as armed guards were in the past, will this one actually work to prevent such school shootings?

And my own question is this: once a shooter manages to scale such a fence and gain access into a school, as seems inevitable, then what? Will the answer then possibly be watch towers for the armed guards, to make the schools look and probably feel even more like prisons, or even concentration camps? After all, isn't the main rationale against any kind of gun control legislation that it will ultimately lead to more people in concentration camps? Are they really advocating for our own children to daily go into schools that outright begin to strongly resemble concentration camps? Is that an acceptable price for their "freedom?"

All of these proposed solutions by gun enthusiasts seem a bit immaterial to me. They claim that the problem is mental health. Sure, that seems to be part of the problem. But then whenever there is any actual effort to try and lower the costs of healthcare, so that those in need of mental health can actually get the care that they need, the very same people and politicians who claim that the issue is mental health all stand firmly opposed, many claiming the old, tired fascist dictatorship and concentration camp conspiracy theory as the reason for their objections. So that appear to be a no go on that solution. Then, they claim that armed guards will fix the problem. But the evidence seems to show otherwise. Now, perhaps taller fences will be the next solution. And I am willing to bet that even those will not solve the problem.

So what will? Well, I do not know the answer for that. What I can tell you is that for all the outrage that gun enthusiasts have whenever there is any mention of what most people, according to polls, feel are moderate restrictions on the deadliest guns, they sure seem to give certain politicians a pass. To me, the very heart of the problem is the hold that an organization like the NRA has over Washington politicians. Just like with other glaringly obvious failure in our American democracy, from everything to free and fair elections, to the ridiculous healthcare situation, to the absurdly bloated military budget, the problem is a blatantly corrupt political system that allows moneyed lobbyists providing considerable funds and huge benefits to politicians, who then serve the interests of their masters, and not the American people they are elected to represent. And this is true with the gun lobby.

Many prominent politicians - and I mean some very influential people who have had presidential ambitions -  have taken in enormous sums of money from the National Rifle Association (NRA). According to a very recent Washington Post article by Timothy Bella:

Nineteen current or recent Republican senators, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Sens. Rob Portman (Ohio) and Joni Ernst (Iowa), have taken at least $1 million each in campaign contributions from the NRA over their careers, according to data compiled by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in 2019.

For the full list, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, please click on the link that is added below.

Many, many names are included, with the amount of the NRA funding that they accepted. That includes 16 who have raked in over one million dollars of NRA money for their political campaigns. Some of the most famous names include Mitt Romney (over $13 million of NRA money), Marco Rubio (over $3 million) and Mitch McConnell. (well over $1 million). Ted Cruz, who has not been around in Washington quite as long, has taken over $176k. Rand Paul has taken over $100k. Lindsey Graham has taken over $66 k. Where's the outrage over this blatant, in your face corruption? 

You want to know the real reason that gun violence in America is so ridiculous, so out of control, that it has hurt the reputation of the country around the world? The unchecked influence of the gun lobby over such prominent Washington politicians, some real movers and shakers in the political sphere, would be a huge, glaring problem. But you rarely seem to hear about that, and my guess is that it is because it would open up a can of worms about lobbying in general, which would of course compromised faith in our whole American political system, our very democracy, which has been proven to be far more fragile than many had believed possible. 

Frankly, I am tired of all of this, and perhaps especially the tragedy of our issue with gun violence. We all have heard some grim statistics that compromise what many Americans still wish to believe about the United States and our desired image as the "shining city on the hill," as Reagan used to boast. Ted Cruz recently echoed those idyllic sentiments recently when he dodged tough questions about gun violence in the country. But some realities seriously detract from this glowing image that they would have Americans believe. We lead the world with the most expensive healthcare costs in the world, and it is not even close. We also lead the world in terms of the most people incarcerated behind bars, and it also is not close. China overtook us as the most polluting country, yet we still are number two and, furthermore, still pollute more per head, and historically were the greatest contributor to greenhouse gases for many decades. And of course, we rank among the highest of all nations in the world in terms of gun violence, and we far and away lead all countries with advanced economies. And I'm afraid that despite politicians from both parties continually assuring as that we are the greatest country in the world, and presidents of each party ending every speech with assurances that God will continue to bless the United States of America, we are increasingly being judged - and harshly - for our shortcomings. Getting angry or saying that we do not care what the rest of the world thinks about us actually does no good in resolving these issues, nor is ignoring them and pretending that they are not a problem. Frankly, we should have the bravery and honesty to take a good, long look at ourselves as a country, and address these problems - and they most certainly are problems, in a forthright manner. If we ever do manage to do this, something that seems far from certain, we could begin with the most obvious place: our supposed leaders in Washington, and blatant corruption that they have grown only too comfortable not bothering to even hide anymore. 

Here are the links to the various sites that I visited and researched in writing and preparing this particular blog entry. Please feel free to explore this topic by visiting these and other websites:

These Countries Restricted Assault Weapons After Just One Mass Shooting by Eloise Barry, May 27, 2022:

https://time.com/6182186/countries-banned-guns-mass-shooting/

Gun Violence in the US Far Exceeds Levels in Other Rich Nations Published by Bloomberg, May 26, 2022:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/

Joe Biden stated on May 24, 2022 in a national address from the White House.: "When we passed the assault weapons ban, mass shootings went down. When the law expired, mass shootings tripled."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/25/joe-biden/joe-biden-said-mass-shootings-tripled-when-assault/

Ted Cruz stated on May 24, 2022 in remarks to the media: “We know from past experiences that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus.”

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/26/ted-cruz/research-armed-campus-police-do-not-prevent-school/

Despite Ample School Security Plan, Texas Shooter Found Gaps by Associated Press, May 27, 2022:

https://www.voanews.com/a/despite-ample-school-security-plan-texas-shooter-found-gaps/6592834.html

WHICH SENATORS HAVE TAKEN THE MOST NRA MONEY? by Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

https://elections.bradyunited.org/take-action/nra-donations-116th-congress-senators

After Texas shooting, Republicans face online anger over NRA money Image without a caption by Timothy Bella, Updated May 26, 2022/Published May 25, 2022:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/25/school-shooting-uvalde-republicans-nra/

USA TODAY Comes Up With List of Worst School Shootings in American History

Just days ago, in response to one of the worst school shootings in American history, USA Today drew up a list of the worst school shootings in the history of the United States.

This list was a bit strange. It measured by injuries, and not by deaths. So the measure is subjective, to be sure.

However, it still reveals some of the worst such school shootings that we have seen in the United States. Some of these date back a long, long time, even to the late eighties. Yet, it did not include the shooting at the University of Texas campus back in the 1960's. All of that served as a reminder that this has been a problem in this country for a long, long time now. 

Anyway, here is the list, with the link below:

Parkland, Columbine, Sandy Hook. Texas' Robb Elementary adds to list of worst school shootings in U.S. history USA TODAY NETWORK – FLORIDA

https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2022/05/24/worst-school-shoots-in-us-robb-elementary-texas-parkland-florida-sandy-hook/9915103002/

Emerging Details About School Shooting in Uvalde Beginning to Pain Very Different Picture Than Initial Official Reports Suggested

There have been new details emerging about what actually happened and when in the timeline of the Texas school shooting earlier this week. While the original reports stressed the bravery of responding police units, new information, which includes video footage of parents screaming at police officers standing by at the school, have angered many and set forth new demands for a full accounting of what exactly happened in Uvalde on Tuesday. 

At first, this seemed like a typical story surrounding a horrible mass shooting, this one in a school. Yes, you can argue that there is nothing “typical” about it, and I would be inclined to agree. One of the main problems in this country is that we seem to have normalized far too many things that really are not normal. Shootings like this might just be at the top of the list, for that matter, admittedly.              

However, video has emerged showing family members yelling at police to storm the building and find a way to neutralize the shooter. Ever since Columbine, there has been an emphasis on rapid response in these kinds of situations.              

As it turns out, however, in this particular case, the shooter was apparently in the school for an hour before he was killed by police. Most of the shooting happened early on, within the first few minutes. The gunman then barricaded himself inside of the classroom, where apparently he did most to all of his shooting from. He was eventually confronted and killed, but the fact that it took an hour does not sit right with many people, including most especially the parents of kids inside of the school.              

Here’s the thing: many people talk tough. But the reality of being confronted by someone like this who likely understands only too well that he has nothing to lose, that he perhaps even wants to die, as many of these shooters do, has to be daunting. You might be having a perfectly normal day, and then just like that, you are facing a situation where you very likely are putting yourself in serious, grave danger. Yes, that is officially part of the job if you are in law enforcement. But how could it really hit you until you are faced with this kind of a thing in reality? Who could expect it?     

And to me, this shows the reality. Nobody seems to think it can or will happen to them, until it actually happens. Nobody in Littleton, Colorado likely gave too much thought to gun violence before heading off to Columbine on the morning of the shooting over two decades ago. College students surely were not thinking about gun violence before they went off to their classes at Virginia Tech in 2007. Those precious little kids and their parents and loved ones surely did not have gun violence on their mind on the morning when they were taking their kids to school on the morning of the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, back in 2012. The parents and students who were getting ready for what they had assumed would be a normal day at the high school in Parkland, Florida surely had not been thinking about gun violence before their lives changed. And now, I am sure that every resident is Uvalde, Texas, are in stunned disbelief now that this kind of a horrific shooting has taken place there. 

Look at the names and locations of these mass shootings (and these are just the biggest school shootings, the ones that really captured the public's attention when they happened). A suburb of Denver in Colorado. A university in Virginia. An elementary school relatively small town in Connecticut. A school in a suburb of Miami, Florida. And now, an elementary school about 85 miles from San Antonio, Texas, and less than 50 miles from the southern border with Mexico. 

Remember, these were only the biggest school shootings, just from my own memory and without any real research. They do not include the ones that did not quite grab as many headlines for as long. It also does not include other major mass shootings that were not in schools. Nothing about the Long Island train shooting in the nineties. Or the Aurora theater shooting not far from Columbine in another suburb of Denver in 2012. Or the racially motivated church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, in 2015. Or the shooting at a night cub in Orlando, Florida, in 2016. Or the shooting at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, in 2017. Or weeks after the Las Vegas shooting, the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Or the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, late in 2018. Or the also very recent mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York. Again, those are only the ones that also, for whatever the reason, grabbed the most headlines. And again, they are spread out across the country, quite literally.

My point here is that it can happen anywhere, and at anytime. You never know when or where it might happen next. There is no seeming safe place. You could be at a school, or at church or synagogue. You could be dancing at a night club, or doing some shopping at a mall or grocery story. You could be enjoying a concert, or watching a movie. There have been plenty of shootings at places of employment, even if none specifically came to mind for me while writing this. It could happen at a political rally in a parking lot. It could even happen on a military base, where you think that there really is more protection than usual. 

The school in Uvalde itself had a thorough plan, all written out in official school documents, about what to do in the event of an active shooter event. Surely, local police officers also had some kind of contingency plans to respond to a mass shooting. But once the event actually happened, everything went very differently, because this was not a set of directions in black on white on an official document. This was real life, and hardly anybody is ever truly prepared for something like this, once it actually happens.

No one expects it to happen, and usually, it shows. That is why I simply do not believe in the frankly fairy tale notion that gun advocates seem to believe in, that more guns will solve the problem of gun violence in this country. Too many people watch movies, perhaps particularly Westerns starring Clint Eastwood or John Wayne, and assume that they are made of the same steel as these fictional characters, that they would stay cool and be the hero when push comes to shove. Real life is a little different. The police in Uvalde, much like the police at Columbine, were trained professionals. They showed understandable hesitancy when suddenly faced with a real life or death situation. I understand the criticisms of the police in Uvalde, but they acted in a very understandable, very human way. In theory, storming the building with SWAT teams and going through room by room until the threat has been destroyed or neutralized sounds very efficient and very proactive. But life does not always work like that. We have certainly been aware of the threat of mass shootings since at least the nineties. It still does not prevent these horrific mass shootings from taking place, though, and from taking many, many lives. Far too many lives.

So personally, I have never been a believer in the theory that the "only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Many of these shootings have happened in states with lax gun laws, and other than the shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, I cannot think of one example when a so-called "good guy with a gun" ended a mass shooting. You know what might actually stop a bad guy with a gun? Making it more difficult for that bad guy to have such easy access to guns in the first place, especially if there is a history of violence or mental instability. Gun enthusiasts say that there is no proof, and sometimes warn that this would lead to a totalitarian dictatorship. Yet, strong gun restriction legislation swept through in other countries that had horrific mass shootings, such as in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand. Sometimes, it happened within just days of the mass shooting (and I stress that it did not take many, many, many mass shootings for them to take action). And you know what? It worked. Gun violence went significantly down in those countries, and others. And none of them turned into totalitarian dictatorships, unless you believe that Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Great Britain are indeed dictatorial nightmares. 

Somehow, though, that option is never taken seriously in this country. Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans favor common sense gun legislation, some reasonable limitations to access to guns. And every time, it is blocked by politicians in the pay of gun lobbyists. I hate to sound pessimistic, but my assumption is that any meaningful changes will be blocked by such slick politicians in Washington this time around, as well. I mean, did anyone else see the clip of Ted Cruz being confronted by members of the British press after Uvalde? He had no real answers, and was too cowardly to show any kind of serious reflection or desire to solve the problem. Instead, he just talked about how great and, ironically, how safe the United States is. The same old, tired arguments about how exceptional we Americans are, and turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to actually solving very real problems that exist here. is this is the type of leadership we are now reduced to in this country?

It literally disgusts me. I wish that I could feel enthusiastic that things will change sometimes soon. But after seeing these kinds of stories suddenly come into focus with screaming headlines time and time again, and seeing any serious and meaningful solutions get drowned out by special interests in the Washington gun lobby, and politicians in their pay, I personally have lost faith. It does not feel like this is enough for grown up Americans to actually explore this issue and/or demand real change. What will it take? Hundreds of victims? Thousands? Perhaps some nut case with a lot of money suddenly using a weapon of mass destruction with weapons that he obtained because of a ridiculous interpretation of the second amendment?

Personally, I do not know what it will take. And I hate to think about what actually might make things change, because it is literally and figuratively unthinkable. 

Meanwhile, as the news keeps showing, parents who were planning summer vacations for their kids in Uvalde (summer vacation was just a couple of days away) are now instead making funeral arrangements. For now, the school shooting is still very much in the headlines, and so is the gun debate. That, however, will change, and too soon. This shooting might have been particularly shocking for many. But will it actually change anything in today's United States of America?

Gun Enthusiasts Advocate More Guns To Solve Gun Violence, Despite Lack of Success

(Originally published on November 16, 2019)

Ran into this article by an obvious gun enthusiast, who suggests that gun ownership is a basic responsibility that should extend to all Americans. In fact, he goes so far as to suggest that gun ownership should be a prerequisite to voting. Apparently, he and others who think like him champion the Constitution when it comes to what they believe is the right to bear arms, but somehow keep getting the words right to vote wrong. Always seems like there should be qualifications to exercise, or even to have, that right among those who identify as conservatives in this day and age. It used to be property ownership, and some now apparently feel that it should be gun ownership. Others believe that anyone who gets in some kind of trouble with the law should lose their right to vote. And on and on and on.

Well, I saw a link to this article on one of my Facebook pages (yes, I have more than one, admittedly), and decided to respond.

The guy who posted it was one of those enthusiastic conservatives, apparently a self-identified libertarian who is paranoid of anything with the word socialism in it. Surely a Trump supporter, although I did not rummage through his page long enough to get this, specifically, I decided nevertheless to challenge his mode of thinking a little bit. 

Here is what I said:

Countries around the world reduce gun violence by using logic, and taking more guns off the streets, particularly the most deadly assault rifles. The American response - which the rest of the world does not understand, much less believe in - is to put more guns on the streets. Every time there is a major mass shooting, there is a spike in gun sales. Yet, there is more gun violence, and the United States still leads every other industrialized country - and any peacetime nation - in gun violence and gun deaths. And of course, Americans in favor of more guns on the streets - and they are a tiny minority - gloss over this information and, predictably, claim the solution to gun violence is more guns. They oppose common sense gun measures, such as background checks and making gun owners responsible for anything that happens with their guns, as well as banning the most deadly assault weapons. Somehow, though, this tiny minority keep getting their way politically through special interest lobbying, even though they remain in a tiny minority. There are far more deaths by guns in this country than any other industrialized nation, and it is not even close, but we never, ever take any steps to try and seriously tackle this issue. Just more "thoughts and prayers" to families of victims. Then, we are surprised when the rest of the world laughs at us, or shakes their head at our stubborn and willful ignorance on this issue. Ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as people who blast celebrity culture and New York elitism voting in a celebrity New York billionaire to fix this nation's problems and fight elitism. No wonder we are fast becoming the laughingstock of the world!

Personally, I am tired of Americans always assuming that they have to be different, to stand out from the rest of the world, just for the sake of being different. Too many Americans - although nowhere near a majority - are relying on beliefs that run counter to reality. Climate seems to be warming? Cast shade on scientists and claim it is an anti-American conspiracy. Growing economic inequality making the country stand out for all of the wrong reasons? Blame people supposedly because of their laziness, and lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans, even if the rest of us have to pick up the tab for this. Are prices for healthcare, which are higher here in the United States than anywhere else in the world, and by far, too high? Let's double-down on "for profit" healthcare, so that the big money players make even more money off of us, and we lose still more of our quickly vanishing protections. Too many people behind bars in the "land of the free?" How about building still more prisons and taking away more of their rights and dignity, almost assuring incredibly high rates of recidivism? Gun violence getting you down? Let's get more guns on the streets, then. What could possibly go wrong?

Sometimes, I feel seriously ashamed to be an American. In this day and age, with the government that we have in Washington, that feeling sometimes feels incredibly strong, and very, very depressing. I am tired of these mindless debates, where facts do not matter, only opinions. What a country we live in. 

Here is the original article that he posted, and which got me on this topic:


To Reduce Gun Violence, Arm All Americans  BY CHARLIE MARTIN SEPTEMBER 1, 2019:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/we-must-take-effective-steps-to-reduce-gun-violence/?fbclid=IwAR2Cl1VNkYLnwIZtG2oxp5M6mdmdMt4fUJSPRWLVDVd44xXS8RlJ1tUGczY

NRA Was Not Always So Fanatically Opposed to Any Regulations on Guns

"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."

Second Amendment to the Bill of Right/Constitution of United States of America, 1789 

"The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

– Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice

When most people these days think of the National Rife Association (NRA) in recent decades, they tend to think of a small band of gun fanatics. The two most visible individuals from the NRA in the past three or four decades have been the late Hollywood actor Charles Heston, and Wayne LaPierre. Maybe certain words and images, such as Heston holding up a gun and declaring, "from my cold, dead hands."

They champion a version of interpreting the second amendment that seems to go beyond what is actually stated. Instead of looking at what is said and how it is said, they seem almost to interpret the second amendment as a carte blanche for all American citizens, at all times and under all circumstances, to bear arms as a constitutional right. Nothing about a well regulated militia. Nothing about systematically shooting down (no pun intended) any restrictions or background checks or anything that polls reveal most people seem to agree are reasonable measures on restricting access to guns.

These days, one of the most popular counterarguments to sensible gun control laws focused on mental health. People who make this argument essentially say that it is not guns that kill people, but people that kill people. I guess that is an argument, but of course, it is not a particularly impressive one. In fact, it feels disingenuous. Yes, people kill people, obviously. But the easy access to guns makes mass murder a whole lot easier, and thus, more likely. Frankly, this country's track record for the past few decades now serves as a glaring example of this reality. We have more guns than ever before. In fact, we keep hearing that there are more guns than people in the United States today. There are more guns here and now than any other country in history has ever had. 

Yet, less than one-third of Americans actually report owning a gun, while less than half of Americans (44 percent, according to a 2020 gallup poll) live in households that guns. Simple math clearly implies that some people own multiple guns, and we all have heard about some gun fanatics who own rather unbelievable arsenals of weapons. The Las Vegas shooter a few years back was just such a man. 

To me, gun ownership seems related to fear. People who own guns might not like to state it in such a way, but they are clearly fearful. Some seem outright paranoid with sometimes wild conspiracy theories about a tyrannical government with an itchy trigger finger looking for any excuse to finally clamp down on all of our constitutional rights. Paradoxically, it is many of these same people who quickly relate this problem to a mental health issue who also use their paranoia as their rationale (if that's the right word) opposing any kind of government regulations or government run healthcare, which in turn prevents healthcare costs from lowering. I surely hardly need to remind anyone by now of something that we all have heard over and over again: that the United States has, far and away, the most expensive healthcare system in the world. We Americans pay the highest cost, and our privatized healthcare system is at least every bit as bureaucratic and inefficient as any other healthcare system in the rest of the industrialized world. Often, we hear brutal stories of people being denied the healthcare that they need, because they cannot afford it, and health insurance providers refuse to cover them. Another thing that we have all heard only too much is that the United States stands alone among industrialized country with thousands and thousands of people facing bankruptcy and losing everything because they cannot afford healthcare. 

So their own arguments as to the problem with excess gun violence in this country underscores another problem that they themselves also refuse to bend even a little to fix: the lack of accessibility and lack of affordability of adequate, much less good quality, healthcare. 

Here's the funny thing: it was not always like this. The NRA actually used to champion responsible gun ownership, and backed reasonable measures to gun ownership if there was just cause to think that someone might pose a danger. All of that changed just a few decades ago. Since then, the NRA and their frankly fanatical, often cult-like following have systematically (and sometimes violently) opposed anything or anyone that they believe might pose even reasonable restrictions to gun ownership. I suspect that the second amendment was a driving force for many of those thousands of Americans who stormed the Capitol building last year.

Take a look at the article below, which documents how the NRA changed from a fairly reasonable organization, to it's current incarnation as a fanatical fringe organization that realistically serves as a "special interests" lobbying group in Washington. I heard that one Washington lawmaker has been given over one million dollars by the NRA over the years. This is a topic that I will try and explore in the near future, with another post. For now, again, please take a look at the links below, from which I took the statistics used in this blog entry, and which help put the problem with gun violence in this country into a little better focus:

How the NRA evolved from backing a 1934 ban on machine guns to blocking nearly all firearm restrictions today Published: May 25, 2022:

https://theconversation.com/how-the-nra-evolved-from-backing-a-1934-ban-on-machine-guns-to-blocking-nearly-all-firearm-restrictions-today-183880

What Percentage of Americans Own Guns? BY LYDIA SAAD

https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx

Another School Shooting Stuns Nation

There is a point where I no longer know what to say, when a problem persists in a specific country, and only people in that country seem willfully oblivious to it actually being a problem unique to them.

Once again, there was another horrific mass shooting in the United States. We just had one in Buffalo with obvious racial overtones. There, a young 18-year old white supremacist shot and killed black people exclusively. It was reminiscent of the mass shooting years ago by white supremacist Dylann Roof. 

Now, not even two weeks later, there was another horrible shooting. This one was in Texas, which has seen a number of other awful mass shootings in the past. This one was more reminiscent of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut, which happened almost a decade ago. The most recent reports have it that 2 adults and 19 students were killed in cold blood. 

It began with the young man - a teenager who had turned 18 and evidently had just qualified to legally obtain firearms - killing his grandmother. Then apparently, the young man went to Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. He barricaded kids inside of a single classroom and went on a murderous rampage. Much like with Sandy Hook, these kids were very young. Pretty much defenseless little kids. And staff members, who surely got their jobs without thinking that it might one day lead them to be victims in a high profile murder.

Again, there is a point where the details differ - names and locations and number of victims - but which fundamentally seems to be an ongoing crisis throughout the country. It seems that either too many Americans do not believe or, worse, do not care, that this problem seems to be specific to the United States. In no other country in the world do they regularly have mass shootings like we have here in the United States. They happen from time to time. Australia had a horrific mass shooting in 1996. Britain has had a few horrible mass shootings over the span of many years. France has had a few mass shootings, again, across the span of many years. The same with Germany, and Canada, and Norway, and other countries. But only one country seems to have these kinds of horrific incidents so frequently. The only time that I can remember, specifically, not hearing about a mass shooting for the span of months dating back to the nineties would have been during the nationwide Covid-19 shutdown. 

That's it. And I'm sorry, but that is not normal. And it's a problem. It's a problem all too clear to everyone around the world....except a number of Americans. Not a majority of Americans, mind you. Most Americans actually do recognize that this is a huge problem in the country. But there are some Americans who seem to go to extraordinary lengths to deny that this is the problem that it has become.

Earlier today, I read the comments from one American who is blind to this being such a uniquely American problem. This personal shall remain anonymous. In a frankly tiresome, and frankly immature argument (surely he does not see it that way, but frankly, I'm calling a spade a spade here), he suggested that people killed in DUI accidents were killed by cars, so ban the car. 

Here's the first thing about that: when it's a car, it's an accident. Yes, the driver might indeed be irresponsible. And when that happens, that driver is held accountable by the law, whether or not they have caused an accident. They have their driving privileges revoked. Also, you have to pass tests and meet certain qualifications to earn those driving privileges. So yes, by all means, let's make ownership of guns much like driving, with conditions and restrictions and all. Because the main difference that I can see, and not some small or irrelevant point, is that people drive cars for a functional purpose. People do not buy assault weapons or semis for any functional purpose, other than to kill. When someone buys such weapons with the express intent to kill as many people as possible - something that happens in particularly here in the United States far, far, far more often than anywhere else in the entire world - then it is not an accident. 

Somebody who's been abusing substances and gets behind the wheels likely has an addiction problem, but they also likely are not specifically going out there to kill people. They are not murderous, and empowered by their cars to do as much damage as possible. Can the same be said about mass shooters? Can we say that today about this Texas school shooting, or the one last week in Buffalo? Can we say that about the Las Vegas mass shooter, or the Orlando night club mass shooter, or the Parkville shooter, or the Columbine shooters, or the Virginia Tech shooter, or the Sutherland mass shooter, or on and on and on? Really, if I wanted to do the research and not just go with examples off the top of my head, I really could go on and on and on. And again, that's unique to this country, mostly because idiots like the one who was comparing this to DUI's keep making frankly mind-numbingly stupid arguments like these. That's the difference between people killing others with cars in DUI accidents, versus somebody calculating a mass murder, and enabled to carry it out because of the lax gun laws in this country. Certain guns in particular are not for hunting, but serve only one function, and that is to kill. Period. Sorry, but that is the one and only purpose that those kinds of assault weapons serve.

Another common argument that I hear these days is that schools should be armed. Many of the people who argue this feel that teachers should be armed. In other words, that one of their responsibilities should be to receive instructions on killing kids as a prerequisite to being able to teach kids. So not only do teachers here in this country have to deal with being underpaid and underappreciated, but now, they will be tasked with literally life and death matters. If, for some reason, they fail to shoot the bad guy dead, then they likely will be pointed to again as responsible for what happened. Ridiculous. And once again, I find myself reflecting on the words, so often repeated in a very different context when I was younger, but which I use here for very different, and far less flattering, reasons. Here are the words:

Only in America

These days, when I hear news like this, of yet another horrible mass shooting that comes on the heels of another horrible mass shooting just days before, like this one followed shortly after the Buffalo mass shootings, I can only think of one thing. Frankly, the level of repetition of these tragedies is unique to the United States, and that makes me feel ashamed to be an American on days like this. And when I see the comments by certain lawmakers - mostly but not exclusively Republicans - and idiots like this guy, who will find any and every excuse for why this should be passed off as normal and, for all intents and purposes, nothing should be done, then it becomes tragically obvious that this uniquely American problem is not going away anytime soon.

LIVE  Texas shooting: Children killed were barricaded in classroom Updates from BBC correspondents Sarah Smith and Angelica Casas in Uvalde, Texas

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-61576584

Stephen King Set To Release New Story & Soft Cover Publication of Final Installment of Gwendy's Button Box Trilogy Within Week of One Another

Some pictures I found recently of chalk sketches of the great writer himself.

Okay, so this is a busy time for Stephen King and, of course, his fans. He is releasing "Finn," a new short story, today (May 25th). And in less than one week, he and Richard Chizmar will see the release of the softcover version of the final book in the Gwendy’s Button Box trilogy, which have been enormously successful in terms of sales. 

Speaking for myself, I am a fan of Stephen King. That, despite not being even a passionate fan of horror. Oh, I like scary stories and movies and such every now and then. But it is not necessarily my first choice. That said, Stephen King just has a style of writing that I enjoy. He really has great characters that often feel real enough that the constant reader (in this case, me) can feel almost like it is an escape from oneself and one's own life and problems. Indeed, when I read King, it feels almost like I am taking a vacation from myself while I am reading the book. And yes, that can be both welcome and very enjoyable. 

With all of this activity on the Stephen King front, it seemed fitting to republish a link that both fans and perhaps casual fans, or even just the curious, might be interested in. It bills itself as 28 things that you (it assumes) did not know about King.

Enjoy!

28 Things You Didn't Know About Stephen King:

http://www.ranker.com/list/stephen-king-trivia-facts/coy-jandreau?format=SLIDESHOW&page=1

Happy 81st Birthday to Bob Dylan!

 

Photo courtesy of F. Antolín Hernández's Flickr Page - Bob Dylan: https://www.flickr.com/photos/f_antolin/1428148840

Creative Commons License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

Today, I am taking the opportunity to wish a very happy birthday to one of the most talented and influential musicians and lyricists in history, Bob Dylan!

This was the man who was perhaps arguably the most influential musician and thinker of the sixties, greatly influencing so much of what was to come later in the decade, and beyond!

The world very well might truly be a different place in the absence of his tremendous influence, and likely, it would not be a better place. So, we can appreciate what he contributed, as well as how his contributions both directly and indirectly influenced some of the better aspects of the world today - particularly art and a certain spirit of freedom in expressing oneself artistically. That protest and standing up to authorities and the tyranny of accepted beliefs and modes of thinking was likely a necessary release from the toxic conformity that had prevailed prior to the sixties, and Dylan was among the very most respected and, yes, even revered figures of his time.

So, here is a tribute to Bob Dylan, even if it comes a day after his official birthday.

Below are some pictures from the Bob Dylan show in November of 2019 that I took my son to. Have to see legends like this while the opportunity is still available. Not sure that I ever published these, or a show review, although I will try to remedy that if that indeed does prove to be the case.

Enjoy!