The Price of Speech

here are few rights that Americans revere more than freedom of speech. And we exercise it 24/7 on hundreds of channels. Some of it is uplifting. Most of it is babble. And sometimes, it’s just plain vile.

I’ve said often that while speech in this country is free, it is not free of consequences. You can say what’s on your mind and cause discord in the family, or lose a friendship. If you slander someone, they can sue you. The greater the amplification of what you say, the more damage you can do. A verbal slip by a prominent person can cause the loss of a job, or an election.

Personally, I am deeply ashamed that the video denigrating the prophet Muhammad was produced here in the United States, even while recognizing that the producer had a right to do what he did. Does this individual have any legal liability for the deaths of four Americans in Libya this week? As an aside, even the courts have recognized that there have to be some limits on speech, for example, you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Is the crowded theater, in this case, the Muslim world?

The release of the film, which has actually been around for a while, was a great excuse for Al-Qaeda and other anti-American interests to launch attacks – no coincidence, of course, that all this erupted on September 11.

Here at home, I don’t question the right of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to express criticism of the Obama administration’s response to this crisis. But even he is learning that there’s a price to be paid for what many are considering ill-timed remarks.

I wish I could tell you I had a solution here . All I know is, those who were behind this movie will get what’s coming to them, and the principle of free speech, while being tested, will remain intact.

It really all comes under the heading of, “This, too, shall pass.” And while such incidents will likely repeat themselves in some form as time goes on, I’m confident that the Arab spring is NOT turning in to an Arab fall.

A President's Mission in Life

President Obama left no doubt about his mission after getting into office: it was to do something about reforming healthcare. Exactly how he did it or whether he did it well are debatable, but the bottom line is, he did it.

Presidents who have missions usually accomplish them. With Lincoln it was freeing the slaves; with Teddy Roosevelt it was busting trusts; with FDR it was the New Deal; with Johnson it was the Great Society. It doesn’t mean the missions were always good (war in Iraq) – but they were missions.

I want the next President to make tax reform his mission in life (or at least in office, but life would be better). All these discussions about increasing taxes on the wealthy or continuing tax cuts, capital gains rates, you name it, just take us around in very big circles.

The federal income tax code is 100 years old next year. When it started out, it was probably a good idea in concept, like the plans for a simple new home to support a nuclear family. But almost right away, they started adding wings to accommodate great aunts, and upper stories to take care of cousins. After a while, such structures become ugly and unbalanced. The roof starts to leak, then the rats come, and well, there it goes. The owner keeps making simple repairs to keep up, but eventually loses control.

Taxes are an issue at the very heart of our economic crisis. Some may get angry at Mitt Romney for paying only 13 percent in taxes or squirreling money away in the Cayman Islands, but if what he’s doing is legal, he’s only doing what just about all of us would do if we were in his shoes. It’s not his fault. It’s the system.

The other night, CNN reported that while the IRS collects $1 trillion or so a year in taxes, the loopholes and exemptions total about $1.3 trillion. Bill Clinton talks about arithmetic. There’s Lesson One.

So please, Mr. President, whoever you may be next January, make comprehensive tax reform your mission in life. The code doesn’t have to be complicated. All it really has to be is fair. Just decide for yourself that it’s doable, and take us there. The opponents of healthcare reform will be pussycats compared to who’s going to come after you over this issue. That’s why it has to be your mission.

In Politics, It's Back to Business As Usual

So much for parties’ parties. The big political conventions are history, and there’s probably no question that for sheer presentation, the Democratic show eclipsed the Republican version. Of course, the Dems had a bigger hall, there was no hurricane to compete with, and they got to capitalize on the GOP’s mistakes. And then, there was Clint Eastwood, but that’s another story.

A friend rightly pointed out that the conventions are nothing but expensive infomercials, and I’d agree with that. Still, they do give us a view of the major-party candidates. While some people dismiss speechifying as simple fluff, the fact is that one of the skills a president needs is the ability to connect and inspire, especially at times when the country needs it -- even if the facts sometimes interfere with a good speech.

Now what? Well, for the moment at least, it’s (sadly) back to hit pieces and attack ads, which will likely increase in frequency and intensity. The conventional wisdom is that these “work,” although the electorate may be a little smarter than the campaign professionals think. Please forgive me if I seek refuge in NPR and PBS for a couple of months.

What we can look forward to are the upcoming debates. Here again, many may dismiss these as a simple display of particular skills, and it could be argued that the candidate who is the most effective debater isn’t automatically the most effective leader.

Even so, every view of the candidates in action, at conventions, in debates, one-on-one interviews by both serious journalists and late-night talk-show hosts, and even in dealing with the negative ads, furnish pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that have the potential to produce workable pictures of the people most of us will be voting for.

No doubt, many of us feel that our political system, in terms of the two major-party candidates, has left us with nothing but a bad choice. But at least we have one, and it would seem that the choice is pretty clear.

All that said, though, please forgive me when I say that I wish the calendar today read November 7 instead of September 7.

When God Speaks

Some of you may remember the iconic TV commercial from the 1970s for a well-known investment broker, in which groups of people are conversing, and the voiceover announcer whispers, “When E.F. Hutton talks…” Immediately, the people stop whatever they’re doing, and there’s dead silence. The announcer finishes with, “…people listen.”

Now we’re about to elect a President (as well as other public officials), and this question always comes up: Are we comfortable with a leader who consults God before making critical decisions?

Complicating this is the question of whether God speaks to Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. in the same language. Suppose someone doesn’t consult God at all, but relies on his or her own judgment, bolstered by life experience (yes, someday we may elect an avowed atheist as President).

It’s hard to come up with a correct answer to these questions, so we have to fall back on what we’re comfortable with. Personally, I don’t have a problem with a President asking God for advice. I figure that whoever holds that job needs all the help he or she can get, from any effective source. For me, the issue is not whether God speaks. I think he or she does. The issue is about whether those in positions of leadership are listening.

And that’s just the beginning, because it doesn’t work like the E.F. Hutton commercial at all. When God speaks, most people don’t stop to listen. There’s interference. As a seasoned radio operator, I can tell you that it’s often hard to pick out the signal you’re listening for out of the interference and static. But if you have experience, you know the signal when you hear it.

This is a gift not all of us have. We can ask God for advice on whom to vote for, and we may not hear the answer. What’s left is Plan B – using our best judgment to determine which candidate appears to be the best at picking out that signal through all the interference – including what’s coming from his or her own head.

And I think we know that when we hear it.

Foreign Policy

This week I had to take our relatively old laptop into the computer repair shop, which typically has a moderate turnover of employees. The new and attractive young woman at the counter had an accent. I asked her where she was from. It was Kazakhstan. I hesitated for a second, then said, “Alma Ata.” She broke into an absolutely radiant smile. “How you know this?” she asked.

No, I wasn’t psychic. Alma Ata is not her name. That’s the capital of her country, and happens to be her hometown. I know this because I’m an amateur radio operator and I’m constantly consulting maps. Kazakhstan, of course, was a part of the former Soviet Union, and is where the Russian space center is. Baikonur is that area’s Cape Canaveral.

My knowledge of geography made me a new friend – knowledge which might have been even more useful if I were 40 years younger and unmarried! Anyway, I can safely say that this is the first Kazakh I have ever met in person (I have talked to them once or twice on the radio).

Reverse the process. Let’s say you were parachuted into Kazakhstan, whose language you barely spoke, and you encountered someone who knew a city or two in your country – especially if you were from a smaller city in a less-populated state, and you ran across a Kazakh who knew something about it and perhaps had even been there. You’d probably be smiling yourself, right?

Anyway, seeing the smile on this girl’s face reinforced for me the concept that knowing something about the “Ubeki-beki-stan-stans” of this world, to reference Herman Cain (who?) can have its benefits.

Surprising Isaac

I’ve been fortunate, as a DirecTV customer, to be able to follow live wall-to-wall coverage from TV stations in New Orleans on the approach, arrival, and aftermath of Hurricane Isaac. “Only a Cat 1,” some said, many of them taking officials’ calls for evacuation of low-lying areas as suggestions rather than orders.

Even with “mandatory” evacuation orders, though, the authorities cannot force you to leave your home. I’ve often said that people who live in a mandatory evacuation area should be sent a bill if they don’t leave and public safety folks have to rescue them.

OK, that’s a little harsh. The fact is, while it’s assumed that people stay behind just because it’s inconvenient to move and they think they can ride out the emergency, there’s usually a much better reason for staying: they don’t want to leave their pets – which perhaps means authorities should give pets a higher priority in these situations.

Isaac, of course, was not Katrina. What it lacked in strength, it made up for in tenacity, hanging around Louisiana for days, dumping incredible amounts of rain on populated areas.

So you might wonder why people insist on living in these areas? If they lose their homes to a hurricane, well, that comes with the territory, or so the argument goes. Fact is, there really is no perfect place to live in the United States. The East and the Midwest get the winter’s cold and crippling blizzards. The South has humidity, bugs and in some cases, alligators. The West Coast has relatively little “real weather,” but like the rest of California, it’s prone to earthquakes. Desert residents trade the rain and snow for incredible summer heat. I’m trying to come up with what’s wrong with Hawaii, but I’m sure there’s something.

In any case, you learn a lot about how local media cover disaster situations, and through them, how people react, how public officials behave and the things they didn’t think of, who the heroes and villains are, and just how long it takes to return to something called “normal.”

Again, thanks to DirecTV for providing their hurricane information channel (and hey, if I convert you to become a customer and get credit for the referral, I think I’m supposed to get $100. I believe in full disclosure).

Shootin' From the Hip

Congressman Todd Akin’s thesis that women who are raped are less likely to get pregnant is the latest entry in the political gaffe festival. But is “gaffe” the right word for this?

We usually reserve that word for insensitive slips of the tongue. Some come out as unsuccessful jokes. But others betray deeply held beliefs. You can apologize for the wound such a remark can inflict, due to a lack of sensitivity, but you can’t erase the existence of the belief.

Don’t worry, ladies (and others) – this guy can’t get elected dogcatcher now. There’s only one thing that can save him: data. He’s apologizing, largely because he doesn’t have it. And if you listen to the experts, he won’t. You can read more about it on Politico.

But I did notice when I typed “rape resulting in pregnancy” into Google that I pulled up a site that actually offered data to support Akin’s argument. Of course, their data isn’t as strong as what the other side has.

As to his comment that raped women have some kind of “shutoff” mechanism to prevent pregnancy, well, I don’t where that came from. But do you want to bet there are others beside Akin who believe it?

I’m not apologizing for Akin, but I would venture a guess (no data) that most of us, even the reasonable among us, have some kind of wacky belief that is supported by the flimsiest of anecdotal evidence. Hopefully, as new data becomes available, we learn to surrender that belief to the power of the facts. Or if we can’t, at least shut up about it.

In the words of the old cowboy, “When you’re shootin’ from the hip, pardner, take the gun out of the holster first.”

Contact From Beyond

I had to attend a memorial service yesterday – when you get older, of course, the ratio of these to weddings is much higher. Following the event, there was an interesting discussion.

A son of the deceased mentioned that an unusual number of “coincidences” had occurred as the family was planning the service. One of them seemed innocuous enough. He mentioned the time when he was trying to write the obituary for his father, using pen and paper. At various places in the writing process, when the words didn’t flow well in his mind, well, neither did the ink in the pen; but when they came, the pen worked fine. He wondered: Was his father trying to help him write the piece, acting as editor from beyond the grave?

A cousin of the son who overheard this discussion allowed as how her late mother used to “visit” her on various occasions. At one point, the departed lady visited her daughter at the time when the daughter had just broken up with a fiancé. According to the daughter, her mother told her that whether or not she ever married, “everything was going to be OK,” which calmed the daughter down considerably (at this writing, she is still single). The mother then told the girl that it was the last time she would be appearing, suggesting that her work was done.

The daughter is a professional woman of some stature in her field. One day, she reluctantly told her aunt – a sister of the deceased woman – about these visits, perhaps expecting to see eyes roll and hear laughter. But the aunt said, “No big deal, she used to appear to me all the time.”

Now, these are not people who, to the best of my knowledge, use controlled substances, and at this reception, I didn’t see them with alcoholic drinks in their hands. All I can tell you is, this kind of thing has NEVER happened to me. I do not have a spiritual or transcendental bone in my body, as much as I’d like to.

Even so, I’m not ready to say the above folks are given to hallucinating, so I’m not going to pass judgment. If anyone wants to talk to me from the great beyond, I’m all ears.

Back in the USSR

Today, one of my Facebook friends, who has not pulled the plug on me – yet – reminded me that I should count my blessings and not the number of FB friends. Another, hearing the news about the sentencing of three members of the Russian female band Pussy Riot for “hooliganism,” reminded me that with all the fussing that’s going on in this country righr now, at least it isn’t Russia. There’s one for the blessings list!

This band staged an anti-Putin protest in a Russian Orthodox cathedral. Inappropriate, perhaps – but getting locked up for two years? By those standards, we’d have to build a huge new prison here for the folks at Fox News and another for those at MSNBC. Poor CNN, their problem is these days that they can’t get arrested – but that’s another story.

This Pussy Riot thing will be one to watch. The Putin regime has a repressive track record, most recently supporting the regime in Syria and blocking action there by the rest of the world -- but this time, in a social media age, entertainment celebs – young women – are being messed with, band members who have the support of Paul McCartney and Madonna. Keep an eye on this one, folks – this story will definitely have legs. Those who have lived for decades under repression of various types tend to be a little passive, but will this incident wake up the Russian people?

The only saving grace here is that Mr. Putin tends to care what people think of him. He has expressed support recently for leniency toward these young women. What do you want to bet that he steps in and commutes their sentence (I assume he can do that), so the rest of the world will think he’s a nice guy after all?

Friends, Followers and Figures

After running out of useful ways of spending time one day this week, I happened to open my Facebook Timeline and noticed that the number of Friends had dropped by one.

I still have a little self-respect, so I’m not going to tell you how many FB friends I have, other than it’s a lot more than Twitter followers (still have found relatively little use for that). In any case, though there’s no good reason for it, I’m consumed with curiosity as to why the number of Friends went down.

There are a few possibilities. It could be some kind of Facebook glitch, though that is, of course, highly unlikely. Or, it may be that somebody pulled the plug on Facebook, especially if they live in a dicey foreign country. But it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that someone pulled the plug on ME – I’ve been “unfriended.”

So now, questions arise: Was it something I said? Did I zig politically when I should have zagged, or pan the wrong movie, or hit the “Like” button for some tragic story? Was it my spelling or English usage? Did someone take me literally when I was trying to be cleverly sarcastic?

I may, of course, be able to figure out the answer if I determine who left, but the plug-puller doesn’t have to disclose that. I don’t have a lot of FB friends – I don’t collect them – but there are enough so that it would be a fairly difficult task to go through and dope out who was there once, and isn’t now.

But I have to draw the line somewhere. There are enough figures to keep track of in life – cholesterol count, blood pressure, BMI, fat percentage in meat – and even my age. And that’s a number that’s going up soon – meaning I should be a little more careful about what I spend an ever-diminishing amount of time worrying about.

And the Hits Just Keep On Comin'

A little break from the usual routine today.

This is a band that performs occasionally in the region where I live, and they do some interesting work -- just thought you might like to hear them. Feel free to leave a review if you like.

http://soundcloud.com/opalaxis/pave-my-way-opal-axis-1

(Just so you know, the earlier broken link here has been FIXED)

Returning to Earth

The choice of Pail Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate will have an immediate positive impact, whatever your political persuasion: It should bring an end to the silly season.

Personally, I am very tired of hearing about Romney’s taxes. If he has legally avoided paying some or all taxes, he has only been taking advantage of the rules of the game (and the tax system is a great big game, as I have observed in previous posts). And if he declines to release his tax returns, that’s his legal right – I wish he had the cojones to just tell his critics to go fish and be done with it. Romney’s personal wealth is not an issue. Real tax reform, however, certainly is, and that’s part of the Ryan agenda.

Again, many of us may not care for the reforms Ryan has suggested as part of his Republican budget plan. But he’s the first since Herman Cain (remember him?) to actually have a plan. He picked up the ball when nobody – including President Obama – would touch it. Both major parties are now compelled, at least for the short term, to deal with issues instead of personalities. And Romney’s choice makes the voters’ choice even clearer in November.

Ryan is conservative on social issues, too, especially abortion, but I don’t recall his beating us over the head with his morality like Santorum. Again, we’re talking about a clear choice here, and that’s good news for the electorate.

When all is said and done, the vice president, if nothing else, is a spare president – the one who takes over if something happens to the boss, and the bottom-line consideration for voters is whether the candidate has the qualifications to do that. In the case of Ryan, the short answer is yes. We’ll see what the media dig up on him as time goes on.

But at least he’s not a Palin. One of those is quite enough.

Sound Tracks of the Times

So the shooter at the Wisconsin Sikh temple, it’s been reported, was an accomplished hate rock musician. It sounds like a new musical genre – hate rock – and it may come as a shock that it’s out there, but why should it be a surprise to anyone?

Music is about the most effective motivator we humans use. Just think about what a love song or a march can do to your mood. Message music certainly isn’t new. We’ve had Guthrie, Dylan, and Baez stirring our social justice juices. And then, for us flower children, there was Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction," a really cheerful sing-a-long. Did these lead us to vioelnce? Maybe not, but perhaps a demonstration or two.

What about rap? This genre has offered more than its share of misogyny and hatred of police -- and unlike the white supremacist music, this stuff has had much wider mainstream acceptance. We may tolerate some of this material because it’s a way that portions of our culture blow off steam. But it also gives us valuable clues into a mindset.

Persuasive as song lyrics may be, though, it’s relatively rare that they actually constitute the trigger for violence. They could certainly push an individual in that direction, but most of the time, there’s a great gulf fixed between the lyrics and action.

It may indeed have happened in the case of Wade Page. But a more significant issue in these cases, to my mind, is the perpetrators’ weapon of choice. This is America, and it’s a gun, almost every single time.

We may be shocked at hate literature, hate speech and hate music, and may ask why it can’t be regulated or banned. Shouldn’t we be equally as shocked at how easy it is for the unhinged to obtain guns and ammunition?

Total gun control will never be politically palatable in this country, and there’s no need for it. But any little thing we can do to at least slow down the wackos among us in their effort to put their hands on guns and bullets would seem to be something to consider, in light of the events of the past few weeks.

Olympic Spoils

Another NBC network news anchor gave us some Olympic results, but preceded it with a “spoiler alert,” meaning, if you wanted to wait for NBC’s delayed Olympic broadcast to see who won what, you would have to step away from the TV.

When I was in radio news in Southern California, I had to deliver the Wimbledon tennis results every summer, and because of the U.K.’s day starting eight hours ahead of ours, some finals would be in before the end of “morning drive.” I had to preface the report with a warning that those who didn’t want to know who won the matches before the nightly TV broadcast should turn down their volume.

But that was then. In those days, of course, there were relatively few information outlets, so those disseminating it could allow themselves the illusion of actually controlling its release.

I hate to be a spoiler, but the 21st century did in fact arrive, despite the efforts of some media to hold it back. They don’t begin to control the information, and in this interconnected world, people will talk.

It is not a media responsibility to warn consumers that they might actually hear some news if they continue to watch or listen. The Olympics are a lot more than a simple vehicle for entertainment. The mission of the athletes is to win – there’s nothing that requires them to preserve a dramatic impact for the folks at home, side benefit though that may be.

I’ve had enough of media that want it both ways – they want consumers to think them “considerate” by warning you to leave your TV or radio for just a minute. They’re desperately afraid that if you face being deprived of your nightly drama, you won’t come back. Sorry, but if you’re one of those people, Jack Nicholson was right – you can’t handle the truth.

Pedal to the Medal

A Facebook friend recently posted something to the effect of, was it just she, or was enthusiasm for the Olympics just not there this year? I suppose I’ve seen enough of them in the past not to get as excited as I used to – I expect it would help to be British.

That said, some Brits did a surprising amount of grumbling about the Opening Ceremonies show as they called in to local radio talk shows, wondering aloud whether it would be understood by the rest of the world, or whether it was too “lefty” because of the celebration of the National Health Service. But to my mind, it was a great show, substituting imagination for nonstop blow-us-away spectacle. What I don’t understand is why the entire civilized world, except for the United States, got to watch this live on TV, while we had to wait for the delayed, edited, commercial-filled NBC version.

As for Mitt Romney’s comments, I think a little too much is being made of what’s being considered a gaffe. He did provide an honest answer to a reporter’s question about his concerns about the London Olympics; what he could have done is “round it off” with something about how there could be challenges, but it had the potential to be great, etc. Failure to do that was at least undiplomatic.

The latest controversy deals with empty seats at Olympic venues, clearly visible on TV, while many fans were told tickets were sold out. Turns out the seats had been assigned to corporate sponsors, Olympic personnel and the media, some of whom haven’t been using them.  Officials are trying to fill them with off-duty military or schoolchildren and teachers. They’re now talking about possibly imposing a 30-minute limit – if an assigned-seat holder doesn’t have his or her bum in place a half hour after an event begins, the seat will be sold. I have confidence the Brits will get this “sorted,” as they like to say.

OK, so how about the sports, and enthusiasm therefor? I am very proud of our American athletes because of their dedication to their sport, but it’s immaterial to me whether we win more medals than the Chinese (it’s not like the Communist bloc in the old days, eeee-vil).We should do well -- we have one of the biggest teams. And, of course, many American residents compete under the flags of other countries to which they have ties. I was not overly disappointed to see Michael Phelps fail to get a gold on Saturday – nothing wrong with new blood scoring big, especially a fellow American.

As for the events themselves, there are always quirky surprises, like petite Asian women hefting 240 pounds in the weightlifting competition. The fencing was not as satisfying as I thought it might be. I was expecting a long Errol Flynn-type sword-clanging contest; instead, one jab (or whatever they call it in fencing) and the point is scored. At least that’s how it was in the saber competition.

I do hope some of those little countries that only have a few athletes manage to score some medals. Go Nauru!

Choose Your Weapons

The BBC’s call-in radio program, “World Have Your Say,” featured a fascinating pro-and-con about gun control. The pro-gun guests were especially interesting. An American gun shop owner allowed as how he never leaves home without carrying THREE guns on his person. One of the three, he observed, is particularly good for going to the movies with. As you might expect, he believes that if members of the audience in that Aurora, Colorado movie theater had been armed, lives would clearly have been saved, because someone would have quickly dropped the shooter. He was silhouetted against the screen and would have made an easy target. Plus, the gun shop owner added, if the Colorado shooter knew ahead of time that the audience was packing, he would certainly have been deterred from doing his thing.

Unfortunately, that scenario seems a little counter-intuitive to me. What it sounds like is bullets flying in multiple directions fired by a lot of semi-trained individuals. As for an armed populace discouraging a crazy person from launching an attack in the first place, well, uh…he’s CRAZY, right, so would that have stopped him?

Another guest on the BBC show was a woman who decided to train her daughter at an early age how to use guns. The woman said she bought the child two rifles and a shotgun – pink guns, befitting a girl – for her eighth birthday. The daughter was not issued any ammunition until she was adequately trained in the use of the weapons (the family has its own shooting range). The earlier guest on the show, the male gun owner, said children who are trained early on in the use of weapons have much more respect for them than kids whose shooting experience is limited to video games.

Not to change the subject here, but why do I have this sneaking suspicion that some of these kinds of parents are a lot slower on the draw when it comes to sex education? All children are issued “weapons” which often become “loaded” before anybody teaches them responsible usage. True, these weapons don’t generally kill anyone, but improper use can certainly have life-changing consequences.

OK, maybe that’s unfair, but I couldn’t resist.

Unnecessary Roughness

While the late Coach Joe Paterno and several top Penn State administrators appear to be responsible for covering up unspeakable crimes attributed to Jerry Sandusky, I wonder why the NCAA needs to revise history.

On top of huge financial penalties, the organization has stripped the school of its gridiron victories between 1998 and 2011, the years when Paterno and others, according to the Freeh report, agreed to hide Sandusky’s child sex abuse activities to protect the football program from bad publicity. Perhaps someone reading this may have seen one of those games. Did Penn State win, or not?

Typically, colleges are penalized for recruiting violations, unethical favors for star players, letting team members skate on grades, etc. I’m trying to figure out how Sandusky’s alleged offenses, horrible as they were, affected the performance of Penn State teams.

Maybe you could say that if the crimes had been exposed early on, the coaching system would have been disrupted, as Joe Paterno would have been forced to name a new assistant and the school’s ability to field top teams in the wake of the publicity might have been impacted. So, continuing with business as usual would constitute an unfair advantage. That argument may work for you; I’m not sure it does for me.

The school has also been banned from bowl games and will lose scholarships, as well as shared revenue from college football seasons. And current players will be able to take their scholarships to other schools. Observers say it will be the better part of a decade before the football program is back on its feet again. Many are saying, “Fine, football’s too important in what’s supposed to be an academic institution.” Explain that to current students, faculty, alumni, and also the business people in a college town who depend on seasonal income from fans. And, of course, there’s the question of where the money’s going to come from to pay off the lawsuits. How exactly is the school supposed to recover?

All those former Penn State administrators who participated in this scandal should be stripped of all their assets; others who turned their heads in denial of the facts shouold be identified; and whoever’s in charge of hell can turn up the furnace in the section where Joe Paterno may be, and where perhaps Jerry Sandusky may join him. But once the cancer's removed, isn’t it time to stop the radiation?

A Misdirected Gift

I’ve been listening to the live stream of KOA in Denver over the past few days, following the shooting Friday in the suburban Aurora movie theater. The station scrapped its regular programming, including commercials, that day to devote all its energies to covering the news related to the shooting. As the emergency situation subsided, the station shifted to taking on-air calls from listeners to give them a chance to process their reaction to this tragedy. Naturally, there was vitriol directed at the suspected shooter.

One comment, though, was interesting. The male caller said he was praying for the suspect – in its traditional meaning, not a popular point of view at the moment. But the caller then got more specific. He was praying that the suspect suffer. He wanted the suspect to be fed as little as possible, just enough to be kept alive, so that he could suffer.

Those who really want this man to suffer might think about praying for his recovery from mental derangement. He may have no sense at all right now of the horror of what has been done. If and when he returns to his right mind, he can’t help but suffer more intense pain than any physical torture might produce.

One of the tragedies here is the nisuse of a gift. The alleged perpetrator has been described as brilliant. Consider, for example, the level of sophistication of the explosive booby-trap set up in his apartment, and to what good that intelligence might have been applied. If he ever has an opportunity to do good in the future, it will be on a very limited scale, behind prison walls.

Religious leaders often tell us to hate the sin and love the sinner. Since part of our discussion here relates to the movies, I’m reminded of the “The Exorcist,” where the priests, confronted by the taunting, demon-possessed Linda Blair character, are tempted at several points to physically hurt her, a temptation which they have to resist in order to complete the casting out of the devil from the girl. For the average person in Aurora, of course, there will be no loving of this sinner in the near future.

One thing we have to consider in this country is what method those possessed with demons, if you like, are likely to select to iinflict spectacular injury on others for maximum effect. We’re Americans, so it often involves the use of guns – which also means ammunition. When a private citizen suddenly orders 6,000 rounds of ammo, as has been reported in this case, not to mention thousands of dollars worth of tactical combat or law enforcement gear, it might constitute a red flag of some kind. Ya think?

The Reset Button

On Thursday, I was watching the evening news on cable TV. When the first political attack ad came on, I remember how angry I was getting and how I had to switch channels for a minute just to calm down. These ads are supposed to “work,” but at least on Thursday night, they weren’t working on me.

And then there was Friday, and the news from Aurora.

In response, both major presidential campaigns suspended attack ads in Colorado, and, when not canceling campaign appearances altogether, drastically changed their speeches and settings. Why? The shooting in Aurora was as a laser beam exposing the trivial nature of the campaign issues. Do we really care that much about Romney’s tax returns or the promises made by a campaigning or even newly-elected Obama years ago? There are simply more important things to be thinking and talking about.

It occurred to me that instead of suspending the attack ads for one day in one state, the campaigns – and the organizations given new license to spend advertising money by the Supreme Court – have a terrific excuse now to honor the ban for a week, or a month, or – dare I suggest it – make it permanent.

Naturally, the Aurora shooting will revive the issue of gun control – to my mind, a good thing. But instead of the usual grandstanding, can both sides of this debate work on finding a reasonable middle between arming and disarming average citizens?

And could a productive debate over this issue expand into a productive debate about the other big issues that should concern us right now? Does "my way or the highway" seem a little inappropriate at the moment?

Aurora was a hard reboot for our national consciousness. It’s an opportunity to seek a state of balance. We just don’t have to go back to business as usual.

Guns Are Our Thing

It’s a little amusing to me how quick we are in the United States to bash other cultures for odd or even barbaric behavior -- adulterous women being stoned to death by fundamental Muslims, Chinese eating dogs (or Hindus NOT eating cows), etc., when we have ubiquitous guns. It’s been our little thing for a couple of centuries now, and while it may seem perfectly normal to us, it’s not in many other civilized countries.

As expected, the shooting at the Colorado movie theater is igniting a new debate about gun control. Personally, I still think there are things we can do in this area without depriving citizens of their right to own guns. We probably can’t take away those that are already out there, but we could stiffen the qualifications for purchasing a gun, especially a concealed weapon, with really thorough personal and psychological background checks, including social media postings, etc. If that costs more money, make the buyer pay the freight.

By now, it has been well established that we’re in much more danger from armed wack jobs in this country than we are from international terrorists. BTW, there is NO justification for any private citizen owning a functioning automatic weapon.

Any new control measures at best will only slow things down – they aren’t going to make us instantly safe. That will require a cultural change – and such changes are possible, if we have patience. It has taken hundreds of years, but smoking tobacco, while still tolerated, isn’t cool anymore. In spite of anti-slavery laws, it took more than a century to afford black people their full legal rights, and that change is, in practical terms, still in progress. In the case of other countries, can we expect the Muslim world to instantly give up compelling women to wear burkas? So how long is it going to take for guns to be uncool here?

OK, how about some good news: Initial reports out of Colorado say that police are getting good marks for their response to the Aurora shooting incident. Public safety communications systems there have drastically improved over the years, allowing different agencies to talk to each other when a wide-area response is needed. What spurred these changes? Columbine.

We often learn things the hard way, but eventually, we do learn.