This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
I wish to congratulate you on the State of the Union address you delivered tonight. The speech was fantastic, and the ending was phenomenal. The rebuttal by your colleague as a statesman, by Mr. Roberio, was full of pleas, which were neither emotional, nor logical, and at least 50% of his statements, pleas and ideas were in line fully with those of your speech. His attacked you every point, even on those that he later said must be done in his own opinion. He lacked linking logic with facts and to his pleas. The fact he attacked you on every position you had taken, meant that in your approach to approaching congress with a friendly and perhaps on a number of issues conceded issues to work on, was taken by the Republican party on one hand as a sign of your admitting weakness, a weakness of needing them, and therefore they feel they have some of the upper hand; and his line of not approving any of your points may mean that his party is delivering an ultimatum. "Prepare for a fight, for we are going to use all our resources to give you a hard time." This means they estimate they are strong enough to oppose you, since they hold congress, and this means they fear you, the find you powerful enough to fear and to unite forces against. Unfortunately, like many commentators said, they lack direction, leadership, anything, just like the Democratic party had no script, no direction, and no talent, just like a then contemporary Madonna music video, about twenty to twenty five years ago. I joined the televised program at fifteen minutes into your speech. I applaud your plans, especially because though they all cost money that were not part of the budgets prior, the majority of the plans need very little cash infusion, as they would be either small-manpower projects with far-reaching objectives, such as trying to reduce college costs to students simply by establishing a report card system, and such as raising the minimum wage. I agree with your stance of America having become a nation of no dreams, in the sense of people who work full time and hard, still can't get ahead. Yes, people live below the poverty line, despite their efforts at work. I do not agree, however, that some of the statements were logically connected -- a description of the status quo, a government action, and a prediction for the future in which the status quo would be improved. Please don't ask me for examples, but there were some. Late this deteriorated into "... America, we are Americans, therefore..." and a positive but to unfounded prediction would come out of your mouth. I specifically don't agree that a report card system will reduce tuition costs, for the cost to the university will not change by it. What needs to be done to reduce costs of education is to
reduce cost of education, which means in the largest part to lower the salaries of professors, and unionized labour in physical maintenance -neither can be achieved. This is issue you left unresolved, and your feelbe attempt with this report card system, is not going to make any difference, but at least it does not cost money to the taxpayer. Listing policies and plans (which are not policy yet) which were to a thinking person ultimately useless or ill conceived or unfeasible, was unnecessary, because your job is not to drum up voter support, therefore you did not have to address the minds of many an American, on whom this pledge-on-and-fornothing would have worked. They were unnecessary fillers. Worse, they opened up lines of attack by your critics. I found your reference to the two centres, to be increased to fifteen centres, of brilliant people creating an industrial revolution idyllic, perhaps successful, certainly feasible, and totally up against effective Ludditism. You need to know that the centres employ about 2,000 people each, that is, at maximum, 60,000 people of all three hundred million Americans. If these centres succeed in their work, about 98% of all jobs will be cut in America. You need to pave the road to a future as well, in which joblessness and being idle is not viewed as sin, a crime, a morally despicable behaviour. Hard work and looking out for each other, as you put it, plus a means and and individual ability to make people rise above, helped America rise above other countries. The freedom of not having to stay put in one's social stratum via economic freedom of the indiviual due to political freedom from birthrights, was the underlying political filosophy which made the rise of Amercia possible. But it also involved making hard work the only acceptable way of conducting one's life. That was very much part of the system, and it still is, and it is starting to hurt people badly. Many in the nation feel worthless, and are extremely unhappy being unemployed, not due entirely to the financial difficulties they expereince, but also due to moral difficulties, by which they see their selfworth, self-esteem, and social acceptance deteriorate or totally diminish. You are putting too much emphasis on education. Plus your "report card" on higher educational institutes inverses your aim. More education for the dollar will lead to an equalization, between quality and price; and since quality is varying, so will the price of a higher education. The report cards will ensure that both: worse and better schools equaly, will try to bring their pricing more in line with the quality of their services. This means tuition fees and costs will rise in good universities, and drop in bad ones; and since more money means more improvement, there will be an increasing and unchangeable polarization between rich and poor, with rich being able to afford better ecucation, and the poor, not. This is a logical deducing, nothing magic about it. This report card business is a very poor plan, when you look at it. You must
abandon it, and if they ask why, say that because I, Andrew Szemeredy, pointed out the inverse effect to its goal and aim by its implementation. However, controlling gun possession by oridnary citizens has the full support of the leading liberal thinkers all over the world outside the USA. Yours is a country which has strong legal enforcement backing of laws. This is jeopardized by gangs or individuals having access to more and more, and deadlier and deadlier weapons. The gun lobby has the ultimate argument, emotional and logical, to uphold Amendment #2; I have a logical argument, quite clear and simple, which I send as an attachment at the end of this letter, and my argument beats the gun lobby argument on its own terms, on its own turf. Please read it, I beseech you. I see with sad eyes that the medicare reform has got stuck, due to finanical difficulties of the nation at the federal governmental level. This is a big score for the Republicans, since they proved via your actions, that good intention which eats money leads to bad things. Your colleague Roberio made me guffaw at one point in his response to your speech. He said in the beginning, about himself as a prime example of an American who got ahead with hard work, and without federal aid, that he never inherited from his parents. I said, quietly, to myself, as I live alone, "you are young, man, perhaps they are alive, so that's why you did not inherit." I guffawed when he said at the end of his speech, that his dad died in dignity (I did not laugh at that), and his mother is alive because of etc. etc. I guffawed at this point, man, how do expect to inherit from your mother who is still alive? The best part was that he did not lie, this young idiot, but he tried to mislead the listeners, with an insinuation to false facts, and that was equivalent to his having lied. I guffawed because I saw my prediction prove right. I actually wrote this letter to you in order to sell two of my ideas: one for free, that is the argument that you could use, but I can't, to popularize gun control. The other one I would like to sell to you for money, and it is a better idea, a more profitable idea for mankind, it is a brilliant idea. I can't get a patent for it, because I am one of the many who live under the poverty hurdle. I live in Canada, too. I live on a disability pension, and am brilliant, although not that overly brilliant at all. My IQ is 147. But I have a creative mind, and I find creative solutions to my problems, and once I started executing my creative ideas, I got acclimatized to routinely think in that mode, and then better and faster. Again, I am no genius, but I got a creative mind along with being smarter than most of the rest. This I don't meant to boast with, but this is how it is. I make incredibly cheap solutions to challenges in everyday life. One such solution would affect the building industry, and would put a big stop
to squandering energy in the household and business, or corporate levels and communities. This invention is huge. Please contact me, I beg you, to hear me out. It comes with a price, of course, and I trust that the President of the United States can pay me out-of-pocket the price I wish to get for it, because I am limited in my greed by my poverty. Oh, one more thing: You will get a lot of backlash, or flack, from the critically religious factions in the nation. They don't like already, I suggest and predict, since I haven' t logged on to the Iternet yet since watching your speech, your emphasis of teaching sciences, technological know-how, engineering and math to students. Basically all that strictly rely on developing analytical thinking and logic in students, as well as empowering them with a knowledge base that will help them see the huge blinking red lights scattered all over the Christian scriptures. Those scriptures teach human dignity and human worth, human nature at how it should be at its best. Yet, to see the flaws and contradictions in its teaching these values, all one needs to know is to develop thinking skills which are done by studying sciences and logic. The humane-like messages become obviously ill-deliverd, and therefore they will be accepted and embraced OUTSIDE the religion of Christians. This is horrible, for Chrisians everywhere, and they will use all their might to oppose the plan and to stop it from becoming reality. The knowledge of what makes the physical world tic, will also serve to close the god-gap of knowledge for many Americans, and they will flee the flock. This is a real and well-established fear among the most vabidly veligious in America, and I like the fact that you promote this, but they won't. Anyway, I ask you in closing to read my argument for gun control, it is a logical argument, as in a debate, not fire-and-blimestone speech. I ask you to please consider in listening to my invention about reducing energy waste. And finally, I congratulate you on your speech; especially for your ability to deliver it with so much ability of rhetoric: physical and mental, not just an ability to raise emotions. You not once faltered in your pronunciations; you never had to repeat a word; all your words were clear; you did not stutter, you not once said "umm" "erm" or "er" or such like. Your intonation was always in line with the demands of the content. Your verbal skills are beyond excellent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My theory on gun control is two-pronged: gun accessibility increases the death rate because a gun is easy to use to kill people. Knives, clubs, poison,
etc., are much less effective, they are cumbersome to use, they need special skills or high strength, or they have other problems and difficulties to execute someone with them. The killing with a gun can be accomplished ad-hoc from anywhere up to ten feet away by any novice, and up to 50 feet away by a trained marksman. Any other method, save for setting traps, needs to put the killer-hopeful at within arms-length distance of his or her victim. A gun is easy to use, effective, fast, and reduces the risk of getting hurt by the shooter, what with not needing to rely on close distance, physical strength and fighting skills. At least from the point of view of its metrics of mechanics. Spiritual, moral, legal considerations are other things. These latter do not increase violence specifically due to gun availability.
This was not one of the prongs. The two prongs are that MAYBE if someone wants to kill a person in the USA he will use a gun, coz it's handy, but if someone wants to kill a body very badly in another way, for instance, by force of circumstances in a gun-controlled country, then he will use other means and methods. They may prove to be less effective, such as poisoning, or harder to use, such as strangling or knifing. But the aim will be to kill, and most times the purpose will be fulfilled, even in countries with strong gun control. In this prong, the death rate by murder in gun violence in the USA is comparable to the death rate by murder in other countries, in which there are stong laws agaisnt gun ownership by the public.
But there are two stronger points, in the other prong. In one of the two strong points, a lot of killings happen which do not need to happen, such as in turf war between gangs, or on the rampage of a deranged gun user, and the victims can be innocent by-standers or otherwise totally unrelated to the actual gun violence going down which they become a victim of. These killings are completely avoidable, by not allowing the general public to have access to guns. And these are the cases that attract most media attention, because, though highly cruel and inhuman, they are not very frequent. Yes, there are about twenty or forty people who die this way, in a rampage of a madman, but these happen once or twice a year maximum, in the nation of the USA. The victims are unfortate, their martyrdom is tragic, but the numbers of victims are small. The victims are each one exaclty more than what should be there, they don't deserve to die randomly as such, but the numbers, though horrible, are still low. Forty a year, at most, in the entire USA these days.
The one type of gun usage which kills many, many, many people, and only BECAUSE there is no gun control, that is, everyone can have one, involves
crimes in which normally there would be no high need to kill a person, but in actuality there is, and only because guns are available to practically everyone.
The second point in prong two is the need to kill, which is only a valid and pressing need, because gun ownership is legal. This need to kill would be no there, if gun ownership by private citizens was totally banned. And this is the type of murder by gun which has a huge number of casualties among Americans.
This crime is self-defence in home invasions and during break-and-enter cases. There may be other crimes that resemble the mechanics of it, but I am not a criminologist, I am a philosopher (and I don't get paid for it, either. No matter how good a philosopher I may be, or not be, I am an amateur.) These crimes kill thousands a year in the USA, and they are not publicised in the media as extraordinary, because there are so many of them. Local news reporting may mention them, but burglars shot to death or burglars shooting homeowners to death never become national or even state news.
Putting it another way: the need to kill with guns is precipitated and increased by the common availability of guns. The emphasis is not only on the opportunity and the ease to use guns to kill, but also and more imporantly on the need to use them. This need is not existent in countries with strong gun control laws. That is, the killings never happen in countries in similar or same situations in countries where gun ownership is not allowed, but the killings occur at a high rate of frequency, because guns are avaliable to home owners as well as to criminal. The need arises to kill. The following thought-experiments will prove it, using nothing else but a few very at-hand assumptions in its logic.
A guy who breaks into a home to steal stuff is the most obvious case of needing to kill despite not needing to kill.
I'll propose two scenarios, in which these are given facts for both: there is entry, intent to steal, a law that vindicates the homeowner of harming or killing the intruder, and the intruder has no legal protection even under "self defence" if he is attacked by the homeowner during his uninvited entry.
In scenario one, there is gun control. Homeowner confronts the invader, and the invader flees. Or else there is a struggle, and eventually the invader flees. Or there is a sruggle, and in a very small number of cases of the total, there is serious injury or death.
In scenario two, people have easy access to guns. Both the thief and the homeowner. They both know that the other may have a gun and can use it. The thief knows that the homeowner will shoot him, so if he suspects the homeowner has become aware of his presence, then the thief has a high motivation to shoot the homeowner. There will be no witnesses, if he shoots him dead. So the thief is highly motivated to shoot the homeowner. On one hand, the thief protects his identity, slows down the process of getting found. On the other hand, the thief protects his own life, because shooting the homeowner dead prevents the homeowner from shooting him, the thief. That is reason enough in and by itself to kill; to preserve one's own life, whether he is legally free or not to do so, is enough justification to shoot another person dead.
Still in this second scenario, the homeowner has the motivation to shoot the invader, because he knows that the invader will shoot him given a chance, so it's self-defence, andt the homeowner does not need to fear the law when doing so. So his motivation is only self-preservation for his life, but that's a big enough motivator for anyone, I'd say. He lacks the deterrent of jail sentence or the chair, so that's not a motivator, but the lack of a countermotivator.
I published this on single's sites where the readership is about 8 to 20 Americans, and one or two Canadians plus Aussies. People did not respond to this post of mine, which does not mean they believed me, or accepted the truth of its logic; it just means they were dumbfounded encountering this argument that made sense, yet they KNEW was wrong, because they had been fed exactly the opposite with an equally strong but opposing reasoning, which had been that you must be able to return firepower in case a home invader opens fire on you, or hopefully before that you must shoot the invader.
I published it also on a literary website, but I got into a hissy fit with the
woman who introduced me there, and in my passive aggressive way I took down the post in a few days. 18 people had read it there before I took it down.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.