Been away

I've been away on business and haven't been too focused on world events.  Qaddafi seems to be slipping more and more from power, but he is certainly making it a bloody process.  I expect that radical Islamists are a pretty substantial part of this bloody revolution in Libya, but remain ever optimistic that Libya will become a more modern and moderate place when the blood dries up.  


Monsters create monsters, it seems to me, and Qaddafi certainly satisfies the first half of that equation.  


I send them light and healing and my prayers.

Demonstrations or revolutions?

The unrest in the Middle East continues to spread, now with violence in Libya.  As usual, what to look for is what the military does.  People in the streets are just demonstrators unless they can get the military to side with them.  In Egypt, the military sided with the demonstrators to the point of deposing Mubarak and leaving the military in charge - I have great hopes that this is temporary and the military will establish systems to create free and fair elections (at least free enough and fair enough to establish an acceptable government).  Once the existing regimes fall, then the demonstrations can be called revolutions.


In Libya, it looks like some of the military is attacking the people and some are refusing to do so, so the outcome is very much in question, but it is looking like Qadhafi is in charge for now, but many are optimistically expecting him to be overthrown.  I certainly hope so.


Even if the currant regimes fall, the establishment of workable democracies is still very much in question.  Revolutions often create new tyrannies - e.g. the French revolution created the Great Terror of Robespierre, the Russian revolution created the tyranny of Lenin and Stalin, etc.  They can also create democracies - e.g. America, the Baltic states with the overthrow of the Soviets.


I am sending my prayers for actual, functional democracies that are desirous of  moving into the modern world and having a respected voice in joining rather than attacking the rest of us.

Avoiding entitlement reform

The great budget debate in Washington is mostly about the wrong stuff – the non-military discretionary portion of the budget, which is only 12% of the federal budget.  The programs that are on the chopping block are mostly pretty good programs.   But the reason they are in danger is because neither the Republicans, who want to cut spending in general, nor the Democrats, who want to increase spending on these kinds of programs, are willing to cut spending where it really matters – entitlements.

So, we have each party digging in for a big showdown by issuing their normal talking points.  The Democrats say that the Republicans are cutting programs because they are mean old uncaring nasties.  And the Republicans say that the Democrats are resisting cuts because they are power hungry control freaks who want to take over more and more of everybody’s lives with government control.

Neither has the courage to reduce spending on entitlements.  The real game of chicken going on in D.C. is not who will blink and give in before a government shutdown has to happen, it is who is going to be the first to step forward to reduce entitlement spending.  

Lack of leadership on entitlement reform

Obama's budget proposal is Washington as its most normal - the window dressing of minor cuts to hide the lack of courage to tackle entitlement reform.  The Republicans, so far, are just as bad if not worse by pretending that cutting the small piece of government spending that is non-entitlement discretionary spending will have any real impact on the deficit.  


So, Washington continues along the path toward more entitlement spending, more deficits, and a higher portion of the budget going to pay of the interest payments on the debt.  Eventually, all the government will be able to pay for is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Defense Department, and interest on the debt.  


David Brooks of the New York Times chastises President Obama for failing to confront the government's terrible deficit problem. He points out that Obama endlessly promises to tackle deficit spending but never gets around to it.  He does mention that at least the Republican Senator, Eric Cantor, says that the Republicans will put entitlement reform on the table, which Brooks points out is a leadership move.


What is desperately needed is leadership here, and Obama just ducked.  Will Cantor and other Republicans be able to take the lead and go to the people to get them behind the stopping of ever expanding entitlements?  


I expect that to be the issue of the 2012 election.

The rape didn't fit the story of liberation, so it was suppressed by CBS

One of the saddest parts of the Laura Logan assault story is that CBS itself sat on the story for five days until they were forced to run it when others broke the story.  


The most positive spin on that decision would be to say that they wanted to protect the identity of a rape victim, who in this case was their own chief foreign correspondent.  But, I am afraid it is something else, it is more that reporting that their own woman was assaulted by a crowd of men yelling "Jew! Jew!" would contradict the story that CBS and the world was telling of the wonderful celebration of liberation of the Egyptian people from a long tyranny.


Why not tell "the rest of the story"?  These are people who were oppressed for years and are speaking up for their freedom, and they did so non-violently and overturned a dictatorship.  This is a tremendous story and it is true.  But this blot on the day also happened.  Things in Egypt and the Middle East are complicated, and there are a number of very conflicting forces at play.  One of my fears is that as the freedom movement  progresses in the Middle East, it could well lead to religious holy wars between the Shia and Sunni.  I certainly hope not, and send my prayers that it does not, but no society in any country is without complications and counter forces at play.


I am sorry that this happened to mar that day of triumph, but not reporting it is as sad as the crime itself, it seems to me.

Laura Logan assault

CBS newswoman, Laura Logan, was surrounded by over a hundred men, serially raped, and beaten during the Tahrir square celebration of Mubarak's fall from power.  


"CBS says 39-year-old Logan "suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers."

CBS continues, "[Logan] reconnected with the CBS team, returned to her hotel and returned to the United States on the first flight the next morning. She is currently in the hospital recovering."

She had apparently been held and threatened by the Egyptian police eight days prior to her assault, but there is no report as to whether there was any connection to those who had detained her earlier.  Since this happened during the celebration, it might not have been the government thugs, but rather some more violent and reactionary elements of those wanting the overthrow of Mubarak.  


She is apparently recovering in a hospital in the U.S. and determined to get back to work as soon as she can.  


I don't know who is responsible for this outrage, but I do know that it is a sickening footnote to a triumphant day, and I wish it hadn't happened.

It's still up to the military? I think not

The people of Egypt have forced out Mubarak and are moving the country toward democracy.

Or, the Egyptian military has driven Mubarak out of power by using the demonstrations to justify a coup, and keep the country in their control and away from Mubarak’s non-military son.

One of these two scenarios is true.  I don’t really know which. 

But, I think that the Egyptian people will not be stopped on this path to democracy.  The military control of the country (not a new thing, the military has always ruled Egypt, but with Mubarak at the helm) is needed in order to set up new laws and create the environment for the creation of political parties.  So, the military coup could very well be a wonderful step toward democracy in Egypt.

The question is whether the military will actually give up power to the people and let them create a representative democracy. 

I think they will, and I send my prayers that they will.  But, I am pretty clear that the biggest part of that journey is still ahead.  One can easily read the events of last week as the military keeping Mubarak from turning Egypt into a hereditary monarchy by having his son succeed him by taking over the country by a coup and keeping control of the country in military hands. 

But I don’t think that the people who shouted “Give me liberty of give me death” are going to be stopped.

Mubarak reigns! Elections to follow?

Mubarak resigns and the military is in charge in Egypt!  Freedom has triumphed - as long as they set up systems and institutions to foster democratic parties and elections...or is this just another tyrannical coup?  

I think the revolution has gone too far too fast to be stopped, and that the road to a representative democracy is being taken.  As we know from history, this doesn't happen all at once, but is a process.  I wish them Godspeed.

Mubarak digs in

Mubarak announces that he will stay until September.  Will the military step in?  Or are they aligned with him?  I expect the protests to go on and escalate.  Their hopes were so high, and now, such a crushing disappointment.  I expect a pretty massive turnout tomorrow by the protesters, and I don't expect the military to turn on them.  What a mess.

The military is finally stepping up?

It looks like the Egyptian military is finally stepping up and will form a government in Egypt, replacing Mubarak.  It is reported that this news was met with roars of approval by the masses in the square.  

The next big thing that needs to happen is for this new military government to be temporary and to set up systems to sustain real elections later in the year.

What will the new Egypt be?  What will the new Middle East be?  Have the people had enough of suppression and will they succeed in establishing a workable democracy?  And will that new Egypt be a force against oppression and for peace?  Or will it turn on Israel and the U.S. and push to create an Islamist Middle East.

I remain hopeful that this is going to establish less suppression and tyranny, not more.

They want a voice

I have been busy with personal issues the last few days: we have moved to our new home, and we love it.  Lots of work, but a happy change in our lives.

Egypt continues on with both sides trying to wear the other side down.  The old order thinks it can last it out with the protesters eventually running out of enthusiasm.  But, the forces of freedom seem to have been unleashed, and it looks to me like the protests are persisting and continue to expand, now escalating into strikes, including at the Suez canal.  Without revenues from the Suez canal and from tourism, which is way down now, the government might not be able to sustain itself.

I am encouraged that the revolution stands a pretty good chance of not being taken over by the Islamist extremists.  The government that follows the fall of Mubarak is almost certain to be more Muslim than the existing one, but I think that the young people who are rising up will be able to resist a new form of repression and tyranny that a radical Islamist regime would try to impose.

What the Egyptian people really seem to want is a voice, to be free to speak, and an opportunity to create a life for themselves and their children.  When the oppressed can smell a better future, the forces of freedom can become irresistible.  

I place my bet on the forces of revolution in Egypt, and I put my hopes on those same forces rejecting the potential tyrannies of fundamentalist Islamist extremists.

Riding it out?

It's looking more and more like Mubarak is following the Iranian mullah script - wait out the protests, let the passions peter out, then round them up and destroy them.  At least that seems to me to be his strategy.

I have every hope that he fails and the military steps up to install an interim government to set up free elections later in the year.

It's up to the military

It’s up to the military in Egypt.  If they decide Mubarak must go, he will go.  And so far today, it looks pretty positive.  “Departure Friday” seems to be fairly peaceful, as best as I can tell, and the military seems to be at least somewhat on the side of the protesters.  The pro-Mubarak rent-a-thugs seem to be more on the sidelines.

I hope that Mubarak goes into exile, and a leader from the military steps up to establish an interim government to last the bulk of 2011.  This would establish enough time for political factions to organize and run in free elections, and would allow the interim government to establish reform laws that would support free elections. 

If the elections are held too soon, the Brotherhood is probably the only faction with enough organization, cohesion, and passion to mount an effective campaign and would likely win the country.  That could end up with a fundamentalist Muslim government in control of Egypt, and the temptation for them would be to rule tyrannically in the name of God.

Egypt actually seems to have an opportunity to become a reasonably true democracy, and that would go a long way towards transforming the Middle East.  I have great hopes that the people of Egypt and the rest of the Middle East have seen enough of the brutal rule by Islamists that they will be willing to fight for real freedom, real democracy, and a real future for their children to live lives of self determination and choice.

I send my prayers.

Crisis of dignity

An interesting thing about the Arab revolution against their tyrannical governments is the absence of rage against Israel and the U.S.  This is an internal Arab revolt, with many factions rising up together - no, make that, they are rising up at the same time, but they aren't really together as one, I don't believe.  

At the heart of the civil wars that are unfolding, I believe, is shame and humiliation.  I heard on BBC radio Monday morning a middle aged cab driver was saying that all of his life he had been ashamed to be known as an Egyptian, but now, as he rose up to protest the humiliating way Egyptians had been treated, he was thrilled to loudly proclaim that he was Egyptian.  

A crisis of dignity, or the lack of being treated with dignity, seems to be deeper than the politics or the religion of the protesters.  

The Iranian strategem

It looks to me like Mubarak is taking inspiration from Iran's Ayatollah Khamenie's and Iran's president Ahmadinejad's way of staying in power during the Green revolution in Iran in 2009 - send in government thugs to break up and punish those in the streets.  The feelings of excitement and euphoria in Iran a year and a half ago petered out in the face of government thuggery (I remain hopeful that the Iranians are continuing on a path toward freedom and secularization today).

Mubarak is doing the same today, sending in his thugs to beat and kill the demonstrators.  He obviously thinks he can get the same results that the Iranian tyrants did, and prolong his reign of domination over the Egyptian people. Come September, I have no doubt that Mubarak will concoct a reason of some urgent emergency to "delay" his transition from power - war with Israel?

I have a deep hope that the opposition will not back down, but increase their outrage at the thuggery and force him out now.  

I have a deep hope that the opposition will not back down, but increase their outrage at the thuggery and force him out now.

Protest without a leader

It looks to me like the protests in Egypt haven't turned into a political movement because there is no one to lead it.  Or, more to the point, all of the protesters are not on the same page.  It looks like there is a modernist, secular element in the streets, and a more fundamentalist, islamic element in the streets.  How all of this shakes out is unknown for now, but at some point I think that the chaos will have to become focused or Mubarak, and/or the existing powers will ride it out with some changes but no revolution.

Democracy is a lot more than elections.  Without institutions that support democracy, it's another form of tyranny.  For example, protection of minority opinion and minority rights and the rule of law are essential to prevent the tyranny of the demos - the mob.  I think Egypt and the rest of the Middle East are on the path to democracy and have a long way to go.

Further thoughts on Egypt

I think it has long been inevitable that the Middle East tyrannies would eventually be overthrown by populations that were exposed to western civilizations.  The forces of revolution are of two kinds, I believe. 

One force is the force of modernization and Westernization as the young see the freedoms and prosperities of the West.  This force is one that the West hopes for and embraces.  But, the other revolutionary force is that of fundamentalist reaction and loathing against the greed and corruption of the West, and the greed and corruption of their regimes, which they blame the West for.  In its extreme, this force has become violent and bloody jihad led by Osama Bin Laden and followed by many.

I think that the current Egyptian and Middle Eastern uprisings are more about the outbreak of civil wars in the Middle East itself.  I think that whichever faction wins in Egypt will have only a temporary victory, with strong opposition from their opposites.  This could go on for some time.  I think it is very likely that attacks on America and Europe may take a back seat as internal wars in Egypt and the rest of the Middle Eastern countries will consume them. 

Israel, however, may very well be a target as an expression of the civil wars themselves, and America could get sucked into that dark vortex.  America has a very difficult role to play here with long alliances with Israel and Egypt, as well as other tyrannical regimes that we have supported as a matter of the national interest of our security. 

In the end, I have a strong hope and a real expectation that the forces of modernization and Westernization will win.  But, along the way, I think America and the West will also be changed by the rise of Islam, and we ourselves will turn away from the same greed and corruption that is so reviled by the Islamists.  Lord knows, the more I have read about the cesspools of greed, corruption, and incompetence that led to the financial collapse and today’s great recession, the more I have been repulsed.

Islamist uprisings?

Egypt is in the midst of large uprisings, as is much of the Middle East.  I hope that this is a good thing, but I think it is an uprising of Islamist extremists, or the popular uprising will be taken over by Islamist extremists. 

In the beginning, all revolutions inspire hope.  After all, they are overthrowing tyranny, and humankind responds sympathetically.  But, so many of them end up establishing new tyrannies.  All the way back to the French revolution that was taken over by the guillotine, the '79 Iranian revolution which installed Ayatollah Khomeini, and the recent Iranian street protests did not overturn the Iranian tyranny.  Other than America's George Washington, and Vaclev Havel of Czechoslovakia, most other revolutions created tyrranies.

It seems certain to me that the Arab populous has a long hatred of the United States and of Israel.  My fear is that if the Egyptian tyranny topples, whoever takes over is all too likely to break the thirty year peace with Israel, cease much of the assistance that it has been giving to America in our war against terrorists, and eventually be taken over by Islamic extremists.

I profoundly hope that more moderate and responsible elements of Islam will come to power in Egypt, but I think that the West is going to lose some important support in Egypt, and indeed, we are likely looking at the overturning of tyrannies in the Middle East that had at least some connection and cooperation with the West to be replaced by fundamentalist Islamists who will turn their back to the West, or worse.

The State of the Union speech

I took a short vacation and didn’t see the president’s State of the Union speech until last night.  I thought he did an excellent job of finally finding his presidential voice.  It was a fine follow up to his bipartisan leadership during the lame duck congress.

I believe losing the House and six Senate seats has freed him from the control of the left wing of the Democrat Party, and this gives him the freedom to create more centrist, post-partisan approaches to his leadership going forward.  He sounded more like the president of the country than the spokesman for the Pelosi left wing of his party Tuesday night.

It is clear that his view is still that of a government led economy, as opposed to the Republican spokesman Paul Ryan’s view of shrinking the government to unleash the creative freedom of the marketplace.  Given the economic calamity of the Bush years of a too unfettered free market, Ryan's argument might not carry as much weight today as he thinks. 


I thought Obama did a good job of arguing that his active government approach had a long tradition in America, from Eisenhower’s infrastructure building of the national highway system to Kennedy’s Sputnik inspired space race.

Ryan was an impressive, bright energy as a spokesman for the Republican commitment to keeping America from becoming another Greece or Ireland, which is a very real danger.  I wish Obama had shown more passion about the hard and painful political work of cutting the deficit, but I think he did a good job of creating a framework for a post-partisan way forward.

As for the tone of looking for cooperation, I was more impressed by Obama, but as to the content, I am more concerned about the dangerous and crushing deficit than I am about creating high speed rail.

One wing-nut down, so many more to go

Keith Olbermann has left MSNBC, the liberal cable network.  Apparently, he clashed too harshly with his management, or wanted more money than they were willing to pay, or has decided to start his own media empire, or perhaps his own country, who knows.  


The good thing, from my perspective, is that at least one radical extremist voice is off the air, and that makes me happy.  Now, if only Glen Beck and Fox News would part ways, that would make me even happier.  The toxic blame and paranoia that the extremes pump into the body politic harms us all, I believe.  


It would be so good to see reasoned debate and principled disagreement on the airwaves rather than exaggerated political theater designed to get an extremist and angry audience by demonizing the opposition.  


I suppose it's better to have the extremists have a voice expressing their rants for them on the media than expressing themselves in violence as the radical left did in the '60s - the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers, for example.  But, I am just tired of the drumbeats of partisan warfare coming from both sides.

Sorry to see him go

I know that some liberals look upon Senator Joe Lieberman with loathing as a traitor and sneer at him as he leaves the Senate.  I, however, am sorry to see him go.  

If anything, to me Lieberman is very much the kind of lawmaker I would like to see more of in both houses - one who is not trapped inside of a rigid ideology, predictably voting in lock step with the party line.  

To me, the essence of politics is negotiation and compromise.  There are times when passion for a cause is needed, the Civil Rights movement is an obvious example, but I am sure that any deep analysis of even the Civil Rights legislations would reveal many, many negotiations and compromises along the way to becoming the laws of the land.  

In today's rigid, rancorous, polarized politics, losing an independent mind is a loss indeed.

Keep the filibuster

The House of Representatives is going to vote to repeal the health reform bill soon.  I’m in an unusual position, for me, on the bill itself.  I have never been a partisan in this fight, either for or against it, but have been watching with curiosity.  Some things I like and some things I dislike. 

I don’t believe the Democrats’ claim that the bill will save money when you add 30 million to the roles of health care.  I think that they gamed the bill so as to get a savings projection from the Congressional Budget Office even though it will cost more, probably a lot more, and could do real harm by driving deficits way up and cutting Medicare and Medicaid assistance.  Plus, I really wonder why it is constitutional to force people to buy something – in this case, insurance.

But, I’m appalled that insurance companies can deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, which a huge percentage of people have, or can drop coverage of people when they are sick, and that so many people in our country have no health coverage.

What I do note, however, it’s that the House of Representatives can do whatever the majority party can agree within itself to do – pass the health care bill when the Dems were in charge, and repeal the health care bill when the Reps are in charge.  And, more to the point, in each case the other party is pretty much completely closed out of the process. 

I understand that the Reps were intransigently against Pelosi, but I think she brought it on herself, and I understand that Boehner realizes that he is only passing a symbolic bill so he doesn’t want to waste a bunch of time on it when there are better things to do, but the point is that the House is set up to ignore minority opinions.

Thus, I reluctantly conclude that it is very important that the Senate should never eliminate the filibuster.  If it ever does so, the Senate will just become another version of the House where the majority slams things through without any space for minority debate and alternatives – i.e. without the exercise of politics itself: negotiation and compromise.

It seems wrong that the Senate needs 60% of the votes to pass anything, but that restriction guarantees debate and guarantees the influence of the minority party to slow down and modify what the majority is trying to pass.  This gives voice to parts of the country not represented by the majority party. 

I think this is vital to the longevity of democracy itself, for without legitimate expressions of minority voices violence can seem to be the only option to the disenfranchised.

Move out day

Today is a big day for Susan and me.  We have sold our wonderful home in Novato, CA and today is our move out day.  We are moving to a wonderful new home in Sonoma, and are really excited about that, but today is about feeling loss and sadness.

We have loved being in our Novato home and in beautiful Marin county.  We have lived together in Sausalito, then a condo in Novato, and lastly in a house in Novato.  We leave Marin now and are so grateful to all of our homes and to Marin county for being such a beautiful and wonderful place.  Sonoma is close by, of course, and we still have many deep ties to loved ones in Marin, so we will stay connected quite naturally.  

But, today, we feel a beautiful sadness, and also a quiet joy.  It is a very soulful time for us as we step away from an old life on our way into a new one.

Left vs. Right - an overview

I believe that the political left and political right differ in a very basic way – they have different fundamental values that they cherish.

The left’s value is caring and compassion; the right’s value is freedom and opportunity.  These don’t have to be in violent conflict, but there is a natural tension between them. 

The left’s focus on caring and compassion leads them naturally into areas of concern about group, community, cooperation.  The right's focus on freedom and opportunity leads them naturally into areas of concern about the individual and individualism.

I believe the country needs to have both philosophical wings to be strong, alive, and productive.  I believe we need to foster both energies of freedom and caring.  I am not the first to say that the American Eagle needs both wings to fly.

But, what happens when the left and right go to the extreme ends of their spectrum?  They end up, tragically, viewing those who are not with them as enemies out to destroy all that is sacred to them.

On the left end of the spectrum, people say that they are “liberal,” or “progressive” (but are really left wing) because they Care, want to build a kinder world, see their mission as helping people and caring about and for them.  Thus, it seems logical to them that people who disagree with them do so because they don’t care, therefore they must be uncaring, mean, inhumane, cruel, insensitive, even bigoted, or racist, hard hearted monsters. 

So, of course, they do everything that they can to destroy the monsters who are not like them.

On the right end of the spectrum, people say that they are “conservative” (but are really right wing) because they are Free, want to be free, see their mission as spreading freedom and opportunity in the U.S and the world.  Thus, it seems logical to them that people who disagree with them do so because they are opposed to freedom, are after all of our freedoms, are tyrannical monsters who want to control our lives and impose their dictatorship over us all.

So, of course, they do everything that they can to destroy the monsters who are not like them.

Thus, those on the left extreme of the political spectrum are always fighting fascists, and those on the right extreme of the political spectrum are always fighting communists – because the only way they can see the world is that if you don’t agree with them, you must be the polar opposite.

Fortunately, the extremists are pretty severely deluded, and most of us live somewhere on the left-right spectrum well inside the extremes.  And we can see that efforts by the left to be caring are not necessarily efforts to establish socialist or communist dictatorships.  And we can see that efforts by the right to increase freedom and opportunity are not necessarily efforts to eliminate caring for the needy.

The challenge is to look and listen to those we disagree with and not see them as monsters who are either inhumane or dictatorial - either fascist or communist.  I think most people do that quite naturally, but those who make all the noise are on the extremes fighting monsters that mostly aren’t even there.

...make sure we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.

I thought that the president's speech was quite wonderful.  It was an odd environment for such a somber occasion, with the audience filled mostly with students who seemed to be treating it as a pep rally with exuberant cheering and applause.  But, I thought Obama did a masterful job of adjusting to the energy and directing it in an inspiring way.


"I believe that for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us."  


Wonderful words.  I believe that too.  As I recall, Lincoln often said very similar things during an even more polarized time.


"But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized - at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do - it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds."


That's the heart of it, and the exact right thing to say.  Enough of each end of the political spectrum trying to blame the other end of the political spectrum.  This is the Obama I voted for.  Glad to see he is still there.

Congresswoman Giffords' tragedy

The shooting of congresswoman Giffords in Arizona this week was a terrible event, and I send healing energy to her, her loved ones, and all of those affected by this tragedy.

To me, there are three changes I would like to see as a result of this tragedy.

First, we have no ability to protect ourselves and our society from people who are known to be dangerously disturbed.  We are not allowed to commit or to force involuntary medication on people who frighten us with their sickness.  I am afraid that civil libertarians have been too successful in protecting the rights of those that are a danger to themselves and to us.  They have let their ideology of ensuring that the mentally ill are treated with respect overwhelm the original principle of helping those that are in desperate need of help, and the rest of us are vulnerable to their delusions and paranoia, and sometimes, we are targets of their violence.

Second, I wish there was a system in place where people are required to report the dangerously disturbed into a data base that would make it impossible for them to pass the background check to get a gun.

Third, I would like the extreme polarization of the left and right in our political spectrum to become less noticed by the rest of us.  Even better, I would like each end of the spectrum to lower the incendiary rhetoric.  The right wing demonizes the left with incendiary speech, and so too does the left demonize the right with incendiary speech.  Unfortunately, it seems to me, immediately after the shooting, the left leapt into action with inflammatory accusations that Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and the right wing had created an environment of hatred that led to this shooting.  And they did so with no evidence that the shooter, Loughner, was even a right winger.  Their own paranoia kicked in, and they became the ones who were inflaming the country with incendiary speech.  Are they sure that a similarly disturbed person might not decide to go after Palin or Limbaugh? 

It might still prove to be that Loughner was driven by right wing inflammatory ideas, but it is looking more and more like he had very little connection to politics, and was enraged at her for being part of the government, which his paranoia told him was trying to control his mind – the mind that he could not control because of his paranoia and delusions.