Speak up against ignorance and misconception.

Freedom doesn't come from the barrel of a gun. It stems from a mutual agreement among people.

The next time your Congressman, Senator, State Representative, or any elected official says otherwise,

Call them on it!

There is a difference between a “loophole,” a technical term that derives its name from the narrow slits in castle towers of the Middle Ages, and a giant gaping hole in legislation that allows roughly half of all gun sales to be conducted without a background check.

"Good guys with guns" did not deter John Hinckley

Call them on it!

There is a difference between a legitimate, gun safety organization that advocates for all owners of such weapons to use them responsibly, and an organization that calls for guns in the hands of virtually everyone, anyplace, anywhere. The percentage of Americans who believe that all gun sales should be subject to a background check is the same across party lines. With little margin, nearly 90 percent of Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters support universal background checks. Oh, and among NRA members, it's nearly 90 percent, too! Can the same be said by NRA leadership?

Call them on it!

Even Antonin Scalia does not believe that the Second Amendment should serve as anything more than an adjunct to law enforcement. If you raise your gun at a police officer, a U.S. Marshall, or any other “Jack-booted thug,” no one is going to pry a gun from your cold, dead hands. Instead, your corpse will still be warm when the forensics team arrives on the scene.

Call them on it!

If Ford makes a faulty car, the purchaser of said car can sue the manufacturer for selling shoddy product. If Cerberus Capital Management manufacturers a faulty gun, the purchaser of said gun has no legal recourse against the manufacturer. Why?

Call them on it!

Trying to overthrow one's government, against the will of the majority, through violent means does not make one a person into a patriot. It makes him a terrorist.

Call them on it!

Elected officials should be able to make decisions based on the consensus of a majority, not out fear of assassination. People should have the right to go to work, or school, or any public place without having to worry about guns or bombs going off.

Call them on it!

Inanimate objects, be they guns, swords, or toasters are not human beings, and thus, not entitled to “rights.” Only people are entitled to human rights. It is self-evident.

Call them on it!

Every time Wayne LaPierre opens his mouth at a press conference or on TV news, he turns himself into a strawman. LaPierre figuratively puts his own fallacious logic in the cross, and invites anybody with good reason to figuratively shoot him down.

Yes, figuratively. Only someone with a severe case of schizophrenia would take such rhetoric literally. And how do you stop a schizophrenic from going on a shooting spree? Is it with concealed carry permits, powerful handguns, and hollow-point bullets?

No, no, and no. The correct answer is thirty milligrams of Thorazine, give or take.

Call them on it!

Tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear missiles are all prohibited from civilian use. Yet these are all “arms.” Why are they restricted, or to put it differently, “infringed?” Because they don't belong to you if you are not in a militia!

The list is endless. There is much more to be said. This conversation must go on. And go on it shall. This time, we as a people, as a nation, must not let a small band of dangerous extremists and trade industry lobbyists enable the next mass murderer. We are capable of being better people. We can do this. But only if we speak. 

Thoughts on the election.

Let's get down to it. It's only one week after the election, and I have to admit I was surprised to see none other than Bill O' Reilly make nothing less than an astute analysis of Tuesday's Presidential election.

“The voters, many of them, feel this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff." Opined O' Reilly. "People feel that they are entitled to things."

Well, maybe a little less than astute. Stuff. Things. Two words my third grade teacher insisted that I never use as answer to a question. So, to help out Bill O' Reilly, I thought I would share what some of those "things" are.

I expect the government to pay me social security benefits when I reach old age.

I expect public schools to teach our youth. I expect our public colleges and universities to educate people of all ages.

I expect our government to protect people from predatory lending and usurious interest rates.

I expect to have water on my tap that is clean and safe to drink.

Social Security: You paid for it, you are entitled to it.

I expect that when I call 911 to report an emergency, someone will pick up the phone.

I expect -- nay -- demand that every returning war veteran come home with a job waiting for him or her.

I expect these things not as charity, but as services owed to me as a taxpayer.

I have been a taxpayer ever since I was 10 years old, when I paid sales taxes on my Gatorade and Skittles purchases. Two decades later, I pay taxes to the feds, to the city and state of New York, to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Social Security. And Medicare. I'm not living off the government; I am a paying customer. And a loyal one. No matter who wins, I am not going to Canada. 

I also have my liberal fantasies. A world where billionaire investors pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes than their secretary's. Where our public schools have enough teachers to educate every child. Where every single man and woman with the talent and motivation has a job. A world where every paycheck is enough to afford a roof over one's head. No more ghettos. No more shoddy public housing projects. A world where people have enough to live on so that they have something to live for.

That's the America I dream of.

Are these dreams far fetched? Perhaps. Maybe to idealistic. Then again--perhaps not. Consider the journey we have traveled in just a few short years.

In 2004, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. Opponents cried foul. Outrage! They said. Activist judges ruling against the will of the people. The legislature must decide.

Last year in New York, the state legislature did decide. Democrats and Republicans voted together and without compromise to allow marriage eqaulity in their state.

Proponents rejoiced, but again, the opposition cried foul. Wrong! They shouted. Out of touch politicians should not make decisions like these! The will of the people can only be decided by ballot initiative!

Last week, the people decided. In Maine, in Maryland and in Washington state, gays got down on one knee and proposed marriage equity on the ballot. In each state, the voters saw the proposal for marriage equality and said, "I do!" The people have spoken, and they left absolutely nothing to doubt with the firmness of their conviction. 

That wasn't all the voters said. In Colorado, voters saw the war in drugs and said, no more. No more locking up otherwise law abiding citizens for small possession of Jamaican lung confetti. The Louis Armstrong cigarette is now legal.

A Civil Rights issue? Absolutely. In 2000, the predominantly black Weaver High School in Hartford, Connecticut held an election for Senior class president. The candidates were, and I kid you not, Al Gore and George Bush. Two young African-American students who happened to have the exact same name as two candidates for U.S. President. If that George Bush, or if that Al Gore, had been caught for possession if marijuana, could they have expected the same lenient treatment as the white men who share their same name? Could they expect to find careers in government and the private industry if they had served jail time?

Reforming our drug laws in such a way to separate marijuana from other, more serious substances like crack and heroin is no doubt good policy. Reforming our drug laws in such a way that chemically addicted individuals get the treatment they need instead of jail time is good policy--for all of us. And it is the way of the future.

Perhaps then my liberal dream of economic freedom is not so far-fetched after all. Reducing massive income inequality is also a social issue--perhaps the greatest social issue of our time. Ideologues may shout and holler that to do is Communism. That a doctor should earn more money than a janitor. And there is some truth to this. A doctor has more training and skill to do his job then a janitor. But why, why, should a doctor earn less money than a Kim Kardashian, an Alex Rodriguez, or a Bill O' Reilly?

I refuse to believe that Kim K is worth $18 million a year

More importantly, we must understand that a janitor too, saves lives. When he or she mops the floors and cleans the toilets, that janitor is preventing the potential spread of dangerous diseases that could potentially kill someone. The chemicals a janitor uses to clean an area, if mixed improperly, could be fatal. Make no mistake: Janitorial work is serious skilled labor.

So yes, while a doctor is entitled to a generous salary, so to is the person who mops the floors and cleans the bathrooms. A janitor by no means should make as much money in a single year as a neurosurgeon, but that janitor should make enough to pay his or her bills and lead a decent lifestyle. There can be no excuse for workers of any trade to live in poverty. None.

And who knows what the limit for one's potential can be. Maybe that person who is scrubbing the floors of the hospital today is doing so in hopes to pay for college. Perhaps that person may go on to make a big discovery that makes solar energy affordable, or develops a new medicine that can combat cancer. If we ensure that everyone has a chance in life, we all benefit. And if that means that the Mitt Romney's and Warren Buffets of the world should pay the same percentage if their income in taxes to achieve that goal, so be it. I'm sure they will be fine. Perhaps better than they ever imagined. Perhaps reducing our great economic divide will be etched in stone and made the law of the land. Perhaps I am not so naive to dream after all.

And I have a feeling that no matter who you voted for on Tuesday, on many levels, you agree with me. 

Is Chris Christie the Adele of Politics?

In the age of Taylor Swift's auto-tuned harmonies and long in the wake of bubble gum pop Backstreet Boys and Justin Timbetlake, we have Adele. Grammy winner, YouTube born superstar and a voice that sings with a passion and intensity. Unfortunately for music lovers, it is the kind of passion and intensity that William Butler Yeats wrote about.

It hurts--to hear her sing!

But I can understand why she has her fans. She sings from the heart, if not the vocal chords. And her nails on the chalkboard crooning is a welcome departure for many from the highly manufactured, manicured and machinated stars that produce process music. Adele sings like a rose, thorns and all.

And then there is Chris Christie. Unemployment in New Jersey is higher than the national average. He has blamed public school educators, mass transit projects, and the entire Camden Police Force on the state's ills. When Christie makes the news, it's usually because he's shouting at a constituent.

In an era where politicians speak in extremely careful, measured tones, perhaps voters find Governor Christie's style a bit refreshing. And after the storm, even I have to admit that the man did a good job paging Clark Gable when he told Fox and Friends that quite frankly, he just didn't give a damn about Mitt Romney.

Maybe not the first person to tell off Fox and Friends, hopefully not the last.

Robert Dole Remembers Senator McGovern

In case you missed it, former Senator Bob Dole had some very lovely words for his late friend and longtime partner, George McGovern in Monday's Washington Post. I say partner because the men spent decades working together in Congress and again, as administrators of the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.

Sometimes competitors; always friends.

It's a great article, and Dole's humility in both describing the greatness in achievements that the two shared over seven decades makes is informative and inspiring. I also couldn't help but read this article and recall a recent television appearance in which the late Senator McGovern made a very good point about working with those who you sometimes disagree with.

The article, titled, "George McGovern, the man who never gave up," is available here. The link below has the television interview with Oklahoma Network. One who you sometime disagree with might be competitor, but such a person is never an enemy.