Culture Or Gun Driven Or Perhaps Culture And Gun Driven?

[Don Hudson]

Specs, re "I would expect a good number more could be convinced to get rid of them provided some things changed.

More social programs would help allay some gun owner's fears but that would only satisfy one portion of the owners."

In terms of real support and real opportunity instead of McJobs, I think you're right.

People just want to belong to something larger than themselves. People just want to feel secure and hopeful and want to contribute in a meaningful way. I don't think it is more complicated than that.

How a society and its government comes to terms with these basics is what creates the character of a society. A society that is structured in a way that removes peoples' sense of security and hope and carves them out of the workforce to create a poverty-class plants perrennial anger and frustration, and violence becomes its character.

Putting people, not machines, to work does far more than just take people off welfare roles - it gives them a sense of self, a sense of accomplishment. In very simple psychological terms, that kind of ordinary thing most take for granted results in a sense of belonging and contributing, which leads to pride and confidence that one can look after one's family. The actual work perhaps matters less than just doing it, and not just piecemeal, short-term or part-time, "drifting" work. The role of government is to provide that kind of leadership, not because it is monetarily profitable for a few but because it is pyschologically profitable for those unaccustomed to having a real "place" among others in a society.

There are some who consider that both poverty and racial prejudice are structural institutions that are not just tolerated but actively sustained rather than being eradicated; I agree with that view. I have seen many governments come and go, all of them promising to some extent some form of eradication of poverty; it just never happens because it is structural and institutionalized.

The inability of a large portion of the U.S. population to improve their lot because the old link between hard work and the usual rewards have been broken by a political economy arranged by and for the wealthy, leads to a sense of hopelessness and frustration which results in anger. Most control that anger but in a gun-rich environment, "solutions" that give expression to anger and rage are readily at hand and that becomes the character of that society.

Violence almost never emanates from people with hope and who have "place" in a society. For people without psychological "place", in a media-driven society, violence provides it.

All this is ordinary, obvious stuff that has been around forever. It is both the source of peace and the source of revolution when powerful, special interests carve out large sections of society for themselves, leaving many or most 'without', (so to speak). The most recent "carving out" began in the early 1970's.

As I have said often, this isn't left-wing or right-wing stuff. Although one cannot ever bow out of politics completely, the ordinariness of a society which first bases itself on elementary needs, builds a healthy character, meaning solutions involving violence are minimized. The terms "left" & "right" describe interest-based solutions, not human-based solutions to the problem of life.

[DEFCON]

“The inability of a large portion of the U.S. population to improve their lot because the old link between hard work and the usual rewards have been broken by a political economy arranged by and for the wealthy, leads to a sense of hopelessness and frustration which results in anger. Most control that anger but in a gun-rich environment, "solutions" that give expression to anger and rage are readily at hand and that becomes the character of that society.”

That sounds pretty spot on Don, but knowing the masses including the criminals will never give up their guns, is there a practical / workable solution that doesn’t involve revolution of some sort available at all?

I also think the statement quoted above makes a pretty good argument in favour of the rationale used in support of the Second Amendment.

[Don Hudson]

Criminality is an institution like any other. It is "nurtured", in the sense that it continues, just like any other institution that is, prima facie, "valued" by a society. It's presence is "tolerated" at certain "acceptable" levels which, it happens, are less than the societal criminality and violence found in, for example, Mexico but more than is found in, say, Switzerland which is in turn less than that found in Singapore. We could run our country like Singapore does, but probably not for long.

We could say that, "the masses will never give up their ciminality" just like they will not give up their poverty.

Interesting comment on the statement supporting the Second Amendment - how does it do that? The only way I can envision it being supportive is the usual interpretation of the citizens' militia taking up arms against the government.

I think the populist rationale behind the Second Amendment is folly and lacks imagination. In a true and earnest insurrection, (which the U.S. would not and could not tolerate), what would the citizens' militia propose as a counter to whatever local, state or national governments might bring to the local fight? Do we see a "Civil War"-like scenario with 600,000+ casualties or a peaceful protest?

The obvious weaknesses in the argument are numerous, but the biggest is: What would any citizens' militia do with their handguns that intelligent, earnest negotiation and diplomacy could not accomplish and probably more effectively ?

[DEFCON]

“I think the populist rationale behind the Second Amendment is folly and lacks imagination. In a true and earnest insurrection, (which the U.S. would not and could not tolerate), what would the citizens' militia propose as a counter to whatever local, state or national governments might bring to the local fight? Do we see a "Civil War"-like scenario with 600,000+ casualties?”

What is it that the Feds see coming that made it necessary for them to go out and arm even small town PD’s with battle tanks and armed personnel carriers?

Regardless, the armed forces reporting to government are comprised of people that are fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters to the majority who are not so employed. If push should ever come to shove and another American civil war develop, I think most soldiers etc. could be expected to abandon their post and return home to support their family, which considering the factors means, the rebel civilian force would be fairly equipped to do battle with a rogue government.

[Don Hudson]

Re, "What is it that the Feds see coming that made it necessary for them to go out and arm even small town PD’s with battle tanks and armed personnel carriers?"

The unused, returned vehicles and weapons from wars abroad?

As far as I can determine, the U.S. government is and has been for more than fifty years, a rogue government. The gulf that exists between the American people and their government is illustrated by Americans' wishes for their country domestically and internationally, and their government's actions, which routinely and without cessation since Vietnam, accomplished under the ruse of the "spread of communism" right up to the present ruse of Saddam's WMDs, take their country into war without authorization or debate under an exceptionalist approach to foreign policy. Their government routinely ignores the clear wishes of its people in all matters which may hobble the privileged status of corporate and private power. ed. It is unsound and uncaring environmentally and leaning, dangerously in the view of some, towards silencing the democratic voice by means not seen in the west in seventy-five years. The battle is economic, not tactical, and hegemonic, not democratic.

ed. While other powerful nations may be far worse on these accounts, the U.S. has always broadcast its freedoms and its ingenuity proudly and justifiably so. But it is forgetting or ignoring its original foundations and therefore its source of power and thus is losing way for the reasons observed here and elsewhere and that is not a good thing for the western world.

Sorry for the drift.

[boestar]

And this is why I expect to see a revolution of some sort in the near future of the US. The government is not for the people by the people anymore. It is for the corporation by the corporation with no regard for the people.

There will be an uprising. 15 years TOPS

[mo32a]

Bernie will sort it all out.

[Guest]

Yet more senseless killings.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/oregon-college-shooter-profile-1.3253752

The evil banality of guns in America

Even Obama seems resigned to the futility of changing the U.S. gun culture

By Neil Macdonald, CBC News Posted: Oct 03, 2015 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Oct 03, 2015 5:00 AM ET

Neil Macdonald

Senior Correspondent

Neil Macdonald is a Senior Correspondent for CBC News, currently based in Ottawa. Prior to that he was the CBC's Washington correspondent for 12 years, and before that he spent five years reporting from the Middle East. He also had a previous career in newspapers, and speaks English and French fluently, and some Arabic.

More by Neil Macdonald

Video by Neil Macdonald

Related Stories

Oregon college shooting: Angry Obama says response to shootings has become too routine

Victims in Oregon college shooting ranged in age from 18 to 67

Oregon college shooting: Gunman acted alone, authorities say

Chris Harper-Mercer, Oregon shooter, recalled as quiet loner who failed army training

LeBron James speaks out about gun violence

Conventional journo-wisdom has always held that it's not just dangerous but unspeakably stupid for a reporter to carry a gun in a war zone.

Get caught with one and you instantly go from observer to participant. You can get yourself killed, and maybe other journalists, too.

Your best weapons, the old reporters said, are your wits and your neutrality.

I believed in and abided by that. And I applied more or less the same logic to living in America.

Investigators recover 13 firearms in Oregon college shooting

'We've become numb to this,' angry Obama says

I could have bought a gun there anytime I wanted. A pistol, an assault weapon, a sniper rifle — anything my credit card could handle.

I didn't, though. I'm well aware that the presence of a gun in a home vastly increases the chance of homicide, suicide or accidental death.

Plus, you have to train constantly to be of any use with the thing, and anyway, I generally believe the fewer guns in circulation the better.

But war zones have changed. Journalists are now hunted. And in America, being gunned down, either by someone you know or a perfect stranger, is now so common it's almost banal.

Resigned and bitter

Someone killing people indiscriminately with a gun, or guns, is just another news story these days, and almost a minor one at that, unless the body count is double-digit, or the victims are all kids, or churchgoers slaughtered at prayer, or, of course, if the shooter is a Muslim (in which case it's almost always a huge story, even if there's only one victim).

There have been so many slaughters and rampages on Barack Obama's watch that he's developed a sort of set-piece speech — expressions of grief, speculation on the senseless nature of it all, and, of course, frustration that gun-lovers and Second Amendment fanatics have managed to block or dismantle most gun control efforts.

Sometimes he mixes in some Christian love and we-shall-overcome optimism.

But there was none of that when he talked Thursday about the mass murder at an Oregon community college.

He actually invited reporters to add up the numbers of Americans killed by terrorist in the past decade and compare that number to all the people killed by gun violence in the U.S.

Citing the Global Terrorism Database and the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, NBC put the numbers at just over 3,000 versus just over 150,000, going back to 9/11.

'Bad guy with a gun'

The gun lobby actually once feared Obama. It warned its acolytes that he'd take away their guns (a scare tactic that triggered a boom in gun and ammo sales in the early Obama years), but now basically ignores him.

After all, he lost the fight, and he'll be gone soon anyway.

Obama, and liberals across America, thought they had their chance after 20 schoolchildren and six school staff were massacred by a deranged young man with an Bushmaster rifle and two pistols three years ago in Newtown, Conn.

In its wake, the White House proposed some mild gun controls.

Then the NRA stepped in. It basically declared that the school had been negligent.

Schools, it said, should let teachers carry guns, or at least hire armed guards. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," announced the NRA's chief spokesman Wayne Lapierre.

Not necessarily true, but never mind. The NRA essentially terrorized Congress into blocking Obama's reforms.

The gun lobby has also won in the courts, which have largely dismantled municipal gun control efforts in cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional right to bear arms is literal, and once the Supreme Court rules, that's that.

Nasty corners

But back to the NRA message: After a white supremacist opened fire on black worshippers at a Charleston church in June, killing nine, an NRA board member suggested the worshippers and pastor might have survived had they been armed.

Following its playbook for cases of mass slaughter, the NRA currently says it won't comment on the Oregon murders "until all the facts are known." (Fact: a guy wearing body armour and carrying several guns murdered nine people). But it isn't hard to imagine what it will eventually say.

Allow students to carry weapons, issue weapons to professors, hire armed undercover mercenaries, install gun racks in class, whatever. Just make sure more and more people have guns.

It sounds crazed, but as America's gun anarchy grows, it has a weird logic.

Common-sense solutions — like the crackdown Australia imposed after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 — are not just politically impossible in America, they're impossible, period.

There are as many guns as people in the U.S. Plus, guns don't have expiry dates.

That means that for generations to come, nutcases and violent racists and other criminals will have all the firepower their hearts' desire.

Blood donors Oregon shooting

A line stretches outside a blood donor clinic for the shooting victims in Roseburg. CBC National news reporter Chris Brown said every person he spoke to in line rejected gun control. (CBC News)

So the old rules don't sound as sensible. If I were to cover war zones again, I might take a different view.

For all the logic of the no-guns rule back in the day, I suspect I'd be awfully happy to have some sort of weapon, the more destructive the better, if my car was headed off by a bunch of characters dressed in black in a Toyota pickup in some nasty corner of nowhere.

America, too, is now full of nasty, violent corners of nowhere. They erupt all the time, and if you're there, you're on your own.

If I spent much time in a public place in the U.S., like a government building, or subway stations, or, above all, a university or even a high school, I think I'd rather have a gun than hide behind a desk, hoping the latest whack job with a Bushmaster doesn't find me.

I might not trust myself totally with a gun, but I trust myself more than I trust all the violent, crazy, evil people the NRA has helped arm.

It's happened. The ceremony of innocence that was once the American ideal is drowned. Common sense is moot. It no longer even applies

[DEFCON]

Back some time, but not all that long ago, we could expect that a number of young people would commit suicide shortly after the college school year began. The suicides continue on today, but it seems the messed up individual is now just as likely as not to kill as many people as possible before he actually kills himself, or is killed by the cops when they finally do arrive on scene.

Where, or what source is providing the justification for today’s suicidal male to cause harm to others before he’s able to off himself? I don’t know, but it would appear that little Billy is being raised to believe everything is all about him, his Rights, or expectations and no matter how unreal, or undeserved they may be, the perp seems to believe his victims are somehow deserving of their fate?

People of my vintage grew up in gun filled homes and a worn torn world, but no one, not a single person ever had to fear being shot in a mass shooting. From my pov, when the far left of the child rearing crowd got their way and virtually eliminated every form of meaningful discipline in favour of ‘time-outs’ and the like, they empowered little Billy and unwittingly created a generational nightmare. It’s not at all unexpected then that this same crowd would now turn on legitimate gun owners in the belief this demographic is somehow responsible for the mess they’ve cultured.

[inchman]

Like almost every aviation accident, there is almost always more than one causal factor.

Yes, in some cases, some of the blame can be put on lack of meaningful childhood discipline, in other cases it is "simple" mental illness, sometimes caused by military service, sometimes caused by over-discipline, sometimes caused by bullying, sometimes caused by a wish to be famous.

But there is one... common.... factor....

If it were even possible to do so, removing that single factor would, without argument, put a stop to these mass murders. If people's misinterpreted right to possess that one factor is what the Americans want despite the obvious inevitable and perpetual outcomes, then so be it.

But just because it "works for them" doesn't mean it makes any sense.

[Guest]

Inchman, if you mean the human factor you are correct, if you mean guns...... only partly correct.

Knife-wielding attackers kill 29, injure 130 at China train station

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

Osaka school massacre

At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers

[inchman]

This is simple obfuscation.

Yes, there is the common human factor. But, without locking up everyone who seems a bit "weird", it is impossible to control.

And yes, you can bring up examples of knife killings.

If you need the rest of the diatribe, there's no point in stating it.

[Guest]

inchman, my point remains, humans kill and will use whatever weapon that is available to accomplish that end. Some members of the current younger generation in at least North America seems to want to kill others for no good reason and in the absence of guns would likely turn to other weapons (bombs etc) so in my opinion we need to deal with the root causes. In Canada we need to continue to restrict the type of weapon that can be owned by an individual. For instance, I see no reason why anyone outside of the military / police would need an automatic weapon. As far as the US, there is absolutely nothing we can do to help them out in this regard, that is entirely up to them.

[DEFCON]

There’s a clutch of people that are relentless advocates for a gun free society, yet they have absolutely no workable sound method to achieve their well intentioned, but impossible objective.

Attempts to disarm the law abiding man will not make anyone any safer; the opposite may in fact be the result.

For example; I wonder how all those that gave up their guns in Australia & Great Britain feel now? Is it an accident, a dastardly plan, or just the political fumble of all time that these governments first moved to take away everyone’s guns, which rendered the average guy impotent and unable to defend himself, but the icing on the cake followed when government turned right around and opened the floodgates to waves of third world muslim refugees etc. that make no secret of their intention to ‘kill off the infidels’.

Thanks, but I think we’re in for some real social difficulty in the not so distant future and I for one would prefer to remain well armed. This position comes from someone that was licensed to carry a handgun for five years and gave up the privilege because I felt the weapon was impractical and dangerous to have around. Handguns are almost useless when it comes to home defence and hunting applications, but are the weapon of choice when out & about. In spite of the fact I felt carrying was un-necessary from a personal safety pov way back when, our society is a sewer today by comparison and my thoughts on the issue have changed.

[AAS]

In Chicago there were 8 killed & 45 wounded. In one weekend.

The year to date statistics are incredible.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-weekend-shooting-totals-20150921-story.html

[DEFCON]

Perfect case in point; how would taking the guns away from law abiding men solve that particular problem?

If the good guys were to give up their weapons in that City, I don't think it would be long before they were overwhelmed and killed off as the criminal gang elements moved out to expand their territory.

[Airband]

[Boney]

There was a report that he asked each of his victims, "what's you religion?, then shot the Christians.

There a lot more going on here.

[J.O.]

I read somewhere that the religion rumour is utter BS. I suspect competing agendas, the question is which one is true?

[DEFCON]

DH said; "I thought the notion of pilots "carrying" and having these things in the cockpit was the most dangerous and stupid idea that anyone could come up"

Perfect! I too have always wondered where the genius behind that decision came from, which must be the same place that created todays air marshal system and the hugely expensive, but not so effective airport security apparatus in general.

[Guest]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/trump-dismisses-gun-control-measures-says-mass-shootings-will-happen-in-u-s-no-matter-what?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NP_Top_Stories+%28National+Post+-+Top+Stories%29

Amazing, I think he got this one right.

rump dismisses gun control measures, says mass shootings will happen in U.S. ‘no matter what’

The New York Times | October 4, 2015 2:34 PM ET

More from The New York Times

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at an event Saturday, Oct. 3, 2015, in Franklin, Tenn.

(AP Photo/Mark Zaleski)Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at an event Saturday, Oct. 3, 2015, in Franklin, Tenn.

Twitter Google+ Reddit Email Typo? More

Donald J. Trump can usually offer up a solution to almost any problem with unflinching confidence. But he sounded uncharacteristically resigned on Sunday when it came to last week’s mass shooting in Oregon, saying such shootings will continue in the United States “no matter what.”

In interviews on the Sunday morning talk shows, Trump rejected calls from President Barack Obama to pass tougher gun laws, saying they would do nothing to stop an attack like the one that killed nine people at Umpqua Community College in Oregon.

“No matter what you do — guns, no guns, it doesn’t matter — you have people that are mentally ill, and they’re going to come through the cracks, and they’re going to do things that people will not even believe are possible,” Trump said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

His air of resignation sounded not unlike the reaction of Jeb Bush, a presidential rival Trump has often criticized, who said after the Oregon shooting that “stuff happens” in suggesting that government is not always the solution to such problems.

With gun rights under the Second Amendment a core issue among Republicans, the party’s candidates — almost in unison — have roundly rejected what they see as a predictable overreaction to the shooting in the form of tougher gun laws. Trump aligned himself clearly with that position on Sunday as he shrugged aside calls for more restrictions on guns.

“People say, ‘oh, we’re gonna stop it’ — it doesn’t work that way,” he said in a separate interview on ABC’s “This Week.” Mass gun violence in America “has taken place forever, from the beginning, and it’s going to go on a million years from now,” he said. “You’re going to have problems, and even if you have a very tough system, you’re going to have people who slip through the cracks.”

Related

U.S. gun deaths far outstrip casualties from terrorism. A timeline of recent mass shootings in America

National Post Radio: The U.S. can’t even mourn mass shooting victims without divisive debates on gun policy

Stuff happens’: Jeb Bush replies to Obama’s plea for gun control measures in wake of Oregon mass shooting

In the interviews, Trump returned to his customary confidence in attacking the Obama administration’s stance on Syria, the Middle East, and the refugee crisis in the region.

Trump, leading in most Republican polls, was particularly critical of the administration’s plan to take in as many as 200,000 refugees fleeing the Syrian crisis, suggesting they could be a threat to security.

“We don’t know where they’re coming from, we don’t know who they are,” he said on ABC. He promised that “if I win, they’re going back.”

He even voiced support for Russia’s recent bombing raids in Syria. While the White House has criticized the bombings as a misguided attempt by Russia and its leader, President Vladimir Putin, to prop up President Bashar Assad of Syria rather than attack the Islamic State, Trump declared on NBC that “I like that Putin is bombing the hell out of ISIS.”

[Don Hudson]

Giving up and being both the center and the cause of lost hope rather than a leader of optimism is a uniquely Republican answer to a social, not a gun problem.

It is a redundancy to think of Mr.Trump as an idiot.

The Republican Party is the party of cynicism and ignorance masquerading as a once-viable political institution and reasonable alternative to solid leadership and governance.

Send in the clowns,

...don't bother; they're here.

[Guest]

Just Curious Don: what is your solution/cure/thought..........................

[Don Hudson]

Well, as you know I've written long posts for years on what I believe and think what could be solutions that could create a political economy for all Former CPAIR, and nothing I write in response would be any different. Certainly a more civil, even-tempered, maturity would be a good beginning, but that can't be done the way our political economy is currently set up for the sole benefit of the rich and powerful, all of which most recently began in the early '70's. I think it's possible, it's not utopia, but the will to change must be there along with a ton of hope.

I see no one on either side of the border offering anything close to such change, I just see bullies like Mr. Trump who has sadly struck a deep current of anger and broad frustration in the American people who know they're angry but don't know why; the tragedy of Mr. Trump is that he is finding their voice for them, and he is finding them enemies to hate. I think he, (Trump) has a better-than-even-chance of being elected if he wins the Republican primaries.

(ed. to add), But the real cure/solution is a sense of belonging, a sense of contributing, a sense of community and a vision that accepts the warts but offers hope and an even chance for all, (and for those who still think this is "left-wing" thinking, those solutions are different than socialism!). Such changes won't "cure" mental-illness and would not eradicate/eliminate violence. But it takes the wind out of the sails of the argument for gun ownership for self-defence; - gun-ownership then becomes the same phenomenon as car-ownership or something like that. But it can't be done in a society that privileges profit over people.

(ed. to add), The following notion is a stretch only because the immediacy and the extremely-close proximity of the threat but why is it that when a passenger in an airliner, (a temporarily 'enclosed' society) goes rogue there is an instant reaction by almost all capable people nearby to stop further harm and immobilise the individual, yet even as the same outcomes, (harm/fatalities) can and do obtain in 'open' society, nothing is done either by politicians or the public which permits and tolerates such potential harm and tolerate self-interested rogue groups which prevent anything being done? It is only a matter of scale and the willingness to use "extreme prejudice". Why isn't that same public response in an airliner permitted or demanded by our politicians? The question is only partially rhetorical.

I was looking through posts on the AEF back to 2003 and my own archives on my own servers of stuff I ran across and kept from the early 90's on, trying to find some sane, grounded views as we watch the two elections now on our plate as citizens.

I found the following and I think this about says it all, for me anyway. As I say, the trouble is finding the will to change, but to do that, the need for change must first be recognized. Of this I am hopeful, as I watch the generation our children are in concentrate on making a life and a living, dealing with challenges different than ours and who form the vast majority of that group once known as the silent majority who are just getting on with it.

If this kind of commentary is "bashing the United States", then sanity has indeed left the building.

Bill Moyers

on Election 2002 November 8, 2002

Way back in the 1950's when I first tasted politics and journalism, Republicans briefly controlled the White House and Congress. With the exception of Joseph McCarthy and his vicious ilk, they were a reasonable lot, presided over by that giant war hero, Dwight Eisenhower, who was conservative by temperament and moderate in the use of power.

That brand of Republican is gone. And for the first time in the memory of anyone alive, the entire federal government — the Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary — is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate.

That mandate includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to give up control over their own lives.

It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich.

It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable.

And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine. Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you liked the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming.

And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture. These folks don't even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God. Why else would the new House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical worldview' in American politics?

So it is a heady time in Washington — a heady time for piety, profits, and military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money.

Don't forget the money. It came pouring into this election, to both parties, from corporate America and others who expect the payback. Republicans outraised democrats by $184 million dollars. And came up with the big prize — monopoly control of the American government, and the power of the state to turn their ideology into the law of the land. Quite a bargain at any price.

That's it for this week.

For NOW, I'm Bill Moyers.

[deicer]

Welcome to the internet generation.

Instead of regional issues, everything everywhere now has a global stage.

And whether they do, or whether they don't,,,,,

Everyone has 'Rights'.