TLDR ADVISORY: This article exceeds 1,000 words, and may be lengthy for some readers.
Ah, the title. The title, the title the title. See, whenever I compose one of these pieces, I endeavor to come up with a catchy title, in the hopes of snaring those few extra readers by virtue of the title's interesting nature. In this case, I drew upon the downwards, backside-up-speak of the venerable Yoda.
“And maybe love is letting people be just what they want to be,
The door always must be left unlocked…
To love when circumstance may lead someone away from you,
And not to spend the time just doubting.”
(Howard Jones, “What Is Love?” c1983, Elektra Records.)
Once again it’s dies Solis. It’s a day for reflection, contemplation and enrichment. Actually, every day should be like that.
Earlier today, a friend of mine came to me with a personal question. He asked if my wife and I had ever had any “big fights”. I replied that indeed we had, as I’m sure almost every new couple does within the first few years of marriage. Then, in the process of thinking about his current dilemma, I decided to compose an open letter to both him and his spouse; advice for a newlywed couple, from one that has been married for a quarter of a century so far. What follows here are my musings on conflict resolution in a marriage, and on love itself.
Entering a marriage at a young age assuredly has both advantages and detriments. The advantages include the fact that both parties are young, hopeful, with the entire world and future laid out ahead. The detriments however, include the fact that they may have not yet learned and mastered things like tact, patience, and that most important of interpersonal skills; learning to “agree to disagree”, and to “disagree agreeably.” Stubborn pride is a real pain, and can wreak havoc in a relationship.
Whatever the subject of a couple’s disagreement, they’re both going to have disagreements. This is a fact, because they come from different backgrounds, have differing views on the reality of any given situation. These things however, should not be cause for discouragement! Disagreements don’t have to be “deal-breakers”, because couples can always compromise. (The trick is that both parties have to go into the disagreement, willing to compromise.)
Before I digress any further, please allow me to relay some basic “Rules of Engagement” for marital discussions on disagreements:
Moving on, sometimes love and marriage means saying you’re sorry, even if you don’t think you were the one in the wrong. Don’t let stubborn pride hold up healing.
When disagreements pop up, another important skill that couples develop over time is “de-escalation”, or knowing when and how to definitively say, “I’m not going to fight with you over this, because it’s just not worth fighting over.”
Sometimes in the heat of the moment, things get said that later, one or the other spouse regrets even thinking. This is just my own opinion, but one of the most dishonest things one can do is to say, “I didn’t mean what I said.” Sure you did, when you said it. It might not be what you’re all about now, or have been what you were all about before, but in that particular instant, “out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth spoketh.” (Here’s where loving enough to forgive (and forget!) comes to the fore!)
Of course, Howard Jones and I are far from the first people to muse on the nature and expression of love. One of the earliest and best descriptions of what love really is, can be found in the Bible. (Yes, my fine young readers, I am about to paraphrase the Bible, so for those of you who happen to be atheists, try not to be too terribly put off by this.) 1st Corinthians 13:1-13 have often been referred to by believers as, “The Love Verses”, because they describe what love should be, and how it should be expressed. I’ll break it down into the “Coles Notes”:
I have a sneaking suspicion, that one of the main reasons why so many marriages are failing these days, is because either one or the other party, or both parties, don’t have a firm grasp or a mutual understanding of what true love is…and more’s the pity. If more people, especially those in the high places of power, could embrace and express this in the world around them, then that world would definitely be a better place.
Marina Abramovic and Ulay, in 2010.
No matter how I try to preface this article, the words that I type seem to ring hollow, and do the subject of this piece no true justice. So, my fine young readers, I’ll just get right to it.
In 1976, performance artist Marina Abramović moved to Amsterdam, in the Netherlands. It was there, after a tumultuous and sometimes near-fatal early career, that she met German performance artist Uwe Laysiepen, who goes by the shortened “Ulay”. The two of them commenced a twelve-year relationship that was more often than not a strained and problematic proposition, due to the two artists’ competing egos. In 1988, Ulay and Marina decided that they had had enough.
As an end to their career together, as well as their personal relationship, they decided to take a spiritual journey of sorts, walking the Great Wall of China, one from each end, meeting in the middle and saying their goodbyes. Marina later reflected on the journey;
“That walk became a complete personal drama. Ulay started from the Gobi Desert, and I from the Yellow Sea. After each of us walked 2500 km, we met in the middle and said good-bye.” “We needed a certain form of ending, after this huge distance walking towards each other. It is very human. It is in a way more dramatic, more like a film ending … Because in the end you are really alone, whatever you do.”
Flash forward twenty-two years. In 2010, as part of a Marina Abramović retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC, Marina performed a piece named, “The Artist is Present”, in which Marina sat at a table and shared a minute of silence with participants. On the opening night of the performance, Ulay made a surprise appearance.
While it is true that the two had been in contact sporadically over the years, and had also met and spoke the morning of the opening, it was during Marina’s performance that those in attendance could bear witness to something that doesn’t happen often enough, and with such poignant beauty; when the line between art and life gets whisked away like chalk on a breeze, and art becomes life…and vice versa. In that singular moment in which Marina’s eyes met Ulay’s, and in the minute that followed, a lifetime of experiences and emotions could be read within Marina’s tearful gaze. Pieces performed together, emotions shared. The walk on the Great Wall. Love, life and pain; all in the span of seconds.
People often wonder if it is possible to have a meaningful conversation with someone, sans spoken words. I say yes, it is definitely possible. The video clip below is proof of that. Whenever I find myself in doubt of humanity, and people’s capacity to feel something honest and real, I find myself drawn back to this three and a half-minute reminder.
A battle won, a war still being fought…
As the fallout from last month’s VAWA vote continues to coat the newsfeeds with a dusting of politically partisan pollen, (yes my fine young readers, three times, really fast!) I thought it only prudent to do a quick “round-up” of the more salient information (bullet points) with regards to the bill. So…allons-y!
______________________________
Senate vote #19, of the 113th Congress, held on February 12th, 2013.
Roll call #55, on the question of Passage of Senate Bill S. 47, held on February 28th, 2013.
The bill was signed into law by president Barack Obama on March 7th, 2013. (3)
Microsoft Excel Workbook: VAWA Vote – Statistical Breakdown
Analysis of the above statistics would seem to suggest that Tea Party influence and / or alignment had little bearing on the passage of the bill in the House, but a larger impact on individual votes by Republicans aligned or identified with that particular group. As the graphs below illustrate, the majority of TP aligned representatives did indeed vote “noe” on the bill:
Although it could be (and has been!) suggested that the Tea Party vote on this particular bill shows a bias against both women’s issues and minority issues, I would caution the reader to do their research before making this assertion. The assertion may indeed be borne out by the statistics…or may be disproven. The idea here is to get informed, to be informed!
“Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war”
(Antony, from William Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar”, Act 3, Scene 1. Circa 1601.)
(Part two in this series on the Gun Control debate. Part one can be read here.)
There is a war being fought within the borders of this nation. It’s a protracted conflict between two diametrically opposed forces; the law-abiding citizenry, and violent criminals with little to no regard for the sanctity or value of a life. There are several things driving this conflict; addiction, greed, desperation, poverty and disadvantage being among the impetuses. As long as there is crime, there needs to be some way to effectively counter it. Sure, there is law enforcement, however in this second decade of the 21st century, economic downturns have resulted in a decrease in manpower and a corresponding increase in police response times. When an armed assailant attacks and seconds count, the ability of the citizenry to keep and bear arms can often make the difference between life and death.
I have a friendly acquaintance who owns and operates a pharmacy in my small hometown of Madera, California. Brian Lee and his mother Sophia were working in their family-owned pharmacy one particular evening, back in early January of this year, when two armed men entered through the rear door of the business. These two men did not say word one; they didn’t ask any questions or make any demands. They simply began shooting. The one detail note that they failed to consider, was that Brian also owned a gun. In the moments that followed, Brian was able to retrieve his gun from behind the counter and return fire, forcing the assailants to flee the scene. The firefight resulted in the demise of one of the two perpetrators and an injury to Sophia’s leg, from which she is making a rapid recovery. (1) (2) (Had Brian, a law-abiding business owner not had a legally-owned firearm, both he and his mother would now be dead.)
When we begin to discuss the “militia” in modern-day terms, we first need to come to a consensus of what it is. In my opinion, the militia should be defined as a body of trained, knowledgeable, able-bodied armed adults, who can effectively respond to immediate threats to life, limb and property with as equal a force as is being exerted, up to and including lethal force if necessary.
Allow me to pause here for a moment, and clarify a few items. First of all, I am not advocating for or endorsing vigilantism. I firmly believe in the role of law enforcement to serve and protect, because that’s what we pay them to do. What I am saying is that in situations such as Brian Lee’s, situations which happen all too often in fact, that there are obvious benefits to having a firearm handy. Second, disarming the innocent will not do them any justice; it will only serve to leave them helplessly waiting on a police force with increasingly deplorable response times.
So, how do we facilitate the “regulation” of today’s militia? First, we need to come to an understanding of what regulation means. According to the “Websterword” definition:
reg·u·la·tion: noun, /ˌregyəˈlāSHən/
1. the act of regulating: the state of being regulated.
2. a : an authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure.
—b : a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law.
Another definition can be read in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570 (2008)), which held that:
“[t]he adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”
If we’re talking along the lines of regulation, the first thing that we need to agree on, in my humble opinion, is universal background checks. No reasonable person should want someone with a criminal history of any sort to have ownership of a firearm. Likewise, if a prospective gun owner is an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, what should they have to fear from having that verified during the ownership / registration process?
The next thing that needs to be put into place is mandatory training certifications. Every single gun owner should be required to satisfactorily complete both a gun safety and and “active shooter” course. These courses should be priced reasonably, so as not to deter gun ownership in any way. By requiring these courses, the regulating authority ensures that the “militia” is knowledgeable in matters of gun safety and maintenance, and also laws and procedures governing the use of force.
Another idea that has been floated in various circles is the possible imposition / requirement of psychological evaluations. Once again, this might not be such a bad idea, given that those comprising the “militia” should be of sound mind, as well as sound body. Satisfactory completion of these evaluations, which should also be reasonably facilitated, could be a requirement within the aforementioned certification process.
These are just suggestions, my fine young readers, ones that I find reasonable and relatively unobtrusive. While we definitely don’t need a gaggle of vigilantes running the streets and taking law enforcement into their own hands, we do need more educated, trained and honest citizens who can, at a moment’s notice, defend what we have worked so hard to attain. If it t’were me unarmed and under attack, I’d want Honest Joe Citizen across the street who sees me being attacked…to be packing and ready!
Breech: noun \ˈbrēch\ (from the Merriam Webster dictionary)
3. the part of a firearm at the rear of the barrel.
“Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.” These words are from Shakespeare’s “Henry V, Act III”, circa 1598. With the alteration of a single letter however, they become entirely applicable for our purposes; as we’re about to dive headlong, once more, into the national argument regarding gun control. I call it an “argument” for the mere fact that an argument is exactly what this is. It is not a debate, or even a national dialogue. What we have instead is more akin to the proverbial “pissing contest”, with each side engaged in recriminations, finger pointing and other judgmental words and actions. On the fringes of the conservative right, there are conspiracy theorists who insist that their guns are needed to protect themselves from a government gone awry. On the opposite end, are the ultra-liberals who insist that, since guns kill people, they need to be banned completely. Various politicians in the halls of power are also taking sides in the argument, with some going so far as to propose increasingly restrictive measures on gun ownership by the law-abiding citizenry.
Quite often, I hear and see firearm advocates bring up the second amendment to the U.S. constitution, specifically the part which talks about the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Conversely, I seldom see the first part mentioned. Yes, my fine young readers, there are actually two parts to the sentence which makes up the entirety of the amendment. As ratified by the states and authenticated by one Thomas Jefferson, the amendment reads as follows:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
There are a few important aspects to this that need to be considered. First, the framers of the “highest law of the land” did not speak “Yoda”. (George Lucas wouldn’t be born for another 153 years!) Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that one part of the sentence has everything to do with the other, and vice versa. Second, there has been more than a fair share of debate with regards to the founding fathers’ intent when they wrote this amendment, going up to and including in the chambers of the Supreme Court.
What follows here are mostly my own opinions on the issue. Please understand that I am by no means an expert (an “ex” being a has-been, and a spurt being a “drip, under pressure”!) on constitutional law, so I can only opine within the scope of what I know. That being said, the key idea that I can see already is one of a “well regulated militia” and what that entails, especially within the scope of the “here and now” as opposed to 200 years ago.
In the 1790′s, firearms were a part of American existence. Not only were they used for hunting, but also to protect the homestead from hostile elements, which included the recently displaced Native American population, their sometime allies, and predatory animals that threatened crops and livestock. From an early age, young boys were handed a rifle and taught how to use it, clean it and keep it. Girls on the other hand, were more often relegated to keeping house, sewing, nursing and other things that were considered “woman’s work”. (How often do we hear that phrase used for household chores anymore? I apologise if that term sounded chauvinistic, but that was the way of things in the 1700′s.) Should the fledgeling nation come under threat, the framers of the constitution knew that there was a body of arms experience that could be drawn upon.
What was / is a “militia”? In short, it’s a body of non-professionals that can be called upon in the event that the nation’s professional forces are not equal to the task of defense on their own. Of course in today’s society, there are a few very significant differences; women are now as equal to the task of defense as men, and our nation has a long-standing, completely volunteer army. In light of the latter part, one has to wonder if the very idea of the “militia” even applies in the new millennium. (If the concept of “militia” does still apply, then women should definitely be counted as a part of it. They (women) stand to lose just as much as the men do when their freedom is threatened!)
In the 21st century, what exactly constitutes a threat to the “security of a free state”? The answer to that question can be summed up in one word; crime. Violent criminals are an ever-present threat to the security of our peace and freedoms. Over 200 years since the ratification of the second amendment, and the threat is no longer the one from without…it’s now the threat from within. It is with this threat in mind, that I would opine that the concept of the “well regulated militia” remains as valid today as it was yesterday.
This seems like as good of a place as any to break for discussion. In the following article, I will attempt to expand on some ideas regarding the “regulation” of the militia, and how that applies to gun ownership.
Engage with caution. These Republicans may be highly contagious.
Houston, we have a problem. Well, at least some of us do. There seems to be an issue, a conservative camp conundrum of sorts. (Try saying that three times really fast, with one lobe of your brain tied behind your back!) Something seems to be causing the Republican party leadership to throw themselves into global thermonucular (a la Bush 43!) meltdown, every time one of them speaks to the media.
In the latest instance of this mystery illness, California Republican Assembly leader Celeste Greig (pictured at left, with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)) ended up in quite the pretty pickle, upon stating to the Bay Area News Group on Friday, that pregnancies as a result of rape are a rarity, “because the body is traumatised.” Greig went on to criticise former Missouri representative Todd Akin’s musings of last year on the same topic, but then agreed with the premise behind Akin’s comment;
“Granted, the percentage of pregnancies due to rape is small because it’s an act of violence, because the body is traumatized,” she mentions. “I don’t know what percentage of pregnancies are due to the violence of rape. Because of the trauma the body goes through, I don’t know what percentage of pregnancy results from the act.” (1)
At this point, I’m not sure if I should trigger the “soapbox” switch or not. You see, my fine young readers, I just finished work on a related subject, parsing some data and putting it all in a nice…oh, but I’m getting ahead of myself here! Let’s finish up our diagnosis of Ms. Greig first, shall we? I’m wondering how Celeste can presume to state something like it’s a fact, but then say that she has no idea with regards to the specific facts and figures that would supposedly back up her lip-slip. McCain, Akin, Greig. Hold the phone a second, I think I know what this is; Hoof in Mouth Disease. Elephants have hooves, right? (At least to the best of my understanding, I did some fact-checking on what elephants’ feet are called, and that seems to be the consensus.) Since the pachyderm is the chosen symbol of the GOP, and certain GOP notables are always ending up with their foot lodged between the mandible and maxilla, I firmly submit that a diagnosis of Hoof in Mouth is accurate.
Which brings me to the aforementioned data compilation. Here’s the deal: last Thursday, the House of Representatives passed S.47, the senate bill entitled, “Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013″. In spite of conservative opposition in the House, the Democrats managed to get enough moderate Republicans to come over to the side of reason, and help push this bill through. (2)
Ah, yes. Some of you are already scratching your heads, wondering what exactly the “Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013″ is. (Long, drawn out “Welllllllll,”) I’ll try to give you the “Coles Notes”. What it does, among other things, is the following:
I have to thank Celeste Greig for opening this door. I was deliberating on exactly how to present my data here on The Cybersattva weblog, and Ms. Greig has graciously provided me with as near perfect an opportunity as I could ever hope to have! Yes, the door has been pushed ajar, and I will gladly step through it.
It would seem on the face of things, that the Republican party has been consistent in its opposition to any legislation, including VAWA, that would serve to strengthen women’s rights. It’s even been said by some that the Tea Party, and by extension the GOP, are “anti-woman”. The data retrieved from last Thursday’s House vote would seem to strongly support this conclusion, especially in states with a majority of GOP representation in the House.
What you are about to witness is a first for The Cybersattva. That’s right, folks! I present for your perusal, the first ever Cybersattva Investigative Analytics workbook! (This is in MS Excel 2003 format, so you will need at least that to view the file.)
VAWA vote state breakdown.
Within this workbook, is a breakdown of the vote tally that I linked to further up in the article. The Tea Party Caucus vote is of special significance, because again it would seem to lend credence to the assertion that this political entity is opposed to women’s rights legislation. To the immediate right and below are a few pieces of “eye candy” for you, from the workbook. To the right is a map of which states’ representatives voted mostly for the bill’s passage (in green), or mostly against (in red.) The cross-hatches are states with a 50/50 split. Below are some gender-specific vote results.
Folks, I will leave it up to each one of you to ultimately decide what, if anything, these results indicate or imply. All I humbly request is that you peruse them, and gain a better appreciation for the intricacies and indicators in domestic politics.
In closing, since Oklahoma was one of the states whose reps went the wrong way on VAWA, I’ll leave you with this little gem from 1988:
