The Real Challenge With Background Checks

This should really be an easy issue and decision relative to gun violence and limitations on ownership. Background checks have the support of most people and constituencies including the membership of the NRA. It's just something that seems to make sense to a lot of people. In addition, many people are exposed to background checks in various aspects of life currently. Employers, employees, hospitals, day care centers, schools organizations providing support to vulnerable populations, all of these are involved in checks of some form or another. Finger prints, arrest records and address verification have become fairly common things to check on all sorts of levels. Not to say any of this is without concerns by civil libertarians.

So why is the discussion and decision so hard to resolve? Part of it is because no one yet is talking about the real problem relative to the mental health issue. Again, this is easier said then done. Everyone seems to be in agreement that a seriously mentally ill person shouldn't have access to weapons. People begin to skirt around the issue with privacy concerns related to the Health Insurance Portability and Protection Act, a federal law protecting individual privacy in relation to protected health information. But this is really just the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure arguments could and probably have been made that the information can be shared based on safety concerns (harm to self or others).

The harder issue though and in my mind the more difficult one, has to do with mental illness itself. People want to make the discussion easy but it's not. Obviously people have fought for years to change perceptions about mental illness and the stigma associated with it. Many aspects of mental illness are treatable and people can lead very normal lives. People and the mind change. Then there are mental illnesses that work and appear in cycles or episodes, some fairly predictable and some not so predictable. There are issues around medication use and the control of a particular symptom. What about institutionalization, treatment and reentry into the community? Who determines diagnosis and for how long? How would data get in and perhaps more importantly out of an information system? Is it wrong to think a person with a history of mental illness may want and benefit from hunting with a family member or friend? Is mental illness (related to background checks) forever?

To me, these are the discussions that are really hard and at the crux of the mental health discussion. I haven't heard them yet. What I have heard are things like 'crazy people shouldn't have guns, it's obvious'. There's the rub. It's not so obvious. There are nuances that have to be talked about and thought about and I'm not sure anyone's willing to start a discussion that may be pretty circular and difficult. But we're going to have to have it if anything is going to change.

This will be tougher then people think. Should be easy but I don't think it will be.

Waging War or Waging Peace?

It really is a never ending debate and I guess that's why we need to make sure we know about it and try to understand it. The latest example to me, is the President's nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense and John Brennan as the Director of the CIA. I have never been known as a barometer for mainstream thinking and that's probably true in this case. But there are some things that just strike me as strange.

Here we are with, I think, a majority of Americans sick of war and sick of the waste of life and expenditure of dollars while our economy falters and we have to make decisions about cutting programs vital to many people. We can certainly debate which of these programs should stay or go and I'm sure we will.  But here we are. The President nominates someone who fought in Vietnam as an enlisted soldier. Who has expressed, and I'm paraphrasing, that during war, it's the people in Washington who make the policy but it's the little guys who come home in body bags. This is a person who was wounded twice, who has seen war and experienced its horror. Someone who has questioned a foreign policy that leans heavily on a "let's get em" attitude. Quoting from his Library of Congress interview for the Vietnam Project, he, his brother Tom and others escaped an attack where he was wounded under heavy machine-gun fire. After being transported out, Chuck Hagel says he made a resolution. “I remember sitting on that track, another track, waiting for the dust-off [helicopter] to come and medical evacuation, and thinking to myself, you know, if I ever get out of all of this, I am going to do everything I can to assure that war is the last resort that we, a nation, a people, calls upon to settle a dispute,” he said. “The horror of it, the pain of it, the suffering of it. People just don’t understand it unless they’ve been through it. There’s no glory, only suffering in war.”

This is the nominee who's choice is being questioned and debated and who various senators are saying they will vote against, mainly because he questioned the war in Iraq.

On the other hand we have John Brennan, the President's nominee as Director of the CIA. Looks like a nice man and probably is, but he knew a few years ago that he should withdraw a similar nomination as Director of the CIA because he was aware that his involvement in what seems to be recognized as torture would muddy the waters. So he was heavily involved in the use and case made for torture and now is mainly responsible for determining which human targets will be hit by drones as he works out of an office in the White House. Some of these attacks will hit others and cause what we know as collateral damage.

The prediction is that he (Brennan) will breeze through the senate hearings on his nomination.

Now I think this is odd. I think values and priorities have gotten mixed up. Many of our elected officials just don't get it.

It just doesn't make sense that these two men are being viewed in such opposite ways. It doesn't make sense to me that in the process, we should be talking up more war in the mid-east. The debate will continue but ultimately people need to work hard at peace vs war.

Movies: The Hobbit and Lincoln

First I should make it really clear that I'm not a movie reviewer and frankly hardly ever go to the movies. I like to watch older movies in my home environment. I can control the snacks, volume and even a restroom break if needed. Having said that, I did have the opportunity to see two movies over the holidays and they're both worth seeing in my opinion.

The first was The Hobbit. I saw it in 2D and have no idea how I'd survive the 3D version. This was my first expierience with Tolkien's Lord of the Rings series so I didn't know what to expect. I was never able to read Tolkien. I think I was supposed to in school but just couldn't get through any of it. My loss I'm sure. The movie was great. I really enjoyed it. From talking to others, this movie will help me in viewing the others relative to context. Anyway it's a good movie. I saw it in a Big Box Theatre in New Jersey. Big comfortable seats. Volume that was annoyingly loud. I hadn't had lunch and have to watch my diet relative to popcorn so I looked for some alternative. What I say next makes no sense for someone watching what they eat. There they were on the menu board - 4 Nathan's Hot Dog Sliders. Almost as soon as I ordered the sliders and the oversized soda, I knew I had made a mistake. The sliders were awful but I managed two. Into the show washing everything down with that big soda. About two hours into the close to three hour show, my kidneys were ready to blow. I made it through but still think I may have damaged some body parts. I validated my choice for home movies.

But I knew I wanted to see Lincoln and I wasn't going to wait for a DVD or Cable. This time I went to a small hometown theatre. The volume was much better and having learned my lesson I was able to purchase a reasonably sized soda. I bought an oversized bag of candy and settled in. This is another great movie, different of course but really well done. Lots of dialogue that requires concentration. The relationships between Lincoln, his Cabinet members and his political friends and foes are really interesting. Plus he has his family relationships that provide challenges along the way. I've heard that the movie is historically accurate but I have no idea really. Interesting to see the similarity between historic and contemporary issues relative to political issues. The bottom line is that it really is a great movie with some really great acting. As I said, I saw it in a small hometown theatre. As the movie ended there was silence. A few young women toward the front of the audience began applauding and were soon joined by others in the audience. I don't think this happens that often but I was glad to join in. I have read and heard about different reactions - people sitting in silence contemplating what they just saw is one.

All of this may change my view of movie going but I do still like some of the old timers and also like that environmental control. We'll see.