Reflections - Post San Bernardino

As much as I disagree with the NRA, I'll agree with them in regards to mass killings - it's not a gun problem, but a people problem. Gun free zones are meaningless in the same way that Drug free zones are meaningless. They are only a public statement that guns (or drugs) are not welcome, and not a reflection of reality - because those unwelcome items are already there.

Even if we were to take the NRA's stance that we have a mental health problem (in the case of the Connecticut school massacre in Sandy Hook), how do we change the mental health and legal systems (as well as provide adequate funding) to deal with such issues? If we focus on terrorism, how many freedoms do we want to sacrifice in the name of security? Can we trust our governments, with the history of corruption we have in this country (from both parties)?

We need intelligent regulation that crosses state lines, and has few (if any) loopholes. Population density and homogeneity is important. In areas of low population density, where people tend to be from a single ethnic group, we find a very low level of gun crime. In areas of high population density and a heterogeneous population base (such as in most urban areas), we find a high level of gun crime.

So, what do we do?

In the case of potential non-terrorist gun crime, we can work on providing better mental health treatment to people at a low cost. We can look for people who are alienated from society in general, and find ways to better integrate them into society - jobs, friends, social networks, etc. - so that they feel they have something to lose from going on violent rampages.

In the case of potential terrorist gun crime, we can allow the government to use a limited amount of spying tools (with appropriate warrants and vetted public monitoring to help protect us from becoming a police state) that analyze content and traffic on the internet (and associated social networks) to detect these terrorists (such as could have been done for the San Bernardino killings) and stop them.

Federal regulation based on population density and population heterogeneity must be enacted to supersede that existing on state levels, and must reflect the reality of metropolitan areas that cross state lines, as well as trafficking materials from areas with lenient regulation to those areas with restrictive regulation.   

Will this end all gun crime?

Certainly not!  America is a nation in love with its guns, and we have a constitution that protects our gun rights, in part, to insure that we can overthrow a tyrannical government. But, if we can cut this crime by a significant amount, we can start focusing on other problems that are just as important - such as seeing that ALL Americans who want a job can get a job (or have one provided to them that supplies them with a reasonable income).  I am tired of hearing Americans shout past each other, not listening to the valid points their opposition brings up. We have it in ourselves to make this nation a greater nation than it already is - Let's find a way to make it so.....  

A long needed thaw - something I never thought I'd see....

This is what most Caribbean nations dependent on tourism feared - the United States and Cuba gradually warming up to each other. There are so many things which should be binding the two nations together, but for bad politics (on both sides) and an assassinated American President that got in the way of common sense.

One person told me that addiction is similar to having to choose between opening two doors. The first door will allow you to exit the room. The second door will have you beaten up by a gorilla. The addicted person keeps repeatedly choosing the second door, while the non-addict will quickly choose the first door and leave the room. When the addict is asked why he keeps choosing the same door, the addict will respond with something to the effect - well, it can eventually change, can't it?

Our policy towards Cuba has been very much like that of the person who keeps opening up the wrong door - the Castro regime has not been ousted, and it has become even more entrenched over the years. Many people want to punish Cuba for its actions of 53 years ago, but most people alive today weren't alive when the embargo was put in place. What good does punishing a country do when the people being punished are not responsible for the problem. This punishment seems to be a misguided approach to keeping the first generation of Cuban exiles happy and voting according to their current patterns.

Most people don't know that it is perfectly legal for Americans to visit North Korea, a country more troublesome to American interests, and spend money there. Yet, in a country that has not been shown to sponsor terrorism (save, in the figments of collective Washington, DC political imagination), it is effectively illegal for Americans to be there. Something is very wrong - and it likely has to do with American political paralysis.

There are issues that will need to be negotiated before a full thaw has occurred. And they have nothing to do with promoting democracy in Cuba. Instead, they will have to do with trademarks and the exports of certain goods. For example, Bacardi Rum got its start in Cuba. The family took the brand along with them when they left Cuba, and established it in Puerto Rico. Do you think they can afford to have the Cubans sell rum under the Bacardi name after the embargo is lifted? Another example is Cohiba cigars. The brand available in the USA is made in the Dominican Republic, while the brand available in most of the world is made in Cuba. How will this get resolved?

If anyone brings up the idea that Cuba stole property from its rightful owners, it should be noted that Russia and China have done the same thing, and that the United States has relationships with these countries. In fact, one might find the history of Smirnoff Vodka interesting, as the trademark left Russia - and when Russians resurrected it in their own right, a "peaceful" settlement was reached. This makes me comfortable with the idea that both the United States and Cuba will resolve issues like this to their mutual satisfaction.

Obama, like him or hate him, is a person who plays the long game. The game with Cuba will play out long after Obama is out of the game. It will take time to negotiate and resolve the issues that have arisen over the 53+ years that we have had an embargo. And the negotiations have only just begun....