The Dilemma of Guns

---

---

The topic of conversation for the last few days has been the school shooting in Florida this week.

I understand that the process of burying the victims begins today. It's a necessary ritual, but it is sure to fan the flames awhile longer.

It is important for everyone to understand that, in the aftermath of such an event, we all want to feel safer, but individual definitions of safer tend to vary widely. Emotions dominate the discussion. That is precisely the time when cooler heads need to prevail.

I'm going to say something now that is sure to be ridiculed and misunderstood, but I'm going to say it, anyway.

We need to have a rational and logical discussion about this.

Both extremes on the political spectrum go into kneejerk mode when something like this happens, and that gets in the way of having a meaningful conversation. The extremes actually represent a fairly small portion of the population, but their arguments are so shrill and their insistence upon being heard is so dedicated that they drown out everything else. Talk about sucking the oxygen out of the room.

I don't really have to describe their by–now quite predictable arguments, do I?

Deep down, I often suspect that both sides secretly love it when children account for most of the victims of a tragedy like this because it magnifies both causes. Both would deny that, but it is surely true. Dead children give the extreme left a chance to trot out its favorite position — America must outlaw military–grade weapons in civilian hands (psst: That's already been done).

And they give the right a chance to argue that everyone should be armed because a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun. Like many things, that looks good on paper but not so much in practice.

Both extremes are uncompromising, and that is simply undemocratic, but it is the inevitable outcome of our tribalistic, polarized culture. It is a clear indication of just how polarized we are that each side blames the other for this. The right blames Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. The left blames Ronald Reagan or the Bushes. The truth is that no one is blameless. This problem predates all of those presidencies. The buck has been passed for many decades.

This nation has faced many problems in the past, and it was through compromise that we found solutions. But sometime — and I am not sure when — it was apparently decided that compromise equals weakness. That is undemocratic.

No one is willing to compromise anymore. No one is willing to listen to the other side — or even to acknowledge that the other side might have a legitimate point or two to make.

We need to pull back from the extremes now and have this conversation from a more centrally located perspective. If we can do that, we will have taken the first crucial step to finding an answer instead of making the situation worse.

Of Glocks and Books and Computers ...

---

---

There was a memorial service here in Dallas earlier this week for the five police officers who were gunned down by a young black man who was reportedly upset over the shootings of black suspects by white policemen in Louisiana and Minnesota.

I wasn't able to watch the service on TV because I was at work, but I read the text of Barack Obama's speech online when I got home that night. And I have watched video clips on TV and online.

As I have acknowledged here before, I have never been an admirer of Obama, but even I must admit that the speech started out to be perhaps his finest oratorical moment — comparable, in my mind, to the speech Ronald Reagan gave to the nation the night of the Challenger disaster.

He was mindful of the fact that he was speaking at a service that was showing its respect for five public servants. But then he veered off into ideological territory. Such a thing would be inexcusable, anyway, but Obama made it worse by appearing to justify the actions taken by the angry, apparently mentally disturbed young man.

Obama lamented the fact that it was easier for a young black man to get his hands on a Glock than a computer or a book.

Now, to me, this said everything one needs to know about Obama's mindset. I have concluded that he believes racism only has a white face because whenever a white person kills a black person, he decries it as racism. But when a black person kills a white person, if the case gets any media attention at all — and, of course, the shootings here in Dallas were widely reported — Obama blames it on easy access to guns.

Someone needs to tell the president that guns are not cheap. A library card, on the other hand ...

Will She or Won't She?

---

---

I grew up in Arkansas. I lived there during most of Bill Clinton's tenure as governor.

And I feel as qualified to say this as anyone who lived in Arkansas when I did: Hillary Clinton has always been a perplexing person. (Well, at least as an adult. I can't say what she was like as a child.)

During her time in Arkansas' governor's mansion, she often took stands or made statements that cut against the grain with average Arkansans. She was a traditional feminist in most of her views, and she was unapologetic for it — which produced kind of a strange dichotomy. I knew people who frequently disagreed with her yet still admired her determination to stand up for what she believed.

Would those same people have voted for her for anything? I doubt it. To my knowledge, most never supported her husband when he ran for governor.

But they admired her integrity — and, like all first spouses, she had no legal authority in that role. She was part of the deal if they voted for Bill — even if they would not vote for her.

Two for the price of one, as Bill liked to say during the '92 presidential campaign. That seemed to upset some folks, but I barely noticed it. I had heard it before.

And I have heard what she has been saying lately before, too.

She had a conversation with PBS' Charlie Rose the other day, and she was asked about 2016.

"I'm about to have my first grandchild, which I'm thrilled about," she replied. "I can't wait. I want to see what that feels like. I'm not going to skip over it. I want to really be present, as I meet this ... new person in our family."

Can't blame her for that. I know several people who have become grandparents, and they all speak of how rewarding that relationship between grandparent and grandchild is.

I have also known many people who did not live to become grandparents. It is a privilege to live that long, and it certainly should not be taken lightly.

So Hillary's desire to be with her family is completely understandable. It is an excuse I have heard before, though.

John Mitchell served as Richard Nixon's attorney general and, for a time, as Nixon's re–election campaign manager, but he left when the Watergate investigation got too uncomfortable for him.

He gave as his reason for stepping down a desire to be with his family. That was hard for some people to swallow, given that it meant being with his wife, Martha, who had made several phone calls to reporters about the emerging scandal and alleged that political pressure was being applied to her husband and others in the administration.

That was sure to be uncomfortable to say the least, I heard many people say.

I don't think it would be that way for Hillary — except, perhaps, for those times she might have to spend alone with Bill. But Hillary would have the benefit of knowing what it feels like to be a grandmother — and sharing a new relationship with her daughter.

Well, that's a pretty good reason for not seeking the job. But Hillary didn't stop there. She spoke about the negative side as well.

Speaking as one who observed the presidency from close range as both the first spouse and the secretary of state, Hillary told Rose that the job has "gotten tougher."

Well, it always has been a big job — but I can see how it could quickly become overwhelming for anyone. A president has to be better than competent in many different areas.

The economy is still sluggish, just not quite as sluggish as it was five years ago.

Her husband's presidency was relatively peaceful, but, with terrorists and Russians on the march, who knows what kind of foreign environment she would inherit?

And then there are all those social issues that divide Americans' loyalties — guns, contraception and abortion, gay marriage, marijuana legalization, the list goes on and on. I don't think anyone will ever be able to bring Americans together on those issues, but a president is obligated to at least try. Good presidents will try to fashion some kind of compromise that, in the end, pleases no one. Not–so–good presidents won't try to do that. But the issues will still demand a lot of their time and attention.

Seems to me it would be a lot more relaxing — and a lot more fun — to play with her grandchild(ren). She and Bill have that nice big place in New York with that nice big yard that they bought back when they left the White House dead broke. Sounds like a great place to be a grandparent and play with the grandchild(ren).

Plus, if Hillary does not run, she will be able to preserve her integrity.

Just about five years ago, when NBC's Ann Curry interviewed Hillary, she asked her about 2016.

It was a direct question. "Will you run for president again? Yes or no?"

And it got a direct answer. "No."

Curry asked again and received the same response.

For someone who has always argued — albeit in a different context — that no means no, this is a good time to drive home the point.

Of course, the problem is that, when someone prominent rules out a run for the presidency, he/she experiences a spike in his/her favorability ratings.

And the whole thing begins all over again.

Thoughts on Washington's Actual Birthday

---

---

Today is George Washington's real birthday — not the manufactured Presidents Day that serves as the commemoration for Washington and Abraham Lincoln, both of whom were born in February but neither of whom was born on Presidents Day.

When I was a little boy in elementary school, the practice was to recognize each president on his birthday. My teachers would decorate one bulletin board with images of Washington and another with images of Lincoln, and they would talk about each president on the appropriate day.

Then, at some point, it was decided that it was better to honor both presidents with a single day.

I don't know how or why it was decided that would be better — or for whom. Maybe Lincoln's actual birthday distracted too much from Valentine's Day two days later. More likely, it interfered with Valentine's Day sales.

Whatever the reason for it, that is how things were done when I was a little boy. And then that is what changed.

A lot of other things have changed over the years. Whether they are connected is not necessarily for me to say but rather for others to decide for themselves.

But it seems to me that the clear theme is a greater disregard for history than at any other time in my life.

That is certainly saying something. After all, history was never a popular subject when I was in school.

I'm not really sure how I developed my interest in history, actually. Seems I've always had it, and it distresses me to see the lack of respect for the lessons of history.

After all, as George Santayana wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And we humans seem determined never to learn from the past.

The ongoing debate over guns is a good example of that. Proponents of what is popularly known as gun control like to speak about it in terms of need — i.e., a hunter doesn't need a certain number of bullets to kill a duck or a deer.

I never believed the Bill of Rights was about needs — other than the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that Americans needed to have their rights spelled out in writing.

In the 18th century, the right to defend yourself and your freedom against all enemies, foreign and domestic, was very important to the men who had just fought a revolutionary war against a tyrannical ruler.

Although I have done other things in my life, at heart I am — and always will be — a journalist. As such, I value things like freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which were just as important to the Founding Fathers as the right of self–defense. So was freedom of religion. And a lot of other things.

We don't speak of things like the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers as needs. We speak of such things as rights — which are, I suppose, special kinds of needs.

Free men do need to have rights that are constant and respected. And such rights cannot be doled out as gifts from the government to the masses. They aren't the government's to give — or take — away.

The Founding Fathers essentially told the generations to come that, if they lived on this land, they had all the rights (as well as the responsibilities) that come with freedom.

(And over the years, by the way, the procedure for someone from another country to become an American citizen has evolved and been spelled out clearly. Nothing has been hidden from potential citizens. There are no surprises, and all are welcome — but that is not unconditional.

(By definition, anyone who attempts to enter the United States illegally is not an immigrant. That person is an alien.)

If the government can restrict a single right that is mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, what is to prevent it from restricting other rights?

What is to keep the government from shutting down news outlets that have been critical of its performance? Or attempting to intimidate citizens to keep them from speaking out?

What is to keep the government from telling you which religious institution, if any, you may attend?

What is to keep the government from conducting all legal proceedings in private, presided over by judges who have made up their minds before hearing a single witness?

Well, that's the main problem I have with the gun control debate.

A lesser — but not inconsequential — issue I have with it is the fact that, typically, when such a tragedy occurs (whether it involves guns, public or private health and safety measures or whatever), the legislation that is usually proposed is aimed at dealing with some aspect that made the tragedy possible.

In the case of the Newtown shootings, none of the proposals I have read would have prevented that tragedy from happening.

That's frustrating, I know. I guess it's human nature — or a free human's nature — to believe there is a quick and ready solution to all of life's problems.

In this case, I have yet to find one.

The guns were purchased legally by a middle–aged woman who most likely was subjected to background checks prior to purchase. The weapons were used by her son, who had not paid for them, who had in fact killed his mother to obtain them.

They were not automatic weapons, which are the kind of weapons that spray many bullets with a single pull of the trigger. Such weapons have been strictly regulated — and deservedly so — for decades.

They were semiautomatic weapons — handguns like the ones tens of millions of Americans own to protect themselves and their families. Those Americans don't necessarily go hunting for sport — neither did the Founding Fathers, for that matter, although many, if not all, hunted for food.

That was another practical application of firearms for people of the 18th century — but it was also practical to say that free citizens had the right to defend themselves against any enemies.

I can only wonder what Washington would think of this debate.

Shooting Blanks

---

---

It's been more than a week since the school shootings in Connecticut, and, until now, I have remained mostly silent on the matter.

I saw enough of the initial coverage to know what had happened, and I've kept up with developments via articles online and in newspapers — so I feel pretty well versed in the basics of the case. I'm sure there are things I don't know, but I guess I know as much as anyone who is roughly 1,400 miles removed from the scene of the crime.

Anyway, if I am channel surfing and I land on a channel that is giving its attention to the shootings, I move on to something else. Doesn't matter who it is — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News or one of the channels my mother liked to call "free world" channels (ABC, CBS, NBC).

It isn't that I don't care. I do care. Very much. Too much, probably.

But I've seen all this before. Virginia Tech. Columbine. Gabrielle Giffords. The theater in Aurora.

It was happening long before that, too. Between the time I enrolled in first grade and the time that I got my bachelor's degree, two presidents were fired upon (one was wounded), two presidential candidates were shot at (one died, one was paralyzed), a civil rights leader was killed, the pope was wounded and a former member of one of the most popular bands in history was killed.

And those were just the best–known victims of violent crime. The number of ordinary Americans — as the ones who died in Connecticut last week were — who were at least wounded by gunfire in that time must be in six digits.

Not much is said when the ordinary Americans are attacked — and that may be the most frustrating thing about all of this, that people are shot every day, but it takes something like a mass shooting or an attack on a prominent person to spark society's outrage.

When that does happen, the same things are said — and usually by the same people (or by people speaking for them or by people who have replaced them in high–profile positions) — and the same suggestions are made.

And, in the end, little or nothing gets done.

Why not?

Well, that is a complicated question.

Let's start with the typical knee–jerk response to ban automatic weapons. On the surface, that makes sense, and I supported that proposal when it was made during the Clinton presidency in the 1990s.

Problem was, it didn't work, mainly because most automatic weapons can be modified to meet legal requirements. Neither do proposals to tighten gun control laws. You see, unless we are prepared to ban private ownership of all guns and repeal the Second Amendment, guns will continue to be owned by law–abiding citizens, the vast majority of whom will never fire their guns at another human being.

The mother of the Connecticut shooter was, by all accounts, a law–abiding citizen. It was her guns, purchased legally, that were used to kill not only her but more than two dozen teachers and students at an elementary school.

That is an horrific crime, understandably repugnant to most of us. And there is an equally understandable desire to do something.

It seems reasonable, therefore, to press for tighter gun control. And it would make sense to propose it — except the gunman did not purchase the guns.

Stricter gun control laws might create more hoops for people like the gunman's mother to jump through to acquire a gun, and that might be emotionally satisfying, but it will never prevent a mentally disturbed friend or relative from taking guns that were legally purchased by someone else and using them the way Adam Lanza did.

Here's another fly in the ointment. I keep hearing all this talk about automatic weapons, which is irrelevant if you really want to talk about laws that can prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again.

The weapons Lanza used were not automatic weapons. They were semi–automatic weapons. I have never owned a gun, but even I know there is a considerable difference between automatic weapons, which are capable of spraying bullets with a single squeeze of the trigger, and semi–automatic weapons, which fire one bullet every time the trigger is pulled.

Most privately owned weapons are semi–automatics — so calls to ban automatic weapons are pointless. That will do nothing about the kind of weapons that were used in Newtown, Conn.

As usual, there have been those who have indicted video games and violent movies and TV programs. Lanza reportedly played a lot of video games, and there is a case to be made, as there has been for a long time, that the entertainment industry, with its ready embrace of violence, bears a certain amount of responsibility for this kind of thing.

But there is no one–size–fits–all solution to the general problem of violence and the specific problem of guns.

This is mostly an exercise in primal group grief. I think there are some people (although they will never admit it, I'm sure) who simply live for the times when they can mourn loudly and openly on their favorite soapbox.

I'm sure they are sincere about their grief — so was I when I was younger and something shocking happened — but I can't help feeling that many are lashing out at something they can't understand.

At the same time, gun rights advocates are put on the defensive. I have known many gun owners in my life, and I'm sure that most of them would never even think of shooting at a bunch of first–graders — nor would most think of shooting at a bunch of theater patrons at a midnight movie — but they are made to feel as guilty as if they had pulled the trigger themselves.

So they feel compelled to make ludicrous counterproposals, like suggesting armed guards in every school — a good old–fashioned concentration camp atmosphere, I suppose, to go along with the traditional instruction in the three R's.

Or the suggestion is made that God needs to be returned to the classroom — as if this sort of thing didn't happen when schoolchildren recited the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of every school day and all we need to do to stop this is to start reciting the Lord's Prayer again.

These are variations on familiar themes, and they point to some unpleasant (and usually ignored) truths that, nevertheless, must be acknowledged.

The central truth is that there is evil — or whatever you choose to call it — in the world. How else can one explain an adult man walking into an elementary school and deliberately shooting at small children?

Because the very thought is so appalling, people assume that the weapons that were used must have been automatic weapons. That, at least, would explain why the victims suffered multiple gunshot wounds. In that scenario, the gunman pulled the trigger once and several bullets were fired at the target.

But the weapons were semi–automatic, and that means that the assailant had to fire at each victim several times on purpose. The medical examiner has confirmed that each victim was shot at least three times.

That is evil. There is no other word for it.

Another truth that needs to be acknowledged is the fact that mental health issues often go untreated in our society, and that needs to change. Inevitably, it seems, mental illness figures prominently in mass shootings.

From what I have read, Lanza was identified as an at–risk youth fairly early on. He came from a reasonably affluent family that was able to provide him with treatment that many families probably could not, and the educators in his life apparently made many efforts to help as well.

Those efforts, however, clearly — and tragically — failed.

There are no easy answers.

Bullets and Ballots

NPR's Linton Weeks reports that guns are very big with politicians in both parties this year.

I find that stunning, and I'm not really sure why. I mean, I know that conservatism is enjoying something of a revival in America. Poll after poll, after all, has suggested that there is considerable backlash against Democrats/liberals/progressives — and that seems likely to be confirmed when the votes are counted in November.

But guns aren't political props for Republicans only.

Some Democrats, as Weeks observes, are using guns to make the case that they are in touch with their constituents' concerns. Of course, macho posturing doesn't always work. Just ask Michael Dukakis.

Others — those who, presumably, can't bring themselves to hold a gun even when posing for a publicity photo — are already busily pointing their fingers at potential fall guys in anticipation of what is to come.

And many in the media are enabling them by coming up with scapegoats well ahead of time. Heck, it isn't even Labor Day yet.

"The country is having some weird mass nervous breakdown," writes Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, "with the right spreading fear and disinformation that is amplified by the poisonous echo chamber that is the modern media environment."

She then goes on to defend Barack Obama against the religious prejudice that has been stirred up by the mosque near ground zero controversy — never once acknowledging that Obama, as he tends to do, jumped into an argument that really is not something to which a president with a bad economy, soaring unemployment and two unpopular wars to resolve should devote even a fraction of his attention.

Of course, the same thing could have been said of Obama's so–called "beer summit" a year ago. Or his highly publicized NCAA tournament selections a little more than a month after he took office. Diversions at best. Distractions at worst.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that, even in the best of times (which these clearly are not), a president doesn't need to be weighing in on this kind of an issue. In fact, I would think that the last thing a president whose religious affiliation is, at best, confused by many Americans — and whose middle name has an ominously Muslim sound for Western ears — would want to do is wade into a no–win argument like this in the middle of a bleak midterm election campaign.

Obama, Dowd writes, is "[t]oo lofty to pay heed to the daily bump and grind of politics." That may be, but he'd better develop more of a taste for it — and an appreciation for how the game is played — if he really wants to be more than a one–termer.

I get the sense that Dowd is beginning to understand this, however grudgingly. In Dowd's world, it's all a big misunderstanding, and I guess it will stay that way, even after November, whatever those midterms may bring.

"Obama has failed to present himself as someone with the common touch," Dowd writes. "And to the extent that people don't know him or don't get him, he becomes easier to demonize."

So, apparently, we're back to blame again — but not blame for Obama. Nothing is ever his fault. The blame is for those who "don't get him." Maybe they're stupid. Maybe the problem is that they "cling" to guns and religion because they feel they've been abandoned by their leaders.

Voters do understand guns and religion. Those two things have been winning elections for candidates in both parties for many years. A good political strategist knows there are more votes to be gained than lost when you whip up a frenzy over either one.

As much as Dowd and other Obama defenders may want to believe that this demonizing is racist or, perhaps, the result of religious bigotry, demonization has been part of American politics for a long, long time.

If Mo didn't know that, where the heck has she been?

Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to calm a frightened nation by telling it that the only thing it had to fear was fear itself. But fear comes in many packages, and the politicians who can exploit it the best, particularly during bad times, are usually the ones who are the most successful.

Americans are fearful today. Politicians in both parties understand this. Why else would they incorporate guns into their campaigns?

A Deadly Week

It's only Wednesday, and it's already been a deadly week.

And it's left many people looking for rational answers for irrational acts.

The week began with the fatal shooting of a Baptist minister during Sunday church service in Maryville, Ill. Terry J. Sedlacek, the 27-year-old man who has been charged with the shooting, may have planned to shoot himself, but the gun jammed. He pulled out a knife and used it on church members who sought to subdue him. In the process, he suffered knife wounds, possibly in an attempt to kill himself.

It has been suggested that, previously, Sedlacek exhibited erratic behavior that has been attributed to Lyme disease, but an expert in Lyme disease at Yale said, "Lyme disease doesn't cause people to shoot people."

Then, on Tuesday, Michael McLendon, 28, shot and killed 10 people, including his mother and other members of his family, in southern Alabama. Then he turned the weapon on himself.

McLendon apparently quit his job last week, but there has been no indication that I am aware of that it had any bearing on his actions yesterday.

And, today, in Winnenden, Germany, 17-year-old Tim Kretschmer shot and killed at least 15 people at a school where he once was a student.

At this writing, authorities are still sorting through the carnage in Germany, and more victims may yet die, but the rapid response of the police "means they prevented further escalation of events," said the region's interior minister.

There really isn't much more to say in the aftermath of these events. Those who favor gun control and those who oppose it will find ways to spin these tragedies to support their positions.

I just hope the survivors find peace and comfort wherever they can — even though it is hard to think of anything comforting to say about shootings that kill a minister during a Sunday worship service or a mother in her own home or grandparents sitting on their porch or more than a dozen young people in classrooms with pens in their hands.

That will be the unenviable task of those who must conduct the funeral services.

Either Way, It's Going to be a Landmark Election

---

"Politics isn't just a game of competing interests and clashing parties. The people of America expect us to seek public office and to serve for the right reasons. And the right reason is to challenge the status quo and to serve the common good."

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin,
Republican vice presidential candidate,
Aug. 29, 2008

---

John McCain's choice for running mate made it official. The election of 2008 will be remembered in the history books as a landmark, no matter who wins.

And right now, I think, it's anybody's guess who will win.

If the Democrats win, Barack Obama will become the nation's first black president. He's also the first black nominee on a major political party's ticket.

If the Republicans win, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will become the nation's first female vice president. She's the first female on a Republican ticket.

With McCain's selection of Palin, both tickets now are clearly outside the historic box.

I've been thinking about the implications of McCain's choice. I have a few thoughts to share.

• When I wrote about Palin as a potential running mate six months ago, I wrote about things like geographic balance and gubernatorial experience.
  
  Other things seem to have come up now that her nomination is no longer speculation but a virtual certainty.
• Here's a point I haven't heard anyone mention today (perhaps someone has mentioned it and I just haven't heard it):
  
  We have no Southerners on either ticket.
  
  If you count the first George Bush as a Texan (and some of the Texans I know don't because he was born in Massachusetts and grew up in Connecticut, although he spent most of his adult life as a Texas resident), the last election in which no bona fide Southerners were on either ticket was 1972.
  
  (Again, I suppose that requires an exception — some people consider Maryland a Southern state, because it condoned slavery and tobacco was its primary cash crop in the early days. If that makes Maryland a Southern state, then Richard Nixon's running mate in 1968 and 1972, Spiro Agnew of Maryland, was a Southerner.
  
  (However, I never have regarded Maryland as a Southern state because, while there certainly were tobacco planters in Maryland who were sympathetic to the Confederate cause, the state did not secede from the Union during the Civil War nor did it fight for the South.
  
  (And if a state didn't fight on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War, I have a hard time reconciling the inclusion of that state as a "Southern" state. Some people, however, use different criteria when making that judgment.
  
  (Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, if one considers Maryland a Southern state, then the streak between elections without a Southern nominee really has to go back to 1948 — although one tends to run into much the same issue concerning the home states of Harry Truman of Missouri and his running mate Alben Barkley of Kentucky.
  
  (And — to proceed even farther along this particular slippery slope — if Missouri is considered a Southern state, that means the streak goes back to 1940, where it definitely stops. No more exceptions to be made. There were absolutely no Southerners on either ticket in 1940.)
  
  Anyway, for most, if not all, of the last 60 years, Southern or border state candidates have figured prominently on national tickets. But not in 2008 (although, again, someone could raise an argument about Delaware — even though it had mostly ended the practice of slavery by the time of the Civil War and never seceded).
• In the past, my belief has been that historic "firsts" in American politics tend to be long on symbolism and somewhat short on a record of success.
  
  But, in 2008, it seems we can't miss.
  
  Both Obama and Palin are historic firsts. And, unless something wildly unpredictable happens between now and Nov. 4, one of them is bound to win.
  
  The other halves of both tickets — McCain and Joe Biden — are part of that "old white men's club" that represents the establishment. This year, though, one can be forgiven for seeing them both as transitional figures, serving as the bridges between their parties and the opportunities of the future.
  
  Voters can also be forgiven for wondering things about the selection of a female that they might not have wondered before.
  
  For example ...
  
  The Wall Street Journal is already talking about McCain's mission to "seize the momentum" from jubilant Democrats wrapping up their historic convention.
  
  How much political consideration was given to the notion of selecting a woman (only hours after the first black presidential nominee had given his acceptance speech in a football stadium filled with screaming, adoring supporters)?
  
  If Barack Obama did not head the Democratic ticket, would McCain choose Palin?
  
  Is she the Republican he feels is most qualified to take over the duties of the presidency in an emergency?
  
  I'll admit, it didn't hurt that Palin paid homage to the women who blazed the political trail ahead of her — Democrats Geraldine Ferraro, as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984, and Hillary Clinton, in her unsuccessful bid for the presidential nomination this year.
  
  I've heard many women in both parties praise Clinton's tenacity in her presidential campaign, and I know that many women came into 2008 believing they would have an opportunity in November that they could only dream of before — the chance to vote for a woman for president.
  
  Many blacks clearly felt the same way about Barack Obama. Obviously, both candidates could not be nominated for president. One had to lose — which means one candidate's demographic group had to be disappointed.
  
  Palin has the opportunity to fill the void left by Clinton's departure from the race.
  
  Women represent a huge share of the electorate. They don't vote as a bloc, but they do have similar (and related) needs and goals. In that sense, it appears that the Democrats' loss could well be the Republicans' gain.
  
  So, from the perspective of a nominee who wants to counter the groundbreaking nature of his opponent's presidential nomination, I think McCain probably did as well as he could.
  
  Earlier this year, I suggested that McCain might consider former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts. For all the reasons I mentioned, I still think Watts would be a strong national candidate in the future. But, in hindsight, I think it would have been unwise to put a black man on the GOP ticket and expect that to make the Republicans more competitive for the black vote in November.
  
  Blacks have been voting heavily for Democrats for generations. And, while Watts might have been able to put a small dent in the Democrats' share of the black vote, frankly, it would have been unrealistic to expect a massive shift of allegiances in support of a conservative black candidate for vice president over a liberal black candidate for president on the other side.
  
  But the gender gap is alive and well — especially given the lingering animosity between Clinton's supporters and Obama's supporters.
  
  And that fact did not escape ABC News, which observed that Palin said, "The women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all."
  
  That could be an appealing pitch for many women who deeply wanted to see someone from their gender on a national ticket this year.
  
  While it remains to be seen how Palin is vewed after a weekend of intense scrutiny followed by the exposure a designated nominee receives at a convention, she got off to a good start in her coming-out party in Dayton, Ohio, today.
• For those who were looking for a candidate who can reassure cultural conservatives, Palin seems to fit the bill:
  1. Palin is a lifelong member of the National Rifle Association.
  2. Palin has a son who was born in April with Down syndrome. Many women choose abortion when they learn they are carrying a child with Down syndrome, but Palin demonstrated her pro-life commitment by choosing to carry the child to term. He was with her family at the rally today.
  3. Palin is a supporter of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) — her running mate is not.
Add to that a few other "pluses" McCain acquired with his choice — Palin is charismatic. She has an engaging speaking style. She is the mother of a soldier fighting in Iraq, which reinforces McCain's support for the Iraq War. Most people can see, in Palin, their daughter or sister or mother. Or spouse. She appears to be capable of connecting with people on a number of levels. I think there are clearly some drawbacks, but it remains to be seen how severe they are:
• Primarily, I think, the fact that Palin has been governor for less than two years undercuts McCain's argument that Obama, with less than four years in the Senate, isn't experienced enough.
  
  (Although, from a strategic perspective, perhaps McCain wants to nudge the Democrats into re-opening this discussion — since it would focus on the presidential, not vice presidential, nominees.)
• Palin is the only major party candidate who isn't known very well by the American public. As a result, her statements and movements will be under a considerable public microscope for awhile.
  
  (Although she should be all right if she can avoid the problems that plagued Ferraro in 1984 — general missteps and her husband's financial scandal.)
• It seems to me that most, if not all, of Hillary Clinton's supporters also support most of the same things Clinton does. Thus, I think it would be a mistake for McCain to think that disaffected Clinton supporters will automatically support Palin and the GOP.
If you voted for Clinton, you're probably pro-choice. You're probably a supporter of universal health care. In short, you probably support most of the Democrats' agenda. Palin supports what has become the traditional Republican agenda. The question each of Hillary Clinton's supporters have to ask themselves is, will gender trump ideology? If most of them decide that it does, then this choice could be a big plus for McCain.
• That really brings me to this "gender gap" matter.
  
  I don't know if the gender gap really exists. If it does, it seems to me that whatever "gap" exists owes its existence more to racial differences than sexual ones.
  
  I was looking at some exit poll figures that go back to 1972, and in every election from 1972 through 1996, women voted for the party that won the White House. They also tended to give a higher share of their vote to the Democrat than men did — although it's worth noting that President Reagan enjoyed a rare (for Republicans) double-digit victory among women in 1984, the year the Democrats put Ferraro on the ticket.
  
  Since 2000, women in general have favored the Democrats, even while the nation has been electing the Republicans.
  
  Now, the numbers among white women tell a somewhat different story.
  
  White women, who have tended to represent about 43% of the overall vote, have been more inclined to vote for Republicans than their black and Hispanic sisters, who have been responsible for adjusting the overall women's vote to reflect greater support for Democrats.
  
  Actually, since 1972, white women have voted for the Democratic nominee only once — in 1996, when they voted to re-elect Bill Clinton.
  
  Perhaps the Republicans are conceding the black vote to the Democrats — which, considering the historical pattern, would be a prudent thing to do, even if the Democrats hadn't nominated a black man for president.
  
  Perhaps Palin is intended to be a lure for the white women's vote that Republicans may be fearful of losing in 2008.
• It's also worth noting that McCain turned 72 today. If he's elected president in November, he will become the oldest man elected to that office.
  
  Given the demands and pressures of the presidency in the 21st century, as well as McCain's own cancer history, it's understandable to be concerned about how secure his future would be.
  
  Well, the future is always uncertain.
  
  Even when you think you're on solid ground, that ground may well turn to jelly in an instant if an earthquake strikes. And, as someone who grew up in the famed "tornado alley," I've seen homes and businesses that were reduced to rubble by angry winds that were calm only minutes before.
  
  But ...
  1. if the Republicans win, and
  2. if McCain does not survive his term in office, then
  
  I wonder if Palin will be reviewing the early episodes of "Commander in Chief," the Geena Davis TV show from 2005-2006?
  
  The show began to change in inexplicable ways midway through the season, but the early episodes were intriguing explorations into the issues facing a woman who unexpectedly ascends to the presidency when the incumbent dies.
  
  (By the way — an interesting trivia point. Davis' character in "Commander in Chief" was named Mackenzie, and many people called her "Mac." In reality, of course, the 2008 presidential candidate is John McCain — and some people have taken to calling him "Mac.")
• I don't consider myself old, but it's a little unsettling for me to realize that both national tickets have a candidate who is younger than I am. That's a "first" for me!
  
  For the record, I am 48. Obama is 47 and Palin is 44.

Oh, and by the way ...

Mark October 2 on your calendar. That's the day that Biden debates Palin.

It will be interesting to see if Biden, who has something of a shoot-from-the-hip style, can tone it down in the debate. (If memory serves me correctly, that was the same challenge being issued to Vice President Bush before his 1984 debate with Ferraro.)

The Supreme Court and Guns

I have a confession to make.

I'm not a gun owner.

I didn't grow up in a household where guns had a place. My father wasn't a hunter — well, that's not exactly true. He was a butterfly hunter, and he did his hunting with a net.

He knew how to shoot a rifle, though, and he taught me how to do it once, when I was a kid. My father is left-handed and I'm right-handed, but, to this day, whenever I pick up a rifle — and it's something I rarely do — I aim and fire from the left side. I can't do it from the right.

That's also how I shoot pool — probably because my father was the one who showed me how to do both things.

Anyway, guns have never been a part of my life. Unless, of course, someone else was on the news for using a gun — at Columbine High School or Virginia Tech or after going postal in the workplace.

Or after shooting at someone famous, like John Lennon or Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II.

When that happens, I'm like everyone else. I have to think about guns and talk about their role in American life because that's what everyone is talking about and thinking about.

Today, the Supreme Court focused that spotlight directly on guns. The justices ruled, 5-4, that the Constitution guarantees the right to keep a loaded handgun in your home for self-defense purposes.

The ruling overturned the D.C. handgun ban, which is "the strictest gun-control law in the country," writes the New York Times. The Times speculates that the ruling "appeared certain to usher in a fresh round of litigation over gun rights throughout the country."

My feeling is, when it comes to guns, that genie is already out of the bottle. There's no way to outlaw guns at this point. Not with nearly 300 million of them out there in private hands.

Personally, I think the Founding Fathers made a mistake when they wrote the Second Amendment — even though they did include that part about the right to keep and bear arms being connected to being part of a "well-regulated militia."

But it's kind of tricky to see into the future — and we are living in an America that has evolved for more than 200 years since the Constitution was written. And, as brilliant as they were, I don't think Thomas Jefferson or James Madison foresaw the coming of the cotton gin, much less a world of jets, cell phones and computers.

Still, for the most part, I think the Founding Fathers did a pretty good job of crafting a Constitution in the 18th century environment they were living in. And they showed some humility — and wisdom — by including a mechanism for amending it when necessary.

But that gun thing has been giving us problems for a long time now.

Now, D.C. may well have the strictest gun laws in the country, as the New York Times and countless others have said. I don't know. I haven't researched all the gun laws in the country.

I live in Texas, where the gun laws are — if you'll pardon the expression — liberal.

But I feel that this is a matter that falls under the heading of "states' rights." I don't believe the people in Washington are qualified to make decisions about the licensing — or the prohibition — of guns in any state or community.

Of course, I'm not saying that I think the lawmakers here in Texas are any better than the ones we've got in Washington. But at least they're familiar with the communities here and they know what the crime rates are. (And I would expect them to get input from local law enforcement and local residents.)

Well, they should know those things. To be candid, I'm not sure most of them do! So many of them seem to have knee-jerk reactions when this kind of issue comes up.

You want to know what really concerns me about today's ruling?

I'm not concerned about the Supreme Court deciding to hear the case. This is the kind of thing the Supreme Court is supposed to be doing. (That's something everyone should think about when deciding who to support for president — what kind of Supreme Court do you want for the next, oh, 20 or 30 years? Because the next president will probably get the chance to make a few appointments.)

I'm concerned about the timing. I'm worried that this has the earmarks of an issue that is going to distract the voters from the things they should be talking about in this campaign — the war in Iraq, the economy, energy, food, housing, health care. And there are some issues on education that need to be resolved. And we need to talk about environmental policy.

It's not just about homeland security and terrorism. Those are important and they need to be discussed, but they're not the only things we need to be talking about.

Actually, being distracted from the important issues is nothing new in America. I guess it's one of the hazards of free speech, but we allow made-up issues, like gay marriage and flag burning, to dictate the terms of our political debates all the time.

I don't believe we can afford to wait until 2012 to talk about the issues. Do you?

It's appropriate, in a way, that this ruling should occur today. Yesterday was the anniversary of Custer's Last Stand, in the Battle of the Little Bighorn in 1876.

After the battle, one of Custer's surviving officers (and there weren't many of those) was asked by an investigator from Washington what had happened. The officer replied, "Mistakes were made."

Is that what we'll be saying after an election dominated by non-issues? It's the kind of non-denial denial we've heard from Washington so many times before. "Mistakes were made."

Maybe we get the government — and with it, the Supreme Court — we deserve.

That's what the late, great George Carlin said about our elected officials. He said we got from government what we put into it, that our officials were the embodiment of "garbage in, garbage out."

Well, anyway, here's the Supreme Court's ruling in the D.C. gun case. Read it and tell me what you think.

Charlton Heston -- The Ironic Icon

---

---

Charlton Heston died on Saturday.

He was a man of contradictions, and there appears to be some contradiction, in the sources I've found, as to whether he was born in 1923 or 1924.

But there's no contradiction about his marriage. Heston's widow, Lydia, became his wife in 1944, and their 60-plus-year union was an anomaly in Hollywood, where many people seeem to change spouses as frequently as they change their shoes.

Heston will be remembered for many things.

For those who are old enough, he will be remembered as Moses in Cecil B. De Mille's "The Ten Commandments," or as the protagonist in William Wyler's "Ben-Hur," competing in a chariot race that will endure for generations.

For moviegoers in my generation, he will be remembered for his role in Richard Fleischer's "Soylent Green" (uttering the memorable phrase, "Soylent Green is people!") with its environmental message, or the original "Planet of the Apes" directed by Franklin Schaffner (younger moviegoers saw him in a bit role in Tim Burton's inferior 2001 remake of "Planet of the Apes").

Heston appeared in more than 100 films, and he shared top billing with most of the great movie stars of his lifetime.

He will also be remembered for his sometimes contradictory (and sometimes ironic) political stands.

In 1963, Heston was seen in Washington, D.C., in the company of Sidney Poitier and Harry Belafonte, on hand for the historic civil rights march and Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech. Thirty-four years later, Heston was elected vice president of the National Rifle Association, and he became the NRA's president the following year.

That development was ironic, given the fact that Heston had been a supporter of civil rights and King, who was assassinated in Memphis in 1968. Heston called King a "a 20th-century Moses for his people."

In fact, there's a double irony at work here. Friday was the 40th anniversary of King's assassination. Heston died (apparently of Alzheimer's disease) the following day.

Even more irony -- Heston's final film role (other than appearances via film footage in documentaries or vocal presentations in animated features) was in Michael Moore's 2002 documentary about violence in America, "Bowling for Columbine."

In the film, Moore came to Heston's home, confronted the aging actor about his appearances at pro-gun rallies in the days following high-profile gun killings in American communities (including one in Littleton, Colo., a few days after the massacre at Columbine High School) and asked him how he could defend his pro-gun politics, prompting a clearly flustered Heston to get up and walk out of the interview.

Heston famously challenged his critics to pry his gun "from my cold, dead hands." We can only imagine if anyone tried to do so yesterday.