A Socially Anxious Person Goes...Social!

A Socially Anxious Person Goes...Social! (Or, My Time at the Smithtown Library’s Historical Nonfiction Book Club)

I thought, this week, that we’d take a break from politics (as usual) on this blog and bring up a personal triumph that happened to me--today, actually. Today, I went to a Historical Nonfiction Book Club at the Smithtown Library. It was early in the morning (about 10:30). The book we were covering was “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,” by Rebecca Skloot. For those of you who haven’t read it, I would check it out. It’s the story of the HeLa cells, which have been used in everything, from polio vaccines to medical breakthroughs in other fields--in fact, they have been sent up into space! This also tells the human side of the story, how these cells, which were cancerous, were harvested from a woman named Henrietta Lacks, how her family made no money off of the research, and how Deborah Lacks (Henrietta’s daughter) found out more about her mother. I’d say more, but I’d ruin the book completely! 

Back to the reason I am writing this: for those of you who don’t know the man behind the blog, I am very socially anxious. In fact, I am actually diagnosed as being on the Autism spectrum (I think I still am even with the DSM change, but I’m not sure). Being in large groups of over 5 people, let’s say, makes me very uncomfortable. But here, at the Smithtown Library, I was very comfortable. There were 10 people there, which would have been enough to make me squirm. I did at first--hopefully not noticeably--and after a few minutes, and after I had participated a bit, I became more comfortable. The instructor was very nice and helped steer the conversation, making sure that everyone who had a thought about the book on a particular question was heard. The room felt “safe” (in the same sense that when you find a psychologist you are comfortable with, you feel “safe”) and, unlike many other times I had been in a group, I did not feel judged or put on the spot. In fact, the instructor did a great job welcoming me into the group and even agreed with some of the points that I made. 

Usually, I would not have gone to such an event. However, since it was something that was a huge interest of mine (history--I was a history and political science major in college!), I figured I would try it. I thought that I would wind up being shy and not saying a lot and just taking it all in, but from the moment the group started, I definitely wanted to say a lot--which is a good thing, and totally unlike me! 

If I am not busy, I will definitely go to the next one, in July. I definitely recommend going to their book club if you’re reading this in Long Island near Smithtown. I just wanted to share some thoughts and a personal triumph, and politics will return next week. Thank you. 

Benghazi: Does it matter

 A headline that has been reported on almost non-stop by Fox News is that of the embassy bombings in Benghazi. Last time, the question was whether the Ambassador and others were left to die. This time, the question is whether there was a cover up as to the reasoning behind it. The Republicans cite many internal memos, the public questions why Clinton was not aware of the situation, and GOP members criticize it as, among other things, the “worst incident to happen in a Presidential administration.” Dick Cheney said those last lines. And while your sides are hurting from so much laughing at the irony, Lindsay Graham says that Benghazi is “Not a Fox News story; it’s a real-life story,” completely ignoring the fact that only Fox News is covering the story in this much depth and negativity. They’ve had everyone from lawmakers to former high-ranking military members to the general public interviewed on their show. And all of them—surprise, surprise—say that the administration bungled their response. But enough about Fox News. The question I am addressing here is: does it matter whether there was a cover-up?

The answer, to me, is no. Though the Republicans do have some interesting talking points, the most compelling of which I’ve found to be that the Obama Administration has no problem trotting out successes such as the killing of Osama Bin Laden, they are barking up the wrong tree. Rather that worry about the 12 revisions of the talking points, the last of which was handed to Susan Rice when she went on TV and, as they say, “deliberately misleading the American public,” there are simply other areas of this “Scandal” that they could be focusing on.

If you really want to show your party’s strength on Benghazi, forget about the pettiness of who knew what, and when they knew it, you should be using these talking points:

#1: On the Intelligence Committee, you should be stressing for major overhauls in the way embassy security is handled. If there have been, as Fox News has reported, numerous security breaches in the past in Benghazi or elsewhere, there should be insistence and the putting-forth of solutions as to how to fix these problems. It should be stressed that, going forward, these security risks should not be ignored and should be dealt with as quickly and as quietly as possible, pushing for more technology and more armed guards if the situation merits it.

#2: On the Armed Forces Committee, you should be stressing for a Rapid-Deployment Force. This will be one that could, especially in times of crisis, go into an area, take out the offenders, and leave. This force would be able to be scrambled rapidly and would be on alert constantly for when the next security breach happens.

#3: On the National Security Committee, you should be stressing for those tasks with Terrorism to do their job and drag this failure out into the limelight. National Security focuses on terrorism. How in the world could the President’s National Security team not be prepared for an attack anywhere in the world on, of all date, 9/11.

#4: In general, Republicans should be pushing for more transparency, not only on the Congressional committees, but also with the public in general.

What the above approach does is it changes the focus from hindsight to telling the American public, “Look, this happened, and if you vote us back into office, it will not happen on our watch again. We are serious about National Security.” And after all, isn’t that what the Republicans want, to own an issue again?

'Torial Tuesday #4: On Coming Out

I was inspired this week by the coming out of a certain Wizards player in the NBA finally coming out to the world and being the first openly gay athlete in the major 4 sports (NBA, NHL, MLB, and NFL). I was struck by how many people were supportive of him. And it got me thinking:

In every situation where there is something difficult to do, there are many people who will support you. There will be a few detractors. Goodness knows that, in my life, though I am straight, there have been so many times I have been discouraged. But don't let those naysayers get to you. They will keep you from being who you are. Don't hide yourself; embrace yourself. That NBA player probably has twice as many friends as he had before, plus so many people idolizing him for doing the world's most simple truth, and that is to be true to oneself.

If you deny who you are, you become miserable. If you become miserable, you cannot become comfortable in your own skin. Goodness knows how many times it took me to realize that if I do not really embrace myself, acknowledge that I have challenges, and learn how to deal with them, as well as found a very supportive community on Facebook and elsewhere, I would be depressed out of my mind.

I would like to say to that Wizards player, Jason Collins, to keep being who he is. He did a very brave thing. Unfortunately, acknowledgement of yourself and who you are as an individual should not be brave. It should be commonplace, and people should generally be more accepting of who you are.

'Torial Tuesday #3: Media Coverage of Terror Attacks

In the wake of the Boston Bombings, there is one thing that has never ceased to amaze me: the amount of time that the suspect and the act get on the air of a terror attack. Folks, terror suspects do not deserve the time of day. In the first 5 days, yes, absolutely they needed to be aired because the FBI was on the lookout for the suspects and needed our help.

However, once all is said and done and the suspect is arrested, the media should then make the terror suspects a mere footnote in their coverage. These acts of cowardice do not deserve the massive amount of airtime they get. Instead, attention should be rightfully paid to the victims of an act of terror, mass killing, and so on. These suspects do not deserve to have their successes played on the air time after time.

Instead, I say that these suspects and acts of violence should only be marginalized, while the media pays tribute to the victims and the heroes who helped those in need. Innocent victims of terror attacks and murder and so forth should be paid homage to, while the suspect is largely ignored. Doing this gives the exact opposite effect that terrorists and murderers want: their names and acts will be largely forgotten, while the victims and heroes will be memorialized. This is the true way to give justice to victims and lionize the heroes.

Time may forget the suspects and acts of malice over time, but doing this is the only way to ensure that the heroes and victims live on--and rightly so.

'Torial Tuesday #2: Going Forward--in Reverse?

Ireland has it right--but in the wrong way.

Yes, I said Ireland. For those of you who missed it, a church in Ireland has said that, if gay marriage were legalized in the UK, they would cease to recognize state marriages and instead only perform weddings.

The problem with this is that the church has it right, but not so right. It seems to think that this is a punishment for legalizing marriage. However, their idea can be applied to America. Why? Because, of course, this nation was founded on the separation of church and state.

For too long, the church has allowed marriage licenses to be signed at wedding ceremonies. Weddings are the religious rite--the signing of the marriage license is the legalese. In fact, were there to be a perfect divorce of church and state, only weddings would be performed, birth and death certificates would be signed only at a government office, and so on. There is nothing that makes an atheist's birth somewhat "more" significant than a Christian's birth. Likewise, there is nothing that makes a marriage to one of the same sex any more significant than marriage to one of the opposite sex.

The lesson can be applied in this instance and so many other instances. This is how you keep the church out of government--you restrict its access to matters of government, keeping them entirely separate. Unless...

...unless of course, you want to make the church an organ of the state and no longer be "religious." In this case, churches would be subject to the same regulations of the state. For instance, churches would have to provide birth control, health insurance, bail out bankers, be responsible for voting on legalizing gambling, provide free and fair elections devoid of religious propaganda (Not to mention that, come election time, there could be no homilies for or against a candidate or proposition, etc.), provide counseling on end-of-life, be subject to all the provisions of ObamaCare, speak for the government (meaning a religious czar or something would have to be appointed), and, of course, provide coverage for abortion. Oh, and if that's not enough, because the church would cease to be "religious," this means that it would be subject to taxation. And we're not talking one church; we are talking ALL of them.

Needed News #1

What is North Korea thinking?

News Story in a nutshell: North Korea has shredded the peace agreement with South Korea, and threatened to attack the United States and South Korea. It has also said it is in a "State of War" with South Korea In fact, as we speak it is readying several missiles and the US would "not be surprised" (According to CNN) if North Korea attacked South Korea or even Guam in the United States. In fact, the US has set up missile defenses in Guam and has said that it cannot guarantee the safety of those in its embassies past April 12th (if I remember rightly, according to Fox News).


Commentary: What are they thinking?! Assuming for a moment that one was rational, which the leader of North Korea clearly isn't: Both Afghanistan and Iraq were blown away within days of their initial invasions. Qaddafi was blown away in Libya, and that was without the US directly leading NATO forces. The North Korean leadership, which showed-albeit for a brief moment--promise towards modernization, has proved itself to be more insane (from my perspective) than its predecessor, Kim Jong Il.

If North Korea launches a missile at either South Korea or Guam, the most likely scenario would be that a drone will be used to take out the leaders of North Korea. Why a drone? Because to do a land invasion would be costly. In fact, the the US decides to do a land invasion, it could wind up like the Korean War all over again. Thus and therefore, it is safer to take out the North Korean military with a drone and be done with it.

Even China, who is the only nation that is on speaking terms with the increasingly isolated North Korea, has said that what North Korea is doing is unacceptable and has already joined in on at least one UN resolution against North Korea.

If North Korea continues down this path, it may be the endgame for a regime that has oppressed its people, jailed them, and has continued to starve them. In this case, the United States could definitely dress it up as a humanitarian mission, much like in Libya. In fact, it is increasingly unlikely that North Korea's leadership will survive this as we speak, should they launch a missile at neighboring South Korea or at Guam.

The Power of the NRA

New Features:

‘Torial Tuesday:

There is a new feature starting this Tuesday is that I am going to run an editorial on some of the most urgent news of the week. 

Needed News:

Every Sunday, I am going to post links to various articles about the news of the week and what caught my eye the most. 

Monthly Paper:

Every month, I will post a full-fledged paper on an issue, be it a book review or an opinion page. 

 We will begin the new cycle with today’s editorial. 

The Power of the NRA

The NRA is an archaic organization, and has clearly too much power. Once a serious organization, the NRA has ceased to be a driving force for the betterment of consumers and instead has turned out to be a laughingstock. 

The NRA goes through one notorious debacle after another, suggesting ludicrous solutions to problems: too many people with guns? Arm more people! Too many people with mental illness having guns? Arm the school guards! Too many people who are untrained? Train them to have better abilities. The list goes on.

The NRA has become a shell of its former self and, was one to stop and listen to its head, would understand that its leader, Wayne LaPiere, is inept, clumsy, and foolish. Not only is he foolish, he says outlandish things that, while they may be aimed at starting a conversation, wind up generating more controversy than it is worth. 

The NRA needs to stop being so inept and so controversial, and evolve its position, not only from a gun advocacy perspective, but also from a gun responsibility perspective. It should take its cues from the alcohol industry, and remind its members that with the power of a gun in their hand, comes great responsibility. 

Too much emphasis is placed on the right of owning a gun than it is to use then gun the way it should be used, which, regardless of the type of weapon, is for self-defense or hunting. Ted Nugent, who famously not-so-seriously threatened to assassinate President Obama, is an example of an irresponsible gun owner. Gun owners should be reminded to be mature with their purchases and be reminded that they, through their gun, have the ability to take life, and should do so with great caution.

Some may argue that AK-47s are necessary in case the government tries to become a dictatorship. However, it is the opinion of the Muser that a well-aimed drone attack or a bomb could wipe out any resistance its rebellious citizens may try to muster up. These rebellions work much better in countries like Syria and Iraq--one country of which was obliterated by the United States in a matter of hours...twice. So this argument flies out the window.

Some may argue that as an American, it is our right to bear arms. No one is trying to take these rights away; in fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that in times of great duress (the recent spate of shootings in the United States would certainly qualify), rights can be limited. Additionally, “Arms” in colonial times was simply a musket. The logic test that this argument fails the smell test: if “arms” means everything that can be used as a weapon, then surely citizens must be allowed to purchased rocket launchers and drones. 

Finally, some may argue that the NRA is necessary to preserve the rights to own guns. This passes the logic test. But with the power NRA has, comes great responsibility to be mature, be responsible, educate its members about the perils of gun ownership, and so on. Though assault weapons may, in the end, still be legal, the NRA should tell its members to be responsible with its purchases.