I once sat in on a Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee meeting at the Statehouse here in Springfield and I remember seeing a good-looking young Senator from Chicago. I figured he was heavy into gun control and I wanted to share my perspective with him, but I demured. I'm much better expressing myself in writing and not a very confident speaker. This is what I would have said to him, though.
Chicago has something like 600 homicides per year. I've seen estimates that say about half of these murders are over drug turf disputes. This is what any rational society would label prohibition-related violence. Mike Gray, in his book, "Drug Crazy," says the gangland map of Chicago these days is almost an exact copy of Al Capone's Chicago.
I think a coalition between people who want to keep their guns and people who want safer streets could be formed around a campaign to promote drug policy reform with the intent to end prohibition. Deadly turf wars and a raft of other social ills would vanish if people got their drugs at clinics or pharmacies or other regulated venues. This would take pressure off of legitimate gun owners.
In today's world, spectacular acts of violence like the VT massacre grab our attention, but the majority of gun deaths in this country continue to be from prohibition-related turf battles that get practically no attention whatsoever.
Link have to confess that I've been very impatient with NYT columnist Thomas Friedman for many years. He often seems to have it out for Americans who don't marry as well as he did. Those of us who actually have to do something productive with our lives in order to enjoy food, clothing and shelter are regularly scolded by the wealthy columnist for our attachment to good-paying jobs he'd rather see Indians or Chinese prisoners doing for pennies on the dollar.
I can't argue with his column on Obama too much, though. Perhaps he's isolated enough to believe that Obama's global appeal is actually a good selling point to an increasingly xenophobic American electorate. I happen to agree that the good will generated by an Obama presidency would entirely overcome what has happened to our standing in the world since we took Friedman's advice on invading Iraq with Bush at the helm.
I remember clearly Friedman wagging his finger at students in 2002, saying, "Just because Bush says it's true doesn't mean it isn't." That was his justification for advocating war with Iraq, the notion that not every single thing Bush says is a lie calculated to benefit Cheney's (and Friedman's) stock portfolio.
It's interesting to note that Obama is proceeding with an approach to Iraq policy more in tune with the needs of the general election rather than the primaries. For better or worse, he's allowed Clinton and Edwards to get to the left of him this.
Perhaps he's counting on on the solid support he's garnering to sustain itself through the primaries. Clinton and Edwards now are singing the right tune to pick up more anti-war support, but you can bet that if either of them actually get the nomination, they'll immediately go to the right of McCain.
I like to think that Obama is going to win the nomination with the proverbial one arm tied behind his back. That is, he'll do it by winning the primaries despite running on a position keyed to the general electorate. The advantage is he'll avoid having to make the classic flip-flop that all candidates have to manage once they transition from the primaries to the general.
I've always thought Obama plays things too safe. He could use his charisma to attract votes even while going to the left of Kucinich. He'd still have all the support he needs to win, and the country finally could get the policies it despirately needs.
