Recently, a Republican strategist on one of the cable news shows was asked to comment on the Boston Marathon terrorist attack and he, of course, used the moment to lambaste the Obama administration’s approach to the terrorist threat. He said we needed to compile an “accurate database” about potential terrorists that would help the government “protect U.S. citizens,” and the fact that we didn’t identify the terrorists before their horrific deed was a “failure on the part of the government” that must be corrected.
When I heard this, I had to wonder about the definition of a terrorist. Is a madman who walks into a Colorado theater and kills a dozen people and injures scores of others a terrorist? How about a disturbed young man who enters an elementary school in Connecticut and slaughters 20 precious children and six teachers a few days before Christmas?
It appears that in our dystopian, gun-soaked, violent culture, with its perversion of the Second Amendment, the kind of horror and death inflicted over and over again by mass murderers with unimpeded access to deadly weapons is not terrorism.
Why isn’t it? It sounds like it.
Republicans had a chance last month to participate in passing a law that would have required background checks on all but private gun purchases, a law that was supported by 90 percent of the American people. Its passage would have required an “accurate database” to be used as a qualifier for legitimate gun acquisitions, which in turn would help “protect U.S. citizens” as well as be a vital step in correcting what has heretofore been a “failure on the part of government” to keep us safe. But most Republicans, plus four misguided Democrats, voted against it.
How can Republicans in good conscience apply their talking points about “accurate databases” and “keeping us safe” only to the Boston-Marathon-variety of terrorism but not Sandy Hook? There is a hypocritical incoherence here that must be addressed. I suggest we address it at the next election.
Shame on Green
State Sen. Josh Green: I read in this morning’s local newspaper (Hawaii Tribune-Herald) that you have single handily stopped a dispensary bill which had a 78 percent of Hawaii voters’ approval. This dispensary bill would have provided safe access for the nearly 11,000 state patients.
I am a 75-year-old woman who needs medical cannabis for pain and for sleeping. I gather you would rather I take toxic pharmaceuticals with horrible and horrendous side effects rather than a safe herb. I cannot believe you have a MD after your name? Have you ever read the literature of the drugs you prefer one to take? Did you not swear to the Hippocratic Oath? Did you not believe it? How could you be so narrow minded and uninformed of this alternative to the horrible drugs that are on the market today? Who are you really working for, as it is obvious that you are not concerned with the health of people? How pathetic that you held hostage two medical cannabis bills so that you could have your agenda implemented!
It is beyond me that a man in your position could be so blind and narrow minded as to try and control an herb that is a sacrament to hundreds of millions and a preferred medicine to so many sick people.
You will not stop it, you know? Yes, you are doing your best to do so, but you will ultimately lose your battle! Good will always prevail over evil because we have God on our side.
I think you are in the wrong line of work on many, many levels.
‘A man needs to eat’
I am a student currently enrolled in Hawaii Community College. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, currently has stipulations regarding full-time students that requires them to work a 20-hour-a-week job to get benefits.
Being a full-time student, I am unable to meet this minimum requirement without work interfering with my academic performance. However, a man needs to eat. Right now, we are facing the dilemma of losing government funding to the SNAP program due to the fact that not enough people are accessing this service.
I believe Hawaii should lift these restrictions regarding full-time college students for SNAP, not only so that we can continue to get this government funding, but also so that hungry students will be able to get their brain food.
SNAP is a supplemental food program that helps to feed people living at the poverty level. Why is it that there are additional requirement for full-time students? This distinction unjustly separates students out from people in need. If a person decides to pursue a higher education, why do they then become ineligible for financial assistance? If someone is trying to improve their future by going to college, they need more help, not more restrictions.