1968 Australian home. Some Ruska. Teak furniture. Native Australian gardens. Splashes of Marimekko. Rimini blue Bitossi. 50s, 60s and 70s homes. House plants and succulents. Woody Allen. The occasional appearance by some Solid Gold Dancers. That's what you'll find here. And lashings of chutzpah thrown-in for good measure. Pull up a Suekichi Uchida and make yourself at home.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Worth reading ...
I thought this New Yorker article was worth reading ... here.
What happened in Connecticut should never happen again.
Interesting argument and, as you said, worth reading. It is a sad day.
I struggle with the concept of the "right" to bear arms. I think it is a huge responsibility (and in no way a "right") to have weapons in your possession. I will be honest and say we do have some firearms - being a farm and all. Our guns are few, simple and designed to cull livestock/vermin etc. They are secure in an approved safe and low calibre with nothing in any way resembling an assault weapon or hand gun.... We have more need than most to have guns and yet that is all we have. They probably get used on 3 occasions a year, if that. They never leave our property.
I think there is no need for anyone who is not in a theatre of war/law enforcement etc to have a gun that can be easily concealed or is automatic in anyway. I also see no reason for anyone in a civilised society to need to carry a gun on the street as is allowed in some US states. To be honest I see very little need for anyone to have a gun....
I know the old argument that there will always be unstable people who will do very dangerous things. And I agree, there will always be these people however if they don't have access to high calibre, automatic weapons they will definitely still do damage but the scope for that damage in any given period of time will be considerably lessened. Whilst guns don't kill, people do - I feel people could do a hell of a lot less damage without the guns.
Obviously just my opinion. But one I feel very strongly.
I agree, there's no 'right' to brandish a gun. I also agree that guns are tools of great use in certain situations, such as farming and law enforcement. The gun law changes that happened in Australia made great improvements to who could own what sort of firearm and how they were managed and secured.
There is definitely no need for high-calibre firearms in the community. If a high-calibre firearm is being shot about no one has time to do anything.
It is so different for us here because we don't see guns as a common object or as the right of all our citizens. I don't know how a whole country can be reprogrammed on an issue they feel so righteous about when it is part of their culture, their history, even their movies! Sadly, Obama is faced with the very real possibility that if he tries to ditch the guns the lobbyists may well ditch him and gun laws will be back to square one. What is he to do? So many guns, so little time.
Annie, I think now is the right time to change gun laws in America. I understand the hold the NRA has over the right in America, but, even 10 years ago, who would have thought an African- American would have been President? America has proven itself to be a country that can make radical political change. Obama has just been elected for his second-term, he's not going anywhere soon, I think he could prove his mettle by making a drastic change to gun laws. John Howard did it after Port Arthur and there was objection from farmers and sporting shooters and red necks, but he did it.
It is the conservative Republican party that fights tooth and nail against gun control, and they hold the majority in the House of Representatives right now, so unless a significant number of them have changed their stance since this awful incident, they will put up every roadblock possible to any effort Obama and fellow Democrats make at gun control. (Ironic, isn't it, since Republicans call themselves pro-lifers?)
It is the radical (and, I think, lunatic fringe) conservative Republican that supports the NRA, hoards guns and considers it a "right" to own assault weapons. Shame on them!
It's different for us here as well and we're just north of the US. Many of us think the 'right to bear arms' is as a nation armed for defense not a personal right. Until the NRA loses a lot of it's power in the US, things will not change. Big business runs government these days.
I want to see a revolution! I believe 'people power' can do anything. I'd like to think that this latest carnage is the one that says to logical-minded Americans that this sort of thing is not justifiable on a Constitutional interpretation. It'll be very interesting to watch what unfolds.
The thought of dropping my children off to school in the morning, and then getting a text during the day that there'd been shootings at the school, and then racing back trying to establish who's who and what's what and whether I'd ever see one of them alive again is too much to contemplate. That shouldn't be something that happens.
I don't think the majority of citizens here in the U.S. agree with the NRA. The NRA, however, is well funded, and is a powerful influence over congress and the Republican Party. Why do hunters need assault rifes? Why is it so easy to obtain fire arms? This is unconscionable. Until the Supreme Court changes its interpretation of the Second Amendment to mean the right of a nation to bear ams (which is what a lot of legal scholars believe was the intent of the drafters), not the right of every citizen, we are going to have more of these terrible, terrible crimes. I used to attend many functions that included Jim Brady, Reagan's press secretary who was shot in the head. Every time we met, he was a little better, and his jokes a lot wittier, but his life was devastated by that bullet. He was shot 31 years ago. He and his wife have spent those years fighting for gun control. Yet, here we are, approaching 2013, and babies are now being shot by someone who had access to a weapon. Perhaps if international pressure was put on the U.S. to institute stronger gun laws, congress will understand it has to act.
Why do hunters need assault rifles? Because deer and wolves and bunnies and squirrels carry assault rifles. I agree with the thought of international pressure being put on America. Who needs to own a gun? What person in suburban American needs to own a glock? I was trained to use a glock when I was in another profession. They are powerful weapons.
That's interesting about Jim Brady. I'm sure prior to being shot he would have been pro-the right to bear arms if he was Reagan's press secretary.
I don't think the one shooter can be blamed for those children being killed in Connecticut. It seems to be time for society to take some blame and make some amends in terms of change.
Neen - Members of both of the two major political parties in Australia made statements yesterday saying now the US needs to look at gun laws. Interestingly it took the shooting of 35 people in Tasmania in the nineties to make Australia overhaul theirs. I do think now is the time for debate about this (although your White House says otherwise). If now is not a good time, I don't know when is.
Scary about the NRA being so well funded. I was reading some stuff on the net yesterday about your gun laws and must admit to being a little surprised at just how relaxed some states were. I then read a forum by pro gun parties and people were commenting how unlucky people in Australia and the UK were as they couldn't have certain weapons and had such controlling governments. We may be controlled but we do feel that little bit safer....
I feel sorry for people like yourself as I understand that the majority of Americans do not support the NRA. And what happened in Connecticut was indeed unconscionable. Those beautiful children and those devastated families. There were tears here in Australia and I am sure world wide yesterday.
(Sorry for hijacking your comment stream MMMC - you do like a debate though.)
I don't know how anyone of conscience could argue against strict gun control in light of the increasingly frequent shooting incidents in the U.S. Yet there will still be people insist on easy access to guns, including assault weapons, and it's the shame of our country.
Unfortunately, many of these atrocities have been committed by unstable young people who wouldn't have had any way to get the weapons at all if their parents hadn't owned them. In cases like that, I think the parents should be held criminally negligent for not having the guns in a safe with a combination that only they know.
But that's only the first step. There is no logical reason for people outside the military to own assault weapons in the first place, and they should be banned immediately.
I know the anti-gun control crowd argues that if the average citizen can't get guns, only criminals will be armed, but it's not gang members or drug dealers committing murder at schools. For the most part, it's middle class, white males who couldn't go on these shooting sprees if guns were harder to obtain.
The Ameerican psyche is very complex. The mythology of national heroes goes back to the glory days , as they are seen still by many, of the civil war. I don't believe that that war has ever concluded. The "taming" of the west made heroes of gun toters like Wyatt Earp and brothers. These men represented the Law - a law based on gun supremacy. This archetypal hero must be challenged before change can occur.
Not only do we need to look at stricter gun control, we also need to look at our broken health care system that does not address the needs of the countless number of mentally ill people living within our society. Our own son struggled with mental illness. We spent the bulk of our retirement savings seeking help for him, to keep him safe and for the safety of the rest of our children as well as our community. He was a volatile, angry young man and we feared for our lives for many years before finding a facility out of state that could address his needs. At one point we were told by a medical professional at the local hospital to take him home and hide all of our knives. I shudder to think what may have happened had there been assault weapons within his reach.
What amazing women I have reading this blog. I read your latest blog post. There would be a lot of boys and young men who are dealing with mental illness, not helped by society. I hope Connecticut and all these atrocities bring these issues to light. More information is coming out about Adam Lanza and his upbringing and his mental illness. Such a tragedy on many levels.
The one thing that left me speechless is that all of the guns were his mother's. This woman had a disturbed son in a house full of weapons. She took his son hunting. What do you expect when you train a disturbed son in using a rifle? I'm sure a smart person doesn't need a smart law because there are things that are taught by inner conscience, but it's for people like this woman that they have to change things. You can't get a gun that easily here, you have to go through a psychological evaluation and you have to renew it every number of years. And this is a messed up country.
Interesting argument and, as you said, worth reading. It is a sad day.
ReplyDeleteI struggle with the concept of the "right" to bear arms. I think it is a huge responsibility (and in no way a "right") to have weapons in your possession. I will be honest and say we do have some firearms - being a farm and all. Our guns are few, simple and designed to cull livestock/vermin etc. They are secure in an approved safe and low calibre with nothing in any way resembling an assault weapon or hand gun.... We have more need than most to have guns and yet that is all we have. They probably get used on 3 occasions a year, if that. They never leave our property.
I think there is no need for anyone who is not in a theatre of war/law enforcement etc to have a gun that can be easily concealed or is automatic in anyway. I also see no reason for anyone in a civilised society to need to carry a gun on the street as is allowed in some US states. To be honest I see very little need for anyone to have a gun....
I know the old argument that there will always be unstable people who will do very dangerous things. And I agree, there will always be these people however if they don't have access to high calibre, automatic weapons they will definitely still do damage but the scope for that damage in any given period of time will be considerably lessened. Whilst guns don't kill, people do - I feel people could do a hell of a lot less damage without the guns.
Obviously just my opinion. But one I feel very strongly.
I agree, there's no 'right' to brandish a gun. I also agree that guns are tools of great use in certain situations, such as farming and law enforcement. The gun law changes that happened in Australia made great improvements to who could own what sort of firearm and how they were managed and secured.
DeleteThere is definitely no need for high-calibre firearms in the community. If a high-calibre firearm is being shot about no one has time to do anything.
I feel strongly about this topic too.
It is so different for us here because we don't see guns as a common object or as the right of all our citizens.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how a whole country can be reprogrammed on an issue they feel so righteous about when it is part of their culture, their history, even their movies! Sadly, Obama is faced with the very real possibility that if he tries to ditch the guns the lobbyists may well ditch him and gun laws will be back to square one. What is he to do? So many guns, so little time.
Annie, I think now is the right time to change gun laws in America. I understand the hold the NRA has over the right in America, but, even 10 years ago, who would have thought an African- American would have been President? America has proven itself to be a country that can make radical political change. Obama has just been elected for his second-term, he's not going anywhere soon, I think he could prove his mettle by making a drastic change to gun laws. John Howard did it after Port Arthur and there was objection from farmers and sporting shooters and red necks, but he did it.
DeleteIt is the conservative Republican party that fights tooth and nail against gun control, and they hold the majority in the House of Representatives right now, so unless a significant number of them have changed their stance since this awful incident, they will put up every roadblock possible to any effort Obama and fellow Democrats make at gun control. (Ironic, isn't it, since Republicans call themselves pro-lifers?)
DeleteIt is the radical (and, I think, lunatic fringe) conservative Republican that supports the NRA, hoards guns and considers it a "right" to own assault weapons. Shame on them!
Hopefully the post election timing of this event will be its one thin silver lining. Pro lifers indeed... Don't get me started on republicans!
DeleteIt's different for us here as well and we're just north of the US. Many of us think the 'right to bear arms' is as a nation armed for defense not a personal right. Until the NRA loses a lot of it's power in the US, things will not change. Big business runs government these days.
ReplyDeleteI want to see a revolution! I believe 'people power' can do anything. I'd like to think that this latest carnage is the one that says to logical-minded Americans that this sort of thing is not justifiable on a Constitutional interpretation. It'll be very interesting to watch what unfolds.
DeleteThe thought of dropping my children off to school in the morning, and then getting a text during the day that there'd been shootings at the school, and then racing back trying to establish who's who and what's what and whether I'd ever see one of them alive again is too much to contemplate. That shouldn't be something that happens.
I don't think the majority of citizens here in the U.S. agree with the NRA. The NRA, however, is well funded, and is a powerful influence over congress and the Republican Party. Why do hunters need assault rifes? Why is it so easy to obtain fire arms? This is unconscionable. Until the Supreme Court changes its interpretation of the Second Amendment to mean the right of a nation to bear ams (which is what a lot of legal scholars believe was the intent of the drafters), not the right of every citizen, we are going to have more of these terrible, terrible crimes. I used to attend many functions that included Jim Brady, Reagan's press secretary who was shot in the head. Every time we met, he was a little better, and his jokes a lot wittier, but his life was devastated by that bullet. He was shot 31 years ago. He and his wife have spent those years fighting for gun control. Yet, here we are, approaching 2013, and babies are now being shot by someone who had access to a weapon. Perhaps if international pressure was put on the U.S. to institute stronger gun laws, congress will understand it has to act.
ReplyDeleteWhy do hunters need assault rifles? Because deer and wolves and bunnies and squirrels carry assault rifles. I agree with the thought of international pressure being put on America. Who needs to own a gun? What person in suburban American needs to own a glock? I was trained to use a glock when I was in another profession. They are powerful weapons.
DeleteThat's interesting about Jim Brady. I'm sure prior to being shot he would have been pro-the right to bear arms if he was Reagan's press secretary.
I don't think the one shooter can be blamed for those children being killed in Connecticut. It seems to be time for society to take some blame and make some amends in terms of change.
Neen - Members of both of the two major political parties in Australia made statements yesterday saying now the US needs to look at gun laws. Interestingly it took the shooting of 35 people in Tasmania in the nineties to make Australia overhaul theirs. I do think now is the time for debate about this (although your White House says otherwise). If now is not a good time, I don't know when is.
DeleteScary about the NRA being so well funded. I was reading some stuff on the net yesterday about your gun laws and must admit to being a little surprised at just how relaxed some states were. I then read a forum by pro gun parties and people were commenting how unlucky people in Australia and the UK were as they couldn't have certain weapons and had such controlling governments. We may be controlled but we do feel that little bit safer....
I feel sorry for people like yourself as I understand that the majority of Americans do not support the NRA. And what happened in Connecticut was indeed unconscionable. Those beautiful children and those devastated families. There were tears here in Australia and I am sure world wide yesterday.
(Sorry for hijacking your comment stream MMMC - you do like a debate though.)
I don't know how anyone of conscience could argue against strict gun control in light of the increasingly frequent shooting incidents in the U.S. Yet there will still be people insist on easy access to guns, including assault weapons, and it's the shame of our country.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, many of these atrocities have been committed by unstable young people who wouldn't have had any way to get the weapons at all if their parents hadn't owned them. In cases like that, I think the parents should be held criminally negligent for not having the guns in a safe with a combination that only they know.
But that's only the first step. There is no logical reason for people outside the military to own assault weapons in the first place, and they should be banned immediately.
I know the anti-gun control crowd argues that if the average citizen can't get guns, only criminals will be armed, but it's not gang members or drug dealers committing murder at schools. For the most part, it's middle class, white males who couldn't go on these shooting sprees if guns were harder to obtain.
The Ameerican psyche is very complex.
ReplyDeleteThe mythology of national heroes goes back to the glory days , as they are seen still by many, of the civil war.
I don't believe that that war has ever concluded.
The "taming" of the west made heroes of gun toters like Wyatt Earp and brothers.
These men represented the Law - a law based on gun supremacy.
This archetypal hero must be challenged before change can occur.
Not only do we need to look at stricter gun control, we also need to look at our broken health care system that does not address the needs of the countless number of mentally ill people living within our society. Our own son struggled with mental illness. We spent the bulk of our retirement savings seeking help for him, to keep him safe and for the safety of the rest of our children as well as our community. He was a volatile, angry young man and we feared for our lives for many years before finding a facility out of state that could address his needs. At one point we were told by a medical professional at the local hospital to take him home and hide all of our knives. I shudder to think what may have happened had there been assault weapons within his reach.
ReplyDeleteWhat amazing women I have reading this blog. I read your latest blog post. There would be a lot of boys and young men who are dealing with mental illness, not helped by society. I hope Connecticut and all these atrocities bring these issues to light. More information is coming out about Adam Lanza and his upbringing and his mental illness. Such a tragedy on many levels.
DeleteThanks all for this conversation, I'm struggling to articulate my thoughts, I'm hugging my son a little than usual .
ReplyDeleteLonger than usual...bloody iPad!
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that left me speechless is that all of the guns were his mother's. This woman had a disturbed son in a house full of weapons. She took his son hunting. What do you expect when you train a disturbed son in using a rifle? I'm sure a smart person doesn't need a smart law because there are things that are taught by inner conscience, but it's for people like this woman that they have to change things. You can't get a gun that easily here, you have to go through a psychological evaluation and you have to renew it every number of years. And this is a messed up country.
ReplyDelete