Obama using kids as props, record gun sales, and NRA ad “attacking” his kids
January 20, 2013 § 1 Comment
I usually don’t watch the news and/or comment on minor topics but after getting sick of the demagoguing, I decided to write this quick piece.
A few days ago, Obama gave a short speech to present his numerous gun proposals and Sandy Hook students were in the background. Supposedly these particular kids wrote letters to him, and as part of his speech, read excerpts of their letters.
Yes, Obama used the kids as props to further his agenda of gun control. It’s a classic politician move to use victims of an event to ramp up sympathy and public support. Obama simply used kids who were present during the shootings. He’s done something similar before when advocating the payroll tax cuts. Both cases were an image that showed 1) he’s for the kids, and 2) he’s for regular workers. Any opposition to his speech is indirectly opposition to the two groups.
I wouldn’t go as far as others who compare this to Hitler’s, Stalin’s, Mao or the other dictators use of kids. More dictatorial, a better comparison, to these guys are his use of executive orders. Considering the previous president’s extraordinary use (291 to be exact) of E.O.s, Republicans and Their pundits have no room to criticize him on this. This is just another hypocritical case of “my party can do it but yours can’t.”
Where Obama and others, principally Piers Morgan, is certainly wrong is equating disagreement on policy with indifference for kids. (For example, I think Keynesians care about the economy but I disagree with government spending.) You can disagree with policy and care for the kids. I’m sure everyone, including the NRA, is upset about Lanza’s shooting and hearts go out to the parents to their parents. So you aren’t “doing it for the kids” by calling for stricter laws or armed school guards and such; that implies, if one disagrees with this, they don’t care for the kids.
Getting back to Morgan, he and others seem outraged or surprised by the increased gun sales in the previous two months. Since Morgan and his regular viewers probably don’t understand economics (Morgan certainly doesn’t), allow me to explain. When there is a (potential) future decrease in the supply of something (guns), demand increases. Simply speaking, with all this talk about new gun laws, people are going out to buy them now before it is too late.
I haven’t been to a gun store in two months but, following 1/4 of the laws of supply and demand, I wouldn’t be surprised, assuming supply remains unchanged, if the prices have risen due to this increased demand.
Regarding the NRA’s recent ad, again, it isn’t “low” or whatever to use the President’s children. They have a point that the kids have private security (presumably secret service) and their school has armed guards, which is what the NRA proposed and the point of the ad. The President has not necessarily endorsed this but in the speech he said he wanted to devote $500 million to improving school safety by putting 1,000 police officers in schools and training more health professionals.
A more important question is that the First children, including other liberal politicians and left-wing millionaire’s children, attend private school while opposing school choice. But rich Black figures who supposedly speak for oppressed and underprivileged Blacks have always sent their kids to private school while forcing (yes, forcing, by opposing school choice and supporting compulsory, public schools) other Blacks to continue putting their kids in failing, urban government schools so this isn’t anything new.
I invite you to join the conversation and subscribe to Minds Alike or e-mail me at BabAdetiba@gmail.com.