Reflections & Observations

Why the Mirror?

   The question has been asked of us a lot lately. Why not the Tribune, or the Post, or the Santa Monica Times, people wonder? Why the Mirror? 
   The name of our newspaper was chosen at a meeting one afternoon. It seemed to fit our objectives for this endeavor-- mostly to reflect the concerns of the community of Santa Monica. Tom Hayden got it when he said in passing, “Oh, yeah, like holding up a mirror to ourselves.” Well, that is it exactly. 
   During the last several weeks, professional, personal and community concerns have arisen that have shown what reflecting back at yourself is all about. When there is an uncomfortable situation, we need to see that we are part and parcel of whatever is happening. Our first impulse is to blame or chastise the other person or group or company, but only by understanding our own role in the situation can we learn from it. Only by changing ourselves can change take place. One person at a time, one community at a time.
   Collectively, Santa Monica faces a plethora of "situations" in which individuals and groups of people disagree and advocate different courses of action, requiring the citizenry to look closely at the issues that affect them. They are, in effect, looking into a mirror, admiring some things and seeking change in some places. 
   We heartily recommend this practice. 

Michael Rosenthal, publisher

Law and Order 

   Eddie Izzard, the English comedian, has a line that’s particularly apropos in the wake of the vile and grotesque shootings at the North Valley Jewish Community Center and subsequent murder of the postal worker. 
   Izzard says, “The National Rifle Association (NRA) says that guns don’t kill people, people do. But guns help.”
   Quite simply, Buford O. Furrow, whom the police say has confessed to the shootings, not only could not have accomplished his despicable mission without guns, he probably wouldn’t even have attempted it. 
   Unlike, say, knives or clubs or brass knuckles, guns, especially big fast guns, seem to delude their owners into believing that they can do whatever they want to do -- including shooting small children because they’re Jewish. 
   As Paul Cummins noted in these pages several weeks ago, there are almost as many guns as there are people in this, far and away the most murderous nation on earth. He went on to call for the virtual abolition of guns, but did not hold out much hope that our so-called leaders in Congress would act to control guns in any serious way, much less abolish them, because they continue to dance obediently to the NRA’s mad tune. 
   Even after the school shootings which have become epidemic, the frequent slaughters of entire families by fathers and/or husbands, another one of which occurred here almost simultaneously with the North Hills shootings, the raging Atlanta day trader who beat his family to death, but then shot and killed nine people and wounded 13 others -- even after all that, most Presidential candidates and members of Congress continue to defend the inalienable and unassailable right of Americans to own and use guns, 240 million guns, many of them assault weapons that can mow down a roomful of people in a few seconds. 
   Never mind the inalienable and unassailable rights of children to live free of fear and grow up whole and happy. Never mind the inalienable and unassailable rights of citizens to go about their business without getting gunned down in their offices or on the street. 
   In sum, never mind that, here and now, guns seem to have more rights than people -- at least in the eyes of our alleged leaders. 
   Mass killings -- in living rooms, offices, schools and playgrounds -- are becoming commonplace, and the killers are not criminals in the usual sense, they’re estranged fathers, angry employees, unhappy students, bigots. And they are able to kill suddenly and quickly because they have easy access to the most advanced kinds of guns. 
   Anyone who sees it differently is too dumb to hold public office. 
   And speaking of dumb...what is the point of sentencing Robert Downey, Jr. to three years in the slam? He’s a very talented actor, inspired sometimes. By his own admission, he’s also seriously addicted to drugs. And, for all his brilliance on-screen, he’s pretty dumb off-screen, a major screw-up. 
   But if people were sent to prison for being dumb or screwing up, our prisons would be twice, three times as crowded as they are. 
   To our knowledge, Downey may have disappointed many people but he hasn’t hurt anyone but himself, and that’s not an offense that should be punishable by a time in prison. 
   Drugs are as available in prison as they are on any high school campus and so prison will not break Downey of his habit, though it may finally break his spirit. 
   What’s the point, then, of Downey’s doing time? There is no point. His extended incarceration will not only not make him a better person, it won’t improve society a whit.
   It is, however, further proof that law and order, as currently constituted, have little or nothing to do with justice and sense.