Gun control a non-issue issue?

I'm not sure it's even worth my time to articulate a position on gun control itself, but I'm gonna. More importantly, however, the debate raises other questions that merit closer inspection.

The Pew Research Center had several interesting findings concerning the public's general attitudes toward gun policies, rights, and control. As you can see from the above chart, background checks, better tracking of sales, bans on semi-automatics and high capacity magazines, and restrictions on the mentally ill (whatever that means) are popular measures of control.

Not surprisingly, Obama's gun control policy largely adheres to prevailing public opinion.

I suppose I'm in favor of these measures, but I'm a realist and there are few points about these proposed laws I'd like to make:

1. Gun owners won't be affected in a meaningful way.
2. Mass shootings won't stop.
3. Shut up about the 2nd Amendment.

To the first point, I say "meaningful" because we'll get to keep our guns and enjoy the rights they afford us. So maybe you can't deer hunt with an AR-15 and a 20-round magazine, but you can still deer hunt with other powerful weapons not originally manufacture to efficiently kill human beings. As far as home defense, the same applies. Truthfully, a 12-gauge shotgun is probably your best bet there anyway.

To the second point, mass shootings will still happen. People will still die. The only benefit is that assailants would be less efficient at killing under the proposed controls, so theoretically the death tolls would go down. We wouldn't have done anything to change the underlying causes of such violent behaviors, only the tools available by which such behaviors could be carried out. That's the exchange we'd be making and it's important to understand that.

And finally, because these atrocities will likely continue, most of what I here about the argument involves whether these proposed laws would infringe on Constitutional rights. 

But what exactly are those rights?

So let's talk about the Constitution. I do not believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to individual gun ownership, and understanding the history behind the Constitution's ratification is important to my conclusion. 

The major point of contention during the Constitution Convention was the role of the federal government. The federalists favored a dominant federal government while anti-federalist wished to see more power rested with the states. Because the Constitution originally outlined what the federal government could do, not what it was forbidden to do, the anti-federalist successfully pushed for a Bill of Rights intended to protect the states and their citizens from a powerful federal government.

The second of these first 10 amendments reads as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In the late 18th century, the United States did not field a strong standing army. It was either weak or nonexistent, making the role of state militias important not only for state but federal defense.

It seems clear to me that this provision applied to our protection against foreign invaders and from federal tyranny by state organized military forces, not to the protection of individuals' recreational gun ownership.

But I don't think the framers' intent means a damn thing. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "The earth belongs to the living, not the dead."

The Constitution is a beautiful founding document with amazing guiding principles, but's it's a living document and we aren't bound to it. If we were we wouldn't have changed it 27 times. Simply because a handful of revered, rich, middle-aged, white, and -- most noticeably -- dead said so over two centuries ago doesn't make it true. That is our grand national naturalistic fallacy and it's time we get over it.

If we truly believe that disobeying the document in this current age is more prudent than following it, then disobey we should. Constitutional disobedience, after all, is our true founding principle.

But obey or not, it is critically important to realize that our Constitutional rights are not, nor have they ever been, absolute. In 1798, Congress passed and President John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which essentially outlawed critiques of the government -- this just seven years after a Constitutional guarantee or free speech.

To this day many of our Constitutional rights are highly regulated and often ignored. The Patriot Act, signed into law by G. W. Bush and reauthorized under Obama includes blatant violations of 4th and 6th Amendment rights protecting against warrantless searches and guaranteeing public trials -- damn good amendments.

But nobody seems to give a shit about those violations, which are infinitely more important to our daily securities than any gun. It's ironic that, while we've largely been able to protect the right to bear the very arms meant to defend ourselves from government oppression, we've managed quietly to sign away our most important freedoms with one hand, all without moving our trigger finger.

Is it finally time for a conversation about guns?

Well, if not now, when? Anytime there's a high profile gun crime, we're sold this line about the importance of mourning and that politicizing the event to further a gun control agenda is improper. I think The Washington Post's Ezra Klein has a good take on this strategy:

Let’s be clear: That is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.

Jon Stewart and the folks over at The Daily Show had a similar take, though a bit more biting in its satire:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

So to hell with this false decorum. Let's have a little dialogue.

As the Pew Research Center reports, support for protecting gun ownership rights is actually on the rise, despite the recent shootings in Colorado and now Connecticut. My guess is that reflects a desire to protect the right to own guns, not necessarily an opposition to stricter laws about the nature of gun ownership.

Americans do support some restriction, particularly on felons and the mentally ill, which ties in closely with background checks.

Federal background checks for firearm purchases stem largely from the Brady Act, implemented in 1994.

Unfortunately, that act only requires licensed dealers to conduct background checks. Private sellers aren't covered under that legislation, meaning many guns bought and sold at gun shows or online are sold without any meaningful paperwork. 

Simply put, gun laws haven't even caught up with the widespread public use of the Internet, which started almost two decades ago. 

I'm not saying we should ban guns all together. Hell, I own a gun. Still, I think there are some things we should consider. Obviously extending background checks is one. Limiting the sale of handguns, assault weapons, and high-capacity magazines are others. Requiring licensing and education for gun owners are others.

These are conversations that, as adults, we should at least be able to have -- even if we choose to take no action. But for some reason we can't even get that far. It's truly a sad state of affairs, and unless we find some way to address potential systemic causes of these mass killings, that sate of affairs will likely continue.

If you're interested in pressing Congress and The White House on beginning a gun control conversation, there are several petitions you can peruse and sign if you're so inclined. Thoughts and prayers only go so far, and action always goes further.

The Feasibility of Secession

Recently The Huffington Post reported on 34 states that had signed petitions to secede from the United States following Obama's reelection. 

Apart from the general silliness of the idea, the reasoning for why such a thing is feasible struck me. Consider the following from the Texas petition:

"Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union..."

Assuming a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility provides reason to secede (which it doesn't), let's see how all the offending states fare.

State	Federal Spending per $1 Paid in Federal Taxes
Mississippi	$2.02
Alaska	$1.84
Louisiana	$1.78
West Virginia	$1.76
North Dakota	$1.68
Alabama	$1.66
South Dakota	$1.53
Kentucky	$1.51
Montana	$1.47
Arkansas	$1.41
Oklahoma	$1.36
South Carolina	$1.35
Missouri	$1.32
Tennessee	$1.27
Arizona	$1.19
Kansas	$1.12
Wyoming	$1.11
Nebraska	$1.10
North Carolina	$1.08
Pennsylvania	$1.07
Utah	$1.07
Indiana	$1.05
Ohio	$1.05
Georgia	$1.01
Florida	$0.97
Texas	$0.94
Oregon	$0.93
Michigan	$0.92
Colorado	$0.81
New York	$0.79
California	$0.78
Delaware	$0.77
Nevada	$0.65
New Jersey	$0.61
Average	$1.21
Red Average	$1.38
Blue Average	$0.85

This table is based on 2005 data from The Tax Foundation, so it may be a bit outdated, but I think the point still stands.

Essentially, if the dollar amount on the right exceeds $1, that state is taking more federal funding than it contributes through taxation. I've ordered the table from greatest takers to greatest givers, or to borrow recent Republican lingo, entitlement states to job creators.

I've also color-coded the states based on their electoral college vote in the 2012 presidential election -- red for Romney and blue for Obama. Not surprisingly, two-thirds of the secessionists went for Romney.

On average, these states take in $1.21 of federal funding for every $1 in tax revenue provided. However, the Democratic leaning states receive $0.85 of federal money on the dollar while the Republican leaning states receive $1.38. 

Texas is the only red state that's actually in the black, while Pennsylvania and Ohio (notable swing states) are the only blue states in the red.

The point: for all the states' rights and small government machismo, red states don't seem to have a problem cashing a federal government check. If I were most of these states, I'd think twice on this one. And Texas, best of luck. Third time's a charm.

A real debate on Obamacare

The Obamacare debate may be the most egregiously dishonest thing I've seen in some time.

Consider this Reuter's poll from June: people dislike Obamacare, but they like it's provision.

All this really means is that when the program is described accurately, it rates well, but typically it's misrepresented as a socialist government takeover. This false debate point on Obamacare (looking at you Mitt) is dangerous and insulting.

Normally I find similar misrepresentations mildly annoying, but I've always felt that the health care issues should be treated with more respect. Health care is serious for obvious economic and moral reasons, so let's treat it as such.

Despite his opposition, Romney's Massachusetts administration is arguably the architect of Obamacare. Not surprisingly then, Romney appears to like many of the provisions:

• Eliminating lifetime maximums
• Eliminating bans on those with pre-existing conditions
• Allowing kids to stay on their parents plan until age 26

In last night's debate, I heard no real objection from Romney concerning the individual mandate either, which is arguably both the linchpin of the program and its most hotly contested and least popular aspect. Just ask John Roberts.

Romney criticized Obamacare on two main points. The first is that it "put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive." This statement is simply untrue. The Independent Payment Advisory board to which Romney refers does not have to power to ration health care as he implies.

The second point is that Obamacare drives the cost of insurance up resulting in job loss. This claim is also shaky. Premiums have gone up, but benefits have as well. Moreover, large group plans have seen almost no change in premiums and small group plans have seen only modest change. Obamacare is not a likely job killer because of added premium cost.

However, so long as insurance operates as a for-profit industry -- which I believe is immoral -- insurance companies have a moral responsibility to generate returns for shareholders. Adding new people to the insurance coffers probably means adding the sickest among us who had no access to health care before, and those added payouts will change how insurance is provided in order to maintain profit.

My guess is that the trend in recent years of replacing PPOs and HMOs with high-deductible plans will continue. In short, you'll be covered and get group rates, but if you need to be hospitalized for any reason, count on dropping around $2,500+ out of pocket in addition to your premium.

If you want to attack Obamacare honestly, this cost shift is where you do it.

Still, regardless of the election result I don't see repeal as likely. And frankly I welcome a large scale shift to high-deductible plans because it will finally force us to a fundamental decision about health care: Should insurance be a private good for corporate profit?

If the answer is yes, then our choice will likely be between high-deductible plans for all or dropping the chronically ill from coverage in order to maintain private profit at public expense. After all, that's what these cost shifts represent.

If the answer is no, then we will likely face a more progressive public-sector approach to health care reform as opposed to the conservative private-sector approach of Obamacare.

The Heart of a Fan

I love college basketball, in particular the University of Louisville. I love it so much that it's probably unhealthy -- or maybe so much that it actually is healthy.

A friend recently criticized me for, when talking about U of L basketball, using the word "we" because I haven't done anything to create successes or failures for the program. I could probably make a counterargument about the importance of fan support, but I generally accept the criticism. I have no direct impact on whether the team wins.

Still, it got me thinking. I can remember a game a few years back that I watched with my dad. U of L lost and we were both a little drunk and pretty upset. After awhile, he leaned over and said, "You know, it's pretty stupid to get so worked up over something like this."

I think the sentiment of the two comments is the same. But I'm not apologizing for it, as we (U of L) are in the Elite 8, one game away from a Final Four and a potential match-up with rival Kentucky.
Needless to say I'm excited. But I've never played a single game in a U of L jersey; I couldn't even make my high school team. And yes, maybe I'm not a part of the program's successes or failures, but they are certainly a part of me.

After 26 years of attending games and cheering on the Cards, I think those successes and failures are arguably as much or more a part of me than they are of anyone currently playing, and I think the same goes for a lot of long-time fans.

Louisville is an interesting place. There's a lot of diversity here, and while there are several transplants, many of the citizens are born here, live here, and die here without every truly having left. U of L sports, particularly basketball, are a cornerstone of the community, a common thread (and the same is true of UK, though I hate to admit it). I don't mean to say that I live completely vicariously through the team, but there's a sense of community, connectedness, and camaraderie in their achievements that's just not there in any personal triumph.

Sport brings that out in people. Consider the Dodger's 1958 move from Brooklyn to Los Angeles. Brooklyn was devastated, and not just because they struggled through half a century of loss to finally win the World Series and 1955 just to have the team ripped away three years later. The loss of a common community bond was simply crushing. The borough gradually became absorbed into New York and lost that much more of its identity, independence, and unique spirit.

I feel much the same way about the Louisville Cardinals. It's just a part of who I am, from a personal level to a community level. In truth there's no apologizing for co-opting the team as my own because there's nothing I can do about it. I'll be rooting for us through victory or defeat, but like Dodger fans of old, I'm just hoping this isn't another "wait 'til next year." Louisville fans have seen to many of those...26 straight to be exact.

Land of the used-to-be-free

Stereotypes have notoriously bad PR. We tend to think of stereotypes negatively, but they’re useful mental shortcuts that are often accurate and without malice.

For example, politically conservative individuals favor strong national defense, small government, and a return to constitutional values.

It was no surprise to me, then, that the Supreme Court chose to hear an appeal to the constitutionality of the recent health care reform act.

At the heart of the challenge is whether the interstate commerce clause, which gives Congress the right “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” grants the federal government enough power to mandate individual health care.

Traditionally this clause has been broadly interpreted to centralize power within the federal government. Personally, I think that is typically a responsible interpretation. The founders believed the Articles of Confederation too weak to hold the states together and the Civil War outcome set a pretty clear precedent that federal authority trumped that of individual states.

Moreover, I think it’s important to consider what the framers could have reasonably anticipated when delegating state and federal power. In the 18th and 19th centuries, rule under smaller principalities would likely have been more efficient, but with modern advancements in communication and transportation infrastructures, strong, centralized governance over a country as large as the United States is much more feasible.

Still, I admit that such an interpretation is clearly arguable. What I find interesting, however, is that for all the clamoring about an overreaching government trampling the constitution over health care reform – most of which seems to come from those who know little or nothing about “Obamacare,” let alone its actual name (it’s the Affordable Care Act by the way) – little has been said about the recently signed National Defense Authorization Act.

A defense appropriations bill is passed each year to set annual defense budgets. The president is pressed to sign this legislation, particularly during election years, lest he seem weak. That’s why earmarks that typically would not pass on their own merits are often attached to this legislation.

The controversial caveat this year is the “legalization” of indefinite military detention of suspected terrorist without trial, which may include American citizens arrested on American soil.

This bill is a gross overstepping of constitutional privilege. Article One, Section Nine expressly forbids unlawful detention except in cases of “invasion or rebellion,” which, however devastating, a handful of terrorist attacks does not constitute. Also, there’s the Sixth Amendment to consider, which guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial by jury as well as proper legal counsel.

So far this bill has been largely unchallenged though legal channels.

Obama did issue a signing statement in which he said he approved the act “because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed.”

Still, if defending our nation and our interests means sacrificing the very rights and principles we claim to defend, it’s hard to see the point in it all.

In all likelihood the defense act will go unchallenged and there’s a damn good chance that the Affordable Care Act will be repealed or overhauled to the point of ineffectiveness, all in a hypocritical defense of the Constitution.

What’s ironic is, if I’m right about the fate of these two laws, suspected terrorists under indefinite military detention will likely have better access to health care than many free Americans. Fewer freedoms to hate us for I suppose.

A Docile Democracy

In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote a pretty interesting article on the willful ignorance of Republican presidential candidates. The following quote got me thinking:

So it’s now highly likely that the presidential candidate of one of our two major political parties will either be a man who believes what he wants to believe, even in the teeth of scientific evidence, or a man who pretends to believe whatever he thinks the party’s base wants him to believe.

Given our current political climate and what I've seen from Obama, I think it's safe to say that both parties will run a candidate who pretends to believe whatever will likely get him -- or her (God forbid) -- elected.

Americans are slaves to platitudes, and there is no greater lie than this: Americans want to hear the truth.



In the so-called "Malaise Speech," Carter told Americans the truth. We cannot continue down a road of unfettered consumption in which the efforts of many serve the desires of few. Basically, he gave the American people a needed ass chewing.

He called for shared sacrifice in uniting for the common good, particularly in dealing with the energy crisis. In order to combat American dependence on foreign oil -- a phrase that today is all to familiar -- he proposed investing in programs that would create 20% of American energy through solar power by 2000, protecting the environment and revitalizing the economy.

We're not even close to that goal, and Carter lost the election the following year for a lot of reasons. One is that he told the truth about Americans to Americans, which is political suicide.

So why do we fear the truth so much? Because we're lazy. The truth isn't always good. Sometimes we have to see our faults and correct them, but correction means change and change means effort. It's just easier to accept the status quo.

It's easier to say that the current health care system provides an acceptable level of care than it is to suggest a major overhaul that would deliver universal care.

It's easier to say that climate change isn't happening than it is to make drastic changes in our energy consumption habits.

It's easier to say that evolution is just a theory than it is to ask serious questions about our faith.

It's easier to say that government is the problem and must be limited than it is to say that government could be a solution if we only work to make it better.

Carter called this a crisis a confidence, Krugman calls it a stand against science, but at the heart it's really a problem of cowardice and complacency. We don't want to know the truth because the truth is that we're scared and docile, and until we understand that anything worth having is worth sacrificing for, we'll always be in a state of perpetual malaise.