Gun Control - A Non-partisan Solution

The sheer number of recent mass shootings has created an environment where Congress might actually do something.  I fear Congress will just slap a band aid on a fundamentally flawed law and then continue fighting about it for the foreseeable future.  

We can make the problem go away with a Constitutional amendment that lets each State control deadly weapons within their state.  Gun possession is a uniquely local concern.  Everyone has a legitimate interest in whether angry, careless or mentally unstable people in the geographic area where they spend their life have access to firearms and ammunition.  Or whether their neighbor keeps a loaded handgun in his bedside table that could be accessible to a thief or a curious child.

On the other hand as a resident of California I have very little stake in whether people in Colorado walk around with a handgun strapped to their belt, or possess assault rifles.  Or if people in Wyoming drive around with loaded rifles in a rack in their pick up, or if people in Montana manufacture their own assault weapons.

Our 50 states are vastly different in geography, population density and culture.  The Federal Government should not be making gun laws applicable to every state, each state should be setting their own rules.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:

 "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."  

The second amendment was written when we were 13 sparsely populated colonies on the eastern seaboard still engaged in periodic conflict with other colonial powers and native populations on the northern, western and southern borders of the country.  It does not make sense today.  State Militias, citizens keeping weapons in their home so they could respond to danger to the community, effectively no longer exist.  Instead every state has a National Guard and multiple highly trained and armed law enforcement agencies, many with SWAT teams.   

A revised second amendment could read:

"Control of deadly weapons being a uniquely local concern, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed by the Federal Government. The right of the States to control deadly weapons shall not be limited by the commerce clause.  

Some will argue they still need their weapons to protect themselves from an over-reaching State government.  But the ability of the State to deprive citizens of their rights as citizens will be limited by the Federal Constitution and Federal courts.  

This should be an eminently politically feasible amendment based on current polls that show overwhelming support for gun control.  Instead of a Red State / Blue State battle to impose nationwide rules, each states voters could determine the status of firearms in their state, or could let each county or city within the state decide for themselves how they wanted to treat deadly weapons.  In 1918 when Congress sent the proposed 21st amendment out to the states to ban alcohol nationwide many experts predicted it would not get adopted by enough states for many years, in fact it happened in months.

The NRA and the gun lobby will not like this solution so will oppose it, but most Americans will recognize it as a fair minded solution.  

The sentence about the commerce clause is to limit the ability of those with an interest in selling lots of guns to use the courts to limit a State's right to  control deadly weapons.

The resolution of our national disagreement over the second amendment should not be driven by all or nothing partisans on the two opposing sides.  The sensible middle must take the lead. 

Gun Control - September 4, 2019

One of the lead stories was the latest in the regular string of bombings of weddings and other public events by the Taliban in Afghanistan.  I thought to myself, as I have for most of my life when I hear about violence in the "backwards" parts of the world, how blessed we are to live in a country where folks rarely go around killing people for no apparent reason, or to make a political statement.

But almost the next story covered the shooting in Odessa Texas.  It was like having a bucket of ice water dumped on my head as I realized we are becoming Afghanistan.  We may have had more crazy or politically motivated mass murder events this summer than Afghanistan.

Deep down I  always had a little bit of a feeling it could never happen to here because our dominant religions are rooted in the teachings of Jesus.  Yet the proliferation of mass murder events are a direct result of the most noisily Christian folk in this country supporting, or tolerating, the Gun Lobby dictating policies to Republicans for 40 years.  

In their zeal to have a veto power over women's reproductive decisions they have sought appointment of conservative Supreme Court justices.  Those justices have twisted the words of the second amendment to the point their decisions preclude the state from stopping angry or crazy or politically unstable people from walking into stores, or churches or other public places with assault weapons and opening fire.

Not a legacy Jesus would be happy with.

Proud to be an American?

The fourth of July always includes lots of speeches about being proud to be an American.  It bothers me.  To me we should be grateful to be citizens of the United States, not proud.  

Pride is about feeling special.  If you achieve something that others have not achieved a bit of pride is a natural, and justified, response, but should not be indulged.  It ultimately is about boosting your own ego.  But it is a fine balance between boosting your ego enough to maintain your self esteem and leaning on pride to give you false confidence. 

We all have heard the old saying "Pride Goes before a fall", a bit of wisdom from ancient ancestors.  The biblical verse Proverbs 16-18 says "pride goes before destruction and haughtiness before a fall."   Ancient wisdom recognized pride easily slides into a negative emotion, leading to unwise decision making.

So why would those of us born in this country seek to take pride about our birthright?   We had nothing to do with arranging to be born in this country.  

Perhaps a Veteran, particularly a Veteran who served in a war zone is entitled to a little of pride.  But often the people who are most vocal about being proud to be an American seem to be politicians born in this country who did not serve in the military.  Our last four Presidents did not serve in the military, three of them planned carefully to avoid the inconvenience of military service back when there was a military draft.

Gratitude is humble.  In my experience humble people make far better life decisions than proud people.  Gratitude for having the privilege of living in this country seems a far more positive emotion.

What's a "Good Economy" Mean?

Our President and the Republican pundit world are promoting the idea we have a great economy.  Oddly, although Democrats grump about specific issues related to the economy they don't directly challenge the notion we have a "great economy".  

Let's apply a little common sense to test the state of our economy.

Is it a great economy when our national debt is increasing twice as fast as our economy is growing?  

According to the Treasury Department the National debt increased by 2 Trillion dollars in the first two years of the Trump administration, as a percentage of GDP an increase of 10%.  Total GDP growth for the Trump years equals 4.5% of GDP.  So the National debt has grown more than twice as fast as GDP during the Trump years.  Looked at from another perspective the Trump administration borrowed 2 Trillion to hand out tax cuts to benefit mostly rich folks which increased GDP by a little less than 1 Trillion.

Is it a great economy when nearly fewer people, as a percentage of the population, are employed than were employed before the Great Recession?   The administration and many economists and pundits tout statistics about job growth and low unemployment as proving we have a "great economy". A closer look shows the statistics are misleading.  

If you google the wikipedia article on Job Growth by President, which compares job growth by month since 1976 job growth during the Trump administration to date has been modest when compared to job growth in other years since 1976.  

We have an unemployment rate down pretty low, around 4%.  But 4% of what?  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics  (see the link below) in late 2006 about 63.5% of the population was working.  Today that figure is below 60%.   

The unemployment rate isn't low because we have been engaging in wise economic policies, its low because a lot of people left the job market.  Baby boomers near retirement age who got laid off when the Great Recession hit retired or became unemployable due to age and health.   Probably part of the reason the Great Recession did not turn into a Great Depression is because many of those people were old enough to turn to retirement accounts or Social Security after their unemployment insurance payments ran out, so the consumer base of the economy did not collapse.

Wages have stagnated for nearly 40 years.  Economists have hailed modest rises in wages in the last couple years as a sign the free market is working and we are on our way back.  But they ignore the fact that much of the rise in wage growth is probably related to governments in the biggest commercial States and cities nearly doubling the minimum wage in their jurisdictions.  

The low unemployment numbers are not a sign of a strong economy, it is a function of a lack of workers, further aggravated by the Trump administration immigrant policies that have chased folks out of the country.

Is it a great economy when homelessness and poverty has increased?  After the Great Recession homelessness declined each year - until President Trump took office.  Since 2016 the number of homeless people has gone up.  Beyond official statistics it appears to me that the homelessness figures are the tip of the iceberg.  Here in California I see many people living in poverty.  Living in decrepit old trailers or motorhomes parked wherever they can find a place to land.  They can't afford an apartment or a house but they aren't technically homeless.

Thinking About Abortion - Postscript

The thought of an abortion has always been emotionally upsetting to me.  But so is seeing a cat pounce on a baby bird that has fallen from the nest.  So is the image on a nature program of a polar bear trapping a baby seal on the ice before the seal can make it back to the water.  So is the idea of a Coyote catching a baby bunny.  Death is an unpleasant reality, and is particularly disturbing when it cuts short a life just beginning. 

In my life I have rescued baby birds who have fallen out of the nest - it made me feel better for a moment but then what?  Have I accomplished anything other than frustrating a cat and making myself feel better?  Am I willing to take responsibility for that baby bird?  Or capable of not botching the job?  It has taught me to have a certain humility about indulging my emotional desire to defeat death.

To me God gave us free will to follow our emotional inclinations, even if that means making mistakes.  The gift of being allowed to learn from our mistakes has led us to a world of unprecedented abundance and growing worldwide freedom.  The genius of Jesus is about humility - about not trying to change the rest of the world, but focusing on how we behave.  Focusing on treating others as I would like to be treated.  To me that means I need to exercise a little humility when I do not like another person's life choices - to be cautious about trying to force others to behave in a manner that that would make me more emotionally comfortable.

In responding to one of the comments to an earlier blog in this series I suggested one of the keys to what Jesus taught was the distinction between man's law and god's law.  That was a revolutionary idea at that time - an idea later incorporated into the DNA of the United States in our Constitution.  Man's law covers behaviors we engage in that directly impact other persons.  We make agreements about the limits of our conduct to protect our individual freedom from the actions of others.   So we punish assault, murder, robbery, theft etc.

But when we extend that protection to a fetus and ban abortion we are not creating rules to protect ourselves from the behavior of our neighbors so we can live free.  A woman having an abortion has no direct impact on the life of any family member, friend, neighbor or stranger.  To me, exercising the humility inherent in the golden rule means we accept that she answers to God for that decision, not man. 

The genius of the United States is linking the separation of church and state with a commitment to individual freedom.  Both values are undermined by banning abortion. 

Thinking about Abortion - Part 5 - Abortion, Politics and Economics

This blog series was inspired by the news Alabama just enacted a law that would prohibit abortion almost completely.

It is not surprising this comes from Alabama, or that other southern states are competing to see who can be the toughest on abortion.  For many generations the Christian south had no problem going home from Church to live comfortably off the slaves they bought and sold like cattle.  They were so outraged when the North wanted to free their slaves they precipitated a bitter civil war with enormous casualties. They lost the war but when the Federal government lost interest in monitoring their behavior, they replaced slavery with segregation, reincarnating the institutional subjugation of a people because of their race.  Eventually segregation also got struck down by the Federal Government.

They can't seem to give up their self righteous belief they are entitled to judge and control the behavior of others.  They went after Gays for awhile, and caused a lot of pain to a lot of people.  Eventually they lost traction as the vast majority of Americans realized gays were people and the freedom we celebrate is fundamentally about letting folks make their own choices in life.

In this year besides Alabama, Missouri, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Georgia and Kentucky have passed or are near passing bills sharply limiting the right to abortion.  Arkansas and Utah have passed bills somewhat limiting the right to abortion.

The six most stringent laws limit abortion almost from (or sometimes before) the moment the women knows she is pregnant.   Those six states are , Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio. 

Is it a coincidence that every one of those 6 states whose legislatures are busy passing bills limiting abortion are among the poorest states when measured by per capita income?   The average per capita income in the United States comes in at about $47,000 per year.  These 9 states average income ranges from $39,000 (Alabama) to $43,000 (Ohio).  

21 States have set Abortion standards that are significantly below the current law that hinges on when a Fetus is viable.   15 of the 21 have incomes below the National average.  

Those 21 states include 8 of the 10 most dangerous states to live in, according to Wallethub.com, a website that figures out which states are the safest places to live.  

Of the 6 states with the most restrictive laws all are in the bottom 20 of the list of safe states to live in except Ohio who is 21st from the bottom 

It is hard to escape the conclusion rich folks in those states don't want people thinking about what a lousy job their government does about providing decent wages, or better schools, or early childhood education - so they spend a lot of money whipping up a frenzy about evil women getting abortions.

Thinking About Abortion- Part 4 - The Ethics of Abortion

Why would a woman would want to terminate a pregnancy?  

I think it is safe to assume it is not a spur of the moment decision.  Some fear is at work.  It might be fear of shame.  Ironically shaming is a form of coercion that often grows out of some of the same institutional religions that seek to ban abortion.   

The fear may often be fear of the responsibility.  Maybe the woman is having a hard time supporting herself, and does not have parents or a partner she can rely on.  How will she support a child.  What will another mouth, and childcare responsibilities do to her life?   

Even in those cases where the abortion is simply about not being tied down by a child - what kind of life can a child born to a mother who doesn't want the child expect?  How much greater is the risk forcing women to bear the child will doom that child to a life of neglect, or poverty, or drugs, or gangs?  Was it just a coincidence that a generation after abortion restrictions were struck down in 1972 crime rates starting dropping? 

It is understandable for a Christian motivated by the teachings of Jesus to be distressed by a woman wanting an abortion.  But don't Jesus's teachings suggest the response should be about alleviating the concerns that would cause a woman to not want the child, so the woman would choose to be a mother?   

The real irony is that politicians seeking to prohibit abortion are almost always hostile to social programs that might help a woman avoid pregnancy in the first place, or make a woman more comfortable with taking on the responsibility of a child.  That hostility is often linked to cutting taxes.   As the anti abortion movement has developed momentum in the last couple decades we have seen a simultaneous reduction in social programs aimed at assisting those with financial or emotional difficulties - to fund tax cuts.  Doesn't sound like Jesus to me. 

A justification for cutting government programs often offered is that religious organizations do it better than government - i.e government is incompetent.  But since the 1980's when that justification became dominant, institutional religious have generally not exhibited the capability or willingness to undertake the financial obligations required.  

Further, help from institutional religion almost always comes with strings attached.   You buy into their view of the world or you don't get help.  In essence the religions pre-judge sins and help only those whom they deem will not sin, and cast others out.  More coercion.  I never read a word from Jesus that suggests he approves of coercion.  

Part 5 will look at the political economics of abortion.