ablearcher5983

[ablearcher5983]

You Gotta Fight For You Right... To Eat?

We live in a very weird world right now.  More and more politicians are choosing to engage in "Twitter Democracy".  Following the lead of our Commander-in-Chief, they are attempting to reach out to the more tech savvy of their constituents and carry out civil discourse in 140 characters.  Maybe this is the evolution of our national conversation, maybe this will become the new norm, but it can lead to problematic situations.  One such situation happened November 29th, involving Representative Thomas Massie from the Kentucky 4th District.   While attempting to make a seemingly satirical comment about the proposed Healthcare For All programs, Representative Massie posed a troubling hypothetical question:

Needless to say, this set both sides of Twitter's political spectrum alight with people both coming to his defense and to tar and feather him.  Now to be a little transparent, I happen to reside in the district that Massie represents.  I have never voted for him, and in fact in the most recent Midterm election I voted for his opposition.  I say this not to beat my chest, or signify that I plan to attack the man himself due to fundamental differences in our beliefs.  Honestly, I doubt that Representative Massie meant to come across as glibly as his comment did, but the root of his comment is tied to a disconcerting and pervasive belief in America today - 

It's the poor's fault that they are poor.

The promise of capitalism and the American Dream is that if you work hard enough, you can make a better life for yourself.  In 1931, freelance writer James Truslow Adams described it as such:

But there has been also the American dream, that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to his ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position... The American dream, that has lured tens of millions of all nations to our shores in the past century has not been a dream of merely material plenty, though that has doubtlessly counted heavily. It has been much more than that. It has been a dream of being able to grow to fullest development as man and woman, unhampered by the barriers which had slowly been erected in the older civilizations, unrepressed by social orders which had developed for the benefit of classes rather than for the simple human being of any and every class.

That sounds like a pretty great dream, and certainly something worth believing in.  But, as often happens with a free market economy, the striation of the classes has become more and more drastic.  Capitalism is innately a classist system; there are those who rise to the top, those who do the work to get them there, and those who get left behind.  However, due to that ever increasing striation the "American dream" has created a negative side effect, what social psychologists call correspondence bias.  Plainly put, we have a tendency to recognize our own misfortune as a matter of circumstance while asserting that others’ misfortune is a manifestation of their poor character.   This isn't something that we actively do; it is not a conscious thought, but more something that we have been subconsciously conditioned to believe and unfortunately it permeates every level of society.

I am not saying that there are not cases in which people are living in self-induced poverty, but to blanketly believe that poverty is due to a lack ability or achievement is a faulty generalization.  As of 2016, roughly 40 million Americans were considered to be living in poverty (poverty defined as a single person making less than $16k annually, or a family of four less than $25K annually).  Roughly 15 million children living in the US are living under the poverty line, and of that 15 million, 2.5 million are homeless.  Roughly 21 million of those living below the poverty line are "deeply impoverished", making less than 50% of the poverty threshold, and 95 million Americans make less than twice the poverty threshold, placing them in the category of "near poverty".  That means that almost one third of Americans are considered to be living "near poverty" or lower.  Literally 130 million Americans are a major illness, a messy divorce, or a corporate downsizing away from living on the street.

So let's get back to Massie's comment.  The interesting thing is that food stamps, or as they are now known, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP for short), have been one of the most successful federal assistance programs to date.  While the traditional perception is that the majority of federal assistance recipients are just sitting around waiting for handouts, the numbers for SNAP tell a different tale.

While the work rate for SNAP households is only 30% all together, consider the fact that that overall number includes the elderly and disabled.  Of SNAP households with children to support and at least 1 non-elderly, non-disabled adult, the work rate is around 60%.  Roughly two thirds of all SNAP recipients are either elderly, disabled or children (who alone account for 44% of the program).  Of all federal assistance programs, SNAP also boasts one of the lower abuse rates at 6.3%, half of which is due to clerical error and not intentional misuse.

Furthermore, Representative Massie doesn't fall in line with the actual national stated stance on the Right to Food.  Despite voting no in the March 2017 United Nations Council on Human Right’s vote over a Global Right to Food, the US Mission to Geneva stated:

"The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation."

As per usual, the US as a country holds itself to the loftiest of ambitions, as long as no one is forcing us to do it...

So is #FoodStampsForAll the answer?  No.  Despite the hyperbole of Massie's assertion, he isn't wrong.  The path to ending hunger in the US is far more complex than can be summed up in 140 characters.  But within his statement lies the troubling truth.  Though he represents a state that ranks 47th in overall poverty rate (18.5%) and 46th in food insecurity (17.3%), he believes he has more important things to do in Washington than to insure that 1 out of every 6 of his constituents have something to eat. 

I don't have the room here to properly go through a solid plan to combat starvation in the US but below is a link to a 2015 report from the Food Research & Action Center that lays out a good starting framework.

http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/plan-to-end-hunger-in-america.pdf

[ablearcher5983]

Do You Feel Oppressed?  Would You Like To?

One of the most ubiquitous thought patterns throughout the 20th and 21st centuries is that of the Postmodern ideology. Eschewing the individuality, reason, and search for universal truths that came out of the Enlightenment, Postmodernism theorizes that empirical knowledge is impossible and only subjective truths can be relevant. Relying on skepticism, pragmatism and a rejection of meta-narratives and ideologies, the Postmodern critique states that the only meaning that can be found is derived from how something relates to the subject, and as such all of life's experiences are innately conflictual. Essentially everything you hear, everything you read, every interaction you have with another (when looked at through the Postmodern lens) is a complicated battle for supremacy. Replacing reality with subjective socio-linguistic constructs they divide everything by vectors according to race, sex, class, identity, wealth, etc. Language has no meaning beyond its use socially to attain power within these bounds. 

A simple example within the bounds of literary critique: The great American novel Moby Dick has long been seen as a sweeping allegory for the destructive nature of revenge and obsession. While that might have been what Melville had meant it to be, in reading it I might take it as an allegory for the supremacy of patriarchal Caucasian hierarchy. The crew of the Pequod, diverse and dogged, is ultimately destroyed while in pursuit of their “piece of the pie” by a powerful and unstoppable (white) force of nature. It's "obviously" a story of race relations throughout Euro-centric parts of the western world. Sounds a little silly doesn't it? While it is doubtful that this was what Melville intended for his epic tale, Postmodernism criticism allows for such an interpretation.

This is a novel exercise when critiquing literature, art, or music. The problem is that Postmodern ideological values have seeped into every facet of our current existence, and that poses a dangerous problem. You see, the Postmodern critique in rejecting the possibility of any truth, outside of personal truth, relies more on feelings than facts.

You might ask what this has to do with oppression? Well, everything...

Oppression is a serious concern in this day and age. From the despotic dictatorships of Sub-Saharan Africa to cultural suppression in North Korea, or religious persecution in China oppression is alive and well around the world. But surely we don't have any of these problems in America. If you turn on cable news or browse Twitter and Facebook it sure seems like we do. But still, the question remains; In one of the freest and most affluent countries in the world do we suffer great swathes of oppression?

Before we can answer that question we have to know what we mean when we talk about oppression. Merriam-Webster defines oppression as “The unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power.”  Now that’s all well and good but it’s a little vague. According to Iris Marion Young, a political theorist and former professor at the University of Chicago, there are 5 faces of oppression: Violence, Marginalization, Powerlessness, Cultural Imperialism, and Exploitation. Seeing as how Prof. Young’s work is one of the cornerstones of the Left "Identity Politics" movement let's unpack each of these and see what effect they are having on our culture today.

Violence has long been associated with oppression, they go hand in hand.  Be it the race riots of the ’60s, the War on Drugs in the ’70s and ’80s, or the various "hate crimes" of the ’90s, the last century has been marked by powerful groups use physical force to claim dominance over the “Other”. Today, with the assertion of the Black Lives Matter campaign, and fear within the LGBTQ community of violent reprisals, it looks like the next 100 years won’t be much different. Data collected by the Washington Post asserts that far more African Americans are killed by police than should be based on the percentage of the population that they account for.

The problem is that this is bad math. You see, the WaPo data contrasts shooting statistics with general population census data, but when was the last time you saw a lawyer or investment banker involved in a police shooting. The majority of fatal police shootings involve members from what is perceived as the lower class, and if we look at a racial breakdown of citizens in the bottom 20% of the household income we get a better picture of what is going on.  

African Americans account for roughly 22% of what we would define as the lower class in this instance (20th percentile and below in household income) and that falls more in line with the WaPo statistic. 

So if there isn’t an excessive variance between police shootings, racially speaking, then why do we think there is?

One of the biggest reasons is that today's media is tailored to its viewers, and is immediate in its delivery. The minute that a shooting happens it is gift-wrapped and delivered to the people who will be most appalled by it. I’m not saying tragedies don’t occur. The families of Michael Brown, Samuel DeBose, and Daniel Shaver can attest to that. Far too many people are stolen from us due to law enforcement mistakes and misuse of lethal force every year than need to be, but the numbers show that while we might perceive that there is systemic racial violence employed by those in power it isn’t necessarily true. The simple fact is that across the board excessive force is being misused by many state and local police forces (but I plan to talk about that at a later date).

Likewise, recent estimates state that there are roughly 1 million Trans identifying citizens living in the US. In 2017, 29 citizens that identify as Trans were murdered with their gender identity believed to be an inciting factor. Now while percentages are a little bit harder to quantify because we don’t know how many Trans identifying citizens are living secretly in the community, the percentage of per capita homicides is in line with (or lower) the normal murder rate in the US. While there may be fear within the community of violence directed at them for their differences they are no more likely than any other citizen of being murdered. Once again, the media is one of the biggest perpetrators of this fear.

Marginalization and Powerlessness kind of go together hand in hand. Prof. Young defines Marginalization as the act of relegating or confining a group to a lower social standing or the outer edge of society. Working with that is Powerlessness, the feeling that not being one of the "haves", being relegated to the fringe, one has an inhibition to develop one's capacities. The powerless feel they have no ability to make a difference, and they feel exposed to disrespectful treatment due to their lowered status. Often this leads to self-censorship or self-oppression due to fear of reprisal or belief that they might be naturally inferior.

While I would never deign to speak for the LGBTQ community or any other minority community for that matter, I have felt this if even in the slightest of ways. 

In other posts, I have talked about my struggle with mental illness. Mental illness is still very misunderstood in the world we live in today. From people believing the cure is to just be positive and choose happiness to those who believe all sufferers are dangerous and unstable, those suffering from mental illness are often at best considered the punchline to a joke and at worst a group of pretenders. For years I hid my struggle from family, friends, and coworkers for fear of what they might think. I was considered a screw-up, someone who was wasting his potential because I didn't or couldn't communicate the inner struggle I dealt with every day. It wasn't my fault. I was subject to altered brain chemistry, but the world around me didn't know that and I didn't know how to tell them. 

As I said, I would never compare myself with others who feel marginalized and powerless, but if we want to eliminate these kinds of hidden societal oppressors we have to start talking. Admitting to fear, standing up and being counted, educating people, and accepting "Others" for the incredible individuals they are and not the label society has put on them is the only way we can grow and help reduce these feelings. It's not a fix, but it's a start... And once we start learning about each other and the struggles we are each facing, we can continue to foster this incredible cultural melting pot that America has become.

Cultural Imperialism falls next in line and it involves the values and beliefs of the "ruling class" being established as the norm. Much like the last two, this can only be solved through time and conversation. Society innately follows the majority, and the only true way to influence a majority is through changing their hearts and minds. Gandhi didn't stage a coup to eliminate imperial control of his country, but through words and peaceful actions he helped to gain independence. 

It was the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and not the violent rhetoric of the Black Panthers, that helped America wake up to the realities of continued racism. We need brave, gentle, thoughtful leaders willing to stand up and say that the way it has been can no longer be the way it is. We have to find a way forward together, or else the divide between us will become insurmountable.

Now you might ask why I felt the need to outline Postmodern dogma at the beginning of this article. And that is an astute question. Due to the influence of Marxism on the formation of Postmodern belief, everything Postmodernism critiques get sorted into one of two categories: The one exercising its power and the one upon who the power is being exercised. The "Haves" and the "Have Nots". The oppressor and the oppressed.

We see this on the news, we see it on the internet, we see it in the paper. People marching, violence breaking out, people aiming vitriol at their oppressors. The natural human condition is to yearn for freedom, and when the soul does not feel free it will fight tooth and nail to be so. The problem is that in the case of Marginalization, Powerlessness, and Cultural Imperialism (the 3 most evident forms of oppression in the US) the oppressor has no face. You can say it's the upper class, but aside from a few instances most of them are people who have worked to get where they are or traded upon their innate skills. You can say it's the patriarchy, but once again aside from a minority of corrupt individuals most of them are just trying to live their lives the best they can. While the Far Left has been very eager to latch on to Prof. Young's delineation of oppression and adapt it to their needs, they also have a habit of picking and choosing what works for them and forgetting the rest. In the same scholarly work where she defines the types of oppression Prof. Young also says:

"New left social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, however, shifted the meaning of the concept of oppression. In its new usage oppression designates the disadvantage and injustice some people suffer not because a tyrannical power coerces them, but because of the everyday practices of a well-intentioned liberal society. In this new left usage, the tyranny of a ruling group over another as in South Africa, must certainly be called oppressive.

 But oppression also refers to systemic constraints on groups that are not necessarily the result of the intentions of a tyrant. Oppression in this sense is structural, rather than the result of a few people’s choices or policies. Its causes are embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutional rules and the collective consequences of following those rules. It names, as Marilyn Frye puts it, “an enclosing structure of forces and barriers which tends to the immobilization and reduction of a group or category of people” (Frye,1983a, p. 11). 

In this extended structural sense oppression refers to the vast and deep injustices some groups suffer as a consequence of often unconscious assumptions and reactions of well-meaning people in ordinary interactions, media and cultural stereotypes, and structural features of bureaucratic hierarchies and market mechanisms—in short the normal processes of everyday life. We cannot eliminate this structural oppression by getting rid of the rulers or making some new laws, because oppressions are systematically reproduced in major economic, political, and cultural institutions. The systemic character of oppression implies that an oppressed group need not have a correlate oppressing group. 

While structural oppression involves relations among groups, these relations do not always fit the paradigm of conscious and intentional oppression of one group by another. Foucault (1977) suggests that to understand the meaning and operation of power in modern society we must look beyond the model of power as “sovereignty,” a dyadic relation of ruler and subject, and instead analyze the exercise of power as the effect of often liberal and “humane” practices of education, bureaucratic administration, production, and distribution of consumer goods, medicine, and so on. The conscious actions of many individuals daily contribute to maintaining and reproducing oppression, but those people are usually simply doing their jobs or living their lives, and do not understand themselves as agents of oppression."

That leads us to the last of our five types of oppression, the one that is most important to this discussion. Exploitation was once relegated to sweatshops and plantations, but in recent years it has taken a much more insidious form. The "Identity Politics" movement has searched far and wide for anyone with even an inkling of feelings of societal oppression and pointed them like a weapon at their perceived enemies. In humanities programs at colleges across the nation, they've taught this Postmodern theology that if you aren't on top then it is the fault of some tyrannical force. They've taken complex individuals, people yearning to feel free, and boiled them down to one facet of their existence. They've split apart society into little controllable groups based on race, sex, class, identity, and wealth... And fed them the lie that the one thing that makes them "different" from others is what those in power are using to keep them down.  

They've started segregating the population again... And sadly they are exploiting those feelings of oppression to gain political capital. Whereas once liberalism stood for equality and egalitarianism, now it is divisive and using the people it claims to support. 

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his seminal "I Have a Dream" speech said 

"I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood..."

And...

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together..."

For that dream to become a reality we cannot continue to divide ourselves endlessly. You may be a black man or woman, but there is so much more to who you are than just that. You may identify as Trans, but does that completely define who you are? You may be gay or lesbian, but who you choose to love only gives me the merest glimpse of you. I may suffer from bipolar depression, but that does not mean I don't have the same hopes, dreams, and aspirations as everyone else.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't take pride in who we are, or where we come from, or who we love. But we are far too complex to be fully defined by a single word or idea. 

Unfortunately, that is what Identity Politics strives to do, break us down into easily manageable groups for use in the fight against oppression, all the while setting the cause of equality back further than any tyrant ever could by making you a caricature of your true self. They do this with the Right as well. They make them out to be the scary, maniacal fascists coming to lock you away, or worse. While there are some genuinely scary people on the Right, there are just as many on the Left. The problem is the ones on the Left are the ones promising to help you. This sets up a false dichotomy where there are only two possible ways forward: Ours and Theirs.

If we are going to find a better way forward we have to stop pointing fingers and start listening. We have to stop looking at labels (even self-imposed ones) and start seeing the individuals that we share this country with for who they are, for the content of their character. We have to put away our pride and start talking honestly about what we could do better, and who among us needs our help, or else we will continue to devolve into the ontological schisms that we are currently plagued by. 

They say the first step to fixing a problem is admitting that there is one... You may be oppressed, but have you asked yourself who is really doing the oppressing and why?

[ablearcher5983]

Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men.

John Stuart Mill

[ablearcher5983]

Does America Have A Gun Problem: A Way Forward

Earlier this week I talked about what I saw as being some of the flaws with conservative gun rights rhetoric, and some of the reasons I believe we have the need for a stronger national gun control stance. One thing I didn't talk about was criticism of the liberal argument for gun control.

While the arguments of the far left (that we should just abolish firearms and prohibit firearm ownership) sound nice, they are not in any way practical. Any time that we as a nation have sought to prohibit anything believed to be a danger to society, the act of prohibition has created more pain and suffering than the item in question. Prohibition creates artificial scarcity, economically speaking, causing the supply of such things to be extremely lucrative and creating a hyper aggressive market.

Whether it be the 18th Amendment or the War on Drugs of the last fifty years, we've seen time and again that prohibition brings increased crime, pain and destruction in its wake.  If you want to see an interesting microcosm of this, go to any store that is having some kind of Blowout Sale for Black Friday.  You have the super capitalists who are finding ways to circumvent purchasing limitations so they can gouge the desperate ones who weren't at the front of the line.  You see people resorting to violence to take what they think they need from others.  In the middle of it all are the proprietors attempting to keep the peace and failing miserably.  It's ugly, it's inhumane, it's the darker side of capitalism.  It's also a simplistic example of how and why Black Markets form when prohibition is employed. 

The interesting thing is that the far left and far right stances on guns are more similar than either would ever admit to.  On one side you have those that believe that if one person cannot be trusted with a gun then no one should be allowed to have one.  On the other extreme there is the belief that if one persons rights are infringed upon than we have acted unconstitutionally and opened the door for further transgressions.  That is the problem with absolutism.  When both sides are unwilling to budge from their ivory tower of moral superiority, whether its safeguarding lives or safeguarding liberty, then the argument never ends. 

There is another argument that I often hear against the liberal stance, and within it I think we can find a way forward.  A common refutation of the gun prohibition is that cars and car accidents kill roughly 40,000 Americans each year.  That's a little under 10k more a year than firearm deaths (if we go by the 2017 numbers I quoted last time).  The question posed is why have we not banned cars, or forced everyone to submit to using public transportation or bikes.  It may sound silly, but if cars kill more people a year than guns, then why haven't we banned cars?  

Well the simple answer is we need them...  

They are a tool we use to make our lives better and easier.  Besides, it's not the car that causes an accident, it's the driver.  Cars don't kill people, bad drivers do...  Sound familiar?

I can hear you now thinking, "But we don't have a God-given right to drive a car enumerated in the Constitution like we do with firearms..."  And to a certain extent you would be right, mainly because cars didn't exist in the late 1700's.  But had you asked the framers if you had a right to buy and use a horse; and if so, why they weren't putting that right in the Bill of Rights, you would probably have drawn some funny looks.  That's because it was something that was an assumed right.  If you were of sound mind and body, had the money to purchase one and the training to ride it then there would be no reason why you couldn't.  To a certain extent that is why they added the 9th Amendment which states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Plainly said, just because they only wrote down these few rights doesn't mean that you can be denied other fundamental rights (they just didn't feel like writing them all down). 

As cars became more ubiquitous it became understood that despite having amazing potential to make lives better they also had serious destructive potential.  Cars are fast, they are fun, in some cases they are beautiful but when they are misused they can become tragic implements of death and damage.  Understanding that, we have implemented safety laws pertaining to their use, we have put regulations on manufacturers to ensure they are made to a standard of quality and safety, and we have setup a system for ensuring that people with obvious impairments that would keep them from safely operating cars are not legally allowed behind the wheel.  So let's look at what treating gun ownership in the same terms we do cars would look like.

Before you can legally drive a car you are required to obtain a license.  To obtain one you have to (in most states) take part in training classes to teach you the proper use and safety surrounding a vehicle.  After that you take both a written and practical test to demonstrate your knowledge and capability.  You are also tested on your visual and auditory capability as such impairment would render you a dangerous operator.  Make it through all that, pay a fee and congratulations you're a driver and are licensed as such with all the implied benefits and responsibilities.  Now all of these steps work with a firearm based analogue.  The only difference is you replace the hearing and vision tests with a background check and drug test.  Now many gun rights advocates see licensing as a stricture and a way to control who can and can't have firearms, but what it truly is a validation of their rights. This actually will make lives easier for law abiding firearm owners because they no longer have to wait on background checks and are able to purchase and operate in all 50 states without any hassle as just like with the drivers licenses.  Imagine, you are on vacation in Colorado from your home in Boston.  You see a unique hand gun in a shop that you want to purchase.  No longer would you have to worry about having it shipped to a dealer in your home state, worry about waiting on a background check, or transporting it across state lines.  As long as your license is current and you follow transportation rules you are set.

Now I expect to receive more push back on the drug test.  After all if the 2nd Amendment says the government won't infringe on the right then disqualifying people based on illegal or prescription drug use is unconstitutional, isn't it?  In Justice Scalia's majority opinion on DC vs Heller ( the SC case that affirmed the personal rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment) he stated:

 “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

While background checks and drug tests for illegal drugs would help weed out felons and those already breaking the law, of more import is testing for prescription drugs.  I have no desire to withhold rights from those under treatment for mental illness.  But keep in mind that 22k or 2/3 of gun deaths each year are due to suicide and mental illness plays large part in that.  Even if you are in treatment you are still at risk.  In this case a positive test for certain pharmaceuticals (anti-psychotics, mood stabilizers, etc...) would put you into a probationary group and to receive your license you would have to bring a signed affidavit from a licensed mental health professional certifying that you are of sound mind and according to them capable of responsibly exercising your rights responsibly and without hindrance. 

Personally, I would like to see an in-house psychological test for anyone attempting to procure a firearm license, akin to the one applicants to become police officers take.  This would let a mental health professional asses mental stability and violent tendencies in the applicant and ensure they are not a risk to themselves or others.  But we are trying to come up with a solution that makes both sides, if not happy, at least content.  So we'll call that a personal pipe dream of mine.

Critics of this type of proposal often question where we would get the money for this type of venture.  There are many good ideas, but here is one of my favorites (mostly because I came up with it).  There are many agencies within the federal government that do not live up to their established purpose.  The TSA is one for which there is much debate.  Created to establish and enforce airline security standards and prevent terrorism they have become little more than a propaganda group for the domestic airlines.  Though there have been no major acts of foreign terrorism on domestic soil since 9/11 there is no causal link to make one believe that it is in result of their efforts.  At best they make people feel safer about one of the safest forms of travel known to man, at worst they are an example of bureaucratic bloat and a hindrance to easy travel.  Now, I do not want to completely defund them, but their proposed budget for 2019 is 7.7 billion dollars.  Let's say we go to the 23 domestic airlines (whose combined net profit in 2017 was $15.5 billion) and say that we are cutting the TSA's budget in half.  We give them 2 options: the TSA gets cut back to work under their new operating budget by pulling them out of regional and small market airports, or the domestic airlines take a portion of their yearly net profit (divided among them based off each ones share of the market) and they help to keep it fully funded as is.  Either way we reduce the burden of a questionable agency on tax payers and put the money to better use.

That gives us roughly 3.85 billion dollars to work with.  While the federal government would be in charge of setting the minimum expectations that needs to be met, just like with licensing of drivers, it would be up to the states to establish, staff and regulate the bureaus.  Let's do some quick and dirty math.  There are 3142 counties in the US.  3.85 billion divided by 3142 is roughly 1.2 million, if each county in each state is given 1 million dollars to get things running and the excess is given to each state to establish regulating bodies for the licensing bureaus then it seems like a feasible premise.  Aside from creating jobs for clerks and paper pushers we will need people that are knowledgeable about safety and proper use of firearms.  This is the beautiful part.  Despite being at an all time low, there are still roughly 450,000 unemployed veterans in the US that have the knowledge and training to fill these positions.  We can let them continue to serve their country and work to make it safer, while giving them a fair wage in the process.  To me that sounds like a steal at twice the price.

Licensing is only the first part though, because it validates the rights of law abiding citizens.  To help safe guard the populace and fight back against the black markets we would need to pair it with the registration of fire arms.  We will get into why this is a sticking point for many gun rights activists in a bit, but first lets talk about the benefits.  Most importantly, it helps to protect first responders.  By setting up a digital registry of firearm owners and their assorted firearms, and linking it to DMV information it allows police and EMT's to know what they are possibly walking into when they respond to a call and if any special precautions need to be taken.  Secondly, firearm registration helps to fight crime.  Not only do these databases expedite the tracing of guns used in crimes, it also cuts down on the ability of gun runners to take part in "Straw Purchasing".  By pairing registration with making it a Class D federal felony (no less than 5 but no more than 10 year sentence) for a registered firearm owner whose gun is used in a violent crime, you can help to eliminate the black market practice of paying people with no criminal record to purchase guns for them helping to limit the avenues for firearms to end up on the streets.  Lastly, it helps to enforce responsibility within the firearm community.  While the Navy Shipyard and MS Douglas shooters were able to purchase firearms legally, there are instances like the Columbine or Sandy Hook shootings where the assailants were able to get guns from family and friends that were not properly secured.  By enforcing the Class D felony, you are taking you rights in your own hands.  You have the choice to properly and safely secure your firearms or risk prison and the removal of your right to bear arms by becoming a felon.  Of course this doesn't apply to those who report missing or stole firearms to local authorities in a timely manner, but if you desire the right and responsibility to literally hold the power over life and death in your hands, this is a small price to pay.

Critics of registration often say that all it does is build a list of primary targets if the government ever becomes tyrannical or unjust.  So lets unpack that idea.  In this country we have romantic notions around the idea of armed rebellion.  After all, we are one of the few nation states that was able to pry our liberty from the jaws of tyranny in open and armed revolt.  But when you think about it critically, the British were fighting a war half way around the world.  They were waging conventional war against those who knew the terrain better and were using to guerrilla tactics to get the upper hand.  They were fighting against those with an ideology that they were so committed to that death was the only suitable alternative to victory. 

The British were fighting Vietnam almost 200 years before it started...

Hyperbolic?  Maybe, but the similarities are uncanny.  Now lets look at what a modern insurrection would look like.  Whether they took your guns or not, you would be facing a more advanced, and better trained army that has spent years being bolstered by your tax dollars.  You would be fighting with hand guns and semi automatic rifles against the greatest war machine to ever exist, in the seat of its power no less.  This wouldn't be like the Civil War where both sides are evenly matched.  It would be an asymmetrical massacre... a romantic massacre, but a massacre not the less.  That being said, there is a way to validate those concerns and ensure the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms for as long as this country stays free and just.  But you aren't going to like it.

We need to amend the 2nd Amendment....  I told you that you wouldn't like it.  For far too long the argument for gun rights vs gun control has been steeped in ambiguity.  What did the Founders say?  What did they mean?  I propose that we end the guessing game and bring the understanding of these rights into the 21st Century.  There's no harm in admitting that the Constitution, though it is beautiful, is also flawed.  And despite the desire for some to claim that it is not a living document there are precedents.  The 14th Amendment abolished the 3/5ths Compromise clause of the Constitution and entitled all citizens, regardless of race, to their fundamental rights.  The 23rd Amendment abolished the prohibitions against alcohol that the 18th established. 

I don't desire to abolish the 2nd Amendment, it is a part of our history and I feel it's historically important to preserve the Bill of Rights.  Here is how it currently 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."

Here is what I propose as a 28th Amendment:

" The right to keep and bear arms is fundamentally endowed to all citizens being of sound mind and body, and shall not be infringed upon without due process of the law"

It removes the ambiguity of the militia clause, and it falls in line with Scalia's opinion on Heller concerning prohibition with felons and those suffering with mental illness.  Granted this is just a first pass and I am not a constitutional lawyer, but its a starting point.  Unfortunately, it also is probably the least likely of my three proposals to ever happen.

Now if I had my druthers we'd take things even further: Raise the age for purchasing and possession to 21 without parental supervision, ban the sale of modifications that give semi-automatics full or near full automatic capability (bump stocks, crank triggers, etc...), and revisit the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban but like I said the two sides need to reach an accord.  We can't hold so tightly to our desires and causes when they prevent us from making positive movement forward, because while we argue people are dying...

I also admit that while these ideas validate our rights and could help to reduce possible gun violence, we will never fully be able to keep madmen from carrying out acts of tragic insanity.  Where there is a will, there is a way... and one of the strongest things in the universe is mans will toward acts of savagery.

But if these ideas could keep a gun out of the hand of one man desperately looking for a way out, if they could cause one parent to keep better track and tighter security of their firearms, if they could deter one unhinged man from an act of violence...

If they could save one life...  Wouldn't it be worth it?

Maybe that's hyperbolic, maybe it's over dramatic, maybe it's quixotic.  But I can't help but feel like maybe it's worth it...

[ablearcher5983]

Couldn't help but think of this song after the events of the weekend. To the people of Pittsburgh, you are not alone... We are here by your side...

[ablearcher5983]

Does America Have A Gun Problem: Yes and No...

One of the most divisive topics that has faced the US in recent years is that of Gun Control. 

Originally I was going to work my way up to this topic, but recent events have spurred me to move it to the front of the list.  Before we get into statistics and facts though, let me make one admission:

I like guns.

I know that is a odd stance for someone that considers themselves a liberal and desires a stronger national stance on gun control. I admit I enjoy going to the range (though I haven't been in many years).  There is something exciting about the mechanics of a gun; the weight of it in your hand, squeezing off a tight grouping at a paper target, and the smell of spent ammunition in the air.  Guns are fun.  I personally do not own any guns (and I will get into why later), but I cannot deny that they are fascinating machines, and in the hands of trained and responsible people they are of little to no danger to the public at large.

Though it might not seem like it when you turn on the news, we are living in one of the most peaceful moments in history. In 2017 (according to the FBI's Unified Crime Reporting) we had roughly 15,000 homicides; 10,982 of which were perpetrated by a firearm, which is one of the lowest numbers since the mid-90's (over 18k in '93).  Of the roughly 3 million US burglaries that happened in 2017, only 90 people were killed and of that only 61 of those murders were carried out with a firearm.  The places in which our military forces are engaged resemble less the wars of yesteryear (WWII, Korea, Vietnam), and unbelievably death toll due to war is declining at a rapid pace around the world.  And there are more people living in free societies around the world than ever before.

Yet in a time of 24 hour news cycles and social media, we are inundated with story after story of violence perpetrated by armed assailants.  That being said, I don't want to belittle or downplay the impact of these acts.  Whether it be the Las Vegas Massacre, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas school shooting, or even the recent Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting, tragedies of gun violence happen every day.  We cannot stop deeply disturbed individuals from committing heinous acts of violence like what we have seen in the last few years, but if we don't at least attempt to curtail them then are we not complicit in them?  We must try to do something, because so far thoughts and prayers have had little effect...

Yet a major part of the Right's firearms rhetoric is the need for personal protection (both from the criminal element and the machinations of an unjust government).  While gun violence still occurs everyday, every year in this country, one cannot help but wonder if the fear of it is amplified by the efforts of the mainstream media, for the numbers say we are safer on the whole today than we were yesterday.

The other main stance of the Right’s gun rights platform is that the personal ownership of firearms is an intrinsic and innate part of our history and our national fiber.  The 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights gives us that fundamental right which cannot and should not be infringed upon.

I hesitate to invoke his name, but newly minted Justice of the Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion while on the US Court of Appeals calling for gun laws to be weighed based on “text, history, and tradition”.  So lets look at the text, history, and tradition of the 2nd Amendment and see what we can find.

Some of the Founding Fathers did not want a Bill of Rights to begin with.  It was a gambit they employed to gain more state support for ratification of the Constitution.  Many states feared that the Constitution gave the government excessive power, and having just thrown off the shackles of an oppressive monarchy they had no desire to sign up with another such entity.  The main reason the Founders disliked the idea of enumerating individual rights was the possibility that they would be held as more fundamental than others (hence why they included 9th Amendment).  The Bill of Rights was a compromise, a concession to curry favor.  That being said, it is an important part of our history and has helped to shape the society we now live in. 

So lets take a look at the 2nd Amendment within the view of, as Justice Kavanaugh put it, “text, history and tradition."  The text is rather simple…

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That’s pretty self explanatory.  The problem is that isn’t all the text says.  The full text is:

"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.”

To understand the full text you have to understand the Founding Fathers’ view of the world they lived in.  One of their insistences was that the US not have a standing army when not in wartime.  As such, when the Revolutionary war ended the Continental Army disbanded and the keeping of the peace was relegated to volunteer militias.

James Madison told the Constitutional Convention in 1787:  “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty.  The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

Washington said “When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.” And from Jefferson: “Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.” They feared the tyranny that could be wrought with a standing army, and none of them conceived of a local or state police force that would be able to protect the populace.  So they created the 2nd Amendment to provide for the protection of the free state by such militias.  The idea was that when the nation was in need the militias would rise up to defend freedom, under the tradition of Cincinnatus the famed warrior farmer and would disband when the job was done.

We live in a very different time now.  With a standing army, and both state and local police forces it cannot be said that the full text of the 2nd Amendment applies.  Freedom is defended aptly by the brave men and women in those bodies, and the text (when looked at within a historical light) is an artifact of a bygone era, much like the 3rd Amendment which defended against the quartering of soldiers in private residences.  For much of the history of this country that was how the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment.  For years the "collective rights" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was upheld; whether it was U.S. v. Cruikshank in 1876, Miller v. Texas in 1894, or  U.S. v. Miller in 1939, the Supreme Court reinforced the assertion that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to personal ownership.

Text... History... Tradition...

In 1977 a coup d'état happened within the National Rifle Association that turned it from a sportsman's club to more of a political organization.  Due to their efforts, in 1982 a report was authored, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms”, whose authors claimed to have found clear and long lost proof for the individual gun rights interpretation of the amendment.  Conservative Justice Warren Burger remarked that this new interpretation of the amendment was  “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

It wasn't until 2008, in DC vs Heller that the Supreme Court first ruled in favor of a personal gun rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment despite what the text says, what the historical context implied, and what 200 plus years of tradition had upheld.

While I've laid out the issues I have with two of the main conservative arguments for gun rights, and I believe that we have the ability to avoid at least some of the tragic violence we see around us, I have another reason for believing we need to reform our gun laws.

Above I said that I do not own a firearm.  That is due to the very personal reason that I have for believing in the need for gun control.  We talked earlier about the roughly 11k firearm homicides that happened in 2017.  Would it surprise you to know that firearm suicides accounted for nearly 22k deaths last year?  Let that sink in for a minute.  Almost two thirds of gun deaths in the US are suicides.

Firearm suicides account for a little over half of all the suicides that happen in the US.  One of the reasons is due to the firearm’s efficacy at the task.  Over 85% of firearm suicide attempts are successful, as opposed to much lower numbers with many more traditional methods.  Suicide is an impulsive act, and an easily accessible firearm allows for immediate gratification of that impulse. 

Now you might ask, “If freedom and liberty do not protect the right of self determination, then can we really say we are free?”  The problem is, other than rare exceptions, suicide is not a freely made choice.  It is not only subject to the unbalanced brain chemistry that causes abnormal behavior and impaired decision making, but years of negative reinforcement caused by the damaging and repetitive cycles self doubt and self destruction.  

I know this not only because I have done extensive research on the topic, but also because I am the survivor of two suicide attempts.  For most of my life I have struggled with bipolar depression, and for much of my adult life it went undiagnosed.  All I knew was that despite all of the things that I could list that were positives in my life, the irrational pull of my own despair was such that all I wanted was for it to end it.  I failed, twice, and was able to make it though, learn about my condition and how to combat it (pharmaceutically and otherwise). 

Over 40,000 Americans a year are not so lucky. 

Mental illness is an insidious thing, and our understanding of it is tenuous at best.  Looking back I have come to believe that had my parents kept a firearm in the house, I probably would have become a part of that statistic, leaving behind a closed casket, and a family plagued with questions.  That is why I do not own a gun, despite my enjoyment of them.  I take medication every day.  I've been trained to limit the influences in my life that incite the swings attributed to bipolar depression.  I have a wife that I love and two children that I adore, I have many reasons to live. But I am far from cured. I live with it every day, and I am always a few bad decisions away from being under the influence of that despair again.  As of yet, like with most mental illness, there is no cure...  

One of the through lines associated with the not only the personal tragedies that steal 40k Americans from us every year but also the public tragedies like that of the Vegas and MS Douglas shootings is that of our inability to help those in our community suffering from mental illness.  Unfortunately, in this day and age it is more profitable to treat an illness than try to find a cure for it.  While our initial stabs in the dark at fighting these insidious diseases have helped millions (like myself), in some cases the treatment can worsen the problem.  We have not done our due diligence when the treatment has the possibility of causing increased homicidal and suicidal tendencies.  

We can do better...  We must do better... 

But before we can do that, we have to make it a national priority.  Until we have Representatives and Executives brave enough to throw the full weight and support of the government behind committing to compassionate and ubiquitous care for this increasing problem (statistics say that almost 20% of Americans suffer some form of mental illness), we will continue to suffer the tragedies we have thus far endured.  

Until the mental health epidemic in our country is addressed  we might not be able to have a meaningful debate about gun violence, for it is one of the most central root causes to the problem.

So does America have a gun problem?  Maybe...  Maybe not...

But at the moment the guns aren’t helping the problem...

Later this week I will lay out what I think are some logical ways to try and limit the incidences of gun violence, while still allowing those in this country who desire to own a firearm the ability to. 

[ablearcher5983]

Who am I, and why does it matter?

My name doesn't really matter...

It's David in case you were wondering, but at the end of the day, like I said it doesn't matter. The reason is that I am a lot like most of you reading this. A member of what is being called the "Exhausted Majority". But before we get to that, let me give you a little background.

I was raised in a religious and politically conservative midwestern family. Though I was the eldest son, I was third in the birth order of four children.

I was raised to believe in the sovereignty of God, the transformative power of Christ's love, and that living in the United States was the greatest privilege one could be given (all things that I still believe). I was taught that hard work was it's own reward, and that more powerful than a man's words were his actions.

Like most families, we endured good and bad times. We were neither extraordinary, nor were we unremarkable. We were very normal.

I graduated from high school the summer of 2001, and decided that college was not for me. In part it was due to hubris, believing that I could excel far beyond the what they could teach me on my own. But it also seemed like a losing proposition to me. I didnt understand why one would willingly endebt themselves so drastically for knowledge that could be found on the shelves of a library. Funny enough, there are times that I will lie to casual acquaintances when asked where I graduated from. I think partly it's out of shame, but also it's to head off the awkward conversation that arises when questioned why I know so many useless things. No one is perfect.

I currently work in the service industry, for an hourly paycheck. I am the husband of the most amazing woman in the world, and step-father of two incredible children. We fall firmly in the lower middle class, and most days we get by.

And I am a liberal.

Now before you shut me down or choose to ignore me (which is your right), let me tell you that my wife is a pretty hardline conservative. If she can love me, then it is possible that you could listen to me...

Now I tell you all this to give you context. I'm a pretty normal guy who lives a pretty normal American life. There was no inciting incident that sparked my liberalism. I have never been oppressed. I am not what one would call a Social Justice Warrior. And though you might guess that it's in rebellion to my conservative upbringing, it's not. I find value in much of what my parents believe, though we disagree on a great many things.

I am, as the title of the blog suggests, a liberal for all the wrong reasons...

I believe that we live I live in one of the greatest countries in the world. It's far from perfect but it is one of the most beautiful expressions of what ingenuity, liberty and diversity can create.

I also believe that if we do not continue to grow, build and push for positive change that we will go the same way that so many great countries have before us.

I believe in the primacy of the heart, and that if we guide our actions and decisions with compassion there are few things we cannot accomplish.

I believe that our societal hierarchies are important, but that they innately create suffering, and that it is the governments job to help reduce that suffering. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some pie in the sky idealist who is pushing for a utopian society where any hint of inequality has been snuffed out. I'm a pragmatist at heart, I understand that utopia is impossible, but it's something worth striving for.

Lastly, I believe that we are still a young nation. In the grand narrative, 200+ years is nothing. We still haven't become what we are meant to be, we're still growing.

As you can see, I am not your prototypical liberal...

Now why does any of this matter? Why have you followed me this far? Why do I think you should follow me a little further?

A recent study came out asserting that the extremes of American political belief account for roughly 35 percent of the electorate. The rest of the electorate falls into what they call the "Exhausted Majority". Now why this matters is that unfortunately traditional means of information aggregation (the news, the press, the internet) are controlled by those on the extremes, resulting in a 24 hour news cycle that is filled with vitriol rather than value.

I find myself to be a member of this exhausted majority, and I'm tired of the resounding din of the political echo chamber. I'm tired of being told that someone is evil, or my enemy, because we believe differently on issues...

We all want to live in a great country... We all want to take part in the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever seen... We all want to see our children have better than what we had...

We just all believe the path to that better tomorrow is paved differently.

So who am I, and why does it matter?

The truth is that I'm no one. Just like you...

To the talking heads, and political operatives in this country we are no one, just a stumbling block on the way to achieving their agenda. We are the Exhausted Majority...

But I say let's fix that. Let's start a conversation. Let's talk about what matters. Let's not devolve into the mire in which they live but let's instead raise the level of discourse. Because the thing that they fear most is an educated electorate...

Over the next few months, or years (I don't know how long) I'm going to talk about topics that we are facing together. I'll present the best argument I can from my perspective. Tell me I'm right, tell me I'm wrong...

But come with me and I believe we can find some answers together...