Gun Culture

A friend recently shared this post in relation to the Newtown shootings:
http://diegobasch.com/mass-shootings-political-correctness-and-magical-thinking

This article is an interesting read. In fact, it mirrors my own feelings circa 10 years ago or so. However, I have since come to understand government and society in a very different light – perhaps because I’ve now seen a longer chain of events play out in my life.

I would argue the first flaw in his thinking is that government needs to solve this problem, with the same binary outcome that you would fix a pipe. Drinking and driving is outlawed, and certainly doesn’t prevent 100% of such deaths.

Another point he makes is that you aren't very likely to be involved in a mass shooting, but that too is a straw man argument. You aren't likely to die in a plane crash either, but that doesn't remove the necessity of the FAA.

More importantly, I think he’s missing the social frustration that’s demanding action: the gun culture in the United States. For many people, this latest mass shooting is just a tipping point event arguing for changing the role that guns play in our society. I would argue that the casual nature that the government and society deal with firearms greatly contributes to gun violence. You can buy guns at Walmart, and you don’t need a license, even for semi-automatic assault weapons. I think most citizens would agree that we should treat gun ownership with at least the same degree of respect that we treat automobiles, and furthermore I think we can apply a few things from how you get your drivers license.

That leads me to suggesting the following courses of action:

1. Let’s set a federal minimum age for firing a gun. You can’t drive a car or even a boat at age 10 and frankly, by the time you are 15/16 I think it makes you gain more respect earning that right. 
2. Let’s require you pass a competency test to own and fire a firearm. We make you know how close to a fire hydrant you can park, shouldn't we also require you demonstrate basic firearm safety? 
3. If assault weapons are legal (they weren't for a decade, remember?) then let’s put another competency test special to them – to illustrate we as a society view them differently than “regular guns”. 
4. Let’s restrict sales of firearms to gun shops, and license them. Should it really be easier to buy a gun than it is to buy liquor? 

I’m not going to dive into the second amendment issues here, other than to say in my opinion these would not infringe on anyone’s reasonable access to firearms. Likely some of this would require a combination of federal and state by state legislation, possibly including ratification of the constitution.

All these changes would probably do next to nothing to fix gun violence in the immediate future. However, I’d argue that’s not the goal. The fact that we do none of these things tells our children we don’t take guns very seriously. Once the next generation of children has grown up with guns being treated at least as seriously as we treat cars, I believe the impact will be substantial. This is where government can and should play for the long arch of effecting a society and not look for a silver bullet legislative fix to this problem.


Did you enjoy reading this? If so, please share it.

Voting

If you have to wait in line more than 20 minutes to vote, your state has failed you.

A few states attempt to make the oversight of voting nonpartisan, but for the most part its at best bipartisan, with two factions duking it out to get the upper hand. And often if you have a republican governor, you will get pro republican changes, and vice-versa.

Voting *should* be a technocratic problem. Rather than making political appointments, states should appoint accountants, researches, and scientists to measure results and improve the process based on hard facts and science. If some of your counties have wait lines over 20 minutes, you are imposing a burden on voting that will cause some of the electorate to walk out of line, or not even show up. For those counties where you fail this basic promise of government, you should spend more time and money to improve access - more booths, more staffing, longer hours.. whatever works. Counties that fulfill this promise can be maintained or even have their funding reduced.

Hopefully the recent insanity in Florida, Ohio and similar states will bring more attention, and better solutions, to this obstruction. The first promise of democracy is the ability to vote and change what you don't like. When we fail that, we fundamentally fail as a country.

FEMA

I am struck by what a dichotomy we have recently seen in the FEMA handling of Katrina, vs. the current Hurricane Sandy, and how it directly reflects the appointment of FEMA director by the president.

George Bush appointed Michael Brown as FEMA director in 2003. His relevant experience was... nothing. He spent a decade as a commissioner for an international horse association, where he resigned after multiple lawsuits were filed against the organization. His close friend and Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh hired him as general counsel for FEMA in 2001. In 2003, Bush nominated him for FEMA director as what would certainly appear to be political cronyism. 

Contrast that with Obama's appointment of Craig Fugate. From '01 to '09 he was the director of Florida's division of Emergency Management, during which dozens of hurricanes hit the state, including 4 in just a 2 month period of 2004. He's been a volunteer firefighter, and is a trained paramedic. By all accounts, a near ideal candidate to oversee FEMA. 

And the results? Just look at the stark contrast of how FEMA has handled hurricane sandy compared to katrina. The difference is shocking, and illustrates just how effective government can be when given the proper top-down leadership.

Skills & experience matter, peoples lives are on the line. You wouldn't pick your military General based on if he's an [R] or [D] - you pick the best person for the job. The same is true for FEMA.

But then, why should it be any different for the Dept. of Energy, or Dept. of Education? This is the practical oversight of the day to day operation of our country, and we always want the smartest, most qualified person for the job. It should be apolitical. 

Should be.

Tobacco VS. Marijuana

A relative pointed out the potential irony that some people support making tobacco illegal while making marijuana legal. As someone in CO who voted for Prop 64 (which passed), but who also supports banning smoking in offices, restaurants, etc. I will explain my thinking.

Voting yes was not a given for me. Many highly visible people, including our last 2 governors, were vocally opposed, and I wont be running to the local dispensary to get high.

I generally think you should be able to do whatever you want in your own house, up until it starts negatively impacting other people. You can smoke tobacco, marijuana or crystal meth for all I care. If you drive under the influence, rob a liquor store, or expose children to drugs you are committing a crime we have laws to cover - the act of consumption does not need to be criminal.

Beyond this fundamental belief though, are the financial implications of the matter. Our state will collect an estimated $60M in taxes over just the first 5 years, much of which will be routed to education - where it is sorely needed. Add to that the stimulus of new industry, requiring both government and private sector jobs, while choking out the current underworld distribution through Mexico.

Which leads to my final and most important point. Our longest war is not Afghanistan, its our war on drugs. We spend over $15 Billion dollars a year on it, and it puts our law enforcement officials in harms way. Over 25% of the people in prison are there from drug related crimes. And for all that, are we winning? We need a different approach.

So no, I'm not a proponent for making tobacco illegal, but I don't want you smoking it (or anything) where I have to breath it. Over time, we need to try some different approaches to the war on drugs. Because doing the same thing again and again, expecting different results, is... insanity.

51 States and 8 Planets!?

There are some things you just take for granted. Maybe because you learned them in elementary school when your teacher knew *everything* and you didn't question it. There are 9 planets. There are 7 continents. There are 50 states.

Only, now there aren't. As you hopefully know, Pluto is no longer recognized as a planet. But what you might not know, is that Puerto Rico just took another step in becoming the 51st state.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/international/americas/view/20121107puerto_ricans_opt_for_statehood_in_referendum/srvc=home&position=recent

So prepare to buy a new flag, I guess, and when you do please avoid the irony and make sure its made in the US.

Techno.. what?

Many people don't know what a technocrat is. While I am not a purist, I do believe this point of view offers something useful to our political discourse. You should probably know what it is, and more importantly understand there are more options to US political views than Democrat or Republican.

Perhaps we can all agree that things would be a little better if we look beyond [D] or [R] and evaluate peoples ideas based on their merits, and their electability based on their qualifications.

Technocracy is an alternate approach to governing, in which people who are the most qualified are assigned to the governing positions, regardless of their political affiliations. This would generally put scientists and engineers into governing positions rather than politicians or businessmen, and prioritize governing decisions based on impact on available resources like energy and manpower. In the 1920's and 30's, the purist form of this movement lead down a rabbit hole that excluded governing as we know it, and was tied to "scary" words like socialism.

In its modern usage, or at least how I present it, being a technocrat means being open minded about political affiliations, and trying to find the most qualified person for the job. Beyond that, it means governing by prioritizing facts, science and research, and stepping back from polarizing social issues that undermine a fruitful discourse.

The hyperpartisian "coke" or "pepsi" choices we have been given are clearly flawed. You don't have to pick one, but our system pushes you to do so. In my opinion, you need to stay diligent to keeping an open mind. Don't fall into the trap of thinking you are a D or an R, and stopping from questioning issues beyond that.