Guns Again

I've written about a mass shooting at least once  before in the past, but I haven't written about it in many years, because frankly, it's a depressing thing to write about, and the aftermath of each incident always plays out in the same depressingly predictable way; parents and friends of the victims call for more gun control, Democrats and liberals echo those calls, the NRA and Republicans oppose any gun control, blame the mental health of shooter ( if the shooter is white ) or call for more immigration restrictions ( if the shooter is an immigrant ) , and suggest that more guns ( in the hand of "good guys ) are the answer to the underlying problem of mass shootings.  In the end, Congress takes no action, the NRA receives more donations, gun sales go up, and the next mass shooting in just around the corner.

Just about all of that happened after the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting ( with the one extra element of the GOP blaming the FBI, because the GOP has been anti-FBI since the FBI started to investigate Donald Trump ), but something else has happened too.  The fellow students of the Stoneman Douglas victims have started to organize in a way the families/friends of mass shooting victims have never organized before.  It is easy to be cynical about the chances these kids have to make any lasting impact on the gun debate in the USA, but one can't deny that some unprecedented progress has been made in the last week.  Until a week or so ago, most people were not aware that lots of companies offer NRA discounts, much in the way companies offer AAA discounts.  Thanks to these Stoneman Douglas kids, many more people became aware of these NRA discounts, voiced there displeasure to these companies, and many of these companies ended their NRA discount programs.*  For example, last week I learned that every major rental car company offered NRA discounts, and now all of them are ending their NRA discount programs.  I know that may seem like a really small thing, but it could potentially be one of first steps forward in changing the gun culture in America.  When all those companies ended their NRA discounts, they were well aware that they would be alienating the NRA and many members of the NRA.  They knew they were risking losing the business of NRA members.  However, they are apparently believed that the risk of losing the business of people who despise the NRA was greater than the risk of losing the business of NRA members.  In other words, these companies were more afraid of gun control advocates than they were of the NRA.  If we can get members of Congress to feel the same way, we can really start to make progress in the fight for gun control in this country.

Of course, it could still be a long time before we can get Congress to feel the same way, because GOP members of congress seem to joined at the hip with the toxic narratives put forward by the NRA after every one of these mass shootings.  I'd like to spend a little bit of time addressing some of those narratives.

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people"

I can't deny that if somebody wants to kill another person, there are plenty of ways to do it.  Somebody could build a bomb, or stab a person, or start driving on the sidewalk to run down people.  However, while there are many ways to kill a lot of people, there really isn't an easier way to kill a lot of people than by using a semi-automatic assault weapon.    Building a bomb takes technical knowledge most people don't have, a knife or sword can't be used to kill people from distance, and a car is a tool that is not designed to murder people.  A car could be used to murder lots of people if enough people are in close proximity, but the main purpose of a car is transportation.  The main purpose of an assault weapon is to kill many things in a short amount of time.  Yes, people do kill people, but with that in mind, why they hell would we every want to make it easier for people to kill other people?

"The real problem is mental illness, not guns"

This argument always makes me think of a cartoon I saw taped to one of my professor's door back in my college days.  The cartoon had two panels.  The first panel had the title "Crazy person with a gun", and showed a crazy-eyed man with an assault weapon firing multiple shots.  The second panel has the title "Crazy person without a gun", and showed a crazy-eyed man with his fingers in the shape of a gun shouting "BANG! BANG! BANG!".

"If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns"

Well, first of all, most people in favor of gun control are not in favor of outlawing all guns.  Many gun control advocates would like assault weapons like AR-15s banned.  Presented with that fact, I think that many advocates for gun rights might responds with a quote like "If you outlaw AR-15s, only outlaws will have AR-15s".  However that revised quote would not be accurate either, because if AR-15s were outlawed, police SWAT teams and the armed forces would still have access to AR-15s and guns with far more firepower than AR-15s.".  I know that some people feel they need an AR-15 for home-protection, but feel like guns like that should be left in the hands of trained professionals ( I'll comment more on this in the "good guy with a gun" section below ).

The second point I want to make here is that every single illegal gun on the street was originally a legal gun ( There could be an extremely rare exception of a criminal who crafts guns from scratch, but c'mon, I don't see why a criminal would do that when so many gun are in circulation ).   A certain percentage of legal guns manufactured get bought/sold/stolen illegally and become illegal guns. If the gun industry keeps manufacturinglegal guns at the pace they are making them, there will inevitably be more illegal guns on the street.  Outlawing sales of assault weapons to civilians won't take assault weapons out of the hands of criminal, but it help dry up the supply of illegal assault weapons for criminals.  Why wouldn't we want to dry up the supply of illegal assault weapons and give our law enforcement officers ( who would still have legal access to assault weapons ) a fighting chance?

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

We've been hearing variations of this one a lot lately.  People have called for arming school security guards, and Donald Trump has suggested that school shootings could be prevented by arming a certain percentage of teachers.

There are so many problems with the "good guy with a gun" idea, that I barely know where to begin.

Let me start by conceding there are certain isolated scenarios in which a teacher or a security guard with a gun could save the lives of students.  For example, if a teacher and students were cornered by a school shooter, and there was no way to escape, I'm sure that a teacher with a gun would have a better chance to save students than a teacher without a gun.  However, the benefit of having guns for self-defense in schools in that very specific scenario is far outweighed by the dangers posed by having guns in schools on a daily basis.

While an armed teacher or a security guard could potentially save students in a school shooting situation, it is far more likely that the "good guy with a gun" is going to wind up getting more people killed.  If you look up statistics on "friendly fire" in the military or statistics on shooting accuracy for police ( This study indicates that police only hit their targets 18% of the time in a gunfight ), you'll see that even trained professions have a hard time hitting their targets in high stress situations.  In a school shooting situations, it is reasonable to expect that teachers or security guards wielding guns would have terrible accuracy.  There is a great chance that more children would die in the crossfire if a teacher or security guard tried to play Rambo, and even a greater chance that a teacher or security guard trying to be a hero would be gunned down by the first police officer who saw them wandering the halls with a gun in a school shooting scenario.

In addition to the issues that would be introduced by additional gun-firing individuals in a school shooting situation, having guns in schools on a daily basis will almost certainly lead to additional shooting incidents in schools.  Teachers and security guards are human being with human flaws.  They have the potential to lose their temper or become mentally unstable.  There also have the potential to get an "itchy trigger finger" and shoot people when they mistake minor problems for serious threats.  There are already far too many unarmed people shot each year by trained law enforcement professionals.  I'd hate to think about how many people could be shot in schools by teacher of security guards who are asked to "play cop" without the training  a cop receives.

I hear the next two narratives a lot when a Democrat happens to be in a Oval Office.  For the next two narratives, I'm going to address the people who hold these view directly in blue text.

"I need guns to protect me from government tyranny"

The federal government has far more powerful guns than the ones you might have stashed in your basement.  The federal government also has tanks, fighter jets, Apache Helicopters, drones, and various bombs and missiles at its disposal.  Your private stash of guns is not going to be able to protect you from any of that.  If the federal governments wants to impose their will on you, you will not be able to stop.  If the federal government wanted you dead, you would have been dead yesterday.  When it comes to stopping tyranny, a ballot in your hand is a far more effective tool than a gun in your hand..

"I'll give ups my guns when the President gives up his Secret Service protection"

The President needs armed Secret Service protection because there are millions of people all over the world who would like to kill him.

Nobody wants to murder your sorry ass.

"The government can't regulate my guns because of the 2nd Amendment"

2nd Amendment : 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.

Rich

* I don't know if any of the Stoneman Douglas kids were directly responsible for spreading the word about NRA discount programs, but I'm sure that information would not been publicized last week if the Stoneman Douglas kids had not shined a light on the NRA.

What is America?

I've been writing at least one blog post a month for nearly a decade now, and it has generally been a joy to write each post.  However, that has really changed over the last year.  I like to write stuff related to current events, but current events have just been so damned dreary lately.  With that in mind, I've decided to write about something positive this month.  So instead of commenting on current events this month, I'm just going to attempt to answer the question below.

What is America?

Before attempting to answer this question, let me make it clear that in the context of this question, "America" represents the United States of America.

So, that being said, in the most literal sense, one could define America to simply be the land mass consisting of the 50 states.  However, I've never considered America to be defined by its territory, or the by people who live within its boarders at any given time.  I've always considered America to be an idea.

America is the idea that anyone in the world can be an American.  Well, I guess that's not entirely true, but to paraphrase Anton Ego, not everyone can become an American, but a great American can come from anywhere.  I know a lot of people in Trump's America believe immigration dilutes America's greatness, but I believe immigration is the engine that drives American greatness.  I feel that nobody is more American than somebody who is willing to uproot their lives in another country to come to America.  Natural born American citizens often take citizenship for granted because they never made a conscious choice to be American.  I'm not saying that natural born American don't love America, but is it a different kind of love than the love immigrants have.   A natural born American loves America the way a child loves a parent.  An American immigrant loves America with the kind of passion one might feel for a sweetheart.  I'm not saying that people who were born in the USA don't love their native country deeply, but the love you choose always comes with more passion.  For our country to stay strong, we need new immigrants that have a passion for the country they chose.

I firmly believe that other the nations with largely homogeneous populations and cultures will never be able to match the the greatness of America's diverse population.  As long as the United States continues to encourage a diverse population of immigrants to come to the USA, the United States will be drawing from a larger talent pool than the rest of the world.  When a difficult problems needs to be solved, Germany can tackle that problem with the most talented German people, Japan can tackle that problem with the most talented Japanese people, India can tackle the problem with the most talented Indian people, and China can tackle the problem with the most talented Chinese people.  However, America can tackle the problem with talented and daring immigrants who came from Germany, Japan, India, and China, along with native born Americans and immigrants from many other nations.  There's a reason why Americans' keep winning Noble Prizes and that a disproportionate number of those Nobel Prize winners are America immigrants.

I also believe that America means the opportunity to achieve one's dreams.  America doesn't always live up to the ideal of the America Dream ( consider how much discrimination there is and how much the laws favor the wealthy ), but the ideal is something the nation should always be striving for.

I know a lot of people who think we need to "Make America Great Again" ( MAGA ), don't agree with my definition of America or Americans.  The "again" in MAGA implies that our nation's greatness lies in our past, while I believe that it lies in our future.  Those who believe in MAGA feel that our nation will become less great if it becomes less Christian, less English-speaking, and less connected to Western culture ( which for some, means less white ).   They feel that an America full of non-Christian, non-English-speaking, and non-Western people won't be America anymore.  I couldn't disagree more.  If America evolves into a largely Spanish-speaking nation in which white English-speaking Christian people are a distinct minority, it will still be America if the it lives up to the ideals or opportunity, freedom, and inclusiveness.  If we are still a democratic nation in which political parties can argue the issues of the day without fear of repercussions from the government, we will still be America, regardless of the language the politicians are arguing in.  If people are still free to worship ( or not worship ) they way they please, we will still be America regardless of whether most people are praying in a church, a mosque, a synagogue, or a temple.   I'd agree with "Make America Great Again", if they dropped the "Again", and added an "er".  I would hope that's something we could all agree with.  We should all want to "Make America Greater".  However, America won't became greater just because we want it to.  It is going to take a lot of work, and we are not going to be able to do it until all of us are willing to work together.    Those who want to shun our newest wave of immigrants would should remember our nation's founding motto.

E pluribus unum ( Out of many, one )

Rich

The Republican Gerrymander Bomb

In a few days, 2018 will be upon us, and before long we'll start seeing ads for the 2018 elections.  While a lot of liberals are excited about the Democrats' chance to take back control of Congress, other liberal insists that Democrats chances are doomed because of Republican gerrymandering.  The naysayers feel gerrymandering efforts by Republican-controlled state legislatures have created so many safe Republican congressional districts, that it will be nearly impossible for Democrats to take control of Congress.

Well, I'm here to tell you that those naysayers are wrong.  I believe that these Republican gerrymandering efforts will lead to a huge Democratic wave in 2018.

Why?  Well, let me start by reviewing what gerrymandering can or cannot do for a political party.

Gerrymandering CAN be used to make legislative districts more safe for a political party.

Gerrymandering CAN be used to help a political party win more legislative districts.

However, gerrymandering CANNOT be used to help a political party win more districts AND make districts more safe.  It's mathematically impossible to accomplish both these goals at the same time.

I'll illustrate this by going over a few theoretical examples.  For these examples, we'll assume that there are 10 districts, and 1,000,000 voters, and that the Republican party has the power to gerrymander these 10 districts any way they want.  Based on those parameters, let's look over a few scenarios.

Scenario 1 : Gerrymandering to make districts more safe.

Let's say that in an average year, the vote totals in these 10 districts are approximately the following:

District	GOP Votes	DEM Votes	GOP %	DEM %
1	52,500	47,500	52.5	47.5
2	52,500	47,500	52.5	47.5
3	52,500	47,500	52.5	47.5
4	52,500	47,500	52.5	47.5
5	52,500	47,500	52.5	47.5
6	47,500	52,500	47.5	52.5
7	47,500	52,500	47.5	52.5
8	47,500	52,500	47.5	52.5
9	47,500	52,500	47.5	52.5
10	47,500	52,500	47.5	52.5

So, in a normal year, the GOP wins 5 districts by 5 points and loses 5 districts by 5 points, and the GOP wins 50% of the overall vote.  However, let's say the GOP becomes aware that upcoming election will be far from normal and that Democrats are expected win about 55% of the vote on average and thus win a normal even district by 10 points.  In that case we would expect that 550,000 total votes would be cast for Democrats and 450,000 total votes would be cast for Republicans.  If this happened, and the GOP did not try to gerrymander these districts, we would expect the vote to go this way ...

District	GOP Votes	DEM Votes	GOP %	DEM %
1	47,500	52,500	47.5	52.5
2	47,500	52,500	47.5	52.5
3	47,500	52,500	47.5	52.5
4	47,500	52,500	47.5	52.5
5	47,500	52,500	47.5	52.5
6	42,500	57,500	42.5	57.5
7	42,500	57,500	42.5	57.5
8	42,500	57,500	42.5	57.5
9	42,500	57,500	42.5	57.5
10	42,500	57,500	42.5	57.5

... and the GOP would lose all 10 districts.

However, the GOP could prevent this loss of 5 districts by gerrymander the districts.  For example, the GOP could gerrymander these 10 districts in a such a way, that in a normal year ( when there are an equal number of GOP votes and DEM votes ), the election results would be as follows ...

District	GOP Votes	DEM Votes	GOP %	DEM %
1	57,500	42,500	57.5	42.5
2	57,500	42,500	57.5	42.5
3	57,500	42,500	57.5	42.5
4	57,500	42,500	57.5	42.5
5	57,500	42,500	57.5	42.5
6	42,500	57,500	42.5	57.5
7	42,500	57,500	42.5	57.5
8	42,500	57,500	42.5	57.5
9	42,500	57,500	42.5	57.5
10	42,500	57,500	42.5	57.5

So, in this scenario, GOP gerrymandering has turned districts 1 - 5 into "safe" Republican districts in which a Republican would be expected to win by 15 points in an average year.  In a year in which Democrats were expected to have a 10 point advantage over Republicans, we would expect the election results to go this way in the gerrymandered districts ...

District	GOP Votes	DEM Votes	GOP %	DEM %
1	52,500	47,500	52.2	47.5
2	52,500	47,500	52.2	47.5
3	52,500	47,500	52.2	47.5
4	52,500	47,500	52.2	47.5
5	52,500	47,500	52.2	47.5
6	37,500	62,500	37.5	62.5
7	37,500	62,500	37.5	62.5
8	37,500	62,500	37.5	62.5
9	37,500	62,500	37.5	62.5
10	37,500	62,500	37.5	62.5

So, in this scenario, gerrymandering would help Republicans keep control of half of the districts, even though Democrats won 55% of the total vote.

The gerrymandering I've described here is what I like to call defensive gerrymandering.

Scenario 2 : Gerrymandering to win more districts.

Let's say that in the area covered by 10 districts, the Republicans win 54% of the vote in an average year.  The population is spread across these 10 districts in such a way that Republicans usually win 6 out of the 10 districts.

District	GOP Votes	DEM Votes	GOP %	DEM %
1	60,000	40,000	60	40
2	60,000	40,000	60	40
3	60,000	40,000	60	40
4	60,000	40,000	60	40
5	60,000	40,000	60	40
6	60,000	40,000	60	40
7	45,000	55,000	45	55
8	45,000	55,000	45	55
9	45,000	55,000	45	55
10	45,000	55,000	45	55

In this scenario, the GOP decides to gerrymander these 10 districts in such a way, that they will win each of these 10 districts by about 54% to 46% in an average year.

District	GOP Votes	DEM Votes	GOP %	DEM %
1	54,000	46,000	54	46
2	54,000	46,000	54	46
3	54,000	46,000	54	46
4	54,000	46,000	54	46
5	54,000	46,000	54	46
6	54,000	46,000	54	46
7	54,000	46,000	54	46
8	54,000	46,000	54	46
9	54,000	46,000	54	46
10	54,000	46,000	54	46

This is what I like to call offensive gerrymandering.  The Republican Party has been using offensive gerrymandering quite a bit over the last decade to help win extra seats in the House of Representatives.  However, as is illustrated in the two tables above, the GOP gerrymandering effort has turned 6 extremely safe districts into 10 fairly safe districts.  That's great for a GOP in a typical, year, but in an election cycle in which the Democrats are much more popular that Republicans, "fairly safe" districts are no longer safe at all.    In the gerrymandered scenario above, if the national electorate swings more than 8 points in the Democrats' direction, the Democrats could potentially win all 10 of the districts above.

If you look at the latest congressional generic ballot, you'll see that Democrats currently ( as of 12/29/17 ) have a 12.9% advantage over Republicans.

You can click here for the most recent generic ballot results.

Of course, these generic polls are no guarantee that the Democrats will have such a large advantage come Election Day 2018,  but I think there is a very good chance that the Democrats will be able to win a lot of those "fairly safe" Republican districts that were created by gerrymandering.  The Republicans may think their gerrymandering efforts will ensure that they'll keep control of the House of Representatives for years to come, but I think they are sitting on a gerrymander bomb that is about to go off in 2018.

Rich

Let's make every day Sadie Hawkins Day

I usually try not to write about the same topic for two blog posts in a row.  However, as I sit here writing this sentence today ( November 29, 2017 ), Matt Lauer and Garrison Keillor have been added to the list of sexual harassers who have been exposed, and I'm sure a few more men will be added to the list by the time you read this.  There may be more important things going in the world right now ( the GOPs horrible tax bill and the looming threat of a nuclear exchange with North Korea come to mind ), but I don't think anything else captures the climate of our nation right now more than our long-overdue national discussion about sexual harassment.

With that in mind, I like to propose an idea I have for limiting all this reprehensible behavior from men.  It's a completely impractical idea, that would be almost impossible to put into practice.  In fact, it's more of a dream than a practical idea, but sometimes dream is all we have when the real world seems hopeless.  So, I invite you to suspend your disbelief a little bit and dream this dream with me.

Back when I was a child, my mother told me about Sadie Hawkins Day.  Sadie Hawkins Day doesn't hold much cultural currency today, but back in my Mom's day, each November 15th marked the day when woman were encouraged to break cultural norms by asking men out on dates.

So, assuming you've decided to dream along with me, let's dream of a world in which every day is Sadie Hawkins Day.  Let's dream of world in which it is the cultural norm for women to ask men out on dates, and it is strongly frowned upon for men to ask women out on dates or to ever make the first move in initiating a romantic relationship.  I believe that such a world would have far fewer incidents of sexual harassment than our world today.

It would also be a far less sexist world.  There is something inherently sexist about the idea that men are expected to pursue women, as if men are hunters and the women are their prey.  There is something inherently objectifying about the idea that women are prizes to be won.

I know that some people might argue that if woman and men switched traditional courtship roles, we'd just wind up with a world in which women regularly sexually harassed men.  However, I believe that argument can be shot down with just one letter - Y, as in the Y chromosome.

Due to genetic differences, a man will almost always be significantly taller, heavier, and stronger than a women he might have romantic interest in.  Of course there are some exceptions to this, and there are certainly some well-trained female martial artists who could kick a much larger man's ass, but in general, a man would more physically intimidating than a women he might be attracted to.  So, when a man makes an unwanted romantic or sexual advance on a woman, I've got to imagine that the woman must sometimes sense the potential for physical intimidation.  I'm not going to pretend to understand how often a woman feels the threat of physical violence when she rejects a man's romantic advances, but based what I've heard women say about cat-calling, I'm got to imagine that an unwanted romantic or sexual advance can sometimes produces the same feelings of fear that cat-calling can.

So, there's almost always the potential for fear and intimidation when a man makes a romantic advance on a women, but this is almost never the case when a woman make a romantic advance on a man.  That potential for fear and intimidation gives the male sexual harasser a kind of power over his female victims.  A female sexual harasser would have the same kind of power over a male victim.  Women certainly can sexually harass men based on financial power ( "financial power" in this context includes the ability to fire a person or damage a person's career prospects ), but I don't think a woman with financial power is as likely to sexually harass the opposite sex as a man with financial power, because I believe that people are more likely to act terribly towards another person if they are confident that the other person will not respond with physical violence.  For that reason, I believe that men in positions of power are far more likely to harass members of the opposition sex than woman in positions of power are.  For similar reasons, I think women would be far less likely to commit sexual assault against the opposite sex than men, even if women adopted men's traditional aggressive role in initiating romantic relationships.  This isn't necessarily because women are more noble than than men ( although they almost certainly are ), but simply because there are not many ways a woman could sexual assault a man.  To borrow a term from Todd Akin, a man would always be able to "shut that whole thing down" if a woman tried to rape him, but a female victim of sexual assault would never have that option.

So, if we lived in a Sadie Hawkins Day world, I believe thing would be better for everybody.  Women would have to deal with less harassment and would almost never have to worry about creepy unwanted suitors, and I think most men would be just fine with the idea of women initiating all romantic relationships.  I don't think I know a single man who was ever upset about being asked out by a woman.  On the contrary, being hit on by a woman gives a man a huge ego boost ( regardless of whether the man is attracted to the woman or not ), and most men just love to have their egos stroked.

Of course, we don't live in a Sadie Hawkins Day world, and I doubt we ever will.  However, I think it would be good if society took some steps towards that ideal.  Even if men continued to ask women out, I think it would be very beneficial if more women asked men out.  I'm well aware that plenty of women in the 21st century have no problem hitting on men, but there are still plenty of women who stick to traditional gender norms when it comes to dating.  It would be great if our society got to the point were women were just as likely as men to make their romantic intentions know to the people they were attracted to.  As things stand now, I think a lot of women still believe in the traditional idea that a woman should give a man "signals" and "hints" if she is interested in him, rather than directly approach him.  The problem with this state of affairs is that it gives some men an excuse to look for romantic signals that are not really there.  I believe that some sexual harassers invent romantic signals that are not really there, and convince themselves that those invented signals gives them license to aggressively pursue and harass woman.  Of course, these men who sexually harass women based on romantic signals ( real or invented ) are simply monsters who don't know how to treat other human beings with respect.  These monstrous types of men are going to be terrible people regardless of gender conventions and courtship roles, but it would be nice if our society was structured in a way they would reign them in some more.

The more I think about it, the more depressed I fell about the sad stare of affairs in when it comes sexual harassment.  Here I am suggesting that we think about making major changes to our courtships conventions, because I don't really feel believe men will stop sexually harassing woman unless societal conventions make it more difficult for them to do so.  Who know, maybe the prevalence of dating apps will fix this all someday in the future.  Maybe the people of the future will rather just swipe left and right rather approaching the people they are attracted to directly.  That loss of human connection would be really sad, but would it really be much worse than what is going on today.

Oh, by the way, now that a day has past since I started this post, I might well add Russell Simmons to the list of sexual harassers.  No matter what day you read this, you could probably add a new name to the list every day.

Rich