Violence and Firearms

A statistic led me to this point.  In reporting on the NRA's response to the Newtown tragedy, the networks reported that the organization has 4 million members.  I was struck by the small number and how disproportionate was their influence.

In a nation of 300 million people, how does 1.3% of that population get to control the debate on the regulation of firearms manufacture, sales and ownership?

Some background on my perspective: I have owned several firearms--as many as three shotguns, two rifles, two handguns and an air rifle at one time.  I enjoy hunting, target shooting and taking care of the weapons.  I do not own or possess any firearms currently.  In the interests of full disclosure, I should also say that I have been a member of the NRA.

Now that those cards are on the table, my opinion of the NRA is that it is an extremist organization.  When I was a member, I was sent messages and asked to pass them along to my elected representatives and/or network media figures.  The language in these messages was, to my mind, extreme and I could not, in good conscience, do as requested by Wayne Lapierre or Charlton Heston.

So how does the NRA wield so much influence?  It's mainly because their voice is the well-orchestrated one.  A voice for something always drowns out the voice against.  They have consistently made the issue about the Constitution and for a right cited in the Second Amendment.  The opposition, such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, is portrayed as being against the "right" cited in the Second Amendment.

This much is obvious, right?  It's also obvious that the voice that is heard is easily interpreted as the majority.  The NRA is very good at whipping up a frenzy of fearful indignation amongst the membership.  They can generate 4 million (I don't imagine there were too many others like me) emails, letters and phone calls, frequently to multiple targets.  The Brady Campaign can't do this nearly as well.

As we saw in Mr. Lapierre's most recent statements, it is easy to sow seeds of confusion and generate several tangential debates while all the while adamantly holding the flag of the Second Amendment high and calling on loyal Americans to rally to its defense.

In fact, there is no justification for high-capacity magazines and high rate-of-fire except as a thrill for certain kinds of enthusiasts.  (There must be another term for an enthusiastic extremist--or maybe enthusiastic is redundant.)  You can get quite a thrill from cocaine or meth, too, but those thrills are illegal.  I have been in the woods during deer season and heard a single weapon discharge 10,15,or more rounds in the space of a few seconds.  It made me profoundly uneasy as I sat there with my single-shot rifle.  Thrills for a few are not sufficient justification for the level of danger presented.

The Second Amendment could be satisfied with a muzzle loading black powder weapon.  Let's shrug off the "right to keep and bear arms" as the central issue and stay focused on issues more central to the public welfare.

Grace

Grace is the slender but unbreakable thread upon which we are all suspended.  If you happen to be a Christian (as I am) you should know this already.  Other faiths may share this dependence in some way.  Buddhists, for example practice to become at one with life, accepting everything as part of the journey, believing that it is possible to transcend the journey.

I'm sure that Buddhists would express this differently and I won't even attempt a similar expression for Islam or the other religions.

In my mind the most elegant expression of grace is the story (in John chapter 8) of the woman who was apprehended in adultery and brought to Jesus as a test.  Jesus had given the religious Jews the idea that he might not support the ancient Law.  They asked Jesus to condemn the woman according to the Law.  As you will recall, he agreed that she had violated the Law and suggested that whoever among them had not violated the Law should be the one to throw the first stone.

One by one they were shamed by this until none were left.  At this point Jesus asked the woman who was condemning her.  When she answered that there was no one, he said, "Neither do I condemn you."

That's grace.  He then sent her on her way, suggesting that she give up her life of sin.  It would be startling to find out that she had been stoned the very next week after being caught in adultery again.  I put myself in the shoes of this woman and think that if I had been required to confess in order to escape punishment, I would certainly have done so.  Then I would have begun resenting that coercion immediately.  That resentment would certainly have led me back to the sinful life.

It is critical to the concept of Grace that Jesus never asked the woman for anything.  No seed of resentment was planted.  I could walk away completely free and begin at that moment a new kind of life. 

If you believe that confession is a prerequisite to forgiveness, you're probably not a parent.  As a parent, I know that I can demand a confession and apology and I will probably get them.  I also know that an assurance of love and forgiveness will elicit truly sincere remorse including repentance.  Repentance in avoidance of punishment is cheap and unreliable.  Repentance in response to forgiveness (grace) can last the rest of one's life.

You are loved and your are forgiven.  Let your life be a response to that.

The Origin of Species (When is a theory not a theory?)

There are just a couple of things that continue to bother me when discussion turns to evolution. 

First, we're told that this theory explains how higher organisms (like us) gradually developed from much simpler organisms.  This is based on observations of certain small birds which are identical to other small birds except that their beaks are longer (or shaped differently).  We're told that the difference happened by accident (a mutation) and that this accident allowed the mutant bird to survive in a changing environment.  We're told that the mutation was passed on to offspring and that, over time, the birds showed a mating preference for others with the same beak so that after many generations, all descendants of the original mutant possessed the new beak.

This part is believable, though improbable.  The likelihood of a stable mutation that can be genetically transmitted to offspring is small.  The likelihood of the original mutant surviving to produce offspring is small.  The likelihood of the mutant successfully mating, given that differences are generally not accepted by prospective mates, is quite small.  The likelihood of sufficient mutants reaching adulthood and mating with one another to produce a stable breeding population is very small.  Entire breeding populations (known as flocks or herds or packs...are often wiped out completely by sickness, fire, storm, famine or any of a host of devices that nature keeps for such purposes.

As you may know, the probability of a series of things happening together is the product of their individual probabilities.  For example, let's say that the probability of a successful/useful mutation is one in a hundred (1%).  For many species in the wild, the probability of surviving to breeding age is one in three (33%).  Let's imagine that the probability of attracting a mate given that you are visibly different is one in five (20%).  Let's further assume that the probability of any specific individual becoming the basis of a stable breeding population is one in 100 (1%).  The actual probabilities may be much lower but these will do for this illustration.  There are many other conditions, each with it's own probability that might also come onto play but with only these few variables we calculate the probability of success at .01 x .33 x .20 x .01 = .0000066 or less than one in one hundred thousand.

By the way, at this point we have only succeeded in producing a new sub-species because we have assumed that the mutants have bred with non-mutants within the species.  One of the defining characteristics of a species is that interbreeding with another species is not possible or at least highly improbable.

Evolutionists deal with improbability through the use of time.  If enough time goes by, they say, virtually anything is likely to happen, regardless of its probability.   That's hard to argue with.  Hard to argue isn't quite the same as persuasive, though.

The point that is most difficult to accept is the mutation that produced sexual reproduction.  We go from a time in which all reproduction (in single-cell organisms) is via mitosis.  The cells simply split and become two identical cells.  Suddenly, everything changes.  We now need another individual in order to procreate.  This is not a mutation.  The difference can't be explained by evolutionary (meaning incrementally small changes over a long period of time) change.  It seems we are left with only a handful of choices.

• We need more complexity in the origins.  At least we need both sexual and asexual reproduction to be represented in the universe.
• If we insist on a single original lifeform, we need to change the basic building block of evolution from mutation to something else.
• We have to relegate evolution to a much smaller role.

Of course there are many other theories out there to explain the breadth and depth of the diversity of lifeforms on our planet.  They aren't getting enough attention because only one theory, evolution, has been granted the "scientific" seal.

It's not important to me to explain how we became what we are because the the real value comes in understanding how we will become what we should be.  It just raises my hackles when someone says that they have an explanation for Homo sapiens and it is evolution.

A Little Deeper

Let's take that last post a little deeper.  Here are some statements from candidates for leadership office that should automatically disqualify them.

• I'll create jobs
• On Day One I'll [anything]
• I'll ensure the security
• I'll deliver an ultimatum
• I'll undo everything the last guy did (except the parts I agree with)
• What's good for the economy is good for America
• What's good for business is good for the economy (therefore--the logic goes--what's good for business is good for America)

Statements like these are made for one purpose only and that purpose IS NOT accountability.  When the buck is being passed, this guy will ALWAYS make sure someone else is holding it.

Friends, what is good for the people of the nation (as a whole) is good for the nation.  Good for business or good for Undecided Voter have such a small probability of being good for the nation that, to the extent that the candidate is successful in doing these things, they actually do harm to the nation by diverting energy and resources from those efforts that really would be good for the nation.

We simply can't afford to have a leader who has his mind made up before anything happens.  Does anyone believe the world is a simple, easy to understand place?  Does anyone believe that our role in the world is static (that the world moves around us)?

Less taxes and smaller government are standards not morality.  We should have the smallest government and the lowest level of taxation consistent with our place in the world.  Less for the sake of less is not different than more for the sake of more.  Both are evidence of mental imbalance and faulty reasoning.  One is named greed; the other has no name (though it is the opposite of patriotic).

Why do we have government?  According to the Preamble to the Constitution, We, the People, have created the government defined in the Consitution for the purpose of:   form[ing] a more perfect Union, establish[ing] Justice, insur[ing] domestic Tranquility, provid[ing] for the common defence, promot[ing] the general Welfare, and secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.  THAT is the why and it impossible to justify Cut Taxes and Balance The Budget [someday] as the how.

What's Good For The Economy...

I confess, I am REALLY losing heart when the candidate says (again) that experience in business is the best qualification for leading a nation.  The justification is the Economy.  We need to capitalize it to make it seem like something real.  The Economy IS real but not in the same way that Philadelphia is real.  Well, maybe there are similarities, but my point is that you can't put your arms around the Economy, you can't see the limits, there are no signs that say "now entering The Economy."

First of all, let me say that our nation, The United States of America, even though it does have boundaries, is every bit as subjective a thing as The Economy.

Would we continue to be The United States of America even if The Economy changed?  Of course we would--and we have.  The United States of America is whatever We, The People, are willing to stand up for.

Changes in The Economy have forced many of We, The People, to change the way we think of ourselves and our roles as individuals, citizens, providers, dependents, students, family members, soldiers, sailors, marines, teachers, mayors...  Initially change is hard.  It's like Letting Go of the pool gutter when learning to swim.  Finally though, we understand that we need to Get To The Other Side.  It's only then that we learn to swim.  The Letting Go is only part of the change.  This is the kind of change that we have to focus on because it's the only kind that positions us for the next one.

It is so SMALL and LIMITING and, yes, disheartening to think that business holds the answers for The United States of America.  We, The People, are this nation and let there be no doubt about it.  Not The Economy, not National Defense, not Business, not Education, not anything except each other.  When we stop doing the things that make each other healthier, more knowledgeable, safer, more secure in our hopes for the future and instead focus our efforts on making corporations safer and more secure, we are no longer part of The United States of America.  We have become something else, a virus that manifests as Us versus Them, They Shouldn't Be Able To, What About Me, This Is Mine, There Isn't Enough For You and a host of other symptoms.  None of the symptoms alone can destroy The United States of America, but untreated they spread until they gain control and We, The People, disappear.  When that happens The United States of America disappears except as a multicolored area on a map or globe.

The Middle Class

We have all been hearing a lot about the "middle class" lately and, honestly, I'm beginning to feel insulted by the references.  Much of this feeling probably stems from Barbara Tuchman's book, A Distant Mirror, which I am currently reading.

To try to provide a bit of perspective, I have read Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand) and I confess to a sense of horror and revulsion while reading the first quarter or so of the book.  I get it that Congressman Ryan felt the same things.  By the time I reached the end of the book, though, I was experiencing feelings that were the same but directed at the conclusions reached by Ms Rand.  From this I am willing to entertain the possibility that Congressman Ryan quite possibly never finished the book.  If he did then I'm forced to feel horror and revulsion at his conclusions.

A Distant Mirror is a history of the 14th Century in Europe.  The period from 1300 AD to 1400 AD certainly suggests itself as a distant mirror of our own times.  There was schism in what at that time was THE Christian church prompted by political concerns on the part of Church leaders.  Two Popes in two different capitals was the result.  Nobility was a constant theme.  "What is the noble choice?" the question most frequently asked by those in charge (who were, of course, those of noble genetic line).

The "companies," marauding bands of soldiers led by knights (who were nobles) without property, terrorized the countrysides of Europe and were ignored by the King and the landed nobles.

The Black Death made several appearances, killing nearly two-thirds of the population.  This was a serious drain on the economy but, of course, "the ecomony" was an unrecognized concept.  The King and The Church still had need of revenues to fund the lifestyles in which they had grown accustomed and the only source of those revenues was the Middle Class which was taxed unmercifully.

Education was not a concept that entered into any planning by the nobles and they paid bitterly during uprisings by the peasants and middle class when there was indiscriminate killing and destruction.  Fine distinctions as to who or what was responsible for suffering were beyond the abilities of people whose sources of information were gossip and the King's crier.

The most overwhelming indictment of the Nobles was quite simply that neither had knowledge of nor consideration for the lives lived by anyone else.  Glory and wealth (both obtained through constant warfare) were the reason (and reason enough) for whatever actions they chose to take.

The source of my discontent is the apparent notion (in our classless nation) held by a "leader class" that there are in fact lower classes which they may use for whatever ends suit them.  I'm quite sure that this is the source for much of the dissatisfaction we are seeing around the world as well.  The U.S. (leaders) sees itself as the upper class among nations with the duty to pillage and occasionally protect the lower class nations.

"Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it."

Vindicated and Vindictive

Do you ever come across a word that seems to be carrying a lot more meaning than what appears on the surface?  Well, I do and a statement I heard yesterday about someone being (or feeling) vindicated led me along a bit of an indirect path to arrive at some new (for me) insight.  Because I’m always alert for new insight, I thought I would just document this process and because insight is more valuable when shared, I am making it available to the rest of the world here.

Vindicate seems like a positive, right?  “Finally, I was vindicated in my opposition to their policy.”

It seems that we all have a desire to be vindicated.  We say, “I won’t say ‘I told you so’…” and somehow feel that we haven’t said it or that we have softened the blow.  Even that statement contains the need for vindication.  It’s never enough to be right (either factually, ethically or morally).  No, we need that one additional step of maintaining our “rightness” and, even better, the satisfaction of hearing another person say that we were right.

There is another word, vindictive, that is almost always used in a negative sense.  We say that someone is vindictive and bitter for example.  This is not intended as a compliment.

As you might guess from looking at both words, they are related and come from the same Latin root.

Latin vindicare (claim, vindicate, punish)  [http://www.myetymology.com/english]

While we may have some misgivings about a definition (vindcare) that uses the concept we are trying to define, the association of claim and punish in one word is very interesting.  If you’re still reading it means you find it interesting, too.

We of western (European) descent and culture marvel at the need for vengeance that drives (to our eyes) much of the politics and culture of the Mid-East.  We hear that a killing (murder?) was justified by the perpetrator on the basis of avenging a wrong that was committed many generations previously.  In fact, Albanians everywhere seem intent on avenging such a wrong which they see as having been committed on each of them as members of a specific sub-culture by another sub-culture.

The Basques in Spain and even, to a degree, the Quebecoise of Canada are given to a similar cultural perception.  In the U.S. there is a movement by the descendant of Africans brought to this country as slaves to demand vindication in the form of reparations from the descendants of those who did the enslaving.  More recently, the US cried out with a single voice for revenge following the World Trade Center attack.  The few voices for restraint were completely ignored because  they came from outside the cultural norm.  I note that in each of these cases the original transgression has been attributed to “them.”  “They” did this.  They is a nation or an organization even though the perpetrators were individuals.

The point is that humans seem to feel comfortable with an expectation of (claim for) punishment for a wrong.  Those who “are vindicated” are no less guilty than those who “are vindictive.”  The beneficiaries of vengeance (morally appropriate punishment) bathe in the same blood as the vindicators.

For those interested in the wisdom of the Book, Micah Chapter 6 verse 8 tells us

And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God

Over and over we are told that mercy trumps justice and, in fact, this is one of the central tenets of Christianity.  It is certainly a tenet of Buddhism and, for all I know, of Islam. 

Vindicate and Vindictive tell us much about the human condition and the very long path we must negotiate to achieve our potential.

Words, Meaning and Communication

As I was preparing a speech this week I experienced a flash of revelation--an epiphany.  The context goes back deep into my youth.  I have been convinved for much of my life that a mastery of words, grammar, sentence structure and composition combined with an artful delivery would ensure communication.  I held on to this belief in the face of all sorts of evidence to the contrary.

When I failed to accomplish the communication I was trying for, I first held the receiver accountable; after all, I had taken far greater care than most in crafting my message.  Then (with more maturity) I assumed increasing levels of accountability.  I tried expressing my thought in multiple ways hoping to strike the target with one of them.  I tried using metaphor and stories.  As I became more experienced with the ways of people and life in general, I used stories and experiences from different cultural perspectives.  I tried to hit the point where humanity lived--the common denominator of experience as a human being without regard to culture, education or even intelligence.

Before I continue, let me say that I can successfully communicate even very abstract concepts when I am face to face with the receiver.  Careful observation of a person's eyes, expressions, body language and what they say or the questions the ask--all of these help me to communicate even within a group.  The written word is something else again.

My epiphany was this: words have little value in themselves.  Even when we link them together with art and experience the best that we should hope for is to separate the little bit of meaning that we're trying to communicate from all of the other meaing that's out there.  We should think of language as fencing materials--posts, boards, nails, wire, staples, etc.  Our goal (as a sender) should be to place the posts strategically to close off meanings that we do not intend.  Then we should use the rest of our materials to hold and direct the receiver's thoughts within the meaning we intend.  I will say that some words are more suitable fenceposts than others and, like any fence, the materials must suit the purpose.

As the receiver, we must cease getting caught up in the construction of the fence and instead give our full attention to what's inside the fence.  Inside the fence is where the real meaning lies.  We must read between and beneath the language with the idea that there is something there that we will be better for having understood.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the two political conventions we have just witnessed.  Clearly Republicans and Democrats have different ideas about communication.  The fences they build are very different in nature.  Of course the nature of national politics yields big ideas and the meaning that must be conveyed seems like the pioneers' perception of the Platte River--a mile wide and an inch deep.  Those who are involved in the parties and the political processes can perceive much more depth than the casual listener.  This is the weakness of the process, that understanding the communcations requires insider knowledge that most of us don't possess.

For this reason, the fences being built by the language of the speeches, advertisements, platfom documents... don't always seem well-constructed.  They may not appear to atually enclose anything and we begin to hear the words in contexts of our own making.  We become alarmed when we hear something we recognize as untruthful ("inaccurate" is the euphemism most often applied) and we focus on that single fence post to the exclusion of not only the rest of the fence but whatever the fence was enclosing.  My advice: hear the words but rely on observations of behavior to provide the meaning. 

No politician will knowingly fence himself in and this is wise.  National and international policy are a seething cauldron of competing forces and it's dangerous to try to reach in to isolate one ingredient.  It isn't reasonable to expect a government leader (or would-be leader) to limit his or her options for dealing with an issue that, when it arises, will be absolutely unlike anything that we have ever dealt with before.

When we do (unreasonably) demand that the candidate tie himself firmly to a future course of action it can never end well either for us or for the candidate/politician.  BUT, we can look carefully, not only at individual past behaviors, but past group behaviors to get some idea what to look forward to. 

Taxes Simplified

Talk of a federal sales tax recently had me thinking.  As a replacement for the income tax, this has some traction.  To make it work, there are just a couple of things that will need to be resolved.

1. We would need a law effective in every state to the effect that a price attached to an item is inclusive of all taxes.  A big tax bite added at the register just won't be acceptable but if the taxes are part of the price sticker, then they will quickly blend into the background.  A breakdown of the price could be printed on the sales receipt.
2. All of the attorneys and accountants who currently earn their living by guiding you and me through the maze of tax law would have to be re-tasked.  This is almost certainly the bigger problem and one that has prevented US tax law from being reformed since the income tax became law in 1861 via the 16th Ammendment.  Note that this was a Republican government (under Abraham Lincoln) actually trying to pay for the war they were getting into.

If the millions (OK thousands--all right the meager few) readers of this blog will begin to come up with ways of redeploying the army of lawyers and accountants, we could really simplify our lives.  Think of it--no more April 15th tax filing.  In fact no more tax filing at all.  If I should only live so long!.

What Should I Do?

A few weeks ago I was driving on a two-lane state highway and listening to the radio.  I was listening to a "news" station and found my blood pressure rising as I listened to report after report concerning the political campaigns.  If you've read previous posts here, you might empathize a bit. 

Each report delivered essentially verbatim the latest sound bite from one of the candidates.  There was no real attempt at critical analysis (who has time for that) and "big lies" were coming one after the other.  Fortunately for me, I recognized my condition (rising blood pressure) and took action in the only two ways that ever work.  One: a series of deep, cleansing breaths and two: prayer.

Wherever you may find yourself on the God spectrum, you'll find that these two approaches can work wonders.  There is a wisdom out there that will take every trouble that you hand to it and give back something that is for you.

I asked, "What should I do in the face of such lies, fear and anger?"  An old testament injunction came to mind immediately.  "...what does the Lord require of you?  To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8

"Yeah!" I thought, "that's what they should be doing!"  The answer to my prayer wasn't complete yet, though.  The rest of the story came then, "No, you."  I was busted (again). 

When we attempt to control the lives of others by limiting what they may (legally) do or think or discuss or write, we fail in our obedience to this simple advice.  We fail in mercy or justice or humility or all three at once.  I can do it.  You can do it.

The Big Lies do not come from God (in spite of what their speakers may try to imply) and, in fact, do not come out of any kind of relationship with God by whatever name.  Government that can't effect mercy or justice or humility is no government at all.