Rant 4 July 5, 2008

What do you call 30,000 deaths and 65,000 injuries a year?

According to the US Supreme Court, it is a constitutional right. 

In a completely boneheaded decision last week the court overturned a Washington DC ban on handguns.  Apparently the US constitution does grant every citizen the absolute right to own a gun, regardless of what the cost to the society at large might be.  The figure of 30,000 deaths and 65,000 injuries in the USA as a result of firearms was the most recent data I could find.

I have come to expect that the Bush administration will regularly compound a merely stupid decision into one that is profoundly idiotic and the US Congress has been perfecting the art of enacting flawed policies for decades but I did not expect the Judiciary to follow suit.  Where is our common sense?

In researching the Internet for data, I came across all kinds of statistics on how the US experience and love affair with firearms has cost us.  There are even some crazies out there who argue that having a society that has more handguns in circulation than it has people actually reduces death rates.  (Some estimates place the number of handguns in the USA at 350 to 400 Million.)  So according to these nut cases, we should be really really safe.

I have also been around statistics enough to know that if you can get enough numbers, you can support almost any contention.  There may be more people killed by automobile accidents in Alaska than freeze to death.  But if you go hiking in the wilderness in January, your primary concern should not be watching out for cars.  Our primary concern should not be protecting handgun ownership rights.

I tried to find a way to cut through all the chaff and Internet clutter.  I found the following from a US Government Center for Disease Control Study.  “American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States.”  

It is not that the Court decision is lacking in logic.  The Second Amendment to the US Constitution says; “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.”  I just do not understand how right thinking people can get from those words to the position that we as a society cannot take prudent steps to enact laws that are specifically designed to protect us from a clear and present danger.  But apparently they can and they have.

I recently got a note from my friend Don Wonnell in which he expressed a leaning toward libertarianism, so I am expecting a response from him that will show how the court actually made the correct decision.  If so, I will read it with interest.  Donn is probably the smartest man I ever met.  He and I worked together in both Alaska and California and became close friends.  That was almost 25 years ago now and we have not been close recently but I have retained my fondness and respect for him. Donn also did me a service at the time I was trying to get sober for which I shall always be in his debt.  I have met only a handful of individuals in the intervening years that might give Donn a run for his money in the smarts department but have never met anyone who was clearly his superior in terms of intellectual gifts.  Anything he writes is worth careful consideration. I urge him, or anyone else to write a response if so moved.

While I was still drinking, my wife and I had dinner at Donn and Karen’s house in Anchorage.  After the meal and over substantial quantities of Yukon Jack, Donn and I developed an argument proving the existence of God.  I even wrote it down.  But the next day I couldn’t find what I had written and neither he nor I could remember the proof.  While a Kingdom might have been lost for want of a horse, the entire course of Western Intellection remained unchanged for loss of a piece of paper.

Back in the day, he and I were identified as a couple of bright young sparks among our CEO’s; (Ben W Agee), assorted minions.  From time to time Agee would give the two of us an assignment to come up with a solution to some problem.  These were generally situations that had been fucked up beyond all recognition.  The collaboration was successful enough and occurred often enough that Donn once cracked that we ought to take the show on the road: “Wonnell and Hansford; songs, dances and funny routines.”  That did not happen and Donn went on to build a very successful corporate law practice on the West Coast. I went on in search of adventure.  I guess we both found what we were looking for.

Regardless of what Donn might think about the gun issue, it just seems that we as a people have become way too doctrinaire in our thinking.  Unrestricted gun ownership is a political article of faith for the far right in this country so I guess those Justices that were appointed by Bush felt compelled to act in support of a non-sensible decision.  They did not have to.  For over 230 years Supreme Courts have avoided making decisions on the Second Amendment.  This was the first in our history that the Court has ruled on the Amendment and I think they could have easily taken a pass once again.  The only good news that comes out of this insanity is that the decision was only 5 to 4 in favor, so there is some chance that if we can get better political leadership, we may get a more sensible decision in the future once we get some less conservative Court appointees.

On that note it seems now that Obama simply cannot lose the election.  I think this would undoubtedly be the case if he could simply disappear for the next few months and then turn up just before voting day.  But that is not possible.  He will have to spend the next weeks directly in the public eye for 12-18 hours a day, seven days a week.  He will have to spend most of that time talking and being observed by hundreds, if not thousands of media representatives.  I find it difficult to go more than a day or two without saying something stupid and I do not really talk all that much.  Whether of not he can survive this time in the spotlight will probably determine if he becomes President or not.  Right now the media does not seem to be doing him any favors.  There were three separate references last night on the NBC news about supposed changes in his positions.  It is hard to believe that the media, which is generally considered so liberal, could be out to get him but they are clearly not helping. 

But even if Obama comes out of all this with a clear lead in terms of overall support, Bush proved you do not have to win the popular vote to become President.  And some would say that the voting in Florida in the 2000 contest proved you do not even have to win the election in order to take the oath of office.

Regardless of how the opinion polls stand today, I still think the issue will come down to racism and how much of it still exists in the US.  Whatever happens, we may never know how large a factor it played.  In AA we have a saying that alcoholism is the elephant in the living room that no family ever wants to talk about.  I think racism is our national elephant.  Everybody knows it is a factor in the election but as society we simply do not want to acknowledge that it exists. 

If racism is not at play then I have a hard time figuring out how those working class people that supported Hillary in the primary are now saying that they might support McCain in the general election.  It is simply not credible that they now think he is closer to the policy positions that are important to them than is Obama so I think there must be some other factor.  You hope this reluctance to support Obama is simply petulance and not racism but I just do not know.  Unfortunately, these people seem to be concentrated in those critical swing States that a candidate must win in order to get a majority of the Electoral College.

To those of you who are not Americans, this Electoral College must be confusing.  I will not try to explain it here, but it has the effect of making the large population states such as California, New York, Florida and Texas more important to winning than their populations alone justify.  This is what happened in 2000 when Bush lost the popular vote to Gore by 50,456,002 to 50,999,897 but then lost the election in the Electoral College by 271 to 266.

I have gone beyond hoping that Obama will simply win.  I am hoping that he wins by a landslide.  Even though I think this is unlikely, I believe it is necessary to changing the course of the country.  It seems to me that the political process has been so closely divided for the last number of years that it has allowed the members of the ideological fringes on both the right and the left to exercise an undue influence on the process.  I am afraid that a close decision, even in favor of Obama, will simply further divide the country.  The best thing that could happen is for there to be a real shift in the political center.  I suppose that this could be either to the right or to the left but I obviously support a more liberal and interventionist philosophy.  In my view, this shift would force the ideological extremists in the losing side to seek accommodation with the newly constituted center or face political irrelevance.  It is the only chance I can see of building a new consensus and for getting the country moving in the direction of repairing the damage we have done to ourselves during the Bush years.

Derek Nelson, a Canadian friend who I have commented on fondly in other rants, said one time that the fundamental difference between Americans and Canadians was that; “Americans value liberty and Canadians value equity”.  In reflecting on that over the years I have concluded he is absolutely right.  I think America could benefit from becoming a bit more concerned about equity in our society.  Let’s hope the political process leads us in that direction.