Smart Guns

Chris Hayes of MSNBC did a piece a couple weeks ago about the smart gun; a handgun that only operates when in proximity to a specialty watch that is linked electronically to the weapon.  The idea is that children wouldn't accidentally find the weapon and kill themselves or someone else but there is also great demand within the police forces who want a weapon that can't be taken forcefully from an officer and then turned back onto them.  Considering the great challenges out country is facing over gun deaths this is a modest step in the right direction but far from a panacea to all our problems.

What is interesting about this story is that the technology already exists, there is a smart gun that is ready to go on the market and there have been at least two distributors who have tried to sell it.  Before they could sell any, however, they were bullied and pressured by gun rights groups to stop.  This seems strange, right?  Why would gun rights groups oppose the sale of any gun, even one that has arguably "liberal" safety features?  Well, it turns out that they fear that once a smart gun goes on the market, this will lead to laws mandating that all gun sales be smart guns and that this could potentially lead to some sort of registry of gun owners.

It turns out this isn't just fantasy conservative fear mongering.  In 2002 New Jersey passed a smart gun law, saying that once a smart gun was available for sale anywhere in the country that New Jersey would only sell smart guns within 3 years.  This means that had either of the attempted distributors of the smart gun been successful then NJ would only sell smart guns beginning in 2017.  Here is where it gets interesting.  Chris Hayes had NJ State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg on to talk about that smart gun law that she sponsored over a decade ago.  She made an offer to work to repeal that law on condition that the NRA and the Gun Owners of America and other gun rights groups stopped working to prevent the manufacture and distribution of smart guns.  Sounds like a pretty good deal right?  NJ repeals the smart gun law, gun rights groups stop depressing the smart gun supply and America gets a safer weapon available on the open market competing against traditional guns.

Alright, even this liberal gun control advocate can see what a joke of an offer this is.  Let's begin by assuming that Rep. Weinberg is capable of getting this law repealed in NJ (as the Senate Majority Leader she probably could).  The more important question is; what is to keep her from re-passing the same law once the smart gun goes onto the market?  Well New Jersey has a Republican Governor so that might not happen so easily, but what about Massachusetts or Washington State or any of the other deep blue states with Democratic leadership?  Representative Weinberg clearly has no sway or control over what those legislatures do.  It is foolish to think that Democratic leaders in safely blue districts and states would not want to make all gun sales smart gun sales.

This all begs the question, what happens next?  Well, in my estimation, pretty much nothing.  Gun control advocates won't seriously consider repealing this hard fought for law.  Gun rights groups will continue to fight the development and distribution of this technology for the foreseeable future.  Children will continue to die needlessly because of unsecured firearms.  What I can't understand is why some gun control group doesn't just start selling this gun.  Are you listening Bloomberg?  Sell this gun and you will have achieved a major step towards greater gun control.  Not only will a smart gun be available on the market (probably not the ideal situation but better than the status quo) but in NJ at least, all gun sales will have to be smart guns within three years.  When it comes to developing the smart gun market the NJ law has really been an obstacle.  It has provided the ammunition that the gun rights groups need to claim that their rights are being restricted.  It appears to me, that NJ State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg and the other Democrats who passed this law really jumped the gun.

Defending the Country: Start with Chipotle

Well, it's been too long since I've posted anything.  I'm annoyed at myself for that, but it was important that I finished my school semester strong (I did) so I guess no regrets.  It's summer now and I'm getting myself back on track.  I want to start with the story about guns in Chipotle.

There are groups across this country that make a point of being "open carry" advocates.  I think it's fair to refer to these groups as zealous defenders of second amendment rights.  For them, it is more than just being able to have a gun, in order to protect gun rights you have to carry it openly, preferably loaded and the bigger the gun the better.  One of these groups went to a Chipotle restaurant carrying their weapons (some semi-automatic) ordered food and ate their meal.

Now, I've actually watched a few open carry demonstration videos on YouTube and think it is important to present their actions honestly.  First, they did call the restaurant in advance (or it has been reported) to let the manager know that they would like to come and that they are an open carry group.  Second, they appear to be friendly and harmless, it seems they are making a point of appearing as upstanding citizens merely out to protect their rights.  I haven't seen any foolish or childlike behavior, they aren't threatening anyone, they aren't playing with their guns; they just come in, eat, and leave.

Ok, with all those caveats in place lets move on to Chipotle's response to the whole ordeal.  They put out a very carefully worded statement "respectfully" asking customers not to bring guns into their restaurants.  The whole statement is very carefully written to try not to inflame groups on either side of the debate.  I have to say, I do feel sorry for Chipotle, I'm sure the last thing they want is to become a focal point in a highly contentious debate that really has nothing to do with their food.  It's not like they are Chick-Fil-A and intentionally interjected themselves into a morally charged debate.  Let's look at some of the statements they made: First, they said "we hope that our customers who oppose the carrying of guns in public agree with us that it is the role of elected officials and the legislative process to set policy in this area, not the role of businesses like Chipotle." Second, "this issue is not central to the operation of our business, and we do not feel that our restaurants should be used as a platform for either side of the debate."  Obviously this is not something Chipotle wanted, they realize that no matter what stance they take they are going to anger some people and they would much rather have not taken any stance. But I want to focus on that first part that claims that it should be legislators and not businesses that have to set policy in this arena.

I don't know about you, but it sounds really strange to hear a business saying that they don't want authority over some policy and that politicians should set some policy that they all have to follow.  The standard line for business is that business knows best and that government should get out of the way.  They don't want government telling them what kind of food they can serve, how high of a quality it should be, how nutritious it needs to be, when they can open or close, when they can serve alcohol, or any of the infinite other operating decisions that they must face.  But all of the sudden, when there is an issue that they know is going to ruffle some feathers one way or the other, "it's not our job to make this decision, government knows best!"  I think this is a bigger win for Liberals than Chipotle's decision to ask customers not to bring guns into their store.  This is Corporate America (Chipotle is owned by McDonalds Corp.) saying that government can and should regulate some aspect of their operation.  I agree, it is government's place to step in and set some guidelines for safety across every industry in America.  I believe that our governments number one job is to protect us from foreign threats, but their second job is to protect us from big business that sees all of humanity as dollars and cents.  What I find terribly ironic about this whole situation is that it is entirely their own fault.  It is business' fault that government hasn't set policy in this area, it is their fault that our politicians sit on their hands because they are the ones that tied their hands behind their backs.  They are the ones who spend millions of dollars getting enough politicians elected who promise to do nothing when it comes to government regulation.

Ok, I'm being a bit unfair… It's not just Chipotle, it might not even be Chipotle who has spent so luxuriously to ensure that government is incapable of completing the task they are now criticizing them for not accomplishing.  But make no mistake, this is CORPORATE AMERICAS FAULT: they asked for a government that does nothing, and now that they have it they complain about it.

One final note, in their statement they said "The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens and we appreciate them honoring this request."  I have to say, I think this is bull.  I don't see how you can be a responsible citizen and carry a semi-automatic gun into a restaurant, I'm sorry but, for me, those are mutually exclusive categories.  Even so, most gun owners don't go around carrying assault weapons with them everywhere they go, so they're responsible right? Wrong.  Responsibility is more than just not carrying around your assault rifle or blowing people brains off, responsibility is taking extra steps to ensure others don't either.  What does that mean?  That means supporting universal background checks.  Let's turn back to Chipotle,  each restaurant is subject to a yearly surprise inspection, ensuring that they are practicing safe food handling and that the restaurant is clean and the food is safe.  Chipotle is a big company, I'm sure their restaurants pass at least 99% of the time (it is disgustingly easy to pass with an A I might add) yet they still have to subject themselves to that extra scrutiny so that the public knows that all restaurants are sporadically checked.  Responsibility means agreeing to a little extra burden so that we can be more secure, whether through background checks and waiting periods for gun ownership or through surprise inspections of your restaurant.  Responsibility is more than personal responsibility, it is making sure that the entire system is responsible and right now the gun ownership system is entirely too irresponsible.

Motorcycle Traffic

I ended up heading home at an unusual (for me) time the other day and found myself caught in afternoon work traffic.  I keep unusual hours and rarely have to deal with the normal daily commuter traffic.  This day, however, I ended up with an extra 30 minutes on my commute and had the pleasure of sitting in the Southern California afternoon heat on very little sleep (stayed up late writing a paper the night before).  One thing that was different about sitting in traffic from my normal ride was the motorcycles zooming between me in the fast lane and the cars in the number 2 lane.

In the half hour I was stuck in stop in go traffic, I counted 16 motorcycles that passed.  Since I was in the fast lane, I would pull over a few feet into the center divide as a courtesy to the bikers that passed by.  I was able to move for 15 of the 16 bikes, I didn't see one coming and he had passed before I could do anything.  Of the 15 bikers that I moved for 9 of them gave me a quick peace sign as they passed acknowledging my courtesy.  This is how it should be.  I'm not saying that they all need to do this, if they aren't comfortable taking a hand off the handle because the gap ahead of them is tight, then it would be crazy for me to expect them to do so.  But in a perfect world, cars would move out of the way as a courtesy and bikers would acknowledge it and we would all go on our own way.

Bikers have a bad rap.  Usually people associate bikers with scruffy Hells Angels types or young irresponsible and reckless riders.  I have to say, between the two I prefer the Hells Angels type, they are much more likely to appreciate my courtesy, plus I like the cruiser bikes better.  Besides, they tend not ride around like madmen putting their own safety and that of other motorists on the line.  What is the point of my moving out of the way when they pass or double checking before I change lanes if they're just going to speed away doing a wheelie?  The young bucks that speed down the road swerving across all the lanes really bring down the whole group of riders.  Even so, considering how dangerous motorcycle crashed can be, we all have a responsibility to avoid collisions at all costs, even if they show disregard for their own lives.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with someone who was pissed about bikers splitting lanes in traffic.  First of all I should note that this is legal in California (where I live).  He was annoyed that they were able to pass and didn't have to sit in traffic like the rest of us, which he assumed made traffic worse for cars.  This is not true.  Even though the bikes that pass you while you are sitting in traffic don't make your commute any faster, they don't slow it down either.  The bikes that didn't have to sit in front of you because they split lanes actually made your commute faster.  Think of it this way, having bikes split lanes means that more vehicles can move through traffic in the same amount of time; you just never saw the bikes that saved you time because they were always in front of you.  If your concern is about fairness, buy a bike yourself and same us all a little time.

Have we learned nothing in 238 years?

I never understood why someone would try to make an argument by pointing to the founding fathers.  For starters, this implies an assumption that they were all in agreement. They were not, they fought each other with the same level of intensity (and sometimes more) then even the most heated debates today.  But this is only tangential to the point I would like to make here.

Pointing to the founding fathers to try to make an argument also implies that they were smarter than we are today.  This is quite obviously not true.  I'm not trying to say that they were dumb, only that we have come a long way in developing our scientific knowledge.  I have neither the time nor the energy to go through and list all of the things we have learned since our country was founded, luckily though wikipedia does.  Check out this page and look for dates after 1776, these are all things our founding fathers couldn't have possibly known about.  Even this list is hardly exhaustive, it only talks about hard sciences and makes no mention of the progress we've made in social sciences.

Consider this: George Washington was known to engage in blood letting as a medical cure for his ailments.  Perhaps we should subject those who defend their positions by pointing to the founding fathers to the same medical treatments in use during the 1800's.  I'd say we should prevent them from getting immunizations, but it seems like they are willingly pursuing that option already.  Maybe we could burn them for being witches or tar and feather them for their legal violations.  I don't know what we can do to show them that we are so much better and smarter than civilization in 1776.  I would say that we could take away all of their rights unless they are rich white men, but it seems like most of these people are rich white men.

Did I mention that most of these people were atheists who didn't support maintaining standing armies?  Come to think of it, maybe these guys are smarter than us...

Jon Stewart's Epic Rant About Campaign Finance

I just caught up with the Daily Show and was delighted to see Jon Stewarts epic rant about the Supreme Court's decision in McCutcheon.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with the case, he does a fairly decent job of explaining it.  Essentially, the court struck down the aggregate total of money that a person could spend during an election cycle while leaving the cap on how much you can give to any individual candidate.  This means that you can still only give $5,200 to a candidate for each election ($2,600 for the primary and another $2,600 for the general election) but now you can support every candidate running for office in the country.  This means that rich people can't donate $1 million dollars to a single candidate, but they can spread $1 million dollars around to 200 candidates.

As much as I like Jon Stewart and love to see him when he gets really riled up and as much as I agree with the sentiment behind his frustration, I don't think this is as dramatic of an attack on democracy as he makes it out to be.  Certainly it is nowhere near as bad as the Citizens United case that unleashed the floodgates of special interest donations towards super pacs.  He does point out that it is ridiculous to defend this law by pointing to one that is much worse; but there may be something to the idea that it has to get worse before it can get any better.

Let me begin my explanation by pointing out the Jon and I presumably want the same thing.  I assume that he, like I, would like to see public financing for all elections so that we can eliminate the wealth favoritism and potential for bribery and cronyism.  I don't like that the Supreme Court decided that money was speech, and allowed corporations and wealthy individuals to donate unlimited amounts of money to political super pacs.  They aren't supposed to coordinate with the candidates they support, but come on, how stupid do you think we are?  This decision was a double whammy because it not only gave unprecedented political access to the wealthiest people (at the cost of the rest of us) but it also means that the candidates themselves are no longer even accountable for the messages they produce.  The influx of money and the lack of transparency has led to some of the nastiest attack ads and most brutal campaigns.  I would be willing to bet that there is a statistically significant drop in our countries mental health during campaign season, it just can't be good for us to listen to and hear so much negativity.  There is no doubt that these are terrible laws.

Still, there is something to be said for letting wealthy donors contribute directly to campaigns instead of shuffling it through anonymous super pacs.  If we can at least have transparency and accountability we could make an improvement on what we are currently dealing with.  Plus, if the Supreme Court keeps breaking up the dam's that are holding back the cash, maybe things will get so bad that the people wake up and do something about it.  The only real chance we have to get public financing is through corruption.  It's a risky game we're playing, but i've always been a gambling man.

Racist Restaurants

I've worked in a variety of restaurants and in almost every position over the last 9 1/2 years.  People gave the NFL a bad wrap for the "locker room culture" but  seem to have no idea just how bad it is in restaurants.  Racism and sexism run amuck and from some of the people you'd least expect it.  It's not even hidden from view: have you noticed that all the waiters are white, all the hostesses are attractive young women, all the bus boys are black and all the line cooks are Mexican?  This is an industry that is dominated by young people, and yet it is one of the most intolerant and inhospitable working environments imaginable.

I actually work for a rather open minded company (comparatively) without the same degree of overt racial job classification; but that doesn't do much to change the culture among their employees.  I should be careful to note that this isn't a blanket accusation, it is merely a reflection of a general trend.  I'm proud to say that I work with a man who not only doesn't subscribe to this nastiness, but who also calls other people out when their behavior crosses the line.  His example inspired me to do the same.

Aside from the obvious demographic separation that keeps certain groups working certain jobs, there is a more flagrant racism that runs rampant.  Servers judge the tables they have to take before they even talk to them, and assume that their tip will reflect as much.  If you are Black, Latino, Indian, Native American, Asian American, foreign (with accent especially), young, old, or you look poor, then your server is probably pissed you just sat at their table.  Surprisingly, they don't even like rich people; black Amex card holders are notoriously poor tippers (at least in casual dining).  This doesn't just apply to white servers, I've heard black people use the "N word" and latinos say "wetbacks."  You just can't make this stuff up.  I've heard the "N word" so many time that it is no longer a shock to me anymore; that is both terrifying and saddening.  While I will never find this type of behavior justifiable, to a certain extent, it is actually understandable.

I would be lying if I said that over my nine years in the business I didn't notice discrepancies among different races and ethnicities in the tip percentage left for the server.  Even so, I think this effect is magnified because there is an expectation for it, and servers go around holding up the credit slip saying "See, see! I told you so" every time it happens.  A servers biggest resource is his time, often we are over burdened with more tables that we can actually take care of; this is when racism is most notable. If you have 8 tables and two of them are black families, you tend to give them the worst service because you don't think they were going to tip you well anyway.  Servers aren't rich people and it only makes sense that they would seek to maximize their profits on every given night.

This, of course, leads to a problem of causality.  Even if we accept the notion that certain ethnicities and races tip worse than others we don't know if it is because they are cheap or because they got worse service.  Besides, if you were a black family with a teenage child who couldn't find any work, then you went out to eat and all 25 servers working were white, would you feel compelled to leave a big tip?

I want to leave you with a true story about one of my more positive restaurant experiences, hopefully you'll see that we aren't all so bad.  I was waiting on a large family of Indians (from India not Native Americans) towards the end of one of my serving shifts.  Another server told me they were terrible tippers so my expectations weren't that great.  I wasn't terribly busy since it was the end of the night so I did my best to give them great service (I would have tried anyway, I always try to give great service so that I earn the right to complain about bad tips).  I figured, even if I bumped the tip from 5% to 10%, that that would be double the amount I would have made otherwise (not rocket science).  Their bill ended up being around $150 dollars and the father came up to me and handed me two $100 bills.  In perfect English he told me, "You are the first person who didn't judge us and gave us great service, thank you.  Please, keep the change."

I am under no illusion that that is the norm, I've had my fair share of bad tips (or no tips) even when everything was perfect.  But it does go to show, you never know.  Either way, I need to feel like a good person, often in spite of "restaurant culture."

Liberals Set Scary Precedent

In case you haven't heard about this story, I'll give you the 30 second elevator version.  In 2008 Brendan Eich made a $1,000 donation towards the California ballot initiative Proposition 8.  This proposition would ban Gay marriage in the state and actually passed before being reversed in the courts.  A week and a half ago this guy, one of Mozilla's original founders, was named CEO and there was an immediate outcry.  Eventually the cries built into a crescendo and Eich "resigned."

I really don't know how I'm supposed to feel here.  On the one hand I feel like it is a victory for those of us who favor marriage equality, but I'm also not comfortable with the idea that a 6 year old political contribution could force someone from a job in an unrelated field.  Make no mistake, I am a vehement supporter of gay rights but I don't think I can support the lefties here.  It would be one thing if he came out and made an anti-gay statement as the acting CEO of a company, but all he did was make a contribution to a cause he believes in, and it occurred six years ago.  As a blogger with obviously controversial ideas I am terrified.

Clearly I need to be writing under a pseudonym.  Maybe I should shut this whole thing down.  Maybe I should duct tape my mouth and not pull it off until I retire.  Maybe I should only write about little kittens, or lollypops or rainbows; but then I'd probably piss off all the dog people.  There is no way that anyone can please everyone, but that doesn't mean that we all need to keep our mouth shut if we have any aspirations in life.  

Writing for MSNBC Adam Serwer writes, "Eich had a First Amendment right to give money to the Proposition 8 campaign.  His critics had the same right not to use Mozilla's products, or to criticize them for choosing Eich as CEO.  Supporters of Eich now have the right to attack Mozilla over his resignation.  This is, in part, how the marketplace of ideas functions."  It is true that all of these people do have these constitutional rights, but there is a difference between your rights and being right.  Are these liberals seriously going to stalk this Eich guy for the rest of his life because he's backwards on marriage equality?  Are we seriously prepared to boycott any company that is led by someone that doesn't share the same ideological beliefs as us? Does the hyper partisanship of Washington need to cross over into the business world, and every other facet of our lives?  This is ridiculous people, they're a freakin' internet browser company, and this guy was totally qualified to lead it.  

I'm so ashamed.  The second that liberals get a taste of power, get a sliver of public support on their side they need to ram it down the throats of all those that don't agree with them.  If we stopped to look in the mirror, would we see anything different than that which we have been criticizing for so long?  We should be better than this, we should be better than them.  And shame on Mozilla, they actually had some courage for all of 3-4 days.  It obviously wasn't a very popular decision to defend him, but the precedent you've set here by letting him go is rather horrifying.  I don't want to have to shop in a liberal grocery store, buying liberal groceries, and driving home in my liberal car (Whole Foods, Organic, and Prius Hybrid) only to have to return because I accidentally got the Red cola (Coke) instead of the Blue (Pepsi).  I don't want to live in fear that the words I write today will keep me from a job I deserve tomorrow.  I don't want to have to sensor myself because a bunch of art majors think I'm a prick.  I don't want to live in Soviet Russia!  

If the thousands of people who complained about Eich's promotion really wanted to make a difference, they could have all donated $1 towards marriage equality and trumped his measly $1k donation anyway.  Come on people, this is America.