A Journalist and an Historian

Well, he’s an interesting guy, with an interesting set of beliefs. And he’s much in the news, now, since he has taken Edward Snowden’s revelations public through The Guardian and The Washington Post.

But the hour-long interview that I just watched was filmed two years ago, when Glenn Greenwald was relatively unknown, and had just published his book, With Liberty and Justice for Some. The central premise of the book? That our political institutions have become so corrupted that we now have a two-tiered system of justice—one for the rich and powerful, the other for the rest of us.

A defining moment for Greenwald was Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon. From then on, the idea that we had to “look forward, move on, achieve closure” meant that every president since then joins the old boys network. A classic case, according to Greenwald, was how even in the interregnum of winning the election and the inauguration, Obama was slithering out of persecution of the Bush administration for war crimes, for lying to the American people and to Congress, for launching an aggressive war. Which, by the way, was the key crime of Adolf Hitler that the United States and the world charged in the Nuremberg Trials after World War II.

And it’s a clear path—the lack of prosecution of Richard Nixon lead to the lack of persecution for Irangate and high officials in the Reagan administration, the invasion of Iraq in Desert Storm, the torture and abuses of human rights in the Bush years. And as Greenwald points out, anybody who suggests that Bush be held to justice has instantly self-marginalized himself.

What’s particularly curious is—where’s the outrage? We are, after all, living in the most connected era in history. I can now tell you that in Syria, the foreign minister has appeared to agree to demands to allow international inspection or control. A hundred and fifty years ago, people were still fighting in wars after the truce had been declared.

By now, everyone can see the problem: we have an oligarchy. Members of Congress spend half of their time—minimally—struggling to get elected. And that money doesn’t come from you and me. Unless, of course, your last name is Rockefeller….

The other curious thing is how easy it should be, hypothetically, to solve the whole thing. Look, other governments have found out or figured out ways to take the money out of politics. Why can’t we?

We could start with simply funding public elections. Punto—oh, and can we put an end to television advertising? Debates, yes—but a president or senator isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a product. Though they have become so….

The next thing to do would be to throw out all the fancy voting apparatus and go back to the paper ballot and the cardboard box. The voting machine industry, by the way, is highly technical, extremely expensive, and is dominated by about three companies, all headed by rabid Republicans.

We also are going to have to increase minimum wage. Oh, and speaking of which—and speaking also of the corrosive effect of money on public policy—here’s Bill Moyers on the other NRA.

In June, the National Restaurant Association boasted that its lobbyists had stopped minimum wage increases in 27 out of 29 states in 2013. In Connecticut, which increased its state minimum wage, a raise in the base pay for tipped workers such as waitresses and bartenders vanished in the final bill. A similar scenario unfolded in New York State: It increased its minimum wage, but the NRA’s last-minute lobbying derailed raising the pre-tip wage at restaurants and bars. The deals came despite polls showing 80 percent support for raising the minimum wage.     

Rounding back to Greenwald, he argues that we have a system in which the powerful get away—figuratively and even occasionally literally—with murder, whereas the poor are more easily incarcerated than ever.

OK—jailing is one thing we do to the poor. The other thing we do—as I learned in class today—is to use them as cannon fodder. That’s what my student taught me, as she showed me a photo on her iPhone of her nephew, who had just enlisted in the army.

Well, he thought it was all he could do. He had just turned 18, he had bad grades and couldn’t go to the university, and jobs? Are you kidding?

I tried to be hopeful; my student was near tears. But the reality is that if her nephew comes back, his life may be just as hellish as it was in Iraq. It may, in fact, become something like Iraq 2.0, with the terrors being internal and systemic, as opposed to external and random.

Oh, and the people who wrecked the system, so that there are no jobs, and kids have to off to war? The criminals in the thousand-dollar suits? They’re free, and riding a soaring stock market right now….

Greenwald also makes the point that we have blended the lines between the public and private sectors. And nowhere is this more true than in “national security.” Who would have imagined a world in which we have out-sourced granting security access? It’s madness.

And Greenwald’s observation that journalists have changed is interesting—instead of the hard-bitten, cynical, go-after-the-bastards-and-damn-the-costs guys of the past, we now have people who are employed by corporations, and who know how the corporation works. Which—news flash, here—is by smiling, going along with the herd, ducking your head and not rocking boats.

Well, I came upon Greenwald by listening to “Conversations with History,” a great, hour-long program coming out of UCLA. Yesterday, I watched William Cronon, the president of the American Historical Association and a professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Today was Greenwald.

And both men were inspiring. Oddly, both men spoke briefly of the necessity of hope. Given that Cronon is a specialist in Environmental History, and Greenwald in First Amendment and Civil Rights, one wonders…

Which man has the most reason to be hopeful?

Or the most need?

Big Tobacco, Step Aside

Warning, first off. If you watch the video below, you’ll be in for two minutes of vitriol that, despite all you know of emotional hijacking, will leave you shaking with rage.

Now then, here’s how it started. I wrote a post about guns recently, in which I stated that some gun owners are amping up the rhetoric to fairly high levels. So much so that a college professor wrote an op-ed for the Charleston Gazette; here’s the quote I used:

In a bizarre op-ed in The Charleston Gazette last week, journalism professor Christopher Swindell argued that the National Rifle Association “advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America.”

I went on to say that the new president of the NRA, Jim Porter, had called Obama a “fake president,” though I didn’t say, as did Swindell, that the NRA had called for an armed rebellion. I did say that the one motivating emotion associated with the gun owners I had spoken with was fear.

A reader reacted in disbelief through Facebook—was I serious? And that set me thinking—what is it about guns? Having a talk about abortion is tea party conversation next to the typical discourse on gun control.

So I got curious—what happens when you shoot a gun? Do you get a rush? What goes on neurologically? Well, the last gun I shot was a BB gun, so I turned to somebody with more recent, and authentic, experience.

Yo, Eric, step into the blog!

“Depends on the caliber,” said Eric, after I had posed the question. He then went on to give me the advice about preparing / preventing kickback. Then he wanted to know, “what are you thinking of shooting?”

Well, we went on to have an interesting conversation. He thought it was possible, suspected dopamine was at play, and mentioned video games and gambling machines.

Bang on, Eric!

In the wake of recent tragic events, there have been a raft of articles about new reasons for gun-control and the psychological make-up of mass murderers (See NYT or WSJ), but the authors of this piece (co-authored with neuroscientist James Olds) believe there’s a critical component missing from this discussion: the very addictive nature of firearms.

That’s Steven Kotler, writing in Forbes Magazine. And let me say this up front: the following is conjecture, a theory.

But Kotler and Olds also believe that dopamine might have a role, and they too adduce the large amount of research on first-person shooting video games, which leads to increased levels of dopamine. (Tangentially, by blocking the reuptake—just what the SSRI antidepressants do.) And what does dopamine do? In the brain, it’s an upper, a motivator. We feel pleasure, excited, and eager to explore the world. Oh, and what drug floods the brain with dopamine? Cocaine, the most addictive of all.

The problem? The first hit of dopamine is always the best. So the brain seeks higher and higher of whatever the addiction is—cigarettes, booze, cocaine, shopping—to get that initial high.

Second, well, let the authors explain:

Two things make this even more alarming. First, because the human brain evolved in an era of immediacy—when threats and rewards were of the lions, tigers and food variety—the dopamine circuitry has an inborn timing mechanism. If the reward follows the stimulus by roughly 100-200 milliseconds, it’s sitting in dopamine’s sweet spot. Firing a muzzle loader—for example—would certainly release dopamine, but it takes too long between multiple firings for a significant reward loop to be created. Firing an automatic weapon, though, sits close to the sweet spot—an assault weapon can fire a round every 100 milliseconds. Meaning not only are guns addictive, but automatic weaponry is far more addictive than most.

Well, as I said, all of this is conjecture. What about anecdotal evidence? I googled “gun addiction,” and came across thefiringline.com, which bills itself “the leading online forum for firearm enthusiasts.” Here’s a sample:

Is there a 12-point program for gun addiction?? I retired two years ago and firearms and shooting has become my major hobby and obsession!! In the past 24 months I have purchased on average one gun a month. Now I have traded some that I already had but my purchases seem to be growing exponentially. I enjoy buying a new gun as much as shooting them.

I can't pass a gun shop without checking it out. I go to Cabelas and Bass Pro every week to see if they have anything new. Whenever my wife and I travel the first thing I do is check out the local gun shops. I go to every gun show within a 200 mile radius and that's at least one a month. I spend probably 2 hours a day online searching auctions and forums.

My wish list grows daily. Now, I have sufficient discretionary income to support this addiction but if things continue at the current rate that could be at risk.

Please tell me that I'm not alone and this behavior is perfectly normal. Is there such a thing as firearms obsessive- compulsive disorder and how do you treat it???

Best answer? Get a wife with a shoe addiction, and you’ll never have a problem.

Lastly, I turned to another source, Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone. Here’s what he has to say:

For the moment, that strategy is paying handsome dividends. Handgun sales have jumped 70 percent since 2008, racking up an estimated $1.5 billion in sales last year. Powerful pistols – sold under brands like Beretta, Glock and Ruger – have replaced traditional hunting guns as the industry's cash cow. Revenue from assault rifles is growing at an even faster clip – having doubled in the past five years, to $489 million. Gaudy profit margins have become the norm: Top gun makers enjoy gross profits of 30 percent or more. Ammunition manufacturers, too, boast of being fat and happy. And it's no wonder: AR-15 enthusiasts brag they can fire up to 400 rounds in 60 seconds. Paying roughly 50 cents a bullet, such shooters are blowing through $200 worth of ammo in a hot minute.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gun-industrys-deadly-addiction-20130228#ixzz2VM6g4vPV

Well, if it’s true that assault rifles fire at a rate that’s within dopamine’s “sweet spot,” then it’s no wonder that they’re selling so well. And if a little addiction isn’t enough, how about this?

For a younger generation raised on graphic video games, shooting at paper targets or "plinking" bottles and tin cans doesn't carry much appeal. So the industry has come up with some new ways to make shooting more like playtime. A firm called Zombie Industries manufactures life-size mannequins for target practice. Some models "bleed" fluorescent goo when shot. Others respond to gunfire in a more lifelike fashion, opening up gaping chest wounds and "bursting into little pieces of blood-soaked zombie matter when you shoot them." The manufacturer offers a wide line of "zombie" targets, including "the Terrorist" – an undead bin Laden – and, more troubling, a blood-soaked, buxom woman-target called "The Ex."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gun-industrys-deadly-addiction-20130228page=2#ixzz2VM8EYnQP

I rest my case.

Treason, Anyone?

Readers will know—a group of people and I have been reading 30,000 randomly generated names for weeks now. Why 30,000? That’s the number of people killed by gunshot every year; using information from the CDC, I compiled a list of 720 pages.

I had been nervous about doing the reading, since I don’t do confrontation well. And I had thought that I would run into a lot of NRA supporters. So in all these weeks of talking to people, how many card-carrying NRA members have I spoken with?

Two.

And I have spoken to many, many people. So what’s the story? Yes, I am in Puerto Rico, but there are many tourists here. There are days, in fact, when two or three cruise ships come into the harbor—the city becomes Des Moines, linguistically and culturally.

The two cases of pro-NRA folk were identical; they were white, middle-aged men. They didn’t want to talk, one saying frankly, “I’m not interested in your views,” after I had asked him why he was in favor of the NRA. The other engaged briefly in debate, but declined to sit in front of the camera and give his point of view.

Generally, I would prefer to be wrong rather than right—you learn something. And if someone can tell me, for example, why gun shops require background checks but gun shows do not, I’m willing to listen.

And I started out this project wanting to know—what is it that fuels this debate about guns and gun control? What is it that stirs such strong feelings on both sides?

I’m hard-pressed to think of a more potent symbol than a gun. Yes, I considered briefly the image of Christ on the cross, or the swastika (please note—I’m not likening the two) or the sickle and hammer. Strong, yes—but as strong as a gun?

And I’ve come to believe—the NRA advocates, based on my brief encounters personally and my longer encounters electronically, are deeply fearful people.

And whom do they fear?

The government.

They see their guns as the only thing stopping the government from tyranny. And I’ll go further.

They see their world disappearing. There’s a black guy in the White House. Gay people are getting married, and Spanish is spoken everywhere. Hillary may well be president in 2017, and that will drive them nuts.

They see their guns as protection, and each day brings with it added urgency; more need for bigger, more destructive weapons.

But there’s a problem. And a journalism professor at the University of Kentucky brought it out, as reported by the Daily Caller:

In a bizarre op-ed in The Charleston Gazette last week, journalism professor Christopher Swindell argued that the National Rifle Association “advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America.”

Bizarre? How so? The most extreme gun advocates quite openly state—their guns are their defense against the government. And how far is it that defense become offense?

A Libertarian wants to get 10,000 people carrying loaded weapons to march through Washington DC on the Fourth of July. He says it will be peaceful, but who knows? To me, it’s a pretty provocative act.

It’s also provocative to argue, as the new president of the NRA has, that Obama is a “fake president.” In olden days, it would be called unpatriotic; I still think it is.

People are reacting to a series of threats to our liberties. The media calls it fear. That’s not it, that not it. It’s a sense of rational outrage that’s been building for a very long time. It’s not going to diminish. It’s not going to go away….

I hear some Americans say with the last election the country is lost. No. No. An election was lost. There’s another election more important to the Second Amendment right around the corner. With the U.S. Senate and the House up for grabs, we as individual N.R.A. members can direct the massive energy of spontaneous combustion to regain the political high ground. We do that, and Obama can be stopped.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/05/jim-porter-and-the-nras-challenge-to-america.html

That was Porter speaking recently at the NRA national convention, and it’s clear—the NRA is playing out the demagogue’s favorite trick: create a false crisis and stir up the masses.

God save us all.

Don't We?

Well, the situation on Capitol Hill, it seems, is getting a bit heated. The Senate Judiciary Committee is trying to figure out what to do about a difficult question—should somebody with a criminal record or a history of mental illness including violence be allowed to buy a gun? Forty percent of guns sold in the US do NOT include a background check.

This is a difficult, difficult question for our senators, who perhaps see things in this question that we simpler souls do not. Because a large majority—is it 80%? 90%? Who cares…the numbers are ridiculous—a large majority of the American public, as I was saying, support universal background checks.

And according to the New York Times, tempers flared at a luncheon for Republican lawmakers last weekend. Senator Susan Collins was pissed—she’s getting attacked, she said, by the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) which has deep ties to Rand Paul. Then Portman got into the fray, saying that he’s spending time raising funds for Collins, and she’s obliged to use it to defend herself, instead of getting her message out or attacking the opposition. Then Ted Cruz of Texas jumped in, and said he had nothing to do with it. (Cruz, apparently, is an ideological fan of Paul.) Then Paul, offended, left in a huff (OK, the New York Times actually said “stormed out of the room.”)

According to the NAGR, the National Rifle Association (NRA) isn’t sufficiently vigilant or militant in protecting “gun rights.” Yes, you read that right—NAGR president Dudley Brown thinks that the NRA is “negotiating backroom deals with left-wing Republicans and Democrats for half a loaf of gun control.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/slew-of-gun-rights-groups-flex-muscle-89781_Page2.html#ixzz2QXPj1sCy

Some people feel differently, like former Colorado State Senator Jean White, who got shot down in the primaries, and then saw a Democratic opponent win the general election. She says the NAGR is a godsend for the Democrats; several others agree. In the meantime, the NAGR took in and spent 7 million bucks last year.

Collins is also upset because the ads—coming from out of state—suggest she doesn’t act or talk like a Mainer; she grew up in northern Maine, where everybody had guns. And the ads hit pretty low—her face doing a slow dissolve into the face of Obama. Oh, and they call her a “gun grabber.”

Guys, this is insane. And it’s a typical example of how, by trying to be reasonable with crazy people, you end up in the end in completely crazy positions.

What we should have said, those decades ago when we were worrying about “Saturday night specials” (remember those halcyon days?) was this:

1.     The Second Amendment applies to the right of the citizenry to arm themselves and form militia. You have no individual right to own a gun.

2.     OK—for historical reasons, you can own a rifle and engage in hunting.

3.     The only purpose of a handgun is to kill someone. Sales of handguns are illegal, and illegal trafficking will be strictly punished.

4.     No attack weapons, semi-automatic weapons, etc. Rifles, period.

5.     As technology evolves, you will be required to upgrade your weapon, which means, yes, a national registry. We know that you have a car—why isn’t that a big deal? So you’ll be getting letters, periodically, saying that your gun has to have a Breathalyzer, a GPS chip, a PIN lock…whatever.

6.     Duh, background checks…..

7.     Sell guns through the mail, the Internet, gun shows? What, are you crazy? Guns are sold only through licensed shops, whose records are inspected annually.

We should have said it; we didn’t. So the gun people kept claiming more ground. Eventually, they got the Supreme Court to reverse two centuries plus of constitutional history and say that the Second Amendment allows individuals to own guns. More and more laws got passed protecting gun owners and gun “rights.” Gun makers got immunity from lawsuits; it became illegal to fund research on the effect of gun policy. As everyone went farther and farther into this crazy land, the NRA and the other gun “rights” groups had to whip up the masses more and more on progressively more crazy issues. Now, they are forced into attacking their friends—like Collins—by making up absurd claims. Oh, and also by lying.

And they have now, of course, put the Republican Party in a real jam. Because they are about to show their true colors to the American people. They’re about to tell 80% (or is it 90%) of the American people to go to hell, that they don’t care what they think or how many kids get killed, because nothing, in the end, is more important than the next election.

As deeply as I care about the issue, it may be time to focus on the way our campaigns are funded. Because now, we have a terrible example of how a single-issue constituency can completely subvert the democratic process by injecting twin amounts of money and lies into campaigns. Add to that the fact that corporations can now contribute freely and we have a looming disaster.

It may be time, it may be well past time, to do what Norway does. About 74% of campaigns are publically funded. Oh, and another wonderful piece of news: political ads are banned on television and radio.

I’d go further, of course. It seems crazy to me that a candidate can opt out of accepting campaign funds. Level the playing field—give everybody the same amount of dough, and let the best candidate win.

I mean we all do want an honest government, don’t we?

Didn’t hear the answer—don’t we?

Don’t we? 

The Colors That Run

Well, we’re seeing the true colors of our Congress, and guess what? It’s not red or blue, but green. The green that lives in your wallet, not on the trees.

The polls all say the same thing—somewhere around 80 to 90% of the American people favor background checks for anyone buying a gun. So naturally, Congress is going to have to act, to get right up there at the head of the parade, to wave that flag around and pass that legislation that is more popular than motherhood, right?

Lawrence Lessig, the guy in the clip below, might say no. Or he might say that the answer is very simple: look at the money the NRA spends on Congress versus the money the gun-control groups spend.

Well, I know the answer to that one—and here it is, courtesy of the Washington Post. 

Congressmen and women spend up to fifty percent of their time on the first priority of any politician: getting reelected. And all too often that means money, preferably big money, because look, are you going to spend hours trying to get a 10-buck donation? Remember Mitt Romney and the famous 47% remark? He made it in a room full of people spending 50,000 bucks a head. That’s 100,000$ a couple, plus parking and the babysitter.

Well, we certainly saw Mitt in his element, but the bad news? That’s every politician’s element. But until we all get together and force change on Congress, we’ll keep getting what we’re currently stuck with: the best Congress money can buy.

Consider this fact from POLITICO.com: “the top 0.07 percent of donors are more valuable than the bottom 86 percent.”

Well, I’m sure at this point you must be scratching your head and saying, “don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions!” And I’m happy to say that Lessig argues that there are solutions out there—varying proposals to empower the small donors and lessen the power of super donors. I’m all for it, as well as for bringing back the hand-counted, paper ballot.

Question is—which to do first?

Ordinary People, Heroic Acts

For the last two Saturdays in a row, I have taken two chairs, a pair of jeans and a shirt, a video camera, and a satchel with information cards and consent forms as well as two books, each containing about 350 pages, to a public square.

It’s the 30,000 Lives Project, in which I cheerfully consent to look completely ridiculous. My object is to read the randomly generated names of 30,000 people: the number of people who die every year of gunshot wounds.

Why do I do this?

I had to ask myself the question that first day—when I was visibly nervous. I had support, thank God. Raf was there, holding the sign that announced the project. Pablo was there, reading names and talking to people. Nydia strolled into the scene, kissed me and got right to work. Then doña Ilia strolled in and stole—blessedly though not surprisingly—the show.

The point is that nobody would have been on the plaza doing what I was doing if I hadn’t gotten pissed. The NRA was making me crazy—how many more massacres would it take before we had gun control? And yes, Facebook and the social media are fine—but all my friends think like me, for the most part. That’s why we’re friends.

So the real work wasn’t the ten hours of copying and pasting in the one hundred name batches that it took to generate the 724-page document. And the real expense wasn’t the hundred bucks spent on printing the books, fliers, consent forms or sign. The real effort was to put myself out there—to make a fool out of myself and to expose myself to the possible scorn of NRA members or gun “rights” advocates.

I don’t do well with conflict. Or so I thought, because when I encountered that first day a gun rights advocate, the conversation was surprisingly cordial. I heard him out, disagreed, and parted company. No big deal.

Well, it’s been two Saturdays—we’ve read six thousand of thirty thousand names, or 5% of the total. And we’ve spent 4 hours doing it. So it should take 80 hours to read the names of all the people who die of gunshot wounds in the United States. Yup—two full work weeks.

So now we know. But is it worth it? Do we get anything from having Marc and friends stand / sitting around in public reading names?

I think Philip Zimbardo would say yes. And he should know—having written my Psychology 101 textbook those many years ago. So I clicked on his TED talk, and was immediately hooked. It’s that old question—if you were a German in Nazi Germany, what would you do?

Sadly, we know what you would do. You would follow the crowd, go off to war, press the button that sends the poison gas into the nostrils of the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals in the chamber next door.

Or you wouldn’t. There was a German resistance, there were people hiding prisoners of war or Jews or anybody who needed hiding. So maybe you wouldn’t have colluded, maybe you would have been a hero, which is, according to Zimbardo…

…an ordinary person. A seamstress with tired feet, as Rosa Parks was that day she sat at the front of the bus. She didn’t wake up and say, “hey, I really oughta be a hero today,” she later said; she just had tired feet.

Years ago, at Wal-Mart, a motivational speaker concluded a talk by pulling out a dollar bill. He talked about how a person had given him a dollar bill with the message: go ahead, dream, follow your passion, you’re a leader and you can make change happen. So at every talk he gives, he pulls out a dollar bill and gives it to the person he sees having leadership potential.

There were about thirty people in an one-of-you-will-betray-me-moment—‘is it me?’

Well, I took the dollar in complete confusion, and did the only thing I could think of—put it under the laughing Buddha that then sat on my desk and now sits on my desk. And no—I haven’t spent it.

But if I was the person with the most leadership potential—and that guy really should cut out the morning bottle—it’s probably due to one thing.

I’m gay and I came out.

After you do that, you learn two things. First, that you can do it—that you can have the courage to face social disapproval, professional suicide, parental rejection. After that, standing in a plaza reading names is no big deal.

Second, going along with the crowd is not so important. Being liked is not so important. You realize—I’ll make my crowd, I’ll make my family, and no, I don’t have to have people like me.

Zimbardo talks briefly at the end of his talk about the bullying issue. And I agree with what I suspect would be his analysis—it’s stupid to tell a thirteen-year old kid “it gets better.” Sure, it’s true, and yeah, if feels good to say it. But do you remember how long time was when you were a kid? Christmas or a birthday took centuries to come around—now they pop up every other day.

I would tell these kids—“hey, you know what? There’s a reason you’re getting bullied, and it’s a good reason. You’re different, and that’s wonderful. There’s something special in you. I don’t know what it is, but I can sense it, and so can the kids around you, and they’re jealous ‘cause you’ve got something special, something to give, something unique. Do you know what it is?”

Kid looks up.

“Nah….”

“Well, that’s what we’re gonna find out….”

Plus ça change...

Well, well—time to dust off the high school French, which I did by consulting, as always, Wikipedia. So here it is: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Or I suppose I could tax my brains a bit and figure out who said—in Latin—that there is nothing new under the sun.

Certainly not the Caribbean sun, shining so brightly on tourists and dropping conveniently away when it’s time to do what we do very well down here.

Smuggling.

Here’s how it works. We send up the drugs. You send down the guns.

That white powder that isn’t talc but is occasionally mixed with it has to come through somewhere. It used to be Mexico, but then things got a little hot up there. So the game changed to Puerto Rico, which famously, in the words of an early 20^th century US Supreme Court decision, is not the United States but “pertains” to the United States. (Anybody up there who can explain that, please give me a call. Been wondering for years….) In other words, no customs. If you can get the drugs in, you can send them in any aircraft, cargo container, or package through the US mail or FedEx.

So the drug traffickers have recreated the Middle Passage, though in this case it’s South America to the Caribbean, not Africa, and now it drugs, not slaves. But don’t imagine that it was Sam Walton who dreamed up logistics, though he did further it a bit. Nobody loves an empty ship.

And here, I take a deep breath and concede—maybe—a point to the NRA. “Outlaw guns and then only the outlaws will have guns!” they cry. (Nice turn of phrase, hunh? Great little marketing slogan….) Because Puerto Rico has probably the strictest laws in the nation about guns.

For one thing, they’re not considered a right. But let the Orlando Sentinel tell the story:

Buying a gun legally in Puerto Rico takes six to 18 months to complete paperwork and convince a police board that the applicant needs a gun. Puerto Rico does not consider gun ownership a right, said Edgardo Nieves, Rossello's spokesman.

By comparison, Florida residents only need to turn to a flea market, gun show or their newspaper's classified advertising section to buy without restriction.

And happily for everyone but the victims, it’s quite profitable. You buy a gun from Craig’s List for three hundred bucks, and you can sell it for three or four times as much on the streets of San Juan.

Well, with a deal like that, everybody wants in, right? So you’ve got your own little business started and established—a punto that is selling cocaine and heroin and god knows whatever else. And then some punk decides to move in on your territory. You gonna let that happen?

Fortunately, there are people who can help you. Sure, it costs, but money is not a problem. This is a business expense.

Now there used to be a little honor—the hit man killed in the punto, not stores or restaurants, or anywhere they could find the intended victim. So if you weren’t suicidal, you stayed away from the puntos. Now, if you’re not suicidal you stay home.

Two points. I may not be ready to concede the logic of “only the outlaws will have guns” to the NRA. It may be if the rest of the nation had our strict gun laws, there wouldn’t be the price difference that makes trafficking them into Puerto Rico so attractive. It might also be that there would be far fewer guns in the fifty states.

Second point—I read yesterday about the Mayors Against Illegal Guns. They are a significant group of 800 mayors; the mayors of Clairon, Clarks Summit, and Felton—to name three towns in Pennsylvania—have all signed a pledge. They’re gonna fight illegal guns, which make up the vast majority of weapons in Puerto Rico.

Well, we have a new mayor in San Juan, a lady who is busy trying to come up with the 800 million dollars that she needs to run the city. That’s daunting.

But what about the old mayor? The guy that put up all the signs announcing the projects that never got the money to get done? He’d been around for 12 years; in that time, why hadn’t he signed on? The group, by the way, is headed by the mayors of New York City and Boston. So they found the time…..

I’ve written about two of the three ingredients in this explosive stew. Here’s the third…

…money.

Question Time

It seems to be my destiny to have a callus on my thumb. For years, it was the left thumb, and the callus was the result of playing the cello for three or four hours every day. This week, it’s the right thumb, and it came about when I decided to compile a list of 33.050 randomly generated names, representing the 33,050 genuine (and nameless, officially speaking…) people who in 2010 died as a result of a gunshot wound.

There was a time about ten years ago when I was a computer idiot—in fact, I had a theory that my own electric-magnetic field collided with any electronic device, especially computers. The moment, it seemed, I tried to use one, it crashed, almost always fatally. So it was a big event, the day I announced to Mr. Fernández and doña Taí that I had done a copy / paste. Their eyes rolled like a drunken sailor at sea.

Well, on a Mac laptop, the only or at least the best way to copy / paste is with the thumb. And the list, which took over ten hours to create, took massive copy / pasting.

So what did I learn from the experience?

Here goes, in random order:

·    The list is in size 12 font (20 for the state), single space and occupies 724 pages.

·    California has the most gun deaths—slightly above Texas, which has, however, ten million more people.

·    There’s a huge range in mortality rate—lowest is Hawaii at 3.3, the highest in the fifty states (hear something coming up?) is Arizona at 20.3.

·    Puerto Rico lo hace mejor is the official tourist slogan assures us, but if we do it better, we don’t do it the best. Yes, with a gun mortality rate of 24.3, we’re pretty high. But unbelievably, the US Virgin Islands has a gun mortality rate of 59.7.

“Why are you doing this,” asked John with genuine curiosity.

And it is bizarre. Look, it is statistically more dangerous to send your kid to sleep over in a friend’s house if the parents have a swimming pool as opposed to a gun. Death by gunshot is about number fifteen on the list of leading causes of death—more people die of pneumonia that gunshot, so why aren’t I out protesting against Staph aureus? As well, there are more suicides by gunshot than homicides—though death is death, no matter who pulls the trigger.

And though the attention always goes to the crazy people with semiautomatic weapons, the reality is that most deaths by gunshot occur by handguns—the very weapons that we are earnestly (and ineffectively) reassuring the NRA we would never, never even THINK about banning.

So why spend all this time and energy—reading thirty thousand names in public?

Is it that guns are such a potently masculine symbol? Am I still, at the age of 56, dealing with being a man?

Or is it the randomness of the act? But wait, most victims know their assailant, and anyway a Staph infection is also random.

If we were going to be honest, we would be forced to admit—seeking a ban on semiautomatic weapons probably isn’t going to do much good. Every gun fanatic has gotten his hands on one or more now, and it’s the handgun that kills more often. So really we should be talking about increasing mental health funding and figuring out a way to reduce handgun deaths.

“So why are you doing this,” asked my brother. And here’s my question—at the end of reading 30,000 names, will I have found the answer?

¡Basta ya!

Let me tell anyone reading out there a little secret.

The world is a mess. Our country is a mess. Yes, the economy is slowly improving; some of us even have jobs! But there’s lots of stuff to do. We should be worrying—and maybe acting?—on global warming. We’ve got big issues like the widening disparity in wealth, the horrendous question of the national debt, terrible problems in our mental health system, to say nothing of a huge group of vets who are facing posttraumatic stress disorder.

Into this picture steps Dianne Feinstein, to whom I cheerfully gave four minutes of my time this morning (not, happily, having a job to have to get to…). 

Well, you can imagine that of course I like Dianne Feinstein—I was happy to be the choir at which she preached. Though I did find myself getting a bit annoyed with her. She was rational, she had done her homework, she was explaining one of the criticisms of the 1993 ban on automatic weapons and going into great detail about how gun manufacturers had gone around the law by removing one bolt or piece on the weapon, and boom! Legal!

So why was I annoyed? Don’t I want my senators to be intelligent, articulate, prepared? (Answer, for those who may need it—yes. Actually—with a nod southwards here—I’d really like my president to have the stated characteristics…)

Guys—how much time are we gonna spend on this issue? How many gazillion hours are we going to waste talking rationally to zealots who will never, never, never change their minds on the issue?

Oh, and by the way, didn’t we use to have a democracy, before the NRA roared into town, bought all the senators and representatives they could, and cowed all the rest? And weren’t there guys called journalists, who let us all know what was happening?

I spent four years of wincing as I watched Obama trying to reason with Tea Party republicans. And I felt the same way—almost—just now with Feinstein.

Well, well—I turned from that to the clip below. I knew that the fifteen-year old kid in New Mexico had taken his family out. And I know that apparently he had thought to go see my old pals at his local Wal-Mart—and no, not for those every-day low prices! He had the minivan all packed with his then-dead dad’s semiautomatic weapons.

So what happens? He decides to go to his church, instead. And spends the day there, hanging with his friends and girlfriend. A parishioner tells the pastor—something isn’t quite right with the boy’s family.

Well, by one of those things I call coincidence and more churchy people do not, there’s a guy on hand doing a drill on what happens if there’s a mass murderer in church. (Pretty obvious, I’d say—dive under the pews and pray!) So the guy giving the talk / drill speaks to the fifteen-year old kid, and they decide to go check it out. The kid has said, “yeah, I came home and discovered my whole family dead.” But he hadn’t called the cops, or told anybody but—presumably—his friends. Somewhere on the way to the murder scene, the former cop / now security consultant gets the whim-whams. He feels evil in the back seat, where the kid is riding. So he stops the car, pulls out his cellular, calls 911.

“Do you feel that you may have prevented the next Sandy Hook,” the reporter asks the pastor. The pastor thinks maybe.

Wrong question.

Well, we now live in the land of Google, where most questions now have answers. And so I looked into it—are guns an effective means of self-defense? Jack, my father who had a gun (kept in his underwear drawer—Sigmund? You in the house?) always said no. You hear a noise in the living room, it’s two in the morning, you get up, see the bastard, lift your gun, squeeze the trigger and BAM!

Killed the fucker!

Your fifteen-year old son, who had a little craving for cookies and milk.

And Google, predictably, has the answers. Guess what? According to something called guns4U.com (invented, but you get what I mean) the answer is….

OK, scroll down to a study by Harvard University. Of course the NRA won’t trust it, but the rest of us do. So what do they say? 

 Across states, more guns = more unintentional firearm deaths

We analyzed data for 50 states over 19 years to investigate the relationship between gun prevalence and accidental gun deaths across different age groups. For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths.  The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2001; 33:477-84.

Now can we get down to work?