Dynamic Yet Consistent

It is not just a rumor.  As of September 22nd, it will be illegal to sell clove cigarettes in the United States.  On June 11, 2009 the Senate passed H.R. 1256, The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, with a vote of 79-17.  The next day the House approved the same bill 307-97. (Who said bi-partisanship was dead?!?!).  On June 22 President Obama signed the bill into law.

Here are some of the things the act does:

• Creates a tobacco control center within the FDA and gives the FDA authority to regulate the content, marketing and sale of tobacco products.
• Requires tobacco companies and importers to reveal all product ingredients and seek FDA approval for any new tobacco products.
• Allows the FDA to change tobacco product content and includes a ban on flavorings besides tobacco and menthol.
  • Worthy to note that the ban on flavorings applies to cigarettes only. Pipe tobacco, cigars, and the like are not included.
• Calls for new rules to prevent sales except through direct, face-to-face exchanges between a retailer and a consumer.
• Limits advertising that could attract young smokers.
• Requires cigarette warning labels to cover 50 percent of the front and rear of each pack, with the word warning in capital letters.
• Bars the use of expressions such as “light, “mild” or “low” that give the impression that a particular tobacco product poses less of a health risk^.
  • It is worthy of note that the bill makes no provisions that ban the import of the banned items for personal consumption, only for “sale or distribution”, meaning that the law as it relates to the import of the items in question remains unchanged.

For the most part the regulations require tobacco companies to jump through a few more hoops and be a bit more forthcoming.  There is however one industry that will be completely shut down by this law: the clove cigarette (kretek) industry.  Once the bill goes into effect 3 months after being signed into law (September 22, 2009), it will be illegal to sell cigarettes with any flavoring other than menthol.

Djarum Blacks. A popular clove cigarette that will soon be banned under new legislation.

You can read the pertinent text of the bill below.

SPECIAL RULE FOR CIGARETTES.—Beginning 3 months after the date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, a cigarette or any of its component parts (including the tobacco, filter, or paper) shall not contain, as a constituent (including a smoke constituent) or additive, an artificial or natural flavor (other than tobacco or menthol) or an herb or spice, including strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon, pineapple, vanilla, coconut, licorice, cocoa, chocolate, cherry, or coffee, that is a characterizing flavor of the tobacco product or tobacco smoke. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to limit the Secretary’s authority to take action under this section or other sections of this Act applicable to menthol or any artificial or natural flavor, herb, or spice not specified in this subparagraph. ~Sec 907.a 1 A of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Bill

What makes this so reprehensible is the fact that the big tobacco companies have been pushing for this legislation.  While it appears to seek to curb products that would be appealing to youth, the truth of the matter is this bill is designed to block competitors of the traditional tobacco dealers.  Just look at the exception of menthols.  Why is that flavor not included?  The answer is simple: because people like Phillip Morris make way too much money to risk pissing them off.  The irony of the matter really comes out when you start looking at statistics.  Are kids using cloves and vanilla cigarettes a “gateway” to “harder” products like Marlboro Reds?  No!  Just read this analysis from Sarah Torribio.

Statistically, however, the flavor kids consider tastiest is straight-up tobacco, in the form of Marlboro brand cigarettes (produced by Philip Morris). Some 81 percent of established teen smokers consider Marlboro to be their ticket to flavor country, according to a February 12 article.

The next most popular flavor is mint, in the form of menthol cigarettes (Philip Morris produces a wide variety of menthol cigarettes, as well). A recent survey by the American Legacy Foundation turned up the following stats: Menthol cigarettes are preferred by 81 percent of black teens, 32 percent of white teens and 45 percent of Hispanic teens.

In 2007, high school students were surveyed about their smoking habits. Twenty percent of teens surveyed said they had smoked in the last month, according to the American Lung Association website.

A relatively small number of these had smoked clove cigarettes (6.8 percent of the 20 percent who had smoked) and candy-flavored bidi cigarettes (1.7 percent).

…

Philip Morris’ reasons for this stipulation are as clear as the numbers. Menthol cigarettes, which add up to 28 percent of cigarettes purchased in the United States, are used by a significant number of teenagers and an even more significant number of minority youths.

Thus, clove cigarettes (which represent .09 percent of all cigarettes purchased in the United States), and flavor cigarettes (which have an even smaller market share) are a red herring.

By supporting this bill, big tobacco companies like Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds can appear to be taking a stand against underage smoking, while suffering no ill effects to their bottom line.  In fact, this bill helps them out by reducing the competition.  While I can certainly get behind many of the other elements of the legislation, this ban on flavorings does nothing to protect children and instead limits the choices of adults.  There is no evidence this ban will improve the health or decrease the smoking rate of Americans.  What it best illustrates is how effective big corporations are at shielding their profits because of effective lobbying.  For further analysis I recommend Up in Smoke: How the Tobacco Industry Shaped the New Smoking Bill.

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die." - Teddy Kennedy

Last night, on August 25, 2009, the US Senate lost one of its most famous/notorious members.  Edward “Teddy” Kennedy was serving his ninth term when he passed away after a fight with brain cancer.  At the time he was the second most senior member of the Senate and was the third longest serving senator ever.  After his older brothers John and Robert were assassinated,Ted made a name for himself as one of the most polarizing figures in congress.  He was always unapologetic for his strong liberal views and was consistent in his fight for civil rights for all people.  Love him or hate him, he was a figure to be reckoned with.  Here are a few quotes from Senator Ted Kennedy:

The Constitution does not just protect those whose views we share; it also protects those with whose views we disagree.

It’s better to send in the Peace Corps than the Marine Corps.

Frankly, I don’t mind not being President. I just mind that someone else is.

America will not be America until we free ourselves of discrimination and bigotry

War should be a last resort, not the first response.

It is possible to love America while concluding that it is not now wise to go to war, … The standard that should guide us is especially clear when lives are on the line.

Surely, we can have effective relationships with other nations without adopting a chip-on-the-shoulder foreign policy, a my-way-or-the-highway policy that makes all our goals in the world more difficult to achieve.

The nation lost a courageous woman and a true American hero. A half century ago, Rosa Parks stood up not only for herself, but for generations upon generations of Americans.

Our struggle is not with some monarch named George who inherited the crown. Although it often seems that way.

When we rebuild the land ravaged by the winds and the floods, we must rebuild it to be a more just and fair land.

This health care debate is getting out of control.  We seem to have reached the point where no one is listening anyone and both sides consistently descend into the type of demonization where everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a Nazi.  Therefore, it is not my goal to convince anyone to change their view on the issue, but rather to present a different way of looking at it.

At the end of the day, there is one question under-girding this whole debate and no one seems to be approaching it directly.  Rather than arguing over the merits of a single payer system vs. co-opts, or arguing over how much government intervention is acceptable, we must first as this: Is healthcare a right? How you answer that question is going to determine how you approach every other question.

For the last century we have generally assumed that education is a right of every American.  Before the mid 1800’s the school systems were nearly all private and it was not until the Reconstructionist movement following the Civil War that nearly the entire country offered “universal education.”  We have reached the point where no one questions the appropriateness of using tax dollars to ensure every American the chance to graduate high school.  Of course reform is needed, there are inefficiencies that need to be addressed, and problems the system faces; but no one is arguing we should cut off access to education just because people can’t afford it.  Again, this is because we assume education is a right every citizen is entitled to.

So what about health care?  If we think it makes sense to extend education to everyone, why not basic medical care as well.  After all, our Declaration of Independance understood the presence of certain inalienable rights including “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  In my book, basic health care falls under the right to life.  And why wouldn’t it?  Do we really think the ability to be healthy should be a privileged only extended to the rich, those with good jobs, and those who are already healthy?  This is the debate we need to engage first before we get into the logistics.

Let’s jump back to the discussion of universal education because I think there are many parallels we can learn from.  First, both are expensive.  In America, according to the Education Department, we spend roughly 7% of the GDP on education — most of that comes in the form of tax dollars.  By comparison, health care consumes 14-17% of the GDP depending on which source you use.  Apples and oranges right?  Well not really.  If you look at countries with socialized medicine, their spending levels are dramatically lower.  Spain spends 7.6%, the UK spends 7.7% and Canada 9.6%.  [ASIDE: Did you know the average health insurance company spends 12% on administration, while Medicare/Medicaid only spend 2%]

Beyond just looking at cost, I think many of the charges leveled against universal health care can be dispelled by looking at our universal education system.  One of the most persistent questions concerning a “public option” has been how can fair competition exist a for-profit private company and a government entity.  The same question of competition could be asked of the education sector: How can any private education institution compete with public schools who offer free tuition?  If you ask me, private schools do just fine.  There are plenty of people willing to pay more for exclusive environments.  Just look at private colleges.  Even though they generally cost 2-3 times what a public university does, enrollment is still strong.  Why is that?  Because even when there is a free (or cheap) public option, people still want exclusivity and choice.  In a recent town forum discussion, a University of Colorado student asked Obama how private companies could be expected to compete with a government run plan.  That is a good question for sure, but the irony lies behind it.  This student is receiving a government subsidizes university education, and asking his question to a person with a degree from Harvard – the oldest private university in the nation, and coincidentally, the first corporation in our nation.  The costs are not even close.  UC tuition is 4-6K per semester while Harvard is 17K.  That is not fair competition is it?  Yet which school would you rather have a degree from?  When you offer a good product, there is always competition.

What about the rationing of care?  You would think that since the government is picking up the tab for everyone’s primary education, they would need to ration educational expenses — you know, get rid of the people that cost the most.  In practice, the opposite is true.  Special education students are given more resources and extra services despite the fact it is of increased cost.  Additionally, even though a public education option exists, parents have the option of seeking additional interventions on their own.  No one is kicking little Johnny to the street because he costs an additional $1,000 per year because he need speech therapy.

Our education system is not perfect.  There are blatant ineffeciencies and places where reform is clearly needed.  There are areas where we are not providing the services we should, and times where the government is overstepping its bounds.  But at the end of the day, people are not looking to throw out the whole system.  Why?  Because we think education is a right, and when we believe this we are willing to work with the system even if it is not perfect.

Considering health care a right is not some crazy liberal thought — it is widely held by the richest countries in the world.  The following countries have universal  health care: Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.  We are not breaking new ground, we are simply exploring an understanding of human rights that is already commonly held in developed world.

When we argue against universal health care, we are arguing against the worth of another human being.  I am convinced in 100 years it will be as inconceivable to deny health care to people as it is today to deny education.

Sonia Sotomayor

I am bit behind the news cycles with this post, but I did not want to miss the chance to comment on the role communities play in determining truth.

On August 6th, the US Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor as the 111th  Supreme Court Justice in the United States.  By all accounts her confirmation was relatively smooth sailing despite the partisan bickering found mostly on the fringes of the discussion.   With her 68-31 confirmation vote she became just the third woman and the first hispanic to sit on our nation’s highest court.  This selection process revealed a lot about our nation, but it also provided a lens through which we can view and understand the nature of “truth.”

While the confirmation hearings were generally calm, many lambasted her as being an “activist judge” and several organizations openly opposed her selection.  The most most notable was the NRA, who submitted an official letter calling her views on the 2nd amendment into question.

If you read the letter and followed the arguments against her, you will find the people who stood against her did so largely because the disagreed with the way she understood the law.  The reason they were so adamant in their opposition is because they realized at the end of the day, it does not matter what any individual thinks a law means, but rather, what the majority of the supreme court thinks it means.  The NRA and other conservative groups want like minded thinkers to be on the court because they realize the what the second amendment (and all laws) truly means is not static, but rather is interpreted.  Literally, the law means whatever the court says it means.  You can disagree, but you will be wrong.

It is interesting when you think about how the leanings of the courts affect this.  At certain times in our nation’s  history, the truth of the law was more conservative.  At other times, it was more liberal.  But what was constant is that legal truth was determined by the supreme court and the community of people who formed it.

Morality functions in the same way.  The only difference is the communities who determine it are much larger.  Think of misogynistic practices and slavery.  At one time these practices were considered acceptable and moral — but obviously this is not longer the case.  Did the morality of the acts change?  No.  Rather, the communities who determine morality changed (over time).

I have learned from many conversations that many people are not comfortable with this discussion — especially Christians who believe in the absolute truth of scripture.  The problem is that the meaning and “truth” of scripture have changed more often than our Constitution.  If you don’t believe me just read a survey of how various commentators have understood The Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Luke.

Truth is not individually relative.  That is to say, we all can’t go around making up what things mean.  But at the same time, it is dynamic.  Truth is determined by the communities who are willing to earnestly seek it.  It is my hope that each of us will take the question of truth seriously, just as we expect Sotomayor to seriously question what the truth of the law is in every case she is presented.

One of the top stories in the news this week has been the increased tension surrounding universal health care. (See for instance Health debate turns hostile at meetings.)  The plan being discussed in congress certainly has its problems, but unfortunately we have reached the point where meaningful discussion has transitioned into hyperbolic arguing with emphasis on scare tactics, skewed statistics and atypical anecdotal stories — and that is from both sides.

Sarah Palin

A prime example of this can be found in a statement by Sarah Palin which she posted on her facebook page.  Here is an exerpt:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Discussion of health care does involve life and death decisions.  It also involves money.  In our current system money, not human rights and human dignity is the primary consideration.  It takes money to have health care.  The insurance companies are out to make money.  They make more money by charging people more and paying less.

Lets look at some of the charges against a universal plan, and see how they apply to the current system

• Health care will be rationed – People are worried about the government telling them what procedures they can get and where they can get it.  Guess what… that already happens.  Insurance companies dictate which doctors you can go to and which procedures are covered.  Plus, those without health insurance can’t get the procedures at all, so we are rationing for rich.  We may disagree whether health care is a right or a privileged, but I am not comfortable with the deciding factor on who lives and dies being wealthy.  Palin argues the elderly, sick and disabled will be the ones most affected.  The irony is that these groups are the ones who already have the hardest time getting coverage.  Even with a minor pre-existing condition, getting coverage  is very difficult if it is not employer provided.  Again, we see rationing already exists, but the only people who get it are the skilled.
• There will be a bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor – Guess what… there already is.  If you look at the chart designed by the GOP in order to scare people into thinking things are more complicated than they are, you will realize most of the boxes and lines already exist.  We already have government involvement in health care.  Universal health care would not add another layer, it would simply change who you are dealing with.  As it is, the insurance companies stand between you and your doctor and they are motivated to not provide you with service because doing so would cost additional money.



• America has the best health care in the world and that will be lost – This one is all about definitions.  What is undisputed is that America has the most expensive health care.  We pay on average more than double the average of every other developed nation in the world.  However, even after spending that much we still are 17th in the world in terms of life expectancy.  According to the World Health Organization, we are far from having the best system:

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

I think there is plenty of room for discussion around this topic, but we first must be honest with the system we have.  America is not plotting new ground here, instead we are following every other developed nation in the world who has chosen to go this path.

We continue with day 2 of our 10 lists on 10 days.  Today, Beth and I have listed the 10 people we would most like to sit and have coffee with.  Of course the consumption of coffee is optional — surely it would make more sense to share a beer with a few of these folks, and others, I would rather talk with as we hiked through nature.  As always, these are in no particular order.

1. Martin Luther King Jr. — Surely no surprise here.  After all, my daughter Mikayla Lillian is named after this civil rights leader.  King is best known for his role in fighting for equal rights for minorities.  However, he was also a passionate pacifist.  He was as opposed to the Vietnam War as he was Jim Crow laws.  I would want to share a drink with him to ask him what issues he saw as most pressing?  Would he concentration on gay rights?  Would he address war and torture?  Would he shift his attention to international issues?For me, MLK embodies the concept of the prophetic imagination (a concept we will explore in a later list).  I still cannot hear his I Have a Dream speech without tearing up.
2. Desmond Tutu – Since we are talking about baby names, I must mention Desmond Tutu.  If our firstborn had been a male, I was advocating for the name Desmond.  Originally we were going to go with Douglas (my middle name), but I realized I would prefer my child to emulate him than me.  Tutu was instrumental in ending apartheid and symbolizes for me how a pastor can lead social change in the name of Christ.  His work on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is awe-inspiring.  I want to know from him, how we can apply these concepts to our daily societal fissures.
3. Bono – I wouldn’t have a string of questions for the lead singer of U2 like I would with many of the others, but in terms of having a good time, hanging out, discussing the ebbs and flows of life, I would think Bono would be the man.  Plus, his lyrics are so deep and harmonize the secular and the sacred.
4. Peter Abelard – Perhaps the most obscure on my list.  Abelard was a tormented theologians in the 12th century (read about him here).  Theologically he is best known for going toe to toe with Anselm over atonement theory.  Abelard advocated for a Moral influence understanding over a substitutionary understanding.  He was quite eccentric and misunderstood.  Here is a paper I have written on him.
5. Henry David Thoreau – I love his unfiltered commentary on life and society.  In addition to his emphasis on self reflection and the awe of creation, he is always honest with his understanding of faith.  I also have been influenced by his thoughts on civil disobedience.
6. Stephen Hawkins – I have been fascinated by theoretical physics since I was in Middle School.  It is only a short jump from physics to philosophy and then to theology.  Hawkins not only provides an entryway into this crazy world, but the way he has approached life’s struggles epitomizes focus and direction.  As you will see in susequent posts, I am convinced quantum physics provides insights into truth.  Here is an approachable clip that will force you to reexamine your understanding of the world.  (Not Hawkins, but he works in the same areas.)
7. John Howard Yoder – deep down I am a Mennonite, I just have not admitted it yet (well except to Brett).  I have learned more from other theologians, but I have yet to find a person who such consistency in their life, faith, theology and philosophy.  Politics of Jesus should be required reading for… well… everyone.
8. N.T. Wright – There is not a simple person who has been more influencial in shaping my theology and understanding of the world and scripture than Bishop N.T. Wright.  I have listened to so many of his lectures I can hear him speak when I read his books.  I find so many of the concepts I regularly explain and rely on come from Wright.  I doubt I could keep up with him, but I would love to drink from the fire hydrant of his knowledge.  Plus, he has a that super cool British accent.  Here is a great resource for other lovers of his work.
9. The Tank Man – Bravery is not something that is planned.  It is not something that is sought out.  It is something that occurs when we stand up for what is just.  I am fascinated by the story of the Tank Man – the young man who stopped a whole line of Chinese tanks through a simply act of resistence.  There are a couple reason he makes my list.  First… I want to know who this person is (to this day, it unknown).  But more importantly, I am drawn to this person because they were able to change the world with simple acts without demanding fame or recognition.
   
10. Jesus – rounding out my list is the God-Man Jesus Christ himself.  I almost didn’t list Jesus.  That is not because I don’t think it would make for excellent conversation, or because I don’t have the ultimate respect, love, and devotion to Jesus.  Rather, it is because I realize I am way too like Peter (see below) and rather than sitting down with a whole list of questions, I would love simply follow Jesus as he navigated the world today.
    

Trust me… I have no problem arguing.  Just ask my wife, my parents, or any of my friends.  I am pensive by nature and tend to think through things, so I am usually ready to defend my views.

That being said, I have learned repeatedly the futility of arguing on the internet.  I have been active in a number of forums and debated issues on facebook and blogs.  I find very rarely does it turn out well.  It seems virtual arguments tend to escalate quicker and people tend to assume the worst.  Electronic posts lack the non-verbals necessary to gauge things like sarcasm vs. sincerity or attacks vs. suggestions.  When you don’t have a larger context it is easy to stereotype and pigeon-hole.

I write this because I find myself sticking to my commitment to blog regularly (I have already posted more in the last week than I have on my various blogs over 5 years).  I am sure I will post some controversial things and I am up for discussion and encourage feedback and suggestions. However, I refuse to get into arguments over what I post.  I see blogging as a way for me to express my thoughts (and work through them) and not as an avenue for convincing others to join whatever philosophical camp I happen to be representing.

I hope to have great conversations in the coming months, but please don’t be disappointed if I refuse to respond to some comments.  It is not that I find the points invalid, or don’t appreciate a person’s thoughts.  It is just that I don’t think it is helpful for anyone to argue over the internet.  Too many words have been spilled and no many emotions raised over topics that in the end never amounted to anything.

*This is a repost of a prior facebook note.

I have been having a conversation with a few guys about gun control laws in the US. This has moved into a discussion of the proper reading of the Constitution. Because my current studies involve understanding the role of Interpretive Communities in finding the meaning of authoritative documents, that has come into the conversation as well. Below are some excerpts:

I think a discussion of gun control must include a discussion of the constitution. Let me be clear from the start – I believe the constitution is THE authoritative document concerning the rule and government of the United States. If something is truly unconstitutional, it should be squashed. I will resoundingly agree with those who say that “this document defines the USA”

Now comes the rub. Despite our agreement on the constitution’s authority, we all read the document differently. In fact, there isn’t a single correct way to read the constitution by which all other readings and readers must be held accountable. A perfect example of this is our Supreme Court, which has the authority (and I will quickly admit the constitutional source of this can certainly be debated) to interpret the Constitution in judicial cases. In the most important constitutional cases, the justices are often split. What does this teach us? Even the final authorities on constitution interpret it differently.

Let me a share a bit about myself. I am a pastor and have recently completed an MA in Biblical Studies. These discussions concerning the meaning and authority of documents are very near and dear to me. I spend most of my days working with documents many find to be authoritative, yet find different interpretations. Recently, I have begun a study on how Interpretive Communities affected the formation of scripture and consequently how that affects our reading of it. I am relying heavily on a literary theorist named Stanley Fish. It is at this point that our conversation must move from the political to the philosophical (namely the post-modern). Fish argues “meaning” and “truth” can only be grasped by the reader. He certainly affirms the importance of “authorial intent” but claims we will never be able to fully grasp that because we will always read a text through our own experience. Now critics often attack Fish for being too subjective – they say he is throwing out absolute truth by saying truth means different things based on the reader. He argues that a text cannot “mean anything” but instead must be found within certain parameters. Sometimes those parameters are tight, other times loose. In fact, he is quick to affirm those parameters change over time. For Fish (and for me as well), the source of those parameters, and thus the source of the constraints on possible meanings, are “Interpretive Communities.” Basically he argues we are a part of a shared community with shared experiences and worldviews. Being a part of those communities affects how we can read documents and find meaning. In fact, it is impossible to understand a text apart from our current context, our experiences and the Interpretive Communities to which we belong.

Here is a cheesy example. If I was in Kindergarten and we were reading a book that said, “we dropped the little boy on an island” because of the context and community I was a part of, the meaning would certainly be that a child was placed on some land surrounded by water. However, after I became a part of a community that understands WWII and the context of the nuclear age, I know the meaning of that could now be related to the dropping of an atomic bomb. Before my context / community changed, I could not possibly understand the other meaning – even if it was clearly talking about Hiroshima.

In discussion of the constitution, we see this happen when one court upholds one reading of the constitution, but later courts reject that view. What has happened? The interpretive community has changed.

I say that that, to say this. While I support the authority of the constitution, I do not necessarily agree with others reading of it. The second amendment reads:

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.

Grammatically (forget interpretively) this is a difficult sentence to understand. First, we could read this as one subject or as two. We can read this as a protection for both militias and the right to bear arms, or we can read it as simply a long sentence about protecting the militia wherein the right to bear arms is a part. Based on the syntax, this later definition makes more sense. After all, the second clause (being necessary…) clearly modifies the first. It would be fair to assume the third clause concerning the right of the people to keep and bear arms is simply describing the nature of a well regulated militia as well.

However, lets take the most popular reading and assume these are two rights being addressed together. Now we must ask what does it mean to have the right to bear arms? It does not say, “right to bear any arms,” it simply grants the right. So then if you own a .22 pistol, you are bearing an arm. As long as we allow some arms to be owned and do not flatly outlaw all arms, then one could argue the right is still being supplied. (By the way, I am not making this argument, just listing it). Now even if we reject this last argument and contend this amendment is protecting all arms, we must deal with the issue of infringement. It would be great to take a literalist argument and say NO LAW shall infringe in ANY WAY. But lets face it, that is not practical. To argue this takes us to absurd places. We find ourselves arguing for private citizens owning nuclear weapons and toddlers being able to carry concealed weapons.

The fact of the matter is even a vast majority of gun owners support some limitations on types and contexts of arm bearing. Even those that argue the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure the people could be as well armed as the military do not want private ownership of nuclear weapons. If you make this absolute literalist argument and demand absolutely no infringement you must then argue it is perfectly acceptable for US citizen to be given a nuclear weapon by Iran. Lets try to stay away from the absurd. We must acknowledge a line must be drawn somewhere – our real question is where. Do we allow howitzers but outlaw a-bombs? Do we allow rocket launchers but outlaw howitzers? Do we outlaw rocket launchers but allow fully automatic machine guns? Do we outlaw fully automatic machine guns, but allow semi-automatic rifles? The list goes on. It is not a question of whether or not we limit the right to bear arms, but a question of where. Historically the authoritative readings of the constitution have allowed this line to be drawn and it requires a dance between the judicial branch and the legislative branch to find that spot.

My friend made the following point concerning the intent of the second ammendment:

The second amendment allows citizens to have whatever armament the military has.

I think this is a great point, but unfortunately it is not backed by the constitution. Even if we could prove this was the intent of the framers (which is impossible to do) that does not make it the correct reading. You see, our constitution does not instruct us on how to read it. It does not state that the most correct reading is one that aligns itself with how the founding fathers viewed the world. I find most “constitutionalists” are not only arguing for the authority of the document, but also for a particular reading – in this case one that attempts to mimic the founding fathers. I don’t think this is a wrong reading, but there is no evidence this is the only correct reading. A person can be faithful to the letter of the law, without having to adopt the worldview of 18th century politicians. If our constitution included a section on how we are to interpret the document, then I would certainly honor that. However, this is an area that the constitution is silent on. One could assume the founders recognized that each generation would have to interpret it for that generation.

I want to be clear… I don’t think a reading that attempts to mimic the views of the founding fathers is wrong. However, I also don’t think that a person who reads the constitution faithfully through their own worldview and is following it the letter of the written law, is treading on our founding document (as people like Sean Hannity might argue). I firmly believe you can be faithful to the constitution without having to read it through the framework of the original authors. After all, any attempt to completely formulate authorial intent is subjective and incomplete at best.

To be honest with you, I have not formulated my own views on gun control and the second amendment. I am still trying to work through a proper approach to the issue. In discussions like these I think it is always best to find some common ground so we can avoid the extremes and discuss the implications of the particulars. For gun control discussion I think that means admitting there are legitimate reasons to own a wide variety of weapons (even those currently banned), most gun owners are responsible law-abiding citizens, criminals will still break the law, and that in all practicality, there must be some laws limiting the right to bear arms – even if we are only talking about nuclear weapons and toddlers with uzis.

Once those parameters are set, we can have a helpful conversation about where that line should be drawn without risking it descending into the absurd. We may not agree, but hopefully we can learn and genuinely discuss the positive and negative consequences of each law. I want to hear how a law is going to affect law abiding citizens as much as I want to hear the potential benefits. In order for that to happen, we have to be civil otherwise we simply pigeonhole each other and their arguments.

Thoughts?

ABSTRACT: Conservative pundits (especially those on talk radio) bash the mainstream media; but what is the alternative they offer? Should we get our news from them with their unapologetic partisanism?

Many of you know that I generally split my radio listening between Conservative Talk Radio and NPR when I am driving. Occasionally I get so disgusted I would rather sit in silence than listen to a bunch of arrogant talking heads.

Well anyway, I have been thinking quite a bit about a term often thrown around by the conservative pundits: The Mainstream Media. If you listen to Hannity, Ingram, or especially Limbaugh, you will notice they speak of “The Mainstream Media” (MSM for short) with the same level of contempt as they do when speaking of terrorists, criminals or illegal immigrants. While they never say it, it can be assumed the MSM refers to traditional news sources other than Fox News. The big 3, CNN, and of course the New York Times and Washington Post.

Now, I have a bit of experience in this discussion. My capstone project for my Mass Comm undergrad degree was on bias in the media and the quest for objectivity. I am willing to admit (for the sake of discussion) that in general, the media leans slightly to the left. However, I will qualify that by saying the reason it does so has more to do with the type of people drawn to media rather than conscious effort (just like most economists are conservative). I would also remind people that the idea of objectivity in the news is a relatively new concept. In fact, it only became mainstream (no pun intended) in the last 75 years with the invention of the television – when only a few diverse people had access to your broadcast you wanted to make sure you did not alienate them. In fact, our country was not founded on the notion of an objective press, but quite the opposite. The press protected by our constitution is a partisan press. When the Bill of Rights was signed, nearly ever media outlet (newspapers of course) served as the mouthpiece of a political party…

But anyway, I digress…

I want to comment on the disdain expressed by conservative pundits towards the MSM. So here is my question: What option are you offering that is better?? Rather than watching CNN or MSNBC are people actually advocating that we should get all of our news from conservative talk radio? Is Rush a better news source than Anderson Cooper or Larry King? Sure there might be some liberal bias in the news stories covered by Brian Williams on the Nightly News, but should we instead turn to people who serve as resounding mouthpieces for their political ideologies? Is Hannity offering a more objective analysis of the president than Bill Russert? Should we get our news from people who have obviously sold out — and by sold out, I am refering to every pundit’s willingness to endorse x product right along side y ideology. Laura Ingram talks about “Go to my PC” with the same enthusiasm as she does about fiscal conservatism and Rush endorses “Cryptonite” as adamantly as he does stricter standards for immigrants. If they are willing to say those things just for the money, why not assume they are willing to spout their political ideology for similar reasons. I don’t blame those guys (and girls), you have to make money some how… but back to my question. If in your ideological ranting you bash the MSM, what is the alternative??

Now I think Nancy Grace is way out there and Olberman has his issues and is obviously speaking from a specific political standpoint. You have just as much right to reject the ramblings of liberal ideologues as I do to reject the rhetoric of conservative talk radio – both extremes are obviously bias. But what does that leave? By my count, it seems to be the “Mainstream Media.”

I am not saying we have a perfect system, but I really do wonder what sources those that bemoan the MSM think we should follow? Can anyone help me out with this?

A friend of mine works with Kentuckians for the Commonwealth and has forwarded this flyer about the Coal to Liquid process which is currently before Kentucky’s legistlature (except of course the House has already adjurned, so the issue may be moot). Since we have discussed the Christian responce to the environment before, I thought this may be of interest to you.

Coal to Liquid Flyer