What can we take from our experience fighting big tobacco that we can apply to fighting the NRA?

My heart broke again this afternoon when I read that a three-year old in SC died after mistaking a pink, loaded handgun for a toy (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/toddler-dies-playing-pink-gun-mistaken-toy-article-1.1256597).

I made the mistake and read some of the comments. The same old, same old. The parents are to blame. They were "irresponsible" gun owners. Any responsible gun owner would NEVER keep a gun where a child could get it. They should be prosecuted, blah, blah, blah. But assuming that the gun was purchased legally, the parents were being responsible, by the NRA's standards, for keeping a gun in their home to protect them from the bogey man and jack-booted government thugs.

Sometimes it seems as if the NRA has such a strangle hold on our public policy and collective psyche that we will never make any headway on this issue. But then I think of the big tobacco battles of the 1990s. Those seemed impossible. I was an idealistic, newly minted, public health advocate back then. I worked with the folks on the front lines of the tobacco wars. It seemed like we would never break the tobacco industry's grip on our nation's health - no matter how many studies were conducted, no matter how many law suits were filed, the tobacco lobby was too strong.

But inch by inch, the American public has begun to reclaim it's health from an industry bent on destroying it. We have regulated the hell out of cigarettes. You can't smoke in most restaurants and clubs anymore. Try lighting up in an airplane. You'll get quite a reception when you land. Smoking cessation counseling is a routine part of primary health care. School health programs preach about the dangers of smoking to kids. We tax and tax cigarettes.

The result? Smoking rates in the U.S. have been dropping consistently from year to year. States such as California have achieved record lows in the rates of adult smoking. They've also see drops in rates of heart disease, lung cancer, and other smoking-related illnesses. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR11-031.aspx

And guess what - we have not BANNED cigarettes!!!! You can't smoke anywhere or anytime you want. It may be uncomfortable or inconvenient for you to suck on that cancer stick, but you can still smoke your life away if you want. But you're not going to be endangering my health or the health of my children any more.

Maybe it's time to revisit the tobacco wars and see what strategies we can adapt to the gun wars. Maybe we start by teaching young children what bullets do to human flesh (who remembers seeing the diseased lung in science class?). Maybe state Attorneys General start prosecuting manufacturers for marketing guns to children (pink guns, really? It's like the fruit-flavored cigarettes they tried to sell in the 90s). Maybe we put more money into public health research into the prevention of gun violence. Maybe a public education campaign like The Truth Campaign (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448237/) to fight the bogus claims of gun safety promoted by the NRA (which is the gun manufacturers' version of the Tobacco Research Institute).

Maybe, just maybe we can save some lives and you'll be able to keep your guns too.

It's time for the gun lobby to find some new arguements

I am SICK AND TIRED of "gun rights" people making straw man arguments about SENSIBLE gun control policies. The latest screeds I've been reading on Facebook and Twitter are using the examples of the decorated navy sniper being shot dead at the gun range by another veteran and the ongoing hostage situation in Alabama in which a Viet Nam veteran killed a bus driver, kidnapped a 5 year old boy and is holding him hostage in an underground bunker as examples of why gun control policies don't work.

I am hearing "gun rights" folks crowing with thinly veiled glee that these tragedies disprove gun control supporters' arguments that only the military and police should be allowed to own guns. See! See! We need our guns to protect us from a dangerous, tyrannical army! See! See! Our military can't be trusted with guns!

Apparently these "gun rights" folks need a vocabulary lesson and a better understanding of chronology. See, these shooters weren't military. They were VETERANS. Miriam Webster's dictionary defines a veteran as a FORMER member of the armed forces. "Former" means "a : coming before in time; b : of, relating to, or occurring in the past." I know, it's a difficult concept to grasp. Let me see if i can explain explain it: someone who is CURRENT military is actually in the armed forces RIGHT NOW. Someone who is FORMER military used to be in the armed forces but isn't anymore.

But would gun control policies have been able to prevent these tragedies? I don't know, but let's suppose for just a minute that we had some serious gun control policies in place. Let's imagine for a moment that we required anyone owning a firearm NOT have a criminal record of firearms abuse (like unlawfully brandishing a firearm or using a firearm to threaten bodily harm to his neighbors) or violence (like beating a dog to death with a metal pipe), then MAYBE the old guy in Alabama may have lost his right to own a gun. Maybe, just maybe, that INNOCENT 5 year old wouldn't be in that bunker right now.

"But he could have just bought a gun at a gun show or from a private seller'" argue the gun lovers. Well, let's imagine that we require that ALL gun sales, private sales and gun shows included, require a background check and that all gun sales be registered with a law enforcement agency. It sure would have made it a hell of a lot harder for the old coot to get a gun.

But then the gun "advocates" bring up the brilliant argument that he could have just gotten a gun on the black market or stolen one. After all - only the good guys obey the law. Seriously guys, you are joking, right? You do see the holes in this logic? Holes big enough to drive a tank-mounted Howitzer through? Following your logic we should throw out the laws about rape, since only non-rapists will obey them. Let's get rid of drunk driving laws because only people who know better than to drink and drive will obey them. And let's forget about making murder illegal since only non-murders will obey them. Seriously guys - you gotta give up the ghost on that argument. It just makes you look ignorant and desperate.

Now back to the killing on the gun range. I won't argue the logic about taking someone with combat-related PTSD to a gun range to unwind and blow off steam. Exposure therapy is a valid way to treat PTSD but I can think of some safer ways to treat it than to hand the patient a loaded weapon - like maybe using blanks or a video simulation. And exposure therapy really should be handled by a licensed psychiatrist in a controlled setting. But second guessing these guys' judgement aside, let's imagine that we had gun laws that required anyone wanting to handle live ammo at a shooting range to present a current and valid license to operate a firearm. And let's imagine that that getting said license is tied to a real-time criminal and mental health background check. Maybe that vet with a diagnosis of PTSD wouldn't have been handed a loaded weapon that he then used to kill the man who was trying to help him. I mean seriously, if my 7 year old daughter has to have a valid fishing license to use her Barbie fishing pole which couldn't even bag a goldfish, is it too much too ask that someone have a valid firearms license before using a weapon that could kill a couple of dozen people?

"Well maybe they would have gone to a empty field to shoot at bottles and the same thing would have happened." Yep. And the rapist will still rape and the thief will still steal. Does that mean that we don't try to stop them? Or do we just keep things as they are until we can't walk out the front door with out stepping over the bodies of those whom you've sacrificed on the alter of the 2nd Amendment?

You guys are right about one thing though. It is time to stand up against tyranny - the tyranny of the gun lobby and the tyranny of the gun nuts who feel that their right to own a weapon of mass destruction out weighs our rights to free speech and our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I will keep posting about gun regulation until we actually regulate guns

I, like millions of people around the globe, was stunned, shocked, angered, and saddened by the unspeakable horror that took place last week in Newtown, CT. A seriously disturbed young man killed his mother then took her Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle and her Sig Sauer and Glock handguns to the Sandy Hook Elementary School where he proceeded to slaughter 20 children and six adults who were trying to protect them.

Immediately people took to Facebook to try to understand how this could have happened. The shooter played violent video games. He was autistic. His mother failed to get him appropriate mental health care. People began to talk about how we were going to prevent this from happening again. We should improve school security. We should arm all the teachers. We need better mental health services. We should keep guns away from mentally ill people. Every parent should be armed.

But the ultimate reason that 20 beautiful children will not be singing in the holiday concert or opening presents under the tree next week is because one young man had access to military grade weapons. Plain and simple. To ignore that simple fact is to leave us wide open for the next tragedy - which almost happened this week. A young man in Maryland, inspired by the events in CT, plotted to "break the record" by shooting up his school. Guess what? He had access to multiple weapons in his home. Luckily students reported his threats and the police removed the weapons from his home. That young man is still mentally disturbed but his classmates are now safe because he no longer has access to those weapons. I thank God that the system worked.

Back to CT. The shooter's friends and family knew that the boy had serious mental health issues. They knew he had violent tendencies. They knew there were multiple firearms in the home. Yet nothing was done. Nothing was done because his mother had the right to have multiple military-grade weapons in her home. Nothing was done until 20 beautiful children were slaughtered.

It is time that we get over our slavish obeisance to the NRA and their narrow, anachronistic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and start enacting sane gun regulations. The time for talking about gun control is over. It is time to act.

When I have said this to gun owners they say that I my call to regulate the hell out of military-grade weapons and ammunition is a knee-jerk, liberal reaction to an isolated event and that any move to regulate guns should be well thought out and discussed. Folks, public health professionals and victims of gun violence have been researching, evaluating and talking about this issue for over 20 years. 20 YEARS. For all you gun owners out there who don't like what's been put on the table? Well I'm sorry you missed dinner but you can blame your standard bearer, the NRA. The NRA has consistently shut down all discussion of reasonable, sane gun control policies with it's obscenely well funded political machine that feeds on our nation's worst fears and paranoia.

Yes, paranoia. The NRA has you convinced that gun control advocates are trying to take away all your guns. Guess what - we're not. They have you convinced that we want to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Guess what - we don't. What we do want is the federal government to be able to regulate a lethal public health hazard in a way that balances personal liberties with public safety. Yes, it's a fine line to walk, but not the slippery slope towards Armageddon that the NRA would have you believe. Did you know that the federal government imposed strict laws governing the ownership of machine guns back in the 1930s? Since those laws were enacted, there have been virtually no deaths from machine guns. And yet we are still one of the most heavily armed nations in the developed world. The 2nd Amendment is still standing strong. Twenty innocent children are not.

It is time for gun owners to stop acting like spoiled, entitled teenagers who don't understand why they can't stay out all night and are angry because mom and dad won't buy them the latest Xbox. The 2nd Amendment does not entitle you to own the newest, coolest, most powerful weapon out there. The 2nd Amendment does not relieve you of the awesome responsibility that goes along with owning a deadly weapon. Be adults. If guns owners and their standard bearers won't take responsibility for protecting the public from their guns, we will. The time is now. Not after the next tragedy.

Retaining Our Humanity

The White House has decided not to release the death photos of Osama Bin Laden. Critics on the airwaves and in Congress are decrying the secrecy and fanning the flames of conspiracy. "How can we be sure he's dead?" they say. Can't we, just this once, believe our Commander in Chief? No? How about believing in Seal Team Six? No?

What will releasing the pictures accomplish? People who do not want to believe this President will not believe any proof that is offered. We could put Bin Laden's body on public display at Ground Zero and still these people wouldn't believe. Unless George W. Bush himself testified that he personally shot Bin Laden, carried his body back to U.S. soil and conducted the DNA analysis, conspiracy theorists and Obama haters will refuse to believe the truth. Can't we just praise the bravery and professionalism of those involved in taking down Bin Laden while honoring our dead?

By not releasing the death photos, Obama is doing his best to protect the safety of our service men and women around the globe and at the same time regaining some of the restraint, dignity, and humanity that our country has lost during our war on terror.

Well done Mr. President and God bless.

A day to celebrate?

I awoke this morning to the news that Osama Bin Laden was dead. An event more than 10 years in the making. I made the mistake of reading the Facebook posts and reading the comments in news articles. I have been struck by the jubilation, the crowing, and the political finger pointing.

Over and over I hear that this should be a day of celebration for the nation. But I cannot celebrate the loss of human life, even if that human is as despicable as Osama Bin Laden. How can I celebrate the death of one man that came at the expense of thousands upon thousands of innocent Afghani and Iraqi women and children and the thousands of brave service men and women from countries around the world.  Can I really celebrate the death of a man, a death that came at the costs of thousands of lives and billions of dollars?

And let's not kid ourselves. His death is not going to make us safer. This is not the same as "cutting the head of the serpent." It's more like killing off the CEO of McDonald's. There may be a little corporate chaos for a few weeks, but don't think for a minute that Mickey D's doesn't have a game plan for just that eventuality. And don't think for a minute that Al Queda didn't have a game plan in place for the inevitable death of Bin Laden.

I do hope that his death brings closure to those who have suffered from his life. I hope that it brings comfort to those who are grieving their losses. I do hope that it mean we can bring our service men and women home. But I don't think it will.

Before I am called unpatriotic or an enemy sympathizer, I'm not saying that his death didn't have to happen. It did. Bin Laden had to die. There was no way he could have been brought to trial to stand justice for his crimes. I just don't have to celebrate his death.

In the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.,

I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.

Who's to blame?

I don't know about you, but I'm still reeling from the news of Saturday's shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and death of 6 people at a political rally in Arizona.The finger pointing and fist waving began almost immediately. I am not innocent here. I was one of those people drawing a straight line from Sarah Palin and Jesse Kelly's violent gun-filled imagery to the tragedy in Arizona.

But as we learn more about Jared Loughner and his troubled past we learn even less about why he committed this horrific act. The left is arguing it's Sarah Palin's fault for putting the Congresswoman in her crosshairs and for telling her followers "...don't retreat, reload!" The right point to Loughner's reading list (the Communist Manifesto) as evidence that he was a left-wing nut job. We may never know what were Loughner's political influences - if he had any at all. But this doesn't absolve our "thought" leaders from their role in feeding a madman's delusions.

Today Ms. Palin issued a video statement on the shootings absolving herself from any blame for the tragic events. She's right. It's not her fault. She didn't put the gun directly in Loughner's hand. She didn't tell him to hunt down Congresswoman Giffords. There's no proof that Loughner had ever listened to a word that Ms. Palin ever said, or saw her map with the rifle sights over Giffords's name. But she missed the point and the opportunity to show the American public that she is capable of self-reflection and personal responsibility.

Earlier this week Keith Olbermann issued a mea culpa for adding to the political vitriol that has plagued our airwaves and issued a promise to try and tone it down. While I applaud Olbermann's sentiments, I believe that when the election cycle ramps up and sweeps week approaches, his self-aware sentiments will go right out the window.

Pundits like Palin, Olbermann, Glenn Beck are like parents who feed their kid a steady diet of Twinkies and soda and then act shocked when the pediatrician tells them that their kid weighs 200 lbs and has diabetes. Having access to America's airways is a privilege and responsibility. It's time for our pundits and politicians to step up and accept the responsibility that comes with the privilege they've been enjoying for years.

We'll never know why this disturbed man decided to open fire at a busy shopping center. What will be more productive is to try to understand how he was able to do it. How was it that an obviously disturbed individual went without proper mental health care? How was an obviously disturbed individual with a criminal record able to LEGALLY purchase a handgun? But that's for another blog.

For now, I just want to tune out the shrill, ugly voices on the airwaves. I want to ignore the blame game that is going on. I want to pray for those who were injured in this terrible tragedy and for the families of those who lost their lives. And hope that we can all grow up and learn a few lessons in humility and personal responsibility.

I don't mind paying taxes. Really

I get all sorts of cool stuff when I pay taxes. Like roads, free schooling for my kids, money when I retire - even if I don't save up, money when I get laid off from my job, safe workplaces, a healthier environment... And hey, if my taxes help someone else, all the better. I like doing nice things for other people.

But apparently many of my fellow Americans, especially those who are now in control of the U.S. House of Representatives, do not share the same sentiment. The Bush era tax cuts are set to expire soon. President Obama wants to repeal those tax cuts for those dual income households earning more than a quarter of a million dollars annually. But an emboldened right has vowed to keep every penny of those tax cuts in place.

The Washington Post published a comparison of the Republican and Democratic plans for the Bush era tax cuts. Yikes! Check out that bloat in the millionaires club! Ok, I'm biased. I would still get my tax cuts under the Dem's plan. And I'm not saying the wealthiest of the wealthiest shouldn't get a break. But come on! This is ridiculous!

Consider this:

The conditions which surround us best justify our cooperation; we meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot-box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench.

The people are demoralized... The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, business prostrated, homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of capitalists. The urban workmen are denied the right to organize for self-protection, imported pauperized labor beats down their wages... The fruits of the toil of millions are badly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of mankind; and the possessors of these, in turn, despise the Republic and endanger liberty. From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice we breed the two great classes—tramps and millionaires.

The national power to create money is appropriated to enrich bond-holders... thereby adding millions to the burdens of the people.

No, this isn't a rant from a political pundit commenting on the 2010 midterm elections. It's the 1892 party platform of the Populist Party. To all the Tea Party people who wanted to take back our government: Congratulations! The regressive conservative economic policies of the Bush era did take back our government - back to the 1890's.

Yeah, yeah. I know the Populists lost, but their efforts ushered in the Progressive Era of the early 20th Century. And guess what, the liberal reforms ushered in during that era weren't all that bad. Some of the reforms enacted as a result of the Progressive Era include the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1916 (I think we can all agree that this is a good one - e. coli is a total downer), the Mann Act or the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (again, I think we can all agree that sex trafficking is bad), and the 19th Amendment (anybody have a problem with me voting????). Ok, the 18th Amendment sucked, but they repealed that one.

And guess what - we survived these reforms! We didn't end up becoming a socialist nation! Children were no longer abused in factories, workers earned a fare wage, etc...

The robber barons of the early 20th century may be gone but we still have staggering disparities in our wealth distribution in this country. What's even more disturbing is that most people don't even realize the incredible gap in our wealth distribution. An analysis of real and perceived wealth distribution was published in Building a Better America – One Wealth Quintile at a Time, by Michael Norton and Dan Ariely of Harvard and Duke, respectively. Here's a brief summary of their report:

We attempt to insert the desires of “regular” Americans into these debates, by asking a nationally representative online panel to estimate the current distribution of wealth in the United States and to “build a better America” by constructing distributions with their ideal level of inequality. First, respondents dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality. Second, respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution. Most important from a policy perspective, we observed a surprising level of consensus: All demographic groups – even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy – desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.

Here's the pictoral of the authors' findings:

Can you believe it? The Left and the Right actually agree on something! The wealthy and the poor agree! Women and men agree! So why can't we agree how to make things a little more fair?

So Republicans - stop the fear mongering. Tighten that death grip on those tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy, and give the people what they want: a better America.