What should Trayvon Martin have done?

Amy Davidson poses an excellent question in her New Yorker article.

In a later article, she quotes Obama:

And for those who resist that idea, that we should think about something like these Stand Your Ground laws, I’d just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman, who had followed him in a car, because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

We can be our best only if we bear at least some of the costs of the choices we make.

What Accountable Health Care Means

Did you know that starting in January 2014…

From Get Covered America:

(1) All health insurance plans will have to cover doctor visits, hospitalizations, maternity care, emergency room care, prescriptions, and more.

(2) To see a complete list of benefit categories that all insurance plans will cover, visit www.getcoveredamerica.org/new-healthcare-benefits

(3) You might be able to get financial help to pay for a health insurance plan.

(4) If you have a pre-existing condition, insurance plans can no longer deny you coverage.

(5) All insurance plans will have to show the costs and what is covered in simple language with no fine print.

Eloquence

Maureen Corrigan, a contributor to NPR's Fresh Air program, normally reviews full-length books that contain tens of thousands of words.  On Memorial Day, 2013, she turned her attention to words that weigh in at a mere 186, soaking wet (metaphorically speaking).  By comparison, Lincoln's Gettyburg Address, known for its brevity, was 271.

The story starts with her father getting honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy in the fall of 1945, expecting never to hear from that institution again.  The economy faced significant disruption as military activity wound down and millions of veterans searched for work amid the uncertainty. (After the war my own father, a chemical engineer, finally found work as an insurance actuary.)

Ms. Corrigan:

And how special he must have felt in late December of 1945, when a letter [http://www.npr.org/assets/img/2013/05/28/corrigan-letter_archive.jpg] from Washington, D.C., came for him at his sister's house in Llanerch Hills, Pa. My father was living with his sister and her family because, by then, both of his parents had died. The letter, signed in fountain pen, was from the Secretary of the Navy, James Forrestal. It began:

My dear Mr. Corrigan:

I have addressed this letter to reach you after all the formalities of your separation from active service are completed. I have done so because, without formality but as clearly as I know how to say it, I want the Navy's pride in you, which it is my privilege to express, to reach into your civil life and to remain with you always.

...

The beauty of the letter's opening paragraph literally took my breath away.

Those words took my breath away too, not because they are eloquent, although they are, but because someone - Forrestal, or perhaps the Second Assistant to the Undersecretary of Naval Whatever - thought to send such a letter.  If every veteran WWII U.S. sailor received one in that pre-computer, pre-xerox age, as apparently was the case, this was a massive endeavor; at its WWII peak the U.S. Navy had 3,405,525 active duty sailors.

Eloquence emanates from the idea behind the words, not the words themselves. In Gettysburg, the power of Lincoln's words derive from surprise. A whole bunch of people had assembled there to do something; Lincoln said that they couldn't do what they had set out to do, and that they should do something else instead.

Forrestal can't hold a candle to Lincoln, not least because the fate of the nation did not hang in the balance. Nevertheless his eloquence also comes from an idea: to paraphrase Marshall McLuhan, the timing is the message. The letter needed to be civilian-to-civilian, therefore the timing was critical, indeed so critical that timing becomes the very focus of the letter.

Best Charles Ramsey tweet

Here's the best tweet regarding Charles Ramsey, the man who kicked in the door in order to free Amanda Berry:

Patton Oswalt:  Dear Charles Ramsey: I am not a little pretty white girl, but I totally want to run into your black arms. #hero

Andy Borowitz: Courageous Senators stand up to American people

Courageous Senators stand up to American people

Also: Right not to get shot faces uphill battle in Senate

A gun violence prevention town hall meeting

Last Saturday, I, along with about 100 others, attended a "town hall" meeting on gun violence prevention led by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and Congressman Mike Thompson.

I did not have high hopes; Congress' approval ratings are low, and my opinion of it is even lower. Other attendees likely had similar thoughts; like myself, they glanced occasionally out the windows to admire the beautiful weather we were missing. Yet these two Representatives impressed me.

Anna's no gun expert, but Mike is. In addition to being the chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, Mike is a Vietnam veteran and the father of a police officer. Mike's task force released it's recommendations a couple of months ago. He gave us a brief gun tutorial using police-provided samples, including an AR-15, similar to the gun he carried in Vietnam, and an AK-47, similar to the gun carried by his adversaries there. He borrowed a "magazine" from a police officer, explaining how it's incorrect to call them "clips" or "cartridges." The tutorial continued, covering the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic, and more.

Mike (and Anna) emphasized that no single law or set of laws will ever eliminate gun violence, but we can pass laws that reduce it, and we can do so while respecting the Second Amendment. Mike explained how the 2008 Supreme Court decision known as Heller put to rest two extreme positions. At one extreme, it said that the government could not ban all guns. At the other, it said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, just like the right to freedom of speech is not unlimited (e.g. you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater). What you find in the Bill of Rights are fundamental rights, not absolute ones, and they are subject to restriction where it makes sense to do so. In writing for the Heller 5-4 majority, Antonin Scalia - as conservative a Supreme Court justice as you can find - explicitly cited the government's authority to (1) ban certain weapons, (2) ban certain people from owning any guns, and (3) ban all guns from certain areas.

Responding to a man who felt it was too difficult to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, Mike pointed out that his concern pertained to state law, not federal. A chorus of boos erupted when another man, citing the NRA's current go-to line ("The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun"), advocated arming teachers. Anna, asking teachers in attendance to raise their hands, responded that they have neither the background nor the time to go through the extensive training needed. Moreover, as Blink author Malcolm Gladwell noted, even with extensive training, good guys with guns can make tragic mistakes.

At one point a man's voice broke as he described how he lost his son to a gun suicide. The most poignant for me, however, was someone who sat through the entire meeting without saying a single word, but who I knew had lost a brother in the 1993 massacre at 101 California Street in San Francisco.

When the conversation came around to last Wednesday's Senate vote on gun violence, neither Mike nor Anna minced words. Although 90% of the country is in favor of background checks, the Senate voted them down (54 voted for it compared to 46 against, but they needed 60 to overcome the filibuster). Mike said the task force had videos showing prospective gun show buyers asking if they could buy a gun even though they could not pass a background check; of course they could, some sellers said cheerfully. Legally speaking, those sellers who didn't have a federal license were right. An estimated 40% of all gun purchases do not currently require a background check.

The vote on background checks was shameful, but Mike pointed out it was by no means the most shameful vote. The Senate also voted down amendments to criminalize straw purchases - buying a gun for someone else who can't pass a background check - and gun trafficking. Who, Mike asked rhetorically, is in favor of gun trafficking?

Although I kept my mouth shut, I know who profits from gun trafficking: gun manufacturers. One way or another, manufacturers profit off every gun, including those sold to - or stolen by - criminals and others who can't legally obtain them. But every gun that lands in the hands of bad guys is extra profitable, because it scares law-abiding citizens, who are far more numerous, into buying more guns.

Background checks; criminalizing trafficking; criminalizing straw purchases. All I have to say is: duh. Unfortunately I didn't hear anything about another meritable idea: mandatory gun insurance. Guns are dangerous; it's projected that by 2015 more people in the U.S. will die by gunfire than by car crashes (this is already the case in ten states). If gun insurance were mandatory, free markets would encourage a whole host of practical ideas - trigger locks, gun safes, guns that won't work if stolen, etc. We now have cars that automatically call for help when an airbag deploys. What about a gun that can be configured to automatically call for help when cocked? What about a "LoJack" service for guns? People still die because someone doesn't realize a gun is loaded. Why can't we solve that design problem? If you think these are dumb ideas (I might agree with you, upon further reflection), suggest your own.

Or another idea: require gun thefts to be reported. Exercising the right to bear arms goes hand-in-hand with bearing arms responsibly.

While I'll have to wait before seeing mandatory gun insurance, Mike is optimistic that the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on background checks. I admire him for trying, and I'll give the House (including Speaker Boehner) one gold star if they do. They are staying in the dog house if they don't.

 Update: The New York Times has a very interesting article on how the percentage of gun owners has declined.