John McCain is an Idiot.

I’ve never been a fan of John McCain.  I can appreciate his service without blindly following his philosophy.  And nothing proves to me that the man is an absolute idiot more than his current attack on Apple, Inc.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an Apple fan.  I’d like to think I’d feel the exact same way if McCain attacked any other corporation the way he is attacking Apple, but I may not have the information about those companies that I do about Apple.

That said, McCain is just way off base in his thinking about the mega tech company.  In statements he made in the Senate hearing about Apple’s alleged tax evasion, an evasion in which it has never been asserted that Apple violated any laws, McCain claims that “It’s time for Apple to invest in America.”

Funny, that’s EXACTLY what Apple was trying to do when they pulled the alleged shenanigans that got them called before the hearing.  Here’s the back story.

Over 30 years ago, back when Steve Jobs was in charge the first time, Apple started to expand into overseas markets.  They developed a holding company to handle the overseas business, Apple International Operations (AIO) and looked for a tax friendly country to set up shop.  Ireland came to the rescue and offered AIO a sweet deal on corporate tax income if they set up shop on the Green Isle.  Apple accepted, and AIO has operated out of Ireland ever since.  Starting with the iPod and moving on to the iPhone and iPad, Apple has seen it’s overseas market skyrocket.  Two thirds of their sales and three fourths of their revenue is now from selling products and services overseas.

During all this time, the one thing Apple has always kept in the good old USA is research and development.  As such, Apple has a mammoth campus in California, and is building an even larger building.  The giant ring shaped “Campus 2″ will be the home of Apple’s R&D for decades to come.  This is a multi-billion dollar investment in America that McCain flat ignores.

Since 2001, and I’d argue that the change really started in 1998 with the colorful iMac and Steve Job’s return to the company, Apple has seen revenue skyrocket.  Completely free of debt, Apple has amassed a fortune in cash.  While Apple often pays generous dividends to shareholders, and buys companies and technology from that stockpile, many shareholders have complained that Apple was under leveraged with its lack of debt, and over hoarding on their cash.  Apple listened and decided that over the next year, through dividends and share buy backs, Apple would return $100billion to shareholders worldwide.

Except the vast majority of shareholders are in the United States.  So despite the billions Apple is investing in America building Campus 2, Apple plans to return $100billion to the US Economy.  But to do that, Apple was about $17billion short.  AIO, however, was not.  AIO could have transferred about $26billion to Apple and after Apple paid $9.2billion in taxes it would have the $17billion it needed for the $100billion investment.

However, since that represents a 35% tax payout, Apple looked around for another way.  And when Apple walks into your bank, with hundreds of billions of dollars in cash and asks for a deal on a loan, banks listen.  Apple swung a sweet deal on a $17billion loan on the strength of the billions in cash and the yearly income of tens of billions it currently makes each year.  As a result, Apple will be paying 2% on $17billion rather than 35% on $26billion.

It was this huge loan that caught the eye of McCain.  For a sense of scale, this is roughly the same amount of money the Bush administration ultimately gave the Auto Industry during the bail out.  No matter how you cut it, $17billion is a huge sum of money.  What upset McCain isn’t that Apple took out a massive loan, but that they did it to avoid paying $9.2billion in taxes.

Again, $9.2billion in taxes versus the $100billion in American Investment in the form of share buy backs and dividends.  After Apple already paid billions in taxes last year, and will pay billions in taxes this year.

Again, Apple didn’t break any laws.  And the accusations that Apple lobbied for tax loop holes is ludicrous.  Apple pays far less than other tech companies in lobbying.  While that is about to change, historically Apple has been a small player in politics.

But like a typical politician, when McCain sees a pot of money, he looks to figure out how he can tax it.  McCain desperately wants to get the governments hand into Apple’s cash reserves.  So accusing Apple of evasion makes sense… even though the money didn’t come from American consumers or American sales.

If McCain was serious about trying to get American companies to repatriate their cash reserves, maybe he should try to be more like Ireland.  Or any other tax haven country.  Allow these companies to repatriate their reserves at a reasonable rate, say 2%-5%, and they will do it.  If Apple could return money from overseas sales (the sole reason for AIO to exist) at the same rate as Ireland, there would be little reason for AIO to continue to exist.

But ultimately McCain is an idiot because he truly believes Apple doesn’t invest in America.  So let’s see exactly what Apple DOES invest in this country.

Apple employs 50+ thousand people at highly competitive wages.  Besides being a massive employer of American talent, all those employees pay income tax, taxes collected by Apple FOR FREE as a service to the government (and another issue for another blog). Apple imports, and pays import taxes, on millions of units brought back from manufacturing in China (and don’t think that Apple hasn’t looked elsewhere for manufacturing, they have.)  Apple has a billion dollar campus in California and is expanding it on a massive scale to increase R&D space.  Apple has routinely HIRED during the recent recession while other companies in their sector have been laying people off.  And, perhaps most importantly, Apple created an entire economy with it’s App Store, a marketplace that didn’t exist 5 years ago and has paid developers around the nation over $9billion in sales.  And don’t forget the upcoming $100billion in payouts to shareholders.  All of which will be TAXED.

Furthermore, Apple did absolutely nothing different than what John McCain does every year. McCain has accountants that file his taxes and make sure that the Senator has the smallest tax exposure possible.  That’s all that Apple has done.  Perhaps we should be asking McCain what he has done to “Invest in America” instead.  Can he boast as much investment in America as Apple has done?

Free Cole.

So I read with intrest my favorite child rearing blog today, and came across this story.So this good student, eagle scout named Cole basically drove to school monday, and realized he left his unloaded shotgun in the trunk of his car.  He had two choices at this moment, lock the trunk and go into the school or go to the office and admit his mistake.

Being an honest child, he chose the later.  He went in and asked to leave school and take his shotgun home. I don’t care what the “policy” is, if a straight A student, eagle scout, no trouble kid comes and and says “oops, can I be late to class to fix this” comes in, there is no reason to do what happens next.

Instead of the principal sayind “sure, go home.” he  calls the police.  Now Cole, the model student till Monday, is arrested on felony charges, expelled from school, and won’t graduate.  All because he was honest.

So this is yet another example of “zero tolerance” policy.  The cowardly principal ducked under policy to arrest him.  The cowardly police didn’t look at his locked and unloaded gun and say “don’t do it again.”  Instead everyone said they had “no choice” and arrested this young man all for “doing the right thing.”

This is insane.  Cole should have been given a slap on the wrist, sent home to secure his shotgun, and been left alone.  But, in this day and age of a terrorist under every bush and a mass murderer in every car, the school and the police couldn’t be sensible and help a kid who DID THE RIGHT THING out.

This is the totalitarian USA we now live in.  There is no room for error, no room for circumstance and no room for mistakes.  If you so much as violate the law, however unintentionally, you must be punished.

Never mind that all Cole and his classmates learned is DON’T TRUST ADULTS.  Don’t trust Authority, don’t trust those in charge.  I have to wonder, which is the biggest crime, punishing a good kid who made a mistake, or destroying the trust of hundreds of kids in adults and authority.

Personally, I think it is the later.

Way to go, fucktards.

Why I’m your best friend in the coming Zombie Apocalypse.

Let me tell you something. When the Zombie Apocalypse comes, I’m your best friend. Since becoming addicted to “The Walking Dead,” I’m obviously a Zombie expert and I can assert without a doubt in my mind that I am the best friend any survivor could ever want.

To begin with, I know how to build a crossbow. Okay, so the crossbow I built is a stage prop, but I found out that it is much harder to build a “working” safe crossbow than a real one. In learning to make a fake crossbow, I learned how to make a very effective real one. So when supplies are low and bullets are precious, I’m your man. A little wood and a few tools and I can be churning out crossbows for our whole team. Plus, crossbow bolts are reusable.

Second, I have a motorcycle. And we’ve all seen how congested the interstate roads are following the dead chewing on our brains. I can slip through those tiny spaces with ease. Now I can’t help that I might be grabbed off the bike by some zombie I didn’t see hiding behind an overturned 18 wheeler, but that’s what leathers and a full face mask are for. Give me enough time free of foul bites to bring my weapons into the match.

I always carry a knife. It’s something my dad taught me. You never know when you’ll need one, and when you do, you should have one ready. No, I don’t walk around town with a machete strapped to my leg, but I would during the zombie uprising. But no zombie is going to catch me unawares during the outbreak without a sharp knife to punch into its brain.

I’m a good shot. Dad was also a competitive shooter for most of his life. I know how to shoot and shoot well. So until those precious bullets get scarce, you want me on a long gun keeping those animated corpses as far away as possible.

I’m also handy with a shotgun, and nothing slows down a herd of zombies like blasts from a shotgun. Except a canon. Or being run over by a big ass truck. But barring those, I’m pretty good with a shotgun.

So let’s face it. I’m Daryl. And you know, when the corpses are walking, you want Daryl on your side.

(Editor’s Note: I’m watching Walking Dead on Netflix.  Season Three is not out yet on the service.  Please, no spoilers in the comments.)

Common Sense Gun Control

I don’t know if it is possible, but I’d like to try to find some discussion space in between the two extremes in the gun control debate.  On the one side you have those that believe that any gun the military might have should be legal, perhaps even required, to be in private hands.  On the other, you have folks who believe no one, except maybe the police and maybe not them, should have access to guns.  If we can leave those two alone for a minute, forget them for a bit, perhaps we can have an intelligent discussion on the issue of gun control.

Okay, this is my blog. So it isn’t really going to be much of a discussion.  It’s going to be my take on the gun control debate.  I hope you will give me your take on the issue in the comments.  But if you hold either of the two positions above, I’m already telling you I’m ignoring you as a kook.

From what I’ve seen the debate centers around some pretty standard topics, and I’ve actually done a bit of research on each one.  The topics seem to be:

• Second Amendment
• Types of guns allowed
• Gun registration
• Background checks on gun buyers

Let’s tackle the first one.  The Second Amendment issue.

The argument for more gun control using the Second Amendment is that over quoted phrase “well regulated.”  Just in case you’re unaware of the wording of the amendment in question, here it is:

“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.”

Those in favor of increasing gun control look at this amendment and focus in to the phrase well regulated and justify it as proof that the federal government has the right to pass gun control laws.  Those in favor of less control on guns skip over that phrase and concentrate on the “shall not be infringed” part.  So how does one, who wants to be honest with themselves, rectify “well regulated” with “shall not be infringed?”

I think an analogy is in order.  I found a great one at a pro-gun site, but frankly it makes the most sense to me.  Unlike most pro-gun sites, this site goes to great lengths to document and back up their points, and this one just makes sense.  The site I’m talking about is guncite.com.  Here is their very well thought out analogy on the Second Amendment.

“A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed.”

This phrase is grammatically identical to the second amendment, and yet it takes out all the emotion of the gun control debate.  I find it difficult to believe that anyone who reads this analogue would assume the writer means only a well educated electorate has the right to read and compose books.  It makes it clear that the intent of the phrase is “A well-educated electorate” is important to “a free society” and therefore the right of ALL people to read and write books shouldn’t be infringed.

Similarly, the Second Amendment should be read in the same manner.  A well regulated militia is important.  And since it is important, we will not infringe on the rights of our citizens to keep guns.  Any other reading of the amendment, to my mind, is self serving.  We have the right to keep guns enshrined in the Constitution. For me, that debate is settled and it will take some serious convincing to make me think otherwise.  Anyone want to take a shot at it?

That does not, however, make me believe that there is no right of federal or state governments to place limits on how you use, display or handle the guns we have the right to own.  I think that the handling of guns is very much an interest of governance.

But there are two parts to the amendment and to the analogue.  Sticking with the analogue for the moment, nothing in the phrase gives one the belief that the writer believes you have the right to read while driving.  Just that you have the right to read.

So I think it is clear that the right to keep a gun is enshrined… but just as clear is the right to “bare” a gun.  But reasonable limits on how you carry a gun can and should be placed, as long as the right is kept.  In our modern society there are two ways to carry a gun; open and concealed.  Laws concerning both are, in my mind, legitimate and of public concern. In almost every state that has an open carry law, they also make it clear that you can’t carry it openly in a threatening manner.  And in states with a conceal carry law, most if not all require that you have a permit.  I don’t have a problem with either of these laws, they just make good sense.

Now on to types of guns.

It is currently in vogue to say that certain types of guns should be outlawed for the common good.  On the face of it, I have to agree.  Sort of.  We have to go back to the intent of the Second Amendment to wrap our brains around it.  The idea being that a well regulated militia is important, so having a population with guns that could be used in that militia is important.  I don’t believe that the Constitution meant that the population should have every type of military weapon available at the time.  The idea was that when the militia was called up, they would bring their guns and supplies with them, but not that a called up militia would be expected to bring canons.  In the same vein, I don’t believe that the second amendment gives me the right to own a fully operational M1A1 tank or a nuclear bomb.

That said, I do believe it gives me the right to own a fully automatic military grade machine gun such as a M16.  And I have that right today.  It takes a special license, and I don’t have a problem with that either.  If I want to exercise the right to carry a fully automatic weapon, I can.  It just requires a federal license.  Additionally, those guns are registered and taxed upon transfer.  So if I want to play in that murky world, I can.

But getting a license to carry a machine gun, and buying a machine gun, are expensive.  Out of the reach of most people.  So it isn’t really machine guns that people are talking about.  Instead it is other things.  So called “assault” weapons.  High capacity magazines.  Semi-automatic pistols and rifles.

I understand the reasoning.  If you can limit the number of bullets, the speed of those bullets and how fast you can shoot bullets you can increase public safety.  That’s understandable. But so far, I haven’t really seen a ban on types of firearms that would really do any good.

The problem with assault weapon bans are that they are being proposed by people who don’t understand firearms at all.  The argument seems to be that certain types of weapons have no use but to kill people, and we should outlaw those guns.

Except that the purpose of the second amendment is clearly designed to allow the populace to carry guns designed to kill people.  That’s why the Constitution was written the way it was written. It’s an ugly truth. But even saying that, the people wanting to ban certain weapons are still off base.

An AR 15

Pictured above is an AR 15.  It is the semi automatic version of a military machine gun.  It is fully legal under current laws and is available in a wide range of chambers.  I got this picture off the internet, so I’m not sure what this particular gun fires.  I have to agree, it is one scary looking gun.

And because it is scary looking, or has some cosmetic features (notice the “flash suppressor” and telescoping stock.  Don’t forget the bayonet mount.) some want this gun banned as an “assault weapon.”  The thinking is, this gun isn’t good for self defense, and inside a home it isn’t unless you’ve had some serious training, and it isn’t used for hunting.  So it should be outlawed.

There are two problems with this line of thinking.

A Ruger Mini 14

The gun above is a Ruger Mini 14. It is significantly less intimidating when you look at it.  It fires the same round as the most common model of AR15, .223/5.56.  It looks like a hunting rifle, and in fact that is what it is.  It is a superb rifle for bigger game, such as deer, coyote and boar.  So the first problem with the Assault Rifle ban is this…  why is the AR15 banned and the Mini 14 not?  They shoot at the same speed, the same bullet and cause the same damage.

Here’s another reason “assault rifle” bans don’t make sense.

Ruger Mini 14

The gun above is ALSO a Ruger Mini 14.  It is functionally identical to the much friendlier looking hunting rifle, but the gun above would be banned as an “Assault Rifle.”  That makes absolutely no sense.

As to the not using the AR15 for hunting, that simply isn’t true.  The AR15 is also an excellent rifle used for hunting the same game as the Mini 14. And it is used by a very large group of people for hunting, current and former military.  And it makes perfect sense that these men and women would use an AR15 for hunting.

I wouldn’t use a AR15 for hunting because I’m not familiar with the gun, and when I’ve fired one in the past, it felt uncomfortable in my stance.  I’d prefer the Model 10 for hunting.  But the military trains on the AR15′s military version.  They are quite comfortable, even proficient, in using, handling and shooting this style gun. Why should we ban the AR15 and take the gun military hunters are the most comfortable firing away? Is it smarter to put hunters on guns they aren’t comfortable using? Personally, I want the gun user to be as comfortable and secure with their gun as can be.  Why force all these military hunters to relearn on a new gun?

The same misguided thinking goes into the debate over magazine size.  While hunting, most states limit the rounds you are allowed to have in your gun depending on what you are hunting.  That’s fair. But in a self defense mode, that doesn’t make sense.  You can’t tell me that I’ll only need 7 bullets to deal with any self defense situation that may arise. There are only two reasons for telling me this, you don’t understand guns as they are used for self defense or you don’t believe guns should be used for self defense.  The second reason is a whole other blog post.

And the topic of Gun Registration

In what is, by far, the most common sense and rational gun control argument would be the idea that we should register every gun to the person who owns it.  What a aide that would be to police around the country to know in a matter of minutes who owns a gun used in a crime.  There are two types of registration, the first is by serial number and the second is by tool marks.  The second is the most useful to police investigation.

We’ve all seen police dramas on TV where the good guys get a bullet at a crime scene, match that bullet to a gun and go get the bad guy.  What if every gun in the country was registered and a test firing of the gun preformed.  All police would need is a bullet at a crime scene to go get the gun owner for questioning! And it wouldn’t even have to be a bullet, not used much on TV but just as accurate, each gun leaves a “fingerprint” on the shell case as well!  The FBI has an extensive database of shell case markings as well as bullet markings.

So why isn’t this a good idea?

The first reason is simple.  Guns aren’t people.  Their “fingerprint” isn’t permanent.  I own a rifle that has been fired well over 10,000 times, and I promise you the tool marks on both the bullet and the case have changed dramatically from the first firing to the last.  (No, I didn’t fire that rifle that many times.  It was my father and he was a competitive marksman in his younger days)  Additionally, a gun could easily be modified to change the tool marks.  And it might not even be intentional.  Cleaning, servicing and repairs would all change the tool markings over time.

But more sinister than that, gun registration leads to gun confiscation. WHOA! Did I just say that?

Any serious gun control advocate who is still reading this post just went ballistic.  There is the proof I’m a right wing nut job.  No one has said anything about confiscating guns.  I agree, no one who isn’t a kook, has.  But bear with me a second.

In nearly every country that has started a gun registry, gun confiscation has taken place.  (To date, it hasn’t happened to the Swiss) History bears out the truth behind the paranoia.  Australia, The United Kingdom, Canada and many other countries have had registries that were later used to confiscate guns.  But we don’t even have to look outside our borders to find the “paranoid” truth.

New York City enacted a gun registration in 1967.  All residents in the city had to register their long guns.  In the early 1990′s, New York City banned Assault Rifles.  Using the registry earlier established, residents of New York City were notified that they had to surrender their guns, or remove them from the city.  By using the registry, police had probable cause to perform searches of homes to ensure that the guns had been removed. Additionally, California has done the same, telling legal gun owners that they now own banned guns and that the guns must be surrendered or removed from the state upon their death.

So don’t tell me that gun registry doesn’t lead to gun confiscation.  It has already happened right here in the good old USA.  I may be paranoid, but I’m also right.

So what about Background Checks?

What about them?  I love them.  I think it’s a common sense gun control device that should be universal.  Yes, I said universal.  I think it should absolutely be illegal to sell a gun without a background check.

All Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealers have to preform one already.  The recently defeated bill in the Senate seemed to ignore that fact.  It was designed to require background checks at gun shows, even though the vast majority of dealers at gun shows were FFL dealers. But that’s, again, another blog post for another time.

Those who oppose background checks on guns claim it is a stepping stone toward gun registration, and it certainly could be but doesn’t have to be.  They point to the FBI and the ATF as the big brothers on the block trying to keep track of you and your guns.  That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how guns are purchased today.

If you go into a gun shop today and buy a gun from a FFL dealer, there is a process in place that works quite well.  To start with, after selecting the gun you’d like to purchase, the FFL will give you a form to fill out.  This form is known as a 4473, or a Firearms Transaction Record.  On this form, the FFL will gather information about your identity, including drivers license number or state issued ID number and optionally a social security number.  He will then record on the form all the information about the gun you wish to buy.  Sounds like registration, doesn’t it?

And in a way, it is.  The 4473 is an official ATF form.  But that’s not how it is used.

The FFL will take the form after it’s filled out and make a phone call (or a computer connection) to the FBI’s NICS.  The NICS, or National Instant Criminal Background System, is the official method for FFL’s to do a background check on a buyer.  Some states have their own version that interfaces with the FBI’s, but most states (30) use NICS. (California, which as I mentioned, registers all long guns, only uses NICS for handguns, but a state office for long guns) The FFL gives the NICS your personal information and usually gets a quick response in one of three ways.  Sell, Deny or Delay.  At no time does the FFL give NICS or the FBI any information about the gun you are trying to buy.

If it is a sell, the FFL takes your money and gives you your gun.  If it is a deny, the FFL sends you on your way, without the gun. If it is a Delay, the FFL tells you to come back in three days.  NICS has three days to look further into your records and report back to the FFL.  If the FFL doesn’t get a response after three business days, he will sell the gun to you.  (if after that, the NICS calls back and says deny, the FFL will give your information to the police who will come and get your gun.)  Daily the database is purged of requests, so no record is kept of who attempted to buy a gun.

Now what about 4473?  What happens to it?  While it is a ATF form, it doesn’t go to the ATF.  The FFL must keep the form on file for a period of either 5 years in the case of a deny or 20 years in the case of a sell.  After those time limits expire, the forms are destroyed.

But that’s not the WHOLE story.  The FFL keeps what’s called a “bound book” a “ledger” or a A&D book.  This book is the record of every gun the FFL buys and sells.  It has all the same information as the 4473.  And they are required to keep that book forever.  Upon retirement from the business, they are required to turn that book over to the ATF.

Wait a minute.  Isn’t that registration?

Not really.  There is no standard format for these books.  A FFL might change the format over time as well, since this is the book used to inventory the gun store.  A large gun store will sell hundreds if not thousands of guns in a week.  Here in Huntsville, Alabama we have one of the nations largest seller of guns.  He’s been open for decades and has probably a million or more entries in various bound books over the years.  So when he goes out of business, if he goes out of business (it is rumored he did over a million dollars in sales at his last event, so I don’t think it will be soon) he turns all that over to the ATF.  Just how quickly do you think the ATF can turn decades of hand written entries into a useable database?

So buying a gun is not the same a registering a gun right now, and it doesn’t have to be in the future.  There are two methods that could easily be used to give everyone the ability to do a background check before selling a gun.  The most obvious is open up NICS to everyone, not just FFL.

There is a drawback to this, NICS could get swamped with requests.  How easy would it be to call NICS to do a background check on your pretty daughter’s new boyfriend?  The abuse would be rampant.

But there is another way to do it, and it already exists.  Use an FFL to facilitate the sale.

Today, FFL’s are allowed to facilitate the sale of handguns between individuals.  An individual would use a FFL for this for a couple of reasons, the first is that he just wants to be sure his gun is going to someone reliable.  The second is because it is illegal for an individual to sell a gun to a person not in his state, and using an FFL gets around that.  So FFL’s already have the ability to facilitate private sales.  So make it required that all sales go through an FFL.

The FFL charges a modest fee for the facilitation.  The local gun shop mentioned earlier charges $25.  Basically what happens is the buyer and seller go to the FFL, the FFL does the background check, if approved for the sale, the buyer pays the seller and one of them pays the FFL.  On paper, what happens is the FFL “buys” the gun from the seller and then “sells” the gun to the buyer.

As I’ve already shown, the FFL buying and selling process is not registration, so this seems to be a sensible system to make the exchange happen and keep public safety intact.  Not only that, it would make straw man purchases and gun trafficking even more difficult.  Plus it would prevent sellers from having to keep paperwork on a gun they sold 18 years ago.  Instead, if asked by the ATF about the gun, they simply say they sold it to such and such FFL on or about a certain date.  The FFL will have the 4473 on file, and all is well.

So I do believe we could go to a universal background check, but to do so means more than just a method to do it.  Stiff fines and penalties must be in place for people caught with a gun not purchased through the system, as well as fines and penalties for anyone caught selling a gun without doing the same.  And there in lies a problem.

After the background check bill died last week, President Obama said that he was going to step up enforcement of existing laws to protect the public.  If true, then he will have done more than any other president to protect us from illegal guns.  If he is looking for a place to start, I have a suggestion.  NICS.

According to the FBI, since established in October of 1998, NICS has turned down a buyer 1,015,699 times.  Of those million plus times, 590,070 of them have been due to a criminal record.  That’s 58.10% of the time NICS turns down a buyer because he was a felon who crime was punishable by a year or more, or a misdemeanor punishable by two years in prison. You are told when you fill out the 4473 that it is illegal to purchase a gun if you’re a felon.  That’s 590,070 potential criminals who illegally attempted to buy a gun.  How many were prosecuted?  Statistics on this are hard to fine nationwide, but very few.  According to a report by Syracuse University, the Obama administration has prosecuted only 2 cases of felons lying on a 4473. That’s not a typo, it really says “two.”

Are there other ways to stop gun violence without gun control?

You bet.

Overall federal gun violations, according to the same Syracuse report I just mentioned, show that under Obama, gun violation cases are down from the high it reached under his predecessor.  Looking at a 25 year period, Obama’s record is still much higher than pre-9/11, but for a President who is adamant about gun control, you’d think he’d be doing more about gun violations than he currently is.

On the State level, felon’s in possession of a gun are either not charged with the possession, or the charge is plead away.  That needs to stop.  If states would view illegal possession as seriously as the crime committed using the gun, you’d see illegal gun possession go down.  And while possession of a gun by a felon can have a probation revoked, after having the probation revoked it is rare to charge the felon with the additional crime of possession.

The simple fact is, gun control is a bandaid to the national psyche and not a serious method of reducing gun crime.  It’s all about emotion and theater and not ending violence. If administrations, both state and federal, were serious about wanting to end gun violence (an impossibility, but it can and should be drastically reduced) then they would rigorously enforce current laws already on the books instead of detract from their existing record of being soft on gun crime.

Don’t loose yourself over a cause.

Hey folks, if you’ve been on Facebook in the past 36 hours, you might start to think that we are in the time of the Stepford wives. It seems as if everyone is looking the same, at least according to their profile pictures.

Maybe I’m insensitive, but I don’t get it. What does a red badge with a pink equal sign as my profile picture really say about me? Does it make me a member of a cause, or just another sheep in the herd? Why suppress who you are to show support for something? I’d rather support it than show some support like action revolving around changing my identity on Facebook for a while.

I get that if you’re a part of something you find very important, you should show your support. I doubt you’ll find a bigger gay marriage supporter and advocate than the great writer Del Shores. And he didn’t replace his photo with the gay marriage badge… He placed it as an overlay on his own picture. Because who he is is as important as what he believes and supports.

It’s like those awful memes that pop up, and people repost over and over again. If you don’t repost this, you hate “something.” That’s just emotional blackmail and intellectually dishonest.

If you support a cause, support it. Don’t succumb who you are over to it. Post links, articles, write your own opinions. That’s just being part of the herd instead being your person. Plus, it makes Facebook exceptionally boring.

Why I don’t care about gay marriage

Today the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments over Proposition 8, a California proposition that outlawed gay marriage. Gay rights advocates are hoping the court will find the prop unconstitutional, and depending on how they do it, ending the gay marriage debate in the courts.

I couldn’t care less.

Don’t get me wrong. I hope the court finds the entire concept unconstitutional and opens the door for federal and state recognition for gay marriage and the rights associated with that civil union. I couldn’t care less because its one of the most inane and stupid arguments I’ve ever heard.

Of course gay people should be allowed to marry. The idea that they can’t is so alien to my way of thinking I find it beneath contempt to assume they can’t. It’s just such a simple concept, I can’t honestly believe in 2013 we still have lawmakers and other leaders that are fighting it.

But the reality is, we do. And that’s just bullshit.

I believed in a time that was just around the corner 13 years ago, when we’d come out of the dark ages and into a period of enlightenment and understanding. I was geeky enough to believe the open access of the internet would end war, hate and violence. That clearly hasn’t happened, and in many cases the internet has increased all of these.

I’m sorely disappointed in the 21st century so far. Oh I love my iPhone and my iPad and my high speed internet. But we’ve had troops deployed in combat since 2001, my kids have never seen a time of peace, we still deny basic human rights in our own country, we’ve become enamored with technology to the point of forgetting the humanity.

So when I say I don’t care about gay marriage, it isn’t because I am apathetic or disagreeable with the notion. It’s because my faith in humanity is at such an all time low I don’t have the energy or focus to be bothered with it. It’s a throw away notion, of course they should have the right. The fact that it isn’t a throw away notion is the bigger problem. And that’s not a gay/straight issue. That’s a human issue.

Humanity needs a reboot. Can we get Christopher Nolen on that?

Oh, and one more thing while I’m being so disagreeable about the current state of human affairs… where is my flying car?

Arguments around the Alabama Flex Bill

Alabama’s legislature recently passed, in ways that are questionable enough for a judge to issue an injunction against the signing of it into law, a bill that would allow parents to get a tax credit if they moved their child from a failing school to a school that is not failing, either public or private. As is typical, arguments for and against the bill have fallen into typical camps, either pro change or pro teacher. I’m going to let the cat out of the bag and say I’m opposed to the bill and hope the injunction stands, but I think my reasons for this stance straddles both camps. I am going to attempt to look at the various arguments for and against the bill and explain why I take the position I do. I’ll also explain my exceedingly unpopular suggestions for fixing the failing school syndrome.

From what I’ve heard or read, there are a few set arguments for and against the bill. These are the ones I’ve read about, heard on local talk radio, or heard among parents. Please feel free to comment if you think I’ve missed an important one. I am choosing to completely skip over the questionable method by which the bill was passed and the equally questionable method by which it has been stopped.

First, the list of pro-bill arguments:

• The status quo is broken, we need change
• Parents should have a choice in schooling their children
• Keeping students in failing schools is bad
• Schools should be run like industry, failing schools should be closed
• Teachers should be held accountable for failing schools
• Competition breeds improvement

And the list of anti-bill arguments:

• Unfairly punishes schools in the most need of help
• It is an attack on already overworked teachers
• Arbitrary definition of failing school
• It opens the door for charter schools
• It unfairly targets disabled students
• This bill does nothing to help failing schools

And finally, I’ll offer various solutions to the syndrome of failing schools in Huntsville, the only system I can speak on. I suspect, however, my solutions have a broader application.

So lets jump in with both feet, and start dealing with these arguments one by one.

The status quo is broken, we need change!

Is the status quo broken? I think it is only fair to assume that it is. In Huntsville we for all intent and purpose have two school systems, North and South. Southern schools are doing well, Northern schools are struggling or failing. As such, we must accept that the status quo must change. So on this argue net, at least on first glance, I find myself on the pro-bill side.

In fact, pro-bill supporters are quick to point out that the status quo is broken and if you oppose this bill you are in favor of keeping kids in failing schools. This is absurd. Being willing to admit that the status quo is broken is not the same as being willing to admit that this bill fixes the status quo.

It is the short sighted nature of modern politics that causes this argument to fall apart. In this thinking, the status quo is broken, change the status quo; while no thought has gone into why we arrived at the status quo we are in. Without looking at how the status quo was arrived at, you can’t possibly know what this bill will do to effect the status quo.

The truth is, we arrived at the current status quo by 50+ years of social and legislative agendas to move kids from schools seen at below adequate into schools seen as superior. The resulting exodus has gone in rushed phases over the years, the first rush and the first massive influx of modern private schools in the state which is commonly called “White Flight” and ending with the newly coined “Black Flight” of the 1990s has led us to our current situation with a all but separate North and South school district.  This bill does nothing to change that “status quo,” instead execrating the decay already in progress.  So instead of offering change, the champions of changing the status quo are actually champions of accelerating the decline of failing schools.

Parents should have a choice in schooling

The idea that parents don’t have choices in schooling their children is a champion cause for anyone that wants to ignore the reality of failing schools.  They believe by offering this tax credit parents will move kids out of a failing school to… what?  Private school?  It won’t cover a full year’s tuition.  Another school in the district, assuming there is room. Just what choice is this adding?

And do Parents even need a choice?  In the early 1990s, charter schools were introduced in Chicago. The University of Chicago Economics department saw a chance to do a little deep statistical research, and what they found is interesting. They tracked every child who stayed in Chicago Public Schools who also applied for a new charter school.  Because the demand for the charter was so high, students were awarded a slot at the school based on a lottery system.

Now this study didn’t just follow the students who got into the charter school, it followed those students who applied and didn’t get in.  It probably won’t surprise you to learn that children of parents who applied for the charter school and got into the new school had great test scores and a high college admissions.  What  may surprise you is that the kids who didn’t get in had almost no statistical difference in testing or college admission, even though many of them stayed behind at a “failing” school. At least as far as their academic career went, the change from a “failing” school to a “charter” school had no bearing on students testing or college admission.

Parents do have lots of choices about how their child is educated, but they can only exercise those choices if they are involved with their child’s school life.  Parents who divorce themselves from the schooling of their children don’t have many choices.

Keeping Children In Failing Schools is Bad

Sure it is.  No one wants to be part of something that is failing, nor should they.  But what, exactly, is a failing school and who gets to decide? Let’s take two random schools in Huntsville (neither of which is random because I have information sources at both, so I know a bit more than most), Morris Elementary and Weatherly Elementary.  Morris is a North school, Weatherly is a Southie.  Morris is currently a failing school, Weatherly is an exceptional school.

A kindergarten teacher at both school tests her children early in the year to get a starting baseline of what her children know. They are (currently) tested again and again throughout the year, ending up with a final test that determines what they “know” after the first year of school. There is a state determined “baseline” that is the minimum knowledge that a child must know after leaving Kindergarten. An important skill learned in Kindergarten is reading, and that is one of the significant baselines of that grade level.

Children entering kindergarten at Weatherly have, over the last several years, had an average baseline in reading that was within a point or two of what the baseline is for the end of the year. In many individual cases, the children already exceeded the end of the year baseline.  Exceptional indeed.

Children at Morris are not so lucky. They entered with an average that was significantly below the baseline for the end of the year, and actually well below the baseline that is expected of a Kindergartener at the beginning of the year.

Is it any surprise the a greater percentage of children reach or surpass baseline at Weatherly than at Morris?  Yet, Morris manages to take 95+% of new kindergarteners and move them to or beyond baseline.  95+%.  That’s a significant achievement, considering how far behind those children were at the beginning of the year. In one year, Weatherly had 95% of its students at or near end of the year baseline on day one of school.

Now Morris is arguably a failing school.  But if you had a kindergartener who, for whatever reason, was well behind the curve at the start of the year, I’d argue that the teachers at Morris are doing more with less, have more experience with catching children up, and are doing the absolute best they can with what they are given.  I’m not sure a below average student in kindergarten is better served by being moved to Weatherly, where the child would be significantly behind the other students.

On the other hand, an above average child at Morris would probably be better served at Weatherly, where his peers are more advanced and prepared for learning.

So is leaving a child at a school that is determined to be failing a bad thing?  I’d have to say, it completely depends on the circumstances of the school and the child.

Schools should be run like industry, Failing schools should be closed.

This is the current mantra of the pro-bill side.  If only schools would accept best industry practice, you’d see massive improvements in education all the way across the spectrum. If only school were held accountable to the stakeholders in the same manner as industry, schools would be forced to improve, or be closed.  Why can’t schools run more like a business, they ask, and smirk at smile while the other side says “School isn’t a business.”

Sorry anti-bill people, school is exactly like a business. School do have to answer to stakeholders and have to preform or they should be closed.

Now while my anti-bill minded friends are picking up their jaws from the floor, let me to go on.

The problem is, schools are not a business like “Apple, Inc.” They aren’t even a business like your local stop and shop.  Schools are a business and like every business there are rules and regulations on how those businesses must operate. Those regulations come in the form of a century or more of litigation and legislation, and schools today must meet or exceed those regulations to operate.

But the pro-bill side doesn’t want to look at those regulations when it comes to operating a school.  Huntsville City Schools is using a process called LEAN to streamline and improve non-scholastic business practices. I actually approve of this, although I don’t approve of their method of hiring a consultant to perform the analysis.  The problem is business seems to want schools to use LEAN on the way students are taught.

One of the primary regulatory requirements of schools in America is that every child between the ages of 6 and 18 is entitled to a free, public education. Every child.  And that you can not discriminate against a child based on their ability to learn, ability to perform or ability to participate. That makes schools unlike every other business in America.

Under this “school should be like industry” attitude, schools pull in a raw material – children.  They produced a finished product – high school graduates ready for college. They are paid, through taxes, for the effort. The problem with this model is that schools have absolutely no control over the sources of their raw material.

Worse, the raw material, as it is processed, is not under strictly controlled environments. Apple needs silver of a specific quality and grade to make the circuits that become the products they sell.  Apple would never allow that silver that didn’t meet their strict requirements come into their supply line, and if sub-adequate silver was delivered, it would be rejected.  Schools can’t reject any raw material delivered to them.  Once the raw material enters Apple’s supply chain, Apple protects it from outside environmental concerns and maintains it’s purity throughout the manufacturing process.  Schools return their raw materials to the “supplier” each day with no guarantee that the “purity” will be the same the following day, much less over the 12-13 years the school has to produce the finished product.

So comparing schools to industry fails flat.  But is there a business model that more closely matches that of what a school has to produce?  You bet.  Dentists.

Dentists are given a raw material, dirty teeth.  They then, for a fee, give back clean teeth. But in between visits to the dentist, they have no control over the teeth.  So they give the patient guidance, instruction and often tools used to maintain the teeth.  When the dentist sees the teeth again, he repeats the process.  Sometimes it works, and the teeth are cleaned quickly and efficiently.  Sometimes the teeth are not maintained and the process takes longer, may involve multiple trips to the dentist to finish, and costs the patient more.  And to start with, the genetic or previous maintenance of the teeth is inconsistent, and not the same from patient to patient.

Schools are much more like this.  Schools have to take everyone that comes to them, at least a dentist can decide a case is outside his ability or expertise.  Schools give the students and parents guidance, instruction and tools to continue toward the ultimate goal of graduation and college. But here is where the analogy falls apart.  Schools are expected to make each student progress and perform at the exact same level, regardless of what happens to the raw material outside of the classroom.

So yes, I say we should treat schools more like business.  Treat them like dentists, and stop holding them responsible for what happens outside of the classroom.

Teachers should be held accountable for failing schools.

Couldn’t agree more.  But again, there is a caveat.

Teachers should be held accountable for failing schools, but let’s go back to the previous Weatherly/Morris example.  Weatherly and Morris were not given the same set of students to work with.  The student body at the two schools have drastically different abilities and home life. Holding teachers at Morris to the exact same performance standards as the teachers at Weatherly isn’t fair.

Moreover, looking at the raw data year to year, it wouldn’t be fair to hold Weatherly to the same standards as Morris.  A typical Morris Kindergarten classroom sees a 500-1500% increase in baseline scores in reading.  A typical Weatherly kindergarten looks at a 50-75% increase in baseline scores.  Using that single criterion, which school is failing?  Under current guidelines, it is Morris, because even though Morris dramatically increased the baseline scores of the students, not enough passed the minimum baseline at the end of the year. A school is considered “failing” based on a very narrow definition of criteria to the exclusion of all the rest.  So despite the fact that Morris’s teachers are exceptional at pulling up students baseline scores, they are failing.

I’m sorry, but that simply isn’t right. We should hold teachers and schools accountable for failing, but we shouldn’t define failing as a one dimensional criterion at the end of year.  The entire year should be considered into calling a school failing. Starting points should be considered as well as ending points.

So absolutely, if we come up with a more realistic definition of a failing school, then I’m all for holding teachers accountable. But under the current definition of what makes a school fail, then such a concept is meaningless.

That’s not to say a teacher shouldn’t be held accountable. If a teacher constantly fails to match her teammates performance year after year, then that teacher should be held accountable and be removed. But holding good, honest, hardworking and effective teachers accountable to a single criteria that is an unfair representation of the job they are performing is ridiculous.

Competition Breeds Improvement

I can think of no truer statement.  Competition absolutely breeds improvement. But it doesn’t breed improvement for everyone.  Some people are left by the wayside in the quest for improvement. So competition doesn’t breed universal improvement.

Let’s take a look at the SEC.  Specifically SEC football.  Highly competitive.  And if the last 7 years of National Championships are any indication, the SEC is the single most competitive and improved conference in college football. The number of NFL drafts supports this claim.

But that level of competition did not improve every single football player wanting to play in the conference.  In fact, the vast majority of those who want to play in the conference aren’t allowed to.  They never even get the chance because the expected improvement of those players is so far below the level of play necessary.

Schools, once again, don’t have that luxury.  Public schools don’t get to recruit or pick the best of the best when it comes to students.  Competition weeds out the weak and celebrates the strong, however weak and strong are defined inside the competition. Schools don’t get that chance.

So competition doesn’t work in public schools the same way it does in other fields.  Instead, it weakens some schools to the point of being impossible to function while strengthening other schools to the point of superior performance.  Never mind that the competition was inserted artificially, or that the playing field was never level to begin with.   It would be like expecting a high school football team to play against the University of Alabama.

So that’s a look at the Pro-Bill side.  Let’s look at the Anti-Bill side:

Unfairly punishes schools in the most need of help

I seriously don’t like this argument, perhaps because it is most true.  But the reason it unfairly punishes the schools in the most need of help doesn’t have anything to do with the bill itself.

Schools in most need of help, by and large with a few exceptions, aren’t in need of help because of money, teachers or anything the government provides to them.  We’ve come to a point in American Education History where we have taken the success or failure of a student to graduate and be college ready squarely on the shoulder of the teacher.  Wait, that’s not true.  We’ve put the failure of a student to graduate and be college ready on the teacher.  Success is the result of something or someone else, at least in Huntsville.  But that’s an entirely different blog.

The fact remains that teachers are a part… a significant part… of the success or failure of a student.  But not the only, or even the majority.  Home life, study habits, parental involvement and a host of other things determine the likelihood of success. In many of today’s failing schools society as stripped the school of students who are likely to succeed, moving them on to other schools. We’ve left these schools and their teachers with those least likely to succeed and then blame them when they don’t, and this is a shame. This bill just pushes us further down the road to singling out those least likely to succeed and allowing them to fail.

It is an attack on already overworked teachers.

I don’t buy into this one little bit.  The attack on teachers is already there. Teachers are being punished under the current system for not having control over things they’ve never had, and never will have, under their control. This bill changes nothing about that, and only goes to further the inevitable failure of the entire system.

Arbitrary Definition of Failing

It isn’t arbitrary at all.  It is goal oriented, unfair and misguided, but it isn’t arbitrary.  Focus on the problems with the definition, not on silly side notes.

It opens the door for Charter Schools

Yes it does.  And that’s a good thing, if your goal is to close failing schools. It’s a bad thing only if you want to keep the status quo.  Of course, as I pointed out, the new status quo is just going to be another step down the line of the current status quo, so it really doesn’t matter.  Bring on the charter schools, which will excel at their job because they don’t play by the same rulebook as every other school and can pick and choose who gets in and who gets out.  And then, at some point in the future, schools that aren’t failing today will be failing when all the likely to succeed students are removed from the system, and suddenly charter schools have to play by the rules of the schools they shut down, and they start failing too.

It unfairly targets disabled students

I’m not sure if this one is true or not, and will bow to the opinion of those more versed in the needs of these students. I wouldn’t know if it helps or hurts students with special needs.  At a glance, since it doesn’t help students less likely to succeed, I don’t see how it can help disabled students, but I’m not sure it hurts them.

It does nothing to help failing schools

Absolutley true.  But for this to have any meaning, you have to assume that this bill is designed to help a school at all.  It is designed to move money away from failing schools and move more likely to be successful students away from failing schools.  This bill is absolutely intended to hurt a failing school.  No question about it.

Solutions

I do have some alternative solutions I’d like to propose.  None of them will be popular.

Means Testing

I’d like this bill much more if it had a sort of means testing included for the tax credit. Only I don’t mean economically, I mean some sort of system that tests how involved a student AND THE STUDENT’S FAMILY is involved in the success of the school. Are the parents members of the PTA? Do they volunteer at the school?  Have they participated in some way of improving the failing school.  If they have, and they are ready to transfer their child, then let them get the credit.  If they haven’t, then they are ineligible for the credit, but can transfer.