7 Cents Show: My two cents and a nickel you didn't ask for

Good, you’re voting this year. Seriously, thanks for getting involved. Now, let’s separate truth from bullshit:

Another election year, another round of deceptive propositions designed to trick you into voting for something against your interests. This is the price we pay for “direct democracy” that circumvents the people we elect to do the job of running things. Sure, it feels like we’re empowered but we’re really just duped every year. Arm yourself with knowledge. 

Do your own research: 

Want to research who’s funding these propositions? Go to the California Fair Political Practices Commission website and scroll down to the “Top Contributor Lists”.  • Who’s Paying for this Bullshit? 

What does the California Democratic Party think? Well, here’s a link but remember that bullshit comes in blue too.  • What’s the California Dem Platform for this bullshit?

I can’t fathom why you’d care what the California Republican Party thinks of these ballot proposals, but if you’re curious. • What the Califascist think of this bullshit

You probably noticed this week that we've got a pretty big problem with a sizable number of people in this country thumbing their nose at the safety of their fellow Americans. It might make you question how they can think this way. How they reached their conclusions.

You're probably curious why they're acting like angry, petulant children who want unfettered access to their toys, regardless of how sensible people are trying to explain that it's dangerous.

Well, that's not a caricature of your friends and family. That's an accurate description, and if you want to know how they reached this point in their reasoning, look no further than the shared sense of resentment and bitterness you find in every one of them.

Do you think they woke up this morning, hoping their neighbors would be shot and killed? Do you think these friends of yours who quote gun lobby rhetoric, started the day off with hopes that Americans would be murdered?

Of course they don't.

Your gun-loving friends and family are normal people. They're not mentally deranged, and they're likely not immoral sociopaths either.

What they are, however, are spoiled brats. Like many who dig in their heels, because they want something and they resent anyone who suggests they shouldn't have it, they've completely disregarded empirical evidence, reason, and logic - because they have become emotionally invested in a delusional lie.

People do some pretty dumb things when they believe in untrue things. We're all susceptible to this. Every one of us is capable of buying into something and seeing enough people around us agreeing with it, that we think it's a valid position.

America is a country that pioneered a great experiment of liberty. For most of our history, we were the bleeding edge when it came to discussions about what a democracy can be, and how it can serve society. By the end of the 20th century however, we were eating the dust of numerous other democracies who'd taken our first steps and traveled much further when it comes to things like serving society and protecting it.

Just that statement alone stings a lot of people. It just sort of chaps their ass to suggest that we're not #1 at everything. Learning to accept that we might make mistakes and that those mistakes might be because we were very emotional and biased, is something that requires intellect and compassion.

It's something most of your friends and family are fully capable of, but you're going to have to speak to them about this if you want to see change. Continuing to hope the story blows over, like the last dozen or so mass shootings, puts the blood of the victims on your hands as well.

We can't remain silent and just hope that this is something that gets fixed when a bunch of old people die off. This is a challenge for *our* generation. It's an important one, so we should take it seriously. No, it won't be comfortable. Yet, it needs to be done anyway.

"If it is to be, it is up to me."

Those other countries I mentioned before? It's most of the democracies on Earth. We are the odd man out. Most other countries have figured out how to limit gun deaths, without completely banning firearms. We really have, and it's not because their cultures are different, or because their populations are smaller, or any other nonsensical idea that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Regardless of the boogeyman rhetoric that gets tossed around in our neck of the woods, these countries were able to provide their citizens with a fraction of the gun deaths, and they don't have jackbooted stormtroopers in the streets. They've just got a de-escalated weapons market.

How were they able to limit access to certain firearms for civilians, and yet still maintain robust sport shooting communities and home defense firearm ownership? What's different for them? Why is this still a problem for us?

The difference between America and those other countries is that those other countries are perfectly fine with learning from somebody else's mistakes. We really don't like doing that. We're #1.

So it's important to keep in mind as you speak to your friends and family about this topic, that they are driven by some motivations that are tangled up with their sense of nationalism and pride. Suggesting we can do something better, is to imply that we aren't the best at something already and that really doesn't sit well with people who have *need* for this.

Think of the people I'm speaking about. Think about how they live. Think about the music they listen to. Think about the clothes they wear, the stickers they put on the back of their vehicles, the memes they share on social media, and think about the heroes they worship. Look at the patterns.

These are people who have an emotional need for America to be the best. They come from families with investment in the greatness of this country. When they talk, they reference "good old days" Many wistfully yearn for an era in our history when they felt things were so much "simpler". You'll hear them regularly complaining that we've never tried their ideas fully before. You'll hear them say we've only half-assed it.

Think about these people in your life. Think about how much they can't stand complicated solutions; how they avoid problems that aren't going to provide them with an immediate, emotional satisfaction by flipping a switch.

Embracing the complicated, and putting yourself in someone else's shoes, is not easy to do. Regardless of your background or education level, this is a challenge for most human beings.

Your gun loving friends have the extra problem of an entire industry, manufacturing baloney to support their delusional ideas. It's literally beneficial for them to stoke this fire, and keep your friends and family scared, buying ammo and building a subculture to belong to.

FBI crime data is black and white. Interpol crime data is black and white. There is no conjecture about the numbers. Other countries that allow their citizens to own long rifles and shotguns, but limit civilian access to handguns, have virtually no gun crime compared to us.

On average, America suffers 10,000 - 13,000 gun deaths a year. These are people who were murdered, I don't count suicides in this statistic, just people killed in gun crimes. Most other countries, even when you adjust for their population sizes, barely reach a small fraction of our numbers.

Some countries have taken this even further. They've limited all firearm access for citizens, and they have their own unique set of statistics. I'm personally not a fan of this approach, and chances are you won't like that approach either, but be prepared to be accused of wanting to take all the guns.

Like you, I've grown tired of defending the FBI or Interpol because people just can't accept the truth, kicking and screaming as you try to drag them near it just to read. The validity of your data is irrelevant to people who are emotionally incapable of accepting the the truth.

It is for these people that I am speaking to you today.

Understand that your friends who are emotionally invested in this topic, can usually only reach a point of rationality if they have a strong emotional reason to divest themselves from their position.

Often it takes grim realization to snap out of a delusion. The nonsensical idea that only "good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns" was eroded for numerous gun-rights activists at this music festival in Vegas over the weekend.

Josh Abbot, musician who played on the stage a few hours before the shooting, was present for the carnage:

“I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with [Concealed Handgun Licenses], and legal firearms on the bus. They were useless.

We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of firepower.

Enough is enough." - Josh Abbot

Josh Abbott is a good human being, just like your friends and family. He simply needed a gruesome familiarity with how useless and impotent civilian firearm ownership is in situations like this. Make no mistake, there were numerous "good guys with guns" on hand for this massacre.

It doesn't matter how many videos you've watched of Rambo wannabes shooting would-be robbers in 7-11s across this country. They still only account for a small proportion of the 1% of all justified gun deaths. This delusional fantasy of becoming the hero, only fuels this unhealthy mindset anyway. It's such a tiny number of people yet such a large number of us want to have the opportunity, or at least not be denied it.

Then, like Abbott, you weigh the suffering of others versus your desire for a thing. Clarity comes to those who care.

When I moved to California from Texas, I disliked not having access to the fireworks I grew up with. I wanted to shoot Roman candles and teach my children how to celebrate Independence Day the way I did. These were family traditions that have been passed down for years. They were important to me. I couldn't even Envision a 4th of July without them. It felt like I was having my America taken from me. Seriously. I was morose about it.

Of course I trusted myself and my extensive training with pyrotechnics. Of course I knew that I took the time to inform myself of the proper safety procedures necessary to be a law-abiding fireworks user.

I was very resentful all my neighbors who couldn't be trusted to not burn down our neighborhoods. We live in a tinderbox and many of my neighbors have wooden roofs. Of course the state of California imposed restrictions on shooting ignited things in the air. Of course they limited our access to the things I wanted most.

And of course I was begrudgingly willing to accept a limitation on the fireworks that fly through the air, because the safety of the people around me is more important than my petulant desire to have this thing that I feel I'm entitled to, as a law-abiding American.

You bet your ass I was resentful and upset about it. You bet I bitched about it. You bet your ass that it saves lives and you know what, it doesn't make my family traditions any less real or meaningful to my children.

It was a bitter pill to swallow, much like it's difficult to accept that civilians shouldn't have unfettered access to firearms.

Should all firearms be banned? Of course not. There aren't really any sizable number of people who want everyone to have all of our guns taken away. Just remember however, your friends and family are under the impression that there are.

See, the gun lobby has even been able to personify their Boogeyman. They've been able to manufacture a caricature of a liberal who wants to *take* things from "Real Americans™" like the rest of us.

There's a preposterous sense of entitlement and resentment that is shared by everyone of the people that keep making these bogus arguments. They are convinced they know better than you, and the reason they don't care about your data is because they think the deaths don't matter.

Sure they're sickened by it, but they don't think that the 10,000 deaths a year warrant any kind of action, or that they're a result of their inaction. See, they live in a bubble much like the one Abbott had before this weekend. They were convinced that the Second Amendment acts like a blanket statement for all firearm ownership.

They are wrong. It is your job to explain to them why being wrong about this doesn't mean that they're bad people, or that they're stupid.

It's on you to give them the facts and figures, till you're blue in the face, and never stop, so that eventually they come to the conclusion *on their own* because they are now informed, rather than misinformed.

Chances are it'll take a while for them to digest the truth. Just understand that this tragedy isn't going away. The fact that we ignored when children were shot in an elementary school might make you cynical, but stick to it anyway.

You can't really pass laws that prevent premeditated mass murders. Even though they're more frequent than ever, mass shootings are actually very uncommon. Maybe 12 to 40 people a year are killed in this manner. Year after year over 10,000 people are killed in crimes of passion with guns.

These are the altercations that explode, turf wars for gang activity, and domestic violence that escalate into someone grabbing a gun (handgun over 90% of the time) and shooting someone else out of anger. This is where nearly all of our gun deaths come from. We bring up these 10,000 victim's every time a mass shooting happens because it's the only time we can even get the conversation started again.

So if your friends and family are complaining that it's not the right time to discuss reasonable and sensible gun laws, ignore their bullshit and press on. Sensible things like mandatory insurance, annual registrations, inspections, mental health screenings, and pragmatic solutions like scaling back prohibition to cripple the criminal black market, need to be considered.

Mass shootings are a symptom of our gun culture problem, but as alarming as this might sound, they are a tiny threat to our safety compared to the dangers that kill 10,000 people who die a year from gun crimes that happen right next to us.

We have the ability to implement restrictions on firearms that make it so crimes of passion can't escalate into a death toll that's 200 times what happened in Vegas.

We can actually roll back the Wild West just enough so that our numbers decrease and become more like the numbers in countries where people just aren't shooting each other like we do. Countries that don't have as much criminal recidivism. Countries that care about their citizens. Countries that abandoned the idea that a room with everybody carrying a weapon, is an objectively safer room for everyone to be in.

Suggesting that handguns should be limited in numbers for civilian ownership isn't a gun ban any more than speed limits are a ban on cars. Suggesting we get our guns registered and inspected like we do our cars, is not a gun ban. Talking about all of the sensible ideas we can try first might help you a little, but be prepared for them flipping out on you when you suggest that less access is better.

Be firm. Don't give up. Just remember that we are as responsible for those deaths as all the gun rights people, because this is a democracy. We share responsibility just as much as we share and success with one another.

There ARE ways the American government can protect jobs, and provide a framework that allows manufacturing to thrive. There are ways to pay American workers a living wage, and still have their "Made in the USA" products priced in a way that competes with imported goods. You know the goods I'm talking about. The stuff manufactured with virtual slave labor? Yeah, it's a nuanced topic, but it's not that hard to understand once you realize how companies like Sears are exploiting the current system.

Make no mistake, exploiting is *exactly* what Sears did to Dan Brown. This is what happens when we let the monkeys run the zoo. Market fundamentalism, and the current obsession for short term profits over long term yield, is immoral and toxic to our economy overall. Of course corporations are going to fight for profits, try to cut costs, and of course they're not going to care who gets harmed as they're trying to satisfy stock holders. The bottom line matters. We can't expect them to be altruistic. We can't expect the "invisible hand" of the free market to do it for us. It's a bullshit myth.

This is why we have tariffs, trade deals, and the other "boring" stuff that makes you change the channel when the news stops talking about celebrities. Our collective ignorance and laziness, has allowed the greedy to call the shots for too long. We have to become civically educated people, and we have to vote for candidates who give a damn about building an economy that makes things, and pays a living wage at the same time.

It requires telling some of the greedy people that they get to take a smaller piece of pie than they originally wanted. It requires facing the hard facts about trade skills and labor distribution and admitting that not everyone gets to be a doctor or software engineer. It means reforming the for-profit "college" industry that preys on people who just want an opportunity. It means developing a public education system that includes two years (or more) of career training or higher education.

It means we gotta give a shit, people.

Dan Brown worked his ass off, used his brain, came up with a great idea, and employed Americans to make something special. He did the "American dream" and it was stolen by people who were greedy. It should not have been so easy and inexpensive for Sears to seek out a Chinese manufacturer to make a cheap clone of Dan's product. Sears should have been in a position where the costs for either option were negligible, so that Dan's company was competitive with outside slave labor.

Does Sears want us to make it harder for the Chinese to undercut our labor? Hell no. Should we expect anything else? Hell no. This is why we have to take money out of politics, so that elected officials aren't bribed so easily. We have to even the playing field for the small business and the American laborer.

Someone asked me recently why cops keep making these kinds of mistakes, and why they don't just shoot someone in the leg or shoulder in situations like this.

I reminded her that Law Enforcement officers are trained, on average, over 15 weeks in America. In countries like Canada, Australia, the UK, and Scandinavian countries, it's about 3 years. This puts them at a huge disadvantage when it comes to safety preparedness and deescalation training. They're pretty much taught the absolute basics of firearm safety, and the protocols to follow - then they're given on the job training. With a firearm.

Policies are in place to help protect the officers from unnecessary harm, and they're designed to protect the public as well. Regardless of the rather unfortunate situations that arise from such minimal training, the standard operating procedure is that they're not supposed to shoot someone unless they're an imminent lethal threat to the officer or someone else. Unfortunately, cops are people and they've been told they're serving in the most dangerous era in history to be a police officer, when in fact, the exact opposite is true. This is unquestionably (based on FBI crime data assembled as far back as we kept statistics about law enforcement) the safest era in history to be a cop in America.

That's why they keep making these kinds of mistakes. They're terrified.

The false rhetoric that they're constantly in danger is why there has been a significant shift in training over the last decade. It's what begins them down this path of fear. Cops exist in a toxic fraternity, and their fears are amplified by that fraternity. When a cop dies on the job, everyone in the community just hears a blip on the news. Those cops attend a funeral. They see the families and kids of that fallen officer. They pay into union managed funds to help those families. It impacts them. They feel it.

Thus, cops are already on edge. It's a hard job. It's exacerbated by socioeconomic class struggles, racial tensions, and situational circumstances. They're literally trained that if they're pulling a firearm out, that this situation has already escalated well beyond the point of injuring someone for the purposes of subduing them. That's what batons and tasers are for. If the service weapon is drawn, they can't be in the mindset of protecting people by inflicting a non-lethal injury, using that weapon.

Injured people shoot back. There's a million things that can go wrong. The officer is scared, and the adrenaline is pumping, and in that moment they're relying on the only things we've given them, a gun and 15 weeks of training that said point to center mass.

You want less shootings like this? Train officers longer, and remove the toxic fraternity culture in law enforcement. Give them years of education in de-escalation and conflict resolution. We can't fix this while the police and our citizens, are progressively feeling more endangered by each other.

That poor child died, and those cops are victims too. They're being charged with 2nd degree murder because their actions are considered negligible. People want to say they were malicious and foolish. People are angry at them. They'll probably spend decades in prison, suffering more than the average prisoner because they went into this situation, amped up and scared.

Watch the video, they're clearly mortified that they shot the kid. Their lawyer is arguing that they didn't have any opportunity to question their actions, because the toxic fraternity told them they're supposed to shoot anyone who points their car at you. They considered THAT to be self defense.

The CEO of Carl’s Jr. says he’s investing in machines because the government is making difficult to afford employees. 

(sigh) Okay let's recap, kids.

Minimum wage is nothing more than an adjustment of the minimum amount of money you pay, per hour, to someone for labor in America. As inflation rises, the dollar you give someone buys less. We adjust the minimum wage to meet that inflation, because if you don't, then you tell millions of people that their labor is worth less than it was before, and every employer in the country is instantly given the ability to lower their labor costs, by paying less.

Raising the minimum wage doesn't give those low wage workers *more* money. It gives the same money they were always making. If you're too stupid to understand that a dollar today, can be worth less than a dollar a year ago, then I can't help you. If you can wrap your head around that, keep reading. 

In 1968, the minimum wage hit its "peak" for the amount of money an hour of labor could buy. It was $1.60 an hour, which in today's money is $11.16 an hour. The current minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. 

Don’t believe me? Calculate it yourself. 

Using 1968 as our benchmark for the minimum wage, implies that low-wage Americans today should be making just as much as low-wage Americans were making 44 years ago. Can you imagine people in 1968, settling for a minimum wage standard of living that had been set based on 1924 standards? 

I don't think they would have done that, but for the sake of this bullshit fantasy, let's pretend that it's fine not raising the standard of living, even though our GDP has DOUBLED since 1968. We're only producing twice as much, per person, adjusted for inflation, but that's okay. We'll just assume that folks today should live as well as they did in 1968.

That means the minimum wage should be about $11.16 an hour. Round it down to $11 if you want. I don't care. Just stop saying that the minimum wage is costing businesses too much money. Stop repeating this rhetoric that "you don't understand because you don't own a business" line when you challenge this topic too, or you'll likely be shut down and embarrassed for not doing math. 

Jimmy’s Burger Scenario: 

Jimmy's Burgers pays their employees 1 an hour. As time moves on, inflation makes that dollar the equivalent of .80 cents an hour. During this same time, the goods and services Jimmy's has to buy are effected by the same amount of inflation as well. They raise prices of their burgers to account for this increase in food costs. Jimmy's has just restored their profit loss, and go back to making the same money they were making. 

Only now, Jimmy's pays their employees less. It doesn't seem like less, because it's still $1 an hour on the paycheck, but it's less money. They grow comfortable with this system and every time inflation drops the purchasing power of the dollar, Jimmy's labor costs go down per employee. At the same time, Jimmy's employees can't buy as much with their pay, because that dollar is actually .80 cents. 

Then all of a sudden the "big bad government" guys, to tell Jimmy's that they need to give their employees $1.20 an hour, to adjust for the inflation and give their employees the same "dollar" they made before, per hour. 

How dare they?! 

They're unfairly cutting into the income of Jimmy's, a small business owner. A job creator! They're making it harder for Jimmy to keep the doors open because the government is demanding he pay them "more" money. 

Meanwhile, Jimmy can simply go back to paying his employees as well as he used to, and because he's raised his prices to adjust for inflation and increase in food costs, his burgers will make him the same money as he used to make. But that's not as much as he was making, when his labor costs were about 20% lower. So Jimmy is pissed. 

Jimmy's really grew comfortable making that extra 20%. Now they are going to have to raise his food prices again, and the customers will be angry! You see, most of Jimmy's customers are middle class people who haven't had a "cost of living" raise, ever. They are just paid the same amount, and regardless of how much inflation cuts into their purchasing power, they are paid the same. 

So he's worried about his customers being upset about spending so much more, with incomes that pay less than they were making. This is why the dollar menu has nearly disappeared in the fast food industry. A dollar today, was the equivalent of .71 cents in 2000, and a meager .14 cents in 1968. Could you imagine buying a burger, even in 1968, for .14 cents? 

Nope, because even Carl’s Jr charged .35 cents for a damn burger in 1968. 

Wage Stagnation

You see, wages stagnated in this country, in spite of the fact that we DOUBLED the GDP since 1986. That's right, we're making double the output, and we haven't paid our employees a proportional increase in their incomes to match that doubled output. 

I know folks who worked for a local ambulance service. They are paid $15 an hour, and when they heard minimum wage earners wanted $15 an hour they were furious. When I told them the minimum wage should be adjusted to about $11 an hour, they still balked. 

Then I explain to them that their $15 an hour job should be worth $31.80 an hour if we adjusted for GDP and inflation, they shut the fuck up and begin listening. 

That's right folks. Your $15 an hour job today, was worth $2.15 cents an hour in 1968. Funny how that feels entirely different when we make the numbers smaller, isn't it? You are paid shit. Employers who pay more than minimum wage, don’t have to keep telling you about how your income is shrinking each year, because they aren't paying you on a scale that federal law mandates posters like these spell it out. 

Stop thinking the minimum wage worker doesn't "deserve" the same pay as you. Start demanding that we pay both of you what you're actually worth. You're worth a lot more than you are paid now, and minimum wage employees should be getting paid about $11 an hour. 

Your enemy isn't the minimum wage worker, and it's not robots either. Carls' Jr, wants to eliminate labor costs entirely and claim it's because we're forcing them to pay their employees the same wage they paid 40 years ago. 

That’s horseshit. 

This is why they are moving their corporate headquarters to Texas from California. They think taxes are wrong, and they keep blaming the government for labor costs, saying it's destroying business. Pharmaceutical juggernaut Pfizer is moving to Ireland, to save $35 Billion a year in taxes. 

So tell me again how that’s not terrorism? Demand to pay less in labor, and less in taxes, or we’ll take the jobs elsewhere? Never mind the fact that the American consuming public built their enterprise, or the fact that they’ve been exploiting our system for years. No, they just don’t want to have any responsibility for filling potholes, paying for cops, firemen, teachers, highways, the military and everything else. They just wanna make money, and if we don’t let them make as much as they want, they’ll kill American Jobs. 

Self interest is fine up to the point of exploitation.

It doesn’t matter that you really like your boss, and feel like they are being fair. The American labor force is being exploited. Chances are your boss is a great person and actually does care about your well being. They’ve just never been mandated to pay you according to a proportional match of our GDP. They’ve grown comfortable paying HALF the salary they should be paying you, because many of them don’t even realize that they’ve been enjoying a labor free-for-all. 

There are ways to give tax breaks to employers like yours, who want to do things in America. Give them even more when they want to manufacture things here, so the “Made in the USA” label means something again. On the flip side, give tax penalties to companies that move jobs overseas. It’s a pretty simple process, and it’s fair. 

You want to move jobs to India because their entire factory will work for the coffee budget of your office in America? Yeah, fuck you. You’re paying into the American system that gave you prosperity. You don’t get to sell goods and services here, and profiteer off the backs of slave wages. Using countries with shanties and child labor to increase your bottom line is wrong. Taking away American prosperity so you can exploit poor people overseas, is even worse. 

The Minimum Wage employee isn’t your enemy. That’s the lie you’ve been told by the people bribing your politicians. They want you to villainize the poor, so you never pay attention to the fact that you’re being screwed. Just stop repeating that rhetoric. Nobody who works 40 hours a week should live under the poverty line. That’s the “living wage” and YOUR pay should be increased too. Call it the #AllJobsMatter campaign. I don’t give a shit. 

When I identified as a conservative, I understood what socialism was. Why aren’t there more conservatives today that understand this concept? Is that why I’m no longer a Republican? Did I merely realize that the GOP rhetoric was incorrect, because I knew what socialism was, as well as what it wasn’t? Was I just tired of wasting time talking about it? I think it runs a little deeper than that, but this certainly played a role.

I remember my father telling me Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the worst president in history, and biting my tongue because while I could find faults with the welfare state, it was specifically his New Deal that rebuilt our country and set our economy on a healthy path to greatness in the 20th century. I remember wondering why my father, who was a smart man, could be so wrong about this?

“He’s a Socialist. You can’t be a Socialist without violating liberty.”

Having every economic class, pay equally into the same system we all benefit from, has never denied anyone personal liberties. Democratic Socialism is not Socialism. It is not Marxism. Average people seem capable of understanding this. A simple Google search can clear up any confusion, yet it appears to be uncommon knowledge. I’d encourage you to just read up on the difference. It’s easy to understand.

“Where can I get a bagel in this town?”

I think you’ll be surprised to realize that Bernie Sanders’ ideas, align very much with most of yours, even if you identify as a conservative. This is why he is described, even by his critics, as a “populist” candidate. He says things that are popular with the majority of people.

As if that were some kind of negative?

I have to admit that if I were somehow capable of rebranding “democratic socialism” with some new fancy name so that it wasn’t carrying the word socialism in it, I would do so. This is because it is more than just a label. Fundamentally, democratic socialism and pure socialism are extremely different. They are as different as capitalism and unchecked anarchy are.

Democratic Socialism is merely the idea that we do some things together, better. It’s not the idea that we do everything together better, but rather, it’s an position that there are some things that are objectively better handled by public interests, than private or special interests. The moment someone begins saying that the government should manage all supply and demand (see: Socialism) they jump into an entirely different spectrum of political thought.

This isn’t some slippery slope, either. You have to have a fundamentally different opinion about the role of government as a Democratic Socialist, than as a pure Socialist. When you think things like the military, emergency services, transportation and education, are stuff we should work on together (collaboratively) through elected representatives, then you’re in line with democratic socialism; even if it makes you sick to use the term.

America has been utilizing Democratic Socialism since its inception. The moment we made roads, schools, militaries and laws outlawing child labor, we dictated that our elected officials, who represent us, have the authority to regulate some infrastructural elements under private control, or at least build some public infrastructure that benefits all of us.

This photo shows what Democratic Socialism looks like.

Pure socialism postulates that there is absolutely no benefit or virtue to be found and self interest and that the people can’t be trusted making money or choosing what’s right for them. This is because socialism believes capitalism is inherently flawed and can only lead to corruption. Pure socialism suggest that production and the supply are things that we as individuals cannot be trusted with and that economies should be centrally planned. This is a falsehood. This is exactly why every instance of pure socialism that has been implemented as a system of governance, has collapsed and failed miserably.

Socialism is a government concept that completely and fundamentally ignores human nature.

Having said that, many of our political ideas are designed to rise above our simplistic nature and take us further than our primal needs. The social evolution we have experienced in the last 400 years, is one of the most important events in human history because it birthed the idea of universal human rights. This radical concept defies the social norms of every previous era in human history, and it has directly contributed to the improvement of human existence.

Yet, universal human rights, no matter how great, is also an idea that’s rather contrary to our “natural” state as selfish, self-interest focused beings. This is a point that’s often made by conservatives and libertarians. They argue that self-interest solves problems, because an “invisible hand” of the free market will supply a need when there is a demand. Someone will build a better mousetrap for every problem, or the market will somehow prove that the problem didn’t exist to begin with.

The “now wait a damn minute” finger. Socialism argues that *forcing* everyone to be equal, and working on everything together, helps humanity to thrive by completely eliminating competition for resources. It transfers the means of production to the workers, thus eliminating and replacing capitalism. There are a strain of “natural economy” socialists that have argued that socialism creates an environmental/biological advantage; helping humanity to expand and grow without allowing anyone to over-consume or exploit resources. They feel that this is better because it’s natural.

Funny how that works, right? Yeah, it’s all bullshit.

That’s because arguing that something is “better” because it’s “natural” is nonsense. It’s natural to do a lot of really horrible shit and some of the most important parts of our civilization, require effort, technology, and thinking harder than cave men did.

Democratic socialism attempts to be realistic with how our self interests motivate us, while also challenging us to do the difficult part of working together for a common good, on SOME things. 

This is where most people get confused. They’re used to political ideas being diametrically opposed. We’re not used to the idea of borrowing a little from one side of an argument, and borrowing a little from another side. We’re used to right/left arguments about politics. We use language that suggests “our way or the highway” about a wide range of ideas, even though there are hundreds of millions of Americans with a wide array of opinions about a lot of things.

So is the solution found in the middle?

The problem with that idea is that it’s perilously close to a common mistake known as the “middle ground fallacy”. Compromising yourself into corner, with no forward movement, is ultimately a bad idea and one of the most valid criticisms of government bureaucracy.

“Americans say they hate socialism but when it comes to Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, corporate welfare, bailouts, and farm subsidies, what we really say to socialism is “I can’t quit you.”

…There are millions of people in the world just like you in nice places like Switzerland and Sweden. They enjoy high standards of living and freedom, and they’re socialists. Studies show they’re actually happier than we are, and that’s not surprising, because the only difference between American socialism and European socialism is European socialism works.

For their tax dollars, Europeans get full health care coverage, generous pensions, daycare, long paid vacations, maternity leave, free college, and public transportation that doesn’t smell like pee. Whereas our tax dollars go towards military bases in Germany, subsidies to oil companies, building bridges to nowhere, wars, and putting half of Cheech and Chong in prison. They get universal health care. We get a Blue Angels flyover at the Fiesta Bowl.”  -  Bill Maher

Ultimately chasing after what you want, and seeking to make money are good things. Making money because you came up with a better idea that even runs other people out of business because you’re so good at what you do, is also perfectly fine. If however, during your journey of economic badassery, you deliberately engage in tactics that harm others for your benefit, you violate the law. You also violate and ethical principle that is exactly what the Constitution was founded upon:

We are free to do whatever we want, up to the point where it harms someone else.

Pooling resources together to achieve common goals, that we all have a voice in supporting or opposing (see: voting) never denied liberty or freedom to anyone in any way — other than denying them the freedom to exploit and harm someone else.

If you have a problem with the government telling you you don’t get to exploit someone else to make a buck, well then you’re on the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of history. Deal with it.

Important Democratic Socialism Ideas: 

This is an over-simplified list, but it’s pretty accurate:

Self interest is great, up to the point of exploitation.

Investing in America, means investing in Americans.

Demanding everyone pays an equal share into the same system, is fair.

I’m a pretty big fan of this way of thinking, even if I’m concerned about someone taking it too far - and believe me - that’s a legitimate concern. Every time Bernie Sanders suggests the wealthy should pay about 60% of their incomes into taxes, I want to throw my shoe at the television. 

Dealing with that frustration however, is our responsibility as citizens. Any good idea can be taken to extremes and turned into a bad idea. We can’t just hope our leaders come up with some perfect method of running everything, that’s somehow guaranteed not to fail or be exploited. Someone will inevitably try to exploit us, and someone else will inevitably ask for too much power in trying to protect us from that.

Democratic Socialism isn’t perfect, nor should it be. It’s just an idea that borrows from a lot of other really good ideas, to create a working framework of governance. Regardless of our apprehension over the word “socialism” this is how America has operated since day one. To suggest that we have to use one political system only, and not the other, is a false dichotomy. We’ve been playing this game of borrowing and reshaping since 1776. It’s why we’re called “the great experiment” in democracy.

So what is America then?

We are a Republic

We are a Democracy

We use Capitalism

We use Socialism

Subsequently:

We are an Oligarchy (specifically a Plutocracy)

We are an Empire (see for yourself)

In spite of what people say/want:

We are not a Theocracy

We are not a Fascist state

We are not a Socialist Republic (see: Communism)

We have the luxury of thinking things suck right now, because we don’t live in some poor third world country. Our skewed perspectives on what’s good or bad for our nation, are built around what we know and observe. After America started, the democracy floodgates opened and hundreds of others nations began refining these ideas alongside us. Ultimately, we can take a good concept, regardless of where they come from, and use it. It’s no less valuable, just because someone else came up with it. Our egos can handle the fact that the Scandinavian countries have implemented some really good ideas into their system. Not everything would work here, but some of them are well overdue.

There is an objectively better way to govern for America, all we have to do is set our first priority to be the protection of liberty. If we approach every social challenge with the question “can I solve this with more freedom, first” then we’re in a good position, I think.

Be free to do what you want, up to the point where it harms someone else. You’re free to swing your arm until you hit your neighbor’s nose. That means the government is nothing more than a nose-hitting referee, that answers to all of us collectively. We’re in the business of arm swinging, and deciding when noses got hit, and by whom. Sounds miserable, but that’s the business of dealing with people.

Remember folks, this woman isn't crazy, and she isn't evil; she just actually reads her Bible and considers it to be literally, word for word, true. I appreciate my friends who don't do that, but we should all remember, that biblical fundamentalism like this is the #1 religion in America by a large margin. If you want people like Kim Davis to go away, you have to stop accusing her of being the one "picking and choosing" from the Bible. When we ignore the passages that say gay people should be put to death, rape and slavery are okay, and that a donkey actually talked, we're the one's picking and choosing.

I can't stand this woman, but I respect the hell out of her because she actually believes in hell and she's fighting to help save people from going to it, by standing for something. She knows she's going to lose her job. She knows the legal system isn't going to support her. She knows it's a losing battle, because she thinks there's passages in there that predict she'll be persecuted for supporting bigotry and misogyny.

Read this article:  Transgendered MMA Fighter Wants to Contend Against Women, Overwhelms Competition

So this is a fun topic to me, and I'd like the input from my wide array of friends. I think the question here seems to be where we draw the line between discriminating over someone's sex, and discriminating over someone's gender. Where does one begin and the other end? To me, this distinction is fascinating as a social discussion.

Sex and gender aren't the same thing, and our society is quickly moving towards understanding that, and being more tolerant/accepting of individuals based on the gender they identify with and express, instead of just their chromosomes from birth. So how do we reconcile our desire to not discriminate against transgendered people, with our "need" for gender segregation in athletics?

I think that's an important point to focus on as well. Is there really a need for gender segregation in athletics, if we have weight classes?

Here comes the science:

Some people feel that the chromosomes you're born with provide a measurable and quantifiable advantage to physical strength, durability, and speed. Chromosomes are the structures that hold the genes your body uses to built your muscles, bones, tendons, etc. We carry 22 pairs of autosomes, and one pair of sex chromosomes, for a grand total of 23. The Y chromosome, with only 50 genes (compared to the X's 800) is what shifts a human being from "female" to "male" during development.

It would appear that a sample of 175 lb men, and an equal sample of 175 lb women would show a consistent difference in measurable physical abilities. This logic has been applied to the military's new rules on women fighting in combat. Women are allowed to compete for infantry positions side by side with men, and are held to the same standards as the male recruits. So far, the failure ratio of women is significantly higher than that of men. This leads people to interpret the data to mean a number of things I won't speculate on. While the failure ratio is higher for women, there are certainly women who pass the physical requirements and even excel well beyond them.

As a society, we're beginning to understand that the chromosomes you're born with, do not necessarily correlate with the gender you identify with or express. If these things are independent, then how do we handle a situation like this? If there's a measurable physical advantage to having the Y chromosome at birth, does that mean that we segregate athletics into chromosomal groupings?

This is essentially the approach the Olympics have taken. The IOC ruled that if you're born male, you compete with other people who were born male, and vice versa. If that were the approach in MMA, then Fallon Fox would not be allowed to continue fighting other women in the same weight class. She would fight anyone, regardless of their gender identity, in her same weight class.

Is the solution instead, merely a numbers game? Do we follow the military's approach and just set a standardized physical criteria for competition, and allow men and women to either meet those criteria, or wash out and not be allowed to compete? We already hold athletes to physical standards, so this wouldn't be significantly different than what we already do, but it creates a new problem; women getting beaten by men, on Pay-Per-View television.

Hmm, that's a pickle.

Ronda Rousey, the current UFC champion, is so dominant in her weight class that the discussion of her competing with men is constantly brought up to her. Her opinion on this topic has never changed, and she recently told MMAFighting.com:

“I really just don’t think that any athletic commission on Earth would ever condone something like that. Fights are going to go both ways. You’re going to see both people hitting each other. I don’t think we should celebrate a man hitting a woman in any kind of setting.”

So is she correct? Her opinion on this topic is certainly valid, but are we just not far enough along this gender equality path to stomach all of the potential images of women bleeding on the mat at the hand of men? Would it not be offset by the images of men getting their asses handed to them by women? Are we just gunshy because it's such an explosive topic?

Would eliminating gender segregated athletic classes mean that we'd end the careers of countless female athletes who would otherwise be successful competing against women only? Is it unfair to demand women train objectively harder than men have to, to reach a similar physical level? Is that insulting to say? Have we truly qualified that the physical "advantage" of the Y chromosome is only genetic, and not social? Young men are told their self worth and masculine identity is intertwined with their physicality. Women are still told that their self worth and feminine identity are intertwined with an inverse standard of physicality.

I don't know about you, but I have a daughter who doesn't "hit like a girl" and I suspect at least *part* of the reason she doesn't, is because that kind of language was never allowed in my house, and I told her she could kick anyone's ass. Of course, that's just anecdotal experience. Have we empirically studied this topic enough to say *definitively* that women are inferior to men in physical combat, at a consistent ratio that justifies segregation? Doesn't that sound alarmingly similar to arguments made by misogynists, eugenicists and segregationists?

I personally think following the Olympic approach is the most logical for now, but that we could (or should?) aspire to reach a point where women and men can compete together in every sport, without gender segregation. Obviously, that's a rather radical idea and I acknowledge that it would require some significant shifts in our culture to accommodate it. We might not be ready. Women are assaulted all too often because of privilege and social challenges that need addressing.

I can't help but point out however, that there's already a rather intense combat sport that allows women to compete with men, and they're so ahead of us on this topic that they don't even use weight classes. Of course, I'm speaking about the Society for Creative Anachronism. Yeah, that's right. My history nerds allow women to suit up and cross swords with men, and in a group of people who are obsessed with chivalry and honor, the "negative" element of that code has been tossed out on its ear. Modern chivalry means women are equal to men, not subjugated and pigeonholed. We take it rather seriously, and I think it's awesome seeing women compete with, and BEAT male competitors in our sport.

Yes, SCA women they don't win at an equal ratio to their number of fighters, but our community of people have been able to navigate around many of the potentially controversial social challenges that everyone worries about in MMA fighting. I see men definitively beat women in tournaments and melees, and when they're done, they take off their helmets and congratulate each other as competitors and equals. Think about that for a minute? Men, bashing women over the heads with sticks. Seriously, we do that every weekend. Then those amazing female fighters run off, take off their armor, and put on crazy complicated medieval garb and begin acting "like ladies" for the rest of the day.

BTW, why are you not in the SCA? This shit is awesome.

Ultimately, I think the military/SCA approach is applicable to athletic organizations, and that it might actually be rather pivotal in helping us move forward toward universal equality. I think examples of it working in combat sports like SCA heavy weapons, proves we're capable of handling it.

The misinformation and bias in this topic is thick and I think we should talk about that. We have 300+ million guns in America. The vast majority of the firearms however are handguns and non hunting/sport weapons. That means they're self defense weapons. Having said that, the reasons people keep them are irrelevant; they're just guns. We have something called "gun culture" in America. It's not unique to our country, but our particular brand of it is rather defined. 

I'm a firearms enthusiast. I like all kinds of guns, and even the type that really have no other purpose than blowing human beings (or zombies) to pieces. I grew up in a gun culture, much like many of our friends who grew up with guns. Always had them around, and was taught how to use them. All the same experiences that people keep referencing, I experienced as well; the guns were safe because we kept them locked up, or we knew how dangerous they were, so they were respected.

In the end, none of this matters to anyone killed or injured by gun violence.

It doesn't matter that a law abiding, careful and respectful person takes the time and effort to obey the law and teach their families to respect guns. Their diligence is an enriching aspect of our American gun culture, but their avoidance of accidents has little to do with how people use guns when they're committing crimes. Why? Because there are two types of gun crimes: passionate and premeditated.

Crimes of passion with a gun typically involve situations where someone decides that shooting another person is a natural escalation to an altercation. Sure, the line between a crime of passion and self defense exists, and our legal system has tools for determining which is which, but make no mistake; a lot of people die because someone used a gun in a heated situation and they had alternatives. 

Premeditated gun crimes are where someone just decides they're going to kill. It doesn't matter how many they kill - they just plan it out, and they kill. These stories, understandably, make the news. They’re also statistically a fraction of the gun deaths every year. 

The argument people go back and forth on, is whether a gun is just a tool that can be used for violence like many other items, or if the gun creates more lethal scenarios because of its availability. Are gun bans the answer? I don't want them to be. I'd like it if our entire society handled conflict differently, because our violent nature seems like a pretty serious problem. We kill a lot of people. Where do you start when trying to find a solution?

Let’s start with the facts, since they don’t have an agenda.  

America currently averages 14,500 murders a year. Of those, 9,000-11,000 are gun deaths. We have over 300 million guns for a population of over 300 million. That's about 70% of the murders being performed with a gun.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

The UK averages 800 murders a year, with about 50 a year from guns. They have a population of 60 million. Handguns are banned in the UK, and rifle or shotgun ownership requires a lot of registration and paperwork. There are about 3.4 million guns in the UK. That's about 7% of the murders being performed with a gun with an average of 4 murders performed with a handgun per year.

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/news/2011/07/14/murders-2011-british-murders-homicides-and-fatal-violence-mapped/

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf

Japan has about 650 murders a year. They average 37 gun homicides a year. Japan's population is about 125 million. Handguns are completely banned in Japan, and shotguns or rifles are strongly regulated. There are about 700k guns in Japan, most of which are shotguns. That's about 6% of the murders being performed with a gun. Handguns averaging between 0 and 1 deaths per year as the tool used.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/japan

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf

Look at all those numbers! 

Am I appealing to statistics? No, because I'm going to simplify this for you instead of trying to hide behind large and confusing numbers.

Now obviously, the UK and Japan have:

A lot of guns in their country.

People who choose to purchase guns for home protection and self defense.

Hunting/sporting firearms enthusiasts.

Criminals.

So if we follow the logic of the argument: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people", then the UK and Japan should have an equal percentage of murder, by guns, if their gun bans were lifted and their citizens owned as many guns per citizen as we do. That would mean their numbers would inflate to about:

560 gun deaths a year in the UK.

450 gun deaths a year in Japan.

If they had as large a population as ours, their numbers would inflate to about:

2,800 gun deaths per year in the UK because 60 million = 20% US population.

1,080 gun deaths per year in Japan. because 125 Million = 41% of US population.

Somewhat Intentionally Rhetorical Questions:

Why do they only kill between 10-30% of the people Americans do each year? If they have the same "tools" as we do, and the same population, shouldn't their numbers match up?

Do Americans just get angrier than the Japanese and the British? Are we just a bunch of hotheads who kill people more readily than folks in these other countries, regardless of what tool we use to kill them with?

Do British and Japanese criminals not understand their populace is unarmed and they could get away with everything if they just had guns.

Are their criminals just stupid, or do they also have less access to guns? Do their criminals think a gun makes crime more dangerous and avoid using them?

Why the hell are we looking at assault weapon bans and gunshow loopholes if handguns are 90% of the tools used in gun crimes, and most federal inmates jailed for gun crimes got their guns from family, friends, theft, or drug dealers?   Rhetorical question stats:

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_10.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

And then there’s this little nugget. 

This is a pretty big wrinkle. It comes from the same firearms report I linked to above. This statistic struck me in the face. 

Dammit, I love guns.

I don't want a handgun ban either. I don't want any guns to be banned. I want us all to be able to own fully automatic anything, with drum magazines and belt fed crates of ammo. Seriously, I fucking love guns. I wish we'd grow up collectively and learn how to deal with conflict, end prohibition that creates organized crime, and institute universal health (see: mental health) care. I'd love all these things. Amazingly, we're close to universal health care and the end of prohibition is a goal within reach for this generation.

Do we choose to just let gun violence continue with handguns until we get all of those things figured out, or do we grow up now and admit what other countries figured out a long time ago; shotguns and rifles are fine, but handguns are the most dangerous of all guns.

But an armed populace is a safe populace! 

That old line? Of the 13,636 Americans who were murdered in 2009, only 215 (165 by handguns) were killed in situations that law enforcement determined were justified self-defense. That's a total of 1.5% people. If you wanna talk concealed weapons, then you're only looking at 1.2% of all "self-defense" scenarios being legitimate.

• http://smartgunlaws.org/dangers-of-gun-use-for-self-defense-statistics/

That means it’s really irrelevant that you saw a YouTube video where some random guy with a concealed handgun, saved the day at a 7-11. 

Think about that. We’re arguing that the murders of 10,000+ men, women and children a year, are less important than 100+ people a year. If you can’t understand that 9,900 people saved is objectively better than your slim chance of playing vigilante, then you’re delusional. 

Also, please avoid repeating that obscene fantasy of armed insurrection against a corrupt tyrannical government as justification for handguns. Hopefully the military kills you quickly with their billion-dollar planes and tanks, as you plink away with your handgun. That goes double if you try to suggest that it’s your duty to defend America from an invading army with your handguns. Just shut up, that’s a ridiculous suggestion. 

Now, if you wanna argue that we need them for the zombie apocalypse...

But assault rifles are more dangerous!

Actually, no. The truth is that shotguns, rifles, and even assault rifles, aren't really a problem in this country at all. I know, I know; those big drum magazines and rapid rates of fire freak us all out when we think about them in the hands of anyone but soldiers killing terrorists -- but the truth is, they're supposed to. They are designed to intimidate. They're designed to give the person shooting an extreme advantage in a gunfight.

Obviously, we don't care about "people in gunfights". We care about our kids in schools, and our loved ones out and about in the streets. The unfortunate truth is that they're almost always killed by handguns, by someone they know. You know this is true, and that's why you're freaked out by assault weapons even more; you perceive that a more powerful and scary weapon is more dangerous. I can't blame you. I thought this way too.

The old quote "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal" is true. 

Handguns were designed to be compact, surprise, lethal weapons. The gun changed history, and the handgun changed America. It doesn't matter if an AR-15 can slice you to ribbons and an AA-12 can take down a building, the handgun is undeniably more dangerous in America. 

Look at the UK and Japan. Why aren't their criminals just pumping those "gun free zones" with lead every day? Do you think a determined Japanese criminal couldn't get a gun from China easily? Think some pikey in Yorkshire can't get their hands on a firearm? Whats the difference between their criminals and ours? Are their criminals just inept? Does America just make the most badass criminals ever? I’m all for American exceptionalism, but I think that’s bullshit. 

Premeditated vs Passion

The difference is that crimes of passion with guns, vastly outnumber premeditated gun violence. More people die from angry people with guns who snap, than angry/crazy Americans who brood and plan the murder. Additionally, it’s usually someone they know. This is why the "best tool" for killing a person with a gun (see: expensive, bulky assault weapon) is rarely used and why the cheap, easy to operate and conceal "tool" (see: handgun) kills so many.

Handguns folks: just say no.

CRAP! What about prohibition? When has prohibition ever worked? Oh shit, did I just contradict everything I've ever believed in just to "feel" safer?

No. Prohibition has never worked, and this isn't prohibition. 

While we're allowed to drink alcohol, it’s regulated and passes inspection for safety with the public. Its sale is regulated, as well as the distribution. We're also allowed to drive cars but we accept that some cars aren't "street legal". Their sale is regulated. Do you see anyone throwing massive fits or threatening a civil war because they can't drive a monster truck down main street, or a supercar at 120mph in a school zone?

Prohibition of something people consume for themselves is not the same thing as banning something that is used to kill others. 

Nobody in our country freaks out about anything like we freak out about handguns. We have been addicted to the advantage that Samuel Colt gave us, for too long. We don't want to give it up, even though there are hundreds of millions of people living happy lives where criminals aren't rampaging through the streets with handguns they can’t obtain. That’s not conjecture; it’s fact. 

Facts don’t have an agenda. They’re just facts. 

A handgun restriction isn't a complete firearm ban, any more than a monster truck restriction is a complete automotive ban. A handgun restriction isn't a firearm ban any more than moonshine regulations are the 18th Amendment. 

This is an arms race argument. 

Just accept how futile that is. The argument that you can’t get rid of your guns because the bad guys will still have theirs, has been demonstrated to be nonsense. The numbers don’t lie, and 10,000 people dead every year is absolutely worse than the few hundred people killed a year. It doesn’t matter that you fear you could be one of the 100 people; your fantasy to play vigilante is not worth 10,000 other lives.