Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Rethinking My Views On Gun Control

I am a gun owner. I have at times thought of myself as a gun enthusiast. I own quite a few firearms, not an arsenal by any stretch of the imagination, but more than enough of them. I've hunted with some of them. I've used all of them for target shooting. I've fired many thousands of rounds through them in the thirty plus years since my father first taught me how. I've put serious effort into learning to shoot proficiently and safely -- to teach others to do the same. I've long considered firearm ownership to be a generally good thing, but I'm finding myself becoming less convinced of that and more concerned with the laxity of gun control measures in my country.

When the Second Amendment to the Constitution was written and ratified the United States of America was a very different country than the one in which I now live. There was, with good reason, a genuine fear that America would be invaded by foreign powers or even reconquered by the British Empire. None of the original thirteen states nor the federal government had standing, professional armies that could hope to completely defend our young country. But in time of need, citizens could become a defensive fighting force. The muskets that citizens owned for hunting or protection were remarkably similar to those wielded by professional armies and that made every armed citizen a potential soldier to fight off an invasion or to at least make it costly for an invading force.

Now here we are in the 21st Century and much has changed. Our states have not been in any real danger of invasion for a long, long time. We do have a standing army now, the most well-funded and capable army in the world. A great gulf has grown between the destructive capability of civilian and state of the art military weaponry. The age of muskets is long over and so too is the idea that we civilians can be called up with our hunting rifles into a militia that can be effective against modern tanks, fighter-bombers, or infantry battalions.

Yet we are clinging to an artifact from the past, the idea that our nation is better off if civilian gun ownership is commonplace. Well that doesn't seem true to me. We have an extremely high murder rate when compared to other Western nations. We have an extremely high rate of gun violence when compared to other Western nations. We have an extremely high rate of mass shootings when compared to other Western nations.

It isn't as though Americans are somehow more murderous in our hearts than anyone else. Murder and attempted murder happen in Europe too, but Americans have a much easier time obtaining firearms and that seems to make our murderers more effective and capable of achieving higher body counts. Because compared to knives or tire irons, guns are very effective labor saving devices for killing people.

I don't think it is realistic to end civilian firearm ownership in America. But I do think that we can and should have policies that reduce the numbers of guns in circulation, restrict who can buy and sell them, and ban certain types of guns based on their firepower.

In most of America, a private citizen can sell another a gun without restriction or regulation. No one involved in such a sale is required to do background checks to see if the buyer is legally prevented from possessing firearms. No one is required to report the sale. No one is required to demonstrate proficiency or any understanding of proper gun handling or storage. Where we do place some restrictions on these sorts of sales, it is a piecemeal mess of largely unenforceable, loophole ridden, and incompatible municipal and state ordinances.

I think there should be a national firearms owners license and that such a license is necessary to purchase firearms or ammunition. I think that only people who have shown they understand firearms and have passed basic background checks should be able to obtain such a license. I think that there should be a national record of every firearm purchase and that individual firearms should be traceable to individual licenses. To that end I think that all sales should be required to involve a licensed and regulated gun broker of some kind.

I think that open carry laws, the concept that it is legally permissible to carry around a loaded unconcealed gun, is absurd. If someone is out in the country, actively engaged in hunting, sure, but walking around a crowded city street with a loaded rifle is utterly ridiculous and shouldn't be legal. I think that it has become far too easy to obtain a concealed carry permit, a license that allows someone to carry a hidden pistol on their person. I'm not completely opposed to such permits for those who have an occupational need, like bodyguards, but in my opinion far too many insensible, hair triggered, paranoids are carrying handguns these days.

I think that some kinds of firearms have no business being in the hands of civilians. As a concept, that isn't new or controversial. We already don't allow civilian ownership of fully armed main battle tanks, machine guns, or artillery howitzers. This is seen as sensible because those sorts of weapons are very destructive and best restricted to the military. But I am increasingly of the mind that we ought to move that line further.

Outside of law enforcement or some very tightly regulated classes of licenses, I no longer think that civilians should be able to own semi automatic firearms. I think that such weapons allow for too high a rate of fire, vastly increasing the destructive potential and capability of taking multiple human lives. I think that civilians should be restricted to firearms that require the user to cycle the action in some way, separate from just pulling the trigger, in order to fire the gun repeatedly. Pump action shotguns, lever action carbines, bolt action rifles, and single action revolvers are all examples of guns that cannot be fired as fast as the trigger can be pulled. All of them can still be effective hunting, self defense, and target shooting firearms in the hands of a proficient user, but none would allow a single shooter to lay down the volume of fire that recent mass murderers have achieved with their high capacity, semi-automatics.

I don't want civilian gun ownership outlawed. But gun policies in this country ought to be rethought with an eye towards deescalating gun violence and developing policies that are based upon modern realities not bygone eras.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

A Thank You to Kevin Folta

This is a copy of a letter I recently sent to Dr. Kevin Folta of the University of Florida

Dr. Folta

I wanted to take a few minutes of your time to thank you for your advocacy of GMO agriculture. I am a midwestern grain farmer and I have been growing GMO field corn and soybeans for many years. I am disheartened to see a loud and largely ignorant opposition to my practices. I do what I can to explain myself and clear up misconceptions as I encounter them, but my voice is small, even if my personal stake in this matter is significant to me. But your voice has been clear and broad reaching and frankly very well communicated.

From someone who is on the ground in this public debate and can be hurt by misguided policy informed by the bad science of anti-GMO ideology, I want to tell you how very much I appreciate your efforts to oppose the message of those who would misinform the public and work to make my career riskier and more burdensome.

[I'm pleasantly stunned to add that Dr. Folta replied to my letter and did so just a few hours after I sent it. He is a great guy.]

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Monsanto and Monoculture

I'd like to address a couple of themes I've seen in discussions among non-farmers about agriculture. I am an Midwestern American corn and soybean farmer. Although I was not an early adopter, all of the seed I have been purchasing and planting in the last 10 years contains engineered traits. Most of the seed I buy comes from Monsanto subsidiaries like Dekalb or Asgrow, although some comes from Pioneer which is owned by DuPont, a very large company.

The company Monsanto as it is today might be better named Dekalb, since the company has been overwhelmingly a seed company since its aquisition of Dekalb and sale of its non-ag divisions in the late 90s. I do remember Monsanto making a very big deal out of its full specialization as an ag technology and research company in its farmer focused literature in that past 15 years or so.

As a company focused on agriculture seed, technology, and research -- Monsanto is big. By which I mean that compared to the divisions of other companies that do such things, Monsanto is bigger, even if Monsanto is smaller than the parent companies of their competitors. This is one of the reasons that Monsanto is ahead and stays ahead of their competitors in terms of traits in their seed.

As to monoculture, that is a concern and has been for close to 100 years. Contrary to what intuition might tell us, there isn't less genetic diversity in modern corn or soybeans that there was 100 or 50 or 30 years ago. Monsanto and other ag seed companies have huge libraries of genetic lineages that are constantly getting larger as more and more lineages are bred. Most don't make it to market or have been surpassed by more recent developments, but they do exist and can be further expanded via genetic engineering or combined with newer lineages in breeding programs.

I don't have my Dekalb seed catalogue in front of me, but I can assure you that it contains many hybrids of corn seed and varieties of soybean seed for me to buy. Far more than I have any use for, with a dizzying array of maturity dates and trait combinations. New hybrids and varieties are added every year, poor performers are abandoned, and staying on top of my options and making good seed purchases for my particular fields and agronomic practices is a major part of my job. In this, Monsanto isn't forcing reduced options on me -- quite the opposite.

Sometimes I think when people refer to genetic diversity and monoculture what they are objecting to isn't the lack of genetic diversity of within corn or soybeans, but rather the dominance of corn as a crop. So, I'd like to address that a bit.

Corn has been the dominant crop in America for a long time -- long before genetic engineering, RoundUp, Bt corn, or the rise of Monsanto's perception as an evil ag company. The reasons for that are complex and have played out in American agriculture for most of the last century. But at the risk of oversimplifying I'm going to concentrate on just a few.

Corn grows exceptionally well in the American Midwest -- partly climate and partly seed development. Once hybridized seed became available to farmers nearly 100 years ago, corn rapidly began to overtake other grains in planted acres. Corn was then and remains easier to grow, hardier, more reliable, and more profitable than its competitor crops in much of the region of America known as the corn belt.

Most crops require specialized equipment and practices. Throughout the middle part of the last century, American farms began to specialize into various production practices. The age of all individual American farms growing 5 or more crops per year and raising 3 or more livestock species per farm ended a long time ago, before I was born. Instead farms and the farmers running them became expert specialists and agricultural productivity has marched upwards.

Farmers don't farm in a proverbial vacuum though. There is a lot of regional momentum at play. Different crops require different equipment, yes, but they also require markets where farmers can deliver and sell their harvests. There is a vast and tremendously expensive agricultural infrastructure in the American Midwest that is set up to handle corn and to a lesser extent soybeans and wheat. Growing something else, even another grain, is not really feasible to many farmers since where are they going to find a buyer for their 20,000 or 100,000 bushels of specialty grain? How far is that grain going to have to be hauled from the farm, a simple 20 miles, a burdensome 200 miles or more? When can it be delivered, anytime in the year or only on a certain day at a certain far off facility? Is there any market at all for large quantities of that not-corn-grain?

That isn't to say a specialty crops aren't grown, they are. Sunflowers, pumpkins, barley, sweet corn, alfalfa, green beans -- are all examples of crops grown in small (insignificant) quantities compared to corn or soybeans in the region where I farm. But there simply isn't a sizeable enough market for any but a tiny fraction of farmers to jump into those crops, nor is the infrastructure in place to deal with more than it already does.

Saturday, July 4, 2015

4th of July Patriotism

My birthday is the 2nd of July, so the 4th celebrations have always been wrapped up in complex but generally happy memories. I love, love, love fireworks, birthday parties, cookouts, and Midwestern pork chop sandwiches which are to me a seasonal tradition. All of that said, as the years have gone by I find myself increasingly uncomfortable with the jingoistic rhetoric and glorification of militarism that plays such a huge role in most 4th celebrations.

Sure, I like my country. I certainly care an awful lot about it and its future. But I don't know if emphasizing that people died for it, for me, in war is a great way to celebrate. I don't think it is accurate or right to insist that every American military death in every conflict has been in the service of my freedom. I don't like the implication that those who kill for our country love it more than those who feed it, or educate it, or foster its enlightenment. It's as though we've reduced patriotism to chest thumping with a side of guilt. I don't care for any of that, but I still love the fireworks.

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Ex Machina

I just saw the movie Ex Machina.

I liked it. I liked it a lot actually. This movie isn't a sci-fi action movie thriller, so don't go into it expecting that. But it is a movie that tells an interesting story, is well acted, and explores ideas as really good sci-fi often does. In this case the movie is loaded with theory of the mind stuff, as the characters and by extension the audience consider what it means to be conscious among other things.

This movie was by Alex Garland, the guy who did 28 Days Later, a zombie apocalypse movie done in a style that somehow breathed life into a somewhat tired genre. He also did Sunshine, another interesting and thought provoking film. As with those movies I think Garland did a great job telling a seemingly wild story concept in a style that was overall kind of subdued but really engaging.

Anyway, I liked it. I think I'll buy a copy when it's out on BluRay.

Saturday, March 28, 2015

I am a Feminist

I am a feminist.

A few years ago I would not have claimed that label. That isn’t to say that I was some kind of misogynist, but I did attach some baggage to the feminist label owed in large part to having only a cursory understanding of what feminism actually has to say. Like many people, I was taking in just surface impressions of a complicated set of issues from often shoddy sources. So it should come as no surprise that I admit to having had a misinformed and fractured opinion that made me reluctant to adopt the label.

I would later learn that my opinions on a great many things about sex, sexuality, gender, manliness, femininity, etc. were already largely in agreement with modern feminist writers and activists. I had to actually read feminist writers and talk to actual feminist activists to come to realize that I was in fact a feminist. Built from the idea that your gender and your sex should not create social barriers or privileges, feminism is about equality. So yes, that does mean that feminism is opposed to the special, expanded advantages men enjoy in society. And that no, feminists do not think our society has already achieved gender equality. And get this, feminists recognize the harm done to men by our present system of inequality.

It turns out that feminism isn't an anti-male, female supremacy movement that is prudishly anti-sex. Like any decades long, complicated social movement, there have been voices with odd views. Although quotes from such people have been put to use by anti-feminists to shock us, the actual arguments against those views come from within feminism. There is no single feminist leader. There are just voices, thousands of opinions that take different stands on things, but from that multitude we can form a more generalized, consensus understanding of feminism. As one might guess, even if the core values remain, what gets emphasized and argued about changes with the times. These are known as the waves of feminism. We're either in the third-wave or the beginnings of the fourth-wave now. Regardless, these are the feminists who are shaping the focusfuture, and intersectionality of feminism with other facets of social justice today.

What feminism is up to nowadays isn’t fighting against sexuality or burning bras or slut shaming women who emphasize their femininity. They aren’t anti-sex, but are instead sex positive. They are championing consent as the foundation of sexual ethics. They are pushing back against the tradition of women being forced to be submissive and subservient to men in both bedrooms and boardrooms. They are fighting the pervasive idea that being feminine is bad, which is the very basis for using accusations of femininity as insults to both men and women. They are explaining how strict gender roles are hurting us all. Feminists are trying to get us to see that there are problems in our society that are so engrained we overlook them, especially those of us who benefit from such things. In that way, feminism is intersecting with the fight against racism and for LGBT rights.

Gay pride or black pride is about being positive and building equal rights despite being a marginalized group instead of being ashamed and powerless. Feminism is the part of social justice that focuses on the gender that is more marginalized in our society. That is why despite having egalitarian goals, feminism keeps its name with its feminine root. Sure, there is complaining in social justice movements about the unfair advantages afforded to straight, cisgender, white men in our society — but that doesn’t mean feminism is anti-men, anymore than gay pride is about hating straight people.

Rights are not a zero sum game. I understand that being a member of a privileged group, it can feel like having my rights eroded as others gain rights I already enjoy, but that is not true. Privilege is an unfair overabundance of special advantages. If society is changed so that a marginalized group has the same rights as a privileged group then those special advantages aren’t special anymore because they were only special insofar as they were exclusive. Feminism is the fight against that exclusivity to create equality for all genders and sexes. Fighting against feminism is fighting to maintain those special advantages for men and withhold them from women — that is male supremacy and I oppose that because I am a feminist.

[There are more than 40 different embedded links to supporting material in the text above.]