Gun Control

So gun control has been kind of a big issue recently, if you've noticed. It's one of the few things I'm genuinely conflicted with.

On the one hand, many of the pro-gun control arguments make sense to me. Such as the one about a gun in the house is several times more likely to accidentally hurt someone, rather than be used against an actual criminal. And it's difficult for me to imagine any legal purpose for owning a shotgun or assault rifle. A pistol, okay, yeah, that's good protection. And a hunting rifle, sure, that can be used for hunting. But other types of weapons, I don't get.

But then my libertarian instincts are a little disturbed by this idea of the government banning certain objects because of the actions of very tiny percentage of owners of the objects. It's like in school and your teacher would punish the whole class when one kid would talk out of turn. Kind of not fair to punish everyone.

 After all, it's not like we're living in some sort of ultra-violent dystopian nightmare. Rates of violent crime and murder have been decreasing for decades. These horrible, tragic mass shootings are still very rare. It only seems like they're common because of the nature of media coverage. If there isn't a mass shooting, it's not on the news.

Another argument often thrown around is the one about how actual criminals very rarely purchase their weapons legally, so more gun control will do nothing to actually prevent crime. The San Bernardino shooters are an exception to this; they're one of the very few mass shooters to purchase their weapons and ammunition legally in a store. But in any event, I discount this argument because stricter gun control laws will likely decrease the amount of guns in circulation, thus, over time, making it more difficult for bad guys to acquire weapons.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is another one of those issues that I am going to have to decline to have a strong opinion on. I won't go down the rabbit hole of Second Amendment interpretation, but I will say that, if you want guns, go be part of a well-regulated militia.

Privacy

I've been getting the feeling recently that privacy is becoming a bit of an anachronistic thing. Our grandkids are gonna say, "Privacy? What's that? Oh grandpa, you're so silly. Of course everyone knows everything we do all the time."

Not that that is necessarily a bad thing. The problem really isn't the dissemination of information, but what people choose to do with that information. For example, we often tell kids applying for jobs to remove embarrassing pictures from their facebook pages, because prospective employers might see that. With the implication that prospective employers will see a photo of you getting drunk or high with your friends and then decide not to give you the job. But as our generation grows up and assumes more positions of power, I hope we'll realize that embarrassing photos (or a criminal conviction, or a low credit score, or your stupid blog posts from when you were 18) shouldn't disqualify you from a job.

Again, there's really no stopping the increasing, free flow of information. It's a bit like nuclear weapons. No matter how you or I feel about it, they're here, they exist, and they're not going anywhere. Now, what's the best way to deal with that reality?

I want to be clear that I'm not making an "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be worried about privacy" type argument here. If the cops ask to search your car, you should loudly and repeatedly say you don't consent to any searches and ask when you are free to go. That hasn't changed. I'm merely talking about the inevitable information overload about all of us, and my optimistic belief that it won't be so bad after all.

Podcasts

I listen to a ton of podcasts. I've been listening to them since around 2007, and boy I feel old putting it that way. They're great for driving, doing chores, or working out. Now that I think about it, they're a huge part of my life, and have been for a really long time. They hold my attention more than music usually does, and a provide a great, easy way of keeping up on news and events in the world and such.

That being said, I definitely agree with Freddie that a common problem with podcasts is the lack of conflict. People who start them are almost always co-workers, which is not very conducive to true debate and serious discussion. It's a problem, for sure. On the other hand, so much of the internet is full of needless vitriol and hatred that it can be pleasantly refreshing.

In any event, here's the podcasts I currently subscribe to, and what I think about them (I use the iOS app Pocketcasts for this. Best 99¢ I ever spent).

• Stuff You Should Know - Put on by the website howstuffworks.com, two guys spend 30 minutes or so twice a week discussing weird, seemingly random topics, everything from nuclear winter to Twinkies to hot air balloons. You're not getting any comprehensive overview of these topics in the limited time allotted, but I find it great. This is a podcast I've been listening to religiously since 2008 or so. Sometimes the hosts say dumb stuff that I scream at my car stereo about, but overall a good one. 

• Slash Film Cast - This one is really the main way I keep up on what movies are out now. Three guys discuss a new movie every week. This one definitely falls into the trap Freddie mentioned - although there's some disagreement, their opinions are unanimous way more often than would be expected. Still, I like it.

• The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe - This one is an OG for me; I've been listening to this consistently since 2007. Five hosts discuss science news every week, from, as the title suggests, a skeptical perspective. Their discussions are enlightening and fascinating, and have often prompted me to look up the stuff they discuss for my own further reading. One thing I particularly like about this one is that they seem to explore all sides of an issue. In contentious discussions around something like global warming, for instance, I'll be thinking, "Well, what about this side of the issue?" And then, someone will bring up that side of the issue. Probably my favorite podcast.

• New Yorker Fiction Podcast -  This podcast is a new short story read aloud every month. Some are stinkers, but some are really great. More than once, I've looked up the author after listening to this and got one of their short story collections.

• Political Gabfest - Put on by slate.com, three hosts discuss the political news of the week. I like it a lot, and clearly remember listening them since at least the 2008 election. Often I don't hear about huge political news until they talk about it. Like the Skeptic's Guide, they usually cover all sides of an issue.

• DLC - I've listened to a lot of video game podcasts over the years, but this is the only one I'm listening to currently. It has one of the same hosts as the Slash Film Cast, Jeff Cannata. Sometimes they can be a little to overgenerous with their praise for such and such new video game, and not quite as critical as I usually like, but otherwise a good podcast.

• Freakonomics Radio - Put on by one of the authors of the Freakonomics series of books, Stephen Dubner. He explores weird topics each week with experts in the field, with titles like "Preventing Crime for Pennies on the Dollar," "The Economics of Sleep," and "Making Sex Offenders Pay — and Pay and Pay and Pay." Good stuff here, but it's definitely over-produced. At the the end of each episode, Dubner reads off a list of like seven producers, and these people clearly have to justify their jobs. At the worst, I can be unclear on who is talking, because the narrative will flip around confusingly. Worth it for the great topics, though. 

• Voice of San Diego - A great local podcast that helps me feel very connected to the place I live, with local issues discussed from a heavily progressive perspective. I feel like a much more informed member of the community listening to this. 

• Hardcore History/Common Sense - For a long time, I resisted listening to podcasts with just one host. I figured, if it's just someone talking for an hour, why wouldn't I just read it instead? Then I discovered Dan Carlin when he was a guest on the Political Gabfest like a year ago. His two podcasts are exquisite. Hardcore History is an exhaustively researched presentation of historical topics, with each episode sometimes three hours or more, and most topics running multiple episodes. His series on World War I, Blueprint for Armageddon, is breathtaking. I probably cried multiple times during the listen. Especially great is the amount of primary sources Carlin digs up. And Common Sense is his show on current events, equally great.

Employment Law Issues

I've been getting more familiar with the field of employment law recently. It's something I think about a lot, because it hits at this issue I find deeply fascinating, about exactly what extent the government should be involved in private businesses.

The biggest area this comes into play is the issue of termination. The government has to strike this balance between allowing employers to fire someone if the employer truly believes this person is a bad employee, and protecting workers from bad faith terminations. Most employees in the United States are "at-will," meaning that they can fire you at any time for any reason. You can also quit at any time for any reason. On the one hand, I get why it works that way. Government employees, ironically, are generally not at-will. Ask anyone who has worked for the government, and they'll talk your ear off about how they worked with this person or that person who was very obviously terrible at their job, sometimes actively disrupting operations, but they would never get fired because there's so much red tape to cut through to terminate someone. There's very good arguments to be made that the lack of at-will employment in government offices and institutions (such as schools) is why there's so much bloat and bureaucracy and bullshit in everything related to the government.

And there are exceptions to at-will employment. Even though we all signed something at our jobs that says we understand that they can fire us at any time for any reason, that's not technically true. There's a limited category of things employers are not legally allowed to fire workers for, including discrimination, retaliation, and the public policy exception (they can't fire you for refusing to break the law). The issue with this is that workers who are fired for one of these things have little recourse except to file a lawsuit. This basically cuts out anyone who can't or doesn't want to take on the expense and burden of maintaining a long lawsuit. Sure you could find a lawyer willing to take the case on a contingency fee basis (you don't have to pay the lawyer anything; he only gets paid when the lawsuit is won), but it takes a very long time to get any restitution. Plus lawsuits are a pain.

However, I think wrongful termination lawsuits, once they are actually filed, do have a pretty good chance of resolving in favor of the worker. Think about it. If you're called to sit on a jury in a civil case where a worker is suing her former employer for discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination, you would instantly be on the side of the worker. I know I would, and it would take a hell of a lot of evidence to convince me otherwise. Anyone who has ever held a job knows that the company has all the power, and you have nothing. Sure the employer could just say, no, I didn't fire you because I'm racist/sexist/whatever. I fired you because you were a bad employee. And in fact that is the defense almost always used by employers in these kinds of lawsuits. But as a juror, I would need to see a ton of evidence to convince me of that; lots of write-ups and witness testimony that this person really was a terrible employee.

This brings up a larger issue with at-will employment, however. The doctrine kind of assumes an even balance of power in the employment relationship. You can quit whenever you want! They can fire you whenever they want! It's so equal! Actually,  anyone who has ever held a job knows that this relationship is anything but equal. All you have to offer is your time, and the company can make you do almost anything, in whatever way, manner, and time of day of their choosing. You are quite literally selling off pieces of your life to the highest bidder, just to make sure you have adequate food, shelter, an health care. And it is endlessly infuriating/frustrating to have to walk around with the knowledge that you can lose all of that at any time for any reason or no reason.

I hope I'm not disappointing you by revealing that I don't have some perfect solution that will easily fix all these competing problems. From what I understand, the UK employment law system, with their tribunals and implied contracts of employment, sounds like a decent enough way to handle things. But, maybe every company in the UK is as bloated and awful as government offices here. So I don't have the final answer, I'm just trying to frame these hard issues in a digestible way. Good to help.

Chew with your mouth closed

So one thing that's been bothering me more and more lately is the number of people that talk with their mouths full. It's quite gross. To be clear, this is not a "kids today" type argument. This is something that I've been noticing and bothered by for my whole life, from young and old people alike, but it's been bothering me more and more lately.

It's so gross. Nobody can do it well. Trying to cover your mouth is better than nothing, but the even better option is not speak at all until all your food is chewed and swallowed. At least covering your mouth means I don't have to see your chewed-up food, and you're not spraying little bits of food everywhere. But I'm still not going to be able to understand what you're saying.

Now, this requires some effort on the part of the other party, as well. Don't ask someone a question when they've just put food in their mouth. This forces them into a decision between either talking with their mouth full, or a long, awkward silence while they chew and swallow. Only ask questions when it's clear their food is almost gone.

Spanking

NFL player Adrian Peterson's brutal spanking of his child has reignited the debate about physicially punishing one's child. Is this acceptable? Should it be outlawed? This is an issue I've been thinking about, even though I don't (yet) have kids. I'm still kind of conflicted.

I don't think it's a great idea to be violent with a child. Physical pain isn't something humans should be in the habit of regularly inflicting on one another, except in very limited instances of self-defense. That being said, I recognize that spanking can take many forms. A parent who angrily swats at a child in the middle of a heated moment is a lot different than a parent who sets out clear consequences for certain misbehaviors, and sticks to it. Premeditated spanking is a little more defensible.

But, I don't think spanking should be illegal. Parents should generally have a great deal of leeway in deciding how they want to raise their children, and this idea of the government making that decision for them is too disturbing.

This raises its own problems, however. It's a question of degree. If spanking is legal, then at what point does legitimate spanking turn into child abuse? And furthermore, who gets to make that decision? I don't really have the answer to that. I'm uncomfortable with simply leaving that decision to judges and juries, as well. The law should be really clear about what parents can do, and what crosses the line. Using a "switch" or other object to hit your child, as Peterson did, should be unacceptable child abuse, for instance.

Give Me Something Different

Something with the Internet that's been bothering me more and more lately is all these recommendation algorithms. Like on Netflix, when every category of "what to watch" is solely based on things you've already watched. And Pandora, where the whole idea is to pick an artist you already like, and then they'll play something similar.

I mean, I get it. If I like Black Sabbath, I'll probably like Iron Maiden. If I like Pulp Fiction, I'll probably like Reservoir Dogs. The issue is that you're not exposed to anything different. Maybe I'll like polka or something very unlike the things I already like. This creates more and more in-crowd echo chambers, where all my biases are reinforced, and I'm never challenged with anything outside my comfort zone.

This is a problem with the Internet as a whole, I think. It's far too easy to just read websites and blogs that express opinions you already agree with. I try to go out of my way to read perspectives I'm probably going to disagree with, just to challenge myself.

Recently Netflix did add a "random picks" feature to their app on the device I use most, PS3. I do like just hitting that and taking whatever comes up. Hopefully we'll start seeing more of this type of thing.