The Party of Gun Rights?

In an interesting turn of events, it seems the left is now supporting the right to legal carry a fire arm and the right is demonizing it. I thought about a more thorough analysis of this situation, but instead I'm just going to share an video on the topic. 

My Trip to DC

I'm worried out our nation right now. I made a podcast about this. I recorded it a few months ago, but I think it is still very relevant. 

Some arguments for Yes on 50

 I listened to some of this stream and thought it was interesting.  I'll share it here, what do you think?

Gerrymandering Update

 It seems like the news of Gerrymandering in Texas is now a lifetime ago. I guess that is the nature of the news cycle nowadays. Still, I wanted to write about this and California’s response to it, as it is an issue California voters will have to decide on shortly.

 

I received some mail a few weeks ago advocating against it, claiming that it was Gerrymandering and Gerrymandering is bad. While I absolutely agree with that sentiment, and in fact, we wrote a whole article about it here, I don’t think the pamphlet was making that agreement in good faith. After all, republicans are going to gerrymander regardless of the actions California takes. No, my questions and issues with the possible action are more principled in nature.

 

To make an analogy, can peace be accomplished via violent means? I think the answer to this question is generally no! Peace cannot be achieved via violence. Violence and escalation results in more violence.  Think about all the United states invasions into the middle east, is the middle east a more peaceful place now because of it? Arguably not. War simply radicalizes the next generation.

 

Likewise, when we think of the issue of gerrymandering, can this be solved with more gerrymandering? Can Democrats also gerrymander in order to maintain parity with republicans?  I think this is a slippery slope, and one that leads to a country where all elections are more or less decided in advance. This idea of politicians deciding voters and not the other way around is a dangerous one and is the antithesis of democracy.

 

All that said, I think there is an argument for voting yes for Gavin Newsom’s gerrymandering bill, and that is one of expediency. If the republicans alone Gerrymander and Democrats do nothing, the Republicans will simply win and control more of the house, without actually having appealed to more of the general population. If the Democrats do the same, at least on an aggregate level things are somewhat more balanced.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I am no Democrat. I have no interest in propagating the Democrats’ agenda, but I do acknowledge that doing nothing doesn’t help the country either.

 

In short though, I think I’m still a little undecided on the issue. Maybe you can share your thoughts below and persuade me for once.

Why Charlie Kirk’s Death Scares Me

 As I depart Washington, D.C., today, I reflect on the recent death of Charlie Kirk. I am not a fan of his; in fact, a lot of what he has said seems pretty objectionable to me, not that I am all that familiar with his content. But murder isn't the appropriate response to political disagreement. Kirk's death really scares me for a few reasons.

On a personal level, I have been to the UVU campus, okay, probably more like driven by it. I went to BYU. The proximity of the event makes it a bit more real. I remember there was once a mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, an event I had considered going to. It was shocking to learn I could have been there; I could have been shot. Granted, it has been years since I have been to UVU, but still, knowing the place where a shooting occurred just makes it more real to you.

Second, I'm somewhat politically active myself. I talk about what I think is right for this country. I certainly am envious of Charlie's success. I wish I had the platform and reach he did. In fact, I don't think more than a dozen people will read my words.

But the broader point is that it might dissuade others from being politically active. Why make yourself a potential target? In a sense, it is all risk and no reward. Why put yourself out there?

I think this is a very dangerous line of thinking. The way we can learn more about ourselves and others is by engaging, by talking, and by debating. The best way to do this, I think, is in a public forum, which is exactly what Charlie did.

So perhaps, in a way, I am a fan of sorts. While I disagree with his ideas, I applaud that he was willing to put himself out there and share what he thought was right. I think we all find ourselves guilty from time to time of not caring. Our nation faces great problems, perhaps even an existential crisis if things continue the way they have. But what do we do about it? Keep our heads down and just try to live our lives. So, in a sense, perhaps Charlie is someone we should all be a little more like. We should speak our minds and stand up for what we believe in.

Perhaps people like Kirk are a critical part of our democracy, someone younger voters could relate to, someone who got people out of their own space to engage in the political process.

May God bless Kirk's family, and may justice be swift against his killer. 

"How to Kill The Electoral College"

 A great video that follows some of what we said in this post.

Adam Ragusea's Thoughts on Chick-fil-A

I'm not sure this is strictly politics related, but I enjoyed this podcast on boycotting companies and think you might as well.