The Virginia Board of Education is proposing a series of guidelines to crack down on perverts like Ricks.  The meaningful requirements include a mandatory report to police when abuse is alleged or suspected (and not simply after the abuse is proven); and notification of the state superintendent when an employee resigns or is fired because of child abuse.

         But then the Board proposes to regulate the conduct of teachers in and out of the classroom in a way that could adversely affect twenty-first century teaching techniques.  Being a teacher is more than being an instructor: sometimes, teachers have to be social workers, therapists, or advocates for individual students.

            The Board wants to prohibit “interactions unrelated to instruction” and dictate the types of physical contact teachers may have: a hand on the shoulder or pat on the back is okay, but a “spontaneous hug” is “not appropriate with older children.”  So a distraught high school junior who discovers she is pregnant cannot seek an extended embrace from a trusted teacher?

            Or what about the requirement that “conversations with students should focus on matters related to instruction and school activities?”  Does this forbid a teacher and student of Arab descent from talking about their shared heritage and culture once a week after class

            The Board should consider dropping language like this, which seeks to absolutely prevent abusive contact by a miniscule number of instructors at the expense of healthful student-teacher interaction.  Reasonable guidelines seem to warrant simply a prohibition on romantic relationships and inappropriate verbal and physical contact. 

        Another worrisome area is the Board’s treatment of electronic communication.  Because social media are transforming rapidly, it is true that teachers and students may not readily comprehend the possible impropriety of online interactions.  However, I am not sure that Board of Education members understand the potential for good that these technologies may offer.

            Imagine the heinous “offenses” that Virginia would outlaw if these social media restrictions were approved.  A low-income student without an at-home computer could not text her teacher questions about homework assignments, in lieu of sending an e-mail.  A teacher who posted pictures of a class project on Flickr could not respond to comments or inquiries by her students.  And a student who wanted to quickly alert a guidance counselor to questionable content on Facebook could not correspond with him through a Facebook message.

            Kevin Ricks was able to molest so many students not because MySpace made it easier—but because school systems’ nonsensical hiring, firing, and reporting policies allowed him to walk away without consequence.  Ricks was able to transfer schools with a clean record because no authority ever investigated him. 

         Lowering the threshold for reporting abuse should ensure that school systems can better track alleged molesters.   However, prohibiting teachers from using their discretion when counseling, connecting with, and reaching out to students injects the state Board of Education needlessly far into public school classrooms.

In the United States of America, it is easier to purchase a gun than it is to get a student loan.

            In 2009, Americans purchased approximately 14 million firearms.  This is according to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which processed 14,033,824 background checks by the federal government and states equipped to conduct checks.  Not everyone passed the background check: the NICS denied 1.4 percent of people the right to purchase firearms (some were successfully appealed).  Still, that represents 13.8 million firearms.

          For student loan data, the numbers get murky.  In fall 2007, 18.2 million students were enrolled in institutions of higher learning, which includes full-time, part-time, graduate, and undergraduate students.  According to a survey by the U.S. Education Department, 69.6 percent of college students obtained student loans from federal, state, institutional, or private sources (the average amount borrowed was $47,500, which includes the possibility of multiple sources).  So, that translates to 12.7 million students receiving college loans.

            While these numbers are similar, they also overlook some unknowns.  A huge factor is the number of firearms sold at gun shows.  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives estimates that 2,000 to 5,200 gun shows occur annually in the U.S.  It is possible to exceed 1,000 gun sales at some shows in a single weekend.  Only 16 states have laws requiring some basic background check for prospective purchasers.  But there is no way to track how many guns these people buy, if the purchase involves a handgun or some other firearm, or what happens at all in the other 34 states.

            Second, guns are stolen, lost, or inherited with greater ease than a student loan.  There is no black market for student loans like there is for guns.  And student loans cannot be trafficked over our borders.

            Finally, the gun statistic is a flow rate—number of purchases in a given year.  The loans figure accounts for the number of current students with loans in any given year, rather than the number of new loans per year.  The calculations would be quite complex and would stray from accuracy if we tried to compute the number of new loans per year.

            In conclusion, the assertion still holds: it is easier to obtain a dangerous weapon in than it is to receive tuition assistance for higher education in this country.

                And that is where the problem begins.

                The United States of America has serious defects.  Our healthcare system is inefficient, our class divide is huge, our foreign military policy is bankrupting us, we are losing economic ground to China, and we cannot stop using oil that we do not own in cars that we do not build. 

               The Sarah Palins, Rush Limbaughs, and Glenn Becks would prefer that our government not address these problems.   They feel that any coherent public policy which might right-size our country is unacceptable if Americans are somehow inconvenienced.  (Never mind the inconvenience to future generations when the United States struggles to pay back its debt or tries to cope with the effects of climate change.)

               Yesterday’s shooting in Tucson offers Americans an opportunity to look at another festering sore in our culture.  Every few weeks, some guy walks into a school or church or shopping center and opens fire on bystanders.   Why is this normal in the United States?  We hear about political assassinations and extremists in Afghanistan on a weekly basis—but our society grows terrorists just like any other.

               Mass shootings will never stop because Americans are not mature enough to discuss the malignant effects of our permissive gun laws.  In fact, I never understood recreational gun ownership to begin with: if some guy wants to play around with handguns and automatic weapons, he should join the Army and fly over to the Middle East to explore his “hobby.” 

               Instead, our lackadaisical attitude toward guns allows any closeted maniac to get his hands on a weapon of mass destruction.  No one in yesterday’s shooting—in a state with pretty loose firearms laws—pulled out their personal weapon to disarm the gunman and prevent loss of life.  Isn’t that the reason why gun fanatics and the National Rifle Association oppose all sensible regulation of firearms, so people can protect their life, liberty, and property?  Americans should stop holding vigils and start holding hearings.   

               We let scapegoats distract us from any meaningful change in the status quo.  For example, we are spending billions of dollars on airport security and violating people’s constitutional rights to prevent a hypothetical Middle Easterner from detonating a bomb on a plane.  And we feel threatened that Hispanics are traversing our southern border and bringing violence into our communities.

               But when it comes to white men who grab a few deer rifles and kill their families or friends, we take that in stride.  Americans have trouble recognizing home-grown terrorism, even when it stands up and shoots them in the face.  What is the use of spending money in Afghanistan and Pakistan to understand why young men become extremists when we don’t even know what drives our own citizens toward terrorism?

               As long as conservatives deny that our culture is sick, and as long as they hide behind the flag and the second amendment, random mass shootings will continue to define the United States of America.  I doubt that we can have a conversation about our gun policy, our mental health policy, and our priorities as a country without acknowledging that some threats to our country’s wellbeing stem from ourselves, not our enemies.

            The House of Representatives bore the brunt of this year’s Tea Party backlash against progressivism and the speaker was especially toxic for scores of conservative and moderate representatives.  But she is hardly to blame for the Democrats’ problems.  The White House provided little direction in crafting the legislation and practically no public defense of its priorities.  The Senate watered down, slowed down, and bogged down its version of the major policies.

            If the unemployment rate had fallen any faster or the healthcare bill been implemented any sooner, the Democrats probably would have fared better.  But those problems are bigger than Obama, Pelosi, or Sen. Harry Reid alone.  And given the fact that legislating is complex (special interests have to be satisfied, people’s egos have to be assuaged, and backroom deals have to be cut), there is no plausible argument for how the House’s imperfect legislation could have been passed any differently.

            Pelosi genuinely had a more difficult majority to work with than John Boehner now probably does.  Democrats (at least the ones in Congress) come in many more flavors today.  There is a little overlap between people like Olympia Snowe and some Democrats, but most Republicans fit into one category:

            Almost fifty years ago, the party breakdown was different.  If you look at a significant piece of legislation from the 1960s, the Civil Rights Act, a bipartisan coalition of socially liberal Republicans and Democrats was responsible for its passage.  Social liberals believed in the power of the government to ensure racial equality.  Economic liberals believed in the ability of the government to lift up the working class—i.e. much of the New Deal.  Social conservatives were segregationists and economic conservatives were against interference in private enterprise.  Back in the days of Lyndon Johnson, this was the party split:

            For those who complain about Pelosi’s partisanship, the reality is that she could never work with Republicans who have little overlap with her worldview.  She may be a liberal lightning rod, but only because the GOP is on the far-right fringe ideologically.  If a substantial portion of the incoming Republican majority believes that climate change is fake or has doubts about where the president was born, I most certainly want the Democratic leader to be unquestionably progressive in her outlook.

            I hope Pelosi wins back her gavel in two years.  But until then, she should stay in the leadership to work with John Boehner on the tiny sliver of issues where they agree, then draw stark contrasts on the majority of other policy positions.

            While this information is disheartening, so are the crimes The Post detailed that were committed with guns of this nature: a gun used in an act of road rage.  A gun used to execute a sister’s boyfriend in an altercation. A gun used to kill a wife and her suspected love interest.

            The link between these events: an agitated person used a firearm that was at his fingertips.

            Of particular interest is the use of “straw purchases”—people who buy guns for felons or others who are unable legally or unwilling to buy their own firearms.  To me, the low barriers to gun ownership and use are unwise.  Straw purchases, shops where it is easy to obtain a crime gun, and the lack of a waiting period or regulations for storage are all bad ideas.

            It’s all about access.  Two years ago, The New York Times Magazine probed the psychology of suicide.  It turns out that people who don’t spend a lot of time planning their own deaths are more successful at killing themselves.  The reason?  It is harder to survive impulsive methods like a shot to the head or jumping from a bridge than, say, overdosing on pills or slitting your wrists. 

          In fact, states with higher rates of gun ownership also have higher rates of gun-induced suicides.  While we might expect this, the disturbing twist is that in a 2001 survey of 153 suicide survivors, 70 percent contemplated their death for less than an hour.

         So, when people argue that an aggressive man who didn’t have access to a firearm might have stabbed his wife or strangled his neighbor, that explanation isn’t entirely valid.  Having a loaded gun in your car or on your waist enables an overreaction.  Even if the gun is inside the house, but it is unloaded or in a safe, that is still a barrier to wrongdoing.  People are funny like that.

         I have no problem with gun ownership in principle.  As a practical matter, imposing regulations on the purchase of a firearm and its storage may seem intrusive to most gun owners.  But if a deadly weapon wasn’t so readily available in a heated moment, it is possible that the number of suicides and murders could decrease.

         This set of principles places ultra-conservative populism in opposition to President Obama’s agenda.  What the Democrats are lacking is a viable counterargument, a progressive populism.  Sure, the president has been arguing lately against giving the “keys to the car” back to the GOP after it drove the car (our economy, in this metaphor) into a ditch. 

         But given that the Democrats have spent vast amounts of money without a seeming improvement in the national wellbeing, the point isn’t whether Republicans are better than Democrats.  It’s a matter of trying something new.

         The one place where progressive populism is being properly preached is in Virginia’s Fifth District.  Rep. Tom Perriello was elected by less than one percent of the vote in 2008.  Obama lost the district to John McCain.  The district is very rural, whereas Tom Perriello is a fast-talking, Ivy-educated lawyer (though his family is from Central Virginia).

         Most of Virginia should be ground zero for a GOP takeover, like it was in 2009 when Democrats lost all statewide elected offices and several seats in the House of Delegates.  But Perriello is very close to overcoming his Republican opponent.  Why is that?

originally uploaded by perrielloforcongress.

         Three reasons.  First, one of style: the phrase “hardest-working member of Congress” has been tossed about to describe Perriello.  In the past two years, he has held fifty town-hall meetings in his district.  Many of these occurred during the healthcare bill debate, but he did not sit on his laurels over this summer’s recess.  He is well-versed in the issues, youthfully enthusiastic, and, by most accounts, not a jerk.  All of these are good qualities for a politician.  (Also, his television spots are funnier and more clever than the average political ad.)

         Second, the substance: Perriello voted for the renewable energy/carbon cap bill, the stimulus bill, and the healthcare reform bill.  His justification: it was the patriotic thing to do.  In a debate last week, Perriello asked rhetorically why many Republicans wanted to wait for China and India to enact limits on greenhouse gases.  Did the United States say in the 1960s, “Let the Soviets get to the moon first?”

         Of course not—we innovated before everyone else.  We cannot concede the green energy sector to other countries.  His vote for cap-and-trade was one to restore manufacturing jobs.  He talked about an investor who was looking at green energy projects overseas, rather than in the U.S., because the Senate did not pass an energy bill.  The United States is engaged in a “race to the bottom” as far as dirty energy is concerned.  His argument that “America can do this better; America can do this first,” frames liberal legislation in the context of nationalism, competition, and ingenuity.

         Third: Perriello benefits from an independent tea party candidate who, if nothing else, will diminish any margin of victory for the Republican.

         Democrats in conservative districts have tried to run away from tough votes.  Perriello makes them seem patriotic in a time of national distress.  Which argument will prevail?

            I have heard that you are experiencing an “enthusiasm gap” this election season.  It seems that you no longer care whether Congress remains in the hands of Democrats.  You are disillusioned by President Obama’s promises of hope and change—promises that are largely unfulfilled.  You see that no climate change or renewable energy bill has passed.  The economy is still lagging.  Our troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The prison at Guantanamo Bay is still open.  Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has not been repealed.  And you have not seen any benefits accrue from the bruising healthcare battle that consumed a year’s worth of legislative oxygen.

            I understand.  I empathize.  And I have three words: get over yourselves.

            Anyone who thinks that Obama has abandoned his progressive ideals for political expediency must fail to understand the structure of our federal government.  Unlike the Bush-Cheney White House, which was perfectly content with circumventing the legislative and judicial branches to carry out its agenda, Obama has actually deferred to the Constitution by allowing Congress to craft its own legislation.

            As a result, whenever he wants something done, he has had to placate a majority of the 535 members of Congress.  Each representative has a two-year horizon.  Consequential legislation is virtually impossible—there are too many interests to please.   Politicians want give-aways to small businesses.  They want give-aways to corporate campaign contributors.  They want public-works money for their district.  They want tax cuts for everyone.

            (Oh, and of course, they want to shrink the deficit, too.)

            Senators are much worse: each member of the Senate can grind policymaking to a halt if they feel offended in the slightest way.  Today in The Washington Post, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) wrote of voting against a recent defense bill.  She was in favor of the bill, she was in favor of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal included in the bill—but she thought the Democrats were too uncivil by excluding the amendments of people who would undoubtedly vote against the bill anway.  (The bill failed to pass.)

            These are the people holding the national interest hostage.

            Instead of feeling glum about what hasn’t been accomplished, look at what has: access to affordable healthcare for more Americans.  Major investments and energy and education through the stimulus act.  A drawdown of troops in Iraq.  Improved relations with Russia.  Expanded benefits for gay federal workers.  A crackdown on credit card and predatory financial services.

            That is what has happened in two years—i.e. one quarter of the Bush or Clinton presidencies.  And now progressives are going to stay at home on election day while Congress becomes populated by people who believe that Obama wasn’t even born in this country, much less think the federal government should be doing anything at all to advance the welfare of the middle class?

            Give me a break.  If Obama is to come anywhere near delivering on his promises, he will need a friendly Congress.  If you don’t defend Obama when someone calls him a socialist, you’re not doing yourself any favors.  If you sit on the couch while your neighbors speak of “firing” Nancy Pelosi, you’re hurting the cause. 

            And if you stay at home on November 2 because you feel that our political system is beyond repair, that prophecy will fulfill itself.

• in 2007, the number of Americans 12 and older who reported using marijuana in their lifetime was 41 percent of the 68,000 people surveyed.  This compares to 69 percent who have ever used cigarettes and 82 percent who have ever consumed alcohol.
• the number who used marijuana in the month prior to being surveyed was 6 percent.  For cigarettes, it was 24 percent and for alcohol, 51 percent.
• from 2006-2007, the number of Americans who used marijuana in the month prior to being surveyed was 14.6 million.  Cigarette users numbered 60.8 million and binge alcohol drinkers (having at least five drinks in a single occasion) numbered 57.1 million.
• in 2008, 6,048 people were arrested for marijuana possession.  This was less than the 11,805 people arrested for cocaine offenses.  However, the amount of cocaine and marijuana seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration was roughly the same, at 3.5 million pounds.

          On general election day, California voters will decide whether to adopt Proposition 19, which would legalize recreational marijuana use and permit people over 21 to possess an ounce of the drug.  The argument in favor of this policy has multiple facets—the main benefit is that with a $50 tax on every ounce purchased, California could rake in $1.4 billion annually in what is estimated to be a $36 billion market.  California, as the largest state, would obviously capture much of that consumption.  Another worthy argument involves combating the Mexican drug cartels, 60 percent of whose traffic is supposedly marijuana.

         Of course, marijuana use is not without dangers.  The American Council for Drug Education lists the potential harms: impaired perception, loss of motivation, increased heart rate, diminished inhibitions, loss of concentration, hallucinations, increased risk of cancer, and damage to the respiratory, reproductive, and immune systems.

         However, many of the physical effects are correlated to “heavy” or “chronic” use.  Presumably, there would be different results from only occasional marijuana use.  Anything can be bad for you if done to the maximum: smoking, drinking, eating, and even exercise may be detrimental depending on the frequency.  We still don’t even know what the medical effects of all our cell phone use will be decades from now.

         States are missing out by failing to integrate marijuana use into their regulatory and revenue functions.  America’s puritanical resistance to talking about safe drug use is merely pushing consumption underground—or, maybe it’s not so underground, if you have ever been on a college campus on a weekend night.

         Why not acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, allowing marijuana to become a legitimate commodity may not lead to an increase in the number of the chronically stoned?  It seems strange to doubt the power that parents, friends, teachers, and others can exercise over people whose purchasing habits concern them.  If consumption becomes less taboo, so will asking for help.  And above all, if we cannot agree to shake up the status quo on drug policy, how will we ever address more embedded questions about the American lifestyle, like obesity, overconsumption/materialism, and ideological disharmony?

            But I cannot understand why so many people feel entitled by their mere participation in a relatively simple activity—trying to get from one place to another.  Whether someone is in a car, on a bicycle, or walking down the street, the amount of entitlement people feel while transporting themselves is baffling.

            Drivers think they are entitled to talk on cell phones because they feel that they are being safe.  Pedestrians feel they are entitled to dart across streets against the signal, even if traffic is oncoming.  Drivers think that they are entitled to a quick ride home, even if it means roaring around all the slower cars who are abiding by the speed limit.

            Then there are the bicyclists—the worst offenders, in my experience.  Bicyclists seem entitled to a whole range of unsafe activities: they ride on the sidewalks, because they think that sidewalks are safer than roads (it is not safer for the pedestrians, I guarantee you).  They ride without helmets.  They ride without reflectors or lights at night.  They ride on the wrong side of the street.  They breeze through red lights and stop signs.  They cut off pedestrians and cars because they think they are more agile.

            In 2008, there were 716 bicycle fatalities, up slightly from 698 in 2007.  More than two-thirds occurred in urban areas, and 64 percent occurred at intersections.   American bicyclists are three times more likely to be killed than German cyclists and six times more likely than Dutch cyclists.  Men are eight times more likely to be killed than women.  These statistics pale in comparison to automobile fatalities, which numbered slightly less than 40,000 in 2008; bicycle deaths are two percent of all road fatalities.

            Now, I realize that legally, cyclists are entitled to the same rights as drivers.  But they need to recognize that with rights come the responsibility to behave in a manner that won’t disrupt other vehicle traffic.  There is always the possibility that bad bicyclists will endanger the safety of good bicyclists—a cyclist on the wrong side of the road presents as much danger to bikes as to cars.  Some recreational bicyclists and commuters also approach bicycling with all of the intensity of the Tour de France.  Having a bicycle swerve past you within inches of your own bike can be as unnerving as being passed by a car.

            Part of the problem could be ameliorated if bicyclists had their own infrastructure, with bicycle lanes that are physically separated from vehicle lanes and bike-specific traffic lights.  But there are also demographic issues at hand.

            In 2007, the average age of bicyclists killed was 41; in 1996, it was 31 and in 1986, it was 23.  This tells me that older Americans who start bicycling do not have a firm grasp on safety.  Or, Americans who were never taught as children how to safely ride on roads have poor riding habits when they move to densely-populated areas as adults.  This could be remedied by mandating that children in physical education or driver education classes also learn how to properly ride a bicycle.  That way, there will be greater harmony between drivers and bicyclists, since they both understand their rights and responsibilities.

            There is a legitimate conversation to be had about that point of view.  I agree with the governor that liquor sales are not an inherently governmental function.  That is an arm of the state and a layer of bureaucracy whose resources could be redirected to core functions like education and poverty reduction.

            But that doesn’t change the fact that the liquor stores are a cash cow for Virginia.  Whereas Maryland collects $24.7 million annually from liquor taxes and Washington, D.C. takes in $10.8 million, Virginia receives almost $250 million in profit and excise taxes.  There is no reason, especially in a recession, why we should deplete the general fund simply to give a one-time injection of money for transportation projects.

            There are only two ways Virginia could increase its revenue from liquor sales, neither of which involves privatization.  Either the state could increase the price of liquor (i.e. a higher tax) or increase the volume sold.  The goal of privatization would be to lower prices and augment the number of liquor vendors by increasing competition.

            Neither of those situations, though, would allow the Virginia to take in as much money.  Plus, social conservatives have already begun to complain that alcoholism, spousal abuse, and crime would rise if liquor were more easily accessible.  The governor and religious groups have relied on dueling reports that suggest that there is either a significant increase or a negligible increase in the amount of depravity in liquor-controlled states v. laissez faire states.

            That brings up another issue: how much is the governor willing to restrict the quantity of liquor stores as dictated by a free market to negate the potentially damaging effects of alcohol dependency?

            Proponents of liquor store reform point out that some areas of Virginia are losing revenue (15 to 20 percent in Northern Virginia) where residents can drive across state lines to buy liquor at lower prices.  While per capita sales of liquor are lower along the West Virginia border, I don’t think that it would be worthwhile to capture a few million dollars more from these counties to offset the $248 million from the state’s current monopoly. 

         Population centers such as Richmond, Charlottesville, and Roanoke still provide the bulk of consumption.  And while Fairfax residents could realistically go into the District to purchase liquor, they still contribute more in gross sales than any other jurisdiction by far.  I suppose that the more affluent Northern Virginians have more flexible budgets in purchasing spirits.

         Until the governor can devise a means of operating liquor stores that can match the efficiency and profitability of the current system, I’m afraid the money speaks for itself.