SEX and the Single Issue: AB 230 in the Nevada Legislature

Nevada’s legislature has taken up the Big Topic — sex education, and of course all the denizens of the belfry have taken flight.  Surely, if we give our progeny information about how they came into this world we’ll have kindergarteners watching sex tapes, fifth graders talking about abortions, and parents excluded from the moral education of their offspring and relegated to the sidelines while Planned Parenthood (the successor to ACORN as the prime target for the tin foil hatted) propagandizes their little angels.  Not. So. Fast.

The Las Vegas Sun sets the record straight on the actual contents of the bill under consideration — for those who are actually interested in what the bill would really do, and not primarily fascinated by projecting their fears on the canvas of someone else’s proposal for addressing the fact that Nevada has the 4th largest teen pregnancy rate in the country.

There is just about as much misinformation as any sentient human being could every aspire to amassing in the comments on AB 230 at the Legislature’s input site.

Those against the bill seem to track along various lines: Sex is icky and should not be discussed; Sex is sacred and should be theologically framed and not discussed as a biological feature associated with human behavior; and it’s OK to talk about sex and we’re doing enough already.  The last argument is at least a point we could discuss in rational terms.  The first two are essentially religious in nature, and emotional in character.

The unavoidable and uncomfortable fact that we have the fourth highest rate of teen pregnancy in the United States of America ought to be enough to convince the public we’re not doing something  effectively.

Those who advocate for total parental control over the content of sex education may want to remember that not all parents (or other family members) have accurate information.

For example, during a quiet conversation with an adolescent female a few years back, the youngster about floored me with the fervent assertion that “You can’t get pregnant if he’s drunk.”  That would be only if “he” were intoxicated to the point of dead to the world unconsciousness….

Or, there was the young lady who assured me her grandmother was correct when she said, “You can’t get pregnant if you do it standing up.”   Uh, that would be a “no.”  It doesn’t matter if the position you’ve assumed is the most uncomfortable imaginable — all the two little bits have to do is to get together and then the impossible becomes possible.   The NCBI did a study published in 2009 regarding the sources teens use to find information about sex. The results really shouldn’t be surprising:

“Consistent with previous research, adolescents in this sample rely heavily on friends, parents, teachers, and the media for sexual information. There were several differences in source use by race/ethnicity and gender, but the only difference by age group was with regards to media. The older the adolescents, the more they relied on media as a source of information. Among those who cited the media as an information source, television was the medium from which adolescents reported learning the most about sex, which is not surprising in light of research showing that 70% of television programs in 2005 contained some form of sexual content.” [NCBI]

There’s a reason for the order given in that summary paragraph.  Teens reported their sources of information as 74.9% from friends, 62.2% from teachers, 60.9% from mothers, 57% from the media, 41.4% from doctors, 32.8% from fathers, 29.3% from cousins, 18.1% from brothers, 17.7% from sisters, 13.5% from grandparents, and 12% from religious leaders.

If we adopt the policy that parents should be the only ones doing the sex education spiels with their youngsters then we’re accepting that the mothers are generally the ones doing the talking (at 60.9%) and only 32.8% of the fathers are involved in the “teachable moments.”  However, we still have to deal with the fact that nearly 75% of the information the kids are getting comes from outside the home — from friends who may be as informed or misinformed as the sources of their information.

One of the controversial provisions of AB 230 is the matter of passive or active parental consent — does the parent have to actively permit the child’s instruction, or does non-action constitute tacit approval?  Given the data indicating that 75% of the sexual information is passed along by friends — of possibly dubious veracity — if we truly want to educate children and empower them with the most accurate information possible then the tacit approval route would include more young people in the process.

If parents want control over the content of their child’s collection of information about human sexuality then the bill allows for that, parents can always opt out — and hope that the 75% outsourcing of education to “friends” works for them.  Fathers may wish to note that they are responsible for an average of only 32.8% of the information the child receives?

Religious leaders, no matter how well intended, aren’t getting their message across if only 12% of our teens are reporting that those leaders are the source of their sex education.

If parents are fearful about the intrusion of the right wing bogey of the day — Planned Parenthood — inserting its messages about contraception (and horror of horrors “abortion”) into public school instruction, then they ought to be assuaged by the bill’s language giving local districts control over curriculum content.  However much some parents may believe that Planned Parenthood and other health care providers are salivating at the prospect of propagandizing the progeny the statistics still indicate that information about the subject of contraception among teens who participated in sex education classes  tends to be “superficial and often limited to condoms.” [Guttmacher pdf]  This doesn’t speak well for the current curriculum or the level of instruction, whether parents opt in or out.  Or, as one 17 year old participant in the study told researchers, “My Dad said turn the lights out and use a condom.” In short, what teenagers may know about contraception, either to avoid impregnation or to minimize the prospects of a sexually transmitted disease, is limited to “safe sex sound bites.”  We could be doing better than this.

Further, if we truly want to prevent the possibility of abortions then the rate of teen abortions in Nevada could be reduced with more and better information about contraception.  Recent statistics show Teenage abortion rates were highest in New York (41 per 1,000), New Jersey, Nevada, Delaware and Connecticut. [Guttmacher 2010 pdf]  Someone isn’t “Just Saying No.”

Contraception, one the best ways to avoid unintended pregnancies, may not be on the educational agenda at all — only 14% of U.S. schools as late as 2002 had truly comprehensive sex education, 86% had policies on sex education curricula calling for the promotion of abstinence as a primary focus, 51% allowed the discussion of contraception as a way to avoid STDs, 35% required that abstinence be the only option.  [UC SF pdf]  The abstinence-only approach was effective in limited environments (religious schools, small groups) but there is little evidence that success rates can be replicated in larger, more diverse, groups such as public schools.  The 2002 report concluded that most of the abstinence-only research was not peer reviewed, and tended to be isolated.

What parents could hope for from the Nevada Legislature is a bill that expands the scope of comprehensive sex education for all Nevada youngsters, with instruction appropriate to the age level of the students, and with a curriculum which emphasizes information over exhortation.

If we truly don’t wish to have students dropping out then we need to have the parents opt in.

Bits and Pieces

The Nevada legislature continues to talk about taxation issues, and talk and talk and talk and talk. No bills yet from either side just more talk and talk and talk and talk.  Full story at LV Sun.

The Reno Gazette Journal has a map with the break down by party affiliation in Washoe County.   Democrats are just barely behind in total county numbers.

Whatever would we do without the Pahrump Valley Times continuing its soap opera series on the Nye County Commission and the Nye County Sheriff’s office?  Here and here.

Two men from Ely, NV have been charged as ex-felons in possession of firearms.  [Elko Daily Free Press]  One of the two arrested is an undocumented alien, now facing deportation.  Now, remind me why Senator Dean Heller was opposed to background checks at gun shows or for Internet sales to catch — FELONS, fugitives, undocumented aliens, the mentally ill, and minors to help prevent guns from getting into their hands?  This vote may not be helping Nevada’s junior Senator:

“Nevada Dean Heller has seen a more modest decline in his approval numbers, from 47/42 right before the election to 44/41 now. However with the independent voters who were critical to his narrow victory in November, his approval has dropped from 52/37 then to now 42/42.”  [PPP]

70% of Nevadans support expanding background checks to gun shows and Internet sales. [HP]

Meanwhile, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is advising us that we can’t amend our statutes to prevent those who are on terrorist watch lists from having free and easy access to firearms.  Hint: His “logic” is a repetition of The Criminals Won’t Obey the Law argument.  Of course, criminals don’t obey laws — that is why we call them Criminals.

The Republicans can’t seem to get their narrative straight on U.S. options available for dealing with the Syrian civil war.  There’s the full on Let’s Have Another Lovely War Crowd, and the No Boots on the Ground Crowd, augmented by the I’m So Confused I’m Changing Positions faster than popcorn in a microwave group.

There’s this bit of news (old by now) from the U.S. Senate:

“The Senate moved quickly Thursday evening to help ease the Federal Aviation Administration’s ability to handle automatic spending cuts set forth in the sequester. Senators unanimously approved the “Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013″ — a patch to fix the deep cuts that have furloughed air traffic controllers and delayed flights across the country. The bill gives the FAA authority to spend up to $253 million of money already in the FAA’s budget — but not allocated to pay for other things — to keep employees on the job and make sure more flights a on time. It was passed by unanimous consent, which means no senator objected.”  [NBC]

For a group that usually moves with all the expediency and alacrity of molasses off a frozen spoon, THIS is amazing.  Now how about the 70,000 youngsters kicked off the Headstart rolls? The elderly cancer patients having reduced medical services?  The reduction in the food assistance programs?  The cut backs in long term unemployment benefits? —- Crickets.

But wait, there IS a topic on which two deficit chickenhawk allies ARE willing to spend more money — the Abrams Tank. The problem is that the Pentagon doesn’t want more Abrams tanks… more at Think Progress.  We ought to file this along side the dismal story of the F-35 production problems and spending issues. [Bloomberg]

What we haven’t been hearing much about are the problems related to the Other Disaster this month, the one at the West, Texas fertilizer plant.  The major media outlets gave it scant coverage.  OSHA records show the plant hadn’t been inspected since 1985. PHMSA did an inspection in 2011 and found the plant didn’t have an emergency plan. The EPA last looked at the plant in 2006 and levied a fine for the lack of a risk management plan.   Unfortunately, the list goes on. [TP]  Congressional Democrats are asking for work place safety hearings in the wake of the disaster. [Reuters] Neither the House Agriculture Committee nor the Education and Workforce Committee have posted scheduled hearings to date on the matter.   Deregulation, a popular theme amongst the GOP membership, has created a situation in which going to work can get a person killed.

Quick Hits

** The Las Vegas Sun has a quick list of bills that made it past the “Tuesday Deadline” for consideration in the Nevada Legislature.  Looking for bills that failed to meet the deadline? It’s here.  For information on other bills start with this link.

** Heads up: The Reno Gazette Journal will run an article on Sunday concerning the closing of the ATF office in Reno, NV, and how this has impacted the efforts to stop gun trafficking.  The Leahy-Collins amendment to curtail gun trafficking in the U.S. failed in the Senate on a 58-42 vote during which Republicans sustained their filibuster of the amendment. [TheHill] Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) voted to sustain the GOP filibuster. [Vote 99]

** Did we know? “Sixty-six Americans were killed in mass shootings by non-Muslims in 2012 alone, twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11.” [Politicususa] And, did we know that the NRA and Conservatives in Congress have made it more difficult to track or monitor non-Muslim extremists in this country since 2001?  Crooks and Liars posts a list of recent “eliminationist” attacks.

** It’s been a bad week for the Austerians.  First, comedian Stephen Colbert launched a devastating critique on the economic theorists.  Additionally, many others have piled on.  There’s Austerity as Flim-Flam.   There’s Who is Defending Austerity Now?  There’s rethinking austerity.   There’s the EU calling for diminishing austerian policies.  And, for good measure, there’s the choking effects of austerity policies in the UK.  Thus the House GOP budget plan is based on a seriously flawed study.

** What economic recovery? For 7% of this country it’s been a nice rebound, for the remaining 93% not so much.

“During the first two years of the nation’s economic recovery, the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly released Census Bureau data.” [PewResearch]

Graph it out and it looks like this:

** Watch H.R. 1549 carefully. It would “Give sick people without insurance temporary access to crappy private plans at exorbitant rates as part of a strategy aimed at pulling the rug out from under them entirely at the end of the year, all the while mewling about one’s concern for sick people.” [WashMon]  When astro-turf organizations like Freedom Works and AMAC line up for something it’s time to head the other direction.  The best description for this legislation is “ruse and trap.”

** Republicans Behaving Badly.  Let’s start with the Tennessee legislator who thinks pressure cooker bombs are humorous.  Followed, of course, by his non-apology-apology.  His rationale is that advocates of sensible gun safety legislation should have stayed quiet after Newtown…  Then there’s the Conservative group that photo-shopped ethnic minority people from its mailer about voting restrictions.  And who could have missed GOP behemoth, Rush Limbaugh, comparing the Boston bombers to Trayvon Martin?  That Arkansas legislator who called for using “2nd Amendment” solutions to Medicaid expansion, “Most likely won’t kill lawmakers who support Medicaid expansion.”  Most likely? How nice.

** Lady’s Days:  Ann Coulter, scourge of all operative grey cells residing in every cerebral cortex, calls for women to to prosecuted for wearing the hijab.  So, do we tell nuns to refrain from wearing their habits?  A Washington state pastor tells women to submit to their husbands and not nag “like Chinese water torture.”  The adherents of the Church of Perpetual Intolerance (aka the Family Research Council) are trying to convince us that “many” experts believe Plan B contraceptives should not be available over the counter — there are a few critics, and those critiques tend to be based on religiosity not science.  Rebuffed last year, Ohio Republicans are taking another swipe at funding for Planned Parenthood women’s health care services in that state.

Quick Hits

** Good news and Bad news: Nevada’s Governor is good at finding money for state programs — on the other hand the money is flowing in because our economy is lagging. [LVSun]  Unfortunately, this comes with an ideological framework, which a person could suppose is meant to sound moderate: “We cannot cut our way out, we cannot tax our way out, we can only grow our way out.”   The phrasing sets up a false choice in which “C” is the sole useful option.  It’s commendable that the Governor acknowledges growth based solutions as the proper course for economic development; it’s not so commendable to see that increasing taxation on economic elements in Nevada who have not been paying their way isn’t part of the total package.

** The Nevada Legislature is looking at the issues related to severe mental illness and gun possession in two bills.  SB 221, which cleared the Senate Health and Human Services Committee with a Do Pass as Amended recommendation, upgrades the background checks required by Nevada law to include private sales, and specifically prohibits a person who, in the estimation of a psychiatrist or a licensed psychologist is likely to be a danger to self or others from “possession, custody, or control” of a firearm.  Once more with urgency:  The only people who would be “inconvenienced” by background checks under Nevada law are (1) felons (2) fugitives (3) minor children (4) domestic abusers, and (5) undocumented aliens.  Surely, it’s not too much to ask that those seeking to transfer “possession, custody, or control” of a firearm would want the recipient to pass a quick background check before selling a weapon to anyone in those categories?

** Those who managed to find a bit of time to keep up with economic news during the Week from Hell, have benefited from “Pete Peterson’s Fingerprints…” at Crooks and Liars.   The Austerians are, indeed, losing the narrative in the national economic debate, and this short article explains who is still promoting  illogical austerity pontification which passes for economic theorizing in Dante’s Fourth Circle of Hell.   For those inclined to get into the mathematical weeds of the R&R mess, Angry Bear has a handy post.  A more general critique is available from the EPI.   As for the prospective denizens of the Fourth Circle, see Naked Capitalism’s post in which Robert Johnson opines of the oligarchs, “they are all standing on the deck of the Titanic looking in each other’s eyes.”

** Republicans behaving badly: Second Amendment Solutions?  One GOP lawmaker in Arkansas would like to activate them in terms of the expansion of Medicaid under the terms of the Affordable Care Act. [Think Progress] Ohio legislators would like to prohibit instruction in health education classes about “gateway sexual activity.” [TP]  As if the kids haven’t  just about figured out the “gateways” already?  Texas state legislators dislike the meddling old EPA — and they have a blasted out neighborhood in West, Texas to prove it. [Politicususa] In the mean time, would someone explain to me how any Planning and Zoning Commission could possibly approve plans to build residential developments next to a fertilizer plant — or a fertilizer plant near a residential neighborhood? Much less in proximity to a junior high, a high school, and a nursing home?!

Dogs and Water in the Government Affairs Committee

The Nevada state senate committee on Government Affairs has a interesting agenda for April Fool’s Day.  First up, at 1:30 pm in room 2135, there’s S.B. 225, a bill to designate the Blue Wiemaraner as the official state dog.  The bill’s sponsors are Senators Kieckhefer and Kirner.  Not to disparage the efforts of a 9 year old Reno youngster, who suggested the designation, [RGJ] but his classroom would be well advised to heed the Senator’s caution that the bill might not pass.   The next bill, S.B. 232, treads in more controversial territory: Utility rates, and which agencies may raise them.

Municipalities which operate sewer and water systems are currently exempted from the rate overviews of the Public Utility Commission.  S.B. 232 would eliminate this exemption for municipal utilities in counties of more than 700,000.  (Read: Clark County)   Section 10 of the bill is the part freighted with more issues.   “Section 10 requires the governing body of each local government within the service territory of a municipal utility to approve any proposed increased rates before the Commission …”

The Southern Nevada Water Authority is an association of seven subdivisions: Las Vegas, Henderson, North Las Vegas, Las Vegas Valley, Boulder City, Clark County Water Reclamation, and Big Bend (Laughlin).  Thus we’d assume that any proposed rate increases would be approved by those entities.  Now we come to the approval process which is a bit more complex. For example, the Las Vegas Valley Water District is governed by a board composed of members of the Clark County Commission, as is the Big Bend Water District, however in 2008 the Big Bend District authorized the Las Vegas Valley District to act as its agent.   Boulder City has its own utilities department, under the jurisdiction of the auspices of the City Council.   Therefore, it seems logical to assume that any petition for an increase in rates would already have the imprimatur of the Clark County Commission, but would it also need to be approved by the local governing bodies of Las Vegas,  North Las Vegas? Laughlin? The City of Henderson? Boulder City?  As I read Section 10 of S.B. 232 the answer would appear to be yes.

So, a proposed rate increase would need the approval of the SWNA Board, composed of representatives from the associated utility districts, plus individual approval from the local governments of the areas represented by those who serve on the SWNA Board.   If this sounds a bit redundant, it’s probably because in some respects it is.  If this sounds like it could be an invitation to turn proposed rate increases into political footballs (of the bouncing soccer variety) in local government meetings — it’s probably because it could be.

Not that I’m any great fan of the SNWA, and its continual green eyed glances at sources of rural water, I’m not.   However, what is arguably a well intentioned attempt at generating more popular input into proposed water and utility rate increases could make arguing about the Official State Dog look like look like a romp in the park with Fido.

Meanwhile, my nominee for the State Dog is the Blue Heeler.  I do so because I once had one, (Who owned whom is still a matter of opinion.) and her ego was certainly expansive enough to fill an entire state of some 110,567 square miles.

Nevada Senators adopt Yosemite Sam Philosophy on Concealed Carry Permits

S.B. 137  gets its hearing today in the Nevada Legislature, in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The measure sponsored by state Senate Republicans Goicoechea, Settelmeyer,  and Cegavske, would revise and ease restrictions on concealed carry permits for firearms.  Let’s assume, for the moment, that the arguments in favor of this legislation make the following points:

#1. We’d all be safer if we were all armed.   We simply want rights for law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves.  The self-protection argument runs into difficulty at the moment any dispute escalates into an armed confrontation [NYT], and the very small number of instances in which a potential victim of an assault or robbery “fought back” isn’t sufficient to extrapolate into any kind of broad generalization (much less substantiate causality) about the efficacy of arming for self defense. [ncjrs]  The “law abiding” part is also problematic.

North Carolina liberalized its carry provisions only to find that 2,400 of its permit holders had been convicted of felonies or misdemeanors over the previous five year period. Not surprisingly, a permit holder with a history of depression, alcoholism, and suicide attempts committed a murder in the course of a bar fight.  [NYT]  Of course, it’s not illegal to suffer from major depression, or illegal to be an alcoholic, which raises the question: How are permits to be allocated to “law abiding citizens?”  And, more essentially, “Who’s law abiding?“

Is a person with a current restraining order “law abiding?”  [NYT]

“In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other gun-rights groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in domestic violence situations. They argue that gun ownership, as a fundamental constitutional right, should not be stripped away for anything less serious than a felony conviction — and certainly not, as an N.R.A. lobbyist in Washington State put it to legislators, for the “mere issuance of court orders.” [NYT]

Is that “mere issuance” of court orders sufficient to determine a person’s status as “law abiding?”  Or, does the imminent threat of domestic violence preclude a person’s inclusion in this category?  (More on this a bit later.)

#2.  If citizens had been carrying their own firearms __________ might have been avoided.   This requires some imagination; imagination of the type commonly associated with adolescent males who fantasize about What I Would Have Done; which, in turn, almost invariably reverts into a scripted entertainment piece wherein ‘they’ come out guns blazing and rescue the Fair Maiden In Distress.   The historical examples are less ethereal.

Joe Zamudio helped subdue the gunman in the shooting of former Congresswoman Giffords in Arizona, he was armed.  However, when the details of his story are acknowledged the report doesn’t square with the fantasy scenario.  Zamudio first mistook another person trying to disarm the shooter as the killer; and, secondly didn’t want to fire for fear of being mistaken himself as the perpetrator.  Zamudio came within seconds of killing not only an innocent man, but a man trying to disarm and restrain the real killer. [Slate]

Consider the reality of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater massacre.  How much more difficult the situation could have been for law enforcement responding to the scene if several people in a darkened theater had opened fire?  That more victims could have been caught in cross-fire is far more plausible than any illusion of heroics in ‘battle.’

#3. The mere presence of a firearm is enough to deter some violent crime.  Criminals will think twice before committing a felony on an armed person.   That depends. Not to put too much faith in combining the words ‘criminal’ and ‘intelligence,’ in the same sentence too often, but if a potential felon has already pulled out a weapon and clicked the safety off then how does a holstered pistol or revolver with the safety on deter the felonious one?  Or, by the lights of the gun enthusiasts do we all go about armed with the firearms unholstered, and with the safeties off?

And, we return to the domestic violence scene and to some disturbing statistics from the Washington State 2012 report in which of all the 549 fatal domestic violence incidents since 1997 55%  have involved firearms.   Again, the question of the protection of law abiding citizen categorization arises:  If we are not convinced that a person upon whom a restraining order has been issued is securely included in the law abiding category, then are we in jeopardy of creating more violence by easing the restrictions on concealed carry permits which might be issued to these people?

Until we have amassed and analyzed more data on the implications of categorizing people as “law abiding” gun owners who have personal histories of violence, mental illness, or domestic issues; SB 137 is a premature offering to the gun enthusiasts and the manufacturers of their firearms.

Until we have thoroughly deliberated the actual use of firearms in defense of persons or property, and appraised the real instances in comparison to situations in which the lack of a firearm helped to de-escalate a situation, SB 137 is simply another gesture of support for the gun manufacturers who want to sell as many of their products to as many people as they can scare into buying them.

This is NOT a bill which should emerge from the Nevada Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary.

Pro-Gun Laws in the Nevada Legislature

If we’d thought that the tragic incidents in Aurora, Colorado, or Newtown, Connecticut had sunk into the minds of some members of the Nevada Legislature, we’d have to give it another think.  If we’d thought that knowing that as of 2005 of the 1181 women killed by intimate male partners (not counting ex-boyfriends) 678 were fatally injured by firearms [NCBI] would make a difference — we’d be wrong.   (All bills are in pdf format)

Guns Galore!

S.B. 137  (pdf) removes restrictions from concealed carry.   From the LCB summary:

 Existing law prohibits a person from carrying certain concealed weapons, including firearms, without a permit. (NRS 202.350, 202.3653-202.369)  Section 2  of this bill removes firearms from the list of weapons which a person is prohibited from carrying in a concealed manner. Section 11 of this bill repeals the provision which requires a person to have a permit to carry a concealed firearm and repeals certain other provisions concerning permits to carry concealed firearms.

Existing law also requires certain political subdivisions of this State in a county whose population is 700,000 or more (currently Clark County), which adopted ordinances or regulations before June 13, 1989, that require the registration of firearms capable of being concealed, to make certain amendments to such registration provisions. (NRS 244.364, 268.418, 269.222) Sections 8 of this bill delete the provisions requiring certain political subdivisions of this State to make such amendments. (emphasis added)

The bill is sponsored by State Senators Gustavson, Cegavske, Goicoechea, and Settelmeyer.   The bill’s counterpart in the Assembly is A.B. 232 sponsored by Oscarson, Fiore, Ellison, Wheeler, Hickey, and Hardy.

Then there’s S.B. 226, sponsored by Senators Settelmeyer, Guvstavson, and Goicoechea which grants a one size fits all conceal carry permit, and again eliminates any provisions enacted prior to June 13, 1989.   AB 195 eases the renewal process for concealed carry permits. “Section 1 of this bill provides that any personwho possesses a valid permit that was issued on or before June 30, 2011, and who has not since renewed the permit may submit an application to renew the permit at any time before the permit expires.”

S.B. 223 opens up the University campuses, public schools, and private schools for concealed carry permit holders.  Under the provisions of sections 1 and 2, anyone would be allowed to carry a concealed firearm on any campus if the person has a permit, and has notified administrative personnel that “the employee” will be “carrying.”   Nothing in the measure mentions what might happen if an administrator says, “No.”  The bill’s Assembly counterpart is A.B. 143.

The “guns on campus” bills are promoted by ALEC and the NRA, and have been categorized among the “9 most appalling gun laws backed by the right wing.” [Salon]

Bells, Books, Candles and S.B. 192

Which of the following does not belong with the other three items?

(a) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” U.S. Constitution, Amendment I

(b) “Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.”  Nevada Constitution, Ordinance

(c) “Sec:4. Liberty of conscience.  The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed in this State, and no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of his religious belief, but the liberty of conscience hereby secured, shall not be so construed, as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace, or safety of this State.”  Nevada Constitution, Article I, Section 4

(d) “Notwithstanding any provision of NRS 41.0305 to 41.039, 25 inclusive, but subject to the limitation on damages set forth in 26 NRS 41.035 when applicable, a person whose religious exercise has been substantially burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against the governmental entity.  The court shall award costs and attorney’s fees to a person who prevails in an action brought against a governmental entity pursuant to this section.”  S.B. 192  *Defines a political subdivision

(ANS: ) Why doesn’t item D (S.B. 192) fit with the others?  Because it really isn’t about religious liberty.

The Nevada Rural Democratic Caucus explains:

“SB192, the  Nevada Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (NPRFA), is currently being considered by the Judiciary committee. NPRFA is a “statified” version of the federal RFRA (Religion Freedom Restoration Act), which was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1997 because it overstepped Congress’ power to enforce the 14th Amendment (City of Boerne v Flores).  If enacted, it would “prohibit governmental entities from substantially burdening the exercise of religion.”

And what might those “burdens be?”  How about the “burden” of having to avoid asking about a person’s sexual orientation in a job interview?  Or, the “burden” of having to dispense a Morning After prescription to prevent an unwanted conception?  Or, the “burden” of having to include contraceptive prescriptions to an employee in a health insurance policy?  Or, the “burden” of having to have any health insurance coverage for any employee should the employer believe in faith healing alone?

Could it be the “burden” of having to interview a prospective employee who would need to have either Friday or Saturday off for religious services?   Could it be the “burden” of not discriminating against members of the LGBT community?  Or, might it be the “burden” of not discriminating against women in the workplace?  Against, unmarried women with children? Or, would the “burden” be that a young woman who had an abortion could not be summarily fired?

Time for Confession

There’s a problem shared by all confessional faiths.  And, in this instance “confessional” doesn’t refer to the Sacrament of Reconciliation — instead it is used more generally, and might be taken as synonymous with “creed.”

It might be the Nicene Creed, or the Apostles’ Creed, or in Protestant denominations the term ‘confession,’ like a creed but generally longer and more specific — The Augsburg Confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration, or the Baptist Confession.  Be it creed or confession, the principles are essentially the same.  The profession constitutes orthodoxy as defined by some Christian religious denomination.

The first problem is the term “orthodoxy.”  The second problem is that the United States isn’t orthodox.

The last time Pew Research looked at religious affiliation in America, the numbers showed 51.3% were Protestants of various confessions; 23.9% were Catholics; 1.7% were members of the LDS Church.   1.7% of our population is Jewish, divided into Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and “other.” 0.7% of our population is Buddhist (also divided).  Another 0.6% is Muslim, divided into Shia, Sunni, and “other.”  Hindus add another 0.4% of the population.  Atheists are about 1.6% of the population, agnostics another 2.4%, and there’s a significant number, 12.1% of Americans, who described themselves as “nothing in particular.”

Here’s where the “orthodoxy problem” kicks in.  While 26.3% of American Protestants described themselves as “evangelical,” another 18.1% declared themselves to be members of “mainline” churches.   And, what to do with the other 4.7% of Americans who aren’t Christian in any form or confession? With the 16.1% of the Unaffiliated?  This is now; so why were the framers of the U.S. Constitution so adamant about preventing the establishment (read: preference) of any single creed or confession of orthodoxy in the newly forming United States of America?

First, there were practical matters — How does a new country reconcile the Congregationalism of John Adams with the Episcopal preferences of George Washington?  How do you keep a nation together with Presbyterians in the western portions, Baptists forming congregations in the midlands, Dutch Reformed Church members holding sway in New York, and Swedish Reformed Church members in Delaware?   Why were the framers so intent upon keeping religion off the table?  Secondly, there were memories of a dismal history in not so Jolly Old England.

Not one, but three civil wars

Most of the original colonists were English. England experienced three periods of civil war beginning in 1642 and not fully over until 1651.  Scholars are still mulling over whether the civil wars were religious or political, or some admixture thereof.   Let’s try “admixture” because some of the confusion between King and Countryside was related to the fact that there was the “High Church” (of England) considered entirely too Popish to be the “real” religion of God’s people; there were the Reformers (We’ll just adjust the Church of England a little bit and that should be enough); there were the Puritans (Get rid of the episcopal nature of the Church of England); there were the Presbyterians  who were at odds with the Independents.  Somewhere between and among the Royalists (usually Church of England) and the Puritans, and the Presbyterians, there was sufficient animosity to keep the fires of war burning and the battles raging.  This history wasn’t lost on the framers of the U.S. Constitution.  Granted, if we take 1646 as the end of the last English Civil War, then there were 143 years between the end of the war and the drafting of the U.S. Constitution — it’s been 148 since the end of our own Civil War, and “Lincoln” is a blockbuster movie… we’ve not forgotten ours either.

The point is that the framers were well aware that religious confessions and creeds were inextricably bound into the fabric of the political factions which caused not one but three civil wars in the Old Home Land.  This would be something to be avoided.

Uncomfortable Pluralism

There’s a trade off to be made between religious freedom and political rights.  Everyone has political rights, and everyone has religious freedom.  However, where does my right to freely practice my religion begin to impede your right to practice yours? Further, when does my right to practice any religion freely become perilously close to Theocracy as I impose my creed or confession on the behavior and beliefs of others?

If we take the dictionary definition of a theocracy (a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities,) at what point are those ecclesiastical authorities impinging upon political authority in a democracy?   No one promised pluralism was ever going to be comfortable.

Tyranny of the Majority or the Minority?

Our discomfort with pluralism is, happily, less obvious, and far less bloody, in 21st century American than in 17th century England.  That doesn’t mean it can’t be as obvious as the daily dose of confessional rhetoric emanating from religious leaders in the media.   Yes, about 75% of Americans claim Christianity in some form, but that covers everyone from those who still prefer the Tridentine Mass to the Unitarian-Universalists.  There’s no way to find any “orthodoxy” along that spectrum in terms of creeds, confessions, or the lack thereof.

So, what is S.B. 192 about?  If we were truly talking about religious freedom, then we’d be cognizant of the variations, of the pluralism, in American religious life and NOT trying to impose the confessionally based beliefs of some ecclesiastical authorities on those who don’t share in the creeds.  However, if we are talking about the imposition of confessionally based beliefs on the body politic then aren’t we essentially advocating the “right” of a minority to determine what the majority will or will not be allowed to do?

As uncomfortable as pluralism may be, it’s origins in the American colonies is well documented, and it’s implications for modern notions of the separation of church and state are the foundations of American tolerance and sense of community.   Just as I have no right to demand others who don’t share my basic religious precepts align their lives according to my lights, I would expect the same consideration from others.

I don’t expect others to put the same significance to bells as I might. I don’t expect a person to follow the Nicene Creed, or the Westminster Confession of Faith, or the Quran or Hadith, or the Torah, or Rig-Veda or Avesta, or the Book of Mormon … and I’d be pleased to have others allow me the same consideration.  It’s hard enough in difficult times to keep one’s own candle burning, we don’t need to try to blow each others’ out.

Sunday Roundup of Recommended Reading

Nevada Legislative News:    For an analysis of the tax reform battle currently on view in the Nevada Legislature, see “Mining for Clarity,” from the Nevada Progressive.  You’ll find some context in “Let’s Talk Tax Reform and Mean It” from a February edition of the Nevada Public Employees Focus, and a bit more from The Nevada View.  For more information see: “Nevada Funds Mining’s Big Mistakes,” in CityLife.  And, there’s more from the mining corporations in “Mining Rep: Republican Effort to Tax Us in Punitive,” Las Vegas Sun.

The economy:  The battle over the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act have moved into the caliginous rule making phase.  The efforts were the subject of an MSNBC piece (video), which (finally) picks up on a review from The Hill, in which it was reported that more than half of the Dodd-Frank Act rules are still “in the works” from January 28, 2013.   There’s more from the Angry Bear economics blog,  in which we find the fraudsters now seeking to use the Sequester to cut funding for rule making and implementation.  The following does not bode well for assisting the various Federal agencies tasked with keeping up with the “creative” machinations of the Wall Street Wizards:

“Aside from federal civil and voting rights programs, investment law enforcement agencies and commissions on the chopping block include the Securities and Exchange Commission (a possible $115 million reduction), Commodity Futures Trading Commission ($17 million), federal courts ($384 million at risk), Public Accounting Oversight Board ($18 million) and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation ($23 million). In sum, $557 million could be cut from investor protection programs, barring Congressional intervention.”  [Angry Bear]

Naked Capitalism has an excellent piece on the prevarications of banking regulators who are supposed to be keeping an eye on the welfare of Americans who have money in the banks, not just the bankers who are raking in more American money, they call it “safety and security” — they mean “profitability.”  In a more general vein, there’s a MUST read post from Henry Blodget, “In Case You Needed More Proof That It’s Stupid To Cut Government Spending In A Weak Economy…” in Business Insider.    And, if you have not already read Michael Hiltzik’s piece for the Los Angeles Times, “The five biggest lies about entitlement programs,” please click over and read his summarization.  Here’s a taste:

“As efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare gather steam in the budget wrangling in Washington, you’ll hear these mega-trillions being thrown around more and more. Beware. They’re numbers designed to terrify, not edify.  The assertion comes from something called the “infinite horizon” projection. It’s a calculation of funding gaps projected out to the limitless future and then converted to present value — meaning what the cost would be if we had to pay it all today. For Social Security, the figure was $20.5 trillion, as reported in the program trustees’ latest report. For Medicare, the number comes to about $42.7 trillion. Even professional actuaries say this calculation is bogus.”

Media and Politics:  Finally! Someone calls out the Village Press Corps for continuing to bleat that the “President should reach out more…,” another Must Read is Dee Evan’s blast of sanity “More Selective Memory…” in the Huffington Post.

Open Season: Nevada Legislature Considers Meetings, Taxes, and Guns

The Nevada Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections will take up AB 118 on Thursday, February 28th. [NELIS]  The bill sponsored by Assemblymen Brower and Hickey, is titled the Legislative Open Meeting Law, and would open any and all committee meetings to the public with two notable exemptions: social events and sessions in which a committee receives advice or guidance from legal counsel regarding litigation on an issue over which the committee has jurisdiction.  [AB 118 pdf] Not to disparage the intent to make all legislative sessions as transparent as possible, but AB 118 makes de jure what is already pretty much de facto.   Committee agendas, and minutes are already available on-line, for anyone with enough time and interest to locate and read them.  A quick click to “Committees” yields enough information to dispense with the tedium of any day. Or, to add to it?

On the Senate side, the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections will take up SJR 5 and SJR 7.  SJR 5, sponsored by Senator Joyce Woodhouse, “Urges Congress to reintroduce and pass the Marketplace Fairness Act.“

“The Marketplace Fairness Act grants states the authority to compel online and catalog retailers (“remote sellers”), no matter where they are located, to collect sales tax at the time of a transaction – exactly like local retailers are already required to do. However, there is a caveat: States are only granted this authority after they have simplified their sales tax laws.” [MFA]

Twenty four states have already enacted legislation to collect sales taxes from remote sellers.   Opposition to the federal bill (sponsored by Senators Durbin & Enzi and Womack (R-AZ) H.R. 684)  is based on two notions.  First, that the law would expand state taxing powers, and secondly that the enactment would require businesses to be out-of-state tax collectors.  This is augmented by the perennial complaint that consumers will be the ultimate “victims.”  [Heartland]

Proponents of the measure, such as one Illinois Chamber of Commerce feel differently:

“As business leaders in our community we cannot continue to support an environment where legally required taxes are collected, tracked and remitted by some, while other businesses get a pass. Retailers fight for market share everyday, but they shouldn’t be forced to compete on the collection of sales tax.”  [ChicagoTrib]

The legislation has been sloshing around the halls of Congress for years, and for years states have been losing money:

“The legislation has been pushed in Congress for more than a decade and has been a priority for national groups representing state governors and lawmakers in Washington. The proposal follows a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision which allows states to collect sales tax from residents who purchase online or catalog merchandise, if the residents provide the information to state tax collectors. State officials have long said residents don’t provide the information and taxes, costing states an estimated $23.3 billion in 2012 sales tax revenue alone.”  [HuffPo]

For all intents and purposes, the bill would require major online retailers like Amazon to collect and remit sales taxes which are collected by local brick/mortar retailers within states.   Way back when Amazon was a bookseller some bifurcation might have been allowable, but as the major online sellers moved into electronics, household appliances, and other retail goods the delineation lacks justification.

The modernity of SJR 5 contrasts sharply with the anachronistic qualities of SJR 7 (pdf),  a bill which:

“…proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to preserve the right to hunt, fish and trap for the residents of this State. The proposed amendment provides that hunting, fishing and trapping by members of the public are the preferred means of managing wildlife in this State.”

Really? First of all, the measure sounds remarkably like a similar provision in the Idaho legislature.  The ballot question in the Gem State was not without controversy:

Ned Horner, from Coeur d’Alene, is a retired Idaho Department of Fish and Game fisheries manager for northern Idaho. He worries the amendment’s language elevates harvest above habitat protection for fish and wildlife management. If the cover and food that sustains game and fish aren’t there, the right means little.  [IdahoStatesman]

It should come as no surprise to anyone that these bills come directly from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the second most powerful gun lobby in the United States. [HuffPo]  That said, the following information should also not raise too many eyebrows:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has kept a lower profile over the years, but is likely the second-most-powerful force for firearms use in the country.

“While the gun lobby in general has spent less in 2012 than it has in recent years, the NSSF’s spending has exploded, spiking from about $100,000 in 2008 to $500,000 so far this year (in comparison to the NRA’s $2.2 million). The lion’s share of that went to Patrick Rothwell, the group’s director of government relations, who served for three years as chief of staff to the House Republican Policy Committee. He spent a lot of time this year working on legislation that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating chemicals in gun ammunition and fishing equipment, and the organization has backed a slew of concealed-carry bills.”  [New Republic]

Mr. Horner’s comment is well taken; and the emphasis shifting from habitat to harvest should not go unnoticed by the Nevada Legislature.  Nor should the NSSF’s emphasis on opposing environmental regulations and gun violence measures be lost in the high flying rhetoric of “rights,” and “heritage,” and whatever other vague buzz words abound in this debate.   The irony of it all is that the headquarters of the NSSF, Inc. are in Newtown, CT.