I am aware that the United States Supreme court decided that the right to keep and bear arms was without context and distinctly individual.  District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 554 U.S. 570, 171 L.Ed.2d 637, 76 U.S.L.W. 4631, (2008).

I am also aware that those who publicly argue for an unfettered individual right to bear arms usually do so in context.  Here are some of the contextual arguments given for the individual right to bear arms, worded as if they were in the Constitution just like the clause that actually is.

United States Constitution, Amendment II.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Not the United States Constitution, Amendment II.

A highly profitable gun manufacturing sector, being necessary to secure the reelection of supporting politicians, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A perceived need for recreational shooting, being necessary to entertain certain citizens, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A finely honed desire to kill animals for sport, being necessary to maintain resorts for shooting birds and harvesting farmed deer, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A misguided and mentally unbalanced person, being necessary to right perceived wrongs by wantonly killing other persons, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A slaughtered community, being necessary to remind survivors of the power of a weapon in misguided hands, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Still not the United States Constitution, Amendment II.

A periodic slaying of a wrongdoer by firearm, being necessary to defend one’s self or others, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Bob Congdon
June 21, 2016, November 8, 2017

Thinking is Tricky Business

Thinking is tricky business. Emotions like angst, anguish, denial, and deliriousness can impact how we think. Hunger, cold, satiation and warmth can affect what we think. Too much pinot noir might pick away at our ability to think.

If thinking is tricky business, what must teaching people to think be? In a university classroom on any given evening, some of the above factors and scores more affect what and how professors teach people to think.

My colleague Bill Cutler, Professor of History and Education at Temple University in Philadelphia, put teaching people to think like this: "We professors are arguers rather than advocates. Advocates often trade in belief or opinion. Professors trade in presenting viewpoints and information in a way that relies on reason and evidence consistent with a particular discipline. We have knowledge of what others say on a subject and a healthy skepticism for conventional wisdom. We turn answers into questions and have a sharp eye for unrecognized assumptions. We are willing to ask the "so what" question."

"So what?" is not meant to be a demeaning question. Rather, it’s a tool to help students investigate an idea. "So what" means "what’s next?" and "how does this affect your thoughts on that?"

As a professor at a state university, I have taught in minute detail what is required to commit an enormous number of crimes.

I have taught under what circumstances a 14 year old child may leave her parents’ home and rely on the state to support her.

I have taught business students how to lend money to purchase a home, and to then require the borrower to repay two to three times the amount that was borrowed.

I have taught the exact number of days a person in control of a company must wait to buy or sell certain publicly traded stocks of that company in order to personally profit at the expense of other stockholders.

And, I have taught my students to think about these matters, to consider "so what" if the homeowner pays too much for the home–what happens to the market? What is the impact on bankruptcy filings or on the ability of the homeowners, if they have children, to attend school events rather than work a second job? Who pays if the homeowner defaults?

There exists tremendous pressure on universities and faculty to teach "how to" instead of "what if." It’s a legitimate pressure, particularly in Alaska where our university system is relied on to train the workforce. But it’s a dangerous pressure, too, because higher education can become viewed as just another economic tool, subject to adjustment as we need new workers for new endeavors. What a sad day it will be for Alaska when all of our young people are trained to do the jobs that others bring to the state and none are trained to think about the jobs that need to be done. What a sad day it will be for Alaska when our workforce can do some of the best nursing or flying or engineering in the world, but no one can write a song, or envision the extraction of a yet-to-be identified resource.

We must keep a keen eye out for those who would attempt to confuse thinking with data, because thinking is so much more than information, so much more than knowledge, and thinking can be taught with the simplest of social, political, mathematical, or economic models. But thinking cannot be taught if we spend all of our time teaching information.

Most of us can remember what we said during a heated discussion, and what we should have said. We’re less articulate when recounting what another said. One of the reasons professors teach unpopular viewpoints in detail is to encourage students to think about and carefully state the reasons for the more popular belief. Another is to get students to take a walk down the less traveled path. And come back to report on what was there. Fifteen pages due in three weeks. It’s a great trick.

Why I Still Don't Shop at Wal-Mart

One of my daughters wanted to know why I do not shop at Wal-Mart. Here are some of the thoughts I shared with her. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

A recent in depth study of Wal-Mart, The Wal-Mart Effect by Charles Fishburn, is a tremendous book that outlines the impact of Wal-Mart’s way of doing business on the United States and other developing countries.

Another book is called How Wal-Mart is Destroying America (and the rest of the world). If you Google "WalMart Effect" you will be able to find these books and other information, including an LA Times three part series on WalMart from 2003.

Many employee unions have fought the impact of Wal-Mart on the US economy, particularly loss of jobs, lowering of wages in competitive stores, loss of benefits, and a general degradation of employees.

I like to refer to this impact as follows: "Wal-Mart: making America a third world country one payroll at a time."

Union web sites will often have information on how Wal-Mart has impacted the economy, particularly in a given town or region. While union membership is at its lowest point in the last 50 years, due in no small part to the effect of Wal-Mart business practices by other companies, unions have been instrumental in pointing out to America that, for example, the cost to provide health care to an uninsured Wal-Mart employee is borne by the local county or by a state or the federal government. In other words, a sick Wal-Mart employee who seeks health care at a local emergency room is not going to be denied health care, even though she may not be able to pay for it and has no insurance to pay for it.

But, somebody pays. Usually it’s the taxpayer through social programs designed to provide some level of health care for unemployed or underemployed workers. It’s a given that employees will get sick from time to time, and responsible employers provide for a means to pay for health care for those employees. Wal-Mart provides some health care insurance, and claims on its current (October, 2008) website that 92 percent of its employees are covered by health insurance, either through Wal-Mart or another insurer. Every time you pay a health cost or pay taxes, part of what you are paying is helping to offset the cost of providing health care to those who cannot afford it or do not have it provided for them: to a great extent, these are Wal-Mart employees. (Wal-Mart is one of the largest employers in the US).

I like to refer to this impact as follows: "Wal-Mart: your government subsidized store."

Wal-Mart makes tons of money for its shareholders. The largest shareholders include descendants of Sam Walton (I don’t shop at Sam’s Club either). The Walton children are the wealthiest family in America, and individually, each of the children and Sam’s spouse are among America’s wealthiest. Their money comes from selling large volumes of product at pennies over cost, and using every available method to lower their cost. One method is to monopolize a means of production in a country, then go back time and again to require the foreign factory owners to lower their selling costs to Wal-Mart or Wal-Mart will take its business elsewhere. Another method is to employ its workers in the US at less than full time, thus saving Wal-Mart from paying those workers certain benefits, giving them certain breaks during the shortened work day, and so forth. Wal-Mart has also practiced forcing employees to work "off the clock" i.e. making employees work after they have "punched out" on the time clock, or before they punch in.

Of course, Wal-Mart shareholder wealth also comes from the stock market. Stock prices are a reflection of how investors see a company’s ability to produce a profit for the shareholders. Investors see a good return for Wal-Mart stock, and business analysts think highly of the profit making practices of Wal-Mart. Even in this weakened economy (October,2 008) Wal-Mart stock has maintained a value in excess of its May, 1999 or even August, 2007 lows. (Price ranged from approximately $42/share to $60/share from 1999 to 2008. Approx $48/share at this writing.)

Costco, by the way, treats it employees comparatively well, and its CEO is one of the lowest paid CEOs in North America for the size of the company. Those are choices he and his board have made regarding the way they wish to do business and how they wish to treat their employees. Fred Meyer and Safeway also treat their employees comparatively well, thus not draining tax dollars from the rest of us in order to subsidize their workers’ health care costs and maximize profits for their shareholders.

I don't pretend that spending my dollars at stores other than Wal-Mart will affect anything. I just don't spend my money at Wal-Mart.

Bob on Chicken

It's sort of mind numbing, but apparently both presidential candidates' advisors tell them to not get into detail, so they don't. Then the other side distorts the generality.

E.g.: "Sure, I eat chicken," said Bob.

"Bob Tied to Multi-billion Dollar Poultry Slaughter," said the next morning's headline.

"A poultry executive said today that chickens, alone, account for over 70% of the poultry trade in America." TV anchor.

An email circulates that Bob eats over 70% of the chicken in America.

Bloggers weigh in using the F word a lot and generally saying that Bob is a chicken.

"I'm no chicken," says Bob. "I just said I eat chicken. And not exclusively." This is said at the end of a 90 minute speech about foreign policy in response to a question from a reporter. It is the only statement from the speech reported by any media.

The View has Bob on the show to discuss his policy on chicken. It turns out that Bob has no policy on chicken.

"Bob waffles on chicken," says the next day's headline.

And so forth.