Are You (a Supporter of) MADD?

The 4-Ls series of blog articles ended on May 30, but this post harks back to the first L. It is about the unnecessary and preventable loss of life of many thousands of people each year in the U.S. 

Do you know who Candy Lightner is? I didn’t until this past March when I heard a church woman talk about her in a worship service at First Baptist Church of Kansas City (Mo.).

Ms. Lightner, whose name was Candace Doddridge when she was born in May 1946, had the devastating experience of having her 13-year-old daughter Cari killed by a drunk driver in May 1980. Just four months later, she founded MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving.)

By 1985, MADD had grown into an international organization with over two million members in more than 400 chapters worldwide and an annual budget exceeding $12,000,000.

Amid allegations of financial mismanagement, in 1985 Candy left the organization she founded, but MADD has continued to be a strong organization to the present day.

While writing this article, for the first time I made a contribution to MADD and became a supporter. (Click here if you’d like to do the same.) The receipt I received notes,

Gifts from friends like you have helped cut deaths from drunk driving in half over the last four decades. More than 450,000 lives have been saved, and we’ve been able to compassionately serve more than 900,000 victims [bolding added].

In 2011, Lightner started a new organization. It is called We Save Lives and focuses on reducing drugged, drunk, and distracted driving. It is still active, but it seems to be less effective than MADD.

Surprisingly, Lightner said in a 2002 newspaper article (see here) that MADD had “become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned. I didn’t start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving.”

In that article, she also said that she disassociated herself from MADD because she believed the organization was headed in the wrong direction, that is, putting too much emphasis on not drinking.

Accordingly, she doesn’t encourage people not to drink; rather, she wants people to “drink responsibly”—and that is the same appeal made in beer advertisements I hear while listening to baseball or basketball games on the radio.  

Candy seems to think that it is not alcohol that causes so many traffic fatalities, it is drunk drivers who cause those deaths. That sounds to me very similar to those who oppose gun control when they say it is not guns that kill people, it is those who do not use guns responsibly. Aren’t both technically correct?

Most people who drink alcohol do not drive drunk, and most gun owners do not misuse their firearms and shoot other people. But are we OK with the number of people who die each year both as a result of gun violence and drunk driving?

Despite all the good work that MADD has done, a large number of people die in drunk-driving crashes every week. According to this website, the U.S. Department of Transportation states that over 13,500 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic deaths in 2022. Then they say, “These deaths were all preventable.”

If there were a U.S. airplane crash that killed more than 200 people, it would be considered a major tragedy and would long be in the national news. Except for the terrorist-caused crashes in 2001, the last U.S. airplane crash with 200+ fatalities was TWA flight 800 off the coast of New York in July 1996.

But think about it: there is now an average of about 260 deaths caused by drunk driving in the U.S. every week of the year! But these deaths don’t make more than the local news.

If MADD has, indeed, saved more than 450,000 lives in the last four decades, and I have no reason to dispute that claim, I am truly grateful and plan to continue supporting their work.

Doesn’t more need to be done, though? Will we just ignore the likelihood that far more than 260 people will be killed by drunk drivers during the first week of July? Or is that something that causes us to be/support MADD?

Combating Egocentricity

Egocentricity (=thinking of oneself as being at the center of the universe and seeing everything primarily from that perspective) is a universal human characteristic—and a persistent problem that needs to be combated. 

Explanation of Egocentricity

Babies are born self-centered. In those first weeks/months they don’t have the ability to understand the world except from their own perspective. Normal infants, though, grow to an ever-increasing awareness of the world outside themselves and as young adults outgrow much of their egocentricity.

We start life thinking about “me” and, in a healthy/happy childhood proceed to see things proudly from the standpoint of “my family,” “my community,” “my church,” “my country,” and so on. Whatever is “mine” is normative and “the best.”

(Yesterday was Father’s Day, and I wonder how many children, of any age, sent cards or other items to their fathers boldly proclaiming, “World’s Greatest [or Best] Dad!”—here is a link to numerous images saying that. Since he is my father, he must be the best!)

Unfortunately, most people never fully grow out of their egocentrism in order to see themselves and their surroundings more objectively—and more correctly. Thus, they are continually inflicted with observations/evaluations skewed by egocentric bias.

Mature people seek to combat/overcome such bias by endeavoring to understand the world from the viewpoint of other people also and not just their own. This is an ongoing issue with which we all must struggle.

Examples of Egocentricity

Consider two examples of objectionable egocentricity I have recently observed.

** Example #1 – Reason for School Shootings

Here is a meme I have seen several times on Facebook: 

This is an example of people seeing things only from their own (limited) perspective and intimating that if things were just like they experienced the rash of contemporary school shootings could be curtailed.

Such people fail to note that the countries where homicides by guns are the very lowest are countries where the percentage of Christians is also very low and where there certainly is not, or was not, daily classroom prayer and reading from the Bible.

The homicide death rate by guns per 100,000 people is 0 (zero!) in Japan and Hong Kong! As only about 2% of the citizens in Japan and around 11% in Hong Kong are Christians, the public schools in those countries most certainly do not start the day with Bible reading and (Christian) prayer—and never did.

Maybe there is some reason for mass shootings in U.S. schools (and elsewhere) other than “taking God out of our schools.”

** Example #2 – Reason for High Gas Prices

Currently, inflation is definitely a big problem in the U.S.—and some wrongly-focused politicians are now declaring that having to pay $5-6 a gallon for gasoline is a more critical issue than the serious threat to U.S. democracy seen in the insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6 last year.

Many Republican politicians—and Facebook memes, again—directly accuse President Biden’s flawed policies as being the main reason for the inflated gasoline prices in the U.S.

According to a recent report, though, on June 13 a gallon of gasoline (in U.S. dollars) costs $10.22 in Norway, $9.06 in Central African Republic, $8.39 in the U.K., $7.82 in New Zealand—and $5.19 in the U.S. It is amazing how Pres. Biden has so much influence on gas prices around the world!

Or, isn’t this just another example of how people tend to view things only from their own egocentric (or ethnocentric) perspective rather than understand matters as they really are?

Elimination of Egocentricity

Egocentricity can/will never be completely eliminated even in the most mature among us. But we all can meaningfully work toward the elimination of unacceptable egocentricity through concerted efforts to try to see things from other people’s point of view also—and to search for objective truth.

Still Pessimistic about Gun Control

The following is not what I planned (and partially wrote) for today. Rather, it is quite similar to the article I posted on Jan. 10, 2013 (see here), but it is more than just a repeat or an update. 

Less than a month after the unbelievably tragic Sandy Hook mass school shooting in Connecticut, I wrote about my staunch support for increased gun control in this country—and my serious doubts that there would be any meaningful legislation passed. And, indeed, there wasn’t.

And now in 2022 there have been mass shootings in Buffalo (N.Y.) and Uvalde (Tex.) and . . . and . . . .

While there is a small glimmer of hope that some minimal gun control legislation might soon be passed by the U.S. Congress, there is not much possibility, it seems, that there will be any bans on the sale of AR-15 type of assault weapons.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why any private citizen needs to own a high-powered assault rifle, but from what I read (here), a federal ban on such weapons “stands no chance of winning the needed 60-votes in the Senate.”

But as Eugene Robinson posted on June 6, “We’ll get less than half a loaf on gun control. We should take it.” So, yes, something is better than nothing. But I am pessimistic because of my doubts that that something will substantially reduce the mass shootings that have become so common. 

In addition to guns, alcohol is also the cause of needless deaths daily. According to USDoT, every day “about 32 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes. . . . In 2020, 11,654 people died in alcohol-impaired driving traffic deaths.” Some of them were school-aged children.

When 20 children are killed by a needless mass shooting, it is, certainly, an unspeakable tragedy. But is the pain and suffering any worse than that of the families of 20 children killed, separately, in needless drunk-driving accidents?

I assume that (probably) all my many “liberal” friends are strongly in favor of significant gun control legislation. But I also assume that maybe all of those friends, most of whom drink alcohol to varying degrees, would not support any ban on alcoholic beverages.

Again, I assume those friends would say that the problem is not alcohol but irresponsible drinking and people who break the anti-DUI laws. And to a large extent, they are probably right. But isn’t that exactly the same sort of argument the anti-gun control people widely use?

I still support widespread gun control legislation, and I firmly believe that such legislation would reduce both the number of homicides and suicides.

But even with the passage of such legislation, the number of gun deaths would likely remain high—just as the number of drunk-driving deaths is high in spite of strong anti-DUI laws and the legal drinking age being 21 (rather than 18 as it is now for assault rifles.)

Despite, or in ignorance of, the data, the general public lives with—and are seemingly not particularly upset by—the 11,600+ yearly deaths in the U.S. because of “drunk-driving crashes,” which DoT says “were all preventable.”

Perhaps that is all that can be expected about mass shootings (and all gun-related deaths) as well, despite the media mania when tragedies such as the one in Uvalde occur.

But put things in perspective: the percentage of children killed by a mass killer inside a school is really very, very small.

Since I live in Missouri, I researched the number of school deaths by shootings in the state. According to this website, only 14 people in Missouri have been shot to death at school over the past 50 years—and none of those was by a mass shooting.

In 2021 there were over 860,000 K-12 students in Missouri schools, and many of these were in the 2,200+ elementary schools. Why should so many children (or parents) be traumatized by fear of what, odds are, will never happen in their (or their children’s) classroom?

They are most likely safer there than in the family car going on a 50-mile highway trip. 

Beating Guns

For many years I have been an admirer of Shane Claiborne, author of several books and leader of “new monastic” Christians who go by the name The Simple Way in downtown Philadelphia. Last week I had the privilege of meeting Shane for the first time.

Beating Guns

Claiborne (b. 1975) is the author of The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical (2006). That was the first book of his that I read, and I was very favorably impressed by it.

He also wrote, with Chris Haw, Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals (2008). That was also an impressive book. Two years later he wrote Common Prayer: A Liturgy for Ordinary Radicals, which I have not yet read but have seen quoted often.

Mike Martin (b. 1982) is a Mennonite blacksmith from Colorado. He is the founder and Executive Director of an organization known as RAWtools. (Check out their attractive website here.)

Shane and Mike teamed up to write Beating Guns: Hope for People Who are Weary of Violence, a nearly 300-page book that was published last month. It is an attractive, challenging work worthy of serious consideration.

Beating Guns Tour

Currently, Shane and Mike are on a thirty-seven-city Beating Guns Tour. The 23^rd stop on that tour was in Kansas City, Kansas, on April 2. Their event there was held at the Rainbow Mennonite Church, where June and I are members, and it was a very engaging evening.

Here is the picture I took of Mike standing by the bus: 

And click here to see a video of Shane telling about that bus soon after they acquired it in November 2018.

The inside-the-church program was primarily an excellent presentation by Shane explaining the purpose of the Beating Guns Tour. It also featured a brief talk by Jamal Shakur who works for Kansas City in what is called the Aim4Peace program.

Outside, in the parking lot right behind the church building, they used their forge to heat the metal of a gun red hot. The metal was then placed on an anvil where several people, one after another, beat it with a hammer. Before the close of the event, the new garden tool, as you see below, was brought in for our admiration. 

Beating Guns into Garden Tools

One of my favorite sculptures was created by Arlie Regier (1931~2014), a member of Rainbow Mennonite Church. It is a “swords into plowshares” work which I wrote about (and included a picture of) in my 5/25/11 blog article.

Since there is not so much use of swords, or even plows, now, Shane & Mike’s emphasis is on guns and garden tools. While they certainly stress the problem of guns in USAmerican society, their primary opposition is to violence of all kinds.

Following the teachings of Jesus, they not only oppose the rampant violence of guns used for both homicides and suicides in this country, but they also speak out clearly and firmly against all war as well as capital punishment.

The tone of the book—and certainly the tone of the authors as they spoke to us last Tuesday evening—is not harsh. Shane and Mike don’t come across as strident or angry, but they do speak out forcefully—and also with a hopeful message.

In the words of the subtitle of their book, they, indeed, are seeking to foster “hope for people who are weary of violence.” They end their book with these words:

May we be the midwives of a better world—through our prayers, by our lives, and with our hammers.

The Case against "Demon Rum"

Many of the great 19th-century women leaders in the U.S. were against what they considered three great evils: slavery, discrimination against women (including no voting rights), and alcohol. The first two evils have largely been eradicated. But not the third.

Jane Addams, the subject of my 9/5/15 blog article, was active in the temperance movement, as was Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the main subject of my 11/10/15 article, and her close friend Susan B. Anthony.

One of the main 19^th century opponents of alcohol was Frances Willard. She is best known as the first national president of the Women’s Christian Temperance League, serving in that position from 1879 until her death in 1898.

In addition, Willard was a strong advocate of women’s suffrage, and her vision included federal aid to education, free school lunches, unions for workers, the eight-hour workday, work relief for the poor, municipal sanitation and boards of health, national transportation, strong anti-rape laws, protections against child abuse, etc.

Willard was a strong suffragette partly because she thought it would take women’s votes to pass laws against liquor. Consequently, fear that alcohol would become illegal was one of the reasons for much male opposition to giving women the right to vote.

In spite of women not being able to vote nationally, though, the Eighteenth Amendment prohibiting the production, transport, and sale of alcohol was ratified in January 1919 and went into effect a year later.  

Interestingly, the Nineteenth Amendment giving women the right to vote was ratified 19 months later.

Last Dec. 22, 2015, the Washington Post published an article titled “Americans are drinking themselves to death at record rates.” According to that article, in 2014 “more than 30,700 Americans died from alcohol-induced causes,” a 35-year high.

Moreover, that number “excludes deaths from drunk driving, other accidents, and homicides committed under the influence of alcohol. If those numbers were included the annual toll of deaths directly or indirectly caused by alcohol would be closer to 90,000.”

From that and many other sources, it seems indisputable that the consumption of alcohol has a direct causal relationship to health problems, fatal and disabling accidents, homicides, domestic violence, rapes, and other negative issues, such as financial problems for those with limited means.

Of course, some will quickly say, “But that is only when alcohol is drunk excessively or irresponsibility.” While that is probably true, who ever starts drinking with the intention of doing so excessively (except maybe temporarily) or irresponsibly?

Proponents of stricter gun control repeatedly point out that guns cause some 33,000 deaths each year in this country. But if the figure of 90,000 deaths caused by alcohol is correct, guns are not nearly as much of a problem as alcohol is. Moreover, alcohol is a worldwide program.

Even though I am a strong advocate of greater gun control, perhaps the NRA and its friends are correct: it is not guns that kill people, it is people who kill people. Is that really any different from saying that alcohol does not cause problems, it is the people who use alcohol excessively or irresponsibly who cause problems?

What is the solution to the alcohol problem? Probably not more laws. But maybe a long-term educational program such as there has been against tobacco. The detrimental effects of tobacco has been widely disseminated, including in public schools. As a result, smoking in this country has decreased drastically.

No doubt the nineteenth-century women who were opposed to the three big problems of slavery, discrimination against women, and “demon rum” would be pleased if society now took the latter problem much more seriously.

Seeking to Reduce Gun Violence

This week President Obama has announced concrete steps seeking to decrease gun violence in the U.S. Incomprehensibly, even before he announced what those steps were, his political opponents were denouncing his proposed actions.

Why, why is there so much opposition to efforts to reduce gun violence in this country? I just don’t understand it.

Yes, I understand that many people own guns and like the feeling of security they get from gun ownership.

Yes, I understand that many people think that the Second Amendment guarantees gun ownership by every American citizen (maybe with a few exceptions).

Yes, I understand that some people fear federal control and want to be free of government regulations.

But why, why is there so much opposition to the President’s efforts to reduce gun violence?

 On Monday, prior to the President’s announcement of his plans, Representative Sam Graves in his weekly email to us, his Missouri 6^th District constituents, promised that he will “aggressively oppose the President as he seeks to limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American people.”

But really, Sam, is that what the President is seeking to do?

Some right-wing rhetoric was even stronger. For example, on January 4 Fox News commentator Todd Starnes declared, “President Obama is plotting with his attorney general to get our guns.” And a little later he blatantly said, “This president ultimately wants to disarm the nation.”

Then Starnes charged that the President was “declaring war on law-abiding citizens.”

 But Graves and Starnes, as well as the Republican presidential candidates who also ripped into the President’s proposed plans before even listening to them, are incorrect and (willfully?) misleading in their charges.

Unfortunately, many people heard only the criticism by the President’s political enemies rather than listening to what the President actually said.

In his Tuesday speech, as well as in his town hall meeting yesterday evening, the President emphasized shoring up holes in the federal background check system for gun purchases, kick-starting so-called smart gun technology, and devoting millions of additional dollars to mental health services.

That certainly doesn’t sound like infringing upon the Second Amendment. And Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S., has publicly stated that the President’s proposals are “consistent with the Second Amendment.”

In his Jan. 5 talk, the President stated his position very clearly: “Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn’t been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation. . . . this is not a plot to take away everybody’s guns. You pass a background check; you purchase a firearm.” 

He went on to state that the steps he is taking “will actually lead to a smoother process for law-abiding gun owners, a smoother process for responsible gun dealers, a stronger process for protecting the public from dangerous people.”

Oliver Munday, New York Times 

 The editorial board of the New York Times explained in a Jan. 4 article that most of the executive actions of the President “are aimed at making it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to get their hands on a firearm.”

They also emphasized that his actions are what even gun-rights activists want: “keeping guns from people likely to use them in crimes, and enforcing gun laws already on the books.”

That sounds like a reasonable plan and something Congress should have done long ago, but didn’t—and still doesn’t seem to want to.

So my perplexity remains, Why is there so much opposition to the President’s efforts to reduce gun violence? It just doesn’t make any sense.

Ebola and Gun Violence

The media has been inundated with news, and fears, about Ebola for many weeks now.

That disease is certainly a frightful one, and every effort should be made to keep it from spreading. Unfortunately, it is still spreading in West Africa, and additional efforts are badly needed to quell that dreaded disease there.

In the U.S., the fear of Ebola spreading has been great—and greatly politicized.

In spite of the fact that no U.S. citizen has died from Ebola, some have charged that the White House has been incompetent in dealing with this serious matter and needs to be censured because of the failure to keep American citizens safe.

It certainly was a grave concern when the two nurses who had treated the Liberian man with Ebola in Dallas last month came down with the disease, though both nurses have recovered.

Others have been quarantined and treated for Ebola, but, to this point, it has not spread, and with vigilance it won’t. But widespread fear lingers, and that fear has done more harm in our country than Ebola to this point.

In contrast to all the concern about Ebola, there generally seems to be little concern for those who are killed day after day with guns, which are still largely unregulated.

For example, on October 26 there were two shooting deaths in Kansas City. A ten-year-old girl was shot to death while standing in front of her house. Earlier that day a 39-year-old man was shot and killed in the Westport area.

If anyone, anywhere in the country had died of Ebola, it would have been national news and people would be in an uproar. But two shooting deaths in one city on one day are just local news items—and so common that except for the grieving families few pay much attention to those stories.

In recent years, there have been more than 11,000 firearm homicides a year in the U.S.—more than 30 a day all year long. In addition, more than 600 people a year, almost two each day, are accidentally shot and killed.

Despite these staggering numbers, there is not much talk now about gun control.

The U.S. Surgeon General should be at the head of the efforts to deal with the threat of Ebola. But the U.S. doesn’t have a Surgeon General at this time.

Almost a year ago, Dr. Vivek Murthy was nominated to become the nation’s Surgeon General, but he has still not been confirmed.

Why? Mainly because the National Rifle Association has expressed strong opposition to the President’s nominee.

The failure of the Senate to approve that nomination to this point seems to be directly related to the fact that Murthy several times in 2012 and 2013 tweeted that he believes in more gun control and that he considers that to be a healthcare issue.

Because of their opposition, the NRA, which scores policymakers’ records on gun rights, has stated that it would lower their grade on senators who voted for Murthy, causing some seeking re-election to lose needed votes.

This indicates that the gun lobby is still senselessly strong.

How can so many Americans have such high concern about the threat of a disease that has been held under control in this country and yet have such a low concern about more control of guns that continue to take so many lives all across the country?

Lord, give us more wisdom.

What are Republicans Thinking?

This article is not about Republicans in general. Rather it is particularly about the Republicans in the U.S. Congress.

The record of these Republican Congresspersons over the last three years has been quite consistent: they have almost unanimously opposed nearly everything the President has proposed.

There has always been political division in the country, but perhaps there has never been as much polarity as there is now.

In the Senate, the Democrats became so frustrated last week that they even used the “nuclear option” and changed the rules for approving nominations for executive and judicial positions.

That was not necessarily a good thing. But neither is the ceaseless obstructionism that led to that extreme, and possibly unwise, decision.

In particular, I am raising the question about what are Republican lawmakers thinking in their ongoing, obdurate opposition to positions that the large majority of U.S. citizens, including Republicans, are for.

Consider four such issues: (1) legislation to outlaw hiring/firing discrimination against gays/lesbians, (2) immigration reform, (3) background checks for those who want to purchase guns, and (4) raising the minimum wage.

(1) On Nov. 7, the Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) by a vote of 64-32. (One of the negative votes was by Republican Senator Blunt of Mo.) But at this point, Rep. Boehner has refused to bring the bill up for a vote in the Republican dominated House.

A recent Gallup poll found that nationwide ENDA is supported by 63% of the citizens nationwide, with only 31% opposing it. Even among Republicans, there were 58% in favor and only 36% in opposition.

(2) Back in June, the Senate passed an immigration bill by a 68-32. (The negative votes were all by Republicans, including Senator Blunt.)

But it has yet to be approved by the House, even though earlier this year a CNN poll showed that 84% of the public (78% of the Republicans) backs a program that would allow undocumented workers to stay in the United States and apply for citizenship if they have been in the country for several years, have a job, and pay back taxes.

(3) The tragic school shootings at Sandy Hook were nearly a year ago. There were outcries across the nation for more stringent gun control. In April the Senate bill to extend background checks received 54 votes—but was killed by a Republican filibuster.

A subsequent Gallup poll then indicated that 65% of Americans thought that Senate bill should have passed; only 29% thought it shouldn’t have.

(4) Back in March, Senator Harkin (D-IA) proposed the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, calling for an increase from the current $7.25 to $10.10. This month after passing ENDA, the Senate began to consider Sen. Harkin’s bill along with other possibilities.

This month, a Gallup poll indicated that U.S. citizens favor raising the minimum wage to at least $9.00 by a margin of 76% to 22% (and 58% to 39% among Republicans). But the Senate has yet to come up with anything that they think will be able to clear an expected Republican filibuster.

So here are four hot issues with overwhelming public support for change but which are opposed by Republicans in Congress—which leads again to my question: What can they be thinking?

And how can they claim to be representing the citizens of the country when they keep opposing what a large majority of the citizens are for?

Of course another pertinent question is this: Why do people keep electing lawmakers who do not vote according to the desires of the majority of the American people?