​The year before she hit it big in the action flick “Speed,” Sandra Bullock played a police officer in the Sylvester Stallone/Wesley Snipes futuristic crime movie “Demolition Man.”  Criminal Snipes and policeman Stallone are cryogenically imprisoned in 1996 after Stallone’s allegedly rogue efforts to catch Snipes result in civilian fatalities.  Fast forward almost forty years to the utopian San Angeles, when Stallone is thawed to catch a reanimated Snipes after he escapes from a parole hearing. 
 
In one scene, Snipes attempts to construct a gun as lightly-armed police officers close in to apprehend him.  He proceeds to wipe out the entire squad.  “We’re not trained to handle this kind of violence!” one officer exclaims.
 
This comes to mind every time the inevitable gun-control debate rages after a mass shooting.  Who wouldn’t want a society so peaceful and free of violence that not even law enforcement officers carry lethal weapons?  Unfortunately, that’s not the society we live in, but we’re closer to it than we’re led to believe.
 
According to the Pew Research Center, violent crime has “fallen sharply,” between 49% and 74% over the last generation.  Moreover, after cresting in the 1970s and 1980s, the murder rate has halved to around 5 people per 100,000 citizens.  Regrettably, this type of news doesn’t get ratings and is incompatible with opportunistic political narratives.
 
It also provides inadequate fodder for us to blow off steam. 
 
Instead, one tribe exploits the tragedy to insult the spirituality of the other by ripping the supposed fecklessness of “thoughts & prayers,” while the other tribe retorts with assertions of naiveté.  We’re both guilty of this.  Less hotheaded dialogue is more likely to build a consensus behind possible enhancements to our security.
 
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia allow judges, via so-called “red-flag” laws, to order authorities to confiscate firearms from individuals deemed to be a threat to the safety of family and/or law enforcement.  The problem is that this runs afoul of the “due process” clause of the U.S. Constitution. 
 
Tighten that up by allowing the gun owner to defend herself before permitting the seizure of her property, along with enacting “criminal penalties for anyone bringing false accusations,” as the Wall Street Journal suggested recently, and perhaps more support could be garnered for this safeguard.
 
We could discuss other proposals, but the way we all tend to talk to each other concerns us nearly as much.  This is something we feel should be addressed, starting with words like that, “should.”
 
We’ve talked to our daughters before (six between us) about “needs,” “wants,” etc.: “You don’t need the latest smartphone; you want the latest smartphone.”  Some folks seem peculiarly comfortable instructing other adults in similar fashion: “No one should own a semi-automatic rifle.  Why do you need one?” 
 
We’re entitled to our respective opinions, and to live life by our own personal set of values.  When did we become so presumptuous though, as to impose them on others? 
 
By the same token, perhaps calling into question people’s ability to control their emotions after such slaughters is out of bounds as well.  Who isn’t saddened when the news breaks?  The most heinous amongst these unspeakable acts, when the victims are children, put every loving parent on edge when their phone flashes a subsequent news alert. 
 
Similarly, there’s a disregard for those who connect the dots between something like the precipitous slide in Venezuelan society, and the part of the second amendment that was intended as a check against an oppressive national government. 
 
The once-prosperous South American nation banned the private sale of guns in 2012 ostensibly to address “criminal violence.”  That didn’t work, serving only to leave the general populace “defenseless.” 
 
Incidentally, those who push for more “sensible gun control” tend to be the same ones who support politicos who favor greater taking of personal property and more restrictions on individual liberty.
 
Once triggered, the pro-gun crowd will respond with denunciations like “you’re weak,” “you’re a coward,” “you can’t protect your own family,” and the all-CAPS cycle goes back into full-swing.  When did we become so brazen as to discard decorum just because the text on the screen is coming from hundreds of miles away? 
 
We’ve been around this block too many times. 
 
After we’re done converting our passions into a withering fire of social media posts, we fall back on outsourcing our individual conclusions to ready-made demagogues eager to translate these sentiments into votes. 
 
These master panderers are willing to do so regardless if it means criminalizing some of the most law-abiding citizens, nevermind that the rifles currently in their crosshairs are used in many fewer homicides than handguns.  Moreover, it’s difficult to tell whether these so-called leaders are ignorant of the law, or if their motives exist on a slippery slope given how wide of a net they use to classify “semiautomatic.”
 
While these cyber-combatants and their (prospective) representatives are going at it, we’re sitting here wondering if Americans have simply become lazy about our personal safety. 
 
We know background checks, even when properly executed, are not terribly effective.  At our most logical core, we know gun-free zones are target-rich environments, and ever since we’ve been watching cops-and-robbers shows, we know, by definition, that criminals do not follow the law.  They’re going to get what they want, whether it’s banned weapons or materials to make a bomb.
 
We can’t even fully rely on the police.  The Supreme Court affirmed as much, 7-2, when they declared in Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) that the cops have no “constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.”  We are our own first line of defense. 
 
Yet, as the manufacture of firearms and applications for concealed permits have both risen in recent years, the percentage of ownership among American households has trended down for more than a generation. 
 
We’re not saying everyone should own a firearm.  They are clearly intimidating and dangerous objects.  Just like knives or chemicals, mishandling them can cause serious injury, and obviously death. 
 
It’s not a stretch though, to believe that there is room at the margins to add a few folks with an “if not me, then who?” attitude.  
 
All of us would be scared beyond measure to be in the middle of something so terrifying, but there are some of us who couldn’t live with ourselves if we didn’t attempt to thwart the attack, or run headlong toward the danger in order to save others.    
 
“I grab as many (kids) as possible because that’s what I was trained to do,” said Private First Class Glendon Oakley of his heroics during the recent shooting in El Paso.
 
There are no guarantees in life, particularly in the midst of such a chaotic situation.  However, if more citizens found “if not me, then who?” within themselves, it’s hard to argue we wouldn’t be safer.
 
While fear would naturally be our first instinct, take a minute right now to imagine what would be at stake.  What is the shooter threatening?  Lives are at risk, some of whom may be your family.  When someone is a menace to your child’s survival, what is your attitude toward that person? 
 
A little more than fifteen years after “Speed,” Sandra Bullock won an Oscar for portraying just such a parent.
 
No longer in the idyllic haven of 2032 San Angeles, where “anything that is not good for you is … illegal,” she was staring down a gang-banger in “The Blind Side,” on his turf, after he threatened her son, assuring him that she’s “always packin’.”  No doubt a little nervous and fearful during this confrontation, there was a noticeable tinge of anger in her tone. 
 
A similar mix could be what’s driving El Paso residents in droves to concealed-carry training, and why churches are beefing up security measures for parishioners.  Maybe we’d be better served turning our ire away from each other, and channeling this fear and anger toward utilizing this constitutional right we are fortunate to have.  

Like most kids, mine clamor for their own smartphone.  If they keep their grades up and help out around the house, they’re more likely to get one.

Once in hand, they’re prone to download game apps like Aquapark, Minecraft, etc.  Music and/or social media apps are probably the extent of any overlap they have with their old man.  Instead, mine is filled with news and reference apps, including the Declaration of Independence (DoI) and the U.S. Constitution.

The exceptional guideline embodied in our founding documents comes to mind when reading particular defenses of socialism, like those put forth by writer David Cay Johnston, and more locally by Peggy Rodriguez-Stover.   

They invariably point to public libraries, fire departments, social security, etc. as “socialist-based programs Americans have benefitted from” for years.  Yet, there’s always one glaring inaccuracy; many of them are local in nature.  Our Founding Fathers knew that whatever could be handled at the state and/or local level, should be.  Hence, the 10th amendment.   

Regardless, it’s disputable whether or not any of these functions are socialist in the first place. 

Merriam-Webster defines socialism as “government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”  At best, these ubiquitous examples are simply provisions of public goods.  At worst, they represent inefficient, inferior government alternatives to private sector offerings.

Even though folks like Mr. Johnston brand the police as socialist, law enforcement is one such public good: it’s available for all to use, but usage by one does not mean another can’t also use it.  This accessibility makes it nearly impossible for a private company to supply the consequential demand. 

“While serving as the senior advisor of all police activities in the eastern provinces of Afghanistan, I witnessed a complete lack of law and order, and police who were extremely corrupt,” Col. Jason B. Blevins told me upon his retirement in June.

This separates us from such countries.  Add in the court system, and the groundwork is laid for prosperity via property rights and contract enforcement.

National defense is another public good, and at least here Ms. Stover is on solid jurisdictional ground.

Nevertheless, “it’s not socialist,” Blevins added, “but a service that provides for the ‘common defense,’” one of the primary obligations of any national government, and accordingly one of the very first duties cited in our constitution.
 
Assisting those who have been wounded serving in that capacity, and/or acclimating them back into the society they defended, essentially makes the Veterans Administration an extension of that commitment.

Nearly every other program she mentions, and some currently being proposed, is either part of the welfare state, or falls within the purview of states and/or municipalities.  Nonetheless, the quality of all of them would be improved by the injection of (more) free market discipline.

The unwillingness of congress to make logical reforms to update social security is merely the rotten icing on top of a crumbling cake that is regularly, clearly outperformed by the stock market.  In this age of readily accessible index funds, there’s little reason we should not be able to recoup some or all of our earnings that have been taken away, so that we can bolster and secure a more comfortable retirement. 

Even though education merits public support in the name of equality of opportunity, that’s not justification for government to run the whole show. 

Not only would redirecting the financial responsibility and selection process to parents be the proper thing to do, the subsequent competition to serve this demand would most likely result in higher quality and lower costs. 

Higher up that ladder, we’ve seen in recent years the fallout from federal government overreach into students’ “receiving an education at a public university”: collective debt levels nearing $2 trillion, encouraging individual students to go hundreds of thousands of dollars into the red, to earn degrees of questionable marketability. 

If community college systems want to flirt with skewing incentives, that’s their prerogative.  It’s doubtful th
ough, that this is what citizens from South Carolina, to Illinois, to Utah have in mind when it comes to the “pooling of resources.”

Unmentioned by Ms. Rodriguez-Stover is the one constitutional function that arguably comes closest to socialism: the U.S. Postal Service.  Considering it has performed so poorly over the years as to attract private competition, perhaps the omission is not surprising.

Holding these examples up as selling points is not only questionable, but their lackluster results provide little comfort for more of the same, irrespective of what you want to call it.
​
Fortunately, my daughters can pull the constitution and DoI apps down from the cloud and do their part to remedy the generally sorry grasp we have of our brilliant federalist system.  Maybe then we can take Ben Franklin up on his oft-cited challenge when asked what kind of government we have: “a republic, if you can keep it.”

Every few months I meet up with some friends at a central Texas location for a BBQ lunch.  The conversation usually revolves around politics, history, economics and the like.  Last time, one of them quipped “I learned my history from Iron Maiden.”  That’s not the first time I’ve heard that, whether tongue-in-cheek or not. 

Last May a buddy of mine came down from Austin to check out Hatebreed’s 25th anniversary tour.  Opening the show were relative newcomers Skeletal Remains, Prong, who made their mark with the 1994 tune “Snap Your Fingers, Snap Your Neck,” hardcore/thrash pioneers Agnostic Front, and one of the original death metal bands, Obituary.

We knew of most of the openers from back in the day (he and I created one-half of a wire sculpture band in high school: he made the guitarist, and I did a drum-set ala 1988 Charlie Benante of Anthrax), and I’m a huge Hatebreed fan, purveyors of the most inspirational lyrics in metal. 

On this night however, I left beaten into submission by Obituary. 

I promptly immersed myself in their world, buying five of their albums and learning to play three of their songs on bass.  I’d stay up late on weekends to watch their videos and concert clips.  I couldn’t help but notice how much fun it appeared they were having, particularly lead guitarist Kenny Andrews, who seems to always have a smile on his face.  Ironically enough, that led my thoughts to my daughters and my classes.

Their mother and I have laid many toys, books, gadgets, etc. before them to see what might snag their interest.  We’ve encouraged them in hobbies, projects, extracurricular activities about which they might be keen.  Now, with two in high school, we’re starting to chitchat about possible career paths. 

They have proven to be high-achievers, setting a great example for their two younger sisters.  We hasten to let them know that they have more choices than simply heading straight for a university.

They know that joining the military is a viable option.  They also know they could support themselves, even if temporarily, with something less than a bachelor’s degree.  One key to making that work that I remind them of ad nauseum is to spurn debt and live within your means, traits that can’t be lost on a metal musician. 

My preferred sub-genre is thrash, bands like Slayer, Exodus, Metallica et al.  While death metal music can be impressively intricate and complex, pulled off with awesome speed, the vocals are sometimes difficult to digest.  That could be the reason for the ceiling on its commercial success, not to mention the often gruesome lyrical content.  This explains why my buddy and I were both blown away by Obituary.

“This doesn’t sound so death-y as it does thrashy, doomy, and a little groovy,” we said to each other.  Moreover, John Tardy’s vocals lacked the clichéd “Cookie Monster” nature of many death metal vocalists, but are filled with all the rage, fire and full-throatedness that have made Death Angel’s Mark Osegueda and Anthrax’s Joey Belladonna a couple of my favorites.

It occurred to me only recently how modest are their lifestyles.  When you see a band take control on stage, and you’re surrounded by hundreds, if not thousands of other fans, it’s easy to think otherwise.

“I worked for almost my entire career, and it wasn’t until recently that the band has been so busy that this is all I do,” Obituary vocalist John Tardy recently told me via email.

He’s not the only one who does well to make ends meet.

A couple years ago, Cannibal Corpse vocalist George “Corpsegrinder” Fisher took the website Metal Injection along with him on one of his trips to Target to show them how he bargain shops.  When his lead guitarist Patrick O’Brien’s house caught fire last year, the news coverage showed a middle-class neighborhood that struck me as similar to the one in which my sister and I were raised.

Fortunately for these two, their band is based in Tampa, FL., where the cost of living is almost half what it is in the Bay Area, where former Testament bassist Greg Christian helped form that band.    

Christian has raised a stink more than once about his most recent departure in early 2014, calling the conditions “disgusting,” in which he was treated like little more than a “stage prop.”  Oddly lost on him is the fact that vocalist Chuck Billy and rhythm guitarist Eric Peterson “own the band,” having stuck it out during metal’s dog days of the 1990s.  They kept the enterprise afloat when bands like Exodus, Death Angel and Obituary temporarily bowed out.
They earned the right to set the terms to which Christian once agreed.

Alas, in this industry, ownership might provide only marginal benefits.  As Death Angel lead guitarist Rob Cavestany, who given his tenure presumably also has an ownership stake with Osegueda, told Billboard earlier this year that it’s not a breeze for his wife when he goes on tour, because she has to “be a single parent” while working “full-time.” 

Being in a metal band is not a path to riches, particularly if your band name doesn’t include “Sabbath” or “’Knot.”  Tardy is cognizant of this reality. 

Though he, brother/drummer John and rhythm guitarist Trevor Peres “are the owners” of the band and “make decisions together,” they understand incentives, and likely value continuity. 

“We all (including bassist Terry Butler) come home from tour with the same amount of money.  I’ve seen what happens to bands too many times when things aren’t equal.”

Some keep busy when their main gig is between recording and/or tours.

Similarly situated as a returning original member of Testament is lead guitarist Alex Skolnick.  After leaving the band in the early 1990s, he played with various other acts before diving full-time into jazz.  He returned to the band, along with  Christian, in the mid-2000s.

In addition to still shredding with Testament, Skolnick still plays jazz on the side, and has also hooked up with founding Megadeth bassist David Ellefson, from whom Christian could probably learn something. 

When he returned to Megadeth eight years after a fallout with frontman Dave Mustaine, he did so as a salaried employee.  One of the most grounded players in the genre, he recently said the key to his longevity is “know(ing) my place.” 

One benefit is freedom “in doing music with … other people.”  In addition to his Altitudes + Attitude project with Anthrax bassist Frank Bello, he also plays in Metal Allegiance, a group in which he has made two albums with an assortment of metal vocalists, bassist Mark Menghi, former Dream Theater drummer Mike Portnoy, and the aforementioned Skolnick.

It’s no wonder so-called supergroups fill in the gaps of activity of primary bands, and not just for “salaried members.”  Killer Be Killed counts Sepultura (former), Soulfy and Cavalera Conspiracy founder Max Cavalera among its ranks, alongside founding Mastodon bassist Troy Sanders.  Peterson has recorded three albums with his own Dragonlord.

Some branch out beyond making other music, like Hatebreed frontman Jamey Jasta’s podcast, Billy’s management company or Benante’s line of coffee. 

Unknown is whether or not Christian had/has any side-gigs.

I have heard however, interviewers put forth the theory of whether or not the presence of a fall back plan might possibly dull an urgency of going all-in to make it in the business.  Does it inhibit artists from producing the best possible product?

Tardy disabuses any such notion.

“I would tell anyone that wanted to play in a band, or create any art for that matter, to have a backup plan.  It’s a hard, unfair, unpredictable business.”

Another key is frugality.

Jason Newsted played bass for Metallica, one of the biggest bands in the world, but was famously caught on video “making sandwiches” backstage “because he’s too cheap to order room service.”
 
“You’re absolutely right I’m a cheapskate,” he responded.  “I’ve got plans for those millions (we’re going to make).” 

It allowed him to leave one of the most plum gigs in the business when it became untenable, and subsequently pursue other endeavors for which he previously lacked the time and freedom.

Granted, that is an outsized example, but it can also be achieved by eating in, performing your own household and auto maintenance, regularly socking away a chunk of income, etc.  In this case, it also means setting up and tuning your own gear before a show, which I watched Obituary do in September. 

These are the types of habits that provide people with maximum flexibility and control over the course of their life.  They’re ready when opportunity arises, or if they want to return to school, or attempt to turn a hobby into a career, etc.  It’s also what prevents them from being stuck in an undesirable job they hold down merely to service debt incurred chasing short-term satisfaction.  

Since I’ve reconnected with him twenty-five years after high school, I’ve learned that my buddy checks off a few of these boxes: he earned an associate’s degree; he lived in a camper he built while saving for a house; he takes on a second job occasionally; and, he sublets to a roommate from time to time.  The only debt he carries is a mortgage, and for his truck (itself a replacement for a car that he drove for seventeen years).

All the while he’s been gigging around Austin in various bands.  Though he’s written and recorded songs, he’s realistic about the odds of “hitting it big.”  Nonetheless, he’s set himself up to devote most of his free time and resources doing what he loves, keeping his chops up.

When I ask Tardy if he has any regrets knowing what he knows now, he confirms “I’m glad I stuck with what we did.  We have been really, really fortunate and have gotten to see so much of the world, made so many friends and gotten to share the stage with so many cool bands.”
 
One of the very first things we talk about in my macro classes is specialization; finding what you have a knack for and focusing on it.  Incorporate some training and (continuing) education, and you develop a comparative advantage, where few people can match what you do, and the value of it necessarily rises.
 
When I extend this lesson to my daughters, I tell them that sometimes there is some overlap between that and doing what you really enjoy.  If there isn’t, or your tastes change, capitalizing on your comparative advantage and good habits can free you up to make a change.
 
All too often we hear about or feel bad morale at work.  Power-hungry politicians like to point the finger of blame at “the Man/boss” as the source of our problems or animosity, when most times that person is the reason that job is even there to be had.  Very rarely do these politicos prescribe the correct medicine; holding up a mirror.  Newsflash: that doesn’t get votes.  For the most part, where we are in life is a function of choices we’ve made, or our failure to break vicious cycles.  

I told my two oldest daughters recently that between high school and their early thirties is their opportunity to make their mark, pave their path.  Once children (John Tardy, Peres and Butler are fathers) come along, our priorities necessarily change, so “don’t tie yourself down with bad habits until they do.”
​
They and their sisters will probably roll their eyes when they read this, assuming they read it at all.  Then again, they hear me preach these principles all the time.  My parents on the other hand, who gave me weird, sometimes mildly terrified looks when they heard this loud, abrasive music coming from my room, will be a harder sell trying to convince them that metal is an example of good, happy living.