With a few days until the release of Vice President Biden's committee recommendations regarding gun violence, I thought we should take a look at the 2nd Amendment and talk about its intent and purpose. There's likely going to be a whole bunch of mouth foaming, chest thumping and downright moonbat nuttery after Tuesday so let's examine the center piece of the right to bear arms. After that, I will offer my recommendations for the path I think we should pursue regarding gun safety.
Here is the 2nd Amendment:
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.
Let's talk about the first part ("a well regulated militia"). Alexander Hamilton explains the meaning of this part of the 2nd Amendment quite well in Federalist Paper #29.
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia"
This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law. Essentially, what Hamilton is describing here is the National Guard, the modern day equivalent of a militia system. He is very careful to point out, however, that the national authority has the power over this organization, not the states themselves. After all, it is the federal government, not the states, that are responsible for providing national security. He concludes this paper by dismissing concerns about tyranny (let's remember that for a little later).
The next part of the 2nd Amendment talks about the right of the people to keep and bear arms and how that shall not be infringed. Some Constitutional scholars have taken this to mean as part of the militia but not as an individual. I disagree. It's clearly the individual and it doesn't matter whether or not they are in the military. This would be the part of the amendment that says that people (as a collective or individuals) have a right to defend themselves. Exactly what they are defending themselves against is where the problems begin.
The chief complaint about the Right is that they must have access to whatever they deem necessary to defend themselves. This includes the weapons of war that a soldier would use. In looking at Hamilton's explanation of the 2nd Amendment above, it's clear that he (and the founding fathers) did not want clusters of mini armies around the United States. He wanted a national army to preside over the local militia and provide the people with basic defense. The key word here is basic.
Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing the majority for DC v Heller, said
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.(54)
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our [majority] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (54-55)
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [Precedent says] that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time' [the Second Amendment was approved]. ... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons. (55)
Scalia reiterated this point on Fox News last summer.
Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.”
Here we see a conservative justice leaving the door wide open for a qualitative analysis of the 2nd Amendment.
With violent crime on the decline, I often wonder why the gun rights folks would be so worried about domestic types of violence that they require the modern day equivalent of a head ax. Why do they need multiple guns and ones with magazines that hold 30 bullets or more if there are less people, not more, that are victims of violent crime? The scenarios they come up with as possibilities are so unlikely that I honestly have to laugh. I mean, they don't all live in Compton or Cabrini Green!
So, we all know now (thanks to Alex Jones' mouth foam on steroids the other day) the real reason why they want their own arsenals: it's because they think our government is tyrannical. They view Democrats and the president as illegitimate holders of office who are just waiting (any day now...) to institute a totalitarian regime and send us all to re-education camps. Many like Kevin Baker think it's going on right now and their guns are the only things that are preventing a "full" takeover. In short, Barack Obama is King George and 1776 will commence again.
Here's a little hint for them: if the federal government was really the fascist regime they say it is, they'd be hog tied right now, sans guns, and being forced fed, Clockwork Orange style, Karl Marx and gay porn. Because the simple fact is, folks, the government has much bigger and far more numerous weapons than your average gun rights person. Remember, our armed forces have more firepower than the next twenty countries combined.
And many on the Right know this because they support the funding of this every day.
Thus, we come to the ultimate irony that is the gun lobby. They scream loud and hard about tyrannical governments but they shout with equal force about how defense spending is rock solid Constitutional. So, in essence, they are supporting (with gusto) the same "tyrannical government" they fear will come some day to take their guns away...fueling it more and more every year with sophisticated weapons. In essence, they are empowering their "enemies" so their position makes no sense to me.
Now, to be fair, there are a growing number of libertarians (a few who post here like juris) who would like to see the defense department gutted. Many of my present and former students who are of a libertarian bend (there are quite a number of them, btw) want the same thing. At least they aren't hypocrites but they are wrong about the government. Tyranny is not going to happen here for a number of reasons. Our government is not a monolith. We have a brilliant system of checks and balances that will not allow a situation that would require insurrection. This lack of true central power is evident as DC is filled with a whole host of mini power bases who all struggle with one another on a daily basis. The end result is that not much gets done. If anything, the government is sedimentary which is a different kind of danger and one which we feel the consequences of every day. Of course, this is why shootings like Sandy Hook and Aurora have taken place.
So, I'm pleased to see that the plan that the Biden Group is going to release is going to be comprehensive recommendations that bring together all of the elements that are needed to lessen the possibility of this happening again while, at the same time, maintaining the right to bear arms. It's not going to simply be a matter of limiting the type of weapon or having a military grade classification of some weapons. It's going to mean background checks on every single gun purchase in America. No more loopholes for gun shows or internet sales. It's going to mean regular safety checks and mental health exams as well as demonstrating need to own certain types of weapons. Now that we know the profile of these shooters, we can make every effort to ensure that people like Adam Lanza never be allowed to have guns. This is where the mental health element comes in and, folks, it has to be taken seriously with a national effort to remove the stigma of having and seeking treatment for these sorts of problems.
With all of this in mind, here are my action items that would enable us as a nation to take giant steps towards solving this problem.
1. Vastly improve mental health in this country from a federal level all the way down to a community level. Launch a multi-pronged campaign to remove the stigma of talking about this and aggressively encourage young men who fit this profile to seek out help.
2. Universal background checks for every single person buying a gun at any time. Background checks are common in just about everything these days (getting a job, apt, buying a house or car) so there should be no problem requiring everyone to do this. No more gun show or internet loopholes. Private sales are also included here. Stiff penalties for those who break this law.
3. Classify weapons like the Bushmaster as military grade and require those who wish to own it to go through more rigorous screening. This system should be modeled after the Israel paradigm. This will likely cause mouth foaming on the part of gun rights folks. This is when their paranoia, laziness, irresponsibility and insecurity need to be exposed. Their nervousness about showing their moonbat too much in public is evidence enough that they know they are in the very small minority on this one. In short, we need more national interviews with folks like Alex Jones:)
4. A national tracking system for the movement and sale of guns. Few on the right whine about this when it comes to tracking Muslims or how much Sudafed people buy. This can help law enforcement catch criminals in a more timely fashion.
5. Armed police officers in every school. This is already true of many high schools but this should extend to junior high and grade schools as well. Funding, of course, is lacking in this department along with man power so it may have to be, at least at the outset, that increased patrols serve the need for the time being.
6. Make gun trafficking, giving a gun to a minor, and having a gun near or in a school a felony. In short, zero tolerance.
7. Step up prosecution of criminals who try to buy guns and crack down hard on rogue gun dealers.
8. Have regular gun buy back events and offer large amounts of cash for weapons that are military grade and clips above 10 bullets.
Obviously, this is not an all-encompassing list but it's a start. Note the absence of a two items:
1. An assault weapons ban or a ban on high ammunition clips. One of these or both will likely be in Biden's proposal on Tuesday. Not only is not a good idea politically but it won't have any sort of measurable effect other than piss people off who can marginalized and exposed for their nuttery in other ways. It's important to note, as I have above, that such a ban would not be unconstitutional, as Justice Scalia explained above. Further, the notion that all guns (rifles, shotguns, handguns) are going to be taken away after Newton is silly. It's not going to happen.
2. Banning gun free zones. The only people that should have guns in schools are police or trained security personnel. Allowing teachers, staff, or an Alex Jones type parent to carry a gun into a school is not a good idea. My reason for this is that I simply don't trust people. As I always say, it's not the guns, it's the people, specifically Americans. They suck with guns and have proven themselves to be massively irresponsible with them.
At the end of the day, I don't think that all of these ideas are perfect nor will they entirely solve the problem. That's the caricature that the Right uses to paint the left and then when things don't fall together so neatly (as they often do in life), they can play the adolescent blame game and capitalize on people's ignorance and fear. They have nothing themselves and it's far easier to be a critic than actually have the balls to put something forward.
The items on my list are meant to be a beginning down a path that will likely be a long process. Guns are not the reason why our society suffers so much violence. It's the people and our culture.
It's time for both to change.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
Happy!
Get used to a new word for 2013: reshoring.
Conventional wisdom says that American jobs are flying like crazy over to China. But a recent piece in the Christian Science Monitor says otherwise.
There's no official tally of the number of jobs returning, but Harry Moser, director of the Reshoring Initiative, which aims to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States, estimates that 50,000 jobs have returned in the past three years. He bases his estimate on a close read of the media and on reports his organization receives. If that number is accurate, reshoring would account for 12 percent of the manufacturing jobs the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports returned to the American economy since 2010.
The Boston Consulting Group, a global management consulting firm, in a September report projected that returned manufacturing could bring 5 million new jobs by 2020 and add $90 billion in US exports to the economy.
Wow.
Why is this happening?
Rising wages in China, unpredictable supply-chain problems, oil prices, and the risk of intellectual property theft are making manufacturers more wary of producing overseas, analysts say.
That's the beauty of the free market, in this case the labor market. Eventually, workers start to demand more money and everything evens out as the labor market adjusts in its growth. But this isn't even the best part.
It's not just that it's getting more expensive to produce overseas. It's also getting cheaper to produce back at home. "It's the shale gas revolution," says Kevin Swift, chief economist and managing director of the American Chemistry Council. "There are low-cost, abundant sources of energy [here] now." Mr. Swift says that's a game changer for his industry: "We were being written off as being noncompetitive. It's completely changed. There's significant investment on the books ... 50 [planned] projects valued at over $40 billion."
Yes, indeed. Things are looking up for our country and it makes me quite happy!
Conventional wisdom says that American jobs are flying like crazy over to China. But a recent piece in the Christian Science Monitor says otherwise.
There's no official tally of the number of jobs returning, but Harry Moser, director of the Reshoring Initiative, which aims to bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States, estimates that 50,000 jobs have returned in the past three years. He bases his estimate on a close read of the media and on reports his organization receives. If that number is accurate, reshoring would account for 12 percent of the manufacturing jobs the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports returned to the American economy since 2010.
The Boston Consulting Group, a global management consulting firm, in a September report projected that returned manufacturing could bring 5 million new jobs by 2020 and add $90 billion in US exports to the economy.
Wow.
Why is this happening?
Rising wages in China, unpredictable supply-chain problems, oil prices, and the risk of intellectual property theft are making manufacturers more wary of producing overseas, analysts say.
That's the beauty of the free market, in this case the labor market. Eventually, workers start to demand more money and everything evens out as the labor market adjusts in its growth. But this isn't even the best part.
It's not just that it's getting more expensive to produce overseas. It's also getting cheaper to produce back at home. "It's the shale gas revolution," says Kevin Swift, chief economist and managing director of the American Chemistry Council. "There are low-cost, abundant sources of energy [here] now." Mr. Swift says that's a game changer for his industry: "We were being written off as being noncompetitive. It's completely changed. There's significant investment on the books ... 50 [planned] projects valued at over $40 billion."
Yes, indeed. Things are looking up for our country and it makes me quite happy!
Affirmative
There are so many things with which I agree in Mark McKinnon's recent piece over at the Daily Beast I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with his central question.
My question to Republican gun enthusiasts is: How would anything being proposed in any way impact what you do now with your guns? Or, is it that you are just hostage to the NRA talking points?
Hostage, indeed. I find the griping that goes on about the left exploiting the media after Newton to be a steaming pile of shit considering the amount of money being made off of the bullet ridden bodies of little children by the NRA and gun manufacturers. Hell, they're bragging about it!. The point seems to be lost on the gun rights folks the goal of sensible people is not to make money but to actually solve the problems we face with violence in our culture.
Thankfully, the American public knows this and that's why there have been 400,000 people that have joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns since Newton. Their main goal is to simply have a common sense plan to deal with these never ending shooting sprees. This, as McKinnon notes, is better than no plan or being against everything proposed by Democrats and moderate Republicans.
As a Republican, I think it’s yet another instance where the party, by refusing to recognize reality, is going to end up looking like the “stupid party” that fails to adapt and evolve to changing circumstances in our society.
Unless the GOP comes out with a proactive plan that has some appearance of responding to recent events, then it continues to play defense and digs deeper the hole it has been digging for itself in recent years. On issues where the physics are moving irrevocably forward, like immigration, gay rights, and guns, the Republican Party continues to look backward. And backward is a sure path toward irrelevance.
As I have been saying all along...anyone out there ready to listen yet?
My question to Republican gun enthusiasts is: How would anything being proposed in any way impact what you do now with your guns? Or, is it that you are just hostage to the NRA talking points?
Hostage, indeed. I find the griping that goes on about the left exploiting the media after Newton to be a steaming pile of shit considering the amount of money being made off of the bullet ridden bodies of little children by the NRA and gun manufacturers. Hell, they're bragging about it!. The point seems to be lost on the gun rights folks the goal of sensible people is not to make money but to actually solve the problems we face with violence in our culture.
Thankfully, the American public knows this and that's why there have been 400,000 people that have joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns since Newton. Their main goal is to simply have a common sense plan to deal with these never ending shooting sprees. This, as McKinnon notes, is better than no plan or being against everything proposed by Democrats and moderate Republicans.
As a Republican, I think it’s yet another instance where the party, by refusing to recognize reality, is going to end up looking like the “stupid party” that fails to adapt and evolve to changing circumstances in our society.
Unless the GOP comes out with a proactive plan that has some appearance of responding to recent events, then it continues to play defense and digs deeper the hole it has been digging for itself in recent years. On issues where the physics are moving irrevocably forward, like immigration, gay rights, and guns, the Republican Party continues to look backward. And backward is a sure path toward irrelevance.
As I have been saying all along...anyone out there ready to listen yet?
Thursday, January 10, 2013
Insanity or Greed?
Gun control advocates like to portray the NRA as madmen, but like the old saw about malice and incompetence, never attribute to insanity that which can be explained by greed.
Exhibit A is Wayne LaPierre's insistence that everyone would be safer if everyone was carrying guns. Yeah, and gun manufacturers would sell a hell of a lot more guns.
Exhibit B is the gun industry's push for accessorization. Not only do they want to sell us lots and lots of guns of every shape and size, but they want to sell us large capacity magazines, laser sights and noise suppressors (silencers).
These three "accessories" are a mass-murderer's dream. We've already seen the effect of large-capacity magazines in numerous shootings across the country. Laser sights will make it even easier to maximize lethality, removing much of the skill required to aim a weapon at a target's most vulnerable locations. Simply point and shoot.
Silencers will allow the mass murderer to escape detection longer, allowing for a larger body count. With a silencer a shooter like Adam Lanza could take out the security guards the NRA wants posted at any school without anyone realizing it. How many more classrooms would he have gone through if no one could hear the report of his rifle?
None of these accessories should be freely available. The NRA's own argument for ubiquitous guns is that the mere presence of a weapon prevents violence. Brandishing a 6-shot .38 Special has as much deterrence value as a 17-shot Glock. Hunters don't need large-capacity magazines because their targets are either dead or have fled after the first couple of shots. The NRA says that silencers are needed to preserve hearing, but a lifetime supply of ear plugs is much cheaper (silencers do not eliminate all sound; sharp-eared game can still hear suppressed gunfire).
This kind of weaponry, combined with the ballistic armor and helmets that James Holmes bought off the Internet, allow mass murderers, criminals and terrorists to freely outfit themselves like police SWAT teams and KGB assassins. I'm constantly tempted to say it's madness, but it's just greed.
Through the NRA pretends to represent grass-roots gun owners, the NRA receives millions of dollars a year in donations and kickbacks from gun manufacturers. Even worse, gun manufacturers who make rifles like those used in Aurora and Sandy Hook have received more than $19 million in subsidies from states in the last five years. Including Michael Bloomberg's own New York state.
As Mark noted the other day, the greed motive may now be used against the NRA: Walmart, the country's largest firearms dealer, may be getting behind closing the loophole that allows people to avoid the background check by buying from private dealers.
The gun industry is funding the NRA in the same way that the tobacco industry funded "smoker's rights" groups, belittling medical research that linked lung cancer to smoking. The fossil fuel industry has spent millions of dollars to promote skepticism of climate change and fighting pollution controls that reduce the lung disease caused by burning fossil fuels. The Tea Party is another such "astroturf" organization, funded by the likes of the billionaire Koch brothers.
Whenever entrenched monied interests find themselves held accountable for the problems they cause, they always turn to a phony grass-roots proxy like the NRA to dress up their money pipeline as some inalienable right and rouse the rabble.
So, while the people at the NRA might seem like they're crazy, we should follow Deepthroat's advice and follow the money.
Exhibit A is Wayne LaPierre's insistence that everyone would be safer if everyone was carrying guns. Yeah, and gun manufacturers would sell a hell of a lot more guns.
Exhibit B is the gun industry's push for accessorization. Not only do they want to sell us lots and lots of guns of every shape and size, but they want to sell us large capacity magazines, laser sights and noise suppressors (silencers).
These three "accessories" are a mass-murderer's dream. We've already seen the effect of large-capacity magazines in numerous shootings across the country. Laser sights will make it even easier to maximize lethality, removing much of the skill required to aim a weapon at a target's most vulnerable locations. Simply point and shoot.
Silencers will allow the mass murderer to escape detection longer, allowing for a larger body count. With a silencer a shooter like Adam Lanza could take out the security guards the NRA wants posted at any school without anyone realizing it. How many more classrooms would he have gone through if no one could hear the report of his rifle?
None of these accessories should be freely available. The NRA's own argument for ubiquitous guns is that the mere presence of a weapon prevents violence. Brandishing a 6-shot .38 Special has as much deterrence value as a 17-shot Glock. Hunters don't need large-capacity magazines because their targets are either dead or have fled after the first couple of shots. The NRA says that silencers are needed to preserve hearing, but a lifetime supply of ear plugs is much cheaper (silencers do not eliminate all sound; sharp-eared game can still hear suppressed gunfire).
This kind of weaponry, combined with the ballistic armor and helmets that James Holmes bought off the Internet, allow mass murderers, criminals and terrorists to freely outfit themselves like police SWAT teams and KGB assassins. I'm constantly tempted to say it's madness, but it's just greed.
Through the NRA pretends to represent grass-roots gun owners, the NRA receives millions of dollars a year in donations and kickbacks from gun manufacturers. Even worse, gun manufacturers who make rifles like those used in Aurora and Sandy Hook have received more than $19 million in subsidies from states in the last five years. Including Michael Bloomberg's own New York state.
As Mark noted the other day, the greed motive may now be used against the NRA: Walmart, the country's largest firearms dealer, may be getting behind closing the loophole that allows people to avoid the background check by buying from private dealers.
The gun industry is funding the NRA in the same way that the tobacco industry funded "smoker's rights" groups, belittling medical research that linked lung cancer to smoking. The fossil fuel industry has spent millions of dollars to promote skepticism of climate change and fighting pollution controls that reduce the lung disease caused by burning fossil fuels. The Tea Party is another such "astroturf" organization, funded by the likes of the billionaire Koch brothers.
Whenever entrenched monied interests find themselves held accountable for the problems they cause, they always turn to a phony grass-roots proxy like the NRA to dress up their money pipeline as some inalienable right and rouse the rabble.
So, while the people at the NRA might seem like they're crazy, we should follow Deepthroat's advice and follow the money.
R.I.P. The Right Wing Blogger
It amuses me to no end when my oh so enlightened right wing friends refer to the Drudge Report as "simply a page of links to news stories."
Really?
This was the front page of the Drudge Report yesterday. As soon as Hitler comes up, that's when you know which side is losing.
And take a look at this recent poll from Rasmussen Polling (a right leaning poll). Just 8 percent say they are members of the Tea Party with 49 percent of voters saying they have an unfavorable view of the movement. I recall being assured as recent as last year that The Tea Party movement would always be around, eternally robust and ever a beacon of conservatism. It seems to me that the American people are plumb tired of the crazy and would rather listen to people that live in the real world.
Of course, this speaks to a much larger issue. Right around a decade ago, the blogsphere really began to burst to life. Political hacks from all ends of the spectrum started their own sites. The Right took particular advantage of this and, in the 2004 election, were part of the reason George W. Bush won reelection. After issuing imperial edicts that John Kerry was a French war criminal, the American people, still timid from 9-11, bought all their lies.
But the two years after that election were illustrative of what happens when you vote with emotion and belief as opposed to thought. And, in 2006, the Democrats took over both houses in Congress. In 2008, they saw more gains and America elected Barack Obama president. It appeared that the influence of the right wing blogger was a flash in the pan.
The 2010 election showed us that they did have a death rattle left in them. The House swept back to the GOP based on irrational fears over health care and over reaching government intrusion. Even in that election, though, the Right blew it, running very conservative candidates in the Senate and reaching too far. By all rights, they should have taken back the Senate as well because if you take a look at the House victories from that year, not all were hard core Tea Partiers. Some were merely moderates elected by a center right public who thought the president had gone too far. These same voters certainly did not want the far right either and so, the GOP didn't take the Senate. Since the Right's main conviction is their vanity, they saw 2010 as a great victory and continued to push more and more crazy ideas in the 2012 election, pulling political philosophies from far right web sites and incorporating them into their main platform.
It didn't work. The president easily won reelection, the Democrats gained two seats in the Senate, adding more progressive candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin, and the House saw a net of seven seats for the party of the donkey. Add in the recent astronomical polling numbers for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and the message the American people are sending is clear: moderate or else.
All of this leads us to the conclusion that the right wing blogger, and any influence they may have had over public policy, is essentially dead. Sure, they'll still have their followers similar to the old short wave radio days and they'll be trotted out on talk shows here and there but, for the most part, the days of them having any sort of substantial effect on policy are over. We're going to see this with the debates on guns, the budget, immigration and climate change over the next few months. Either they can moderate or be left out of the conversation. If the trends in the last few elections are any indication, it may even be worse for the Right in general. I suppose they didn't have much of a choice after 2008 to hitch their wagon to the star located in the Moonbat Quadrant. Now, they are paying the consequences.
I wonder just how many times Hitler and Stalin are going to come up in the next month...
Really?
This was the front page of the Drudge Report yesterday. As soon as Hitler comes up, that's when you know which side is losing.
And take a look at this recent poll from Rasmussen Polling (a right leaning poll). Just 8 percent say they are members of the Tea Party with 49 percent of voters saying they have an unfavorable view of the movement. I recall being assured as recent as last year that The Tea Party movement would always be around, eternally robust and ever a beacon of conservatism. It seems to me that the American people are plumb tired of the crazy and would rather listen to people that live in the real world.
Of course, this speaks to a much larger issue. Right around a decade ago, the blogsphere really began to burst to life. Political hacks from all ends of the spectrum started their own sites. The Right took particular advantage of this and, in the 2004 election, were part of the reason George W. Bush won reelection. After issuing imperial edicts that John Kerry was a French war criminal, the American people, still timid from 9-11, bought all their lies.
But the two years after that election were illustrative of what happens when you vote with emotion and belief as opposed to thought. And, in 2006, the Democrats took over both houses in Congress. In 2008, they saw more gains and America elected Barack Obama president. It appeared that the influence of the right wing blogger was a flash in the pan.
The 2010 election showed us that they did have a death rattle left in them. The House swept back to the GOP based on irrational fears over health care and over reaching government intrusion. Even in that election, though, the Right blew it, running very conservative candidates in the Senate and reaching too far. By all rights, they should have taken back the Senate as well because if you take a look at the House victories from that year, not all were hard core Tea Partiers. Some were merely moderates elected by a center right public who thought the president had gone too far. These same voters certainly did not want the far right either and so, the GOP didn't take the Senate. Since the Right's main conviction is their vanity, they saw 2010 as a great victory and continued to push more and more crazy ideas in the 2012 election, pulling political philosophies from far right web sites and incorporating them into their main platform.
It didn't work. The president easily won reelection, the Democrats gained two seats in the Senate, adding more progressive candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin, and the House saw a net of seven seats for the party of the donkey. Add in the recent astronomical polling numbers for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and the message the American people are sending is clear: moderate or else.
All of this leads us to the conclusion that the right wing blogger, and any influence they may have had over public policy, is essentially dead. Sure, they'll still have their followers similar to the old short wave radio days and they'll be trotted out on talk shows here and there but, for the most part, the days of them having any sort of substantial effect on policy are over. We're going to see this with the debates on guns, the budget, immigration and climate change over the next few months. Either they can moderate or be left out of the conversation. If the trends in the last few elections are any indication, it may even be worse for the Right in general. I suppose they didn't have much of a choice after 2008 to hitch their wagon to the star located in the Moonbat Quadrant. Now, they are paying the consequences.
I wonder just how many times Hitler and Stalin are going to come up in the next month...
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
The Supreme Court Takes Another Shot at Privacy
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments today in a case where a cop forced a suspected drunk driver to have blood drawn. The case was thrown out by the judge because the cop didn't get a warrant. There was no accident or assault, the driver was simply speeding: 56 in 45 mph zone.
Now, getting that warrant had never been a problem before. A judge is on call at all times and warrants were previously obtained within half an hour. The state highway patrolman involved, Mark Winder, had read an opinion from the state prosecutor that a warrant was unnecessary, an opinion that was in direct contradiction to an opinion from the county attorney and the state police legal advisory. In any case the blood test was unnecessary, as the suspect's refusal of the breathalyzer test could be used as evidence of guilt at trial.
This case should have ended there: the patrolman acted against the advice of his employer, the state police. He should have been reprimanded, but instead the case has been appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Incredibly, the Obama administration is siding with Missouri on this. Their argument, that time is of the essence because the alcohol will dissipate over time, is simply not credible. It's just like arguing that warrants shouldn't be required for searching a drug-dealer's house because he might sell the drugs before the warrant is issued. If time is so critical, it is incumbent upon the state to do its job quickly, not to force the suspect to abandon his rights because the state can't get its act together. With modern technology a warrant can be requested and issued within minutes.
This isn't just an overreaching cop invading a man's privacy, like searching a car and finding marijuana. Drawing blood is a medical procedure that is not without risk: you can suffer collapsed veins, blood clots and staph infections. It's unlikely you'll suffer injury or death, but it's not impossible.
We shouldn't trash the idea of presumed innocence and risk people's health because cops and prosecutors are too lazy to do their jobs.
Now, getting that warrant had never been a problem before. A judge is on call at all times and warrants were previously obtained within half an hour. The state highway patrolman involved, Mark Winder, had read an opinion from the state prosecutor that a warrant was unnecessary, an opinion that was in direct contradiction to an opinion from the county attorney and the state police legal advisory. In any case the blood test was unnecessary, as the suspect's refusal of the breathalyzer test could be used as evidence of guilt at trial.
This case should have ended there: the patrolman acted against the advice of his employer, the state police. He should have been reprimanded, but instead the case has been appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court.
Incredibly, the Obama administration is siding with Missouri on this. Their argument, that time is of the essence because the alcohol will dissipate over time, is simply not credible. It's just like arguing that warrants shouldn't be required for searching a drug-dealer's house because he might sell the drugs before the warrant is issued. If time is so critical, it is incumbent upon the state to do its job quickly, not to force the suspect to abandon his rights because the state can't get its act together. With modern technology a warrant can be requested and issued within minutes.
This isn't just an overreaching cop invading a man's privacy, like searching a car and finding marijuana. Drawing blood is a medical procedure that is not without risk: you can suffer collapsed veins, blood clots and staph infections. It's unlikely you'll suffer injury or death, but it's not impossible.
We shouldn't trash the idea of presumed innocence and risk people's health because cops and prosecutors are too lazy to do their jobs.
Actually Having Ideas
I can almost here the mouth foam oozing out of the mouth of the gun rights folks after this little ditty.
A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.
Of course, that's not even the best part.
To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.
One potential strategy would be to win support for specific measures from interest groups that are normally aligned with the NRA, according to one person who works closely with the administration on gun-related issues and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.
Now, when we say Michael Bloomberg, we really mean Lord Voldemort. Let's just get that out of the way first:)
What I find very interesting about this particular idea is how the support for this could be shored up through places like Wal Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods. As I have said previously, the best way to solve the gun side of this is the money. Already we've seen some gun shows and retail outlets not carrying guns like the Bushmaster. If that loophole is closed and it results in more sales at retail operations, then you get the buy in from the business community.
But, really, the best part of all these ideas is that they actually have them as opposed to the gun lobby. Moreover, they are looking at this from a variety of angles and are going to pursue many different avenues that don't have anything to do with guns. The mental health aspect of this issue is one such example. Had Adam Lanza (along with all of these other spree shooters) had better access to mental health care, things may have turned out differently.
I get the real sense the gun lobby better come up with something better than what they have now or risk being shut out of the process and clearly seen as part of the problem...which, for now, they are. They've been the "Big Daddies" for quite some time now and I think they are a little too comfortable. They won't be after this...
A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.
Of course, that's not even the best part.
To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.
One potential strategy would be to win support for specific measures from interest groups that are normally aligned with the NRA, according to one person who works closely with the administration on gun-related issues and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.
Now, when we say Michael Bloomberg, we really mean Lord Voldemort. Let's just get that out of the way first:)
What I find very interesting about this particular idea is how the support for this could be shored up through places like Wal Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods. As I have said previously, the best way to solve the gun side of this is the money. Already we've seen some gun shows and retail outlets not carrying guns like the Bushmaster. If that loophole is closed and it results in more sales at retail operations, then you get the buy in from the business community.
But, really, the best part of all these ideas is that they actually have them as opposed to the gun lobby. Moreover, they are looking at this from a variety of angles and are going to pursue many different avenues that don't have anything to do with guns. The mental health aspect of this issue is one such example. Had Adam Lanza (along with all of these other spree shooters) had better access to mental health care, things may have turned out differently.
I get the real sense the gun lobby better come up with something better than what they have now or risk being shut out of the process and clearly seen as part of the problem...which, for now, they are. They've been the "Big Daddies" for quite some time now and I think they are a little too comfortable. They won't be after this...
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
A Gift That Will Keep On Giving
I can't think of a better example of the gun lobby's position than Alex Jones. Heck, I can't think of a better example of some of my commenters and how they talk to me than Alex Jones. Man oh man, he hit all the points (verbatim!:)) that I hear all the time on here. It's almost as if they are reading from some sort of script...
It's people like this make me ashamed of my country. Here's person #1 that should not own guns under any new gun laws and he has 50. For what, exactly?
Man, did he do the gun control folks a favor with this interview. Who's sensible now, asshole?
It's people like this make me ashamed of my country. Here's person #1 that should not own guns under any new gun laws and he has 50. For what, exactly?
Man, did he do the gun control folks a favor with this interview. Who's sensible now, asshole?
Planet Earth
For all of my crabbing on here, the world is actually getting to be a much better place in which to live. There's a lot of good news out there and if are diligent, you can find it. The best place to start is The Christian Science Monitor as they are usually very unbiased and shy away from sensation. The last issue, for example, had a plethora of good news and I'm going to be highlighting some of their stories over the next week or so. This, by the way, keeps my promise to put up more world news content as well:)
The first one that caught my eye was this story on poverty. I had to read it twice before I believed that it was real. Extreme poverty in the world has been...cut by half?!?
In fact, the rate of decline in extreme poverty everywhere in the world has more than doubled in the past decade, Ravallion says. That's after adjusting for China, whose sheer size makes it an outlier.
Simply amazing.
Now, the article does go on to say that there is still a great deal of poverty in the world but we are heading in the right direction. With the changes seen in China (as noted in the article), the direction we are heading as a world is very, very positive. In fact, I think the prediction that Bono made a year or two ago is going to come true: within 50 years, there will be no more hunger on this planet. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe, there will be no going back to "Live Aid" days. (Note: this includes climate change, incidentally, which is actually quite "foreseen" and will be eventually dealt with in an appropriate fashion).
So, why has this happened? Well, mainly, it's because of us. Our country has spread prosperity around the world in the form of liberal economic theory. Communism is gone and capitalism and free markets are spreading everywhere. If countries don't want to be a part of this (and there aren't many left out there), they will find themselves on the outside. Our new world certainly is not perfect and we have had some growing pains but the increased prosperity has no other explanation. Everyone on the planet wants an iPhone.
And, as the countries of the world begin to need less aid, we are going to see greater wealth in the Global North countries. In fact, my children will likely live in a time where there will be no delineation between the Global North and the Global South.
It's simply going to be Planet Earth.
The first one that caught my eye was this story on poverty. I had to read it twice before I believed that it was real. Extreme poverty in the world has been...cut by half?!?
In fact, the rate of decline in extreme poverty everywhere in the world has more than doubled in the past decade, Ravallion says. That's after adjusting for China, whose sheer size makes it an outlier.
Simply amazing.
Now, the article does go on to say that there is still a great deal of poverty in the world but we are heading in the right direction. With the changes seen in China (as noted in the article), the direction we are heading as a world is very, very positive. In fact, I think the prediction that Bono made a year or two ago is going to come true: within 50 years, there will be no more hunger on this planet. Barring some unforeseen catastrophe, there will be no going back to "Live Aid" days. (Note: this includes climate change, incidentally, which is actually quite "foreseen" and will be eventually dealt with in an appropriate fashion).
So, why has this happened? Well, mainly, it's because of us. Our country has spread prosperity around the world in the form of liberal economic theory. Communism is gone and capitalism and free markets are spreading everywhere. If countries don't want to be a part of this (and there aren't many left out there), they will find themselves on the outside. Our new world certainly is not perfect and we have had some growing pains but the increased prosperity has no other explanation. Everyone on the planet wants an iPhone.
And, as the countries of the world begin to need less aid, we are going to see greater wealth in the Global North countries. In fact, my children will likely live in a time where there will be no delineation between the Global North and the Global South.
It's simply going to be Planet Earth.
Monday, January 07, 2013
Another Greek Lesson
Conservatives like to point to Greece as an example of what will happen to us unless we follow their strong medicine and drastically reduce spending. But so far their predictions have failed. We haven't slashed, and our economy is doing better than countries that have.
Many economists, Paul Krugman among them, believe that the U.S. economy would be doing much better now if Obama had been able to implement the stronger stimulus he originally proposed. Instead the GOP blocked much of Obama's plan, apparently to sabotage the recovery to make him a one-term president.
But there are other lessons we can learn from Greece: tax evasion is rampant, and they have a tax collection shortfall that runs into tens of billions of euros. The major scandal in Greece now is the Lagarde List, a list of wealthy Greeks who have hidden their wealth in Swiss bank accounts. Additional tax collections are half what they were expected to be and investigations of off-shore tax evaders was derailed by George Papaconstantinou, who took the list with him when he resigned, and then removed his friends from the list before handing it over to his successor, Evangelos Venizelos, who also appears to be shielding his pals.
A magazine publisher, Kostas Vaxevanis, published the list and was prosecuted by the Greek government for "invasion of privacy." His article about his persecution by the Greek government was recently published in The New York Times. After the publication of the list two men suspected to be on it were found dead, apparently suicides.
Conservatives in the United States keep saying we have a spending problem, and we do to some extent. But the United States has a huge tax collection problem that dwarfs Greece's. Many people and corporations are still not paying their fair share. People like Mitt Romney pay less than 15% in taxes, using off-shore accounts and other tricks only the wealth can use to hide their wealth. Corporations like GE pay less than zero in taxes, and companies like Apple and Reebok squirrel away all their profits overseas using gimmicky licensing payments.
I say it's time Paul Ryan to keep the promise he made during the election. For every dollar of spending cuts to non-military programs they should eliminate a dollar of tax loopholes that only giant corporations and guys like Mitt Romney can take advantage of.
Many economists, Paul Krugman among them, believe that the U.S. economy would be doing much better now if Obama had been able to implement the stronger stimulus he originally proposed. Instead the GOP blocked much of Obama's plan, apparently to sabotage the recovery to make him a one-term president.
But there are other lessons we can learn from Greece: tax evasion is rampant, and they have a tax collection shortfall that runs into tens of billions of euros. The major scandal in Greece now is the Lagarde List, a list of wealthy Greeks who have hidden their wealth in Swiss bank accounts. Additional tax collections are half what they were expected to be and investigations of off-shore tax evaders was derailed by George Papaconstantinou, who took the list with him when he resigned, and then removed his friends from the list before handing it over to his successor, Evangelos Venizelos, who also appears to be shielding his pals.
A magazine publisher, Kostas Vaxevanis, published the list and was prosecuted by the Greek government for "invasion of privacy." His article about his persecution by the Greek government was recently published in The New York Times. After the publication of the list two men suspected to be on it were found dead, apparently suicides.
Conservatives in the United States keep saying we have a spending problem, and we do to some extent. But the United States has a huge tax collection problem that dwarfs Greece's. Many people and corporations are still not paying their fair share. People like Mitt Romney pay less than 15% in taxes, using off-shore accounts and other tricks only the wealth can use to hide their wealth. Corporations like GE pay less than zero in taxes, and companies like Apple and Reebok squirrel away all their profits overseas using gimmicky licensing payments.
I say it's time Paul Ryan to keep the promise he made during the election. For every dollar of spending cuts to non-military programs they should eliminate a dollar of tax loopholes that only giant corporations and guys like Mitt Romney can take advantage of.
Uh Oh
Looks like the rats are leaving the sinking ship. I guess they got tired of all the wrong information put out there on a daily basis.
What amazes me most about this is how the Right really hates losers. Everything is about winning for them and, if you don't, they have no time for you at all.
Sour, sour grapes...
What amazes me most about this is how the Right really hates losers. Everything is about winning for them and, if you don't, they have no time for you at all.
Sour, sour grapes...
Sunday, January 06, 2013
Why, Again?
Suppose you are in a darkened room with 20 armed people and you. You are the only one not armed.
Who gets shot first?
Who survives?
Think about it for a minute.
Have it yet?
The 20 armed men likely get shot first.
You survive.
Why?
The 20 armed men aren't worried about the unarmed man because he doesn't have a gun. They are more worried about the men with guns because they represent a threat. So, they go after each other.
But you...you are trying to get out of the way of the 20 armed men and survive. So, your first reaction is to hide, move, dodge and stay out of the way of the gunfire. You might get shot by accident but not intentionally because they are shooting at each other to eliminate the higher threat.
In short, your goal is to survive.
They all shoot each other until there are 2 or 3 left and then they really aren't worried about you but the last couple armed people. You escape. You live. You survive.
And you aren't armed.
So, how does arming everyone make people safer?
Who gets shot first?
Who survives?
Think about it for a minute.
Have it yet?
The 20 armed men likely get shot first.
You survive.
Why?
The 20 armed men aren't worried about the unarmed man because he doesn't have a gun. They are more worried about the men with guns because they represent a threat. So, they go after each other.
But you...you are trying to get out of the way of the 20 armed men and survive. So, your first reaction is to hide, move, dodge and stay out of the way of the gunfire. You might get shot by accident but not intentionally because they are shooting at each other to eliminate the higher threat.
In short, your goal is to survive.
They all shoot each other until there are 2 or 3 left and then they really aren't worried about you but the last couple armed people. You escape. You live. You survive.
And you aren't armed.
So, how does arming everyone make people safer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)