Both To Change

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.

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!

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?

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.

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...

Have You Ever Had...An Electric Night?

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.

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 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?

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.

Uh, that would be a no...no, they didn't. It's not _______ when we do it!!!

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.

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...

Dedicated, with love and affection, to Kevin and his merry band of commenters who can't seem to shake their obsession with yours truly!!

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?

Business As Usual?

Remember back after the Columbine shooting when the NRA showed up in Denver and thumped their chests?

Yeah, not gonna happen this time....

Some gun shows canceling after Conn. mass shooting.

Further...

Some of the most popular guns will be missing from next weekend's gun show in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., after show organizers agreed to bar the display and sale of AR-15 military-style semiautomatic weapons and their large-clip magazines.

Huh. I thought it was going to be business as usual if not more so after Sandy Hook.

A Collection of Voices In My Head

I've heard so many "voices in my head" of late. What are they saying these days?

“The numbers — at some point it’s got to catch up or else we’re all going to die,” said Chris Chocola, head of the anti-tax Club for Growth.

Cue the boiling pit of sewage!

Obama you stupid sand nigger get off my tv. Your just making the families hurt and miss their kids more and I want to watch football 

The above is one tweet of many. Make sure you read all of the comments from the non-Republican, non-racists.

And what happens when you hug the president and you are a registered Republican?

But the attention wasn't all positive. Van Duzer, a registered Republican, had voted for Obama in the last election and said he did again in November. That brought out the worst in anti-Obama zealots, who called in bomb threats, sent him hate mail with death threats, and brought out a level of vitriol Van Duzer said he had never witnessed. Some tried to organize a boycott of his restaurant and bombarded Yelp!, the restaurant review website, with thousands of one-star reviews from first-time visitors to the site.

It must be the left wing media's fault! Where's Katie Couric?!??

Low Capacity

A few weeks back, I had a very long discussion with the folks over at TSM about the Sandy Hook tragedy and what is likely going to be a sea change in the way guns are viewed in this country. Mixed in with the chest thumping, mouth foaming, jingoism and adolescent bullying was this comment.

I think there needs to be a sound philosophical reasoning for establishing a clear, rational category of weapons that are off limits. Maybe it's the wide area destructiveness and indiscriminate standard I mentioned earlier. Or maybe it could something to the effect that if it's something which not even most governments can control, then no individual can own it. Another possibility could be the category of weapons you would not use when fighting a defensive war on your own soil.

I couldn't possibly agree more. Of course, the gun rights folks don't even want to have that discussion as they hit over boil in about a second and begin to descend into paranoid rants about the 2nd amendment. What are they really afraid of?

It's not losing the right to bear arms. People are always going to have that right with a variety of guns and other weapons from which to choose. And it can't be that they think that our government is suddenly going to become fascist and/or communist and they will then need those arms to defend themselves against tyranny....well, maybe that is it a little bit:) Perhaps it's simply that they like their toys and they don't want to give them up.

Honestly, though, I think the real reason why they don't want to have the discussion about what weapons are OK and which ones aren't is that it leads to the necessity of coming up with a solution to gun violence in this country. To begin with, they don't want a solution because the violence enables them to continue to justify themselves and their ideology. This is why you rarely hear them talk about violence going down across the nation. If they ain't a comin', then why do they require so many armaments? (Note: this is similar to why they don't want to talk about good economic news or the realities of climate change...they would no longer be able to justify their imperial edicts and bloviating ideology).

There is a bigger and more obvious reason why they don't want have the solution discussion: they don't have one. That's exactly what was on display when Wayne LaPierre did his broken record of a press conference two weeks ago. For a group that champions high capacity guns, they are decidedly low capacity on real world solutions. It's more guns and fuck you, don't take away my gun. That's it. That's all they have.

The singular most amazing point about this is the colossal level of impotence of which Nikto spoke recently. One would think that with such a tenacity for defense that they could come up with something better than the same ol' same ol' but alas, this is not the case. Press them on the issue and that's when the personal attacks, bullying and Spanish Inquisition begin which all further illustrate their total failure at addressing this problem (this is similar to how they approach other issues as well so it's really no surprise).

The sad news for them is that, after Sandy Hook, we are now going to have this discussion. Even though violence in the country is going down overall, this tragedy has changed the landscape due to the nature of the crime. One simply can't look at numbers and say, "Well, less people died from school shootings so let's not worry about it." The quality of the crime matters and we know in all these cases how it happens.

Guns are only a part of this. After we reason which weapons are off limits and which aren't, then we need to look at the safety issue. The profile for these shooters are essentially the same...young, male, mental and emotional issues, taking medications, lack of parental cohesion...so is there a way to screen for this in future gun purchases? Perhaps not on a government level but, similar to car insurance where there are higher risk groups for accidents, there could be higher risk groups for owning guns. If you are in this group and want to own a gun, requiring a certain type of insurance might be a solution. This is the type of conversation that needs to happen.

Much to the apoplectic chagrin of the gun rights folks, they are going to have to come up with something more than what they have now. Significantly more. Or they will take themselves out of the debate and risk losing more than just their Bushmasters. So, let's start with this quote above. What are the categories? How should they be divided? Why would some people perceive some weapons as defensive and not others?

Since Ike

President Barack Obama is the first president since Dwight David Eisenhower to win 51 percent of the popular vote...twice!

Final tally?

65.9 million votes -51.1% of the vote for the president
60.9 million votes-47.2% of the vote for Mitt Romney

The response from the Right?

He bribed them with gifts!
He stole votes!
The polls were skewed!
He's a socialist!
He's a gun grabber!
He wasn't born here!
He was trained in a madrassa!

(all of which really worked out well for them didn't it?)

Seeing the End?

I've been trying to figure out exactly WTF the House Republicans have been thinking these last few days and I got nothing. I like John Boehner and, in many ways, actually feel sorry for him. He has to deal with around 75 adolescent males every day (enough to make any parent or teacher cry!) in his caucus so cutting him some slack seems like the right thing to do.

But this latest game with the aid for Hurricane Sandy victims shows just how fucked up the Right is these days. They are run by a group of people who see any sort of government spending (except defense) as the equivalent of raping children. I guess the general welfare clause also does not apply to people whose homes were lost to natural disaster. Why should we have to pay for their loss? They just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, stop spooning off the government, and get to work, by gum!

Boehner finally gave in after New Jersey Governor Chris Christie unleashed holy hell and a vote in the House will now be scheduled on Friday. Honestly, though, this is a larger issue that we are going to see play out in the coming months and it really only has one conclusion: more Democratic victories and a likely retaking of the House in 2014.

In what has to be the finest example of "Doing it again, only harder," GOP leaders have already indicated that they are going to play chicken with the debt ceiling again. It worked so well last time so why not try it again? With all the good economic news (more on that tomorrow), it makes perfect sense to try to ruin any chances of improvement. After all, they have been rooting for America to fail since the president took office in their never ending quest to not be proven wrong and win the argument. Who gives a shit if the economy continues to sputter?

The Right has also indicated that, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy, that: a) more people being armed is the answer (see: 1984, George Orwell) and b) we can't really do anything anyway because we are free and freedom means impotence. So, a far right stance on guns will be taken with no possibility for even a reasonable discussion or alternative solutions, We are talking about a choice between our freedom or burning in hell under a totalitarian regime. The stakes have never been higher, folks!!

Even with immigration, the Right remains steadfast. They don't have time for the details. It's "Fuck you, get out!" They don't seem to mind that, if they continue down this path, possibly in 2016 (2020 is more likely), Texas will turn blue and the Republican Party as we know it will have gone the way of the Whigs.

I think the head of the conservative organization Club For Growth, Chris Chocola, summed up the thinking on the Right (and the "voices in my head") when he said, of the debt, "The numbers-at some point it's got to catch up or else we are all going to die." Look out, folks! We have to stop government before they inflict any more evil on the world!!! AHHHH!!!!

I guess the Right didn't learn anything from the election last November and their possible end is becoming more and more clearer every day. Politically, that's great for me but my concern is how many Americans they are going to drag down with them in their teenage male stomp down the hallway.

In Less Than Seven Minutes

It only took Rhode Island teacher Steven Round less than seven minutes to sum up perfectly many of the things that are wrong with our education system today. Sadly, there are far too many school districts that are like this. Thankfully, both mine and my children's district are not.

His points below illustrate several things. First, trying to have a one size fits all approach to teaching children is an epic fail. If districts are going to chuck Carol Ann Tomlinson by the roadside these days, children are going to lose. Second, we are creating a nation of test takers, not learners and students with enduring understandings. As Mr. Round says in this video, they have no clue what the real world is like. Third, this lack of real world experience is compounded further by budget cuts which means no field trips. Far too many districts suffer these consequences.

This, of course leads to a larger problem  which is a decided lack of socialization time for many schoolchildren of all ages. Having a conversation with fellow students on a regular basis is a very key element to development. Without it, another avenue of real world experience is lost.

Given how so many school districts operate like this one (see: mini-fiefdoms) I fear that Mr. Round is only the first of many abrupt departures.

All Calories are Not Created Equal

A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that the brain reacts differently to fructose than it does to glucose (via USA Today):

For the study, scientists used magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, scans to track blood flow in the brain in 20 young, normal-weight people before and after they had drinks containing glucose or fructose in two sessions several weeks apart.

Scans showed that drinking glucose "turns off or suppresses the activity of areas of the brain that are critical for reward and desire for food," said one study leader, Yale University endocrinologist Robert Sherwin. With fructose, "we don't see those changes," he said. "As a result, the desire to eat continues — it isn't turned off."

That means the two sugars have different biological effects on the body. Even though they may contain the same number of calories, someone consuming products made with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) instead of glucose (regular sugar) may wind up eating more and gaining more weight.

This is not the first such finding. Many studies have found that artificial sweeteners also fail to trip the satiety switch. That means nearly all soft drinks, even diet sodas that contain zero calories, may contribute to weight gain by failing to trip the mechanisms that tell us to stop feeding our faces.

But fructose is the sugar that's in fruit. Does that mean fruit's bad for you? No.

An apple has 116 calories, 31 grams of carbohydrates, 5 grams of fiber (20% of your daily recommended value), vitamin C and trace amounts of vitamin A, iron and calcium. A 12-ounce Coke has 140 calories, 39 grams of carbohydrates, 50 mg sodium and phosphoric acid, which is linked to bone loss. The apple provides nutritional value, which Coke does not, as well as fiber that provides a satiety mechanism.

According to a Gallup poll from last year, the average person who drinks soda consumes 2.6 glasses a day (48% of Americans said they consumed soda, and 7% said they drank four or more glasses per day). It's hard to find anyone who eats 2.6 apples a day, even though doctors tell us we should eat five to thirteen servings of fruits and vegetables daily. The average American eats just three total servings of fruits and vegetables.

Last year everyone went ballistic when New York banned sugared soft drink sizes greater than 16 ounces. I've always been baffled that anyone could down 16 ounces of soda at a sitting, much less 20 or 32. But these scientific findings, if duplicated, may indicate a tangible reason: people don't feel sated when they drink HFCS- and aspartame-sweetened beverages, so they drink and eat more.

Maybe we haven't become gluttons because we're weak-willed: maybe it's the biochemistry of the highly-engineered stuff coming out of food industry labs. HFCS is in everything, from chips to cereal to soda to ice cream to Sarah Lee cakes. Which makes you wonder: is the food and beverage industry aware of this effect? Are they engineering products to make us eat more, the way cigarette companies intentionally engineered their products to make them more addictive? HFCS was originally used because it was cheaper due to sugar import restrictions, but is there a darker reason for using it?

The food industry has been trying to rehabilitate HFCS's image for years. They lobbied the FDA to call it "corn sugar" to get away from its bad rep, an initiative that was ultimately denied. The industry's attempt at subterfuge, reminiscent of the tobacco industry, calls into question their motives.

This debate recalls the revolt against New Coke when it came out in 1985: everyone hated it. Some people went to Mexico to get Old Coke, which was still made with cane sugar. After three months Coke relented and introduced Classic Coke. But it wasn't quite the same: it was made with HFCS instead of cane sugar. Was Classic Coke just a Trojan horse for HFCS?

On the plus side, the study's findings suggest an alternative that we may actually enjoy. Instead of drinking gallons of "diet" or high-fructose soda, perhaps we would eat fewer calories overall if we indulged in one glass of truly classic Coke made with cane sugar, or one rich, dark chocolate bar made with real sugar, or one ice cream cone made with real cream and real sugar. And who can eat anything more after two bites of real cheesecake?

Resolutions

In many ways, 2012 was a great year for this site. Blogger has made it very simple to bring in widgets and links to allow for more connectivity to outside resources and related sites. We saw more page views and comments than ever before in our seven year history. We also have a core following of about 200 readers and that suits me just fine. I've always wanted to be the digital equivalent of a small town newspaper and now it is safe to say that we fit that description perfectly. And it's been great to have a fellow contributor to take the daily load of posts off...thanks Nikto!

This does not mean, however, that we should rest on our laurels here at Markadelphia. I've been thinking that this site needs some changes, content wise, and so I've come up with a few resolutions for 2013.

1. More World News.

Last in line has quietly chided me over the past few months about how this site used to be more focused on international events. Well, he's right. Those topics have fallen by the wayside and it's time to bring them back (especially now that the election is over). At least once a week (and likely more than that), there will be a post commenting on world news. Will it be the latest on the strife in the Central African Republic? Or how about China's PMI forecast? Who knows? Whatever strikes my fancy, I guess, but it's going to be regular occurrence that will likely be a welcome break from political talk. Speaking of which...

2. Pop Culture.

Most of the readers of this site don't know that I am a massive fan of pop culture...music and film, in particular. In addition to the weekly world news post, there will be one that comments on pop culture. I do one at the end of the year but there just has to be more. My passion for this is simply too great to ignore it further and, again, talking about politics all the time can get rather tedious. I will probably throw in some sports posts here and there as well.

3. Education.

I have far too few posts about education which is odd considering that I am teacher. Part of the reason for this was to keep a degree of privacy in my life. Yet, I find that there are some experiences  in my classrooms  that I should write about and as long as they are done in the broader context of the issues facing education, I think I can maintain that public/private balance. So, expect more posts about the state of education in our country and the world (starting tomorrow with a video sent to me by last in line...him again!). These will likely have a more personal tone as well.

4. Science

Many of you may not know this but Nikto is a classically trained scientist. He's thrown out a few posts here and there with different scientific themes which have given me the idea to make this a more regular occurrence. Expect more posts that focus on innovation and science in the world today. Yes, that's right, Nikto, I'm volunteering you:)

These four resolutions can be summed up simply by noting that there is going to be more of a mix of content with less politics. That doesn't mean that my quest to destroy the right wing bubble is at an end. Far from it! I just feel the need to stretch myself out more with some different content which makes me look forward to 2013 with a large amount of gusto and zeal!

Best Album, Best Track of 2012

The Best Album of 2012 is Paul Weller's Sonik Kicks. I make no bones about being a Brit Rock obsessive but this record goes far beyond that. With his latest release, Weller continues to explore a multitude of musical styles ranging from Kraut Rock to Chill Out Trance Dubs. There are several nods to his old, Mod days in the Jam as well as acoustic pastorals that would go along wonderfully with a Monet painting.

The track of the year is from this album. "A Study In Blue," featuring his wife, Hannah, is a beautiful, haunting and trippy piece of music that has pretty much been the soundtrack to my year. Check it out and play it loud as you head this evening for NYE festivities!

Best TV Show of 2012

The best TV show of 2012 is HBO's Boardwalk Empire. Season 3 was absolutely wonderful and hit on all cylinders with 100 percent power. The acting, the writing, and directing were all impeccable this year and each week was like watching a mini film to be quite honest.

Steve Buscemi continues to be one of the most underrated actors of our time. Bobby Cannavale's Gyp Rosetti was truly one of the most frightening characters to every grace the small screen. And, like the previous two seasons, the historical context stayed true to the times. Prohibition was a horribly violent time and showed the folly of trying to outlaw alcohol.

Here's one of the trailers for Season 3.

Best Film of 2012

It's that time of year again for Best Ofs and first up is Best Film. This year, it wasn't even contest.

Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom is the best coming of age story put on celluloid since Rob Reiner's Stand By Me. It tells the story of two young teenagers in the mid 1960s who decide to run away and have an adventure. Their parents, his scout troop, social services, and the law (in the form of the completely hilarious Bruce Willis) pursue them.

Anderson's perception of life has always resonated with me. All of his films are gems, in my opinion, but this one seems a level above that. If you've never seen any of his films, I recommend picking them all up and checking them out. Start with this one.

Happily Going Over The Cliff

It's been amusing in a sort of horrifying way to watch Congress try to come up with some sort of plan to avert the tax rate rise and spending cuts that are going to occur on January 1, 2013. I don't think I've ever seen a Republican leader admit that he was powerless as Speaker Boehner did last week. "It's now up to the president and Harry Reid," he said. Unbelievable.

But that's what happens when you have a caucus that is comprised of juveniles who are eternally stomping down the hallway and slamming their doors at what they perceive to be their dad. They're perfectly happy to crash the car in order to sate their adolescent power fantasies. They'd rather cut of their nose despite their faces.

And that's just what is going to happen. If no deal is reached by Tuesday (and it looks doubtful), January 2nd is going to be a barn burner at the New York Stock Exchange. At that point, the GOP will be fucked. If they deal now, they are going to get something for those upper income folks. If they wait, however, the only bill they are going to see is one that makes the tax cuts permanent for those making under 250K and they will have no choice but to sign it as the market drops 500-1000 points.

They're also going to get bloody ears (and possibly more) in terms of the spending cuts and will likely have to give in on those as well. Much of their constituency is old people who love Medicare and Social Security. Any sort of cuts will be viewed with much animosity. This doesn't even take into account the defense cuts which, in my view, if they happen, will basically mean the end of the Tea Party. Democrats learned a long time ago that you don't fuck with defense contractors.

So, this begs the question, do the Republicans want to be the Whigs of the 21st century? Given their intransigent stance on immigration (along with the rest of all of this), I think they do. Bottom line: they need to change. If they don't, Texas will turn blue in 2016 or 2020 and that will be it for them.

A Real-Life Test of the NRA School Proposal

Three police officers were shot in a New Jersey police station by a domestic abuse suspect who somehow got a gun. The suspect was killed. One officer suffered abdominal wounds below his bullet proof vest, while the other two were grazed. All are expected to recover.

Yes, another senseless tragedy caused by a nutjob combined with a tragic screw-up.

But this incident shows how flawed the NRA's "more guns" idea is. A police station is the best-case scenario for the "protective" nature of guns. Everyone there is a trained professional. They know exactly who the bad guy is. Yet somehow he got a gun and shot three cops.

This is not the first time this has happened: it happened in Michigan in 2011, again in Michigan this November, in Virginia in 2006, and so on. Then there are the accidental shootings at police stations (Huntington Beach this July). And then there are the "freak accidents," like the woman was accidentally killed in Detroit when she hugged an off-duty cop.
 We know with certainty that more guns in schools will result in some number of additional deaths each year due to accidental shootings and guns being wrested away from guards. The question is: will the deaths caused by the presence of armed guards outnumber the deaths that might be saved from mass shootings?

The NRA would like us to just write those accidental deaths and injuries off as collateral damage, the same way we write off Afghan children killed by drones. Considering how rare school shootings actually are, starting a big program of volunteer armed guards would likely increase the number of deaths in schools.

But the fact is, even in the best-case scenario, an armed guard can't prevent anyone from ever being shot: the hope is that the guard will cut the carnage short by taking the shooter out after he's opened fire. It's the same rationale for banning large-capacity magazines and "assault" rifles: you can't completely stop the killing, but you can minimize it. The problem with the armed guard solution is the bad guys always get a preemptive first strike on the guard, and if it's successful you've just provided the shooter with additional firepower.


Putting real cops in schools isn't necessarily a bad idea, but it's very expensive and it's not a foolproof deterrent, as we saw in Columbine. If even a station full of armed cops can't protect themselves with guns, how can one retired NRA volunteer with a gun protect a whole school filled with kids? Especially if the shooter takes a first-grader hostage and uses her as a human shield while blasting away at the armed guard with a Bushmaster and a 100-round magazine?
The problem is not stopping crazy guys from shooting up schools. It's stopping crazy guys from getting guns in the first place.

Still With The Deafness of Tone

It's been almost two week since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut and the Right is continuing merrily along with their complete deafness of tone. They just don't get it. This one is different and, like the last election, they're are going to learn yet another hard lesson. Even Frank Luntz thinks so.

“The public wants guns out of the schools, not in the schools,” Luntz said on CBS’s “This Morning.” “And they are not asking for a security official or someone else. I don’t think the NRA is listening. I don’t think they understand most Americans would protect the Second Amendment rights and yet agree with the idea that not every human being should own a gun, not every gun should be available at anytime, anywhere, for anyone. At gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there without any kind of check whatsoever.” 

That's right. There are plenty of people that should not own guns. I think this incident (as well as the rest of them this year) illustrate that if you increase the number of people carrying weapons, you are going to increase the chances of irresponsible gun ownership. It shouldn't simply be that people who have criminal records should not own guns. Many people with mental illness or people who live folks who have mental disabilities should not own guns either.

I don't think the gun rights folks (and many others on the Right) realize how Orwellian they sound. The irony is hilarious when you consider how much they rip the left for doublespeak. The answer to gun violence is...MORE GUNS, damnit!!

War is Peace...

What the Right really wants is to (ahem) do it again only harder. They are using this as an opportunity to see if they can gain any ground on what they view as "Slaughter Zones" (AKA Gun Free Zones). They want to be able to carry their guns wherever they want, including schools. It's a chest thumping, juvenile maneuver which serves to further their "fuck you, dad/stomp down the hallway/bedroom door slam" agenda of being pissed off at rules they don't like. Never mind the rest of us.

The only guns I want in schools are the ones carried by police officers (yet another group the Right sneer at as not "having any real training" which is basically code for insecurity and envy). Schools are public property which means that the public gets to decide what goes on in our schools. With private property, gun owners can kindly go fuck themselves if they want to beef about gun free zones. The health club I go to, for example, has a few malcontents who bitch about not being able to bring their guns in when they lift weights (how would that work, exactly?). Perhaps they should choose another place to go rather than gripe.

Doubling down is what they do lately, though, and it continues to cost them elections. This won't be any different. They underestimate the president and worse, the public, who has a growing distaste for some guns, as Mr. Luntz notices above. He's a right wing pollster so if he's saying it, they are in big fucking trouble. And it won't be because (cue high pitched shrieking) Barack Obama is going to be a "gun grabber." Actually, they're not really in "trouble" either...only the way they see it...the world (gasp!) changing and that simply won't do.

In fact, I pretty much guarantee that three things are going to come out of all of this. First, people will get to keep the guns they own (if they choose not to sell them back to the federal government, that is, for a very good price:)). Second, plenty of guns will be available for people to use to defend themselves.

And third, the Right is going to be a mouth foaming pile of apoplexis.

Gun Privacy vs. Neighbor's Right to Know

The Journal News, a newspaper in White Plains, New York, published a map of people licensed to own guns in surrounding counties. This has raised a firestorm of protest from conservatives, claiming variously that these people's privacy had been violated (these licenses are a matter of public record), that it would encourage criminals to target gun owners, or alternately to encourage thieves to target homes that are "unprotected" by guns.

The article accompanying the map begins:

In May, Richard V. Wilson approached a female neighbor on the street and shot her in the back of the head, a crime that stunned their quiet Katonah neighborhood.

What was equally shocking for some was the revelation that the mentally disturbed 77-year-old man had amassed a cache of weapons — including two unregistered handguns and a large amount of ammunition — without any neighbors knowing.

On Christmas Eve William Spengler set fire to his house, killed his sister, set fire to the rest of the neighborhood, then ambushed the firemen who came to douse the blaze, killing two and wounding two others. Spengler was an ex-con who killed his grandmother in 1980. He used a Bushmaster rifle to kill the firemen, like the one Adam Lanza used. It's not yet known how he got the weapon: did he get it at a gun show? From a friend? Through a straw buyer? Or by breaking into a nearby house?

I understand why gun owners don't want their names published in the paper. Neither do pedophiles. But guns in the home represent a real risk to society, both from the gun owners themselves or as a form of attractive nuisance for thieves and children

It's not unreasonable for parents to want to know if their children are playing with kids who might have guns at home, or if neighbors like Richard Wilson represent a potential risk to their children.

Hundreds of kids die each year from accidental shootings. Hundreds of kids also die in swimming pool and trampoline accidents. Parents should know if their kids' friends have pools and trampolines. Why not guns?

That newspaper didn't tell potential burglars anything they didn't already know. Thieves casing a neighborhood can read the "gang signs" that mark gun owners: American flags, large dogs of breeds used for hunting, No Trespassing and No Solicitation signs, political bumper stickers and signs for Tea Party and conservative causes, "Protected by Smith & Wesson" bumper stickers and signs (yeah, some people are that dumb), four-door pickup trucks and Hummers, gun racks in the pickups, etc.


Some gun owners envision themselves as defending the Alamo, and think they will be able to fend off the criminals storming their house in a blaze of gunfire. This is misguided: burglars want to break in while you're gone and your cash, jewelry and guns are just waiting there to be stolen.

Therefore, most burglaries are committed when victims are at work, and nearly all occur when the burglars think you're away. Most thieves are unarmed and avoid conflict. More than 50% of burglaries occur within two miles of the burglar's home. Most are smash and grabs, in and out in 12 minutes or less. Many burglars have already been in your house for some other purpose (that may be why Nancy Lanza didn't let people in).

The NRA recommends people use concealed lock boxes or gun safes, as well as trigger locks or cable locks and that guns be stored unloaded. They should demand these recommendations be given the force of law.

Just as importantly, gun owners should have home security systems or a dog. These are better deterrents than a gun. Burglars are much less likely to rob houses without security systems and barking dogs. And even if you do have a gun for "protection," you still need the dog or the alarm to wake you up. The gun is worse than useless if you're asleep when the intruder takes it from your nightstand.

Gun rights advocates should want to be seen as the people who stop crazy old coots from shooting their neighbors in the head, not the wackos who make it possible.

Happy Christmas!!

I've always looked at the celebration of Christmas Day with inquisitive fascination. Why do we honor the birth of Jesus Christ when it's likely he was born in March? In fact, the reason why we celebrate the nativity on December 25th stems from an effort by 4th Century Christians to make their religion more prominent.

These early believers saw the pagan festivities associated with Mithraism as a threat to their fledgling movement and so they switched the birthday of Christ to be on the same day as the birthday of the Invincible Sun God, Natalis Solis Invincti. The Christians of this time were already emboldened by the Roman Emperor Constantine's edict of 313 CE which allowed them to practice their faith so plans were made to supplant Mithraism with Christianity.

They did this by focusing on the festive nature of the sun god cult worship and essentially making it their own. A Christian mass was developed complete with prayers and ceremony-all in the hopes of luring Mithraists away from their religion to Christianity. In short, it was a PR campaign and it worked.

The irony here (for all your scriptural literalists out there) is that the celebration of Jesus' birthday isn't "pure." It's based on pagan ritual and, in the centuries since that time, is a day that has gone through many other twists and turns. Puritans here in America had outlawed any celebration of Christmas until finally losing out on June 26, 1870 when Christmas became a national holiday. Christmas trees were considered pagan and also forbidden  until the late 17th century. Santa himself began as an amalgamation (partially pagan) of St. Nicholas, the Bishop of Myra (modern-day Turkey), the Norse god, Woden, and the Celtic Holly King and ended up being the creation of a modern day cartoonist (Thomas Nash) for Harper's Weekly in 1860.

So, as we begin to drift off today from an overdose of tryptophan, let's remember that this is not a rigid holiday and is, as it has always been, free loose, and open to interpretation:)

One Christmas was so much like another, in those years around the sea-town corner now and out of all sound except the distant speaking of the voices I sometimes hear a moment before sleep, that I can never remember whether it snowed for six days and six nights when I was twelve or whether it snowed for twelve days and twelve nights when I was six.... 

(from "A Child's Christmas in Wales by Dylan Thomas)

Did You Survive the Most Recent Apocalypse?

Did you get your "I Survived the Apocalypse!" T-shirt yet? December 21st was supposed to be the end of the world, according to a dim-witted interpretation of the Mayan calendar. The reality is that the end of the previous baktun of the Mayan calender was no different from the end of December on our calendar, or the end of the fiscal year, or the end of the 20th century, or the end of the second millennium.

We saw plenty of crazies predicting doom on December 31, 1999 (though, technically, the third millennium didn't start until Jan. 1, 2001). There were the typical fire-and-brimstone second-coming loonies, but there were also plenty of technological Y2K doomsayers. And more recently there was Harold Camping, who took two swings at the Apocalypse piñata in 2011, spending more than $100 million promoting his end-of-the-world predictions. And we're all still here.

What is it about a calendar rolling over like an odometer that turns out the crazies?

Historically prophets have cast catastrophic events like hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, wars, plagues and droughts as presentiments of the end times, or punishments for our wickedness. Pat Robertson predicted a Gay Days weekend at Disney World would bring a hurricane down on Orlando. Instead Hurricane Bonnie hit Virginia Beach, where Robertson's 700 club originates. James Dobson blamed the Newtown shooting on gay marriage. Did I miss the story about Adam Lanza's girlfriend dumping him and marrying a lesbian?

Climate scientists have long predicted that stronger hurricanes, prolonged drought punctuated by huge deluges, the spread of tropical diseases like West Nile virus and dengue fever — events that we're experiencing right now — would be the result of global warming caused by human-generated carbon dioxide emissions. Many on the Christian Right reject these data-driven observations and computer-modeled predictions out of hand. Yet at exactly the same time they cite these events as evidence of our moral failings, portraying them as God's retribution for our disobedience.

Climate scientists are missing the boat. To gain broader acceptance they need to recast their climate forecasts as apocalyptic prophecies of doom caused by God's ire over the seven deadly sins we are committing:

• Greed: skyrocketing oil-company profits
• Pride: Americans who proudly drive gas-wasting Hummers to flaunt their wealth
• Sloth: people who are too lazy to walk to the corner store contribute to global warming
• Wrath: the refusal of irate Republican members of the House to renew wind power tax credits
• Lust: the rape of the earth by oil wells and coal mines
• Envy: the consumer culture that causes us to compete with the Joneses by buying ever-greater quantities of immediately disposable things that require oil, gas and coal to produce and transport
• Gluttony: the epidemic of diabetes and other obesity-related diseases resulting from our consumption of high-fructose corn syrup produced on gigantic monoculture corporate farms that use billions of gallons of oil for fuel and fertilizer, as well as damage the environment and our own genetic code with pesticides and herbicides

There's a far better case for divine wrath over excessive oil consumption for the overtopping of seawalls that caused the flooding of New York and New Jersey during Hurricane Sandy than there is for God expressing his anger over gay marriage by having Adam Lanza murder 20 first-graders in Newtown. Higher ocean temperatures raise sea levels, causing more flooding. But those kids were not members of the Connecticut Supreme Court who upgraded civil unions (passed in 2005) to full marriage in Connecticut four years ago.

In the case of Sandy there's an obvious cause and effect, and in Newtown there's an "I told you so." God might move in mysterious ways, but if he wants us to get the message, he should be a little more direct, rather than relying on preachers in expensive suits asking for handouts on TV. What's even more incredible is that there are people who would willingly worship a god who wrought a terrifying bloody death upon innocent children who had absolutely nothing to do with the perceived violation of his laws. I just don't remember hearing that any of those kids were gay or married.

Climate change deniers insist scientists are just saying this stuff to get grant money. Just as skeptics insist Harold Camping predicted the end of the world just to get donations from frightened old ladies. Maybe the religious right doesn't believe climate scientists' predictions because they're suffering from a nasty case of psychological projection.

Hmm. What is that odd, rodent-like odor?

Son of the Gun

The New Yorker ran a story in April of this year about guns in America (Maureen Dowd sent me that way). It contained the following revelation about David Michael Keene, the son of NRA president David Keene:

In 2002, Keene’s son David Michael Keene was driving on the George Washington Memorial Parkway when, in a road-rage incident, he fired a handgun at another motorist. He was sentenced to ten years in prison for “using, brandishing, and discharging a firearm in a crime of violence.” I asked Keene if this private tragedy had left him uncertain about what the N.R.A. had wrought. He said no: “You break the law, you pay the price.”

Keene used to run the American Conservative Union (which organizes CPAC), where his 21-year-old son worked as the online communications director at the time of the shooting. Keene was featured in another news story two years ago when $400,000 was embezzled from the ACU. The culprit? His ex-wife, Diana Hubbard Carr. She pleaded guilty to mail fraud in 2011.

It seems the people closest to David Keene lack a certain self control.

Did David Keene commit these crimes? No. Is he guilty by association? No. But fathers have to wonder if they bear some responsibility for their sons' actions. Was Keene a bad parent, as many think Nancy Lanza was? Might he have imparted to his son a self-entitled attitude about not taking crap from anyone, backed up by a belligerent arrogance that comes from packing heat?

The NRA president is a Daily Show punchline. If there had been no gun in the younger Keene's BMW his life would not have been ruined. Keene's own son was sent to jail for exactly the kind of senseless crime gun control advocates say easy access to guns promotes. The NRA's president's son is Exhibit A against everything they stand for.

What's astounding is that Keene can experience this and so utterly miss the point. It's not just his kid who would have paid the price had his aim been truer: the guy he almost shot would have paid a much higher price.

Twenty-six victims paid the ultimate price for Adam Lanza's crimes, and hundreds of parents, relatives and friends who paid a price in grief that David Keene seems incapable of feeling.