Contributors

Saturday, March 09, 2013

Get The Facts First, Please

Even though the organization  is gone, nothing is sure to whip up that perfect stew of anger, hatred, paranoia like ACORN. Like the Soviet Union, the Right just can't seem to let go of it. The mere mention of it generates red faces and white foam in a matter of seconds. They just need to have those enemies out there...somewhere...

I've contended for years now that the videos James O'Keefe released didn't tell the whole story. Now, the man behind those videos himself has admitted that they did not (article courtesy of juris imprudent)

O’Keefe also acknowledges that at the time the video was publicized, he was unaware of Vera’s claims that he contacted the authorities after the unusual visit by the couple.

So, all that anaphylaxis was for nothing. ACORN employee Juan Carols Vera did contact the police after all.  O'Keefe also had to fork over $100,000 in damages to Vera as he did not consent to be videotaped. Oh, and guess what else?

An attorney general’s report found that the video was selectively edited. For instance, video showing O’Keefe and Giles dressed as a pimp and hooker was later edited into the video, when they were not dressed that way when speaking to Vera.

I realize that the Right lives for shit like this but perhaps in the future they might want to get all the facts before they start bustin' loads of jiz all over the internet.

Funnier still, they take down of ACORN did absolutely nothing in accomplishing the Right's goal...inner city (see: black) voter suppression. In fact, it actually galvanized the urban vote who, once again, turned out in record numbers for Democrats.

Hmm...I wonder why...:)

Gun Myth #9

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.

Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.

About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.

• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Friday, March 08, 2013

Mississippi

As we celebrate Women on this "International Women's Day" we still need to acknowledge the injustice that's being done in the State of Mississippi to Women's rights. The state is fighting very hard to implement TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws to close its only remaining abortion clinic. This type of behavior is a systematic destruction to a federal law that is been in place for over 40 years to protect women and their choice. Mississippi, your behavior is a racket. 

Anti-Spending Anaphylactoids

As we get closer to the Easter holidays, you might want to prepare yourself for that crazy uncle at your family gathering who will likely be foaming at the mouth about federal spending. A good article to show him is this one. The fact is, folks, that when the government spends less money, it has a real world impact.

These reductions, economists say, act as a drag on the economy. Former park employees, clerks, and firefighters such as Lykins are buying only the necessities. Cities are deferring road work, which means contractors aren't hiring people to pour concrete. By far, the largest impact is on school systems, which are laying off teachers, counselors, and janitors.

With the sequester kicking in last Friday, this sort of thing is now going to happening on a national scale. The anti-spending anaphylactoids seem to be operating under the assumption that federal spending occurs in a void filled with evil, darkness and nothing else. Never mind the fact that while all the spending is going on there is revenue coming in and a 15 trillion dollar economy out there that creates the need for government services.

When you cut these services, people like Brian Lykins are affected. "A lot of the private sector depends on the public sector," says Chris Hoene, director of research and innovation at the National League of Cities in Washington. "There are estimates that for every $3 spent at the municipal level, there is $1 in new private-sector activity."

The sooner we accept the fact that government spending is essential to our economy and, more importantly, that as our economy grows, our spending must grow as well, the better position we will be in to finally tackle our long term, economic concerns.

Thursday, March 07, 2013

Gun Myth #8

Myth #8: "Vicious, violent video games" deserve more blame than guns.

Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?

Per capita spending on video games: $44 (United States) $55 ( Japan )

Civilian firearms per 100 people: 88 (United States) 0.6 ( Japan )

Gun homicides in 2008: 11,030 (United States) 11( Japan )

(
Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey (PDF), UN Office on Drugs and Crime)

They Came and Got His Guns

Well, it has happened. The government came and got an NRA member's guns. Twice.

An NRA official in New York has been banned from owning guns after pleading guilty to harassment charges:
Richard D’Alauro, the NRA’s field representative for the city and its suburbs, is forbidden from owning guns under an order of protection stemming from a confrontation with his wife in their Long Island home, the Daily News has learned.

Suffolk County authorities filed misdemeanor charges of assault and endangering the welfare of a child and a noncriminal charge of harassment as a result of the domestic dustup, which occurred at 1:55 a.m. on Sept. 1, 2010, records show.
He'll be able to get all his guns back in October. I'm guessing he pleaded guilty to non-criminal harassment to avoid losing at trial, which would have resulted in more serious restrictions on gun ownership. What kind of a guy is D'Alauro?
In an interview, Maribeth D’Alauro — who has multiple sclerosis and walks with a cane — declined to detail the confrontation with her former husband, but she said that assault “is an accurate description.”

She said she suffered from “years of domestic violence” but was “too afraid to ever call the police on him."  "I’m finally able to talk about things I wasn’t able to talk about,” she said.

She called her ex-husband a “bully” who acted at home with the same confrontational behavior that NRA leaders use in politics. “They are cut from the same cloth,” she said.
This exposes the real motivation for gun ownership for many. We all know who they are: guys like D'Alauro. These people don't need guns to protect themselves, but to bully others and prop up their sagging self image. It's exactly the same reason gangbangers pack heat; it's the only way they can get the respect they think they deserve. This same attitude sent David Michael Keene, the son of NRA president David Keene, to jail for a shooting during a road rage incident.

When the NRA claims anecdotally that "millions of protective uses of guns go unreported each year," what they're actually referring to is the use of guns to bully others. They don't see it that way at all, because in their self-centered universe they can never be guilty of bullying, harassment and intimidation. In their minds brandishing a gun isn't a threat, it's a natural extension of their freedom of expression, a form of constitutionally protected free speech.

But this mindset is the main reason why, as Mark recently noted, women who live in homes with guns are seven times more likely to be killed by their abusers.

Oh Bill

In this clip you will find Bill O'Reilly and Alan Colmes in a heated exchange. We see Alan Colmes give Bill O'Reilly a couple entitlement programs (Medicare and Medicaid) President Obama is willing to cut yet Bill O'Reilly tells his audience that he has not named one. These are the type of lies the right wing folks buy in to. It is really sad that this is the America we live in. What the hell is happening to logic, reason, honesty, dignity, respect, acceptance, and truth?

Wednesday, March 06, 2013

A Thousand Ton Weight

The death of Hugo Chavez reminded me that I had to discuss this wonderful piece by Larry Diamond. He discusses how the myth that Global South countries are not "read for democracy" and how that should be dispensed with immediately. In many ways, the last few years of Chavez's life are a testament to this. He lost a considerable amount of control over Venezuela and his long term vision for the future of the country came under intense scrutiny.

The fact is that Chavez was no great hero or visionary. He simply rode the wave of oil wealth and made people believe that his way was the best way for Venezuela. Globalization has proved him to be massively wrong. The once robust economy has returned to where it was 50 years ago, other industries in the country have suffered, and they are currently running a 15 percent deficit of GDP. With so much government control, their economy simply cannot compete in the world. Other dictators like Fidel Castro have recognized this as well.

Even though Diamond wrote his piece primarily focusing on other areas of the world, the same paradigm applies to Middle America and South America.

The lower- and middle-income democracies that did come through the last two decades intact have shown that authoritarianism confers no intrinsic developmental advantage. For every Singapore-style authoritarian economic “miracle,” there have been many more instances of implosion or stagnation—as in Zaire, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and (until recently) Burma— resulting from predatory authoritarian rule.

Right. In fact, the assertion that tyranny and dictatorships are "just around the corner" in many parts of the world is also a myth.

While it remains true that democracy is more sustainable at higher levels of development, an unprecedented number of poor countries adopted democratic forms of government during the 1980s and ’90s, and many of them have sustained democracy for well over a decade. These include several African countries, such as Ghana, Benin, and Senegal, and one of the poorest Asian countries, Bangladesh. Other very poor countries, such as East Timor, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, are now using the political institutions of democracy as they rebuild their economies and states after civil war. Although the world has been in a mild democratic recession since about 2006, with reversals concentrated disproportionately in low-income and lower-middle-income states, a significant number of democracies in these income categories continue to function.

Yes, they do because democracy is the best system to fit in with this era of globalization. And countries aren't the only ones that have embraced it.

Further refuting the skeptics, democracy has taken root or at least been embraced by every major cultural group, not just the societies of the West with their Protestant traditions. Most Catholic countries are now democracies, and very stable ones at that. Democracy has thrived in a Hindu state, Buddhist states, and a Jewish state. And many predominantly Muslim countries, such as Turkey, Bangladesh, Senegal, and Indonesia, have by now had significant and mainly positive experience with democracy.

Diamond also discusses Hugo Chavez towards the end of the piece.

Despite the persistence of authoritarianism under Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, and the authoritarian tendencies of left-wing populist presidents in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, the bigger story in Latin America has been democratic resilience and deepening. Chile and Uruguay have become stable liberal democracies, Brazil has made dramatic democratic and economic progress, and even once chronically unstable Peru has seen three successive democratically elected presidents deliver brisk economic growth with declining poverty rates. In fact, Latin America is the only region of the world where income inequality has decreased in the last decade.

To me, the death of Hugo Chavez is symbolic of a much larger sea change. The time of dictators and authoritarian rule is drawing to a close. Countries like North Korea and Iran will not exist as they do now in a decade. The prosperity that has resulted from globalization is going to squash them like a thousand ton weight.

Hmm...

Gun advocates split with NRA on background checks

For example, the founder of the pro-gun Second Amendment Foundation tentatively backed a proposed compromise bill in Washington state last month that would expand checks while limiting state firearms record-keeping. 

In addition, the head of the nation’s largest police union, which was allied with the NRA in a major legislative battle in the past, has joined the movement for expanded background checks.

Finally, some sane people that recognize that federal law already prohibits a national registry so universal background checks will not lead immediately to an "in the bubble" Germany, 1933.

Tuesday, March 05, 2013


Gun Myth #7

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.

Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.

• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.

• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

Monday, March 04, 2013

On Siglitz: Part Six

The sixth chapter of Joseph Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality is called, "1984 is Upon Us." In this section, Stiglitz details how many of the wealthy in this country try to frame the discussion in a way that benefits their interests, realizing that, in democracy, they cannot simply impose their rules on others. He posits that, in one way or another, they have to "co-opt" the rest of society to advance their agenda. They do this using their own, more subtle version of "newspeak."

An example of this can be seen in how our society responds to the word "socialism."

In American parlance, "socialism" is akin to communism , and communism is the ideology we battled for sixty years, triumphing only in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Hence labeling anything as socialism is the kiss of death. Medicare is a single payer system-the government pays the bill, but the individual gets to choose the provider. Most of the elderly love Medicare. But many are convinced that government can't provide services efficiently that they believe that Medicare must be private.

Hence the famous "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" line. The irony here, aside from the obvious, is just how much socialism there is in this country that hasn't delivered the promised tyranny we now daily from the Right and, in fact, has been enormously beneficial to our country. Even famed "unbridled capitalist" Adam Smith wrote, in The Wealth of Nations, that the sovereign has

The duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a greater society.

Here, Smith champions elements of socialism and states that they are essential to any successful society. They have certainly worked out very well for us as we are the greatest nation this world has ever seen.

So, the dichotomy here is very frustrating given how the framing of American parlance operates. When we start discussing economics and the high level of inequality we have in this country, we see it again. As Stiglitz notes

Mainstream economics assumes that individuals have well defined preferences and fully rational expectations and perceptions. Individuals know what they want. But in this respect, traditional economics is wrong. If it were true, there would be little need for advertising. Corporations use recent advances in psychology and economics that extend our understanding and preferences and beliefs can be shaped to induce people to buy their products. 

Exactly right. One of the major problems I have with the whole "people act in their own enlightened self interest" meme is that..well...people don't. They are often foolish, emotionally unintelligent, and behave poorly, even engaging in criminal activity. That's why "leaving it all up to the free market to sort out" doesn't work given that the powerful people who run many of these markets can be characterized as all the above.

More importantly, people who don't really know what they want and aren't rational can be easily manipulated. Because of this simple fact, Stiglitz notes that most Americans have no earthly idea how much inequality there is in this country. They believe there is less economic inequality than there is, they underestimate its adverse economic effects, and they overestimate the costs of taking action.

In a recent study respondents on average thought that the top fifth of the population had just short of 60 percent of the wealth, when in truth that group holds approximately 85 percent of the wealth. Interestingly, respondents described an ideal wealth distribution as one in which the top 20 percent hold just over 30 percent of the wealth. Americans recognize that some inequality is inevitable, and perhaps even desirable if one is to provide incentives; but the level of inequality in American society is well beyond that level.

I've brought up this study before but I think it should be revisited given the context of Stiglitz's argument. People don't have any idea just how much the wealthy have in this country. Of course, any discussion about it results in Orwellian screeches and howls from the Right about "Marxism" and "class warfare." Yet this sort of wealth concentration at the top is exactly where liberal economic theory was born. Men like Adam Smith and Samuel Stiles bemoaned the hoarding of wealth by the aristocracy through mercantilism and other protectionist practices. In many ways, Stiglitz has argued the same thing in previous chapters by pointing out the endless cycle of rent seeking, incompetent government action and government inaction. Regardless of the times or the mechanism, the wealthy are continuing to do what they always do: consolidate power.

Now, this is usually the point when people ask, "how much inequality is bad and how much is good?" Well, before we do that, we have to get back to the perception problem.

Not only do Americans misperceive the level of inequality; they underestimate the changes that have been going on. Only 42 percent of Americans believe that inequality has increased in the past ten years, when in fact the increase has been tectonic. Misperceptions are evident, too, in views about social mobility. Several studies (here, here, and here) confirmed that perceptions of social mobility are overly optimistic.

So, we need to solve the problem of awareness first before we can detail any sort of serious metric regarding acceptable or unacceptable levels of inequality. That means we have to combat the 1984ish messaging we see every day from the 1 percent.

After we've done that, the best place to start is the most commonly used measure of inequality: the Gini-coefficient. There is also the Theil index, which has more sub group and sub region development, the Decile dispersion ratio, and the Share of income/consumption of the poorest x%. All of these metrics should be used in tandem for a more accurate analysis.

In taking a look at where we are today, it's obvious that we really do have some very serious perception problems.


























Bear in mind, these figures are only through 2010, the last time the Census Bureau did their estimate. Two years ago we were at 46.9 which means we are very close to that .5 tipping point where we quite literally have a country of haves and have-nots. The study from above shows that Americans want our country to be more like Sweden. That's not surprising, given that there Gini coefficient is .23, nearly half of what our's is today.

Stiglitz has much more to say in this chapter regarding perceptions in terms of market behavior, fairness, and a whole host of other issues like the public view on estate taxes and bank recapitalization. It's quite a bit of information to absorb so I chose to focus on the more general theme of the chapter-the perception of inequality. For the finer points, as always, I recommend reading the book and the sources contained at the end of each section, some of which I have listed here.

So, the facts show that it's a more subtle version of newspeak, isn't it? It's not quite war is peace (although the Right's view on guns is certainly close to that) but it's still just as contradictory. The people of this country need to know just how much inequality there is and, as Stiglitz noted in previous chapters, the detrimental effects it is inflicting on our country.