Congratulations Dwayne Crenshaw!!!

Over ten years ago, I got my second real gig in politics - after working for a political consultant in the 1998 elections, I finally was hired to manage a campaign for State Assembly starring an unknown candidate in Dwayne Crenshaw.  At the time, our only opponent was Steve Padilla, a well-liked city councilman from Chula Vista.  Within a few months, Juan Vargas entered the race, and while we ran a great campaign, Dwayne lost.* 

A few years later, Dwayne ran again for City Council, and came so close to winning that the campaign that his opponent, the late Charles Lewis, started drank more alcohol to deal with the stress, and since Kaiser neglected to tell him that Mr. Lewis had liver disease (despite multiple tests showing that he had major liver issues), Mr. Lewis died.**  Finally, in the 2nd race for City Council (post-Lewis) Dwayne's secret - that he's gay - finally came out.

Now, in some ways, this was a good thing.  Dwayne got to finally be himself, and stopped having to hide who he is. At the same time, Dwayne was subjected to the same homophobia that he long feared. He lost his race for City Council, and his political career was over.  Now, keep in mind, he didn't enter into some sham marriage, or engage in rampant homophobia, but simply tried to keep his sexual orientation from the public realm.  But that was enough to end his political career.

Thereafter, Dwayne worked in the nonprofit world, and rose to the heights of Executive Director for a nonprofit not-to-be-named. Still, homophobia rose its ugly head (allegedly), and Dwayne was fired.  Like most people, post-politics***, Dwayne went to law school.  And I was happy for him then, and I'm happy for him now.

In the following years, Dwayne has become the Executive Director for San Diego Pride, and as of today, Dwayne is a law school graduate.  I couldn't be prouder. What caught me most of all is Dwayne's speech today at his graduation celebration (old habits die hard).  His focus of thought on civil rights, from marriage equality to equal treatment for all children in school, to ending the death penalty, and all things in between, represented all my hopes for Dwayne the first time I heard him speak all those years ago.  I am proud of my friend, and San Diego Pride couldn't have found a better leader.

Anyway, Dwayne, if you're reading this, and I hope you are, congratulations. I'm proud of you.

*I actually blame myself for that - Dwayne thought about dropping out, and I told Dwayne to stay in.  My theory being, "what the hell else are we going to do with all this campaign literature?" In retrospect, I'm not that proud of my advice.

**Weirdly enough, my boss represented Charles Lewis' family in the medical malpractice action against Kaiser.  According to the arbitrator's decision, Kaiser knew that Lewis had serious liver problems, but never told him. Now, if this was any random person, it would be scary enough, but Lewis was a City Councilman from San Diego and could've cancelled Kaiser's contract with the City of San Diego.

***Myself included.

A Slight Snag in My Bold Prediction

A few weeks ago, I predicted on Twitter that Rick Santorum, he of the ugliest and most deserving google bomb ever, would take the GOP nomination.  My theory, still sound, IMHO, is this:

Given the nature of the frontloaded primaries, the candidate with the most momentum going into January will sweep Iowa and New Hampshire, and then take the nomination.  Now, the process of who that person is, the Anti-Romney, has gone from one candidate rising from obscurity, then not being able to take the harsh glare, and falling back down to Earth.  This is what happened to Bachmann, Perry, and now Herman Cain.  Newt Gingrich appears to be the latest Anti-Romney to rise.  Of course, Gingrich is an asshole to the highest magnitude, so I figured he would fall back down to Earth. Then, Santorum would rise.

Of course, what I forgot about the whole thing is that EVERYONE KNOWS WHO GINGRICH IS.  He was Speaker of the House, for crying out loud.  They know he dumped his first wife while she was having cancer surgery, that he was cheating on his second wife while attacking Bill Clinton for cheating on Hillary, and that he is an obnoxious blowhard.  So, being presented with more evidence that Gingrich is an obnoxious blowhard isn't going to change their minds.

But, if they do, these voters are not going to vote for Mitt Romney.  Sorry Mittens, no nomination for you.

Stupidity Brutality in the Police Departments

Over the past weekend, and indeed over the past few weeks, we've seen quite a few acts of police brutality via YouTube. Yes, these clips don't show the whole story, but let's not kid ourselves - the police have committed acts of stupid brutality.  And I don't mean tearing down tents, or throwing out books, but rather, spraying kids with pepper spray because they refuse to move.

Notice the casualness of the police officer as he douses these students with pepper spray. On tape.  With other students telling the police officer that they're taping him.  Now, this isn't, unfortunately, an isolated incident.  Last week, the chancellor of UC Berkeley, demonstrating that he didn't attend the university he purports to run, notified students that linking arms was a form of violence against the police.  Additionally, cities like Oakland and New York have seen clashes with the police and the Occupy crowd, and have had more than their fair share of rough behavior from the police. 

And simply put, all this rough treatment is the result of sheer stupidity by those police departments.  At UC Davis, did the police really think that the students would camp over the Thanksgiving holiday?  Or does the NYPD really think that the Occupy Wall Street protesters were going to stay in Zuccotti park all winter long? The police, if they were thinking, could simply wait out the protesters.  Post a car or two at the protest, make sure that everyone is safe, and treat the protest as "nothing to see here."

Instead, by using violence, the police are playing into the hands of protesters.  The whole point of civil disobedience is to incite a violent reaction from the authorities.  If the officer in the video above hadn't pepper sprayed those kids, I wouldn't even know that there was a protest at UC Davis. Hell, I only have a vaguest notion of where UC Davis is (by Sacramento, in a cow pasture).  But guess what, now not only do I know who the Chancellor is, I know why the kids are protesting (tuition costs doubling in the past eight years), and I know of a certain police officer who's about to get canned.

And that's the stupidity of the whole affair.  Look, college kids will protest.  First, its in their nature, and second, there's a lot to protest out there.  These kids are paying a lot more for a college education than I did, and their returns, post college, are much worse than mine.  I'd be pissed too.  But, eventually, these kids have lives to get back to, and they stop protesting.  Better to hear them out, make sure they're safe, and then go on from there.

"Shit is Fucked Up and Bullshit"

The rallying cry of the 99%, or Occupy Wall Street, or Occupy San Diego, or whatever, is "Shit is Fucked Up and Bullshit," or, at least, it was the sign from one protester.  But if there was ever a time where such a statement was true, it is now. And if there ever was a blog where such a statement would be applauded, its this one.

So, why haven't I written about the Occupy movement sooner?  Because I'm not a big protest guy.  During the Iraq War, I saw hundreds of thousands of people protest against war in Iraq, and we got war in Iraq.  I've seen protests against Obama, protests for Obama, etc.  People march, feel good about themselves, and go home.  Nothing gets done.  And when I heard about Occupy Wall Street, I thought that was what was going to happen.  Another useless march.

What I didn't expect, and I think this goes for everyone, that the protest was going to be a 24/7 occupation.  Even in my relatively tame burgh of San Diego, the Occupy San Diego movement has lasted for well over a month now.  Wow.  And this occupation is important because it actively pisses off the establishment to the point where the establishment does something stupid.  That's the whole point of nonviolent protest - you are trying to get a violent response from the authorities, and then shame them into submission.  Now, if the authorities have any brains, they'd ignore this provocation and sit on the protesters.  That appears to be the tactic of the SDPD (to some extent) at least.  But elsewhere, such as in New York City and Oakland, the Occupy movement has sparked violent reactions from the police, even when its been relatively unjustified.   Hell, 18 city mayors have coordinated their attacks.

All this has done is stoke the fires of anger that lead to the occupy movement in the first place.  New people get involved, and more attention is paid to their causes.  Of course, the Occupy movement has no leaders, and its goals are murky.  But its in that murkiness that the Occupy movement has become a Rorschach test for the body politic.  Whatever angers us about banks, about the corruption of our government, about the failure of our leaders to do anything about the economy when investors will literally PAY the Federal government to borrow money from them - all of those things are part of the Occupy movement, and none of them are.  That's the whole point of the 99% - we're all pissed about something.

And I cannot say enough about what this movement has done - it literally changed the debate from budget austerity to income inequality.  It gives Obama room to maneuver as the community organizer leading from the back, and it shows that Americans aren't pissed about paying taxes - they're pissed their government is owned by the financial sector.  And they should be - whenever the financial system screws up, we all end up hit with shrapnel - we bailout the wrongdoers and end up with a cycle of boom and bust.

So, where does it all end?  I honestly have no idea.  But congrats to the people who are part of the Occupy movement.  You've convinced me.

Quick Thoughts - Newt Gingrich's Rise, NBA Lockout, and Other Observations

I'm brief-writing today, and as is my habit, I need to mix in a post in an effort to get the writing juices flowing (seriously, this works for me for some reason).  Anyway, here are a few posts to confirm what I've said on this blog in the past:

Newt Gingrich's Rise Proves Everyone Hates Mitt Romney:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the 2012 GOP Primary is all about Romney v. the anti-Romney.  Fundamentally, GOP primary voters do not like Romney.  Here's how I know: people who answer survey questions say they won't vote for someone because they either a) Don't know the candidate; b) Like the candidate, but like another candidate more; and 3) they hate the candidate.

Since he's been running for President since 2007 (or earlier), everyone knows Mitt Romney.  And given that Bachmann, Trump, Perry, Cain, and now Newt Gingrich, have all been the frontrunner at some point in this race, its pretty clear that the voters are consistently picking anyone over Romney.  The exceptions to this rule are Jon Huntsman (who is a poor man's Romney to Republican voters, and a rich man's Romney to Democratic voters), Ron Paul (who's off in a world of his own), and Rick Santorum.  To be honest, I have no idea why the voters haven't gone with Santorum yet - my best guess is that he gives off a "loser" vibe.

In any event, if Romney gets the nomination, he won't be beloved by his base, and that will make for an interesting general election.

NBA Lockout

So, it looks like the NBA season will be locked out due to the labor issues between the owners and the players.  As I said before, the only way the players will get any leverage in this potential lockout is for the players themselves to form their own league - thus threatening the investments of the owners (who would own essentially useless assets if the players' league does well).

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran?

I have to admit I didn't see the last GOP debate - but the whole issue of bombing Iran to prevent it from getting nukes is a bad one because the Iranian regime is learning that when you favor loyalty over competency, you end up with an incompetent government.  The people are pissed, and want change now.  As a result, even if Iran gets the bomb, its more likely to use it on itself than on the U.S. or Israel.  Plus, in the battle of the Middle Eastern hegemonies, Turkey is winning - no one wants to be Iran anymore, everyone wants to be like Turkey.  Bombing Iran will only strengthen a hastily weakening regime.

The 2011 Chargers

Two words for you: Norv sucks.  Seriously, how often do we have to see the same story over and over again for everyone to remember that Norv Turner is not a good head coach?  That AJ Smith either won't see this, or can't see this, lends credence to the idea that the "Lord of No Rings" has to go as well.

Sex Abuse Scandals and Panic

Like other members of the Democratic Machine, I spent the last few weeks digging up various women to claim they were harassed by Herman Cain, a fringe candidate for President, who by process of elimination, is now the anti-Romney, aka frontrunner.  Um. . .no. 

But seriously, I have been struck by the recent scandal at Penn State where it appears Joe Paterno's former protege (who retired under strange circumstances in 1998), Jerry Sandusky, has been raping young boys for years.  In fact, in 2002, a graduate assistant witnessed Sandusky raping a 10 year old boy (the boy and Sandusky fled), and he told Paterno what happened immediately.  Paterno, in turn, informed the Athletic Director at Penn State, who, in turn, did absolutely nothing.  Unfortunately for the Athletic Director, he was required by law to report the whole thing to the police.  Its not clear if Paterno and his graduate assistant were as well.  Oh, and for those of you who don't know, Joe Paterno is the legendary head football coach at Penn State, and actually has tenure.  In the past, he has been held up as a paragon of moral behavior in collegiate athletics.

Now, there are more than a few people who condemn Joe Paterno for failing to do anything but inform his "boss" (given that Paterno has tenure, the athletic director can't actually fire Paterno, so he's really more of Paterno's department head).  And certainly, if the allegations are true (and they probably are), Paterno doesn't look good.

But, many of the commentators have missed the opportunity to point out something key - Paterno, and most of the rest of the Penn State Athletic Department were acting completely and totally out of their depth.  Penn State, of course, is a university, and the personnel deal with young adults.  Pedophilia is simply out of their range of experience.

When faced with this situation, all of them panicked, and tried to pass the buck (or, in the case of the Athletic Director, apparently, bury the information).  This reaction, as we've seen with the Catholic Church, and with other organizations is so common that most states have passed laws that require that organizations like Penn State go to the police immediately when confronted with information that a child has been abused.

Ultimately, these laws are a good thing, not because they punish but because they tell people what they're supposed to do.  In the heat of battle, or in moments of panic, you need to have a set of procedures to follow precisely because these are moments happen so rarely.  We'd like to think that people would act with common sense, and individually they do.  But in an organizational context, like Penn State, there is no such thing as common sense, just groupthink.  And that's what I think happened with Penn State.

****UPDATE AND EDITOR'S NOTE****

When I wrote the above post, I didn't fully consider that Sandusky retired in 1999 at 55 (a young age for coaches) while being investigated for molesting a young boy.  That Sandusky retired to devote more of his time to young boys (seriously), and that Paterno allowed Sandusky to use Penn State's facilities for his "nonprofit" for young boys, while knowing why Sandusky retired, looks really, really bad.  Its no wonder that the Board of Trustees felt they had to fire Paterno.

The above post is not meant, in any way, to defend Paterno, but rather to point out that when people are part of an organization, they act really stupidly, and Paterno acted really stupidly in order to "protect the program."

On Alternative Theories About. . .

One of the things that pisses me off consistently in history is the conjecture that so-and-so couldn't have done this, or couldn't have written that.  So the pyramids had to have been built by the Egyptians (total bullshit), or that the Nazca lines couldn't have been made by the peoples there - again, total bullshit.  To a large extent, a lot of this conjecture is based on racist or classist beliefs.  The fact is, if you give a person enough time, regardless of what time period we're talking about, they can figure out all kinds of shit.  The best example is Leonardo da Vinci, who's sketches we have.  If da Vinci can figure out flying machines and helicopters in the 1400's, then the Egyptians sure as hell could've figured out how to build ramps.

I bring this up because of the recent movie "Anonymous" which puts forth the idea that another man, not William Shakespeare, wrote all of his plays.  The guiding principle of this theory is pure class-ism: no one from Shakespeare's social standing (middle class) could've written such magnificent plays and poetry, and so the writer has to be from the upper classes.  Now, there are a couple of problems with this.  First, if you look at the history of English literature, virtually every single poet of note is decidedly middle class in origin.  Which makes sense, of course, because a writer from the middle/merchant classes of England would: a) have access to education; and, b) actually depend on his writing to eat on a somewhat regular basis.  Desperation is often the best tutor.

Second, if the people they put up as the true writers of Shakespeare - Francis Bacon, Edward de Vere, Christopher Marlowe (actually the coolest theory) - don't really hold up to timelines.  Francis Bacon, for instance, dies in 1626, three years after Shakespeare's first folio was published supposedly posthumously.  Edward de Vere dies in 1604 - years before Shakespeare stops writing (1611-ish), and years before Shakespeare's buddies publish the first folio (1623). And Marlowe is dead by 1593 - although, I have to admit the idea that Marlowe faked his death pretty cool.

The other thing about these theories is that they often lack common sense.  If, for instance, Edward de Vere was the true author of Shakespeare's plays but was hiding his authorship for some reason, he would've made sure the "author" wrote for HIS theatre company, and not the competition (who Shakespeare wrote for).  After all, its not as if actors are known for their honesty (and they were worse in Shakespeare's day), and their willingness to not engage in blackmail.  So, if I'm going to be convinced that Shakespeare is not the writer of his plays, I'm going to need a better theory, based on the following principles:

1) The writer has to have been alive from 1593 (when Shakespeare first works appear) and dies prior to 1623.  None of this crap about publishing plays slowly after the writer dies (as in de Vere).  Actors then and now live hand to mouth - if there's money to be made by producing a kickass play, they're going to do it.  Also, the first folio was published in 1623 - which makes some sense for Shakespeare, who dies in 1616, and bequeaths money to for the purchase of mourning rings to the two eventual publishers of the folio (as it would take some time to gather up the plays, find a publisher, etc.,) - but doesn't for de Vere, who kicks it in 21 years prior - why would anyone wait that long.  Also, Bacon doesn't work because he dies three years after the first folio.  Why publish a posthumous folio three years before his death.

2) The writer had to be directly connected to Shakespeare's company.  To think that someone from nobility would risk going to a strange company of actors, have them produce his plays, and not have some degree of control over said actors is crazy.  People in power only deal with people close to them as a rule.  Here, if the writer wanted to hide his identity, he'd want the control or support over the whole company of actors in case something slipped out.

3) The writer would have to be well-regarded in the London literary community - in the years after Shakespeare died, there were close to 18 poems written in his eulogy.  Now sure, some of these eulogies were written in the way that I would write a eulogy for a celebrity I didn't know, but more than a few were written by Shakespeare's friends.  In fact, with the exception of Ben Jonson, no other playwright from the era was better eulogized.  Oh, and all these eulogies start in 1616.

4) The reason to not publish the works under his/her own name better be good. Yeah, playwrights weren't considered respectable writers in their day, but that was because most playwrights sucked.  But, if you were a noble and wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare, wouldn't you at least consider revealing yourself?  The plays sucked up to Queen Elizabeth, sucked up to King James, and were wildly popular. Now, unless the writer of the works had a damn good reason to keep quiet - and I mean a better reason than "it would look bad" - I'm not buying the theory.  The Marlowe theory works because he was about to be arrested for heresy when he died.

So, that said, outside of the Marlowe theory (which works because Marlowe was a spook, and Shakespeare copied the shit out of him early on), I'm not buying it.  To pull it off, a lot of people would have to be involved in a needlessly complicated plot for not a lot of money and then kept their mouths shut - which simply never happens.  In history, whenever such a conspiracy takes place, someone, after everything is said and done, talks, because its human nature to blab about the cool shit you pulled off.  That's why we know every dirty trick the British pulled on the Germans during World War II.  No one even mentioned the potential for other writers until the 1800's.

I've Said It Before: Everyone Hates Mitt Romney

Over the past several months of the 2012 Presidential campaign (Iowa caucuses are two months away people!), we have seen a consistent trend - the GOP base is looking for someone, anyone, somewhere, to step up and become the nominee.  Well, okay, anyone but Mitt Romney.  Poor Mittens has been a solid second place next to rising stars Michelle Bachmann (who everyone realized was too crazy), Rick Perry (who regularly got his butt kicked in the debates), and Donald Trump. 

Now Romney is second to Herman Cain, who has been sued for sexual harassment on multiple occasions, doesn't know that China has nuclear weapons, and proposes a tax plan that raises the taxes of 90% of the American people.  Seriously?  Now, Cain might produce some match-up problems with Obama, but even he didn't believe that his candidacy was going anywhere.  Case in point, Cain doesn't have a campaign staff in the early primary states.  Seriously.

Apparently, there is evidence showing that if Cain falls (and the odds are good), Newt Gingrich will get his time to shine, which is completely bizarre unless you have a situation where there is one candidate who the majority of the GOP despises, that being Mitt Romney.  And where I once thought that Bachmann's rise was about Michelle Bachmann, I now see that its about Romney.  At this point, anyone who isn't a total fuck-up is preferable to Romney.  Actually, that's not true - anyone who isn't a complete fuck-up or Tim Pawlenty is preferable to Romney (sorry T-Paw). 

Now, I can understand the primary voters' lament somewhat - Romney has flip-flopped about virtually everything.  His health care plan in Massachusetts was just like Obama's, except that Romneycare covered abortions.  Oops.  And for such a smooth performer, Romney is phenomenally awkward in everyday situations.  The man cannot ad-lib to save his life.  But still, if you want someone to take on Obama, Romney is your guy (or was, until the Occupy movement started).

And ultimately, I've reached my blindspot in this primary.  I am not a Republican, and definitely not a conservative.  As such, I have no idea what the average or even the not-so average GOP primary voter is thinking.  So, to my regular readers and internet stalkers, what do you think?

Happenings in Iran

As I've noted in earlier postings (and we're going all the way back to 2009), Iran has the capacity to be the lynchpin of democracy in the Muslim world, but like a lot of developing countries, it is currently stuck with an entrenched authoritarian regime that has no intention of giving up power.  Not surprisingly, its responded to internal pressure for democratic reforms through the usual methods - mass detention, torture, rape (seriously, the regime will gang rape prisoners, male and female, as a method of humiliation), propaganda, terrorism, etc.  But, despite that depressing news (and the fact that such horrific crimes are par for the course in authoritarian regimes), there are a few things popping up that could be hopeful.

For one, there is an interesting struggle between Iran's Supreme Leader, and just about everyone else.  Now, in the days after the overthrow of the Shah (dictator/self-styled king), nobody wanted a Shah-type figure, but were interested in creating a sort of constitutional monarchy.  Instead of a king born into power, a group of Islamic scholars would pick the best Islamic scholar amongst them to sit as the "Supreme Leader," but the Supreme Leader wouldn't have all the power, and there would be a Parliament and a President, elected by the people, and who had control over the everyday affairs of the people.  That way, the regime was supposed to be both democratic, and Islamic.

Now, this model could work if the guy who holds the position of Supreme Leader isn't that active and allows the elected officials to govern with impunity, and maybe makes a statement once in a while about divorce, or some other issue.  But, of course, the kind of people who'd be interested in the job of Supreme Leader aren't going to be the passive kind.  Instead, the two Supreme Leaders in Iran's history, Khomenei and Khamenei, have been very active.  In particular, Khamenei has been very active, and wants to turn his son to take power when he dies (Khomenei's family, apparently, was hit by hard times after his death, and Khamenei wants to avoid that fate).  To do that, he needs a patsy as President, who'll do whatever he says, and distract everyone.  Enter Ahmadinejad. 

Of course, Ahmadinejad doesn't know how to govern, and has managed a screw up of epic proportions: Iran has a crappy economy despite the fact that its an oil producing country and that oil prices have doubled over the past ten years.  The Iranians know this, and tried to elect someone else in the last election.  But then Khamenei would lose his patsy, and so the Supreme Leader fixed the election.  But, even Ahmadinejad knows he's a patsy, and wants to start asserting himself.  Bad idea.  His closest advisor is now being prosecuted for witchcraft or something, and its expected that Ahmadinejad won't last his term.

Moreover, the Supreme Leader has recently floated the idea of getting rid of the presidency altogether, which is VERY interesting.  As I said earlier, the presidency of Iran is all about the diffusion (or the appearance of diffusion) of power, to avoid a Shah-type situation.  It also creates the impression of democracy in an otherwise authoritarian regime - its window-dressing, but important window-dressing.  The economy sucks? Its the President's fault.  Goons raped your daughter? Its the President's fault. The office creates a go-to fall guy.  Getting rid of the office of president will only piss people off. 

So why do it? Probably because the President does have some power that could be used against the Supreme Leader.  After all, a even a hand-picked President could rally the people against the Supreme Leader if he (and its always a he) was ambitious enough. My guess is that this is exactly what the Supreme Leader is scared of, meaning he's feeling the heat. Expect more uncertainty and instability from Iran in the next few years.

Campaign 2012: Everyone Hates Mitt Romney

If for nothing else, the campaign to become the Republican nominee for President of the United States has been entertaining for one major reason: the Republicans are looking for someone, anyone, to beat Mitt Romney. 

As the runner-up in the 2008 Presidential election, Romney has spent the past four years polishing, and preparing for this run for the Presidency.  And it shows: Romney looks better, speaks clearer, and avoids a lot of the weird moments that plagued his earlier campaign.  He even has a good response to flip-flopping, "In the private sector, if you don’t change your view when the facts change, you’ll get fired for being stupid."  Damn. . .that's a pretty good line.

But if you look at the polls, you see all sorts of candidates rise and fall - Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and now Herman Cain - but Romney's numbers remain the same.  He polls consistently at around 20%.  Now, in politics, when you poll at one number for an extended period of time, you have what I call hard support.  Your supporters are going to support you no matter what. But, and this is what I find interesting, this kind of hard support doesn't normally show up this early in the campaign.  Normally, voters are still trying to get to know the candidates, and feel them out.  And so you expect fluctuations.

Instead, what we're seeing is wild fluctuations in support behind various candidates, and a constant look for the next GOP savior (most recently, Chris Christie of New Jersey).  That only makes sense with an electorate where 20% support Mitt Romney, 10% support Ron Paul, and the other 70% have no clue who to vote for, but it sure as hell isn't going to be Mitt Romney or Ron Paul.  All in all, a very interesting race. 

Book Review: Empire of the Summer Moon by S.C. Gwynne

So, whenever I travel, as I did to Chicago this weekend (congrats to the married couple), I need to read or I go nuts.  This is particularly true on airplanes where my claustrophobia hits high gear (actually, that's not true: women's clothing stores is where my claustrophobia is the worst), and I need something to occupy my mind.  Usually, I read sci-fi/fantasy.  But this time, I purchased Empire of the Summer Moon by S.C. Gwynne, which is all about the Native American Tribe of the Comanches.

This is some pretty spectacular stuff - the Comanche were the first of the Native American Plains tribes to fully grasp the usefulness of the horse.  While other tribes, like the Apache used horses, the Comanches were the first to fight on horseback, the first to breed horses, and so on.  And by all accounts the Comanche were spectacular horsemen -for instance, it was required that a Comanche warrior be able to pick up a fully grown human being at a full gallop.  Moreover, the Comanche were able to travel and attack by moonlight - something no one else was able to do.  Their effective range was hundreds of miles.

Of equal interest is that the Lipan Apache were essentially kicked off the Plains by the Comanches, and that as a measure of protection, the Apaches sparked a war between the Comanches and the Spanish specifically as a way to protect themselves.  The Spanish, too, used the Comanches as a buffer zone from French incursions.  No tribe held more territory than the Comanches - and it was their use of the horse that transformed the Comanches from a land-based hunting-gathering culture to Spartan-esque warrior culture.  Even as a general consumer of history, I had no idea of how influential the Comanches were - ask me who the most powerful Native American Tribes were, and I'd probably say the Sioux or the Apache. 

The book itself is a pretty good read, but limited by its source material.  I don't blame the author so much, because the Comanche weren't exactly writing down their history.  As he gets later into the events, particularly regarding the wars between the United States and the Comanches, his sources become more even-handed.  Yes, the Comanches were horrific murders who used psychological warfare against everyone by killing their victims in horrific manners.  But they were incredibly kind to their families, democratic, and got royally shafted by the United States in the years after the Civil War. 

To that end, the author pays special attention to Quanah Parker, the son of a Comanche war chieftain and the most famous Comanche kidnappee in Texas history - Cynthia Ann Parker - who was kidnapped by the Comanche at the age of 8, saw her family brutally murdered, but was adopted into the tribe, and when later given the chance to leave she refused (and eventually had to be brought kicking and screaming into the white world).  Anyway, her son, Quanah was one the last holdouts among the Comanche, and one of its fiercest warriors.  When he decided to surrender, though, he worked hard to see that he and his fellow tribe members assimilated into American culture, ultimately becoming the last chief of the Comanches.

Its a compelling book, a great read, and definitely worth a read to get an idea what the West was like.  If you are from Texas, you'll especially want to read this book - it has great information about the Texas Rangers (who were created specifically to deal with the Comanches), and about the creation of Texas.

Thoughts on the Death Penalty

On Tuesday night, something very interesting as far as the death penalty debate happened - Georgia executed Troy Davis, a person who's guilt was in doubt, and Texas executed Lawrence Russel Brewer, the douchebag who dragged James Byrd, Jr. from the back of his truck until Mr. Byrd died for no good reason other than Mr. Byrd was African American.

What's interesting about this event is that my emotions to these events are pretty much how everyone feels about the death penalty - I was saddened by Troy Davis' death, and a bit horrified that Georgia may have executed an innocent man. But with Lawrence Russel Brewer's execution, I felt a grim sense of satisfaction - justice has been done.  And I think most people feel the same way.

Now, there are arguments about the death penalty, from all sides, but let me knock out one of them right now - the deterrence effect.  The death penalty does not deter anyone from committing murder anymore than life imprisonment does.  Or rather, killing criminals by way of lethal injection is no more of a deterrence than taking their lives away through imprisonment.  What is a deterrence, though, is increasing the chances of getting caught. 

So let's dispense with the deterrence argument - the real reason people support the death penalty is because we want to see justice be done.  There are horrific crimes that we want punished to the extreme.  The torture and killing of a man for no good reason, a la Lawrence Brewer, is such a crime. But if the death penalty is about punishing the worst of the worst, then we're all shaken when the state executes the innocent, children, and those with severe mental disabilities. 

Troy Davis fits into those fears.  He was convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony - which is highly unreliable when people testify about seeing someone they don't know.  To that end, 7 of the 9 witnesses retracted their testimony against Mr. Davis.  Now, I don't know if Davis was innocent or not, but knowing that 7 of 9 witnesses retracted their testimony is enough to give me pause.  Granted, if the other 2 knew Davis intimately, then all bets are off.  And so we're bothered by this because if there's a good chance that Davis was innocent, and Georgia killed an innocent man.

And here's where the Death Penalty opponents have a decent argument - as long as we have the death penalty, we're going to run into these problems.  Yes, imprisoning someone for life is bad, but there is time to correct mistakes (actually, probably not).  Plus, because we are so determined to only execute the truly guilty, the appeals process takes forever and is costly.  Moreover, the evidence is pretty clear that the justice system fucks up on a regular basis, especially along racial lines. 

At the same time, we get guys like Lawrence Russell Brewer, who kinda got what they deserved.  And that's why the death penalty will never, ever be resolved completely.  Its our heads (the cost-benefit analysis of the death penalty) versus our hearts (retribution against the bad guy). 

Rating the Contendahs: GOP Presidential Candidates Part 87

Okay, okay, this isn't the 87th installment of my GOP Presidential contenders post, but I've lost count, and am too lazy to look it up.  From a political science perspective, this primary is interesting because it will be the first time GOP primary voters will pick someone to go head to head with Obama.

Now, you might say to yourself, "Wait, wasn't McCain the nominee in 2008?" Well, yes, but the GOP voters picked McCain not just because it was his time (a la Bob Dole in 1996), but also because they felt that McCain would be the best matchup with Hillary Clinton - who the voters presumed would be the nominee.  After all, Hillary had all the firepower going into the election, she looked good on television, and she's a hell of a candidate.  But what the GOP voters failed to realize at the time is that Obama's campaign would be so well organized and so smartly run, and the depth of anger in the Democratic base over Iraq (I really need to have post on that one of these days).  Now, that's not a big surprise, because they weren't close enough to the campaigns to see what was what. And the shock of Obama still hasn't worn off for many GOP voters (OMG he's an African American with a Muslim name!).  Hell, the list of debunked Obama on Snopes.com is crazy.

Of course, it has occurred to me that, like the GOP voters in 2008, I am not privvy to the inside information on a fair number of candidates.  In the topsy-turvy world of Presidential politics, things like campaign organization and money matter as much as policy positions.  But hey, if I paid attention to that, I wouldn't bother to write anything at all, so without further ado:


Mitt Romney: We all know who he is, and most of us don't like him.  But, he has money, he has the organization (spent the past 4 years running), and if he catches fire with the base, he takes the nomination easy.  He'll get a solid 20-25% of every primary, and probably kill at the caucuses outside of Iowa (because of his organization).  As a Democrat, I'm scared to death of the guy because he is a good match-up to Obama, but as a realist, I doubt he's conservative enough for the Tea Party.

Rick Perry: He's the candidate with that new candidate smell.  He's telegenic, has clever marketing, and being from Texas, is used to running a large political organization.  He's also well in line with the Tea Partiers (except for the HPV vaccine thing).  But, he thinks that Social Security is a ponzi scheme, that Ben Bernanke is a traitor for doing his job, and generally reminds people of George Bush.  As a match-up with Obama, I like Perry on the Social Security issue alone.  As a patriot, the chance that he might be elected President scares the hell out of me.  The question right now is whether or not Perry can whether the storm, and whether or not his organization is up and running.  His debate performances have been terrible, but his presence has made everyone else step up their game. 

Michelle Bachmann: Speaking of organization, Bachmann has none.  For her entire political career, she's been a district-based legislator, and has never run state-wide for anything.  This bodes ill for her future.  Not surprisingly, with Perry in the race, her campaign has virtually collapsed, and Bachmann is up to her old tricks - stating that the HPV vaccine that Perry ordered every Texan girl to get caused mental retardation.  (Note: even Rush Limbaugh thinks this is nuts).  She's still a darling of the far-right wing, but electability problems abound.  And heck, if those problems are dogging Rick Perry, who's serving his third term as Governor of Texas, they're going to dog Bachmann, who is a crazy Congresswoman from Minnesota.

Ron Paul: With libertarianism being in vogue in the GOP as of late, its a good time to mention Ron Paul.  He opposed the Iraq War, opposes all governmental spending, and is anti-tax.  All are high points for Tea Partiers and the youth vote.  On the other hand, he's pro-life (not very libertarian), and willingly accepts that if government spending is cut to the point he wants, people will die.  Also, like Romney, everyone knows who he is, and his poll numbers are still low.  He has no chance at the nomination.

Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain: Going nowhere fast.  Of the three, Cain represents the most troublesome match-up with Obama because he has the potential to split the African American vote (at the top of the ticket, if he's VP, the African American community will vote for Obama).  No one cares about Gingrich, including Gingrich (based on his lethargic campaign).  As for Santorum, well, he tries.  But Santorum is an obnoxious troll, and everyone knows he's an obnoxious troll.  At this point, I think he's running for President just to knock Dan Savage's website off of its first on Google perch.  That's not a bad reason to run for President*, but it won't get you anywhere.

Jon Huntsman: He has no chance whatsoever to win the nomination.  None.  But, he could affect the outcome of this election, depending on how big his balls/ovaries are.**  If he drops out of the race for GOP nomination, and runs as an independent, he's got a shot at making headway, and a chance at winning.  I don't know if he does.

Overall, bold prediction - Romney is going to take the nomination.  Perry is up big now, but he has too many liabilities going for him right now. 

*The best reason to run for President is, of course, to become President and improve the lives of every day Americans.  But for those candidates who had no chance whatsoever of winning, Dennis Kuchinich had the best reason to run for President - to get laid.  And, as a result of running for President, the Congressman ended up marrying a smoking hot model about twenty years his junior.  Seriously, check this out.  Well done sir.

**We really need a feminine equivalent of "balls." Steel labia doesn't work because being a ball buster (emasculating presence) is completely different than being ballsy (having audacity).  Also, labia, ovaries, etc., are too scientific sounding. Saying a woman has "brass balls" works to some degree, but is somewhat negative towards over women (since it implies that a woman has to be man-like to be audacious).  Let's get on this internet!

Thoughts on 9-11

To be honest with you, I don't really want to write this post, but in a round-about way, that's the reason why I should write this post.  Ten years ago, we were attacked by 18 guys armed with box cutters, who commandeered airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Center.  In the intervening years, we've seen the U.S. Government openly commit war crimes (torture of terror suspects*), invade Iraq for no reason, and finally, under Obama, see the U.S. engage in dismantling Al Qaeda.

On a personal note, 9-11 was a very scary day for me.  My aunt works for New York City and worked out of the World Trade Center.  We spent most of the day trying to find her, and thankfully, she was not in either Tower when the planes hit.  I also had to find my friend and old college roommate, Dave Kirkpatrick, who dubbed me "Phat Jim," my cousin Suzanne, and luckily, everyone was safe.  Still, it was a close call, and scared us all.

But what has changed since 9-11?  To be honest, I don't think it changed much outside of the tri-state area. Yes, airplane travel became a bigger pain than it was before, but my life hasn't changed as a result of 9-11.  And I think that's more of a survival mechanism for people in general.  We live our lives the best we can, and try not to get bogged down in the details.  Do I know more about Islam than I normally would?  Yes, but the whole line that "9-11 changed everything" is total and complete bullshit from anyone who didn't lose someone (or come real close to losing someone) on that day.  Everyone else have moved on.

Why Liberals and Progressives are Consistently Frustrated with Obama

I'm stuck on brief writing duties today, so I'm keeping this post relatively short.  Obama and members of his Administration, have become increasingly aware of discontent by members of the "Professional Left" - um, I guess that means bloggers, but given that we don't exactly make a lot of money from blogging (except for Josh Marshall and Kos, of course), and have day jobs, I guess they just mean Progressives and Liberals.  So, in an effort to educate those who are surprised by our continuing discontent, allow me to explain my discontent in four simple words.

I. Told. You. So.

Almost every time the Obama Administration does something on the domestic policy side, legions of liberals like myself comment on the strategies of the Administration, and without fail, we're always right.  During the Stimulus debate, we told the Administration that the Stimulus was too small and too focused on tax cuts.  Unsuprisingly, the Stimulus helped only somewhat, and its benefits have been subsumed by cuts in the government spending at the state and local level. 

During the health care debate, we told the President to push for single payer as a bargaining position, and then allow it to be pushed a bit further to the right.  Instead, the President started with a relatively moderate plan, and it turned into a center-right bill. 

During the debt ceiling debacle, we told the President to chastise the GOP for threatening the country's economic health during a time of war, and instead, he tried to negotiate in good faith, and was steamrolled.

The list goes on and on.  Rather than listen to us, the President goes his own way.  Now, I don't have a problem with this if going his own way got results.  And in areas like foreign policy, it clearly does.  But in the domestic arena, Obama consistently fails - either from a gross misunderstanding of his opponents, or gets too influenced by the make-believe world of D.C.  The whole thing is maddening.  So Mr. President, just one time, one time, can you prove me wrong on economic issues? 

Grading the Contendahs: 2012 GOP Pres Candidates (Part 4)

Okay, kiddies, now that we're a mere 5 months to New Hampshire and Iowa, the race for the GOP Presidential nomination is in full-swing.  Heck, we even have our first drop out.  That's right, we no longer have Tim Pawlenty around to ignore.  Too soon? No, just no one cares?  Ouch.

In the interim, we have the entrance of GOP Savior No. 1,387 - Rick Perry.  Waiting in the wings are grossly unpopular in his home state, Chris Christie, let's end Medicare, Paul Ryan, and the poor man's Tim Pawlenty, George Pataki.  Not exactly a thrilling list for sure.

Okay, so let's start grading the contendahs:

Rick Perry: He's been in for what, a week?  Well, he's become the frontrunner, and has turned into a rich man's Michelle Bachmann.  He's just as nutty, but has been elected to state-wide office, and doesn't have a creepy husband.  On the other hand, he advocated for the end of Social Security and Medicare (which he has since retracted), his "Texas miracle" is based on minimum wage jobs, and he's a bit too Bush-like.  In fact, I'll go ahead and call him a poor man's George Bush.  Still, the Tea Party is basically all of Bush's diehard supporters, so that isn't a bad thing.  Also, because Perry can be "folksy," the media will like him, and he won't get completely crushed against Obama.  Overall, not a bad pick for the GOP Primary voter.

Mitt Romney: Mittens is still the flip-flopping, extremely creepy and weird guy he always was.  To be honest, I think he's done, because everyone knows who he is, and if they were going to vote for him, they would've done so before.  Some would argue that Bachmann loses the most by Perry being in the race because Perry appeals to the same base of voters.  I disagree.  Mittens loses his biggest cache - the frontrunner status.  Without it, is there any reason to pay attention to the Mittster?

Michelle Bachmann: Here's the thing about Michelle Bachmann, even though she's nuts, and even though her husband is a little bit flamey (though totally not gay, allegedly), she still has a strong appeal to the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party (also known as the average GOP Primary Voter).  After all, she was on the ground first.  Perry's presence hurts her, but she won't go down without a fight.  At the same time, being elected to a statewide office is actually an important step in running for President, and so go down she will.  Now, I can see Bachmann on the ticket, but if Perry is the nominee, this is less likely.

Ron Paul: Like Bachmann, he has deep levels of support, though he's not as crazy.  The problem with Ron Paul is that the faction he appeals to isn't big enough in the GOP and he has no crossover appeal.  Also, everyone knows who he is.  If he was going to be the nominee, he'd be up big by now.

Herman Cain: Recently, a Tea Partier told a Latino Democratic Congressman from New Mexico (which is 45% Latino), who's parents held elective office in the United States, to get out of public office to make room for an American.  I mention this because no matter how conservative Herman Cain is, he is still an African American, and thus, still suspect to a significant portion of the GOP.  So Cain will make waves, but he won't get the nod.

John Huntsman: There is no way in hell John Huntsman will take the GOP nomination.  None.  He believes in evolution, agrees with scientists on Global Warming, and used to work for Barack Obama.  But, I'm getting the feeling that he's okay with that.  Given the anger with Obama from the Left and the Center, I think that Huntsman is setting himself up for an independent campaign.  And I'm not alone - Nate Silver thinks so too.

As far as the other candidates in the race are concerned, I don't see any of them going anywhere. 

Quick Primer on Constitutionality

One thing I keep hearing as an attorney is about how x is unconstitutional (when it really is constitutional), or how I hear y is a great program and that there's no reason for it to be unconstitutional, and so on.  So, let's lay down a few laws about I think is constitutional and what's not.

First the framework - the Constitution of the United States of America is an amazing document that lays out what the Federal Government and the State Goverments can and cannot do, and lays out our various freedoms.  As this document is based upon the work of John Locke, the Constitution is generally concerned with life, liberty and property, plus a few protections actually spelled out (freedom of religion, speech, due process, equal treatment, etc.)

Now, let's consider this for a brief moment - virtually every part of your life, your property and your liberty are regulated in some way, shape or fashion.  So, if the Constitution is supposed to protect those things, what gives?  Well, because government couldn't effectively function without regulating your life in some way, courts will allow the government to interfere with your rights if it has a good reason. 

Take jaywalking, for instance.  State governments can actually prohibit you from walking across the street where you want, and when you want. Why? Because people are dumbasses and will get themselves killed by oncoming traffic.  Also, jaywalking laws don't take away your liberty as much as ask you for a few seconds of your time.  Because its a low level right (seriously, you don't need to cross the street that fucking badly), Courts will allow this one if the government has a reason for it.

As you go up the ladder of rights, reasons need to get better and better.  Say you want to forcibly sterilize women who have mental disabilities because you don't want them to have kids with mental disabilities - woah, woah, hold up there mister.  That kind of regulation crosses too many lines, because you're fucking with someone's ability to have kids - a major part of the right to life and liberty.  There have better be a damned good explanation for that. 

There are also some areas where the Courts won't buy the government's argument.  This is especially true if the regulation has to do with anything race-based.  Thanks to 100 years of segregation and Jim Crow laws, anything that remotely touches on race comes with a "you better have all your ducks in a row, Government" warning label.  With gender discrimination, the level isn't quite as high, but its close.

There is also another intervening factor - the Constitution actually gives the government the right to do stuff.  As you might expect, if the government has the right to do something, then fuck all rights.  Conscription, for instance, affects the right to life, liberty, property and a whole host of other rights, but the Courts let it through because Congress has the right to pass laws to create armies and navies.  Civil rights laws are explicitly allowed because Congress has the right to affect interstate commerce (which is basically everything) and have the right under the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to pass laws to guarantee equality. 

But when faced with what's constitutional or not, the issue is 1) how important is the right affected by the law; 2) how good is the government's reason for the intrusion; and 3) does the Government have an explicit right to intrude on your rights?  So, when the Courts say something is unconstitutional, its generally because they've done that analysis.  Now, they're not always right, but they all follow this general framework.

Environment, Economics and Externalities

Recently - okay, earlier today - the guys at Two Cathedrals (a great blog by the way) put up a post equating environmental protection with patriotism.  As much as I like the blog, I think the post missed the point.  Environmental protection isn't important because it protects democracy, but rather, when democracies protect the environment, its evidence that the democracy is working.  Sort of a chicken and egg kind of a thing, I know, but bear with me.

First of all, let's clarify something - for all of the many benefits of the market system, the market fails repeatedly at environmental protection.  In a typical market transaction, a buyer and a seller come together, have a meeting of the minds and then money changes hands.  Now, the environmental degradation in the use or the manufacture of the product isn't really a part of the transaction, because often the environmental effects hit someone who isn't even part of the transaction.  With SUV's, for instance, the seller and buyer both knew that SUV's were dangerous to the environment, but went ahead with the sale because the seller wanted to make money, and the buyer wanted a kickass Escalade for under $50k.  The guy living in the South Pacific who ends up having to leave his home because of rise of the oceans gets screwed, but he isn't part of the deal.

The thing is, we know all of this.  There are lots of examples of industry screwing the environment - whether its out and out dumping of toxic chemicals, or selling products that are environmentally unfriendly - and the people on the outside are the ones who get screwed.  This documentary on HBO about Ford and illegal dumping is particularly depressing.  In authoritarian regimes and malfunctioning democracies these horrific acts of degradation are ignored because they stand in the way of "progress" or money making at the hands of the economic elites.

In functioning democracies, on the other hand, the other guy, the one who suffers from the externality that the buyer and seller ignore, has power to go to the government and say, "Hey, hey, I'm fucking dying over here man!" And not only can he say this, but someone will actually listen to his complaints, and act on it because its the right thing to do.  Thus, environmental protection isn't so much a necessity of a functioning democracy, but a symptom of a functioning democracy. 

By the way, those who argue that the market can cure all ills without government intervention forget that the market is a human invention, with all of humanity's foibles.  For instance, it turns out that owners of hybrids are bigger douchebags than drivers of Hummers because hybrid owners feel like they've done enough good by owning a hybrid.  This carries over to lots of other areas as well - we humans have only so much altruism in our hearts.  Also, keep in mind, that if the market was going to stop environmental degradation without governmental interference, it would have done so already.  Instead, economists created the concept of externality to specifically address environmental degradation.

On Gay Marriage and Polygamy

Recently, my favorite conservative, Bogart, asked me about the legal challenges to anti-polygamy laws using the precedents from the gay marriage debate to argue that government has no right to prohibit the actions of consenting adults.  I have a distinct impression that Bogart was trying to bait me into saying that either (a) the precedents such as Lawrence v. Texas were wrong; or (b) that polygamy is all good.  The thing is, same sex marriage and polygamy are two different things.  When states allow same sex marriage, the following happens:

In other words, states print up the marriage licenses (and get paid for them), but otherwise everything remains the same.  Marriage, in the government's eyes is simply a way property is distributed.  Two people want to enter into an agreement to share property for whatever reason, government is good with that.  There was a time when traditional gender roles were entrenched in government family law statutes (making same-sex marriage a bitch to administer), but those days have long since passed.  As Judge Walker noted in his ruling overturning Proposition 8 (California's gay marriage ban), there is simply no half-assed reason to keep the ban.*

Polygamy is a completely different animal.  For one, plural generally occurs when there is a distinct power imbalance between the sexes.  Indeed, plural marriage would necessitate that one gender is dominant.  If I had three wives, I could afford to piss off two of them at any one time, and be fine.  And if I managed to piss off all of my wives, I could just as easily find a new wife.  This is why cultures that allow plural marriage tend to have an extreme inequality between the sexes.  For this reason alone, plural marriage would violate the governmental policy of equality between the sexes.

Now, a way to avoid the inequality, of course, would be to allow my hypothetical wives to marry other men while being married to me.  But ultimately, this leads to the other problem with plural marriage - it would require states to redefine marriage.  Now, this argument has been made about same sex marriage, but in the case of same-sex marriage, the only difference between same-sex marriage, and opposite sex marriage without traditional gender roles is who is getting married, and maybe the sexual practices of the participants in that marriage.  That's not a good reason to ban same-sex marriage.

Plural marriage would necessitate the rewriting of the family law statutes because all marriages come to an end - either by divorce or death.  What happens then?  If one of my hypothetical wives divorces me because I'm being a dick, or because she likes her other husband more, how is the marital estate divvied up?  Or, if the State deems me and my wives married to one another, what happens if one of my hypothetical wives divorces one of my other wives?  The whole concept of the marital estate would have to end.

And ultimately, that's reason enough to not legalize plural marriage.  Marriage from a government's perspective is all about property.  Not love, not commitment, not children, but property.  Two people want to become one in the eyes of the government, fine, then they're property is as of one.  Throw that out, and there is no reason for government to even acknowledge marriage.  So yes, people should be able to live their lives as they want, and certainly decriminalization of plural marriage isn't a bad idea, but the legal recognition of plural marriage is simply too problematic to allow.

*I'm referring, of course to the Rational Basis Test where Courts will allow minor intrusions into due process or equal protection rights for even the most half-assed reasons.  If you have the chance to read Judge Walker's decision, please do so.  The arguments in favor of Prop. 8 all fell into "gay people are bad, m'kay," category. 

Now for Something Completely Different

While all this debt ceiling craziness has been going on in Washington, a right-wing anti-Islamic, anti-immigrant sociopath killed over seventy people in Norway.  I'm eschewing the link because you all know what I mean.  This attack, by the way, is proportionally a worse attack than 9-11 (Norway is a much smaller country).  Now, its important to consider the guy's ethnicity (undoubtedly Norwegian) and his religion (Christianity), because far too often we think of only Muslims committing terrorist attacks.  As we have all witnessed, this is simply not the case.

Religious extremism, it seems, leads to violence.  From the Crusades (where we Christians reintroduced the idea of jihad to the Muslim world), to al Qaeda, to the Islamist regimes in Iran and Afghanistan, we have a deep history of supposedly deeply humble people doing truly awful things.  Heck, the Old Testament of the Bible applauds acts of genocide on several occasions. 

As the same time, religion can elevate our lives and our actions to greater heights.  I have been to Quaker prayer meetings that restored my faith in humanity, seen Christians risk life and limb to help their fellow man (one of my fellow parishioners at St. David's Episcopal Church was arrested in South Africa for helping Bishop Tutu fight against apartheid), and have heard of other acts of stupendous bravery, kindness, and humility inspired by deeply held religious beliefs.

So how is it that on one hand religion is so destructive and on the other appeals to our best instincts?  Roger Williams believed it had to do with the mixing of Church and State.  And in part, he was right.  Most religious violence is committed whenever religion is mixed with politics.  But its not just mixing politics with religion, its religious coercion that is so ugly.  When a single faith is deemed "the only religion" and all must believe in it or perish, that is when its okay to kill those who disagree with you (about really tiny and stupid stuff - the Thirty Years' War was fought over whether God like people who have faith or people who have faith and do good stuff), blow up innocent civilians, and otherwise do terrible things.

But when people willingly submit to God, there is something beautiful about it.  Faith is a glorious thing, and something that atheism simply cannot reproduce.  Unfortunately, every time I allow my faith to be rekindled, I realize that for many, the beauty of faith is skin-deep. 

Estamos Jodidos en California. . .

Okay, title is something of an inside joke.  Back during my political activist day, a friend of mine used to do a spot-on impression of California Governor Gray Davis - stilted language and all.  Then to get huge laughs, he'd talk in Spanish as if he was the Governor, and we would all laugh our asses off.  Stupid I know, but to get Davis' uberwhiteguy pitch while speaking in Spanish was hilarious.

Anyway, in case you haven't bothered to look it up, "estamos jodidos" means "we're fucked."  And not just in California (that was the hat tip to my Gray Davis impersonating friend), but the whole country is about to be fucked. Big time.  Our Congress is about to let the United States renege on its debts for the first time E-V-E-R.  That's right kiddies, ever.  Thing about it - during the first years of the republic, we paid our debts.  When the British were kicking our asses and burning down Washington, D.C., we paid our debts.  During the horrific violence of the Civil War, and the extreme financial crisis that was the Great Depression, we paid our debts.  So why can't we pay our debts?

Because Congress won't pass a stupid bill to raise the debt ceiling so that the U.S. can borrow money to pay for the crap that Congress requires the U.S. to pay for.  Got it? No?  Okay, put it this way - go to a restaurant, order a bunch of crap, and then when the bill comes out, tell the restaurant you're only going to pay with the cash in your pocket, and not bust out the credit card.  Do you think the restaurant will mind if the cash in your pocket only covers 50% of the bill?  Yeah, it will.

And so will the people who are supposed to get paid by the Federal government by this time next Wednesday.  But since no one can beat the Feds into paying (except maybe the military, who may or may not be paid), the only thing our creditors can do is raise interest rates on everyone else.  For someone like me, who's looking to buy a house, I am about to get fucked.  But guess what, everyone is going to get fucked.  The higher interest rate will create a ripple of inflation throughout the world.  Or, to put it in economic terms, failing to raise the debt ceiling is going to create a supply shock while we're going through a demand side recession.  Kinda ironic that this would be done by supply-siders.

Make no mistake, unless something radical changes, there will be no deal.  John Boehner, facing an increasingly hostile freshman class, knows that any debt ceiling deal will cost him his Speakership.  The Tea Party, meanwhile, wants so badly to prevent Obama from getting reelected that its willing to destroy the country.  As Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo put it, this is a game of chicken where one car doesn't have a driver.

And before we go all "a pox on both your houses," let's keep in mind that this fight has nothing to do with the deficit or the national debt.  Failing to raise the debt ceiling will actually increase the deficit substantially.  But even then, Obama and the Congressional Democrats have gone well to the right in hopes of forging a compromise.  The Republicans, who have become slaves to their own base, simply cannot and will not make a deal.  Hell, even John Boehner can't even pass his OWN plan.

So, in the nasally voice of Gray Davis, I say "Estamos Jodidos en los Estatos Unidos. . ." Ugh.

The Debt Ceiling Debate

Over the past few weeks and months, Washington has been bracing for a fight.  With the debt ceiling about to be reached by the end of the month, the President and Congress have to agree to raise the debt ceiling or else the Treasury has to shut down parts of the government, and all sorts of bad things happen.  I'm not sure exactly what, but I'd imagine that hyperinflation would be one of the many fun things around the bend.

Now, with his usual eye for negotiating, Obama has been a complete disaster.  From the get-go, he should have demanded, insisted and cajoled Congress to send him a clean debt ceiling bill.  After all, Wall Street is going to get hit just as hard from a default as anyone else (harder even).  Instead, he opted to listen to their arguments on the long-term debt, giving credence to their economic policies (which are ridiculous).  And he willingly put Medicare and Social Security on the table, which would undermine a great Democratic election point. . .seriously, Mr. President, you are the worst negotiator ever.

What is of equal interest, though, is the interworking of the Republican Party.  The Tea Party faction, which is hard-core conservative, is absolutely refusing to support any increase to the debt ceiling absent serious cuts.  So, for Boehner, the Speaker of the House, to get a deal done, he has to convince Democrats to support the debt ceiling deal.  But if Boehner does that, he will not remain Speaker.  Hell, he may not remain in Congress.  For the past several years, every Republican has been threatened with a primary from a more conservative candidate.  And since these candidates are invariably well-funded, and since legislatures are gerrymandering to make Congressional districts more Republican or more Democratic, these more conservative candidates win. A lot.

So, what has the GOP leadership done?  Well, they've decided to run away.  Seriously.  There is an escape hatch in this debate - the 14th Amendment seems to suggest that debt ceiling legislation is unconstitutional because the U.S. government has constitutional requirement to cover its debts.  Now, Obama looked into this idea before, kinda, sort-of, threatening (but not really) to use this provision as an escape hatch in the bargaining.  But his own Treasury Department thought that the 14th Amendment argument was on shaky ground.

Does this mean that Obama will take up the GOP on its offer to continue to raise the debt ceiling?  I have no idea.  What I do know is that neither Boehner nor McConnell cannot negotiate on behalf of the GOP.  Not because they are bad negotiators, but because they do not speak for the Republican rank and file.

Um Guys. . .

So the media is freaking out over the idea that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are planning to use body bombs, wherein the explosives are implanted into the body of the suicide bomber.  My first reaction to the news: Its good to want things.  Look, I want to be a billionaire, own the Padres (the concessions at Petco would be totally kickass if I ran things), and have Obama learn basic negotiating skills, but it ain't gonna happen. 

Similarly, Al Qaeda isn't going to start implanting bombs in the bodies of suicide bombers.  You know how I know?  Because Al Qaeda took down four airplanes with box cutters.  The bombs used against the troops in Iraq/Afghanistan are called IED's - an acronym for "improvised explosive device."  In other words, these guys are decidedly low tech.  And bomb implants are decidedly high tech.  You know how else I know Al Qaeda isn't going to try bomb implants?  Because Hamas hasn't used bomb implants.  Ever.

And seriously, without guys like Osama bin Laden, there isn't a whole lot of desire to attack the U.S. heartland anymore.  Keep in mind that we're really, really, really far from the Muslim world. So, any attack on the U.S. is going to be a lot more expensive than say, attacking Europe, or anywhere in the Muslim world.  And given that groups like Al Qaeda have limited resources - people, money, etc. - they're going to want more bang for their buck.  What made Osama bin Laden so dangerous was that he was committed to bringing terrorism to the U.S.  But even then, Al Qaeda managed to successfully attack the United States once.  Granted it was a big attack, but the U.S. is a target-rich environment, and there should have been more.  Nope, because its so expensive to attack the US, any attack has to be worth it.  Human bombs aren't going to be big enough.

So let's chill out people.  Al Qaeda isn't going to use human bombs anytime soon. 

Comparing Lockouts - a Sports Post

Like most sports fans, I am somewhat saddened by the NFL and NBA lockouts - how can there be fall without FootBALL!!! Although the NBA is slightly less important, I still am a fan.  With that said, the end result of these lockouts could be both interesting and depressing. 

First, let's go into some background.  Both the NFL and the NBA have similar structures made up of owners, who own the team, and players who actually play the game.  NFL teams employ dozens of players, coaches, medical staff, and other hangers on.  The cost is tremendous, and so are the rewards - the NFL nets billions of dollars every year.  In the meantime, NFL players play, on average, 3-4 years, are paid well, but not great, and suffer shortened lifespans as a result of their NFL careers.  NFL Players are represented (sort of, but its complicated right now) by the NFL Players Association, and the NFL owners have their own group.  The NFL owners, wanting more money from the players, have locked out the players, so they can't go to work.

The NBA has a similar structure, but is completely different.  While some teams in the NBA are turning a profit, many NBA teams are not.  In fact, the NBA owners did the rare thing and opened their books to the players.  Additionally, the lifestyle of NBA players IS different.  The average NBA player plays for several years, makes a lot of money, and doesn't suffer the kind of long-term health effects that NFL players do.

Now if the justice were to prevail, the NFL owners, who are locking out their players to be greedy, would lose terribly, and the NBA owners, who have a legitimate gripe against the players, would win.  But I don't think so.  NFL players have deep support from the fans, but ultimately, that won't help them.  Not only will the fans miss football, but the players will miss their paychecks, and have to give in.  The owners, meanwhile, have built up a warchest.

NBA owners, on the other hand, have a real problem on their hands - let's say that the lockout is bad and bitter, what's to stop NBA players from forming their own league?  Players like Lebron James and Dwyane Wade are already savvy businessmen, and have brilliant marketeers around them.  Unlike in football, basketball injuries tend not to be severe, and a team really needs 8-10 players.  In other words, the entrance costs for an NBA competitor would be significantly lower than that of a football team. Moreover, in the last 13 years since the last lockout, the methods of marketing have gone viral, and the overall cost has dropped.  Players are used to marketing themselves.  As a result, and with that potential handgrenade hanging over their heads, I think the NBA ends its lockout sooner than later.

Grading the Contendahs: 2012 GOP Pres Candidates (Part 3)

So these grading the contendahs posts are relatively easy, I'm going to keep doing them all throughout the GOP primaries and beyond.  Remember kids, I'm a LIBERAL and a Democrat, so take my views with a big grain of salt.  That said, I subscribe to the realist/Machiavellian school of political strategy* and know full well that no blow is too low.  So, I think I have a decent grasp on the politics.


The Also Rans: Look, Gingrich, Santorum, Buddy Roemer, and Ron Paul aren't going to do anything this election (or ever).  Also, Trump and Huckabee are out, for different reasons.  I think Huckabee knows he's basically topped out in support, and its not enough for the nomination (and running for President sucks), so he's out.  Trump can't stand the heat either.  Both are done.

Interesting Players:  This is the group that'll go nowhere, but will maintain a pretty decent sized interest until the voting starts (and then they'll be toast).

Herman Cain: Too crazy to win anything, but he's an African American conservative similar to Alan Keyes.  By that I mean, Cain isn't going to try to pretend he's not African American, and has no problem talking about racism (although he's terribly anti-Muslim).

Sarah Palin: A lot of people call Sarah Palin a rockstar because she attracts so much attention.  And Sarah Palin is the polar opposite of most politicians - she loves running for office, but she hates actual governing.  In light of that, Palin is not so much a rockstar but a popstar (who has other people write her songs, is all fluff).  Her negatives are also horrific.

Could-Be's: These are the guys who could be in contention if someone (*cough*Romney*cough) stumbles badly.

John Huntsman: I'm not sure if he's the rich man's Romney, or the poor man's Romney, but he's a socially moderate, fiscally conservative Republican who is Mormon and occasionally willing to cross party lines.  Basically, he's exactly like Romney, only with less flip-flopping and weird sense of humor.  Of course, he's now running against his boss. . .

Tim Pawlenty: Another Romney-type, but was a less than successful governor (unlike Romney and Huntsman), boring, not good on television, and not interesting.

"Front" Runners: 

The one thing that's certain is that Republican primary voters aren't exactly thrilled with their choices.  So, anything can change at any time.  With that caveat in mind, here are the candidates who I think have a shot for the nomination:

Mitt Romney:

Pros: He's smart, rich, capable on television, has a radio announcer voice, was a successful Republican governor of a blue state, handsome, and somewhat moderate.  Oh, and he's been building a warchest and an election team since 2008.

Cons: He flip-flops a lot, his health care program in Massachusetts formed the basis on which the Affordable Health Care Act was based (except his program DOES cover abortion), has a weird sense of humor, is Mormon, and may want it too badly (and it shows).

Michele Bachmann

Pros: Smart, a Palin-esque rockstar image but actually likes to hold elective office, very conservative, little if any record on flip-flops, will work hard for the shot (unlike Palin), has a solid group of support behind her (the Tea Partiers), telegenic.

Cons: She's crazy.  And by crazy, I mean Ron Artest (circa 2004) crazy.  Her approach to governance is dogmatic, and she has crazy eyes.  At any point in time, she's liable to do just about anything.  A complete wildcard.

Bold Prediction:

As I said before, this thing could go any which way.  But I think that Romney v. Bachmann matchup will provide the GOP voters with a stark choice - true conservativism (Bachmann), or moderation (Romney).  If Romney grabs the nomination, then dollars to doughnuts Bachmann is his VP.  If Bachmann is the nominee, she'll pick a wildcard like her.  Only way to go.  Either way, Michele Bachmann will end up on the ticket.

*Every time I say the word "strategy" in my mind, it always comes out "strategery" - Damn you, Will Ferrel.

Tuition Inflation

As you all know by now, I am an attorney, and like most* attorneys, I went to law school.  Specifically, I went to the University of San Diego School of Law, a fine institution of higher learning if there ever was one.  And, not to date myself too much, but I graduated eight years ago.

I mention this because in the intervening years, tuition at USD has almost doubled.  When I went to USD, I started out paying $22,000 per year, and ended by paying $25,000 per year.  Now, according to the USD website, tuition is $42,500 per year.  That means that a law student going to law school the way I did, strictly on loans, work study, etc., will end up with a minimum of $127,500 in debt.  Based on this student loan calculator, each law student will pay $1600 per month in debt payments.  Now, if they consolidate, and go with the same 25 year plan that I have, they'll probably halve that amount, and end up paying $800 a month. . .maybe.

Now realistically, in the San Diego legal market, an attorney will start out at between $40,000 and $50,000 per year.  Some, the best and the brightest, might get the big firm job, which pays in excess of $100,000, but they're few and far between.  But this post isn't really about law student income, its about this:

With median incomes staying flat, what's driving this absolutely outrageous increase in tuition? From what I have heard from my grad school friends, becoming a professor is getting harder and harder because of intense competition.  So labor costs should not have increased at all. And since students pay for their own books, their own information technology, and pay for their own room and boarding (its a cost separate and apart from tuition), most other aspects of university costs remain the same.

The one exception to this is construction of non-housing university facilities, and the IT that universities use.  Now, I can see that in some instances, this cost would be high enough to necessitate higher tuition costs.  But I've been to USD, and while there are some IT improvements, such as flat screen televisions, there isn't enough of these improvements to necessitate the doubling of tuition.  I just don't see it.

No, tuition increases are not driven by the supply side; they are driven by the demand side.  In essence, colleges and universities are charging outrageous tuitions not because they have to, but because they know students will pay for it no matter what.  After all, a college and/or university degree is one of the key pathways to the middle class in this country.  Indeed, with the exception of kids in trade schools, the only way for a kid who is traditionally educated in this country to succeed is to go to college.  Otherwise, the kid will be sentenced to a lifetime of menial service jobs.  Education is a necessity.

Now, normally, competition is enough to keep prices down.  Food, for instance, is a necessity of life, but is relatively cheap.  If one place is too expensive, you and I can go to the next place down the street.  And there will always be a place down the street that provides food inexpensively.  But here's the thing - a college education isn't just about the degree, its about the brand, the traditions,  the whole shebang.  Our kids don't want to just go to college, they want to go to the right college.  And that's not a huge surprise, because their future employers will select candidates based on where they went to school.  A lawyer with a degree from Harvard will always be more attractive to an employer than someone who went to USD.  Colleges know that, and compete with one another for prestige.

Therein lies the rub - because colleges and universities compete for prestige, they drive their costs higher and higher.  More than that, they charge more so that they won't be known as the "cheap" college.  Even public universities, facing declining investment by the state governments, are falling into this trap.  Thus, into the fray, come the for-profit universities and colleges, providing education at an affordable price.  The only thing that concerns me is that too many of these schools strike me as absolute scams.

So, what can we possibly do about higher education?  Right now, the market is unbalanced, puts each class of students deeper and deeper into debt.  Now, as a society, we need skilled people - doctors, lawyers, engineers, and the like - to continue to function, so we need these kids to be educated.  To be honest with you, I don't know the whole answer.  I think we certainly should reinvest in higher education, and the state that provides the best education at the lowest tuition will have a tremendous advantage going forward.  But how else can we correct the market?  Increased regulation of the for-profits so that they're not scams?  Possibly.

The one thing that does make sense, market wise, is to lower the demand for higher education by putting more kids into trade schools.  These kids will be able to circumvent the whole college process completely, make good money, and possibly boost the industrial sector of the economy (by eliminating the need for employers to train labor, lowering their employment costs).  Indeed, tuition costs in higher education have grown at increasing rates ever since the industrial sector has declined.

Either way, higher education needs substantial reform, as the status quo is not sustainable.  While there is no good solution, doing nothing is the worst solution of all.

*I just found this out - in California, attorneys do not need to go to law school if they apprentice with a lawyer or a judge for four years.  All that's actually required is two years of college.  Now, they have to take the "Baby Bar," and the Bar Exam, but no law school is actually required. 

The Downside of Limitless Potential

For a good portion of youth, I was a basketball fan.  More specifically, I was a diehard Lakers fan.  I would watch any Laker game, reveling in blowouts (the better to check out the bench players), and screaming at the television while Chick Hearn, in his rapid-fire style, berated the Lakers players for doing something stupid.  I was a member of Lakers' nation.

That changed in a short time span when the team traded Shaq, Kobe had nonconsentual sex with, as it turns out, the sister of some friends of my brothers, and Phil Jackson left.  Ever since, I have been an ex-Lakers fan.  I still watch NBA games, even Lakers' games,  on occasion, but the passion is gone.

With that said, I still follow the NBA, and Bill Simmons is one of my favorite sports writers.  Actually, he is my favorite.  And Bill Simmons is a NBA fan.  He's such a big NBA fan that he wrote a 1200 page book on the NBA, and I read ever word of it.  With his help, I feel like I'm slowly being pulled back into the fold as a basketball fan. 

So, contrary to the past few years, I've been following the NBA finals much more than ever.  It certainly helps to have a team like the Dallas Mavericks pull off one impressive run after another.  But more than that, the play of Lebron James has been fascinating to watch.

Lebron James, if you have never seen him, is the single most impressive athlete ever to grace the NBA.  He is 6'8" - classic small forward size - 260(ish) lbs, and probably 2% body fat.  He is, by most accounts, the fastest player in the NBA, is blessed with lightning quickness, and because of his size, weight and speed, can play any position on the court.  Not only is he blessed with tremendous athletic ability, but he has incredible "court vision" - he's able to see, and comprehend where everyone on the basketball court is, and where they will be.  As a result, he can pass the ball with amazing skill.  He is, as advertised, a basketball player who can score like Jordan, and pass like Magic Johnson.  Oh, and he can defend every position on the floor - from a 6'0" point guard to a 7'0" center, and does so with striking aplomb. 

No other player in the NBA finals can come close to James' ability.  Dwyane Wade, James' teammate, and a great player in his own right, for instance, is a 6'4" guard who plays with absolute abandon and will do whatever it takes to win.  But he cannot guard a much taller player, nor can he post up a larger player inside.  Dirk Nowitiski, the great Mavericks player, is a freakish 7'0" forward who can shoot with absolutely deadly accuracy doesn't have the quickness to guard players outside.  Similarly, all the other players on the court have deficiencies in one area or another.  None have the ability of Lebron James.

Yet, with all that talent, Lebron James is fading on the world stage.  Last night, he scored 17 points, had 10 assists and 10 rebounds (a triple-double), which was good, but not good enough. In the last quarter, he scored a mere 2 points.  The game before, James scored only 8 points.  And his numbers for the other three games weren't spectacular either.  In the meantime, Nowitiski has been a man possessed, scoring nearly 30 points per game for the series.  While some would attribute James' disappearing act on his heart or his manhood, I wonder if it is something else.

Specifically, what if James' athletic ability is hampering him on the world stage.  For his entire life, James has played basketball better than everyone else, based purely on his ability.  Whatever he wanted to do, he could do, almost as well as anyone else.  Almost.  And that's the problem - James never specialized, never developed a "move" that he could use when all chips were down, because with the exception of the NBA Finals, he doesn't need a move because his talent is limitless.

That's a problem because our limits lead us down the path of our lives.  When I was a child, I wanted to be a physicist like my father, a fighter pilot (I grew up in the shadow of Top Gun - both the movie and the actual place), an astronaut and the President of the United States.  As a I grew up, I discovered I didn't especially like math (sorry Mom), and that knocked out physics.  My eyesight and reflexes aren't good, and that knocked out being a fighter pilot and an astronaut.  So, I followed my talents to where they lead me - into the law. 

In the NBA Finals, when the chips are down, and the team needs to score, specialists are needed.  That's why the great ones all had moves.  Hakeem had his Dream Shake, Jordan started with his drive to the basket, and then moved to the fadeaway, Shaq had his dunk, and Kareem had the absolutely deadly Sky Hook.  Because each practiced his moves over and over and over again, when it was time for a score, the ball went to them, and more often than not, they scored.  These moves, mind you, weren't developed because these players wanted to have a move, they developed out of their own limitations.  Kareem developed the Sky Hook because he was tall and lanky and couldn't score inside.  Jordan couldn't take the beating from driving to the basket anymore, so he developed the fadeaway.  It was their limitations that created their moves.  The fact that James has no limitations, can play any position almost as well as anyone else, means that during crunch time, he can't be counted on.  And that's why we see the fade.

Yantram One is a Big Spammer

There are so many things that I generally want to write about, and I enjoy conversations with people via comments.  Yesterday, however, I discovered a comment to my post on personal responsibility that was an advertisement plain and simple.  So, if you are ever thinking of virtual assistant services, DO NOT use Yantram One, who is nothing but a huge spammer.  I hear Yantram One, as part of casual Fridays, has its employees rape and murder puppies.*

*Not intended to be a factual statement.

The (Kinda) Myth of Personal Responsibility

One of the great dilemnas and myths in current American thought is that of personal responsibility.  People who have underwater mortgages should have known better, the unemployed should have built up the training and expertise to avoid unemployment, and so on.  The latest, and the straw that lead me to write this post was an ESPN story where Maurice Clarett says to blame the players, not Ohio State, for the scandals.

And of course, part of the problem with the personal responsibility argument is that it is somewhat true.  Yes, some homeowners purchased homes they knew they couldn't afford.  Yes, we all knew that communications (or English, or history, or political science, for that matter) degree wasn't going to lead to a job after college.  Dropping out of high school is a bad idea.  Selling sports memorabilia to boosters is not the kind of amateurism allowed by the NCAA.  All of this is true.

At the same time, we have to acknowledge that bigger actors can influence our decision-making.  That's because we don't make decisions in a vacuum, but rather, make the best choice possible with the information and wants we have at that very moment.  A lot of homeowners, for instance, knew that home values would not continue to rise, but many felt they had no choice - buy now or never get into the market.  Little did they know that in 2011, home prices would drop to the 2002 levels.  But other people - investment bankers, policy makers, and real estate professionals - knew that this was a possibility, and rather than put the brakes on the real estate market, they made it worse by chopping up the loans, artificially lowering interests rates, and emphasizing home ownership.

The latest with Ohio State and the corruption of the football team, likewise, is utterly predictable.  When the actual value of services performed (playing college football) greatly exceeds the price paid for said services (athletic scholarship), someone is going to look for a better deal.  And since the price is set artificially low, the better deal will happen on the down low.  Yes, the players are responsible, but the conditions set by the NCAA exacerbated the problem.

The other major problem I have with the personal responsibility argument is a total and complete disregard for the repercussions of "bad" behavior.  Here's what happened when one man's estranged wife failed to pay her student loans:



Now this is pure insanity.  First of all, the woman in question does not live on the property.  Second, the failure to pay student loans is a civil issue - the Department of Education (though through a bank) loaned the woman the money, and it can take her to Court to force repayment.  Garnishment of wages and other options are perfectly acceptable. But this is not a criminal matter.  What if the man in this video, in response to armed men barging in his home, grabbed a firearm (as is his right under the 2nd Amendment).  He would have, most likely, been shot, just like happened in Tuscon.

But we ignore all of these things because of the cult of personal responsibility.  Until we start looking at the larger picture, we'll continue to go around in circles.