Taking One For The Team

In the aftermath of the shooting in Newtown, Conn., along with the shootings in Aurora and Oregon, the topic of gun control has once again raised its weary head.  Gun owners (with some reason), and gun dealers (with a lot less reason), feel defensive and maybe a bit angry.  After all, they didn't shoot any kids!  And, in some earnestness they are making the same kinds of arguments as before - all sorts of weapons can lead to death; there's no particular reason to single out guns, etc.  All of these arguments have been made before, but mass killings are continuing on a record pace.

The shooter in Newtown drove to Sandy Hook, shot his way through the school doors, killed six school administrators and teachers, and then began a rampage through the school, killing 20 first graders.  When the police arrived, he shot himself in the head.  He did all of this, alone, within four minutes.  And the reason he was able to inflict such carnage in such a short time was because he was armed with guns with high capacity magazines.  If he had a knife, he would never have gotten through the door.  If he had a bomb, he might have been able to enter the school, but, of course, explosives are illegal.  No, instead he had guns that did exactly what they are supposed to do - enable the user to hunt down and kill lots of people very quickly.  And that's a problem.

So to my friends who are gun owners, I have this to say - you're going to have to take one for the team. I know it sucks, I know that taking one for the team may even be of questionable legality (2nd Amendment and all), but simply put, this can't continue.  Now, if we had good mental health care, we might be able to take of the problem without taking away guns, but we don't (at least not until Obamacare goes into full swing).  Going the other way, and arming everyone is also a bad idea - in stress situations, normal people tend to be bad shots (without training).

That leaves us with banning guns. When Australia had a  rash of mass shootings, it banned assault weapons and hasn't had an incident since.  Now, this didn't help other types of homicides, necessarily, but it wouldn't.  Again we're trying to prevent a very specific type of homicide (which, by the way, a terrorist organization could easily employ), we are looking at a very specific type of weapon.

At the same time, I can appreciate that owning a firearm, particularly a military-style assault weapon, is pretty badass.  I can also appreciate that shooting off a couple hundred rounds is a great way to blow off steam, feel empowered and whatnot.  With that in mind, I'd go with the following compromise - you can own an assault weapon, but you have to leave it at the firing range.  Sorry, but these weapons are too dangerous in the wrong hands.  Also keep in mind that when it comes to suicidal behaviors (as these mass shootings are clearly), even slight inconveniences make all the difference (look at the section on suicide).  There are other, broader gun control measures, like licensing gun owners in a manner similar to drivers, and requiring that gun owners be insured, but this is a good first step.

So, what constitutes an assault weapon?  The devil is in the details, of course.  My guess would be a semi-automatic firearm with a magazine capacity of more than 10 bullets, but I'm not a gun person, and can be persuaded one way or the other.  That leaves shotguns (good for hunting and home protection), hunting rifles (hunting, obviously), and many handguns.  All of which, you can use for your out-of-the-firing-range needs.

Oh, and for those of you who think you need guns to keep away the government, keep this in mind - the government has tanks, helicopters, jets, and heavy artillery.  Soldiers wear armor that can protect them from an AK-47 fired at point blank range, and if that wasn't enough, there are unmanned drones that can kill.  If you decide to fight the United States, a country which spends more on military armaments than the rest of the world COMBINED, your assault rifle will not help you.

Oh My God. . .

The title here is not meant in its usual, profane/blasphemous way, that marks my profanity-ridden website (one I should really update more often).  Rather, this title is part of the prayer I've been saying in my head since the early morning:

Oh my God, please let this news be true.  Please let it be a hoax.  Don't let those children die, don't let the survivors live scarred lives. Please. . .

Of course, the news is real.  Over twenty people have died, many of them children.  An entire classroom is still unaccounted for.  To the families of all of those who have died, I am sincerely heartbroken for your loss.  But, of course, I will be fine in a few hours or a few days; my life will go one.  I will not pretend to understand your loss, and your pain.  Just know that there are plenty of people like me who, for this moment, feel for you, even 3,000 miles away.

But I am 3,000 miles away, and like so many others, my mind turns on how to prevent such things from happening again.  Because it has happened, over and over and over again.  And it is human nature, indeed the very essence of humanity itself, to try and figure out how to fix things.  Our ancestors used to be subject to fatal attacks by animals, so we built fires and shelters and weapons to protect ourselves.  We don't just throw up our hands and say there is nothing to be done.

Is gun control the answer?  Maybe.  While it is true that "guns don't kill people," some guns allow people to kill lots of other people very, very quickly.  In fact, that's the actual purpose of a fair number of guns.  Sure, there are other purposes for guns, but the whole basis for their existence, their whole purpose, is to make killing easier.  Compare this shooting with the crazy guy in China who stabbed a bunch of kids.  It should not be at all shocking that someone occasionally uses them for this very purpose.

Now, of course, the 2nd Amendment, which traditionally has not applied to states, just the Federal government, stands in the way, somewhat.  But the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment prevents any form of gun control is simply absurd.  There is no right under the Constitution that is an absolute right.  No one can shout "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, human sacrifice is outlawed, and the police can search you and your home without a warrant under certain circumstances.  There must be something we can do.

With that said, gun control is not the only issue at play here.  There is also a mental health issue. To shoot up a school where the oldest kid is at most ten, is beyond my comprehension.  It does appear that these massacres are perpetrated by suicidal men looking to go out in a blaze of "glory."  So while we think about limiting the access to firearms, we should also try to insure that the mentally ill are receiving treatment.

What we can't do is simply throw up our hands and say that nothing can be done.  We owe it to ourselves and to the fallen to do more than that.

To All the Conservatives Out There

Despite the glee expressed in my last post, I'd like to reach out to all my conservative friends (or now, former friends) out there.  Its been a tough election, and an even tougher election night for you.  As much as you think that you are alone, or that no one knows how you feel, trust me, I do.

You see, eight years ago George W. Bush, a President I despised and thought was a disaster for this country, was reelected over John Kerry.  And as I will detail below, the parallels between 2004 and 2012 are absolutely striking.

In 2004 and 2012, the incumbent President faced a politician from Massachusetts with a reputation of being an elitist and a flip-flopper.  The bases of the opposition were energized, and found new ways to spend soft money like never before (we had the 527's, you had the Super Pacs).  Both challengers did extremely well in the first Presidential debate (I, for one, haven't forgotten about Poland), with the President making a comeback in the next two debates.  And both times, the losing side was sure, absolutely sure, that they would carry Ohio (2004 - the exit polls, and 2012 the unskew guy).   And, of course, both times, despite extreme enthusiasm by the challenging side, the incumbent President won because he was able to get his supporters to come out to the polls in large numbers.  

When Kerry lost in 2004, I was devastated because I realized that there was nothing more I, or any other Democrat, could have done to stop Bush from winning.  Our leadership just wasn't smart enough to beat Karl Rove, and there was more Republicans in the country than Democrats.  Sound familiar?

Despite all the jokes about Karl Rove blowing $390 million (!!!), and whatever can be said about Mitt Romney, you, my conservative brethren  did everything you could to win this campaign.  You spent more money than the President.  You had election officials in key states who shamelessly did everything they could to prevent Obama supporters from voting.   There was no stone left unturned.  You left it all out on the field, and for that, I salute you.  

In the next few months and weeks, you are going to hear a lot of excuses by the Republican Party leadership about why Obama won and Romney lost.  I've heard Limbaugh say that Romney was running against Santa Claus, and O'Reilly saying much the same thing.  I've heard Rove say that Obama's negativity discouraged Romney supporters from voting, and there will be plenty of bullshit out there, peddled by the people who said that Romney was a shoe-in, and that the polls were biased.  Do not believe them.  No, you lost for the same reason that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards lost to Obama in the 2008 primaries - Obama went out and found more voters. 

And these voters did not vote for Obama because he promised them free stuff - but because he had a plan that is kinda, sorta, working.  Because he represents a turn away from policies of George W. Bush, who, as you might remember, had an approval rating in the twenties when he left office.  Romney never articulated how he was going to be different - instead he looked like a plutocrat.  Most importantly, though, these voters came to the polls because Obama reached out to them in ways that Romney could not and did not.

Okay, I'm sorry to sound like I'm piling on - I don't mean to.  You worked your ass off, and damn if you didn't come close.  But you need to accept reality.  If you ran a campaign against Obama the man, as opposed to the Kenyan anti-colonial communist you think Obama is, you might have won.  Trust me, I know.  We Democrats kept running against Bush the idiot, instead of Bush the actual guy.

So, you might ask, why the hell am I writing this?  Its because America needs conservatives and conservatism just as much as it needs liberals and liberalism.  Neither side has all the answers, and we both have our excesses.  We need each other for balance. 

Lastly, as someone who got over the pain of 2004, here's my advice to you - take a walk.  Get some air, play some music, catch up on some old hobbies and/or chores.  Put politics aside for awhile.  Turn off Fox News (who's more interested in selling stuff than Republican wins).  Trust me, 2016 is a lot closer than you think.

The Reelection of Barack Hussein Obama (and Other Observations)

Before I get too far into this exercise of schadenfreude, I have a brief confession to all those who have wondered where I have gone in the political world - for some time now, I have developed a strong sense that I am a jinx, as far as politics go.  The only candidate who I volunteered for, worked for*, or gave money to, and still won was Barack Obama in 2008.  And then I gave money because I despised Sarah Palin's acceptance speech at the RNC.  Every other candidate (and there have been over ten at this point), has lost.  So, while some of my lack of participation was due to the typical things in life - job, girlfriend, dog, etc. - I also desperately wanted to avoid jinxing anything or anyone.  Also, I'm pretty sure that as a jinx, I have to want the candidate to win, so no volunteering for Carl DeMaio or Mitt Romney.

I mention my belief that I'm a jinx so that you can understand how I felt in the days leading this this election - I was terrified.  After all, I strongly supported Barack Obama, hated Mitt Romney, and wrote blog posts about the election. What if my blogging jinxed Obama?  What if I jinxed Bob Filner with my posts on SanDiegoPolitico.com?  Okay, that's really true, I wasn't worried about jinxing Filner.  But I was terrified about Obama.  Oh, when it comes to politics, I am very superstitious.

Politics, particularly American politics, is an amalgam of sport and policy.  Not only do you root for your team, but winning and losing has real consequences.  Obama will most likely nominate at least one more Supreme Court Justice, and will oversee the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare).  The Democrats who are buoyed today, and the Republicans who are depressed today have some reason to feel the way they do (though Obama is a lot more moderate than the Republicans think). Add in the intimacy of Twitter, and politics can get very, very personal.

My own nightmare scenarios included, among other thoughts - the election coming down to New Jersey, and the only voters in New Jersey who could vote because of Sandy were Republicans.  Mother Jones' election coverage, which included a vote machine in Pennsylvania that only recorded Romney votes, and long lines at polling places wasn't exactly helping my paranoia.  The only thing to prevent my panic was Nate Silver's excellent blog.

And let me say that Nate Silver and all the other poll aggregators did have a small role to play in Obama's win.  After the first debate disaster, Democrats like me were dispirited, or like Andrew Sullivan, outright panicked.  In politics, as with war, panic is a death knell.  From ancient times, the first army to break, or flee lost, and lost horribly.  Politics is no different, and if Democrats thought Obama was going down, they wouldn't have shown up at the polls, and it would have been 2010 all over again.  Instead, we had Nate Silver telling us that everything was going to work out.  And he was right.  Which lead to my favorite moment of the night:

When I first contemplated the video (after enjoying the schadenfreude), I thought that Karl Rove anticipated that the Democrats would panic, that we wouldn't show up, and that it would be 2010.  But now, I think that Rove just doesn't understand the numbers anymore.  The electorate has changed from being 85% white (to now just 72% white), with more and more Hispanics/Latinos voting, with Asians becoming a strong constituency for the Democrats (they used to be Republican-leaning), and young voters going overwhelmingly Democratic.

The other thing that has always amazed me is that the Republican Party has a completely different perception of Barack Obama.  The birther thing, the anti-colonialist thing, and all the crazy conspiracy theories about Obama completely miss the point of who Obama is - a shockingly normal man.  As Chris Rock noted:

Yeah, he's black, and yes, his middle name is Hussein, but Obama is, in his private life, incredibly normal.  Romney, on the other hand, was far from normal - his attempts at normal behavior were creepy and weird.  Now, in part, I think that was Romney being the salesman, trying to sell himself as being more conservative (on economic issues), than he actually is.

With that said, Romney wasn't a total disaster.  As candidates go, he looked good on television, could speak clearly (no Bushisms), didn't appear to cheat on his wife, and was reasonably intelligent.  Romney is a B level candidate.   Given that the rest of the Republican field were absolute disasters, Romney really was the best the Republicans could put up.  In 2016, I suspect that the various Governors will fight it out.  I, for one, am absolutely terrified of Brian Sandoval. 

That said, the GOP during the primaries was so conservative, that even a good candidate wouldn't have had any wiggle room.  Rick Perry, for instance, was viciously attacked because he wasn't a total asshole to immigrants, which in turn, turned off Latino voters.  

The other thing that caught my ear was that during the RNC, there was talk about preserving job creators and protecting the entrepreneurial class.  While that has always been part of the GOP platform, guys like Reagan and Bush would talk about expanding the entrepreneurial class.  The message being - don't tax the rich, because you might just be rich someday.  But this time around, the hope was gone.  You don't win elections that way.  

*The term work is loosely defined, as the author was paid a pittance in these "jobs."

Rape, Abortion, and Other Fine Topics

One of the most bizarre things that has occurred over the course of the 2012 campaign is the seeming endorsement of rape by the Republican Party.  Todd Akin talks about "legitimate rape," which he then clarified as "forcible rape" - and states that a woman can't get pregnant from rape (which, of course a woman totally can).  Paul Ryan and the other Congressional Republicans tried to change the Federal definition of rape.  And, of course, the Republican Senate candidate from Indiana, Mourdock, says that pregnancies from rape are "God's will." 

All this leaves me to wonder, what the hell is going on? Well, that's not exactly true.  If you've read this blog before, you know what has happened - the bedrock conservative base of the Republican Party has completely taken over.  So, what was once considered okay - exceptions for abortion in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother's life was in danger, are now fair game.

With that said, I will say that Mourdock's comments regarding rape were far less despicable than Todd Akin's - or at least less misogynistic.  If Mourdock had to say it all over again, I'd imagine he'd say something like:

Rape is a truly awful, horrible, thing, and I hope that the victims of rape get all the counseling and treatment they need.  I also hope that the perpetrators of rape are caught and sent to prison for as long as the law allows.  I do not, in any way, support or condone rape.  But, when a pregnancy results from the rape, I do not support aborting that fetus.  After all, the fetus cannot control how it was conceived, or how it was brought into the world.  It is an awful situation, and all we can hope for is that God has a plan for that child beyond our comprehension.  

Even that statement, which is somewhat sympathetic to Mourdock's point, is still problematic.  Why should a woman be forced to carry her rapist's child to term?  What if the rapist gets out of prison early, does he get parental rights?  But, at least I understand his point.  Rape bad, abortion bad.  So, his concern seems to be preventing abortion because he wants to protect the life of the fetus.  Of course, I could be wrong, and he could be saying that the rape was also God's will (but I hope not).  

Todd Akin, on the other hand, is purely misogynistic.  In his mind, a woman can't get pregnant if she is really and truly raped, and so there should be no exception in the case of rape, because those pregnancies never happen.  Akin's view, in contrast to Mourdock, is that women should carry fetuses to term (whether they want to or not) because they are sluts and should be punished. 

Now, the interesting thing about these two statements by Mourdock and Akin is that they may represent the two wings of the "Pro-Life" (anti-choice) movement.  Akin certainly represents the "pregnancy is God's punishment to sluts" wing, and is the poster boy for what Pro-Choice types think the Pro-Life movement is all about.  Mourdock (and again, I'm not entirely sure of this), appears to represent the actual pro-life, or at least pro-fetus, wing of the pro-life movement.  

Interestingly, though, both Mourdock and Akin hold a position - opposition of abortion even in the case of rape - that is way, way, way, outside of the mainstream.  Most Americans (80-90%), even if they generally oppose abortion, will support the right of woman to have an abortion when she has been raped.  In the long run, I wonder how this will play out.

The Missing Link in the Economic Debate

Sorry to have taken so long in posting, but the older I get, the more responsibilities, etc.  Okay, that's only half true.  The other half is that since the first Presidential debate, I've been in the fetal position, metaphorically.  And Andrew Sullivan's total and complete freak out wasn't helping.  Not. At. All.

Well, we then got to see the VP debate (Malarky!), and the second Presidential debate (Binders of Women!), and everyone on the Left is doing much better.  Plus, Andrew Sullivan is off the ledge, which is helping my spirits on the Presidential race significantly.

Now before I go into my rant below, I want to add one more thing about the debates - I love politics.  I've followed politics the way some people follow sports.  If anything, I think of myself as a former minor leaguer who developed a love of the sport, and never looked back.  With that said, Twitter and the internet have increased my enjoyment of these debates immensely.  The immediate and free-flowing snark, the immediate creation of internet memes (a.k.a. inside jokes), and insight is mind-blowing.

But there is something missing from the President's economic message - why does raising taxes on the wealth raise revenues and seemingly drive economic growth at the same time?  After all, that's what Bill Clinton did, and we had tremendous economic growth.  All Obama seems to say is - look at what Clinton did, and it worked.  But he really has to describe the why it works, and why trickle down economics doesn't.

I've talked about this before, but it bears restating.  Having a higher tax rate on the wealthy drives economic growth because it encourages them to invest their money.  Now, the classic Milton Friedman theory is that if you cut taxes on the wealthy, they use that money to spend on boats, houses, and other crap.  Which, like everyone else, they do.

But wealthy people aren't stupid - and even if they are stupid, their economic advisors are not.  Their first priority with their money is live like Lord Grantham in Downton Abbey (um. . .my girlfriend is a fan), but their second priority is to make sure their kids can live like Lord Grantham, and then their grandkids can live like Lord Grantham. (Okay, I might have watched a few episodes*).

*Editor's note: The author has totally watched both seasons, including the Christmas special.

In other words, rich people don't throw their money away, they invest it in stuff that is safe and gives a reasonable rate of return.  After all, if you have $100 million, a 5% return is $5 million.  The estate becomes something to protect above all else.  And with a low tax rate - a guy like Romney can pay 14% of his income in taxes (which is way less than what I pay, mind you) - the wealthy have every incentive to try to keep their money with their descendants for forever and a day.

But, when there is a high marginal tax rate (rate on the highest income earners), there is more incentive to invest that money to get a higher rate of return.  Let's take a guy who's makes $5 million a year in income.  If he pays a tax rate akin to Romney, he's paying something around $750k in taxes that year.  While that $750k is painful, he still walks away with over $4 million. If, however, the tax rate on that $5 million is 40%, then he's paying $2 million in taxes. . .unless he finds out some way to lower his taxes.

One way of doing that is investing what would have been the $2 million tax bill into a business that has an interesting, but iffy business plan - like 90% of the internet companies in the 90's.  In fact, business losses, which are tax deductible, are almost preferable to gains.  After all, the guy is going to lose $2 million anyway, so he might as well gamble with it.  That gamble, in turn, helps create jobs.

Now, as the Matt Yglesias notes in his post, this positive effect of income taxes only applies to income taxes.  So, if there is a small business owner wondering whether or not to hire more people, the same effect applies - the additional workforce is a tax write-off.  If the owner was going to lose that money to taxes anyway, he or she will be more inclined to spend the money.

The Sinking Ship

Growing up, my family discussed (and still discusses) politics nonstop.  To the uninitiated, the whole thing can be intimidating - we throw out facts and figures, discuss major issues of the day, and editorialize on things we know nothing about.  Anyway, I remember once, during a Presidential campaign going south (I think it was Bob Dole in 1996), my father saying that the race was over, but what was left was to protect the House of Representatives.  Unfortunately for the Republican Party, I think that's what's going on now.  The Professional Republican elite - those individuals who actually make money off of politics - have written off Mitt Romney, and now expect he's going to lose.

Hence - Chaos on Bullshit Mountain

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Chaos on Bulls**t Mountain
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

All this craziness, all this fighting, has nothing to do with Mitt - if he wins, he wins, but right now, he's more unpopular than any Presidential candidate in recent (since 1988) memory.  Democratic voters, smelling a good ole fashioned ass kicking (and really, who doesn't love an ass kicking), are now starting to pay attention.  Republicans, meanwhile, are on the verge of being discouraged.  And discouraged voters don't vote, or don't tell their friends, family and neighbors to vote.  

What's more, the kind of anger and distrust of the nominee has a tendency to splash on the down-ticket races.  Which is why you won't see Mitt Romney campaigning a lot with candidates for other offices.  Of course, that further discourages the base.  Next thing you know, its a wave election, and the Democrats take the House of Representatives.  

So, to prevent this from happening, the GOP has to go all out.  Now, the Democrats could still self-destruct, but so can (and probably will) Romney.  But keep this in mind over the next few weeks - we are going to see Bullshit Mountain get even bigger.