A rational response to tragedy

Recent events have once again resurrected the gun debate, namely whether or not people should have them. Unlike many of my Facebook friends, I don't see this as improper (though perhaps we should wait until the bodies are in the ground before we use them for political points). The way we can turn a negative event into a positive outcome is to examine the event, determine its causes, and decide on a plan of action to prevent it in the future. That formula is as true for a workplace accident as it is for a schoolyard shooting. Most of the issue with post-tragedy discussion, though, stems from an emotional response to a terrible act. We want desperately to do something, and so we end up doing anything, just to appease our feelings. This is folly. So, the purpose of this post is to frame the argument in a rational way so that we can at least have discussions that are meaningful.

Humans are violent creatures. Our superior aggression is one of the primary factors in our emergence as the top species on the planet. It is why it is Homo Sapiens, and not the Neanderthals, roam the Earth as its unchallenged master. This capacity for violence is an innate part of who we are. Of course, being indiscriminately violent would not be terribly conducive to building a world-spanning empire. Fortunately, evolution equipped us with a mechanism of restraint. Humans don't naturally like killing other humans. Hell, most don't even like conflict.

If this seems like a contradiction, consider the millions of Americans, even in the most violent of cities, that manage to get through their lives and never harm another person intentionally. Even bullies and bruisers tend not to fight to kill, but to intimidate and prove dominance. Normal humans under normal conditions do not mortally wound other humans. It isn't in our nature. (For more interesting reading on this subject I recommend "On Killing" by Lt. Col Grossman) Clearly, though, there are times when this "fail safe" fails. Soldiers are trained to suppress this instinct under certain stimuli, sociopaths have no such block, and even normal humans under extreme duress can tap into their more aggressive natures.

Before it is even brought up, "violent video games" do not cause violent behavior. In fact, the more access to video games a country has, the less likely they are to experience gun violence (with America being a statistical outlier).

Another cause is the ease with which killings can occur when guns are employed. One of the reasons firearms have completely changed the world of warfare (aside from their valuable intimidation functions) is that they enable practically anyone to kill anyone else, regardless of their relative size or strength. Superior aggression will lead the more violent party in a conflict to victory, all other things being equal, but I think there is little doubt that the body count of a school stabbing would be much lower than a similar shooting.

So, we have two causes:

1.  Innate violence of humans, and the failure of the mechanism that controls it.
2. Firearms function as the "great equalizer" of men.

Other factors could be considered: What was the child's upbringing, what was going on his life, was he bullied, was he loved, etc., etc., etc. I would argue, though, that all of these factors are really subsets of issue #1.

But just identifying these causes isn't enough. We must also decide what parts of them we can change or mitigate. Much as a scientist trying to design a better rocket would likely not entertain "lower the gravitational constant" as a solution because it is beyond his power to alter, we must identify what we be changed.

I think it is self evident that the violent nature of humanity has been a constant for millennia and while it may be a noble goal to change this for the future, it is unlikely that any effort of ours will alter this in the foreseeable future. The mechanism that controls it, however, has been demonstrated to be malleable.

It is unrealistic to believe that we will lower the effectiveness of firearms (either by changing the firearm itself or equipping every citizen with armor), or banish them from existence entirely. We could conceivably change the ease with which they could be obtained, though.

Now that we've got a good handle on what we're trying to solve, we can finally move on to the next step in problem solving: Find solutions and compare all alternatives. I emphasize the word all, because the biggest mistake I see happening is the shouted refrain "We can't just keep the status quo! Something must change!" Once again, this sound and feels good to say, but the baseline for any analysis is always option 1: Do nothing. Even if it is not pleasant, if you do not allow the current state of things to be an option then you lack a frame of reference with which to judge other options.

From this point, the solutions we determine are up for debate. I'm not going to set down exactly what I think should happen step by step, because frankly I don't know. Here, though, are some points to consider: 

• We can attempt to strengthen the "violence control mechanism" through better educations about mental health and access to psychiatric care, potentially nipping problems in the bud. Should this be the domain of government? I would submit that the way to fix this is by fixing society, which is possible if difficult. I doubt a government mandate that we all drop the stigma attached to mental health problems would work.
• Unfortunately, even the best system in the world will inevitably miss some. Those that fall through the cracks will go on to be violent, and when someone is intent on harming their fellow man, words often are not enough. Sometimes, the only way to negotiate with violence is with the overwhelming application of violence. The change necessary is that the source of "anti-harm" violence must be nearby and capable of eliminating the threat. Relying on the police alone for this job is, I think, untenable. As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
• Outlawing something does not necessarily make it unattainable. If you wish proof, google "Drive-by's in London" (which is a gun-free zone) or look at the statistics for drug use. Laws only restrict those who obey them, and by and large those who obey laws are not the threat. That isn't to say that laws do not have a place, but it is to say that you cannot turn to a new law as some sort of panacea for every problem.

Addendum to debt post: Now with pictures

Saw this neat little graph on Hotair after I made my entitlement debt post yesterday. This comes from the Government Accountability Office.

Click here for a bigger picture. In case it isn't clear, that's the debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP. The blue baseline assumes we reform entitlement programs (such as Social Security and Medicare). The non-unicorns & rainbows option is the "Alternative", without reform. See the difference?

In completely unrelated news, Treasury Secretary Geithner said that Social Security was off the table for negotiations. Because it's not currently a driver of the deficit.

Show your friends this graph, but don't frame the argument in "See all this debt? Isn't that bad!?" Nobody cares about abstract fiscal policy. Instead, bring it on home.

"The government isn't some invisible force that has no effect on your lives. If the government runs out of money, they will start taxing. Those taxes mean less money in the economy. That means fewer jobs. Fewer jobs mean that yours is at risk, and even if you don't lose yours, you will get paid less. The best entitlement program is a growing economy."

Debt-powered rocket engines over the Fiscal Cliff

To hear politicians talk, you would think that those who steward our government's budget are penny pinching mega-accountants. They would have it all figured out if it weren't for those dastardly "rich" folk always getting away with paying less than their share of taxes! Still, they reason with a long-suffering sigh, they can go back to the books and get tough on some kind of spending. They obviously won't touch Social Security or Medicare, they say, but they'll cut the hell out of that damn "discretionary spending" budgets!

Unfortunately, all of the above is balderdash. For your reading pleasure, I direct you to an article in Forbes which breaks down a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report and explains why it paints a bleak picture.

The Congressional Budget Office recently published “An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook:  Fiscal Years 2012 and 2022.”   The outlook is bleak.  For the fourth straight year the annual deficit exceeded one trillion dollars.  Accumulated red ink continues to climb:  “Federal debt held by the public will reach 73 percent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year—the highest level since 1950 and about twice the 36 percent of GDP that it measured at the end of 2007.”

Next year under CBO’s most favorable estimate the budget deficit would fall to “only” $640 billion.  Over the next decade Uncle Sam would pile up another $2.3 trillion worth of debt.  The deficit would start climbing again in 2019—for years.

But what are politicians doing about it? They said they were cutting spending, right? Well, forgetting that discretionary spending doesn't include some extremely large expenditures (I'm looking at you, TARP), the levels that Congress has promised to stay below has been met only 4 times in the last 50 years. Not exactly a stellar record.

But is it really that bad?

Moreover, both higher tax rates and higher deficits would threaten the economy.  The former would cut incentives to work and save.  As for the latter, explained CBO:  “larger budget deficits and growing federal debt would hamper national saving and investment and thus reduce output and income.”  That is, government spending would crowd out productive private activity; as a result, we would earn less while having to pay more.  The agency projected that real GDP would be 1.7 percent lower under the alternative fiscal scenario.

Overall, warned CBO, “the policies assumed in the alternative fiscal scenario would lead to federal debt that would be unsustainable both from an economic and from a budgetary perspective.”  Indeed, the financial horror facing America is evident in another recent CBO study, “The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook.”

 In case you didn't know, in their reports the CBO usually follows two alternate realities: One "baseline", which has America populated solely by unicorns and kittens, who get to work on pixie powered rainbows. The second, "alternate", scenario is somewhat more realistic (the rainbows are powered by gasoline).

Neither of these scenarios include some very bad, and likely, things. Recessions, foreign disasters that threaten oil supplies, or economic damage caused by fiscal policy (that means the government screwing stuff up again) could all cause the truth to be far, far worse.

In general, the problem we have is not one of revenue, AKA taxes. The so-called "rich" we are supposed to be taxing into oblivion can't possibly bail us out.

Former congressmen Chris Cox and Bill Archer warn:  “When the accrued expenses of the government’s entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually.  That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit.”  In contrast, the total adjusted gross income of those earning more than $66,000 a year was $5.1 trillion and net corporate income was $1.6 trillion.  Confiscate it all and there still isn’t enough to pay the annual increase.  And you could only steal the money once, since people wouldn’t keep working if government left them with nothing.

If we took literally every penny that corporations and the rich made it would still not be enough to cover the deficit for even one year. The problem isn't income; the problem is spending. Social Security & Health Care, despite being touted as above reproach, are absolutely a part of this spending problem.

This is not something that we can put off till tomorrow. The growing deficits and interest we are stacking up can swiftly push debt to unimaginable heights. By just 2037 debt could be as high as 200% of GDP. Greece, by comparison, peaked at 143%. The longer we wait, the worse it gets.


Increased government spending, deficits, and debt isn't just some abstract problem. This isn't a debate over whether the rich should be able to have more of their money or not. A necessary part of a growing economy is safety and security. Remove that confidence and you remove the profit incentive. If people no longer have reasonable assurance that their investments are secure then they will not invest. Lower investments mean less business being conducted, which lowers demand for capital.

Guess what?  

Your job is capital.

The Green Boot: Feds crush small business "for the environment"

In case you were worried about small businesses being able to continue their villainous plots of employing local workers, never fear: the Federal Government once again has the solution: Just shut them down.

U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told a popular oyster farm at Drakes Bay on Thursday to pack up and leave, effectively ending more than a century of shellfish harvesting on the picturesque inlet where Europeans first set foot in California.

Naturally, the small business being crushed under the Fed's bootheel won't affect anything. I mean, it only employed 30 measly people. Not like they produced 40% of the oysters harvested in California or anything.

The government is able to do this thanks to the fact that the business is operated out of land owned by the National Park Service. The reason that the land is owned by the Federal Government is that it was sold to them in the 1970s to protect the local businesses from developers, with the understanding that they would have their 40 year leases renewed in perpetuity.

Not pictured: The irony of selling your land to the Feds to protect your business, only to have them confiscate it at the first opportunity.

Secretary Salazar wishes to keep the land of this are in its pristine, unemployment producing state. Obviously, increasing poverty in any area is the fastest way to improve its environment. "Conservationists" in the area are, of course, overjoyed.

"A heartfelt salute to Secretary Salazar for his wisdom and statesmanship in choosing long-term public good over short-term private interests," said Sylvia Earle, a local environmentalist and the former chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Protecting Drakes Estero, America's only West Coast marine wilderness park, will restore health and hope for the ocean and for the interests of all of the people of this country."

Sylvia was oddly silent on the fact that the way the decision was handed down will require Lunny to ruthlessly slaughter the 5-10 million juvenile oysters growing to adulthood.

Before we judge the government too harshly, though, let's take a step back. At the end of the day, it's very important to note that the government was able to look past the money side of this: all the lost taxes, revenues, jobs, and really cut to the heart of the matter. They objectively looked at the science of the matter at hand, carefully examined the data, then twisted the data any damned way they pleased to fit their preconceived notions.

...a panel of scientists concluded that National Park Service officials made errors, selectively presented information and misrepresented facts in a series of reports about his Drakes Bay shellfish operation.

The findings mark the second time in a year that the Park Service has been put under a spotlight for essentially fudging data in its attempts to show that the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. harmed the environment.

While the report did not specifically accuse anyone of misconduct, it raised serious questions about governmental misuse of scientific data.

The Park Service said the number of harbor seals declined from 250 to 50 in the area Lunny developed. Park Service officials also claimed the oyster farm could hasten the spread of destructive nonnative species that hitchhike on the oyster shells. The voluminous waste produced by oysters, they said, increased sedimentation in the estuary.

Goodman used Park Service records to refute much of the disputed data, including evidence that the amount of eelgrass in the bay doubled between 1991 and 2001, and that the number of harbor seal pups increased overall in the bay while oyster harvesting was under way.

The Federal Government: Deliberately publishing falsehoods in order to crush small businesses and ensure that the environment is pristine for our future, poverty stricken generations.

So you lost the election: Now what?

Darth Obama secured a second term last night, ensuring the entire world will be cloaked in darkness. The next four years hold nothing but plagues of locusts and famine riots. Before next year is out your dollar will be worthless and the only currency will be lead pills shot at very high rates of speed. This all thanks to the unwashed, uninformed masses who don't understand what they just did.

But take heart, my fellow conservatives! As dire as these predictions are, there is the tiniest, most miniscule fraction of a possibility that this isn't true. Maybe, just maybe, the other half of America isn't full of hopelessly clueless morons. So before you go on Facebook and cry out to the world that all hope for America is lost, remember these things:

1. You know who else is melodramatic? Teenage girls. Resist the urge, friends. We lost. That does not necessarily mean America is doomed. It just means we've had a setback. We survived Lincoln, FDR, and Carter; perhaps we can get through this too. I'm not saying Obama is a good thing (Anybody else remember when he kicked in the door of GM, took the place over, and fired the CEO? Anybody? Guess it's not a big deal). Obama is very, very bad. But, it's not an instant death sentence.
2. Legislation originates in Congress. We still hold the majority in the House, though it looks like the lead is lessened. We don't control the Senate, but then again we didn't before, and we still have enough to filibuster the hell out of some stuff if we like. Better still, the House is the side that controls the purse, so there's the chance we can stop some of this massive bleeding.
3. Enough rope to hang. It is much harder to sell that liberal policies just need more time after 8 years of dominant power than it is after just 4. Sure, they'll still be crying the refrain "Huge government interference would've worked too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!" in four years, but the numbers will speak for themselves
4. It's not them, it's us. The reason we lost this election on practically every front is not because voters are stupid. It isn't because of the masses on welfare, or because people are greedy and lazy...well, at least it isn't simply because of that (/sarc). The reason we lost is that the majority of Americans didn't want what we were selling.

Number four is the most important point to remember. It isn't that they wanted something different than we do. In the end, I think the vast majority of Americans want the same thing: Some freedom, a job, a house, some cash, and the ability to spend it how they like. The problem is they didn't see our solutions as addressing those problems.

We fix this by figuring what attracted them to the other side, then demonstrating concisely why our side does the same thing, just better. The other side offered healthcare, they offered cleaner air, they offered a safety net from the government and more jobs. How we counter that is by showing that you get all those same things, better, cheaper, and more efficiently if you don't turn to the government.

You want healthcare? Grow the economy. You want cleaner air? Grow the economy. You want a smaller tax burden, a bigger TV, and less poverty? Grow the economy! Economic growth is the fastest engine to get to wherever you want to go. Get that message into the hearts and minds of those around you, and perhaps things get better.

Friends don't let friends vote uninformed

You can see it in the eyes of the people you pass on the street, frantically darting to and fro searching headlines for substance and meaning. You can hear it in the screaming of various pundits and sense it in the glares Bob is giving Ted over the cubicle walls. Voting season is upon us.

Actually, it's right on top of us, since we vote tomorrow. But what is a voter who put off getting informed to the last minute to do? Tax policy? Social Security? ObamaRomaCare!? It's all too much!

Never fear, my friends, JAC has the answer. I present to you three websites guaranteed to transform you from a non-informed lout to an in-the-know Super Citizen in 20 minutes or less, or your money back! All three are non-profit, non-partisan resources.

First, to find out what's actually on the ballot we go to Vote411.org. This handy website lets you put in your address and will pop out with your polling place and a sample ballot, complete with your candidates for President, Senate, & House, as well as any other issues that have been brought up for you to decide (For example, Virginia has two Constitutional Amendments on the table, one on eminent domain, the other on GA session timing). On the larger races it may even be able to give you stances on each candidate.

Now that you have a quick & dirty look at what you're deciding, and having spent 3 minutes of your 20, it's time you look at the candidates themselves. For this, I recommend either OnTheIssues or Project VoteSmart (I prefer OnTheIssues). This will give you a blow by blow, issue by issue look at almost any candidate you care to investigate. You can go for the full monty and compare every candidate in every race on every issue. Of course, you can always wimp out and grab four or five issues that are important to you (Budget, Economy, Abortion, etc), and compare those. Spend 5 minutes on each race and you've still got 2 minutes to spare in case you get distracted by the LOLcat video your friend sent you while you were doing your civic duty.

Presto! You are now an informed, productive member of our voting system. Congratulations!

Election 2012: Know your candidates

I firmly believe that the most important thing in an election is not that citizens vote, but that they get informed, then vote. A citizen who merely pulls the lever for whoever has an "R" in front of their name does a disservice to their country. If he cannot be troubled to spend twenty minutes becoming acquainted with the issues then he would be better off simply staying home.

Towards that end I'm posting an issue-by-issue comparison of the Republican and Democratic tickets (AKA, the only candidates that matter). I will attempt to make this as strictly non-partisan and unbiased as possible. My hope is that, whoever you choose to vote for, you'll be choosing them not because of party, but because of actual relevant information.

My primary sources for this will be Project Votesmart & Ontheissues.

1. Abortion

Romney: Firmly pro-life. Claims to have had an epiphany when touring a cloning facility which led him to change his previously pro-choice stance. He has stated that "scientifically", life begins at conception (again, as a result of the same visit). Following in the same vein, he has said that it would be a "good day" were Roe v. Wade to be repealed. Stated he personally advocates abstinence, but has no desire to outlaw contraception.

Ryan: Also pro-life. Has a 0% rating by NARAL, believes life begins at conception, and has voted against federal funding for both abortions and stem cell research.

Obama: Pro-Choice. He has stated that he is "undecided" on whether life begins at conception or not. Regardless, he believes that women have a legal right to safe abortions (though in 2008 he stated it was ok for States to block late-term abortions) and expanding embryonic stem cell research. 100% rating by NARAL.

Biden: Also pro-Choice. He has said he personally accepts the Catholic Church's decision that abortion is wrong, but does not translate that to his public life. However, in 2007 he stated that there should be no Federal Funding for abortions.

2. Budget, taxes, & economy

Romney: Statements from Romney generally are along the lines of "Cutting spending is the solution" to the budget. He has repeatedly insisted that he will not raise taxes on either the wealthy or the middle class, claiming he will make up gaps by cutting spending and eliminating loopholes. He was one of the few Republican candidates to propose switching America to a territorial, vs worldwide, tax code.

On the bailouts he was originally tepid on Obama's bailing out of large auto companies, but by 2011 had come out against them, and in 2012 said that bankruptcy would have led to a stronger Detroit in the long run. He has maintained throughout, however, that the TARP package was necessary to avoid economic meltdown.

From his book "No Apologies": "There's a good deal of rhetoric today from liberal politicians who say that we need to tax those corporations that "send jobs overseas." I'm afraid they don't understand that companies with subsidiaries in other countries pay taxes there. Requiring them to pay still-higher US taxes would make them less competitive in those markets, making it bad for their business overseas, and also for jobs here. Sales made by subsidiaries of US companies are often supported by high-paying jobs in finance, research & management at home. And if a company's tax burden under such legislation grew too high, it could simply move overseas to avoid it--resulting in a loss of tax revenue for the US, not a net gain."

Ryan: Known as a rabid deficit hawk, most of Ryan's statements and votes are geared towards cutting back Federal spending at the expense of programs deemed "non-essential" in order to balance the budget. However, he did vote in favor of the bailout for GM & Chrysler, and also for the $192B stimulus spending bill. He has intensely rejected the notion that the rich should pay more to make up for the deficit. In the VP debate, he said (paraphrased) "Even if the rich paid 100% of their income, it wouldn't be enough. There aren't enough rich people to do that."

Both Romney & Ryan have at various times said they would favor a plan to cap federal spending as a percentage of GDP.

Obama: Endorses a policy he himself branded "economic patriotism". Believes the rich should pay "a little more" in order to pay for the operation of the Federal government in tough times. Under his administration, responses to failing businesses in Detroit led to a Federal subsidy to keep GM & Chrysler in business. This bailout package resulted in the government briefly becoming the majority stockholder in GM.

In general, the President focuses on reducing the tax burden on the middle class. For corporations, he has a target tax rate of 25% and believes that ship jobs overseas should be taxed for doing so. He favors continuing or deepening the progressive tax system the Federal government currently employs in which the richest pay a much higher tax burden as a percentage of their overall earnings, while the poorer citizens pay progressively less.

Biden: Similar positions to Obama in terms of a progressive tax plan. He said that TARP "stuck in his throat", but it worked, and believes the bailouts of Detroit were the right thing to do. Has repeated the ticket slogan of the rich paying a little more, but if we reach into the Way-Back machine for a moment, in 1997 he voted "yes" to support a Constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget.

3: Civil Rights (Namely, gay marriage & affirmative action)

Romney: Opposes gay "marriage", but on 9/19/2012 said that a gay couple should be able to enjoy all the same rights (such as hospital visits) as a straight couple, with the actual term "marriage" being reserved for traditional marriage.

Ryan: Also opposes gay marriage and opposed the repeal of DADT. He did however vote in favor of a bill that would outlaw discrimination in the workplace due to sexual orientation.

Rated by the NAACP at 36%, indicating a mixed stance on affirmative action, but I couldn't find anything specific in terms of statements or votes in this regard.

Obama: Has long said that homosexuality is not a choice, and in 2012 he reversed his 2007 position and came out in favor of gay marriage. He has still maintained that the decision to enact the legalization of gay marriage should be left to the States, but that no Federal law should invalidate said marriages.

From his campaign's website:

"Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer: I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.

But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.

What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens"

Voting record and interest group ratings all indicate a very pro-affirmative action stance.

Biden:  He was the first on the ticket to come out officially in support of gay marriage. Essentially the same stances as Obama on these two issues.

4. Energy & Environment

Romney: On global warming, in his book "No Apologies", 2010:

"I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control. I do not support radical feel-good policies like a unilateral US cap-and-trade mandate. Such policies would have little effect on the climate but could cripple economic growth.
Oil is purported to be one of the primary contributors to rising global temperatures. If in fact global warming is importantly caused by our energy appetite, it's yet one more reason for going on an energy diet.
Scientists are nearly unanimous in laying the blame for rising temperatures on greenhouse gas emissions. Of course there are also reasons for skepticism. The earth may be getting warmer, but there have been numerous times in the earth's history when temperatures have been warmer than they are now...

As nations like China and India make available to their citizens the automobiles and appliances that we take for granted in the West, their energy demands--and their emissions--will rise dramatically. If developing nations won't curb emissions, even extreme mitigation measures taken by the US and other developed nations will have no appreciable effect on slowing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions.

These considerations lead me to this: We would pursue a no-regrets policy at home, and we should continue to engage in global efforts--not just US & European efforts--to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. By no regrets, I mean that we ought to take unilateral action on emissions when doing so is also consistent with our objective for reducing our dependence on foreign oil."

During an interview on Sep. 4, 2012 he proposed having the States approve resource management within their own borders, which he claims would cut down significantly the time required to approve permits without sacrificing environmental concerns because the States are better at it. In 2008 he endorsed giving the States the right to have their own emissions standards.

On energy, he has frequently endorsed the use of nuclear energy, believes that subsidies for green companies should be ended, and envisions an America that uses all of the resources within its borders (including oil, coal, etc). That includes drilling in ANWR if it is economical to do so.

Ryan: Voted yes to open up the continental shelf for drilling for oil & natural gas (2011), and to stop the EPA from regulating CO2 as an air pollutant. Like Romney, does not believe in the cap & trade system. Generally votes in favor of any bill that opens up areas for drilling and/or mining for resources.

Obama: Has endorsed the use of a cap & trade system to fight global warming. For example, this quote from his 2004 campaign website for Illinois senate:

"Obama will support legislation requiring that by 2020, 20% of the nation’s power supply portfolio comes from renewable sources like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy. Promoting renewable energy will create new investments and new jobs without increasing prices. Obama has proposed a flexible market-based approach that allows electricity providers to either generate the renewable energy themselves, obtain it from other companies, or purchase credits from providers who exceed the standard."

His administration has invested billions in the green energy sector in an effort to have wind, solar, and nuclear energy solutions to take on a greater share of the current American infrastructure. A centerpiece of his "all-of-the-above" answer to our energy problems is clean coal, which makes sense since coal currently provides approximately 44% of the power in America, though the first clean coal power plant has not yet come online according to FactCheck.org.

Voting record includes ending subsidies for oil explorations (2007), disallowing drilling in ANWR (2007), and sponsoring a bill to increase CAFE standards (AKA emissions standards) by 4% each year until 2018 (2006). In 2007 he voted yes to a bill that would make global warming a consideration for federal project planning.

Biden: Generally in step with Obama throughout his long history in government. He also sponsored the same 2006 CAFE standards bill, voted yes to address CO2 standards in America without considering emissions in India & China, supports cap & trade, etc.

5. Military & Foreign Policy

Romney: It's very difficult to assess any sort of "voting record" on foreign policy for Romney, since Governors do not directly play a hand in foreign policy by definition. His speeches have centered around ensuring America's power does not decline abroad. At the Republican National Convention, he stated he wanted a military "so strong, no nation would dare test it." Towards that end, he has proposed maintaining or increasing defense spending. He opposes a timetable to leave Afghanistan, saying that this is essentially giving our enemies a "wait until" date for our defeat, believing instead that decision ought to be up to our generals.

Ryan: Voted in favor of military intervention in Iraq, opposes timetables for withdrawal from Afghanistan, and has voted in favor of increasing defense spending on multiple occasions.

Obama: Oversaw the withdrawal of troops from Iraq that was began under the Bush administration, having opposed that war since 2004. He has also set a 2014 deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden, then located in Pakistan, was killed under his Administration and with his approval.

From his campaign's 2008 website:

"Barack Obama believes that strengthening weak states at risk of collapse, economic meltdown or public health crises strengthens America’s security. Obama will double U.S. spending on foreign aid to $50 billion a year by 2012."

A good quote that seems to sum up his approach to the rest of the world (2008 Black Caucus):

"As commander-in-chief, all of us would have a responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s our first responsibility. I would not hesitate to strike against anybody who would do Americans or American interests’ harm. What I do believe is that we have to describe a new foreign policy that says, for example, I will meet not just with our friends, but with our enemies, because I remember what Kennedy said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. Having that kind of posture is the way we effectively debate the Republicans on this issue. Because if we just play into the same fear-mongering that they have been engaged in since 9/11, then we are playing on their battlefield, but, more importantly, we are not doing what’s right in order to rebuild our alliances, repair our relationships around the world, and actually make us more safe in the long term."

Biden: Voted yes to enlarging NATO to include other Eastern European countries in 2002.  He voted in favor of the war in Iraq, but has since said he regrets that vote due to his perception of Bush's abuse of the powers it gave him.

A quote on the role of America abroad:

"[I would] make two fundamental changes in this [Bush's] administration’s policy. We have to jettison this notion of preemption as a doctrine, and we have to jettison the notion of regime change. Replace it with prevention; open our ears and talk, before things become crises.

And, two, we have to move in the direction of making sure that we deal with the one thing that no one’s talking about, and that is conduct change, not regime change. Think of the folly of what this administration has acted on. It has said, “By the way, give up your weapons, the very thing that’s [stopping] us from attacking you. And once you give them up, then we’re going to take you out.” That’s the logic of this administration. That’s why we’ve lost respect all over the world. My goal would be to reestablish America’s place in the world."

6. Gun Control

Romney: Supports the assault weapon ban & a law that made it more difficult to purchase a handgun by instituting a 5 day wait period, and proudly claimed that these positions "would not make him a hero with the NRA". He has since said in 2007 & again recently in the 2012 debates that he would not support any additional gun control legislation, believing that what we have on the books is sufficient if it were to be enforced. 

Ryan: Voted in favor of a bill to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits over the use of the weapons they produced. He also voted in favor of a bill that (in DC, where the Federal government is the only government) that repealed registration requirements for guns in DC, as well as repealing a restriction on semi-automatic weapons.

Obama: Like Romney, supports bans on assault weapons. He has maintained support for the 2nd amendment, but believes that localities have the right to ban guns if they wish (Politico interview, 2008, on his position in favor of the DC handgun ban).

Biden: Voted no on protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits, yes on background checks at gun shows, and also supports an assault weapon ban.

7. Healthcare

I think it is fairly self evident that Obama is pro-Obamacare, and Romney would be naturally against it. I won't go into the details of Obamacare in this format, but here's some highlights:

• No rejection based on preexisting conditions. This will likely result in higher costs for most, due to the fact that those preexisting conditions mean certainly high medical costs. That burden would be shifted onto the rest of the population.
• Individual mandate to purchase insurance. Anyone who does not purchase insurance is penalized with a tax. Note the Supreme Court held up this clause, not because of regulating commerce, but as a tax. This sets the precedent that Congress could conceivably "tax" consumers into buying products they determine to be in the public good.
• State run exchanges to facilitate the purchase of insurance.
• Plus about 1000 pages of other stuff.

Critics of Romney have stated that Obamacare was patterned in part on Romneycare, the healthcare plan put into place while Romney was governor of MA. Romney's response is that Romneycare was the result of working with the Democrat dominated Congress in his state. He went on to invoke the 10th Amendment, saying it was the right thing for Massachusetts, but that the Federal government shouldn't have taken as large a hand as they did.

Romney has vowed to repeal Obamacare, though that is obviously outside his power to do so were he to be elected. The repeal of a law requires a 2/3 vote of both the House & Senate, which is unlikely. That being said, bills to defund Obamacare are possible. Those bills would naturally be veto'd were Obama to be elected. Thus, while Romney may not be able to repeal Obamacare, it is much more likely that less of Obamacare will be implemented if he is elected vs Obama. Bottom line: If you're anti-Obamacare, you're pro-Romney, and vice versa.


These are far from the only issues, and far from all the information available. I encourage you to do your own fact checking and investigating, because the only way we will improve our government is through informed voting.

Debating the debates: An excellent idea from Arianna Huffington

As I was perusing various news & opinion sites in my off time, I came across a very interesting point made by Ms. Huffington of the Huffington Post. She notes that there was much to-do about Romney sneaking in notes to the first debate (he didn't, it was hankie), and then asks the obvious question: "Why does it matter if they have notes?"

"When is a sitting president ever going to be faced with a situation in which he's going to need to make an important decision without availing himself of any outside information? Information is good -- indeed, very few crises in our history have come about because a president wanted to consider too much outside information."

Being President isn't an improv comedy show where having all the information in your mind is important. Actually, quite the opposite. It's just as important to know where to get information and who to ask if you don't know as it is to know the information yourself.

She goes on to suggest we actually get rid of the entire debate process as it stands entirely, and replace it with a decision making exercise.

"...what about at least one debate that is structured to resemble the decision-making process a president would actually go through in office? For starters, they could have access to all the information they want. It's fun to see how a candidate responds to a zinger, but it'd be much more instructive to see how a candidate goes about seeking information that he doesn't know. So give them web access. And give them a phone -- to borrow from Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, we could have a "Phone an Advisor" option. Or we could have candidates bring their advisors on stage with them. The moderator could throw out a difficult hypothetical; the candidates would consult their respective advisors and come back with an answer. That is, after all, how the presidency actually works."

I imagine this running like Iron Chef, with the Chef going from adviser to adviser getting input, consulting prepared information dumps, etc. Hell, we could even have commentators analyzing who he chose to bring with him, what his process is, and at the end the two candidates get to propose their solution.

It's an intriguing idea. It'll never happen, of course, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Debate Factcheck: Few lies, many exaggerations

As one should always do post-debate, I've been perusing the various fact checking websites to see just how badly our two Presidential hopefuls stretched and manipulated the truth. The short version is: They both exaggerated, but didn't outright lie all that much.

So, yay?

Here's a link to check for yourself at factcheck.org, and another from PolitiFact. It's mostly making things appear much worse and/or better than they actually are. For example, Romney claimed that half of college grads "couldn't find work", implying they were unemployed. In actuality, the study he cited said that 53.6% were unemployed or underemployed, meaning they might be able to find work but were not working as much as they would like or are very overqualified. Still bad, but not as bad. Likewise, Obama's plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion includes some dubious line items, such as savings from the war's ending...which is kind of silly if you think about it. The wars were ending anyway, so that's not really a "deficit reduction" plan.

1st Presidential Debate: Holy President beating Batman!

I missed the debate last night so I could watch my Orioles completely blow it in a chance to have a showdown with the Yankees. I just finished watching the Presidential debate on YouTube while I was working, expecting a ho-hum sort of experience. After all, President Obama has pretty much convinced me on who to vote for, so all Romney could possibly do is screw it up, right?

Holy ninja-cyborg Jesus was I wrong. Romney whipped the President like the red-headed stepchild of a rented mule. This from a celebrity Twitter feed yesterday:

"What’s that silence I hear? No one throwing a party? No one saying this election is a slam dunk for Obama? What happened to the victory lap?"

 That's Michael Moore. When Michael Moore believes the Republican won a debate, you can pretty much take that to the People's Bank of China.

Romney was concise, using only 47.3% of the total talking time. He was to the point and extremely direct, not afraid to engage the President in specific-yet-eloquent ways on a variety of issues. He looked less like a robot and more like a robust candidate for the Presidency, showing some humanity for the LULZ with his Anniversary jibe at the beginning. Romney proved that he's not out of this race yet. He even did something I didn't think he was capable of: He sounded like a Conservative.

If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend watching it. Here's some of the highlights to look out for:

• Romney emphasized over and over that he intends to allow no tax cut that adds to the deficit. Likewise, he intends to view all spending through the lens of "Is this worth borrowing money from China for?"
• Romney made an excellent point about the difference between cutting the corporate tax rate and the individual tax rate. Many businesses pay the individual rate, which is why lowering that rate helps them tremendously.
• Obama continually hammered Romney on a glaring vulnerability, the fact that closing all loopholes & exemptions would not be enough to cover the gap that Romney is discussing. I doubt that's all Romney has up his sleeve, but he didn't articulate an answer this time. Look for it next debate.
• When Obama claimed that there is currently a tax break for companies to move their production overseas, Romney completely bitch slapped him. "I've been in business for 25 years and I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe I need a better accountant."
•  Romney clearly stated he was pro-voucher for Medicare to increase coverage. Obama said he was anti-voucher, believing Medicare to be a better option.
• Obama was pro-cuts to the military, stating the Defense Department "hasn't asked for increased spending". Romney stated he wanted increased Defense spending, so we would continue to have a military that was "second to none".
• An hour or so in Romney made a reference to the 10th amendment in reference to Healthcare. I could've kissed him.

Now, don't get me wrong. Candidates say all kinds of things during debates they don't actually get to doing in reality. Still, if this performance is any indication, this race is far from over.

Embassies, part 2: How do we respond to protests?

In my last post, I outlined why the film that has caused such a ruckus overseas is protected speech, despite the fact that it is ignorant and hateful. Of course, because of that film, an Ambassador is dead and our Embassies are burning. What do we do about this?

First, a definition: A protest is a bunch of people carrying signs, maybe chanting, to express an opinion. What is occurring are not protests: They are what we call "riots". So let's call a spade a spade: These demonstrations are riots, plain and simple. If the people are simply protesting, they ought to be allowed to continue. Heck, they should be encouraged! Statements from the embassy should read something like this:

"While we do not agree with the burning of our President in effigy, we absolutely endorse the people's right to do it. And also, where exactly are you getting all these American flags? Like, seriously, the number of flags we've watched you guys burn could probably clothe every child in Africa. There must be entire factories devoted to nothing but producing highly flammable American flags. Maybe some of that energy ought to be channeled into, I dunno, making farm equipment or curing AIDS. Just sayin', it's an idea. But hey, what do I know. Flame on!"

An attack, a riot, now that is something different. Remember, our embassies are a little piece of America inside the host nation. The French Embassy in America isn't American soil: it is French. Unless we evict them, that land does not belong to us. Likewise, an attack on an American embassy abroad is exactly the same as an attack here at home. So, if a company of soldiers marched into the French embassy and killed a bunch of people, that would be an invasion and a declaration of war.

At least, that's how it used to be. Unfortunately, that's not how things have been lately. For the last few decades, embassies have been fair game for any nutjob with a rifle. So how do we stop that?

The key to enforcing your will anywhere is to be swift, decisive, and consistent. We have to enforce consequences on two groups of people: The host nation, and the perps who actually do the attack.

First, the host nation. That one is actually pretty easy. We give millions, sometimes billions of dollars in aid to these nations every year cause we are swell guys. So, we hit them where it counts: Their wallets. Any damage done to an embassy gets repaired on the host nation's dime through aid money. Also, any time a demonstration outside the embassy gets out of hand and our people are hurt, or our property damaged, we charge you a fee. Say $10 million. Every time. Do that, and watch how quickly "We strongly condemn these actions" turns into riot police and a complete civil liberties crack down.

Second, the perps. Of course, you'll never stop every crazy, no matter how great you are. Even in nations that we are generally friendly with, we could still be attacked. If an actual nation attacked the embassy, the answer is easy: War. Unfortunately, nowadays that never happens. It's always a random group of "extremists" who fade back into the crowd. What is a superpower to do?

First, we are patient. We recognize this as a problem and devote resources to monitoring its development. We wait until we have for sure credible evidence that an attack is going to happen. We find out who it is, and we track them down. Then, we put the word out on the street that "Hey, btdubs, if anybody attacks our embassy there will be consequences. Just so you know." Then we do something really crazy: Nothing. We let them come.

Stay with me.

We have to be super, ultra sure for this plan to work, which may mean we miss a few attacks in the meantime. No big deal, we haven't been doing anything about the ones that are happening anyhow, so that's pretty much status quo. But eventually we'll know ahead of time what's gonna happen. We beef up security to repulse the attack, then we let them do it. We run them off.

Then the plan happens. Our enemy only understands one language, and that language is overwhelming violence. I propose we speak his language.

We hunt them down. Publicly. Ruthlessly. When we find them, we execute them in as barbaric a fashion as we can conceive. I'm talking kill them in such a mind-bendingly violent way that the mob will be calling us for pointers. Maybe we do it on public TV. Maybe we make a reality TV show about it, like Hunger Games: America. What is important is that we do it, and everyone knows we do it, and that we then do it every other time from here on out. We make a public example, then we put their heads on spikes and hang a sign that says "Who else wants some?"

It'll take some time to prove we're serious, but eventually, the absolute certainty of being executed in a horrifying fashion will dissuade further attacks.

Burning embassies and "hate speech"

UPDATE: A coworker sent me an awesome pic from Reuters that lays out everything to date (9/14/12). Added it below.

For the last week, North Africa and the Middle East have been illuminated by light of burning American flags. From Egypt to Sudan, Tunisia to Afghanistan, demonstrations have raged over a "blasphemous" film made about the Prophet. If you are confused by all the news stories pouring in, here's a timeline of the original series of events, including the murder of our Ambassador to Libya. Also, here it is in picture form.

The film in question is "The innocence of Muslims", an amateur movie produced in America. It portrays the Prophet as a womanizer, child molester, charlatan, rapist, violent man. Possibly also as a cyborg. I don't know, I didn't actually watch it. Clips of the video & trailer  went viral across the Islamic world.

Showing the usual amount of restraint and rational thought present in these situations, peaceful protests sprung up outside various embassies to express their outrage at this film. If by peaceful protests you mean full scale riots, complete with burning flags, storming the walls of various compounds, and a coordinated attack (which of course had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the unrelated anniversary of 9/11. Right.) on a consulate in Libya which resulted in the killing of the American Ambassador.

I'm not going to get into whether the attacks were planned or not (they were), or whether the Administration should have better protected its foreign installations (it should), or whether Romney was out of line when he called Obama out on it (he wasn't), or any of that. In my next post I'll say what I believe ought to be done about all this stuff going on. In this one, I want to address the idea that the film is a "hate crime".

An article appeared in the Huffington Post by one Mr. Abbas Barzegar. Mr. Barzegar correctly noted that a widespread Muslim mindless, violent & savage response to a negative stereotype that depicts them as mindless, violent savages is pretty ironic. Unfortunately, after that his grasp of irony dips to that of Alanis Morissette.

"Anyone who has a inkling of familiarity with the Muslim world knows that sacrilege and blasphemy are not understood as acts of free speech, political expression, or artistic creativity. No, they are bright red lines that promise public panic and guarantee violence. Couple that reality with two centuries of colonial and neo-imperial European domination of the greater Middle East and you have the perfect storm for an international communications disaster. So, as history repeats itself, the only thing ludicrous is the incessant stubbornness of both the West's commitment to "free speech" and the Muslim world's rush to violence, the irony of which is lost upon them both....one look at Sam Bacile's film will demonstrate that its vitriolic message elevates it to the status of a hate crime.

Consider this: how is it possible that not the FBI nor Secretary of Defense Robert Gates could stop Pastor Terry Jones from putting the Quran on Trial and burning it when it was well known that the act would cause violence around the world and harm the security of the US personnel abroad?"

Isn't it a big pain when stupid things like "rights" and "laws" get in the way of enforcing your own sensibilities on an unwilling populace? Mr. Barzegar's reasoning goes like this: Person "A" says something that Person "B" does not like. Person "B" decides to act on his dislike by murdering person "A", or his family. Person "A" had it coming, because he shouldn't have said something so mean.

The reason that neither the FBI nor the SoD, nor the President, nor anyone else could stop a Quran burning or a movie being produced is that it does not matter if you agree with what the person is doing or saying so long as they are not directly harming someone else by doing it. It does not matter if what he is saying is ignorant, hateful, and vitriolic. It does not matter! It is his right to say it.

Rights exist to protect the minority from the majority. That means that the right that allows Mr. Barzegar to criticize his government is the same right that allows neo-Nazis to march peacefully in Jewish communities and ignorant filmmakers to make poor cinema about religious figures. You cannot have one without the other.

Of course, I can already see the straw men marching on the horizon, so I'll go ahead and cut them off: Restrictions on speech, such as shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, are not equivalent to restrictions on "hate speech". In the former, if a crowd of reasonable people are in a theater, an expected, reasonable response would be fleeing the imaginary fire, which could cause death. If the same person shouts "I hate Jews!" or "Muslims are stupid for realz!", no one is harmed by the words. A reasonable response to this would result in no violence.

Speech is not a crime, Mr. Barzegar, even if it is hateful.

US Fiscal gap: $222 Trillion. No big deal, right?

Just in case you had forgotten the financial straits the country as a whole is in, here's a bit of info gleaned from the latest CBO (Congressional Budget Office) report by economists Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns (via Hotair):

In the course of that year, the U.S. government’s fiscal gap -- the true measure of the nation’s indebtedness -- rose by $11 trillion.

The fiscal gap is the present value difference between projected future spending and revenue. It captures all government liabilities, whether they are official obligations to service Treasury bonds or unofficial commitments, such as paying for food stamps or buying drones.

Wait! Before your head explodes when you see the $11 trillion number, read this to calm you down: That's only an increase of 5.2%. See, it's not really that bad!

The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated (by us) using the Congressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget forecast -- the Alternative Fiscal Scenario -- is now $222 trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion difference -- this year’s true federal deficit -- is 10 times larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the entire stock of official debt in public hands.

This fantastic and dangerous growth in the fiscal gap is not new. In 2003 and 2004, the economists Alan Auerbach and William Gale extended the CBO’s short-term forecast and measured fiscal gaps of $60 trillion and $86 trillion, respectively. In 2007, the first year the CBO produced the Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the gap, by our reckoning, stood at $175 trillion. By 2009, when the CBO began reporting the AFS annually, the gap was $184 trillion. In 2010, it was $202 trillion, followed by $211 trillion in 2011 and $222 trillion in 2012.

$220 Trillion. With a big fat T.

Just Social Security alone will be enough to absolutely crush the economy. Once the Baby Boomers all retire, they'll be collecting a whopping 85% of the GDP annually.

Holy sweet cyborg pirate Jesus.

The solution recommended by the economists? Raise taxes by 65% or lower spending by 40% immediately, right effing now, or it'll only get worse.

Naturally, neither party wants to touch the issue of the Baby Boomer retirement, because they see it as political suicide. The unfortunate truth, though, is that we cannot sustain this kind of spending. This goes beyond the argument of Keynesian vs. non-Keynesian policies. There's no amount of benefit to be gained from deficit spending that could make up for the debt incurred.

The solution to this won't be pretty, but it'll only get worse the closer we get to the brick wall. Here's my idea: Raise the age that you receive social security to 83 immediately (5 years older than the average life expectancy), which will apply to anyone who is currently 60 or younger. If you're 50 or younger, you don't get Social Security. Ever. Sorry, buddy. Life sucks.

Don't go thinking your paychecks are getting any bigger, though. That money you pay into SS still gets paid, but instead of going towards the "Support retired Americans" fund it goes into the "Prevent America from becoming a third world country" fund.

That's only one of many steps that would be necessary until we got our debt back under control, but at least it'd be a start.

From HuffPo: Why are the gaffes so important?

As I was perusing the various and sundry political websites I frequent on my lunch break (What? You don't spend your free time reading articles on tax policy? Weird), I happened upon this opinion piece from none other than Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post. HuffPo is an unapologetic left leaning blog that I read in order to hear from the other side. She wrote an excellent article on "gaffe grenades and faux outrage", which asked the simple question: Why are politicians who run for the highest office so wooden? What is it about the presidential race that sucks the life out of them?

It made me wonder: Why is running for president so diminishing? What is it about the process that turns thoughtfulness and confidence into desperation and insincerity? Why is it assumed that the only route to the highest office is the lowest road possible?

We have 25 million people unemployed or underemployed. We're on the edge of falling back into recession and none of the problems that led to this seemingly endless financial crisis have been solved -- or even really addressed. And yet our presidential campaign has devolved into a never-ending contest to see which side can catch other side in the worst "gaffe."

And it's not just about catching the other side in meaningless gaffes. When the gaffes don't come along at a steady enough clip, the campaigns just make them up. Who says we're losing our manufacturing prowess to the Chinese? If you factor in our robust and growing Gaffe Manufacturing Sector, we're still number one. (USA! USA! USA!)

Context is often used as a go-to word that actually means "When I said x, I really meant y", but it actually is very important in communication. For instance, when Romney said "I like to fire people", he wasn't saying he liked to fire people per se, but that he wants businesses to have to compete to get his money, which is how the market works. When Obama said "You didn't build that", he clearly wasn't saying that business owners didn't own their businesses, but that the environment in which businesses thrive is built by everyone. Taken in the context, you may or may not agree with the sentiment behind a comment, but at least it is a valuable part of the conversation.

The answer to why the campaign is about gaffe's is this: They are easy. They are short. They don't take long to digest, and they fill up airtime.

It would take time and effort on the part of the candidate to explain his position on tax policy in a way that people could understand. More importantly, it would take time and effort on the part of the electorate (In other words, you and me) to understand the policies that our politicians are espousing. It would mean having a discussion, getting your opinions challenged, and coming up with a meaningful solution. Isn't it easier to simply play a 5-second clip on why the other candidate endorses puppy mills?

Vote Romney and the kitten gets it.

What's the solution? In my opinion, it's courage. The courage on the part of a politician to not fear the gaffe machine, and simply speak passionately about what he believes. To not be afraid to explain his policies and hold them up for scrutiny. Perhaps if a politician stopped acting so much like a damn politician, people would take the time to listen.

Shocking: Christian, family run business espouses Christian, Family Values!

In a recent interview Chik-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy plead guilty to supporting traditional Christian values, stating specifically that his organization believed marriage was forever and between one man and one woman. This naturally was received as a healthy expression of opinion in the public forum. Opponents acknowledged that while they may not agree with Mr. Cathy's opinions, they certainly support his right to have them and proceeded to engage in a courteous dialogue on their differences of opinion.

Hah, just kidding. It actually began a massive firestorm of manufactured outrage at a person who dared to have an opinion contrary to some other people's beliefs. I mean, who is this guy? He treats this like it's his Constitutional right or something!

The actual quote is as follows:

“We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives...We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Of course, he was wrong on that last part about being able to operate his business as he saw fit. At least, he was in Chicago, where "Alderman Joe Moreno, who represents Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood, plans to use his aldermanic privilege, a Chicago tradition in which City Council members defer to aldermen on local matters, to block the restaurant's permit." For those of you having a hard time understanding this Chicago slang, when they say "a Chicago tradition" they mean "rampant corruption and abuse of power".

Said Joe Moreno:

"It's a very diverse ward-- economically, racially, and diverse in sexual orientation," Moreno told ABCNews.com. "We've got thriving businesses and we want more but at the very least don't discriminate against our LGBTQ folks."

He continued by saying "So, we want to maintain that diversity, unless that diversity means that someone may have an opinion contrary to mine. If that happens, then naturally I'm going to use the power of my elected office to crush their business, despite them not having done anything illegal whatsoever. It's tradition." The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, has also come down on the fast food chain and is supporting this "tradition".

This sort of action is the height of hypocrisy. The National Review Online made an excellent point:

"Rahm Emanuel has been many things in life — ballet dancer, investment banker, congressman, White House chief of staff, now mayor of Chicago — and he apparently wishes to add another title to his curriculum vitae: Grand Inquisitor. He has denounced the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A and endorsed a Chicago alderman’s plan to block construction of a new outlet because the company’s executives do not share his politics. This is a gross abuse of power: Imagine if the mayor of Provo, Utah, had tried to punish a business for supporting same-sex marriage — the Left would demand his resignation, etc. The powers of government are not to be used for parochial political ends. Even in Chicago."

 Here's the deal: Mr. Cathy didn't "target" gay folks, the so called "LGBTQ...IWHQNDYT" crowd (I added a few more letters since that acronym seems to get bigger every day, and I want to stay ahead of the curve). He targeted the decay of the institution of marriage as he sees it, and said he doesn't approve of it and neither does his organization. That means he was no more "targeting" gay people than he was "targeting" divorced people, of which I am (quite happily) one. There are plenty of good, decent, caring people that do not support same-sex marriage. I used to be one of them, before I was persuaded through reasonable, calm discussion to change my stance.

Even aside from that, why is this a surprise? I mean, who didn't know that Chik-fil-A was a Christian organization? They aren't even open on Sunday! "OMG, I am shocked and outraged that a Christian organization might express traditional Christian values and donate to organizations that share their viewpoint!" said No One, Ever.

We live in a country where you have the right to express your opinion and worship your God as you see fit. We live in a country where you do not (and I cannot possibly emphasis this enough) have the right not to be offended.

If you, as a private citizen, don't like Chik-fil-a's comments, then don't eat there. Encourage your friends not to eat there. Go all Tea Party on them and buy their chicken then throw it into a lake or something. But don't pretend like they crossed some invisible line in the sand by having an opinion and should therefore be banned from your city.

As for me, I don't agree with their opinion, and even resemble the sort of person they disapprove of...but damn, their chicken is good. So I'm going to keep eating it.

Romneycare vs. Obamacare: Distasteful but defendable

Last Thursday the Supreme Court handed down the decision that even though the mandate was not constitutional, they still thought the idea was totally awesome, so they just called the mandate a tax. Bam, problem solved. Well, except for the problem of now giving Congress the unlimited power to levy whatever penalties they like as long as they call them taxes, even if their goal is to raise $0 revenue, but hey, since when has unbridled power been a problem for the government, right?

Needless to say, while the decision was disappointing to say the least to anyone who is a fan of limited government, we did get the consolation prize of being able to slam Obama for clearly and unequivocally raising taxes on...wait for it...

The Middle Class!

For a taste of the beating that ensued, see the video below. Watch it in its entirety. It is a thing of beauty to see how the interviewer slowly backs his opponent into a corner, having him state that the mandate was not a tax, then playing the audio where team Obama argued in the courtroom that it totally was.

Unfortunately, Romney has not really capitalized on this turn of events. The reason? One word: Romneycare.

While Romney was governor of Massachusetts he signed into law a healthcare bill that looks remarkably similar to Obamacare, to include mandates and penalties and exchanges (oh my). Always concerned at being labeled a flip flopper, Romney is torn between defending his past record and by extension Obamacare, or admitting he was wrong and trashing Obamacare, and himself in the process.

Well, Mr. Romney, I don't like what you did in Massachusetts. In fact, my two favorite things about you are your territorial tax system proposal and the fact that you are the most Presidential looking guy EVAH, no homo. But, since you are not, in fact, Obama I will give you an out that apparently every one of your highly paid advisers have failed to discover. The reason they may have overlooked it is understandable. It comes from the Constitution, and I know that you DC folks don't like to pull that thing out much.

Let's say for the sake of argument that Obamacare is exactly the same as Romneycare, because let's face it, you'll never be able to articulate any meaningful differences in the public forum. Even if they are precisely the same down to the last letter, they differ in one extremely important way:

Romneycare was a state action. Obamacare is a federal action.

The 10th amendment, probably my very favorite amendment in the Constitution, states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to create a healthcare exchange and mandate people to participate is not included in the Constitution, so therefore that power is reserved to the States. The reason the Obamacare mandate is a tax and Romneycare mandate isn't because "The Supreme Court said so". That is a part of it, but you look like a douche when you say it. The whole reason is that the power to have a mandate is clearly a power of the States, not the Feds. Therefore, Obama is overreaching. He is attempting to seize power for the Federal Government away from the people, in a way the framers never intended. Only by hiding it in the tax code (and therefore raising taxes on millions of Americans) can it even be allowed, and that doesn't make it a good thing.


To condense that into a soundbite sized statement for you, Mr. Romney:

"Romneycare made sense for Massachusetts. What is good for someone living in Massachusetts may not be good for someone living in Virginia, or Texas, or Nebraska. I believe that people are better able to make decisions about their healthcare than the federal government can, and so those decisions should be kept as close to the local level as possible. This sort of power is guaranteed to the States by the 10th amendment, and the President is attempting to circumvent the Constitution, and he's doing it by using the mandate to raise taxes on the hardest hit Americans, the middle class."

Bam. In one go you've defended Romneycare, drawn the distinction between it and Obamacare, defended the Constitution and States Rights, and accused Obama of raising taxes on the middle class without lumping yourself in that same statement. You come out sounding like a paragon for the middle class and conservatives everywhere, a defender of Truth, Justice, and the American Way who probably helps little old ladies across the street right after you kill terrorists by smashing them with your massive testicles, not some weak kneed douchebag who is relying on the Supreme Court to fight your battles.

You're welcome. Please make the check out to Mr. Fluffy.

Supreme Court upholds portion of SB 1070; Obama takes ball, goes home.

On Monday the Supreme Court handed out two decisions: One, that life sentences without parole for minors was unconstitutional. Two, that the portion of the Arizona immigration law (aka, SB 1070) that allowed officers to check the immigration status of those they arrest for other crimes was Constitutional. The two provisions that added fines and additional illegality for being an illegal immigrant in Arizona and job searching were struck down. This preserved the most controversial portion of the law, which was that the police could essentially demand to "see your papers" if you were arrested, and verify your legality to be in the country.

Naturally, Obama's administration deferred to the authority of the Judicial branch of government when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, and went about the job of administering the nation.

Just kidding. He actually proceeded to pout and kick his feet. He then put out the following official position of the Executive branch:

From the Washington Times:

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Essentially, the immigration strategy here is to "ignore the problem until it goes away". While this strategy is effective for nearly every other problem, I think perhaps immigration may require a slightly more thought out response.

 Jan Brewer is the Governor of Arizona and is, based on the photographic evidence, quite possibly the Wicked Witch of the West.

I'm not saying she definitely is, I'm just saying she may want to avoid large bodies of water.

Needless to say, she was less than pleased to hear about the administration's reaction.

Brewer told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren on Monday that she was “shocked” and “outraged” to learn of the move.

“This is politics at its best,” she said. “It’s just unconscionable. What they said to Arizona is, ‘Drop dead, Arizona. Drop dead and go away. We’re going to ignore you."

At the end of the day, I consider this a victory. Many people consider this a step towards some barbed wire police state, crying that this will encourage racial profiling and saying how unreasonable it is for the police to check immigration status. The problem is, illegal immigration is a crime, just like driving without a driver's license. When a cop pulls someone over, he demands they show him proof that they are allowed to be driving and that the vehicle is theirs (License and registration, ma'am). How is a green card any different?

Besides, we already allow the police to check on things only tangentially related to the original charge when they arrest someone. For instance, imagine the cop pulls you over for speeding. He then detects the odor of marijuana, so he searches the vehicle. In your trunk he finds a dead hooker and ten pounds of coke, as well as some Ron Paul campaign stickers.

What started out as a routine traffic stop turned into a murder and drug charge, because the police checked up on other possible crimes while he was at it. That's known as "good police work" when it catches murderers, rapists, and drug inhaling libertarians. How is it suddenly evil when we round up illegal immigrants?

Many officers have expressed concerns that they could be vulnerable to lawsuits for racial profiling for enforcing this law. There is a super easy solution to that: Check the immigration status of every single person you arrest.

Bam. No more profiling.

Upcoming SCOTUS decisions and my predictions

 The Supreme Court has five more decisions left to hand out, most notably on the Arizona immigration case and the Obamacare issue. Monday is the last day they are scheduled to hand out decisions, but it seems like a foregone conclusion that they'll have at least one more day after that. Naturally, any showman worth his salt saves the best for last, and I expect that we won't be hearing the decision on Obamacare until the last possible moment.

In case you haven't been hanging on every word to come out of the SCOTUS lately, here's a summary of what's to come this week.

1: United States v. Alvarez

What it is: Alvarez is the scumbug...I mean...alleged scumbag...Who erroneously claimed to have earned the Medal of Honor and was prosecuted under the Stolen Valor act, which criminalizes false claims of military honor. (Side note: Why the MoH? If you're going to claim a false medal, do something a tad less flashy, like a DSC or a silver star. Both very respectable medals without the blatant "Only ten people have earned that in the last few wars there, jackass" angle). The contention here is that lying about receiving medals is protected speech under the 1st amendment. The counter argument is that while some forms of lying are beneath the notice of the law (for example, claiming you are a doctor in order to get laid), military honors and the benefits, both tangible and intangible, are a kind of "trademark" of the government, and therefore the 1st amendment does not apply.

Actual lawyer analysis here.

Why it matters: This is the first law to test the Constitutionality of said law. Should it be overturned, Congress will likely respond with an already drafted amended version of the same law that will bring it in line with the Justice's opinions.

My guess: The court will uphold the law, but make an extremely fine distinction between lying to obtain government sanctioned benefits and lying to get a woman to sleep with you. 5-4.


2: Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs

What it is: Two cases are being reviewed where convicted murderers have been sentenced to life without parole. In one case the convict broke into a motor home, stole $350 worth of baseball cards, then beat the homeowner unconscious with a baseball bat (This guy really likes baseball), and then set the motor home on fire with the homeowner still inside.

The other case was a bit less baseball centered and more mundane. Guy walks into a store with a shotgun. Demands money. Clerk says "I ain't got no money" and dude blasts him away.

The argument is whether a sentence of life without parole is "cruel and unusual" and a violation of their 8th amendment rights.

Why it matters: Did I mention both convicts were 14 years old at the time of the murder? That's right: When I was still running around pretending to be the best Ninja Turtle (Donatello, obviously), these two kids were setting people on fire over baseball cards. The convictions aren't contested, only that a life sentence without parole is excessive for a minor. The defense wants the "without parole" part removed.

My guess: The court will overturn the without parole part of the sentencing, which is in line with previous decisions regarding punishments in non-homicidal and/or setting people on fire cases. 6-3

3: First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards

What it is: Some discussion on whether companies can enter into kickback agreements or something.

Why it matters: It doesn't.

My guess: 15-2, Orioles lose.

Who cares: Nobody, least of all me. Moving on.  

4: Arizona v. United States

What it is: Read my blog about it here. Basically, the question is can the State of Arizona round up illegal immigrants by requiring anyone arrested for anything, regardless of race, be checked for citizenship status. Anyone found to be in the country illegally would then be referred to the Feds.

Why it matters: This case determines how tough a state can get on immigration. It is not contested that immigration is clearly the Federal government's job (one it does remarkably poorly, of course). What is contested is how far a State can go to put illegals into the government's hands.

My guess:  Arizona comes out triumphant, and the States win over the Feds for once. 5-4.

5: HHS v. Florida, Florida v. HHS, and NFIB v. Sebelius (AKA Obamacare)


What it is: If you just asked that question, please punch yourself in the face. Hard. Then read my blog about it here.

Why it matters: This will determine the scope of the Federal government's authority to regulate healthcare. Big questions include: Can they create commerce in order to regulate it? Is the lack of commerce also commerce? Can the government FORCE you to buy healthcare, or face a fine if you do not?

My guess: ...is as good as yours. Constitutional lawyers and SCOTUS clerks think the mandate is dead. The public wants the law gone. I pretty sure the mandate is done for, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say they'll strike the whole law down, with the opinion making it clear they did so because the mandate was so central to the proper functioning of the law and a failure to strike the whole thing would be tantamount to legislating from the bench. 5-4.

"It's not my fault I'm fat, evolution made me do it!"

Last week His Majesty Bloomberg, King of New York City announced a planned ban on normal sized overly large sugary drinks in an effort to combat obesity. His plan is to block the sale of any sugary drink over 16 ounces (Unless it's a milkshake, fruit juice, diet soda, or simply a refill on the first 16 oz sale. Or if the soda is sold in a grocery store. Then it's A-okay) throughout the city, in order to bring down the approximately 50% obesity rate in his city.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in City Hall’s sprawling Governor’s Room.

“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

If you're curious how much of the "public" the mayor is referring to supports his plan, check out this poll at the Huffington post. Even at the good ol' HuffPo, this measure only garners a 31% approval rating. Clearly such an unpopular measure that unequivocally slices into the consumer freedoms of New Yorkers should not stand, right?

"Not so fast!" shouts Dr. Daniel Lieberman, professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University. He claims that coercive action taken by the government is not just necessary, it's natural.

Lessons from evolutionary biology support the mayor’s plan: when it comes to limiting sugar in our food, some kinds of coercive action are not only necessary but also consistent with how we used to live.

Obesity’s fundamental cause is long-term energy imbalance — ingesting more calories than you spend over weeks, months and years. Of the many contributors to energy imbalance today, plentiful sugar may be the worst.

Since sugar is a basic form of energy in food, a sweet tooth was adaptive in ancient times, when food was limited. However, excessive sugar in the bloodstream is toxic, so our bodies also evolved to rapidly convert digested sugar in the bloodstream into fat.

Simply put, humans evolved to crave sugar, store it and then use it. For millions of years, our cravings and digestive systems were exquisitely balanced because sugar was rare. Apart from honey, most of the foods our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate were no sweeter than a carrot. The invention of farming made starchy foods more abundant, but it wasn’t until very recently that technology made pure sugar bountiful.

Who is to blame, then? Is it people unable to control their base urges? Don't be silly! It's those evil corporations!

The food industry has made a fortune because we retain Stone Age bodies that crave sugar but live in a Space Age world in which sugar is cheap and plentiful. Sip by sip and nibble by nibble, more of us gain weight because we can’t control normal, deeply rooted urges for a valuable, tasty and once limited resource.

That's right. They are taking advantage of you, taking advantage of the fact that your great^100th grandfather didn't have enough honey is his diet. Those bastards.

How do we fix this? Not by doing nothing or through education, he says.

The final option is to collectively restore our diets to a more natural state through regulations. Until recently, all humans had no choice but to eat a healthy diet with modest portions of food that were low in sugar, saturated fat and salt, but high in fiber. They also had no choice but to walk and sometimes run an average of 5 to 10 miles a day. Mr. Bloomberg’s paternalistic plan is not an aberrant form of coercion but a very small step toward restoring a natural part of our environment. 

We humans did not evolve to eat healthily and go to the gym; until recently, we didn’t have to make such choices. But we did evolve to cooperate to help one another survive and thrive. Circumstances have changed, but we still need one another’s help as much as we ever did. For this reason, we need government on our side, not on the side of those who wish to make money by stoking our cravings and profiting from them. We have evolved to need coercion.

Basically, his argument runs like this:

1. Humans evolved to really like sugar since we didn't have access to delicious Dr. Pepper in the past, and even if we did, we would have had to chase it down through the tundra and beat it with a stick before we could drink it.
2. Now that we've advanced to the point where we don't have trouble getting sugar, we no longer have the natural limitation to its intake, allowing us to practically bathe in the sugary goodness of Dr. Pepper.
3. Since there is no natural limitation, our craving for the 23 flavors of absolute perfection must be curbed by Big Brother.

 The biggest problem here is that this argument places the blame for a person's poor eating decisions not on themselves, but instead solely on evolutionary factors. Unfortunately there are all kinds of things that make evolutionary sense that we expect people to handle on their own.

Having sex with other people when you're in a committed relationship is generally frowned upon. Despite the fact that it makes evolutionary sense, we expect people to resist this urge on their own.

Also, I doubt very much that ancient man, while hunting down his elusive prey of Haagen Daz, had much to train him for handling credit card debt. If someone defaults on their loans due to their own incompetence (as opposed to, say, a medical disaster or something of that nature) we rightfully place the blame on them and expect them to handle it.

Then again, maybe the Mayor and Dr. Lieberman are both right.

Perhaps these overweight New Yorkers are just..."Too Big to Fail" .