Category Archives: Government

We Not Only Have A Gun Problem. We Have An Anger Problem.

Posted on by

Sometime in the mid-1980s, I heard a report on the radio of a road rage incident. I later found out that a friend had been involved. While my friend was stopped at a traffic light, another driver inexplicably attacked him. My friend got out of the car, picked him up, and deposited the attacker in the ditch.

Although it was the first road rage incident I heard reported on the news. It certainly wasn’t the last. Today road rage incidents are common events. And, unlike the one involving my friend, they often involve guns. (It seems there’s a road rage killing weekly in the Phoenix area.)

I believe such incidents are a glaring measure of the anger index in our nation. Likely caused by underlying anger and triggered by stress, it seems many of our citizens are one incident away from going “postal.” (For those of you who are too young to remember, the term originated following a number of workplace shootings in Post Offices around the country.)

Today, much of our anger is politically based. Following the housing crash, those affected were angry at the government for allowing it to happen. Worse yet, they were furious that the federal government bailed out the banks responsible. When a black president then bailed out the auto industry as I believe was necessary, old white men went ballistic. Egged on by Republican strategists who wanted to block any initiatives by President Obama, they created the Tea Party.

Their anger and the anger of those who oppose them has grown ever since.

As the Tea Party types have decried every step of the Obama administration, many have stockpiled food, guns and ammunition preparing for what they consider the inevitable battle against a tyrannical government.

Of course, much of the violence is the result of gang-on-gang turf disputes and the illegal drug industry. But since the Me Party, Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh and his equally venomous wannabes have ratcheted up their angry rhetoric, they must take responsibility for creating a rage that’s ready to explode at the slightest provocation.

Guns make that anger even more dangerous. And the most lethal kinds of military-style weapons allow the violence to create more victims.

The only real solution is for everyone to chill out. For the Mean Party to tone down its rhetoric. For the media to stop reporting manufactured controversies and to end the “if it bleeds, it leads” style of journalism. And for the government to treat us all like tantrum-throwing kids by taking away our most dangerous toys.

Absolutism And The 2nd Amendment.

Posted on by

The National Rifle Association, right wing conservatives and gun collectors like to consider the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment as absolute. Even during testimony by a parent of one of the children slaughtered in Newtown, a heckler shouted “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Of course, people like this (and, unfortunately, there are many of them) neglect to mention the first clause of the amendment which states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

They also overlook the fact that none of the constitutional amendments are absolute.

For example, it’s illegal to slander, libel or defame others despite the 1st amendment’s guarantee of free speech. And, as I’ve previously mentioned, it is also illegal to falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

Our nation has also placed some restrictions on our right to free assembly.

Moreover, in recent years, we have created exceptions to the constitutional limits on search and seizure. The Bush administration played fast and loose with the limits on imprisonment. And we’ve modified the Constitution in many ways to abolish slavery, to give women the right to vote, to expand civil rights, to ban poll taxes, and to prohibit then later legalize the sale of alcohol.

It’s clear the Founders never intended the Constitution to be absolute. Supreme Court rulings have acknowledged that fact. So if other constitutional guarantees are not absolute, why should the guarantee of the 2nd amendment be any different?

We can and should place limits on military-style weapons of mass destruction. We should limit the size of magazines. We really should prohibit the sale of all semi-automatic firearms. We most certainly should conduct thorough background checks before the transfer of any firearm. We should place limits on the sale of ammunition. And we should require safety courses for everyone who purchases a gun.

Without changes in our gun laws, we can expect more mass shootings, more murders of children, and more random violence. Isn’t continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result a definition of insanity?

Another Chickensh*t Decision By A Democrat.

Posted on by

Last week, Sen. Harry Reid had an opportunity for real filibuster reform.

With the beginning of each new Congress, the Senate can determine its rules by a simple majority vote. Given the opportunity, many Democrats wanted to return to a voice filibuster like that of the past. In other words, the minority would still be able to filibuster. But they would no longer be able to do it anonymously, and they would have to continue debate on the Senate floor until they were exhausted or collected the 60 votes necessary to end debate on the measure.

Unfortunately, Reid chose to negotiate with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, winning a few very minor concessions.

It was an opportunity lost.

During the last three Democrat-controlled sessions, Teapublicans set an all-time record with more than 400 filibusters. They filibustered everything from President Obama’s cabinet nominations and judicial appointments to the repeal of Big Oil subsidies and the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Now, as a result of Reid’s timidity, the obstructionist Teapublican minority can continue to block legislation by requiring a super-majority of 60 votes to allow debate on virtually any measure.

As Senator Tom Harkin warned prior to Reid’s failure, without filibuster reform it will be virtually impossible for President Obama to carry out his vision for his second term. He noted that the compromise will allow Senators to literally phone it in. “It still will provide a system where people can filibuster and they don’t even have to come here,” said Harkin. As a result, he said, President Obama “might as well take a 4-year vacation.”

Are We Willing To Settle For This America?

Posted on by

There are those, particularly on the political right, who are satisfied with the way things are in the US. They truly believe that everything about the US is better than any other country in the world. And they believe it’s unpatriotic to criticize our faults.

But can we really settle for the way things are in the US?

Can we accept a nation where freedom and opportunity are still not shared equally? Are we willing to allow large, multinational corporations to buy elections, dictate government policy and send our jobs off-shore? Can we afford to watch our nation fall farther behind in education and technology?

Can we afford to allow our infrastructure to continue to crumble? Can we afford to have corporations devastate our environment in search of ever-larger profits? Are we content to allow military-style weapons to fall into the hands of the paranoid and the criminally insane? Can we watch more Aurora and Newtown-style massacres and do nothing?

Can we afford to be perpetually at war? Are we willing to accept that more of our soldiers now die from suicides than firefights? Can we settle for being the only advanced nation in the world that doesn’t provide healthcare to all of its citizens?

Can we accept ever-higher education costs and ever-lower salaries for our youth? Are we willing to cut pensions and retirement plans for our elderly in order for large corporations to avoid taxes? Are we content to put drug users and petty thieves in prison and let the bankers who stole trillions continue to walk free?

Can we any longer listen to those who demand “a return to Christian values” then turn their backs on the starving, the wounded and the infirm?

At his inauguration, President Obama spoke passionately of his vision for America. An America at peace. An America with freedom and equality for everyone. An America based on a growing and prosperous middle class. An America that provides opportunity for everyone. An America that is, once again, a true leader in the world.

It’s time to for all Americans to follow our president’s vision and stop settling.

Preparing To Steal Elections.

Posted on by

On Monday, Teapublicans in the Virginia State Senate used the absence of a Democratic senator (who was attending the Presidential Inauguration) to ambush Democrats by calling for a vote on a bill to redraw senate districts. The bill gerrymandered the state to ensure that Teapublicans would enjoy a virtual permanent advantage.

This is but the most recent effort by Teapublicans to prepare for the 2014 elections. It appears that they no longer believe they can win based on ideas. So rather than modify their ideas to make them more attractive to a majority of Americans, they have decided to cheat. They are in the process of gerrymandering wherever possible and passing laws that will make it more difficult for minorities and Democrats to vote.

Even Joe Scarborough, a former Republican Congressman, noted the other day that Republicans wouldn’t have retained control of the US House of Representatives if they hadn’t “cheated” through gerrymandering.

Another Teapublican attack involves remaking the electoral college. Currently, all but two states follow the nation’s original winner-take-all approach to electoral votes. In other words, if a presidential candidate wins the state’s popular vote, all of that state’s electoral votes go to that candidate.

But Teapublicans want to change that. They want the electoral votes to be awarded by district. Therefore, by gerrymandering the districts of the states, they hope to change the outcome of elections. The plan would make it far easier for a candidate to lose the popular vote and still win the election.

These tactics may represent the greatest threat to our nation’s democracy since the British invaded Washington, D.C. in the War of 1812. The only question is, will voters allow these anti-American thugs to get away with it?

Exposing The Lies Of The Gun Lobby.

Posted on by

Since the 1980s, gun lobbyists such as the National Rifle Association have generated a huge number of lies in order to further sales of gun manufacturers. Here are just a few of the lies:

1 – “The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of all Americans to possess firearms.”

The meaning of 2nd Amendment has been debated for decades.  The exact wording is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Obviously, it ties the right to keep and bear arms to a Militia.

When the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, the US had defeated the British only 8 years earlier. The future of the nation was not assured (the US was nearly defeated and the Capitol occupied in the War of 1812) and the nation’s standing army was small, supplemented by state militias. In order to ensure the nation’s future, it was necessary for the US to enlist help from its citizenry.

It’s difficult to imagine that Congress ever intended the 2nd Amendment as a means to allow the indiscriminate slaughter of our citizens by weapons its representatives could not even imagine.

2 – “The government has no right to limit the number and type of firearms.”

In fact, the federal government has been regulating arms for many decades. The government has banned private ownership of fully-automatic “machine” guns, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-fired rockets, surface-to-air missiles, armed military-style aircraft, etc. The 2nd Amendment only mentions “Arms.”

I think we can all agree that it is necessary, for the safety of our citizens, to prevent people from owning nuclear Arms.

3 – “The 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent tyranny by our federal government.”

In a nation with a government of the people, by the people and for the people, this claim seems absurd. However, most of the nation’s founders were opposed to the nation maintaining a standing army. In discussions by the founders leading up to its passage, the focus was on defense of our nation against external foes, i.e. the British.

4 – “Guns are necessary for self-defense.”

I’ve never seen a gun that can stop a bullet.

For all practical purposes, guns are an offensive weapon. Being armed with a handgun does not prevent an armed assailant from robbing or shooting you if the assailant has drawn his gun first. Even if you’re able to draw your weapon, at best, you are likely to be involved in a shootout that will be won by the quickest, most accurate shot. At worst, you’ll endanger innocent bystanders who could be caught in the crossfire.

90 percent of self-defense is having the awareness to avoid dangerous situations before they happen!

5 – “Any form of regulation is the first step in the government taking our guns.”

Nonsense. It won’t and can’t happen without our consent. There are simply too many gun owners for that to happen. And, no, that’s not what happened to Germans when the Nazis took control. Hitler actually relaxed gun control laws passed by the previous government.

6 – “The United Nations is coming to take our guns.”

That has as much credibility as the Mayan Apocalypse! The US helped found the UN. The US is the strongest member of the UN. The US military is more powerful than virtually all of the other member nations’ combined (See #5). And, despite the paranoia being shoveled by the extreme right, the latest UN treaty on arms control does not affect domestic policies. It is intended solely to control illegal arms trade to rogue nations and terrorist groups.

7 – “AR-15s, AK-47s and similar weapons are not assault rifles.”

In reality, the AR-15, AK-47s and many other “tactical” weapons sold to civilians were actually designed for use by the military and law enforcement agencies. The biggest difference between them and military weapons is that they are strictly semi-automatic, which means they fire each time you pull the trigger as compared to fully-automatic weapons which continue to fire as long as you hold the trigger. (In some cases, the fully-automatic feature has simply been disabled and can be restored with an inexpensive kit sold separately.) But there’s not all that much difference in the rate of fire. Even the military discourages fully-automatic fire as it is less accurate and wastes ammunition.

These weapons are not used for hunting. They have only one purpose: killing people.

8 – “Only Democrats and liberals favor gun control.”

I guess that’s true, if you consider Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush to be liberals. Both spoke eloquently in favor of banning the domestic sale of assault rifles. Come to think of it, if these men were running for office today, they would probably be labeled liberals.

A Fair Solution For The Debt “Crisis.”

Posted on by

For the past four years, we’ve heard a lot of whining about the federal deficits and debt, primarily from red states.  Although quiet during the prolific spending spree of the Bush administration, once President Obama took office, Teapublican anger swelled throughout the old South and in states like Arizona.

Ironically, many of those who scream the loudest receive Social Security and Medicare. And many others take advantage of other federally-funded social programs such as food stamps, unemployment insurance and the GI Bill.

That caused me to wonder how the contributions of the most vocal states stack up compared to the largess they receive from the federal government. Certainly, given their angst, you would expect that they pay far more in federal taxes than they get back.

You would be wrong.

In 2007 (the most recent data I could find), Arizona contributed $35,485 million in federal taxes and received $48,012 million back in federal spending. So the state received $1,976 more per person than it contributed. In other words, it’s a state of “takers.”

In fact, of the 28 states that receive more than they contribute, the vast majority are reliably red!

On the other hand, the vast majority of the “giver” states are reliably blue. The top five (Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, Connecticut and New York) are all blue states, contributing $4,500 to $12,285 per person more than they receive.

Of the 22 states that pay in more than they get back, only Arkansas, Georgia, Nebraska, and Texas are red states.

So here’s my solution for the federal deficit: Let’s give red state Teapublicans what they want. Let’s balance the federal spending in those states to the amount they pay in federal taxes. All states can share the cost of national defense, natural emergencies, etc. But when it comes to the cost of highways, roads, bridges, universities, health care and retirement programs, each state is on its own. That means red states will have to raise taxes or dramatically cut services.

Then we’ll see if they still think the federal government is the enemy.

Contrary To NRA Claims, More Guns Equal More Violence.

Posted on by

As Vice-President Joe Biden’s Commission examines ways to prevent another Newtown massacre, the NRA has continued to spew lies about guns. For example, the organization’s leader, Wayne LaPierre, stated that “only answer to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” He wants us to believe that we should all be armed.

To make the point, gun nuts often cite Switzerland as an example. Since virtually every able-bodied Swiss man is required to serve in the citizen militia, nearly every Swiss household has a gun. This, say the gun nuts, has resulted in the lowest incidence of gun violence in the world.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

As Switzerland’s gun ownership has increased so, too has its gun violence. Not only have gun murders increased, so have gun suicides. In fact, Switzerland’s murder rate from guns now ranks 4th in the world! And the country recently experienced its own mass shooting.

If that’s the NRA’s vision for America, get ready for even more mass murders and an explosion in gun violence. (As if an average of 32 gun murders a day and 34 mass shootings over the past year isn’t bad enough.)

A better example for ending gun violence in America is what has happened in Australia. After a mass shooting, the conservative government of Australia passed laws banning semi-automatic weapons. The government conducted gun buybacks and made it very difficult to purchase ammunition for semi-automatics. Yet Australians still have access to guns for hunting, target shooting and home defense. They simply no longer have access to weapons designed for mass shootings.

The result?

Gun violence in Australia has dropped dramatically and it’s still falling. Similar measures could work in the US, too. All we need to do is convince our elected officials to listen to us. Not the NRA.

Looking Up To Cockroaches.

Posted on by

Yesterday, Congress reached a new milestone. A survey measuring its approval ratings found that Congress is now less popular than cockroaches, head lice and root canals!

The latter seems particularly appropriate for those of us living in northern Arizona as we are represented by a dentist who has a lot to do with our current problems. Teapublican representative Paul Gosar is a proud member of the House’s Tea Party caucus which is trying to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly and the poor.

Gosar voted in support of Paul Ryan’s austerity budget which, if implemented, would not only plummet our economy into a deep recession. It would take the first steps toward privatizing Social Security and Medicare. And it would cut funding for the most vulnerable while cutting taxes for the wealthy and large corporations. Gosar has also repeatedly voted against women’s rights, Obamacare, and investments in our infrastructure.

In addition, he is one of 67 GOP representatives who voted against extending flood insurance funds to those affected by Hurricane Sandy!

Given the approval rating of Congress, the question is which group will come to their senses first? Our representatives in Congress? Or voters?

This Confirmation Hearing Is Going To Be Good!

Posted on by

Numerous Teapublicans have already stated that they will not support the nomination of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. Set aside for a moment that tradition dictates that a president has the right to choose whom he pleases for his cabinet, it’s going to be really entertaining to watch Teapublicans attack one of their own.

Why, you may ask, would they attack a Republican who is qualified for the position and share many of their own beliefs? A man who is a decorated war hero?

It seems that while still in the Senate, Hagel had a nasty habit of telling the truth a little too often. For example, he dared to say that our invasion of Iraq was all about oil – in contrast to the Bush administration’s official position that we were “bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East.” Hagel was also against the surge of troops in Iraq, fearing that so many troops might drag Iran into the war. Worse yet, Hagel is said to be “weak on Iran” because he opposed the Bush administration’s attempt to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

In doing so, Hagel said that, though he fully supports Israel, he swore to uphold the interests of the United States first.

How dare he take his oath of office so seriously? Didn’t he realize that Israelis and their Jewish-American supporters were watching? Didn’t he understand that his position could cost Teapublicans votes? Didn’t he know that the US is supposed to support everything the Israeli war hawks want, no matter how much it inflames the situation in the Middle East?

Whatever your position on the issues, the confirmation hearing is going to be fascinating. So pull up a chair and a bowl of popcorn and turn on C-Span. The Teapublican questioning of Hagel is going to be entertaining. Having watched Hagel for a number of years, I’m convinced he’ll give a lot better than he gets.