>
Tue - July 1, 2008Second Amendment PandemoniumThe Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller defined that
individuals have a fundamental right to defend themselves, and that the Second
Amendment gives them the right to do so with a
firearm.
This drives a stake through the heart of plans long cherished by some, to pay lip service to traditions of hunting and sportsmen, while working incrementally to restrict the "right to keep and bear arms" to the ability to check a shotgun out of a repository long enough to shoot a few grouse, then check it back in. These opponents of legal gun ownership operate on the belief that their world would be a safer place if you don't have a gun. Most of these people have never had a felon with malicious intent in their living room or in their face. After the felon has left, the police are summoned. That is when you realize that to a large degree, the police are society's janitors. There is little chance that they will be there to protect you when the wolf comes to call. That is when you question the wisdom of remaining an unarmed sheep, supposedly for the greater good. Opponents of legal gun ownership like to couch their advocacy in terms of public health concepts. When advocacy tries to masquerade as science, it plays fast and loose with the facts. Pretty soon, it starts to sound rather like blaming the tornado on the existence of the trailer park. Generally, valid scientific conclusions do not flow from exclusion of contrary evidence, fabrication of data, and incestuous literature references. The canons of scholarly discourse are not in evidence in the antigun health advocacy literature. Antigun health advocates say that it is simple: more guns means more homicides, suicides, and fatal gun accidents, while restrictive gun laws mean fewer such events. However, this belief is not supported by the evidence. In 1973, the rates of U.S. gun ownership, handguns and all guns, was 176 and 610 per thousand, respectively. The homicide rate was 9.4 per 100,000. In 1992 the handgun and all gun ownership rate had increased significantly, to 304 and 870 per thousand, respectively. The homicide rate was 9.3 per 100,000. While gun ownership rates have increased, accidental gun deaths have decreased. There is no observable relationship between gun ownership and suicide rates. Antigun health advocates will not engage the data that suicide rates are much higher in antigun European nations. The science which the opponents of legal gun ownership never want to acknowledge is criminology, when it looks at the effects of legal gun ownership on crime. Criminologists generally conclude that gun availability does not lead law abiding citizens to commit crimes, and that the value of firearms in defending potential victims has been significantly underestimated. But now, the entire debate is shifting. As popular as it is right now for the antigun health advocates to say, "But it's bad for you!," the Supreme Court has said that there is an individual right to own and use a firearm in self defense. The Chicago Tribune at least is intellectually honest about the whole thing, as they call for repeal of the Second Amendment. The LA Times favors a more weasel-like approach, calling for legislation where gun manufacturers are somehow made responsible for target societal rates of gun violence, with surcharges and production limits if the target rates aren't met. Backdoor games to make guns expensive and rare are not likely to meet constitutional muster. Those who are eager to impose their views on the nation as a whole should pay heed to what those efforts do to their other interests. Democrats have lost many elections because gun owners vote. Sometimes it seems as if the Republicans have the vote of Joe Paycheck despite making corporations supreme and shipping jobs overseas, simply because the Republicans can be trusted to not make a move on Joe's guns. If Democrats wanted to be more competitive in rural America, they could consider the idea of deciding that where antigun legislation is concerned, the voters have spoken against it, and move on to other issues. One thing you can be sure of is that gun owners are paying close attention right now, to see who is wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth about the Heller decision. Those who see the Heller decision as an unfortunate setback to be overcome are revealing themselves right now. Gun owners do not forget. Posted at 08:07 PM Wed - May 7, 2008Flag Lapel PinNext time we see someone with a flag
lapel pin, we should ask to see the back of
it.
What do you want to bet it was made in China? Posted at 02:59 PM Tue - March 11, 2008The Lesson Of Elliott SpitzerThe lesson is that the government is
watching everyone's bank
account.
Then- Attorney General Spitzer was a crusader for the government's ability to conduct this sort of surveillance. Truly, hoist by his own petard. Posted at 09:18 PM Wed - October 17, 2007Republicans Against Children's HealthGeorge W. has painted the Republicans
into a corner by vetoing the bill for health insurance for uninsured
children.
When the Republicans vote to uphold the President's veto, they are aligning themselves with an unpopular act by an unpopular President. No wonder they are retiring in droves. As the only play the President has left to mitigate the damage he is doing to the Republicans, he is trying to jawbone the Democrats into just dropping the bill rather than forcing the Republicans to go on record against it. I just hope that the Democrats aren't such invertebrates that this succeeds. It is an attack of Biblical proportions, though, to smite the Democrats with the jawbone of George W. Bush. Posted at 03:12 PM Thu - September 27, 2007George Is Messin' With The ChineseGeorge is having great fun, making
U.N. speeches about democracy in Burma, while the Chinese are vetoing Security
Council resolutions seeking a peaceful resolution to the unrest. George is
messin' with the Chinese, and it doesn't cost him a
thing.
I mean, it really can't cost anything. It's not as if George is going to send Freedom On The March to Myanmar; he doesn't have any more troops to send anywhere. But China really liked the status quo. Myanmar, the military government there in power for almost two decades, on top of huge liquid natural gas deposits, sits under China's friendly and geographical wing. Then the uprising by the monks started. If the military government can be somehow restrained, Burma could become a political jump ball. So, George goes to the U.N. and jawbones for U.N. action to moderate the military response, which China has to veto in the Security Council. It's the kind of thing you expect a President to do. Fortunately, this action doesn't have too many moving parts. Posted at 06:38 PM Thu - September 13, 2007Bogus Token Troop WithdrawalThe Administration is talking about
withdrawing 30,000 troops from Iraq next spring, as if that is a choice they
have made and a sign of
progress.
BS. Those troops have to come home then as their Iraq tour of duty ends, and we have no combat ready units to replace them. Posted at 08:40 AM Wed - September 12, 2007Health Insurance - Sailing Into The RocksLet's look at the forces at work on
U.S. health
insurance.
Premiums for coverage for a family have increased by 78% since 2001. That is much of why only 60% of employers now provide health coverage as a benefit, down from 69% in 2000. That is why some large corporations are pursuing the idea of self-insurance. In this sort of scheme, the corporation pays a "network access" fee to a health care system. The health care system then bills the corporation for each service rendered. No insurance company as the middle man. When this happens, the regulations which govern the conduct of insurance companies are out the window. Goodbye, mandated mental health benefits. Goodbye, government oversight of claims denial and payment. You'll take what you get. The song which used to end, "I owe my soul to the company store" may well end with that debt being for health care services. We currently have 47 million people without health insurance in the US. When employers self-insure, they will be joined by a large number of people with insufficient health coverage. In some settings, these looming problems would lead to societal discussions and decisions about universal coverage. Not in this country, however. It would be un-American to do anything about the health care system until it is well and truly wrecked. After all, we have a long tradition of refusing to change our ways so long as someone is making money from the status quo. The status quo can't last, though, as employers step out from under the burden of providing health benefits, finding their relationship with health insurers as parasitic rather than symbiotic. I am curious how this will work out among conservatives. There is the great mass of employers, who don't care who has to pay for health care so long as it is not them. There is Big Pharma, with profits flowing in right now like heroin into a junkie's vein. There are the conservative think tanks who talked George W. into opposing expansion of state children's health insurance plans, providing political cover by claiming that any uninsured children have parents with sufficient income to buy them health insurance if they only would. How will we know when conservatives have a unified strategy for health care in this country? When Halliburton starts building hospitals and Blackwater starts training doctors. Posted at 05:44 PM Sun - August 26, 2007Whatever It TakesHeadline:
Bush pleads for more patience for
Iraq war
U.S. President George W. Bush delivers remarks to the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Kansas City, Missouri, August 22, 2007. Bush, faced with growing calls to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, pleaded with Americans on Saturday for patience and cited progress in the past two months. He will say whatever it takes to slow or stop Iraq withdrawal, so that he delivers on his promise to the Saudis that the U.S. will not withdraw from Iraq so long as he is President. Posted at 06:22 PM Mon - July 30, 2007The Supreme Court Says Enough Is Enough When I was three years old, it was 4 years into Brown vs. The Board of Education, and it still took troops to get black schoolgirls safely into the Little Rock schools. Justice Roberts and his robed brethren have decreed "Mission Accomplished." Enough already with this integration stuff, they say. I never thought that men in robes opposing integration could get this far. Posted at 07:53 PM Mon - July 2, 2007Legislating For The Corporate GoodIt is surprising that the powers that
be let us hear anything about hazards in food from
China.
The NYT notes today that a five year old law which requires that foods be labeled with their country of origin was blocked from being enforced by the Republicans who controlled Congress then. Besides, they contend, retailers can voluntarily offer country-of-origin labels, as they do with hormone-free milk and organic foods. “No one was prohibited from putting labels on products,” said former Representative Henry Bonilla, Republican of Texas, who as head of the appropriations subcommittee on agriculture pushed through delays of mandatory origin labeling. “If consumers wanted this, they could have demanded it.” Bullshit. At first, the FDA forbade labeling milk as free of bovine growth hormone, on the grounds that there was no scientific evidence that this made a difference in the milk. To this day, Monsanto, who makes the bovine growth hormone, is pressuring the FDA to limit what dairies can say about their hormone free milk, and to require them to put nice things about bovine growth hormone on their labels. An important part of legislating for the corporate good is silencing scientific evidence and caution. From Wikipedia: A great deal of controversy within the FDA surrounded Posilac's evaluation in the late 1980s. Richard Burroughs, who had a lead role in the review process, was shocked at how few tests the agency was requiring. Burroughs ordered more tests but was soon fired. He said, “I was told that I was slowing down the approval process.” Alexander Apostolou, director of the FDA's Division of Toxicology, says, “Sound scientific procedures for evaluating human food safety of veterinary drugs have been disregarded.” When he expressed his concerns at the agency, he was pressured to leave. Chemist Joseph Settepani testified at a public hearing about “a systematic human food-safety breakdown at the Center for Veterinary Medicine.” Prior to his testimony, he was in charge of quality control for veterinary drug approvals. Soon after, he was stripped of his duties as a supervisor and sent to work in a trailer at an experimental farm. On March 16, 1994, others at the FDA resorted to writing an anonymous letter to members of Congress, saying they were “afraid to speak openly about the situation because of retribution."[30] Today, the FDA doesn't want us to know who has their ear. This is despite the fact that "Federal regulations require the FDA to maintain a public calendar that details all "significant meetings" between its top brass and anyone outside the executive branch." The AP further reports that "A review by House Republican staff found the public calendars for Drs. Janet Woodcock and Steven Galson virtually empty. Woodcock is a deputy FDA commissioner and former drug chief. Galson is current drug chief. There were just three listings for Woodcock between January 1999 and December 2006, even though she occupied two positions during that time that required her meetings to be listed: director of the center for drug evaluation and research and, later, deputy commissioner for operations. Investigators found no listings for Galson, who took over the drugs office from Woodcock on a full-time basis in July 2005." I guess they learned from Dick Cheney, who was successful in arguing we have no right to know who met with him and wrote our energy policy. The people's business is none of our business. Meanwhile, corporate interests are jubilant about the recent Supreme Court session: The court’s overall approach to business cases left many in the business community gleeful. “It’s our best Supreme Court term ever,” said Robin S. Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center, which handles Supreme Court cases for the United States Chamber of Commerce. All three (or is that four?) branches of government have their clients interests at heart. Tough luck for those who are just citizens. Posted at 11:18 AM Thu - June 28, 2007The Bushcorp Supreme CourtI guess I can forget all the lies I
was taught in Social
Studies.
A government of laws, not of men? The Bush (or is it Cheney?) administration say they can do whatever they want. Wiretaps without warrants. Detention without charges. Use of classified information for political purposes. Use of the "Justice" Department to harass political opponents, and to disenfranchise minority voters. The list is longer by the day. No one is making them stop. I guess it is a government of men, not of laws. A Constitution which guarantees individual freedom? The Bushcorp Supreme Court has consistently says that corporate interests trump government powers, and that government power or desire trumps any freedom individuals used to have. Our unitary executive is unbound by anything in the Constitution. This bunch just flat out lies to get in power and stay there. Roberts and Alito all claimed in confirmation hearings that they have great respect for precedent and established law, then ascend the bench and proceed to gut and reverse it. The latest example after "Fredo" Gonzales is Brett Kavanaugh, a White House lawyer who was made a federal judge. He testified to the Senate that he had nothing to do with the Administration's detainee policy. This has been shown to be false. The only member of this bunch held accountable for lying is Scooter Libby, and he will never see a day in prison. This bunch puts the lie to everything we teach kids about this country. Posted at 04:58 PM Tue - June 5, 2007The TellCourtesy of my baby sister, I was
reading Vanity Fair's article on Bruce
Willis.
I was stopped dead in my tracks when they characterized "Live Free Or Die" as "the wacky libertarian imperative emblazoned on New Hampshire license plates." I am still trying to grasp the dimensions of that sort of attitude. Posted at 06:22 PM Wed - May 23, 2007Another "Surge?"Calling the increased numbers of
troops deployed to Iraq a "surge" is a smart piece of
propaganda.
A surge is a defined episode. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It is self-limiting. On January 10, there were 15 brigades in Iraq. That was when Mr. Bush announced the "surge" of sending 5 more brigades. Since then, tours have been extended, additional brigades have been sent. Based on Pentagon deployment numbers, Hearst Newspapers reports: "The buildup could put elements of as many as 28 combat brigades in Iraq by Christmas, ..." What evidence is there that this war will be self-limiting? Who thinks that if we just leave him alone, President Bush conclude this war, successfully or otherwise, and bring the troops home? The evidence says otherwise. The President has publicly promised the Saudis that American troops will not withdraw from Iraq so long as he is President. The President keeps his promises to the Saudis. Too bad we are not Saudis. I doubt that he lies to the Saudis. We are not as highly regarded by our President. In fact, when the Saudis are in harm's way, he takes quick action. After 9/11 he whisked the bin Ladens and other prominent Saudis out of the country on special flights, before American citizens were even allowed to resume flying. He did not move nearly so quickly when the citizens of New Orleans were in harm's way. It took him a week to grudgingly wind down his vacation. There is evidence of where his loyalties lie. Posted at 02:32 PM Sun - April 22, 2007OpportunismIt is too much to expect that those
with political agendas would stop to view the Virginia Tech events as a tragedy
rather than an opportunity to advance their
agenda.
All the gun rights and gun control people are up in the air, like huge flocks of birds which have been disturbed. At least that is directly connected to the events. It rankles me, though, when guys like Rich Lowry try to get their issues on board. Mr. Lowry wrote a column which pretends to wish that there were more services for the mentally ill. It is so ironic for Mr. Lowry to talk about deficiencies in societal care of the mentally ill, such as “the excesses of deinstitutionalization.” Mr. Lowry and his ilk have consistently pushed for less social services and spending, while they demand that they contribute less money to government. I would challenge him to name me one social service he has pushed for, other than prison and abstinence-only sex education. But of course Mr. Lowry is not really talking about mental health services. When he says “One of the most influential academics of the late 20th century, Michel Foucault, argued that attempts to label and treat madness were inherently arbitrary and repressive. Academia has been celebrating “transgression” ever since” , this is his message: 1. The mentally ill are dangerous 2. Liberals are unwilling to address this danger, and probably created it. 3. Therefore, you should keep us in charge of things. If you don’t, when bad things happen, it will be your fault. It is outrageous for Mr. Lowry to imply that acts like this happen because liberals "celebrate" them. He seems to be saying that his team would solve this problem like they solve everything else -- let's lock up the mentally ill, in all those facilities that they got rid of rather than pay for. Of course. this has been the conservative playbook since 9/11: 1. [Fill in the blank] are dangerous 2. Liberals are unwilling to address this danger, and probably created it. 3. Therefore, you should keep us in charge of things. If you don’t, when bad things happen, it will be your fault. We know how to take care of danger. But whatever you do, don't ask him what his team did or tried to do in this arena when they had control of the White House and the Congress simultaneously. This was not their agenda. What we are seeing now is shameful political opportunism. That has been the playbook since 9/11. And, of course, whatever you do, don't ask what was done to prevent that. The Ashcroft Justice Department removed counterterrorist activities and programs from the agenda. The CIA Presidential Briefings about the specific threats were ignored during vacation activities, I was amazed when it made headlines a week ago that French intelligence services knew of bin Laden plots to hijack airliners before 9/11. That's not news. We knew it too, and have been bamboozled out of holding anyone accountable for the lack of action which followed. It's like a magic show. A little misdirection, and all you see is the illusion, rather than the underlying trick. And never miss an opportunity to put on your show. Posted at 11:00 AM |
Quick Links
Calendar
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Site Meter Web Counter
Webring
Blogrolling
Comments powered by
Autism Blogs
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category: Published On: Jul 01, 2008 08:09 PM |
|||||||||||||||
Blogroll Me!