Let’s Take the Gun Debate Down a Notch

Since the most recent mass shooting, at a high school in Parkland Florida, the gun control debate has reached a new level of hysteria.  When emotions run high, reason is usually a casualty, but the abdication from logic now being displayed by both camps over how best to stop sick-minded males – and so far this is an all-male club – from committing mass murder in our schools would be laughable if the subject were not so deadly serious.  Straight-faced calls for the banning of all semi-automatic weapons are countered by calls to turn schools into fortresses. Neither side seems even mildly interested in finding any middle ground between “no guns” and “more guns”, nor will either admit that their proposed solutions will do nothing more than nibble around the edges of the problem.  This impasse, deepened by hurled insults and angry protests, is beginning to look unbreakable.

That is particularly sad, because there are doable policy ideas on both agendas that might prevent some – by no means all – armed psychos from shooting up our schools.  Universal background checks that ask the right questions, better communication and data sharing between agencies, buybacks of bump stocks, limits on magazine capacity, higher age qualifications for buying semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, more effective methods to identify and report those who are mentally at-risk – all of those measures are doable.  So too are measures to “harden” schools, such as arming and training those school personnel who are capable and willing, employing more resource officers, making classroom doors assault-proof, upgrading security camera systems to work in real time and giving onsite officers and local law enforcement instant smartphone access to camera feeds so that they can quickly pinpoint a shooter’s location and armament.  No doubt other workable ideas will surface.  Smarter people than I will think of them.

What is not doable is an outright ban on the manufacture and sale of semi-automatic weapons, assault or otherwise, as is being demanded by Parkland student activists. There are some 15 million AR-15 style rifles and many millions more high-capacity (10 or more rounds) magazines already in circulation.  Imagine the backlash that government attempts to confiscate them would provoke, the Second Amendment notwithstanding.  Additionally, nearly all the handguns in circulation are semi-automatic.  Any attempt at a ban of such magnitude would only drive the entire firearm community onto the Dark Net, if not into open revolt.

Equally not-doable, or certainly inadvisable, is the suggestion that school administrators turn their buildings into armed camps staffed by nervous teacher/warriors who want nothing to do with either end of a gun.  But anyone who contends that a school with a sign over the door proclaiming it a “Gun Free Zone” is safer from attack that a school whose sign reads, “ Certain personnel in this building may be armed and are authorized to defend inhabitants with deadly force” cannot claim to be the voice of reason in this discussion.

Sadder still is the overarching fact that there is nothing – nothing – we can do, radically or reasonably, to completely insulate our schools from danger.   But even if we can’t confiscate every gun or confront every shooter, any incident we do manage to mitigate or prevent will save lives.  At the margins we can make a difference, but only if we stop the name-calling and sloganeering and start listening to each other.

There is much that might be done to prevent at least some school shootings if the pro and anti-gun factions could crawl even a few feet out of their dogmatic corners, but so far both sides look to be more vested in defending their ideologies than in defending the kids.  That is by far the saddest fact of all.

Somebody Thinks You’re Stupid

I have referenced the Colorado Centrist Project in this space.  The organization’s mission is exactly what the name suggests.  It is dedicated to fielding and supporting independent candidates who might someday break the partisan ice jam that has become government’s status quo.

The project recently renamed itself Unite Colorado (UC) and affiliated with the national independent organization Unite America.  The Centrist cause has been gaining momentum, much to the chagrin of Democrat and Republican operatives, so when UC showed up backing a few independent candidates for state House and Senate, the Major Party Mafia decided enough was enough.  The Democrats were the first to mobilize, and the Colorado Pols* website authored the first strike.

Colorado Pols (CP) is the leftwing equivalent of Breitbart News, committed to the defense of the Democrat party and the public disparagement of anything or anyone who poses a threat to its influence.  Aside from snide inferences and general effrontery (“so-called Centrist Project” “failed congressional candidate Nick Troiano”) and out-of-context quotes (“It doesn’t matter where you stand on the issues”), CP’s hit piece relies mostly on the old conspiracy theory of vote-splitting.

Independent candidates, so goes the myth, do nothing but draw votes away from one party which allows the other party’s candidate to win with less than a majority.  Think Ross Perot, supposedly sucking the Presidency away from G. H. W. Bush and dropping it in Bill Clinton’s lap.  Why throw away your vote? CP asks.  Are you stupid?  Stick with us, or the Evil Others will seize power!  A vote for an independent is a vote for Donald Trump!!!

What the Dems are trying to paper over with this line of distraction is that in Colorado there are more unaffiliated (read independent) voters than there are Democrats, and if trends continue independents will very soon outnumber Republicans, who are losing registrants in droves – thank you, Mr Trump.  If Colorado independents all “threw away” their votes on an actual independent candidate that candidate would win.  Moreover, if an independent candidate or two should prevail in Colorado Senate races, neither party would hold a majority in that chamber, and both parties would be beholden to non-dogmatics in order to govern.  Does that not sound like a better alternative to the rancorous partisan stalemate we are living with?

The CP piece concludes by stating that the “post-partisan” branding of the Centrists is really a “post values” campaign, as if the “values” of the two major parties are anything more than a sop to their extremist bases and cudgels with which to thwack any who wander from the Party Line.  More than anything, the Democrats and Republicans appear to see their “values” as an excuse not to cooperate with, or even show common respect for, each other.  The only ”value”  they seem to actually value is power.

There are some easily readable tea leaves at the bottom of this bitter cup.  The only reason that Colorado Pols is the first major party proxy to start attacking the Centrist Project is because the present Unite Colorado slate is seen by Democrats as a greater threat to them.  But the Republican response will be the same or worse as soon as the state GOP wakes up to the budding threat from the Center.  Because the emergence of a strong political movement not their own is the worst nightmare of Democrats and Republicans alike, and they will use every weapon in their arsenal to derail such a movement.  The stronger the Centrist movement becomes, the bigger the guns we will see unlimbered against it.  Wait and see.

So, Colorado independents, we have a choice to make.  Do we continue to support evermore dogmatic politicians who offer us character assassination in place of reasoned debate?  Or do we try something else?  If this CP article proves anything, it is that state Democrats. at least, are scared spitless that we might.  I’m not calling anyone stupid, but I will note the fallacy of reason that is repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome.

coloradopols.com – *”It’s Official: The Centrist Project Thinks You’re Stupid”

Working Hard on the Wrong Problem Isn’t Republican or Democratic – It’s Stupid

The United States Congress is expending vast amounts of time, energy, and polemics on legislating healthcare insurance, but nothing on a bigger issue: healthcare costs. The House in particular seems ready to eviscerate our major programs to Provide-For-The-General-Welfare, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They claim financial disaster awaits us otherwise, but surrendering the benefits of citizenship never seemed compelling to me.

(BTW – when did the word “benefits” develop a negative connotation? I always had salary and benefits as part of my job compensation and liked both words. I just can’t keep up with political correctness.)

A recent article from fivethirtyeight brings my gut feeling into intellectual focus.

Lawmakers’ plans to overhaul Social Security and other entitlement programs are missing the real problem… If the U.S. budget collapses after hemorrhaging too much red ink, the main culprit will be rising health care costs.

Social Security will get a little more expensive over the next 30 years; welfare and anti-poverty programs will get a little cheaper. But costs for programs like Medicare and Medicaid are expected to climb from the merely unaffordable to truly catastrophic. [my emphasis]

Yes, the demographics of the Baby Boom have an impact, but  that bulge in the system works itself out in 10 or 15 years when America’s percentage of elderly stabilizes. The program needs some maintenance tweaks, but Social Security isn’t a major problem. Programs often lumped into the negative term “welfare” (there’s that political correctness again) look manageable too.

The problem is totally different when you turn to health care. Spending on health programs — including Medicare, Medicaid and subsidies required by the Affordable Care Act — will never shrink or stabilize. The CBO predicts these costs will grow over 65 percent between now and 2047 — and then go right on growing after that, heedless of the fact that the percentage of the population that’s over 65 should no longer be increasing. [my emphasis]

Draconian cuts to programs that are not cost drivers will cause pain while allowing the financial problems to continue. Higher and higher taxes don’t address the underlying problem either, so trading traditional-Republicans for traditional-Democrats isn’t a solution. And swinging back and forth between them is ridiculous, though that may be where today’s hyper-partisan, two-party system leads us.

Health care costs are driving us towards bankruptcy. Costs have been rising faster than overall inflation for years and that’s expected to continue.

What’s the answer? There are regulatory and free-market ideas out there, but until we insist that Congress tackle the problem with real facts (when did that noun begin to need an adjective!) and open minds, we’re stuck in a downward spiral.

It’s the Best Time Ever to Be Alive – Make It Even Better in 2018

Adam & Eve Driven From Eden

Driven out of paradise for our sins

Humanity is not going to hell in a hand basket. We have problems, crises, and dire threats that we must tackle, but once in a while, lift your head up from your phone/tablet/TV and be encouraged.

Steven Pinker tells us the long arc of human history bends away from war, towards commerce and expanding sympathy for others. In a more immediate timeframe, a New York Times columnist writes that 2017 was the best year ever.

We, naturally, focus on our own current problems. But consider the whole world:

I’m actually upbeat, because I’ve witnessed transformational change [in 2017]…. A smaller share of the world’s people were hungry, impoverished or illiterate than at any time before. A smaller proportion of children died than ever before. The proportion disfigured by leprosy, blinded by diseases like trachoma or suffering from other ailments also fell. Nicholas Kristof

He cites statistics regarding illiteracy, extreme poverty, and childhood death rates (once, two-thirds of parents had a child die before age 5) all vastly improved in our lifetimes.

If that’s too far away for you, consider America in the 1950s:

the U.S. had segregation, polio and bans on interracial marriage, gay sex and birth control… it was a time of nuclear standoffs, of pea soup smog, of frequent wars, of stifling limits on women.

Nostalgia has always been attractive. Ancient Greeks wrote of a past Golden Age when a Golden Race of people enjoyed a perfect life. Hindu and Norse cultures have similar stories, and the Bible describes a succession of kingdoms in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2) as degenerating from gold, to silver, bronze, iron, and finally to clay. Clay – that’s us.

It’s very human to yearn for a past that never was, or maybe for a time in our own lives when we were young, optimistic, and unburdened. But, as a famous wizard observed, “it does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.”

Take Kristof’s advice to heart: let our triumphs empower you to tackle the mortal threats we face. Let’s make 2018 the best year ever.

Why Show Their Faces?

Colorado lost another law enforcement officer last weekend, a young husband and father, killed in an ambush perpetrated by a deranged cop-hater who staged a domestic disturbance and shot up the responders from behind his bedroom door.  To compound his unspeakable act, he live-streamed the entire atrocity on social media.

As shocking and disturbing as this cold-blooded act was, it was compounded by TV stations’  unfathomable decision to air parts of this evil bastard’s broadcast on the nightly news. Bad enough that the news media repeated his name and paraded his life history in front of the world, but to give him actual face time?  Exactly what purpose does that serve? The gunman died in the lethal exchange so outing him removed no threat to the community, in fact quite the opposite.  Showing his face and his sick manifesto  only serves to provoke and encourage other sick, angry individuals to seek media glory by imitating him. That, and adding to the misery of those closest to the people he hurt.

I am sick and angry, too.  Sick of seeing the names and faces of these killers plastered on the same screens as the grieving families and colleagues of their victims.  Angry that our mass media puts ratings above the feelings of violence victims.  Purveyors of “news” are fond of excusing such behavior by citing the public’s “right to know.”  What about our right to not know?

If one media outlet would have the spine to keep the names and faces of mass killers out of its stories I would be a viewer for life.  As for the rest of them I will wait, in vain I’m sure, for an explanation.

Running Out of Badjectives

Michael Wolff’s latest literary offering, Fire and Fury, Inside the Trump White House, hits bookstores this week, and looks to be a best-seller.  Whether it should make the NYT list in the fiction or non-fiction category will probably depend on one’s political affiliation, but whatever the source of review the book will certainly carry the adjective “controversial” in front of it.  Nothing assures a book’s success like controversy, and coming from the pen (keyboard?) of Wolff, whose reputation for historical accuracy will never be confused with that of, say, David McCullough, this work is on pace to sell millions.  Which begs a question.

Ever since Donald Trump first appeared in the public eye, descriptions of his behavior have exhausted the list of synonyms for “bad”.  He is widely acknowledged to have exaggerated his business acumen, cheated on his wives, stiffed his contractors and suppliers, personally attacked every critic with vitriol and immediacy, bullied other men, verbally and physically harassed women, and pretty much lied about all of it.  And that was before he ran for President.  Since he has been in office, he has done nothing but double down on these character flaws.  He has tried to intimidate the press, bad-mouthed judges, embarrassed and emasculated (sorry, Betsy D and Ms. Chao, Nielsen and Haley) his cabinet, alienated our allies, provoked our enemies – I could go on, but you get the idea.

The question I would pose is:  How much more Trump dirt can possibly be found between the covers of Wolff’s exposé than what we have already had sprayed in our faces?  Does anyone think that Wolff, from his spot on the White House couch, has managed to gather any tidbits of scandalous gossip that Robert Mueller, with his hundreds of FBI agents and his bottomless subpoena power, has overlooked?  Or that anything he can offer his readers about Trump’s vindictiveness and immaturity can equal the revealing content of the President’s own Tweets?

Even if every sentence of Fire and Fury is absolutely true, It is not likely to tell us anything about Donald Trump that we haven’t already figured out.  I don’t need to pony up $29.95 to be privy to the knowledge that our President is narcissistic, ignorant, duplicitous, nefarious, cold-blooded, inarticulate, thin-skinned, juvenile, lascivious, add-your-own-badjective-here.  Unfortunately I, and pretty much every other citizen of the world, already have that information.

Michael Wolff will likely get rich from this book, wherever Barnes and Noble decides to shelve it.  But if Wolff wants to interest me in a tell-all Trump tome it had better reveal an impeachable offense by page 5.  Otherwise, no sale.  I have seen all the dirt on Trump I can stand.