Monthly Archives: January 2013

On the Importamce of Relative

This from the local news here in Raleigh:

Raleigh, N.C. — A blast of arctic air that could push temperatures down to the teens in some spots around the Triangle will arrive by midweek.

The frigid blanket, which is moving into the United States from Canada, already wrapped around the northernmost part of the country on Saturday, causing a dramatic drop in the mercury.

“We keep seeing those temperatures go down with every passing hour,” WRAL meteorologist Aimee Wilmoth said late Saturday.

The arctic blast will have the same effect when it reaches North Carolina on Tuesday…

The forecast for the week?

The highs are never below freezing; most are above 45.  None of the lows are cold enough to allow for good conditions while organizing a game of pond hockey.

In fact. the lowest low is fully 40 degrees higher than the temperatures I endured while waiting for the bus at the bus stop.

How many people can honestly say they know what 20 below feels like?

The Lunacy That Is Over Reaction

What’s next?

A 5-year-old Pennsylvania girl who told another girl she was going to shoot her with a pink toy gun that blows soapy bubbles has been suspended from kindergarten.

Her family has hired an attorney to fight the punishment, which initially was 10 days but was reduced to two.

Attorney Robin Ficker says Mount Carmel Area School District officials labeled the girl a “terrorist threat” for the bubble gun remark, made Jan. 10 as both girls waited for a school bus.

Ficker says the girl didn’t even have the bubble gun with her and has never fired a real gun. He says she’s “the least terroristic person in Pennsylvania.”

Thoughts, in no particular order:

  • Bubble gun
  • Terrorist Threat
  • 5 years old
  • Didn’t even HAVE the gun

 

On Guns, Defense and Militia

I can remember arguing the position just 10 – 12 years ago with conservative friends of mine that the 2nd amendment protected the rights of citizens to keep arms within a regulated militia.  That the amendment did not create an unlimited right to own any weapon in any quantity for any reason.

Interestingly it was a liberal friend that convinced me that states and cities that had much more lenient gun laws had lower crime rates.  That data, combined with a better understanding of individual liberty, has shifted my position to the right; how far is still unclear.

With that said, I have a question for the gun control advocates:

Would you trade the right of individual citizens to keep weapons in exchange for the creation of local militia outside the jurisdiction of the federal government?

That is, if the city of Raleigh decided that it needed stores of weapons, ammunition and other instrument of war, it could assemble such armament and recruit or conscript soldiers, train them and command them?  Further, this militia would e subject to no law other than state law and would not be subordinate to the President?

I strongly resonate with the argument that citizens do not need weapons of war.  And I don’t think that it’s healthy to stockpile weapons either.  However, I’m neither convinced that a rifle, with a magazine of arbitrary size, requiring a trigger pull for each shot, is necessarily a weapon of war or less lethal than a handgun, or 4.  However, I DO acknowledge that the founders clearly were concerned of a tyrannical government and the people’s right to defend themselves against that government.

I would love to be able to sit and have a beer with Jefferson, who argued that a standing army was among the greatest threats to the liberty of citizens.  Would he still feel that way in light of today’s Geo-poltical conditions?

Anyway.  When gun control advocates use the militia defense in their argument for more and more control, what does that mean?

The Cost of Entitlements

UPDATE:  Added link to the AE Ideas post.

Browsing over at AE Ideas when I saw this chart:

Some things:

1.  Defense spending has been pretty constant since 1985.

2.  Spending on entitlement programs has not.

Jon Stewart – Pure Platinum

Look, Stewart is funny, wickedly funny.  His timing, expressions and body language are the best. And the fact that his patter is politics only makes it better; I like politics, he makes political humor.

What’s not to love?

But lot’s of people forget that the man is a clown.  He’s an entertainer.  He’s on a stage making people laugh at jokes. Think Abbott and Costello.  Andrew Dice Clay.  Rodney Dangerfield.

Gifted all.

He isn’t a commentator.  He’s isn’t a reporter.  He isn’t a writer.

So I love it when folks use Stewart as a source of news or to make a point.  I especially love it when he turns his schtick back on the liberal establishment that loves him so:

!!!!

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Paul Krugman & the Trillion Dollar Coin
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

South Carolina Dreamin’

UPDATE – Corrected Sanchez to Sanford!

I admit, when Mark Sanford lost all sense of self back in the days of his affair, I was a little more than just disappointed.  When folks would ask me who I hoped would run, Sanchez was at or near the top of my lost.

But then, well, then he lost all sense of self.

He cheated, in more ways than one:

  1. He cheated on his wife – From all reports a remarkable woman.
  2. He cheated the state out of money for personal gain.
  3. He lied about it all.

He’s engaged now.  Engaged to his mistress so maybe there is something to those “matters of the heart”.  But there’s a good way and a bad way to handle such matters.  Hiking the trail clearly is one of the bad ways.

And that doesn’t begin to explain the lying.

But it looks like Mr. Sanford is gonna make a run at redemption:

Former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford will announce on Wednesday that he is going to run for the congressional seat he held in the 1990s.

Sanford outlined his plans in an interview published by National Review Online.

I firmly believe that we need more people like Mr. Sanford was before his loss of sense.  The only question I have is this:

Should he be forgiven?

 

Deficits and Debts: Spending and Taxes

Money.  The spending of it.  The making of it.  Revenue and expenditure.

How to manage it all responsibly?

Recently, always[?], there has been a debate regarding the deficit and the debt.  How we as a nation spend vs how much we as a nation bring in.  The most recent event was the fiscal cliff.  The new event is the debt ceiling negotiations.  And yes, there will be negotiations regardless of what the President says or what he wants.

Leave aside the partisan bickering for a second and let’s just look at this in a way that people kinda get; real world.

Typically, a household has an idea on how much money they bring in.  And this amount of money dictates how much they spend, typically.  In college I brought in very little – I spent very little.  Out of college I brought in more and spent more.  And during these times, my spending would, indeed, fluctuate.  I could count on certain bills and expenditures but others would just come up.  A broken muffler, a wedding out of state.  Maybe dental work.

My budget would often shift.  But it was always thought of in relation to how much I could bring in.  I knew that I was taking a short term hit but long term gain by going to college.  Earnings would suffer but the long term outlook was positive.

But my debt was always defined in relation to MY reality.

Earlier this week, the fellas at Poison Your Mind posted on the fact that the United States is a low tax country:

Of course, one can have a political preference that the US maintain extremely low taxes and/or reduce the size of government, but neither political inclination is compelled by The Math.

I assume, with all the risks commensurate, that by referencing “The Math” RR is referring to the fact that republicans claim spending is to blame for our deficit, not taxes.  In fact, the chart accompanying the post shows that the United States is near the bottom in tax revenue indicating that tax revenue, and not necessarily spending, is the problem.

But to me, that doesn’t jive.

Back to younger me.  I existed in my own reality.  I went to school, church and lodge with members of my community that existed on a range of socioeconomic status.  Virtually ALL earned more than I did.  And now, flash forward to today, I exist in that same strata, many peers earn more, many less.  None of which have any bearing on defining the health of my financial status.

I must balance my spending with my revenue.

In some cases I earn less due to sheer ability.  They have it and I don’t.  In other cases it’s based on desire; they have it and I don’t.  In others, I earn more because I am the one with the desire or the ability.  And yet in others, people have decided that compensation takes forms other than money; time off, value to society and personal growth are examples.  Whatever the individual situation is, basing fiscal health on the experience of others is rather short sighted.  And in the end, not at all healthy.

For whatever reason, perhaps because we are an independent colony all grown up.  Maybe it’s because we have access to massive natural resources.  Or education, or – well, whatever.  Whatever the reason, America has decided that it only wants to generate “X” amount of revenue.  We don’t wanna work harder to earn more per hour, or take an second job.  We’re cool where we are.

Given that reality, our spending has to reflect that fiscal reality and adjust.  It just has to.  And if it doesn’t, then spending is the problem.

But back to the chart, it IS rather stark.  After all, we are the United States of America and certainly have reason to expect that we come in better than 4th from the bottom.  Am I missing something?

Well maybe.

See, we may only be taxing at a very low rate of GDP, but we are a very VERY rich nation. So, while a person may argue that a policy of higher tax revenue is desirable, the larger question may be ignored.  Namely, is the nation wealthier as a result of such taxation or less wealthy as a result.

There is data:

It turns out that America does well compared to her high tax peers.  For example, Denmark, the nation with the highest revenues, is very poor compared ti the states of the United States.  In fact, if Denmark WERE a states, it would rank only as the 44th richest state in the Union.  Behind Kentucky.  And Belgium, the nation with the 3rd highest tax revenues?  Why, it would rank below even Denmark, poorer even than Idaho.

The EU as a whole, with Spain, Israel, Italy, Greece and Portugal all, ALL, rank lower than the poorest state in our nation; Mississippi.

This might mean that such high tax rates lead to less prosperous nations.  Or it might mean that such high tax rates are really an illusion of mathematics – revenues compared to a paltry GDP may seem higher than they really are.  Whatever the explanation, I doubt anyone would argue that we would wanna live in a nation that would rank among the poorest of our states.

Energy Subsidy

I was thinking about energy subsidies this weekend.  I know  I know, geeky shit to be sure, however – I WAS stuck watching a dance conference with my daughter in Baltimore, so slack please!

Anyway, during the election season, Obama was attacked for his green energy subsidies.  That, in his attempt to pick winners and losers, he mostly picked losers.  All of which, of course, was to highlight the waste of money that is green energy subsidies.

It occurred to me, that depending on the type of subsidy, it’s okay that we encourage alternative energy research and advancement.

To be sure, I don’t like the government actually spending money or guaranteeing loans, to one company or technology over another.  However, when it comes to reducing the tax burden so that we advance investment, I don’t see any reason why we should pick oil and gas over solar and wind.

With that said, this is an interesting graph:

From the article:

The folks at the Institute for Energy Research used the Energy Department data to calculate a subsidy per unit of electricity produced. Per megawatt hour, natural gas, oil and coal received 64 cents, hydropower 82 cents, nuclear $3.14, wind $56.29 and solar a whopping $775.64.

So for every tax dollar that goes to coal, oil and natural gas, wind gets $88 and solar $1,212. After all the hype and dollars, in 2010 wind and solar combined for 2.3% of electric generation—2.3% for wind and 0% and a rounding error for solar. Renewables contributed 10.3% overall, though 6.2% is hydro. Some “investment.”

Zooming out for all energy, the Congressional Research Service did its own analysis of tax incentives last year. It found that in 2009 fossil fuels accounted for 78% of U.S. energy production but received only 12.6% of tax incentives. Renewables accounted for 11% of energy production but received 77% of the tax subsidies—and that understates the figure because it leaves out direct spending.

Which brings me to my initial thought:

By the way, these subsidy comparisons don’t consider that the coal, oil, and natural gas industries paid more than $10 billion of taxes in 2009. Wind and solar are net drains on the Treasury.

All of this suggests a radical idea. Why not eliminate all federal energy subsidies? This would get the government out of the business of picking winners and losers—mostly losers.

Mr. Obama’s plan to eliminate oil and gas subsidies would lower the budget deficit by less than $3 billion a year, but creating a true level playing field in energy, and allowing markets to determine which energy sources are used, would save $37 billion. That’s an energy plan that makes sense.

I like that idea best.  Less government.

Police State

I don’t generally buy into the “Black Helicopter” crowd regarding conspiracy of government.  For example, touching on the gun debate, I’m not sure it’s a given that if we register guns that one day the government will confiscate them.

However, I’ve always had a push me pull you relationship with law enforcement.  I distrust 22 year old men with a uniform and a gun.  I’m deeply indebted to the mature officer that puts limb and life on the line to defend me and mine.

But this doesn’t help the cause:

A Ramsey County man who videotaped a sheriff’s deputy in public is now fighting a citation for obstruction and disorderly conduct.

A St. Paul Pioneer Press report says the deputy was loading another man into an ambulance, and 28-year-old Andrew Henderson videotaped the action.

Sheriff’s deputy Jacqueline Muellner confiscated the camera, saying Henderson was violating the other man’s privacy rights. Henderson says when he got the camera back the next day the recording was gone.

Muellner cited Henderson for obstructing legal process. The American Civil Liberties Union has agreed to represent him for free.

Maybe there’s room for slack on the part of the cops.  They are, after all, the ones out there putting it all out there.  And having someone tape you may come across as trying to “entrap” you.  So I get it.

But still.

At least the force is saying the right things:

Ramsey County sheriff’s spokesman Randy Gustafson says it’s not the department’s policy to take people’s cameras. He says people are within their rights to record deputies’ activities.

It reminds me of the time I witnessed a DUI arrest in progress.  The entrance to my apartment building had a small flower median.  One lane in, one lane out.  And the officer was parked behind the community sign IN THE WRONG LANE.  The car drove in, not expecting a parked car with headlights on, and hit the brakes.

He was walked and arrested.

I watched the whole thing.  And the officers clearly didn’t like it at all.

Addressing Gun Violence

On Tuesday President Obama will receive a report from Joe Biden on gun violence and how to address it.  I admit that I’m torn on the whole issue.  Personally, I don’t care for guns at all.  I played with BB guns as a kid, to be sure, but that’s where it stopped.  I held my brother’s .22 and 16 gauge, but never owned my own weapon.  I once shot a friend’s hand gun, but didn’t like it.

I know that lot’s of people own guns to protect themselves.  Many more own guns because they like to collect them.  And even more because they life to hunt.  And I’m all good with that.  But I don’t want’em in my house.  I have young kids and believe the stats that say a gun owner’s family is more likely to be harmed by their own gun than that gun will be used in self defense.

But I feel its very important to defend the rights of those that DO wanna keep a gun.  I think that if an individual feels that, in balance, the risk of owning gun isn’t greater than the benefit provided by that gun, he should have the ability to purchase and keep that weapon.  He should be able to buy and use ammunition.

In short, a man has a right to buy guns.  And when I say guns, I mean any guns.

Part of the reason that the 2nd Amendment was written and codified was the belief that citizens be able to defend themselves.  From intruders AND their government.  In fact, Jefferson felt that an armed citizenry was a last resort to a tyrannical government.

So, what to be made of the world today?

I think the wrong questions will be asked in the report.  I think the wrong questions have been asked in the public discourse.  I think that people are seeing people committing atrocities with guns and are fixating on the guns; not the people.  I think that we need to look at data.  Data that suggests violence due to guns is on a downward trend.    I think that we need to look at data that would suggest that banning assault weapons increases violence, not decreases it.  And I think that we need to understand that being exposed to the inconveniences of too much liberty is preferable to the those attending too small a degree of it.

To those that would ban an assault rifle.  How much less of a tragedy would it be if an armed intruder, carrying a pistol, or 4, would take the lives of, say, 10 children rather than the number taken in Sandy Hook?  How will you be able to stand in front of the parents and claim that it could have been worse?

The answer?  You can’t.

A life taken too early due to violence is a tragedy.  And whether that life is taken by a hand gun or a rifle is not meaningful.

But the restriction of liberty is.  And THAT is what we need to guard against.

Now, are there things that we can do?  Happily, yes.

I think that we have a good opportunity to increase our background checks.  Both in number and in depth.  I think that we can do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and of the mentally unstable.

We should increase our databases regarding gun crimes.  And speaking of gun crimes, we need to focus on the characteristics of criminals with guns.  And then target them.  Instead of crafting laws that take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, we need to craft laws that take guns out of the hands of criminals.  Guilty of a gun crime?  Subject your property to an immediate search warrant.

And technology might be able to help us.  We should consider, at least consider, the technology that allows a gun to be fired based on a fingerprint profile.  Should a private sale occur, the gun could be taken to a dealer to swap that profile.  Have a family of 5?  Submit a profile for 5.

There is a lot of work to be done, to be sure.  But there is a lot of Liberty to be lost as well.  And we must remain ever vigilant that the sacrifices of those who came before us are not lost to fear.