For the first three years of the Obama administration the President's supporters pointed to 1984 as their model for reelection. There were some surface similarities. Both Reagan and Obama took office during terrible economic downturns. Both saw their parties loose in the first mid-term. What gave the Obama people hope is that the economy came surging back and Reagan easily won reelection. The only question on election night 1984 was if Mondale would carry any states?
With 100 days left before the election it is obvious that this year will not be a repeat of 1984. Unemployment is still high and the recovery is not robust enough to replace the lost jobs and keep up with new people entering the jobs market. Worse, the economy seems to be slowing down. While Obama leads Romney in most polls, the two are within the margin of error.
So now Team Obama is pointing to the 2004 election where Bush beat Kerry by a slim margin. Some commentators have remarked on the similarities of the two elections. I think that they are exaggerating this, possibly to give some hope to Obama supporters. In fact, once you get beyond the tight polls, there are not many similarities.
Bush had a modest recession and a major terrorist attack during his first term. He invaded two countries easily only to find that occupation is more difficult than invasion. The terrorist attack on 9/11 acted as a unifying event pushing Bush's approval ratings up. His party actually gained seats in Congress in the first mid-term. Bush's approval rating kept rising through his "Mission Accomplished" speech but started falling as the Iraqi insurgency got organized.
Obama had a major recession. There have been no unifying events like 9/11 under Obama. His approval rating started out high but dropped slowly over most of his term. Unlike Bush, Obama's party suffered major defeats in the mid-term election. Obama has not entered into any new wars but has moved military operations into new countries. These have been low-key and have not helped or hurt him in the polls.
Bush was always a moderate. He made an early attempt to work with the opposition and his pre-9/11 agenda (No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Drug Plan) had significant bipartisan support. These were big-government programs that could as eassily come from a moderate Democratic president. The main ways that the Bush administration was conservative were with social issues and with tax cuts.
Obama is an unapologetic liberal. His attempts to work with the opposition were pretty much limited to inviting Republicans to the White House to watch the Super Bowl. Shortly after that he lectured them, saying that elections have consequences and that "I won". His stated goal has been to change the course that government had been on since Reagan. His most significant accomplishment, Obamacare, passed without a single Republican vote and remains unpopular. Through unprecedented use of executive orders, Obama bypassed Congress on such things as immigration reform, welfare reform, and automotive mileage standards.
Bush's opponent is significantly different from Obama's, also. True, both have Massachusetts connections and come from wealthy families but the two are significantly different.
Kerry was the son of an ambassador and a long-time admirer of President Kennedy. He may have volunteered to captain a swift boat in order to emulate Kennedy who captained a PT boat. Kerry was never particularly wealthy until he married a rich widow.
In 2004 Kerry ran on his war record and wrapped up the nomination quickly. He continued to run on his war record through the convention when he took a ferry to the convention hall to remind people of his service in the navy. At his arrival he proclaimed that he was "Reporting for duty." This collapsed shortly afterwards when it turned out that his combat service had been limited to three months and he had spent the next few years as a war protestor. He had even symbolically returned his medals by throwing them at the White House (actually, he threw someone else's).
Kerry was from the far-left wing of the party with a voting record that made him the 3rd most liberal Senator. He often changed sides on specific bills over rarefied issues leading to his quote, "I was for the bill before I was against it."
Kerry's campaign was relying heavily on a CBS 60 Minutes story on Bush's military service. They planned on contrasting Kerry's time in combat with documents calling Bush a deserter. The 60 Minutes story was based on fabricated evidence which was obvious as soon as the story aired, leaving the Kerry campaign to try to find a different attack. They never did and the election came down to which side could mobilize its voters. Bush won with a convincing margin.
Romney's family fortunes varied from one decade to the next. His father did not become well-off until Romney was in high school and Romney earned his own wealth rather than inheriting or marrying it.
While Obama has tried to paint Romney as the most conservative Republican candidate since Goldwater, his record is as a moderate. Romney had problems winning the primary because conservative voters kept looking for a more conservative candidate. Only after it became obvious that Romney was the strongest candidate did the party rally to him. This could help Romney appeal to more moderate swing voters. The far-right may not have accepted Romney as Reagan's successor but they are motivated to vote against Obama. Any attempts at painting Romney as being far-right will probably help him with his base.
The issues in 2012 are completely different from 2004. In 2004 the economy was in fairly good shape. The insurgency in Iraq was still disorganized. The war in Afghanistan had been won so easily that no one was paying attention to it. Both Iran and North Korea were in talks to stop their nuclear programs. Bush was unpopular abroad among the general population but had a good working relationship with most foreign leaders. This allowed him to assemble a huge coalition for the invasion of Iraq. Bush is also regarded as the most pro-Israel president.
Most of the opposition to Bush came from hard-core Democrats who had never accepted his victory in the contested 2000 election.
In 2012, the economy is in poor shape. Obamacare is still unpopular. Talks with Iran and North Korea have collapsed and sanctions are failing but the Obama has no idea what to do next. Obama is popular abroad with the general population but has no relationship with foreign leaders. His actions have worsened relationships with such long-time allies as Canada (Keystone pipeline), Mexico (allowing drug lords to purchase American guns), and the United Kingdom. The Arab Spring seems to be producing anti-American Islamist governments. Obama is considered the least friendly president to Israel.
A president's second election is always a referendum on his first term. Obama is trying to deflect this through character assassination. Kerry did not have a good reason to replace Bush, all he had was harnessed Bush-hatred. Romney has the economy and his experience in business and as governor as reasons why he should replace Obama. This may not be sufficient but the 2004 election is no indicator.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Gore, Tennessee, and Gun Control
In remarks about the Aurora shooting, President Obama said, "I think a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals." The White House spent today trying to walk back that statement, insisting that the President was not going to introduce new gun control legislation.
In general it is conceded that gun control is off the table as an issue for the Democrats. Wonder why? It's because Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in 2000. He didn't lose it by a large margin and polls indicated that there were enough single-issue, pro-gun voters to have made up the difference. Had Gore won Tennessee he would have won the presidency. Accordingly, starting in 2004, the Democrats decided that this was an expendable issue for them.
In general it is conceded that gun control is off the table as an issue for the Democrats. Wonder why? It's because Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee in 2000. He didn't lose it by a large margin and polls indicated that there were enough single-issue, pro-gun voters to have made up the difference. Had Gore won Tennessee he would have won the presidency. Accordingly, starting in 2004, the Democrats decided that this was an expendable issue for them.
Romney in London
If you paid any attention to pre-Olympic coverage last week then you saw that there were questions about security staffing for the games. At one point it was speculated that the British army would be called in to fill vacancies.
In an interview conducted in London for NBC, Romney said that those reports were disconcerting. He then went on to talk about the athletes, the volunteers, and the host country coming together.
Most of the coverage since then has been on Romney's gaffe and how he shouldn't be allowed out of the country.
What was the gaffe? Mentioning that there had been any question about the readiness of the games' security. Both the Prime Minister and the Mayor of London made disparaging comments about this.
Of course, Romney didn't say anything new or insulting. All he did was mention that there had been stories in the papers. None of the coverage of the incident has mentioned this.
There are two agendas at work here. The British are trying to paper over some real rough spots in Olympic preparations. That is to be expected although the fact that Romney's interview was for an American network makes them seem pretty touchy.
On this side of the Atlantic the motives are more partisan. Romney selected three countries that President Obama has slighted.
When former Prime Minister Tony Blair came on a state visit he brought state gifts with special meaning. Obama reciprocated with trinkets from the White House gift shop. The State Department has denied that there is any special relationship between the two countries. Secretary of State Clinton has implied that she supports Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands over Britain's (regardless of the wishes of the residents of the islands).
As part of his "reset" of relations with Russia, Obama cancelled an anti-missile installation in Poland. The poles first heard about this on the news and, in a terrible coincidence, it happened on the anniversary of an invasion of Poland.
Obama's relations with Israel have been numerous. He began by insisting that Israel put a moratorium on settlements without asking anything in return from the Palestinians. His assumption was that the settlements were the only roadblock to peace and without them, a final settlement was at hand. He also suggested that negotiations start with the 1967 boundaries without mentioning land-swaps or recognition of Israel's right to exist. The Israelis believe that this would be suicide. Obama has let slip his personal distaste for Israel's prime minister.
Romney's trip was meant to highlight the fact that Obama has alienated long-time allies. Obama's supporters in the press know this and want to neutralize it so we will not see any stories about warm relations between Romney and the people he visits. Instead we will see stories about "gaffes" or anonymous reports that someone on Romney's staff used the term "Anglo Saxon".
In the meantime, Obama's gaffes go unreported. Obama said that AK-47s belong in the hands of the military, unaware that the US military used M16s and that the Aurora shooter used an AR-15 (the AK-47 is fully automatic, the AR-15 is not). Would these mistakes have gone unreported if Romney had made them?
In an interview conducted in London for NBC, Romney said that those reports were disconcerting. He then went on to talk about the athletes, the volunteers, and the host country coming together.
Most of the coverage since then has been on Romney's gaffe and how he shouldn't be allowed out of the country.
What was the gaffe? Mentioning that there had been any question about the readiness of the games' security. Both the Prime Minister and the Mayor of London made disparaging comments about this.
Of course, Romney didn't say anything new or insulting. All he did was mention that there had been stories in the papers. None of the coverage of the incident has mentioned this.
There are two agendas at work here. The British are trying to paper over some real rough spots in Olympic preparations. That is to be expected although the fact that Romney's interview was for an American network makes them seem pretty touchy.
On this side of the Atlantic the motives are more partisan. Romney selected three countries that President Obama has slighted.
When former Prime Minister Tony Blair came on a state visit he brought state gifts with special meaning. Obama reciprocated with trinkets from the White House gift shop. The State Department has denied that there is any special relationship between the two countries. Secretary of State Clinton has implied that she supports Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands over Britain's (regardless of the wishes of the residents of the islands).
As part of his "reset" of relations with Russia, Obama cancelled an anti-missile installation in Poland. The poles first heard about this on the news and, in a terrible coincidence, it happened on the anniversary of an invasion of Poland.
Obama's relations with Israel have been numerous. He began by insisting that Israel put a moratorium on settlements without asking anything in return from the Palestinians. His assumption was that the settlements were the only roadblock to peace and without them, a final settlement was at hand. He also suggested that negotiations start with the 1967 boundaries without mentioning land-swaps or recognition of Israel's right to exist. The Israelis believe that this would be suicide. Obama has let slip his personal distaste for Israel's prime minister.
Romney's trip was meant to highlight the fact that Obama has alienated long-time allies. Obama's supporters in the press know this and want to neutralize it so we will not see any stories about warm relations between Romney and the people he visits. Instead we will see stories about "gaffes" or anonymous reports that someone on Romney's staff used the term "Anglo Saxon".
In the meantime, Obama's gaffes go unreported. Obama said that AK-47s belong in the hands of the military, unaware that the US military used M16s and that the Aurora shooter used an AR-15 (the AK-47 is fully automatic, the AR-15 is not). Would these mistakes have gone unreported if Romney had made them?
Friday, July 27, 2012
Romney in London
If you paid any attention to pre-Olympic coverage last week then you saw that there were questions about security staffing for the games. At one point it was speculated that the British army would be called in to fill vacancies.
In an interview conducted in London for NBC, Romney said that those reports were disconcerting. He then went on to talk about the athletes, the volunteers, and the host country coming together.
Most of the coverage since then has been on Romney's gaffe and how he shouldn't be allowed out of the country.
What was the gaffe? Mentioning that there had been any question about the readiness of the games' security. Both the Prime Minister and the Mayor of London made disparaging comments about this.
Of course, Romney didn't say anything new or insulting. All he did was mention that there had been stories in the papers. None of the coverage of the incident has mentioned this.
There are two agendas at work here. The British are trying to paper over some real rough spots in Olympic preparations. That is to be expected although the fact that Romney's interview was for an American network makes them seem pretty touchy.
On this side of the Atlantic the motives are more partisan. Romney selected three countries that President Obama has slighted.
When former Prime Minister Tony Blair came on a state visit he brought state gifts with special meaning. Obama reciprocated with trinkets from the White House gift shop. The State Department has denied that there is any special relationship between the two countries. Secretary of State Clinton has implied that she supports Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands over Britain's (regardless of the wishes of the residents of the islands).
As part of his "reset" of relations with Russia, Obama cancelled an anti-missile installation in Poland. The poles first heard about this on the news and, in a terrible coincidence, it happened on the anniversary of an invasion of Poland.
Obama's relations with Israel have been numerous. He began by insisting that Israel put a moratorium on settlements without asking anything in return from the Palestinians. His assumption was that the settlements were the only roadblock to peace and without them, a final settlement was at hand. He also suggested that negotiations start with the 1967 boundaries without mentioning land-swaps or recognition of Israel's right to exist. The Israelis believe that this would be suicide. Obama has let slip his personal distaste for Israel's prime minister.
Romney's trip was meant to highlight the fact that Obama has alienated long-time allies. Obama's supporters in the press know this and want to neutralize it so we will not see any stories about warm relations between Romney and the people he visits. Instead we will see stories about "gaffes" or anonymous reports that someone on Romney's staff used the term "Anglo Saxon".
In the meantime, Obama's gaffes go unreported. Obama said that AK-47s belong in the hands of the military, unaware that the US military used M16s and that the Aurora shooter used an AR-15 (the AK-47 is fully automatic, the AR-15 is not). Would these mistakes have gone unreported if Romney had made them?
In an interview conducted in London for NBC, Romney said that those reports were disconcerting. He then went on to talk about the athletes, the volunteers, and the host country coming together.
Most of the coverage since then has been on Romney's gaffe and how he shouldn't be allowed out of the country.
What was the gaffe? Mentioning that there had been any question about the readiness of the games' security. Both the Prime Minister and the Mayor of London made disparaging comments about this.
Of course, Romney didn't say anything new or insulting. All he did was mention that there had been stories in the papers. None of the coverage of the incident has mentioned this.
There are two agendas at work here. The British are trying to paper over some real rough spots in Olympic preparations. That is to be expected although the fact that Romney's interview was for an American network makes them seem pretty touchy.
On this side of the Atlantic the motives are more partisan. Romney selected three countries that President Obama has slighted.
When former Prime Minister Tony Blair came on a state visit he brought state gifts with special meaning. Obama reciprocated with trinkets from the White House gift shop. The State Department has denied that there is any special relationship between the two countries. Secretary of State Clinton has implied that she supports Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands over Britain's (regardless of the wishes of the residents of the islands).
As part of his "reset" of relations with Russia, Obama cancelled an anti-missile installation in Poland. The poles first heard about this on the news and, in a terrible coincidence, it happened on the anniversary of an invasion of Poland.
Obama's relations with Israel have been numerous. He began by insisting that Israel put a moratorium on settlements without asking anything in return from the Palestinians. His assumption was that the settlements were the only roadblock to peace and without them, a final settlement was at hand. He also suggested that negotiations start with the 1967 boundaries without mentioning land-swaps or recognition of Israel's right to exist. The Israelis believe that this would be suicide. Obama has let slip his personal distaste for Israel's prime minister.
Romney's trip was meant to highlight the fact that Obama has alienated long-time allies. Obama's supporters in the press know this and want to neutralize it so we will not see any stories about warm relations between Romney and the people he visits. Instead we will see stories about "gaffes" or anonymous reports that someone on Romney's staff used the term "Anglo Saxon".
In the meantime, Obama's gaffes go unreported. Obama said that AK-47s belong in the hands of the military, unaware that the US military used M16s and that the Aurora shooter used an AR-15 (the AK-47 is fully automatic, the AR-15 is not). Would these mistakes have gone unreported if Romney had made them?
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
NBC plays "gotcha" with Romney
On Monday NBC posted a "gotcha" excerpt from a speech that Mitt Romney gave to the 1992 Olympics.
I've seen this quote passed around Facebook asking why it was alright for Romney to say this but not for Obama to say something similar about businesses.
Let's look at the differences:
NBC notes that this quote came directly after Romney praised the Olympic athletes directly. Obama's speech had nothing good to say about businessmen.
Romney was talking about people who directly helped the athletes. Obama was taking credit for the general infrastructure. There is a big difference between your coach and the road you drove on to get to a track meet.
Romney phrased this as "let's also give credit to...". Obama used the phrase "... you didn't build this."
Romney took nothing from the athletes' accomplishments. He said, "Let's also cheer..." He did not say, "You may thing that you are fast but there are plenty of fast runners out there."
Romney did not follow this by extolling group or team accomplishments over individual accomplishments. Obama made it clear that the only American achievements that he considered to be great involved public financing (roads, bridges, teachers, the moon landing).
And, last but not least, Romney was not making a case for higher taxes. Obama was (although he phrased it "giving back").
Even though there are a few similar phrases in the two speeches, it is ridiculous to claim that the two men were expressing the same sentiment. NBC should be ashamed for posting this.
You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power," said Romney, who on Friday will attend the Opening Ceremonies of this year's Summer Olympics. "For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We've already cheered the Olympians, let's also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right! [pumps fist].
I've seen this quote passed around Facebook asking why it was alright for Romney to say this but not for Obama to say something similar about businesses.
Let's look at the differences:
NBC notes that this quote came directly after Romney praised the Olympic athletes directly. Obama's speech had nothing good to say about businessmen.
Romney was talking about people who directly helped the athletes. Obama was taking credit for the general infrastructure. There is a big difference between your coach and the road you drove on to get to a track meet.
Romney phrased this as "let's also give credit to...". Obama used the phrase "... you didn't build this."
Romney took nothing from the athletes' accomplishments. He said, "Let's also cheer..." He did not say, "You may thing that you are fast but there are plenty of fast runners out there."
Romney did not follow this by extolling group or team accomplishments over individual accomplishments. Obama made it clear that the only American achievements that he considered to be great involved public financing (roads, bridges, teachers, the moon landing).
And, last but not least, Romney was not making a case for higher taxes. Obama was (although he phrased it "giving back").
Even though there are a few similar phrases in the two speeches, it is ridiculous to claim that the two men were expressing the same sentiment. NBC should be ashamed for posting this.
Who Should Vote?
The presidential election could very well hinge on the Hispanic vote. They voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers in 2008 and the Obama campaign has said many times that it expects to carry any state that has a large Hispanic population. In order to court this group, President Obama rewrote immigration law through an executive order allowing people under 30 who came here illegally but have not been caught committing a crime and who have met some educational requirements to stay as quasi-legal residents.
The big question in the next election is how many of the estimated 10 million Hispanics who are in this country illegally will vote? Any attempt to answer this is immediately labeled "voter suppression". The claims from the left are:
Following up on the Democrats' line of attack, Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson speculates that a Romney win would be invalid because it would be based on voter suppression. The obvious flip side to this is to wonder how valid an Obama win would be if it contained a large number of votes from non-citizens?
The big question in the next election is how many of the estimated 10 million Hispanics who are in this country illegally will vote? Any attempt to answer this is immediately labeled "voter suppression". The claims from the left are:
- Poor people, especially minorities lack proper identification so efforts at voter identification are aimed at them. This assumes that the poor are stupid (and implies that stupid people disproportionately vote Democrat).
- In some states there is a charge for an identification card so this amounts to a poll tax (a tax that has to be paid to vote, aimed at disenfranchising the poor). A $10 license fee is hardly on the same level as a poll tax and several states that require ID have a free version for the poor. "Not good enough," the Left says. The poor still have to pay for bus fare to get the ID so it is still a poll tax. The Supreme Court disagrees but that has not stopped talk about a revival of Jim Crow (laws enacted in the early 20th century to keep minorities from voting).
- There is no voter fraud. This is repeated constantly but only one study is ever cited and that was conducted by a liberal advocacy group specifically to prove that voter fraud does not happen. It was based on convictions and ignored the inherent difficulty in prosecuting a case where someone used a false identity. Unless that person was recognized and detained at the time it is nearly impossible to every find the false voter again. In many states the system seems to be set up to encourage voter fraud where someone can register and vote in one step with little or no documentation. Despite this, there have been a number of voter fraud convictions in the past few years. We can assume that the ones that were caught were the tip of the iceberg. Regardless, none of this addresses the issue of voting by non-citizens.
- Attempts at preventing fraud are racist. Florida sent a list of people for country registrars to check. This list was created by cross-indexing voter registration against driver's licenses and flagging people whose driver's license indicated a non-resident. While the effort did find some non-citizens who were registered to vote the process was discontinued because of inaccuracies on the list. Florida officials complained that the federal government had refused to give them access to a much more accurate list so they had been forced to make-do. When the list first came out it was denounced as racists because of the high percentage of Hispanic names it contained. This ignored the high percentage of Florida immigrants (legal and illegal) who came to Florida from Spanish-speaking countries.
Following up on the Democrats' line of attack, Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson speculates that a Romney win would be invalid because it would be based on voter suppression. The obvious flip side to this is to wonder how valid an Obama win would be if it contained a large number of votes from non-citizens?
Monday, July 23, 2012
Tragedy and gun control
Mass shootings are always tragic. Often they are accompanied by calls for tighter gun control. These usually come from people who were always against gun ownership like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
The biggest argument against tighter gun controls is statistics. Gun violence has been dropping annually for decades. At the same time, gun ownership has been growing. Obviously this means that more guns does not equal higher gun violence. Similarly, crime rates between states with tight and loose gun control does not argue in favor of tighter regulations. When Florida allowed concealed carry experts predicted that it would mean an increase in gun deaths. The opposite happened. The same has been repeated across the country as concealed carry has become common.
So, guns and gun ownership do not automatically cause violence and death.
Mass killings are a special case. They happen too often but do they justify tighter gun controls? Let's put it into perspective. Just a few days after the shooting a truck full of people blew a tire and slammed into a tree. At least 13 were killed. Others are in life-threatening condition. Having this many people in a truck must have been illegal so using the gun control argument, we need to put tight controls on owning and operating trucks.
This sounds silly but there are more guns in the US than pickup trucks but pickups kill a lot of people.
The Aurora shooter used a high-capacity magazine. The Giffords shooter also used one. Should these be outlawed? A friend who is a shooter tells me that these make a handgun heavy and difficult to aim. They are also prone to jamming which happened to the Aurora shooter. Forcing shooters to use more reliable magazines might be a bad idea.
The real question is if limiting guns would actually stop crazed killers? In the Aurora shooting the alleged shooter filled his apartment with explosive devices so he was capable of alternate methods of creating mayhem.
The tragedy at Columbine is instructive. Most people are not aware of the killers' actual plans. They planted a bomb in the lunch room that was set to explode a few minutes after noon. They had previously done headcounts and figured that this is when the lunchroom had the most people. Their plan was to detonate their bomb in the middle of over 1,000 people. They also hoped to collapse the ceiling, killing or injuring people in the library above. The guns and pipe bombs were to be used on the survivors. When their bomb failed to go off they started shooting people on their way to the lunchroom where they attempted to manually explode their bomb. When it became obvious that the bomb was not going to go off they killed themselves.
Had things gone as planned the body count would have been an order of magnitude higher.
In their early stages of planning they had discussed hijacking an airplane and flying it into a high-rise.
The two worst acts of domestic terrorism (9/11 and Oklahoma City) did not involve guns. Similarly, the worst school killing happened early in the 20th century when a janitor caused a boiler to overheat and explode.
The point is that guns are tools. Other means of killing exist and are easily available. Worse, some of them are more effective.
The biggest argument against tighter gun controls is statistics. Gun violence has been dropping annually for decades. At the same time, gun ownership has been growing. Obviously this means that more guns does not equal higher gun violence. Similarly, crime rates between states with tight and loose gun control does not argue in favor of tighter regulations. When Florida allowed concealed carry experts predicted that it would mean an increase in gun deaths. The opposite happened. The same has been repeated across the country as concealed carry has become common.
So, guns and gun ownership do not automatically cause violence and death.
Mass killings are a special case. They happen too often but do they justify tighter gun controls? Let's put it into perspective. Just a few days after the shooting a truck full of people blew a tire and slammed into a tree. At least 13 were killed. Others are in life-threatening condition. Having this many people in a truck must have been illegal so using the gun control argument, we need to put tight controls on owning and operating trucks.
This sounds silly but there are more guns in the US than pickup trucks but pickups kill a lot of people.
The Aurora shooter used a high-capacity magazine. The Giffords shooter also used one. Should these be outlawed? A friend who is a shooter tells me that these make a handgun heavy and difficult to aim. They are also prone to jamming which happened to the Aurora shooter. Forcing shooters to use more reliable magazines might be a bad idea.
The real question is if limiting guns would actually stop crazed killers? In the Aurora shooting the alleged shooter filled his apartment with explosive devices so he was capable of alternate methods of creating mayhem.
The tragedy at Columbine is instructive. Most people are not aware of the killers' actual plans. They planted a bomb in the lunch room that was set to explode a few minutes after noon. They had previously done headcounts and figured that this is when the lunchroom had the most people. Their plan was to detonate their bomb in the middle of over 1,000 people. They also hoped to collapse the ceiling, killing or injuring people in the library above. The guns and pipe bombs were to be used on the survivors. When their bomb failed to go off they started shooting people on their way to the lunchroom where they attempted to manually explode their bomb. When it became obvious that the bomb was not going to go off they killed themselves.
Had things gone as planned the body count would have been an order of magnitude higher.
In their early stages of planning they had discussed hijacking an airplane and flying it into a high-rise.
The two worst acts of domestic terrorism (9/11 and Oklahoma City) did not involve guns. Similarly, the worst school killing happened early in the 20th century when a janitor caused a boiler to overheat and explode.
The point is that guns are tools. Other means of killing exist and are easily available. Worse, some of them are more effective.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
You Didn't Build That
If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. - Barack Obama
Team Obama is complaining that this quote was taken out of context and that he was referring to roads and bridges. Here is a more complete excerpt:
Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
That doesn't help a lot. He is still saying that you owe your business to the American system. When he uses the word "that" does he mean your business (the normal understanding), roads and bridges (in which case he should have said "them") or the American system? This is in line with the rest of the speech.
Here is the full speech.
"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn't -- look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
"So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That's how we funded the G.I. Bill. That's how we created the middle class. That's how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That's how we invented the Internet. That's how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that's the reason I'm running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You're not on your own, we're in this together."
Let's deconstruct it.
He starts by asserting that there are wealthy people who feel that they have not paid enough in taxes. The government already has a place for people to send donations above their tax liabilities. Almost no one uses this. What Obama means is that he knows wealthy people who want to see other wealthy people pay a higher tax rate.
Then he launches into an attack on successful people. He says that you didn't succeed because you are smart or worked hard. You succeeded because of the government. He ends with a list of great works and a call for collective action.
The Golden Gate Bridge is an ironic example. The federal government fought it as did the unions and the railroads. It was built by local government with no federal assistance. It was paid for through construction bonds which were mainly sold to the Bank of America. The bonds were paid off with tolls. In all, this bridge is a very poor justification for raising taxes on the rich nation-wide.
The rest of his "great works" argument has major flaws, also. It is an echo of the USSR when they showed off public works to show the superiority of communism. That was the purpose of the space race. This also shows the weakness of the great works argument. The Russians were the first to orbit the earth but people in Moscow couldn't buy bread or toilet paper.
This reflects Obama's background as a Marxist. According to his autobiography, he was a hard-core Marxist in high school and college. He may have left Marxism behind but it still influences his thinking.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Government and Business
In his speech on businesses last week, President Obama never did spell out how people become successful. He told us that they did not become successful because they are smart or hard-working.
So how do people become successful? The implication is that they received government help at critical points in their life.
A lot of people have argued this point complaining that their success is their own, not the result of the government. Many businessmen including some very small ones have complained that the government hurts them more than it helps.
The thing about Obama's statement and the one that Elizabeth Warren made earlier is that they make successful people sound like leeches who have not paid their fair share. The truth is that businesses already pay a lot of taxes. In addition to income taxes they pay real estate and fuel taxes which pays for teachers and roads. There is nothing in this pitch to show why top earners should pay a marginal tax rate of 39.6% instead of 35%.
Another flaw in Obama's logic is that teachers, roads, etc. are available to everyone. So why isn't everyone rich? Maybe the wealthy do work harder or are smarter. Or maybe they take more risks than the rest of us. A lot of people started computer companies in the 1970s but most crashed and burned. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't have any special government assistance. At one point Bill Gates was living in Microsoft's small office suite because he couldn't afford that and an apartment. Jobs started Apple out of a garage. Their companies went on to dominate the world and made their founders fabulously rich. Does Obama really mean to say that they owe their success to the government?
Mitt Romney has a great quote on the subject:
You've been successful. You didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out here. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
So how do people become successful? The implication is that they received government help at critical points in their life.
There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
A lot of people have argued this point complaining that their success is their own, not the result of the government. Many businessmen including some very small ones have complained that the government hurts them more than it helps.
The thing about Obama's statement and the one that Elizabeth Warren made earlier is that they make successful people sound like leeches who have not paid their fair share. The truth is that businesses already pay a lot of taxes. In addition to income taxes they pay real estate and fuel taxes which pays for teachers and roads. There is nothing in this pitch to show why top earners should pay a marginal tax rate of 39.6% instead of 35%.
Another flaw in Obama's logic is that teachers, roads, etc. are available to everyone. So why isn't everyone rich? Maybe the wealthy do work harder or are smarter. Or maybe they take more risks than the rest of us. A lot of people started computer companies in the 1970s but most crashed and burned. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't have any special government assistance. At one point Bill Gates was living in Microsoft's small office suite because he couldn't afford that and an apartment. Jobs started Apple out of a garage. Their companies went on to dominate the world and made their founders fabulously rich. Does Obama really mean to say that they owe their success to the government?
Mitt Romney has a great quote on the subject:
The taxpayers pay for government. It's not like government just provides those things to all of us and we say, 'Oh, thank you government for doing those things.' No, in fact, we pay for them and we benefit from them and we appreciate the work that they do and the sacrifices that are done by people who work in government. But they did not build this business.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Beefs with Obama
President Obama is driving me crazy. Where to begin?
The best publicized issue is his campaign's implication that Mitt Romney committed felonies when filing SEC documents about his involvement with Bain. The fact-checkers have looked over this repeatedly and found nothing to the attacks. Regardless, when asked about Romney's request for an apology, Obama took the low road and repeated the allegations.
This is a reminder that Obama was always a dirty campaigner and will drag his final campaign through the mud.
An under-reported event was Obama's undoing of welfare reform through executive order. Remember that welfare reform centering around a work requirement was a bipartisan piece of legislation and is considered one of President Clinton's major accomplishments. Regardless, the Obama administration announced that it would be willing to grant waivers on the work requirement to any states that one one.
The law was written so that waivers cannot be issued so this is another example of an imperial president writing new law by fiat. When Obama first came to office, several supporters urged him to dissolve Congress for and fix the country through personal rule. In the last few months of his term he seems to have done just that. First he rewrote bankruptcy law for GM then he ordered the Department of Justice not to support the Defense of Marriage Act in court. More recently he rewrote immigration law.
For those who are willing to overlook this because Obama is "doing the right thing", remember the precedent this sets. Even if Obama wins reelection a Republican is likely to win in 2012. Would you want a President Santorum issuing an executive order that abortion would be treated as murder?
Finally there was Obama's speech in which he announced that successful people have not really earned their success.
There is a Marxist thread here that people only become rich by exploiting the working classes. No surprises there since Obama was a Marxist in high school and college. Obama, like Elizabeth Warren, is trying to make the point that the rich benefit from the infrastructure of American society.
That is fine but what neither admits is that the rich already pays a high portion of the taxes. Nearly half the country does not pay income tax at all. Based on percentage of income tax paid, we already have the world's most progressive taxes. So why does Obama want higher taxes? It is not what portion of the tax burden the rich are paying, it is the fact that they are still rich after paying the taxes.
One interesting point about Obama's "you didn't succeed on our own merit" speech - he doesn't believe that about himself. He has been quoted multiple times complaining about the difficulty of creating a cabinet when he could do any member's job better than anyone else.
The best publicized issue is his campaign's implication that Mitt Romney committed felonies when filing SEC documents about his involvement with Bain. The fact-checkers have looked over this repeatedly and found nothing to the attacks. Regardless, when asked about Romney's request for an apology, Obama took the low road and repeated the allegations.
This is a reminder that Obama was always a dirty campaigner and will drag his final campaign through the mud.
An under-reported event was Obama's undoing of welfare reform through executive order. Remember that welfare reform centering around a work requirement was a bipartisan piece of legislation and is considered one of President Clinton's major accomplishments. Regardless, the Obama administration announced that it would be willing to grant waivers on the work requirement to any states that one one.
The law was written so that waivers cannot be issued so this is another example of an imperial president writing new law by fiat. When Obama first came to office, several supporters urged him to dissolve Congress for and fix the country through personal rule. In the last few months of his term he seems to have done just that. First he rewrote bankruptcy law for GM then he ordered the Department of Justice not to support the Defense of Marriage Act in court. More recently he rewrote immigration law.
For those who are willing to overlook this because Obama is "doing the right thing", remember the precedent this sets. Even if Obama wins reelection a Republican is likely to win in 2012. Would you want a President Santorum issuing an executive order that abortion would be treated as murder?
Finally there was Obama's speech in which he announced that successful people have not really earned their success.
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn't — look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business — you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
There is a Marxist thread here that people only become rich by exploiting the working classes. No surprises there since Obama was a Marxist in high school and college. Obama, like Elizabeth Warren, is trying to make the point that the rich benefit from the infrastructure of American society.
That is fine but what neither admits is that the rich already pays a high portion of the taxes. Nearly half the country does not pay income tax at all. Based on percentage of income tax paid, we already have the world's most progressive taxes. So why does Obama want higher taxes? It is not what portion of the tax burden the rich are paying, it is the fact that they are still rich after paying the taxes.
One interesting point about Obama's "you didn't succeed on our own merit" speech - he doesn't believe that about himself. He has been quoted multiple times complaining about the difficulty of creating a cabinet when he could do any member's job better than anyone else.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Strange Economic Assumptions
A constant complaint from the left is that income inequality has grown and the government has to fix it. Sometimes the income inequality is referred to as an income redistribution.
So, what's the fix? The first part is easy. They want to raise taxes on the rich. President Obama wants a return to the tax rates of the Clinton Administration. Others want a return to the pre-Reagan days when the highest marginal tax rate was 70%.
But what then? How will taking money from the rich build a strong middle class? What would they do with this money once they have seized it? The left is pretty quiet about this. They will sometimes speak in generalities about rebuilding the infrastructure or giving everyone free medical care or free college. There is a common thread here. Big beneficiaries will be heavily unionized labor and other groups in a close relationship with the left. The assumption is that the money will spread out from there to the rest of the middle class.
Democrats like to criticize Republicans for "trickle down economics" but this is just a variation. The main difference is an assumption that government spending is better than private spending. This is known as the multiplier effect. The idea is that the money the government spends goes to people who spend it again resulting in up to $1.60 in economic activity for each $1.00 spent.
A big flaw in this reasoning is that the multiplier effect is highly debated among economists. It may be closer to $0.60 than $1.60 meaning that it depresses economic activity. That is because the government has no money of its own. It can only spend other people's money, either by taking it (taxes) or by borrowing it. For every dollar that the government spends, it has stopped a dollar of activity somewhere else.
So, when evaluating the economic benefit of a repaired bridge we also have to figure in where that money might have gone. Did the government take money that would have been invested in the next Google? Which really helps the middle class?
Another complaint from the left is that we need the government to tame business. Left on their own, corporations are ruthless and cannot be trusted. So, the solution is for the government to keep a tight leash on them. The government will pick winners, allow them to grow, and regulate them.
Libertarians recoil in horror at this arrangement because it is so open to abuse. The bail-outs of four years ago are an example. Companies were judged too big to fail so the government saved them from bad investments. This lead other companies to demand their own bail-outs. Since them, these companies have continued to grow.
With fewer large companies and a cozy relationship between the businesses and the regulators, abuses are inevitable. Take the Libor (London InterBank Offered Rate) rates. Barclay's bank manipulated these rates and make vast sums. Regulators knew that this was going on but did little or nothing to stop it. Again, this is a sign that the regulators are too close to the organizations that they are regulating.
One solution to the too-big-to-fail problem is to let someone fail. The more executives are protected from the consequences of bad decisions the less responsible they will be. Granted, the government may still have to step in to soften the blow to the general economy but when a too-big-to-fail organization needs a bailout it should not emerge unchanged.
The financial regulation package that the Democrats passed in the wake of the 2008 crash does nothing to address this. Instead it codifies too-big-to-fail.
So, what's the fix? The first part is easy. They want to raise taxes on the rich. President Obama wants a return to the tax rates of the Clinton Administration. Others want a return to the pre-Reagan days when the highest marginal tax rate was 70%.
But what then? How will taking money from the rich build a strong middle class? What would they do with this money once they have seized it? The left is pretty quiet about this. They will sometimes speak in generalities about rebuilding the infrastructure or giving everyone free medical care or free college. There is a common thread here. Big beneficiaries will be heavily unionized labor and other groups in a close relationship with the left. The assumption is that the money will spread out from there to the rest of the middle class.
Democrats like to criticize Republicans for "trickle down economics" but this is just a variation. The main difference is an assumption that government spending is better than private spending. This is known as the multiplier effect. The idea is that the money the government spends goes to people who spend it again resulting in up to $1.60 in economic activity for each $1.00 spent.
A big flaw in this reasoning is that the multiplier effect is highly debated among economists. It may be closer to $0.60 than $1.60 meaning that it depresses economic activity. That is because the government has no money of its own. It can only spend other people's money, either by taking it (taxes) or by borrowing it. For every dollar that the government spends, it has stopped a dollar of activity somewhere else.
So, when evaluating the economic benefit of a repaired bridge we also have to figure in where that money might have gone. Did the government take money that would have been invested in the next Google? Which really helps the middle class?
---
Another complaint from the left is that we need the government to tame business. Left on their own, corporations are ruthless and cannot be trusted. So, the solution is for the government to keep a tight leash on them. The government will pick winners, allow them to grow, and regulate them.
Libertarians recoil in horror at this arrangement because it is so open to abuse. The bail-outs of four years ago are an example. Companies were judged too big to fail so the government saved them from bad investments. This lead other companies to demand their own bail-outs. Since them, these companies have continued to grow.
With fewer large companies and a cozy relationship between the businesses and the regulators, abuses are inevitable. Take the Libor (London InterBank Offered Rate) rates. Barclay's bank manipulated these rates and make vast sums. Regulators knew that this was going on but did little or nothing to stop it. Again, this is a sign that the regulators are too close to the organizations that they are regulating.
One solution to the too-big-to-fail problem is to let someone fail. The more executives are protected from the consequences of bad decisions the less responsible they will be. Granted, the government may still have to step in to soften the blow to the general economy but when a too-big-to-fail organization needs a bailout it should not emerge unchanged.
The financial regulation package that the Democrats passed in the wake of the 2008 crash does nothing to address this. Instead it codifies too-big-to-fail.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Obama's version of Birtherism
Remember Birtherism - the idea that people in the 1960s knew that some day Barack Obama would run for president of the United States so, in the 1960s, they planted stories indicating that Obama was born in Hawaii?
The Obama campaign has invented their own version of this. They are now claiming that Mitt Romney continued to control Bain Capitol after his official departure in 1999 and that he lied on SEC forms filled out in the early 2000s about his control of Bain. Why would he do this? Because he must of known back then that Bain would become a campaign issue during his 2012 run for president.
Romney's record while at Bain is pretty good. Bain bought failing companies and tried to make them profitable. 90% of companies that they bought were still in business when he left which is above average. That means that thousands of people in failing companies got to keep their jobs.
In order to tarnish Romney's record, the Obama campaign has run stories about Bain investments going bankrupt and people losing their jobs, even if these happened after Romney left Bain. The fact-checkers have been harsh on the Obama campaign for this.
In an attempt to deflect this, they pointed out that Romney continued as sole-owner and chair of Bain for years after he left the company. Factcheck looked at these claims and pronounced them all wet. They noted that stories written during Romney's tenure as head of the US Olympics noted that the job was much harder than Romney had anticipated. He was putting in 112-hour weeks and doing the work of three people. He even missed his anniversary. That didn't leave much time for him to be secretly running Bain.
Again, these articles appeared years ago. They are not a current attempt to rewrite history. That honor belongs to the Obama campaign which does not recognize the difference between owning a company and running it.
This is a basic dirty trick from the Saul Alinsky playbook. You take your opponents biggest strength (in this case Romney's business success) and turn it against him. It is also an attempt at being the first to define the candidate. The Obama campaign did the same thing to Sarah Palin over Labor Day weekend in 2008. Within three days of her introduction as the vice presidential candidate she was having to prove that her youngest child was not actually her grandson.
The Obama campaign has a mastery of dirty tricks not seen since the Nixon days. Their attacks on Romney and Bain are just the newest manifestations.
The Obama campaign has invented their own version of this. They are now claiming that Mitt Romney continued to control Bain Capitol after his official departure in 1999 and that he lied on SEC forms filled out in the early 2000s about his control of Bain. Why would he do this? Because he must of known back then that Bain would become a campaign issue during his 2012 run for president.
Romney's record while at Bain is pretty good. Bain bought failing companies and tried to make them profitable. 90% of companies that they bought were still in business when he left which is above average. That means that thousands of people in failing companies got to keep their jobs.
In order to tarnish Romney's record, the Obama campaign has run stories about Bain investments going bankrupt and people losing their jobs, even if these happened after Romney left Bain. The fact-checkers have been harsh on the Obama campaign for this.
In an attempt to deflect this, they pointed out that Romney continued as sole-owner and chair of Bain for years after he left the company. Factcheck looked at these claims and pronounced them all wet. They noted that stories written during Romney's tenure as head of the US Olympics noted that the job was much harder than Romney had anticipated. He was putting in 112-hour weeks and doing the work of three people. He even missed his anniversary. That didn't leave much time for him to be secretly running Bain.
Again, these articles appeared years ago. They are not a current attempt to rewrite history. That honor belongs to the Obama campaign which does not recognize the difference between owning a company and running it.
This is a basic dirty trick from the Saul Alinsky playbook. You take your opponents biggest strength (in this case Romney's business success) and turn it against him. It is also an attempt at being the first to define the candidate. The Obama campaign did the same thing to Sarah Palin over Labor Day weekend in 2008. Within three days of her introduction as the vice presidential candidate she was having to prove that her youngest child was not actually her grandson.
The Obama campaign has a mastery of dirty tricks not seen since the Nixon days. Their attacks on Romney and Bain are just the newest manifestations.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
The Individual Mandate - a Reminder
The Left is waging a war against the repeal of Obamacare by painting Republicans as heartless bastards who want to take people's insurance away from them. Here is a reminder about how Obamacare's individual mandate actually works.
The original goal was to keep people from being denied insurance because of preexisting conditions. In back room deals the insurance companies agreed to this as under condition that a mandate be issued to force everyone to get insurance. This includes young, healthy people who felt that they could not afford insurance or could only afford catastrophic insurance. This will add up to 30 million new people to the insurance roles, more than making up for the ones who were previously uninsurable. It also means that preexisting conditions will be a thing of the past since everyone will have insurance in the future.
In a masterful bit of spin-control, the Obama Administration used this as a selling point. Instead of forcing 30 million people to buy insurance that they did not want, Obamacare is adding insurance to 30 million who were previously uninsured.
The penalty for not being insured is a tax administered by the IRS. It was not called a tax during passage but it was argued before the Supreme Court that it is a tax. The reason for this obfuscation is that it would never have passed if they called the tax a tax.
The big winners are the insurance companies. The Democrats expected to be big winners but the law continues to be unpopular with a large number of conservatives wanting it repealed and a number of liberals wanting it strengthened.
There is a good chance that many of the uninsured will decide to pay the tax rather than buy insurance. There is a very real possibility that the penalty for non-compliance will be raised until it is cheaper to buy insurance.
The original goal was to keep people from being denied insurance because of preexisting conditions. In back room deals the insurance companies agreed to this as under condition that a mandate be issued to force everyone to get insurance. This includes young, healthy people who felt that they could not afford insurance or could only afford catastrophic insurance. This will add up to 30 million new people to the insurance roles, more than making up for the ones who were previously uninsurable. It also means that preexisting conditions will be a thing of the past since everyone will have insurance in the future.
In a masterful bit of spin-control, the Obama Administration used this as a selling point. Instead of forcing 30 million people to buy insurance that they did not want, Obamacare is adding insurance to 30 million who were previously uninsured.
The penalty for not being insured is a tax administered by the IRS. It was not called a tax during passage but it was argued before the Supreme Court that it is a tax. The reason for this obfuscation is that it would never have passed if they called the tax a tax.
The big winners are the insurance companies. The Democrats expected to be big winners but the law continues to be unpopular with a large number of conservatives wanting it repealed and a number of liberals wanting it strengthened.
There is a good chance that many of the uninsured will decide to pay the tax rather than buy insurance. There is a very real possibility that the penalty for non-compliance will be raised until it is cheaper to buy insurance.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
The Greatest Country?
A recent column by Leonard Pitts referred to an episode of HBO's The Newsroom.
So how do you decide greatness? Some of the criteria given, (literacy, life expectancy, exports, infant mortality) are questionable. I would propose that any criteria that an oil-rich Arab monarchy scores high on is invalid. Also, there is bad data in that list. American life expectancy is lower than it should be because we have a much more diverse (and violent) population than most countries. Many people (especially McAvoy's character) would normally celebrate diversity. Ethnic monocultures tend to be less violent. Factor out deaths by violence and America's life expectancy ranks among the highest. Infant mortality is another unfair measure because there is no standard for measuring it. America's standard is the toughest including many deaths that the rest of the world counts as miscarriages. We are still the world's biggest manufacturer (China isn't even a close #2).
How about freedom? McAvoy gives a list of other free countries (Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan). He shoud probably have included Australia in that list. Like Canada, it is part of the British commonwealth.
France, Germany and Japan are interesting choices. Germany and Japan are interesting choices. Both countries launched wars of expansion in the mid-20th century and are still examples of worst governments, ever. What changed them? The US conquered them and set up new governments. Not puppet governments but independent governments that are now models for freedom. France was one of the countries conquered and we helped restore the current government. Compare that with the countries that the USSR occupied during WWII.
So, the examples of other countries that are free comes down to the British Commonwealth (which we helped preserve during WWII) and governments that we helped create). Somehow that seems like a big argument for America's greatness.
There is a big difference between the US and these other countries - the Bill of Rights. Somehow we lost sight of the importance of having a set of freedoms that are well-defined and hard to change. All of these other countries have as much freedom as their governments think they need. This can be changed quickly and easily. It has also lead to some systemic problems.
France and Japan have institutionalized racism. Both have large populations of people whose parents or grandparents move there. These groups are not full citizens. In contrast, the US has millions of illegal immigrants but their children are full citizens.
France has a strange interpretation of freedom of religion. It is officially a secular country and is in the process of banning overt displays of religion. This includes head scarves worn by Muslim women and conspicuous crosses worn by Christians.
Germany is in a difficult position regarding Hitler. There, free speech stops with Hitler and Nazis. Anything from that period is banned. Recently a judge ruled that male circumcision is child-abuse outraging Jews and Muslims for whom this is considered mandatory.
Canada has banned hate speech and established tribunals that can hand down punishments for it. These have been manipulated by Islamic groups to suppress any negative mention of Islam. These tribunals have even ruled that truth is irrelevant as a defense.
The Commonwealth also has taken a puritanical approach to erotica. Canada banned violent imagery years ago. Great Britain did more recently after a gruesome kidnapping/murder. It was assumed, without any proof, that violent erotica can cause such actions. Australia followed suit with a law requiring ISPs to censor content. They have also ruled that possession of crudely-drawn pictures showing cartoon characters engaged in incest is a felony.
I am sure that McAvoy's character would celebrate all of this. The Left believes that religion is bad and should be suppressed as should hate speech and violent porn. And that is the problem. Freedom includes things that make us uncomfortable. If people are only free to do things that the ruling majority is comfortable with then they are not really free.
The US remains unique in both its character and its longevity. Most of our rivals for "greatest country" were created within living memory then they have not stood the test of time. Check back in 50 years and see how they turned out.
[...] When it is posed by a chipper college student to Will McAvoy, the dyspeptic cable news anchor played by Jeff Daniels in the new HBO series "The Newsroom," he gores that assumption with acid glee.By no standard — or at least, no standard he cares to acknowledge — does McAvoy believe America is still the world's greatest nation. Freedom? That's hardly unique, he says, noting that Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan are all free. And he ticks off a number of other measures — literacy, life expectancy, math, exports, infant mortality — by which, he says, America now lags much of the world.
Therefore, he says, America is, in fact, not the greatest nation on the planet. [...]
So how do you decide greatness? Some of the criteria given, (literacy, life expectancy, exports, infant mortality) are questionable. I would propose that any criteria that an oil-rich Arab monarchy scores high on is invalid. Also, there is bad data in that list. American life expectancy is lower than it should be because we have a much more diverse (and violent) population than most countries. Many people (especially McAvoy's character) would normally celebrate diversity. Ethnic monocultures tend to be less violent. Factor out deaths by violence and America's life expectancy ranks among the highest. Infant mortality is another unfair measure because there is no standard for measuring it. America's standard is the toughest including many deaths that the rest of the world counts as miscarriages. We are still the world's biggest manufacturer (China isn't even a close #2).
How about freedom? McAvoy gives a list of other free countries (Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan). He shoud probably have included Australia in that list. Like Canada, it is part of the British commonwealth.
France, Germany and Japan are interesting choices. Germany and Japan are interesting choices. Both countries launched wars of expansion in the mid-20th century and are still examples of worst governments, ever. What changed them? The US conquered them and set up new governments. Not puppet governments but independent governments that are now models for freedom. France was one of the countries conquered and we helped restore the current government. Compare that with the countries that the USSR occupied during WWII.
So, the examples of other countries that are free comes down to the British Commonwealth (which we helped preserve during WWII) and governments that we helped create). Somehow that seems like a big argument for America's greatness.
There is a big difference between the US and these other countries - the Bill of Rights. Somehow we lost sight of the importance of having a set of freedoms that are well-defined and hard to change. All of these other countries have as much freedom as their governments think they need. This can be changed quickly and easily. It has also lead to some systemic problems.
France and Japan have institutionalized racism. Both have large populations of people whose parents or grandparents move there. These groups are not full citizens. In contrast, the US has millions of illegal immigrants but their children are full citizens.
France has a strange interpretation of freedom of religion. It is officially a secular country and is in the process of banning overt displays of religion. This includes head scarves worn by Muslim women and conspicuous crosses worn by Christians.
Germany is in a difficult position regarding Hitler. There, free speech stops with Hitler and Nazis. Anything from that period is banned. Recently a judge ruled that male circumcision is child-abuse outraging Jews and Muslims for whom this is considered mandatory.
Canada has banned hate speech and established tribunals that can hand down punishments for it. These have been manipulated by Islamic groups to suppress any negative mention of Islam. These tribunals have even ruled that truth is irrelevant as a defense.
The Commonwealth also has taken a puritanical approach to erotica. Canada banned violent imagery years ago. Great Britain did more recently after a gruesome kidnapping/murder. It was assumed, without any proof, that violent erotica can cause such actions. Australia followed suit with a law requiring ISPs to censor content. They have also ruled that possession of crudely-drawn pictures showing cartoon characters engaged in incest is a felony.
I am sure that McAvoy's character would celebrate all of this. The Left believes that religion is bad and should be suppressed as should hate speech and violent porn. And that is the problem. Freedom includes things that make us uncomfortable. If people are only free to do things that the ruling majority is comfortable with then they are not really free.
The US remains unique in both its character and its longevity. Most of our rivals for "greatest country" were created within living memory then they have not stood the test of time. Check back in 50 years and see how they turned out.
Thursday, July 05, 2012
America and Slavery
Over the 4th, Chris Rock sent out this Tweet:
Happy white peoples independence day. The slaves weren't free but I'm sure they enjoyed fireworks.
While it is true that the Declaration of Independence did not free the slaves, there were no fireworks for some time. First the fledgling United States had to fight and win the American Revolutionary War (aka The War of American Independence). It was a long and brutal war.
I will agree that the war did not help the slaves but something to keep in mind is that it was the British government that allowed slavery to become institutionalized in the colonies. That happened in the second half of the 17th century when there was no question about the colonists being English.
Slavery was not one of the causes for the revolution, either. The English were quite happy for it to continue as long as the mother country made a profit from it. In fact, by discouraging any industry except farming, the British encouraged slavery. Worse, they were often the ones selling the slaves to the colonists.
Jefferson originally included a harsh condemnation of slavery in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence.
This was removed from the final version at the urging of the southern colonies whose economies were dependent on slavery.
So, does Chris Rock think that the slaves would have been better off if the colonies had continued under the British government?
Note - it is true that the British Empire outlawed slavery before America did but in a monstrous bit of hypocrisy, they supported the South in the Civil War.
Happy white peoples independence day. The slaves weren't free but I'm sure they enjoyed fireworks.
While it is true that the Declaration of Independence did not free the slaves, there were no fireworks for some time. First the fledgling United States had to fight and win the American Revolutionary War (aka The War of American Independence). It was a long and brutal war.
I will agree that the war did not help the slaves but something to keep in mind is that it was the British government that allowed slavery to become institutionalized in the colonies. That happened in the second half of the 17th century when there was no question about the colonists being English.
Slavery was not one of the causes for the revolution, either. The English were quite happy for it to continue as long as the mother country made a profit from it. In fact, by discouraging any industry except farming, the British encouraged slavery. Worse, they were often the ones selling the slaves to the colonists.
Jefferson originally included a harsh condemnation of slavery in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence.
He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
This was removed from the final version at the urging of the southern colonies whose economies were dependent on slavery.
So, does Chris Rock think that the slaves would have been better off if the colonies had continued under the British government?
Note - it is true that the British Empire outlawed slavery before America did but in a monstrous bit of hypocrisy, they supported the South in the Civil War.
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
The Obama Campaign Takes Shape
A month ago articles were predicting how the campaign would go. So far Obama's campaign is following the playbook. This breaks down two ways.
The first is a divide and conquer approach. The Obama campaign has identified the groups most likely to turn out and vote for the President. They are being heavily courted. The biggest group is Hispanics. Four years ago they voted for Obama in record numbers and the Obama campaign assumes that they will deliver states with large Hispanic populations like California. Other important groups are single women, college students and voters under 30.
The Obama Campaign's approach to these groups varies. The "Life of Julia" web site was aimed at unmarried women. His harping on student loan rate is aimed at college students (BTW, you would never know from the hysteria that we are only talking about $10/month on new loans). His executive order establishing the DREAM Act was his most blatant pander.
As the incumbent, Obama has many tools that allow him to pander to these groups. His executive order was only one of them. Still, that may not be enough. Both NBC and Huffington Post ran stories about the lack of enthusiasm this time among the under-30-year-olds. This has been a traditionally difficult group to motivate to vote. As a young, cool, black candidate in 2008, Obama brought them to the polls in record numbers. He is unlikely to repeat that. The other groups have cooled on him also and Romney is targeting them in the hope of increasing his support. Romney doesn't have to win any of these groups, he just has to do better than McCain.
The other part of Obama's campaign comes down to one word - lie. He is lying about Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts. He is lying about Bain Capitol. The fact-checkers are getting increasingly harsher on the Obama Campaign because they keep repeating charges that have been judged false.
But Obama does not stop there. He recently sent out a letter worrying that he will be the first incumbent president outspent by a challenger. This is another lie. He continues to insist that he is fiscally conservative.
Of course all of this is meant as a distraction. The last thing Obama wants to do is to run on his record. Under him the economy has languished, we continue to be involved in wars with no workable solution, and civil rights abuses have been strengthened instead of rolled back.
So Obama will continue to tear down Romney and to encourage turn-out by groups like to vote for him.
The first is a divide and conquer approach. The Obama campaign has identified the groups most likely to turn out and vote for the President. They are being heavily courted. The biggest group is Hispanics. Four years ago they voted for Obama in record numbers and the Obama campaign assumes that they will deliver states with large Hispanic populations like California. Other important groups are single women, college students and voters under 30.
The Obama Campaign's approach to these groups varies. The "Life of Julia" web site was aimed at unmarried women. His harping on student loan rate is aimed at college students (BTW, you would never know from the hysteria that we are only talking about $10/month on new loans). His executive order establishing the DREAM Act was his most blatant pander.
As the incumbent, Obama has many tools that allow him to pander to these groups. His executive order was only one of them. Still, that may not be enough. Both NBC and Huffington Post ran stories about the lack of enthusiasm this time among the under-30-year-olds. This has been a traditionally difficult group to motivate to vote. As a young, cool, black candidate in 2008, Obama brought them to the polls in record numbers. He is unlikely to repeat that. The other groups have cooled on him also and Romney is targeting them in the hope of increasing his support. Romney doesn't have to win any of these groups, he just has to do better than McCain.
The other part of Obama's campaign comes down to one word - lie. He is lying about Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts. He is lying about Bain Capitol. The fact-checkers are getting increasingly harsher on the Obama Campaign because they keep repeating charges that have been judged false.
But Obama does not stop there. He recently sent out a letter worrying that he will be the first incumbent president outspent by a challenger. This is another lie. He continues to insist that he is fiscally conservative.
Of course all of this is meant as a distraction. The last thing Obama wants to do is to run on his record. Under him the economy has languished, we continue to be involved in wars with no workable solution, and civil rights abuses have been strengthened instead of rolled back.
So Obama will continue to tear down Romney and to encourage turn-out by groups like to vote for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)