Let's Talk About Guns.

I really want a Corvette. I have really wanted one ever since I can remember. I know there are people out there who would think "Why does anyone need a car like that?" Or "Nobody needs a car that goes that fast." Or even "Someone could steal and lose control of a car like that and hit a bus and kill 20 kids." True. But still. I am a law abiding citizen, and I really want one.

After the horrible atrocity that occurred in Newtown Connecticut in our recent past, I was sure "gun control" would come front and center, and in very short fashion. And it has.

Why is it, I ask, that the guys who were smart enough to write the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, - the Articles, suddenly became brain-dead when it came to the Amendment that they all found so important (only after Freedom of Speech, Religion etc.) to make it the SECOND Amendment? Why were they so totally off the mark on this?

It always amazes me that most of the public would have an absolute fit if we tried to alter or abridge the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 13th, or 20th Amendment, but don't have any problem at all with destroying or at least dismantling the 2nd Amendment. Here's a question; If we don't have any weapons, how are we supposed to organize and arm a militia? And who pray tell do we think we will be organizing this militia against? Squirrels? Deer? No, dear readers, the cops. The military. That's who our Founding Fathers wanted us to be ready to take on. Please, let me refer you to The Battle of Athens (Tennessee 1946). I don't think the Founding Fathers cared how advanced the technology became, I believe they expected us, as good citizens, to keep up. When the cops and the military give up 30 round clips, we will too.

I teach a class on cognitive restructuring to prisoners called "Thinking For A Change". In it, the main thrust of the class is to make them understand that whenever they make a decision based on emotion, it is always, always, always the wrong one. And now that's what Congress and the Country is doing. They are making decisions based on emotion. And guess what? These decisions are the wrong ones.

The big problem with gun control legislation is that it only affects law-abiding citizens. See, not to be condescending, but criminals don't obey the law. That's why they are criminals. So only criminals will have assault rifles. Except not. Because there are already hundreds of thousands of them out there, and the mere talk of this kind of legislation has fueled the sale of hundreds of thousands more. I work with people that didn't have any a month ago, but now own two.

The school in Newtown CT was "gun free zone." Essentially there was already a gun law in affect there. But the criminal didn't obey the law. The law-abiding citizens in there did and were helpless. And ever notice that well over half the time these whack-jobs pick spots where they are relatively certain they won't meet any armed resistance? Shopping Malls, theaters, schools, and Churches, all seem to be favorite spots for the wing-nuts. Because they like the fact that they can shoot and they don't have to worry about return fire. In Michigan there are many places where licensed concealed weapons carriers cannot carry.

What about more background checks? Why? And what will that prove? With the possible exception of the Gabby Gifford shooter and the Colorado Theater shooter, most of these wing-nuts would easily pass a background check. The military base shooter was a Psychologist for crying out loud.

Limiting clip size is another case of legislators who don't understand basic weaponry passing laws about it. Like with any clip, one just takes two of them and duct tapes them together. With practice and adeptness one can smoothly reverse the clip in under a second. For that matter, most experienced shooters can change to a new clip in a little over a second. Furthermore, what legislators might want to consider is that by eliminating assault rifles they may be making things a bit more dangerous. If these kooks can't get an assault rifle and opt for a shotgun, God help up all. Many people are under the impression that assault rifles are the most deadly thing out there. Not even close. If the shooter in Newtown would have taken the right shotgun with double-aught buckshot, there would have been no survivors at all in that school. He might've taken out every living soul on the entire block.

So maybe having people in the school armed is not such a bad idea. I don't mean teachers should be in front of the class with a side arm on. But how about a built in reinforced lock box in a drawer of their desk? This could be on a volunteer basis, and the key could be kept on their person at all times. In the event they hear shooting, and pandemonium outside of their class room, they may be able to save some children. They would be properly trained and would have to take the weapon home each night.

People often say "Is that the kind of America you want to live in? Where teachers, administrators and others have weapons?" My answer is no. I want it to be Mayberry everywhere. But sadly, it isn't. Life isn't what we wish it was. There are always going to be crazy people. But because there are, the rest of the entire population shouldn't be punished or denied rights.

And just as aggravating are the right-wingers that hear the President say he may issue an executive order that calls for more vigorous enforcement of existing laws and then they start screaming "He wants to take our guns!" Where does that come from? Ironically, the President is a proponent of the Second Amendment according to one of his Harvard professors. By Executive Order he can call for the more vigorous enforcement, and he can call for more sophisticated background checks. Big deal. But as far as banning assault weapons or clip size, that will have to go through the House of Representatives aka the Republican Party. Let's see how that goes...how they vote for it and then spin it back on the President.

I think it's time to buy a gun. And by the way the new corvette can attain speeds to 190 miles per hour. Nobody needs to go that fast. But I want one. I may want to hurry down to Tennessee to learn more about The Battle of Athens. Maybe you should too.

Steven

Whenever I see one of the two or three black reporters FOX News have managed to dredge up, I think of the Samuel L. Jackson character in "Django Unchained."

The Leap of Faith - But Not the Public Faith

"Hold on" said Thelma to Louise as they went over. "Where is that Ripcord, again?" thought Evel Knevel as he was airborne over the Snake River Canyon. My wife puts on a grin when she's at the top of The Dragster at Cedar Point, about to plummet 420 feet at a 90˚ angle at speeds of up to 120 miles an hour. But supposedly, the Republicans are more daring than any of that.

Why are they more daring? Because of their willingness to go over the fiscal cliff - that is, allowing an end to the tax breaks and spending cuts - they are risking more than anyone. And that isn't just me thinking that they are going to be the villains here. It's most Americans.

"Democrats are in a strong position with the public" declares yesterday's Pew Research Center report. The new national poll released yesterday revealed some interesting things. Among them that the public views President Obama making the most serious effort to avoid the fiscal cliff - at 55%. How many think Republican leaders are making a serious effort? 32%. Are any alarms going off yet Repubs?

President Obama's first post reelection job approval rating has risen to 55%, up 5 points since July and 11 points since the start of the year. Obama's job rating is quite a bit higher than President George W. Bush's first job measure after he "won" reelection in 2004. (48%)

53% to 33% of the public sees the Republican Party, rather than the Democrats, as "more extreme in it's positions." Ah, and those Tea Baggers still think they are so damn smart.

Democrats are seen as "more willing to work with leaders of the other party" by roughly a 2 to 1 margin (53% to 27%)

This kind of reminds me of the polls Pew did for The Washington Post in November and in early December. 53% said the Republicans would be more to blame than the Democrats, and a mere 27% said the Democrats were more to blame for going over the Fiscal Cliff and the impending economic repercussions.

It would seem that the Tea Baggers and the other Republican extremists still don't get it.  They are not the heroes they think they are. The people see through the political nonsense. They are dragging the Republican party deeper into the muck. It's the Republicans fault because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to kick the pitiful dummies out onto the street. They are not "visionaries". They don't have the gumption to form their own party, so they just leech off another. It's obvious that they don't watch polls and realize they (the Republicans) are coming off as the villains.

I know, I know. They will come up with their usual tired lying excuses. "Pew Research Center is part of the liberal media." ("Liberal media" is anyone who doesn't agree whole-heartedly with them.) What else do you pitiful excuses for human beings have?

Keep it up. Please keep it up. If you want to keep losing, stay on course!

Cliff Notes

Here's an idea: The next time the Detroit Lions play, they should be able to decide exactly where they would like the ball placed on the field at the start of every first down. "Ref, could you please place the ball on their one yard line?" That would be the dream of every team, to decide where the ball is. (In the case of the Lions, they would still lose).

John Boehner, with his "Igor" Eric Cantor at his side, in the basement of the Capitol the other day, declared essentially that the ball was now in the court of the President and the Congressional Democrats before wishing everyone a Merry Christmas and sending them home for the holidays. Really John? Who told you and your impotent cronies get to decide where the ball is placed? Nice try, sir, but no, the ball is still now more than ever in your court. To send everyone home in the midst of all this was not only misguided but irresponsible. And Mr. Boehner you know it.

John Boehner realizes that he does not have the upper hand here and he seems to be sincerely willing to strike a deal. He knows how to politic. He gets how it works. But his beloved GOP has not caught on yet. He gave up on his power plan A and went to a compromising Plan B. This plan required a tax increase for zillionaires but in exchange it demanded a $3.00 decrease in spending for every new dollar of revenue. Did the President or the Democrats have a chance to shoot this one down? No. Boehner could not even muster enough votes among Republicans to pass Plan B. We should have known. Back when raising the debt ceiling talks were going on a plan was offered to cut $10 in spending for every dollar of increased revenue, and the Repubs turned their noses up at it, costing the USA an A-1 credit rating. Once again, the legitimate Republican party is being held hostage by the Tea Baggers who are scared to death to be viewed as having helped to raise taxes.

And can I just say a word about taxes for a minute? Folks, it costs money to live in the greatest country on Earth. Why do the ultimate welfare moms.... aka Republicans.... want to have the best of everything and not want to pay for it?

But I digress. The point is, Boehner and the others have to be willing to do more, and yes give up some of their Norquist ideology to keep this mess from happening. Because ultimately they are going to lose this one anyway. Unless they figure out a way of graceful concession, they could come out looking like villians. They are also very mindful of the fact the the President was re-elected by some fairly substantial numbers.

Here, Republican friends, is another thing to consider. Let's say we go over this "cliff". On January 2nd the President enters a bill to give the middle class the tax break he wants right now, and offers no spending cuts. Sure Boehner and the boys could stop it in the House, but then what? Vote against lowering taxes? How will that play to the voters?

The Republicans have a chance to avoid all that. They should make a deal now. They should take the $3 in spending cuts, and be able to walk away from the table with something they can brag to their constituencies about.

Tick-tock Repubs. The ball is very much in your court.

Let's Make the Repubs a Deal.

You guys get rid of Lindsey Graham, and we'll get rid of Diane Feinstein. Each seem equally obnoxious. Seems like a fair deal. Please give this serious consideration. Thank you.

Congratulating Themselves For Their Loss

So the latest is that the Romney camp are all slapping fives because they "won" the specific demographics that they set out to win. Are any of them letting that ugly "but we lost" elephant into the room? Apparently not.

A recent ariticle in Slate.com points out at how ecstatic the Romney folks are about capturing the selected targets they set out to win. This is a bit like Doctors congratulating themselves over how successful the operation was even though the patient's dead.

The Romney folks are thrilled because they won the over $50 K a year crowd, White Women, Whites Under 30, and Independents. But I could make an argument that none of that is necessarily true. But even so, when are these folks gonna realize that their perspective of America is a warped perspective and they are so out of touch that unless the GOP seriously re-tools, they may never win another Presidential election. (In the not too distant future, a wealthy old white guy will never have a chance. You are going to be seeing the last of white Presidents in your life-time. And just for the way Obama's been treated, I hope I never see another white President.) See, even though they might have (doubtful) won in these categories, these categories can't win you the election. I have said it before and I'll say it again: Romney ran a masterful, perfect campaign......if it was 1959.

Let's look at this stuff.

1. Incomes Over $50K.
The Romney folks claim they won the $50K-$100K crowd by 6 points. Romney's chief strategist Stuart Stevens actually bragged that "to get middle class America we must be doing something right." If they would actually bother to check (US Census Data) they'd discover that 49.8% of Americans have less than $50K a year in household income. So, to me, that doesn't necessarily mean they wooed the the middle class, but that they really don't know who the middle class is.

2. Whites Under 30.
Stevens brags "While John McCain lost white voters younger than 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by 7 points - a 17 point shift." However, joint national exit polling showed that President Obama beat Romney 60% to 36% among voters under 30. So where does the Romney camp get the brass to claim a victory? Simple. Don't count minorities. Those pesky brown and black folks sure can be a pain in the side to old white guys who are only concerned about protecting the wealthy. Almost 40% of voters under 30 were black or latino.

3. White Women.
Glen Bolger (of Public Opinion Strategies- the ones who polled for the Romney Super PAC) didn't think the Republicans had any problem with women. "The first thing I want to point out about the exit polls is that Mitt Romney won among white women by 14 points - 56% to 42%....so next time you hear Republicans are struggling with 'women', push back with that. Yes, the GOP is getting killed with minority women - 4% with black women, 23% with latino women - but the whole "war on women cost Romney the election" is simply not true."
Oh yeah? Let's look at those pesky exit polls again. Among white women Romney was 6 points worse than among white men. Latino women 10 points worse than latino men. Romney won by 7 points among men. So it seems like there's some kind of disconnect between women and the GOP. And it appears not to be exclusively a minorities problem.

4. Independents
Romney did well with independents. He won the battle but lost the war. He captured independents by 5 points, giving him a 1.5% advantage in the overall vote - but that wasn't enough to overcome the fact that most people are Democrats and when everybody votes, Democrats win. Dems outnumbered Repubs 38% - 32% at the polls.

So although the Romney camp won all of the groups they targeted to win, and are bragging about it, they still haven't realized that the groups they felt were key, weren't really key at all. Not enough to win the election anyhow. The Republicans went after the vote of white women. Why white women? Because you know, white women are the only ones that count. Keep thinking like that GOP and the struggles are only beginning. As I have said before, the Republicans can disenfranchise blacks, latinos, surplus Democrats, gays, people that earn less than $50K a year, all they want. But they won't win the big ones doing that. America is changing. The GOP is still staggering in a "what happened?" stupor. But sooner or later they will have to realize that we are all Americans and we all count.

And Mitt, this wasn't about "gifts". You played the same game as the President. He just chose to have more folks on his team.

And finally I have to end with a quote from the astute and wise William Murgan who posted on Facebook: "I've been away for awhile....How did that whole 'take back our country' thing work out?"

Is There Something in Your Eye?

Okay the other side hasn't exactly blinked, but it seems like they are developing a twitch in an eyelid.

Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist, has pretty much hand-cuffed Congress by bamboozling 38 Republican Senators, and a boatload of Republican House members into signing his pledge that they will never vote to raise taxes. But in the last few days the no tax hike levee is beginning to show cracks.

Within the last few days Senator Saxley Chambliss of Georgia has raised more than a little  doubt about the wisdom of signing the stupid short-sighted pledge. Norquist's "Americans For Tax Reform", are beginning to get backlash from signers who are faced with the reality of the numbers. It is, as it turns out, all about arithmetic.

Many GOP freshmen have recently rejected the idea that they are actually bound by the document. Out on the campaign trail "no taxes" may have a nice ring to it, but once elected and faced with the reality of the numbers, it becomes evident that cuts alone won't do the trick.

Although Chambliss is up for re-election in 2014 and will face the inevitable wrath of Norquist and his goons, he has elected to stand on principle. Chambliss has stated that Norquist has no answers and in fact will stand in the way of ever really containing the ballooning debt. The Senator says that he's "willing to do the right thing and let the political consequences take care of themselves."

At last. A Republican voting country over party. If a few more do this, and am going to call it a full scale blink.