Reported, the Koch brothers are ready to spend $900 Million dollars in the 2016 campaign. PS, they can afford it out of small change.
Presumably, all sorts of sugar daddies on the right and not just a few sugar daddies on the left (together with lots of-who cares-but-we-have-a-special-interest-ites will add a garnish to the repast.)
Reportedly, the ability to target specific voters has advanced by leaps and bounds over the last 3 years.
The problem with this is that advertisers, consultants and general riff-raff are going to hog the money. Mind you, the money WILL get spent, for we as Americans have proved time and again that we are generally stupid and willing to sell our votes to those who pay the most for them.
How can we get the money to people who truly deserve it? NOBODY likes political lobbyists. We may tolerate them as a necessary evil, but like them? Not happening.
What is the AMERICAN answer?
It’s to adopt the spirit of Ebay!
Let''s take the $900 Million. They are going to buy a bunch of votes. In 2012, 126 million votes were cast. In 2013, the Koch boys are willing to spend $7.14 for each and every one of us. And if they are looking for just a healthy majority, a convincing win can be had had for THIRTEEN BUCKS a vote. Think of it – The majority of us can get something like $13 for something we’re willing to give up for FREE.
America needs a bold new election paradigm. (Geez, I love that word, “paradigm.”) If we are the whore to the Koch’s/Soro’s/Whoever’s johns, it’s time to cash in.
I figure it’ll take about $1.20 to cover the administrative costs of buying a vote. And the Koch’s, etc., should be rewarded for saving money and sticking it to the political class, so lets let them retain 90 or so cents from every transaction. That leaves a cool Eleven Dollars for you and me to do what they tell us.
Do you know what you can gets for Eleven Bucks? That’s a venti-latte AND a big, serious muffin at Starbucks; it’s TWO magazines, like Field & Stream, Time, The National Review or The New Republic: it’s modest meal for two at Burger Chef. We’re talking real money. And if we are going to sell our votes, by Golly, WE DESERVE THE MONEY.
So my modest proposal is for the Koch boys, etc., each to set up a website to offer to buy votes. After all, if we do this honestly and as a purely commercial transaction, everybody profits!
Perhaps the Koch’s/Soros’, etc., won’t trust us to deliver the votes. No problem. We vote absentee, give powers-of-attorney to the buyers to cast our ballots and give the buyers’ addresses for the county clerks to send the absentee ballots. In the modern era, no little thing like a declaration that the voter actually voted is going to be prosecuted.
Then, we cash our $11 bucks - or, better, let them send us CASH - and enjoy it. After all, we’ve already decided the hell with the United States, so we’re just negotiating a reasonable fee.
HEY, WAIT A MINUTE, THIS WILL WORK FOR EARTH DAY!
Earth Day is this Wednesday. It started as a environmental weenie holiday, but has since become cool because it’s commercializes responsibility.
(Ah, I well remember the very first Earth Day in 1970. We celebrated by blowing up a beaver dam of particularly obnoxious rodents. Damn, were the beavers’ pissed.)
Litter bothers everyone, supposedly, but we throw away junk all the time.
So in the spirit of free enterprise, every time you litter, also throw a quarter out the window. Then, the poor putzes who care about such things will have a little additional incentive to wipe our figurative asses.
Remember - CASH is King!
07 March 2015
Universal Weapons Possession - An Idea Whose Time Will Never Come: Or, Is That a Six-gun In Your Pocket?
West Virginia is about to have no restrictions for people to carry firearms - open or concealed - except for people who are already federally disqualified by 18 USC 922.
Lord, protect us from people who are certain that they are right.
The West Virginia Legislature – both houses – now have a Republican majority. In the House of Delegates, it is a nearly veto-proof majority. So far, the world has not come to an end. The parties come, the parties go. And we have just exchanged one group of vain, self-righteous and not-particularly bright individuals for another. The all for Truth, Justice and the American Way, or their version of it.
The Republican majority is doing a lot of odd things. They still have not found their base. Or, perhaps, they have misidentified their base, just as the Democrats have done over the last 10 years.
This is just the current version of pandering to the yellow-dog partisan. Usually, it’s in reference to a “yellow-dog Democrat,” who will vote for the party’s nominee automatically. But in truth, the Republicans have every bit as much party loyalty as Democrats. They just disguise the fact by voting in each separate race – for the Republicans, naturally – than voting a straight ticket. At least a lot of Democrats have conceded that they trust the party more than themselves.
By the West Virginia Constitution, we have "A . . . right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State . . ."
Self-defense is a natural right of mankind. The Devil is in the details. Even after the bill passes, you won't be able to carry a rocket launcher for home defense. Few intelligent people have any doubt about the right - and wisdom - of self-defense.
Free speech is a natural right of mankind. That doesn't stop some governments from banning speech which they don't like, but sedition laws do not destroy the right. It's "only " wrongfully restricted.
The same applies to religion. Handle snakes, keep non-Muslims out of Mecca or declare that there is no God. Constitutionally, it’s all the same to me. If you want me to give you my version of religion, just ask me. If you don't, then don't ask me. What could be easier? The headache comes when others demand that you believe as they do, whether you want to or not.
The right to travel freely is another natural right of mankind. Contrary to what the DMV says, a driver’s license is a right, not a privilege. To exercise the right, you have to show minimal competency – training. And you can choose to do certain bad things which will restrict that right.
So what tentative lessons might we draw from this?
A – Don't harm others with speech. That's easily accomplished - Do not cry “Fire” in a crowded theater. Be advised, however, that in some parts of the world, you might get a fatwa slapped on you anyway.
B - Keep your snakes inside. Don't push a particular religious viewpoint as a requirement to participate in government. (Of course this is under attack. Did you think that everyone is rational?)
C - If you drive a motor vehicle, stay on the right side of the road. A driver"s license says that you have at least heard about the rule and that you didn't mess up when you had the driving test. It's annoying to go to the DMV. But you have to put up with just a little to live in an organized society.
What the current system of conceal weapons permits does is require that someone actually demonstrate how to handle a gun. (Actually, the training takes considerably less time that learning to drive a car.) But you have had training. (I don’t think that the current training requirement is anything like enough. But it’s something.)
If you haven't learned to drive, you may cause an
accident. If you handle weapons ineptly, this is the chance you take: Unexpectedly, a dense piece of metal will be accelerated to somewhere near the sound barrier and head off in who-knows-what direction.
With the change, more people will carry firearms. I doubt it if it's as many as the anti-gun crowd thinks, but I could be wrong. Those additional people will included folks who don't know to stay on the right side of the roadway and who are clueless about the safe handling of weapons. In a year or two of the new way of doing things, you’ll be able to separate the know’s versus the beat’s-me’s. The beat's-me will have dirty weapons (because they can't take them apart), stick a gun in a waistband but not with a holster and do other stupid things.
When this passes – and it will – No. 3 Equity Court will be posted, "No guns allowed.” I do not consider that people who carry under the rules currently existing are much of a threat. And anyway, a sign won’t stop anyone intent on harm. But I’m not having some fumble-fingered idiot packing a weapon into my office.
Also, greater part of people who own or lease building are going to post their buildings “No guns allowed.” A weapon left in your car does not protect anybody, but neither will some projectile which come out of it accidentally. I conclude that an untrained idiot is more of a danger than a bad guy. Sad, isn’t it?
And we’re back to the fact that the Republican Party has not recognized its base. The extreme right is not a base, anymore than the extreme left is a base to the Democrats. (One reason that the Republicans are in control of the Legislature is that the Democrats forgot that lesson more than the Republicans did.) Your base has to be the moderates. These are the people who are able to apply some thought to what is reasonable and what is not a reasonable trade-off for living in an organized organized society. How much is that? The Devil is in the details.
Note to my friends in the Legislature: Vain, self-righteous and not-particularly bright? I wasn't referring to you. And I didn't include any mention of your ability to successfully hide your own Easter eggs.
Lord, protect us from people who are certain that they are right.
The West Virginia Legislature – both houses – now have a Republican majority. In the House of Delegates, it is a nearly veto-proof majority. So far, the world has not come to an end. The parties come, the parties go. And we have just exchanged one group of vain, self-righteous and not-particularly bright individuals for another. The all for Truth, Justice and the American Way, or their version of it.
The Republican majority is doing a lot of odd things. They still have not found their base. Or, perhaps, they have misidentified their base, just as the Democrats have done over the last 10 years.
This is just the current version of pandering to the yellow-dog partisan. Usually, it’s in reference to a “yellow-dog Democrat,” who will vote for the party’s nominee automatically. But in truth, the Republicans have every bit as much party loyalty as Democrats. They just disguise the fact by voting in each separate race – for the Republicans, naturally – than voting a straight ticket. At least a lot of Democrats have conceded that they trust the party more than themselves.
By the West Virginia Constitution, we have "A . . . right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State . . ."
Free speech is a natural right of mankind. That doesn't stop some governments from banning speech which they don't like, but sedition laws do not destroy the right. It's "only " wrongfully restricted.
The same applies to religion. Handle snakes, keep non-Muslims out of Mecca or declare that there is no God. Constitutionally, it’s all the same to me. If you want me to give you my version of religion, just ask me. If you don't, then don't ask me. What could be easier? The headache comes when others demand that you believe as they do, whether you want to or not.
The right to travel freely is another natural right of mankind. Contrary to what the DMV says, a driver’s license is a right, not a privilege. To exercise the right, you have to show minimal competency – training. And you can choose to do certain bad things which will restrict that right.
So what tentative lessons might we draw from this?
A – Don't harm others with speech. That's easily accomplished - Do not cry “Fire” in a crowded theater. Be advised, however, that in some parts of the world, you might get a fatwa slapped on you anyway.
B - Keep your snakes inside. Don't push a particular religious viewpoint as a requirement to participate in government. (Of course this is under attack. Did you think that everyone is rational?)
C - If you drive a motor vehicle, stay on the right side of the road. A driver"s license says that you have at least heard about the rule and that you didn't mess up when you had the driving test. It's annoying to go to the DMV. But you have to put up with just a little to live in an organized society.
What the current system of conceal weapons permits does is require that someone actually demonstrate how to handle a gun. (Actually, the training takes considerably less time that learning to drive a car.) But you have had training. (I don’t think that the current training requirement is anything like enough. But it’s something.)
If you haven't learned to drive, you may cause an
accident. If you handle weapons ineptly, this is the chance you take: Unexpectedly, a dense piece of metal will be accelerated to somewhere near the sound barrier and head off in who-knows-what direction.
With the change, more people will carry firearms. I doubt it if it's as many as the anti-gun crowd thinks, but I could be wrong. Those additional people will included folks who don't know to stay on the right side of the roadway and who are clueless about the safe handling of weapons. In a year or two of the new way of doing things, you’ll be able to separate the know’s versus the beat’s-me’s. The beat's-me will have dirty weapons (because they can't take them apart), stick a gun in a waistband but not with a holster and do other stupid things.
When this passes – and it will – No. 3 Equity Court will be posted, "No guns allowed.” I do not consider that people who carry under the rules currently existing are much of a threat. And anyway, a sign won’t stop anyone intent on harm. But I’m not having some fumble-fingered idiot packing a weapon into my office.
Also, greater part of people who own or lease building are going to post their buildings “No guns allowed.” A weapon left in your car does not protect anybody, but neither will some projectile which come out of it accidentally. I conclude that an untrained idiot is more of a danger than a bad guy. Sad, isn’t it?
And we’re back to the fact that the Republican Party has not recognized its base. The extreme right is not a base, anymore than the extreme left is a base to the Democrats. (One reason that the Republicans are in control of the Legislature is that the Democrats forgot that lesson more than the Republicans did.) Your base has to be the moderates. These are the people who are able to apply some thought to what is reasonable and what is not a reasonable trade-off for living in an organized organized society. How much is that? The Devil is in the details.
Note to my friends in the Legislature: Vain, self-righteous and not-particularly bright? I wasn't referring to you. And I didn't include any mention of your ability to successfully hide your own Easter eggs.
01 March 2015
Only Crazy Voters Need Apply; or, The Disappearing Moderate
“The silliness has started.” People have been saying that about the ever-earlier start of the presidential sweepstakes. I dimly, dimly remember my father complaining about that it the 1956 campaign.
It’s not silly any more. We can’t make light of it. In 2016, Americans voters (well, the 50% who vote) may have a choice that will - and should - be scaring the hell out of them.
I don’t intend this post to be partisan. Few people seem to know it, but we’ve gotten beyond what good things partisanship ever did. I am a Democrat. I have been for 30 years. From my standpoint, the Republican party left me. And now that the ideological purists have taken over Democratic policy, the Dems are likewise doing their best to leave me behind.
Once - maybe until the 80's - American political thought was on a more-or-less bell curve.
LEFT RIGHT
Most people were “moderates.” Even with a zero-sum issue (e.g., abortion), there was room to respect that thinking people could come up with a viewpoint not your own. Discussion was possible. Usually, you ended up not solving much, but at least there was a modicum of good will remaining. Even when the end collusion was simply “We’ve got a hell of a problem,” people agreed that the subject is a problem.
Now, we are headed toward an inverted bell curve.
LEFT RIGHT
Respect has gone out of style. Compromise is an evil, it’s making a deal with the Devil. And so, when a party gets a 51% majority, the party thinks “Screw the other 45%. After all, they are wrong. Screw ‘em. We don’t need them. Our ideological purity will create a just society."
And then, the 49% look to attract another 2% to come over to the Dark Side. And once enough come, suddenly the sun rises and the new-51% can return purity to America.
The physical world provides a simple example. Nothing is the physical world is flawless. Nothing - no product, no procedure, no design, no execution. “Perfect Circle” brand piston rings are not perfect circles. Maybe they are accurate to a tolerance of 0.01 mm, but they aren’t perfect. One can try to make something “more perfect” by using either a positive or negative approach. The positive is more incremental. The negative is quicker. But the catch: A system which uses negative feedback for control is liable to oscillate wildly.
Hmmm - This post does not have any pizzazz. I’ve intentionally not gotten ‘round to citing examples that you can be appropriately shocked and dismayed. I suppose this is some sort of management theory, and it’s DULL.
I do wish that reality were more fun.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin presents himself as a tough-guy. So do those who want him to succeed for their own reasons. We like tough-guys. Clint Eastwood. Outlaw motorcycle clubs. Jack Reacher.
Walker is well known for having stared down and broken some unions in Wisconsin. He says he’s ready for the presidency. I doubt whether Gov. Walker has ever really encountered mujahideen. But he says he’s ready for ‘em. After all, he has stared down a UNION. (I do not know whether he is aware of the difference between Shia and Sunni, but I wouldn’t bet the house on it.) He has said specifically that experience qualified him to battle ISIS:
“If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe.”
I don’t even know how make a joke about this moronic bushwah. I hope that he was drunk.
Oh, my, in my mind I can hear someone saying that there a really no differences between a union full of pissed off people and dangerous nutcases, and how dare he, yadda, yadda, yadda.
It is soooo easy to fine a Democratic equivalent. The president doesn’t like guns. (He makes an exception for the Secret Service - as long a they make curfew - and the Army.) No doubt, he agrees with the position taken by Chicago in the Supreme Court case of McCormick v. Chicago:
"These concerns have particular force with respect to the Second Amendment. It is the only Bill of Rights provision that confers a substantive right to possess a specific, highly dangerous physical item— an item designed to kill or inflict serious injury on people. And there may well be a wider range of opinion on the basic issue whether and how to regulate firearms than on any other enumerated right. Some believe that, subject only to limited regulation, permitting easy and widespread gun ownership may reduce the overall level of gun violence; others believe that, under at least some conditions, stringent regulation of the possession of handguns (and other firearms) is necessary to reduce the level of gun violence, injury, and death. The genius of our federal system ordinarily leaves this type of social problem to be worked out by state and local governments, without a nationally imposed solution excluding one choice or the other."
They lost.
Look, Congress is going to do NOTHING. That’s good, that’s bad, who cares, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the president is still really mad about “assault rifles” especially.
(An “assault rifle” primer: It is black, has lots of sharp angles, and just looks really nasty. But the same receiver – that’s the guts of the weapon – it is put in all sorts of non–assault configurations. Apparently, it DOES make a difference whether it’s po-TAY-to or po-TAH-to.”)
What’s the administration to do because it loves America? OK, “Screw ‘em. We’ll ban the bullets."
(I got $10 that says some people in favor will nevertheless take a long position in bullets and make a minor killing.)
Now, it matters not a bit to me what you think of an “assault rifle.” If you have one, that’s nice, if you wouldn’t let them in your house, that’s just fine, or you can even join me in concluding that they are boring. (I don’t own one. Boring.)
But the chutzpah of a bullet ban! Talk about telling five Justices of the Supreme Court to piss off! Maybe this is an abuse of the Constitution. Maybe it’s an executive exercising creative control. Think Lincoln. But there’s no doubt it’s a message to the other side, “Screw you. I have the power.” (Maybe the attorney general adds a “Nyah, nyah, nyah.”)
There is NO WAY that anybody who actually matters supports LBJ’s favorite quote from the Book of Isaiah: “Come now, and let us reason together.” Isaiah, 1:18.
When is when case is the last time you have known politicians to wonder aloud whether their opinions were right? Speaker Boehner is now afraid of a coup - he’s not conservative enough. This is pure science fiction.
West Virginia has almost passed a universal concealed weapon proposal. We see next week. Talk about a dumb idea. Screw the Second Amendment. Students are prohibited from wearing something with an American flag on it for fear of offending non-Americans. Screw the First Amendment. If a state prosecution does not succeed, bring federal charges. Screw the Fifth Amendment. (It’s done all the time – it’s legal.) Permit criminals to escape on a “technicality” or on the other hand, come up with some bizarre exception to the warrant requirement. Either way, screw the Fourth Amendment.
If only someone would think of how to house troops in a citizen’s home during peacetime. Then we’d be 5-0 for the first five amendments.
But still, most adults who read stuff like the few examples cited totally miss the point. After all, what we do is OK; What they do is evil.
And the result? A country with multiple personality disorder.
Maybe it’s too late to “Come now, and let us reason together.“
It’s not silly any more. We can’t make light of it. In 2016, Americans voters (well, the 50% who vote) may have a choice that will - and should - be scaring the hell out of them.
I don’t intend this post to be partisan. Few people seem to know it, but we’ve gotten beyond what good things partisanship ever did. I am a Democrat. I have been for 30 years. From my standpoint, the Republican party left me. And now that the ideological purists have taken over Democratic policy, the Dems are likewise doing their best to leave me behind.
Once - maybe until the 80's - American political thought was on a more-or-less bell curve.
LEFT RIGHT
Most people were “moderates.” Even with a zero-sum issue (e.g., abortion), there was room to respect that thinking people could come up with a viewpoint not your own. Discussion was possible. Usually, you ended up not solving much, but at least there was a modicum of good will remaining. Even when the end collusion was simply “We’ve got a hell of a problem,” people agreed that the subject is a problem.
Now, we are headed toward an inverted bell curve.
LEFT RIGHT
Respect has gone out of style. Compromise is an evil, it’s making a deal with the Devil. And so, when a party gets a 51% majority, the party thinks “Screw the other 45%. After all, they are wrong. Screw ‘em. We don’t need them. Our ideological purity will create a just society."
And then, the 49% look to attract another 2% to come over to the Dark Side. And once enough come, suddenly the sun rises and the new-51% can return purity to America.
The physical world provides a simple example. Nothing is the physical world is flawless. Nothing - no product, no procedure, no design, no execution. “Perfect Circle” brand piston rings are not perfect circles. Maybe they are accurate to a tolerance of 0.01 mm, but they aren’t perfect. One can try to make something “more perfect” by using either a positive or negative approach. The positive is more incremental. The negative is quicker. But the catch: A system which uses negative feedback for control is liable to oscillate wildly.
Hmmm - This post does not have any pizzazz. I’ve intentionally not gotten ‘round to citing examples that you can be appropriately shocked and dismayed. I suppose this is some sort of management theory, and it’s DULL.
I do wish that reality were more fun.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin presents himself as a tough-guy. So do those who want him to succeed for their own reasons. We like tough-guys. Clint Eastwood. Outlaw motorcycle clubs. Jack Reacher.
Walker is well known for having stared down and broken some unions in Wisconsin. He says he’s ready for the presidency. I doubt whether Gov. Walker has ever really encountered mujahideen. But he says he’s ready for ‘em. After all, he has stared down a UNION. (I do not know whether he is aware of the difference between Shia and Sunni, but I wouldn’t bet the house on it.) He has said specifically that experience qualified him to battle ISIS:
“If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe.”
I don’t even know how make a joke about this moronic bushwah. I hope that he was drunk.
Oh, my, in my mind I can hear someone saying that there a really no differences between a union full of pissed off people and dangerous nutcases, and how dare he, yadda, yadda, yadda.
It is soooo easy to fine a Democratic equivalent. The president doesn’t like guns. (He makes an exception for the Secret Service - as long a they make curfew - and the Army.) No doubt, he agrees with the position taken by Chicago in the Supreme Court case of McCormick v. Chicago:
"These concerns have particular force with respect to the Second Amendment. It is the only Bill of Rights provision that confers a substantive right to possess a specific, highly dangerous physical item— an item designed to kill or inflict serious injury on people. And there may well be a wider range of opinion on the basic issue whether and how to regulate firearms than on any other enumerated right. Some believe that, subject only to limited regulation, permitting easy and widespread gun ownership may reduce the overall level of gun violence; others believe that, under at least some conditions, stringent regulation of the possession of handguns (and other firearms) is necessary to reduce the level of gun violence, injury, and death. The genius of our federal system ordinarily leaves this type of social problem to be worked out by state and local governments, without a nationally imposed solution excluding one choice or the other."
They lost.
Look, Congress is going to do NOTHING. That’s good, that’s bad, who cares, yadda, yadda, yadda. But the president is still really mad about “assault rifles” especially.
(An “assault rifle” primer: It is black, has lots of sharp angles, and just looks really nasty. But the same receiver – that’s the guts of the weapon – it is put in all sorts of non–assault configurations. Apparently, it DOES make a difference whether it’s po-TAY-to or po-TAH-to.”)
What’s the administration to do because it loves America? OK, “Screw ‘em. We’ll ban the bullets."
(I got $10 that says some people in favor will nevertheless take a long position in bullets and make a minor killing.)
Now, it matters not a bit to me what you think of an “assault rifle.” If you have one, that’s nice, if you wouldn’t let them in your house, that’s just fine, or you can even join me in concluding that they are boring. (I don’t own one. Boring.)
But the chutzpah of a bullet ban! Talk about telling five Justices of the Supreme Court to piss off! Maybe this is an abuse of the Constitution. Maybe it’s an executive exercising creative control. Think Lincoln. But there’s no doubt it’s a message to the other side, “Screw you. I have the power.” (Maybe the attorney general adds a “Nyah, nyah, nyah.”)
There is NO WAY that anybody who actually matters supports LBJ’s favorite quote from the Book of Isaiah: “Come now, and let us reason together.” Isaiah, 1:18.
When is when case is the last time you have known politicians to wonder aloud whether their opinions were right? Speaker Boehner is now afraid of a coup - he’s not conservative enough. This is pure science fiction.
West Virginia has almost passed a universal concealed weapon proposal. We see next week. Talk about a dumb idea. Screw the Second Amendment. Students are prohibited from wearing something with an American flag on it for fear of offending non-Americans. Screw the First Amendment. If a state prosecution does not succeed, bring federal charges. Screw the Fifth Amendment. (It’s done all the time – it’s legal.) Permit criminals to escape on a “technicality” or on the other hand, come up with some bizarre exception to the warrant requirement. Either way, screw the Fourth Amendment.
If only someone would think of how to house troops in a citizen’s home during peacetime. Then we’d be 5-0 for the first five amendments.
But still, most adults who read stuff like the few examples cited totally miss the point. After all, what we do is OK; What they do is evil.
And the result? A country with multiple personality disorder.
Maybe it’s too late to “Come now, and let us reason together.“
13 February 2015
Washington State, Guns and Peculiar People; Or, Lord Save Me from my Friends
Item: Last week at the State of Washington Capitol Building, citizens held a protest. The apparent cause is that the Washington Legislature decided to exclude firearms from its visitors’ gallery. The protesters thought that infringed on their Second Amendment rights.
They were brave to take on the State.
Or, maybe they are just a bunch of morons.
Po-ta-to, Po-tah-to.
Let’s have a show of hands: Who thinks that the protesters did anything at all positive for the promotion of Second Amendment rights?
Come on, don’t be bashful, raise your hands!
Didn't think so.
Oh, I almost forgot to mentioned the very best part: Most of the protesters were armed. And most were carrying weapons openly - revolvers, semi-autos, and the odd AK-47 or two.
I don’t mean to imply that guns in civilian hands is wrong. Quite the contrary. There are good, solid reasons why weapons belong in responsible citizens’ hand. But weapons are just hunks of steel and plastic. They just sit there. They can be put to an evil use, but it takes human interaction to cause problems. Some people are evil, and they are the ones most likely to cause problems. But be it guns, bows, or nuclear weapons, they all need some human activity before they go “Bang,” “Twang,” or “BOOM.”
I'm disinterested in the fact that the Washington Legislature doesn’t want armed people in the visitors” gallery. It’s dull. It’s not even unreasonable. There is a time and a place for everything. Even rights. If you decide to come into No. 3 Equity Court to exercise your sacred First Amendment rights, you will be asked to leave. Or ejected. Po-ta-to, Po-tah-to.
In West Virginia, one cannot take a weapon onto the state capitol grounds. A bill is currently pending which would allow people at the Capitol to leave a weapon locked in their cars. That is thoroughly reasonable. Among other things, I bet some armed people do that anyway.
Nobody can possess a weapon in a courthouse – nor should they. It's a place of conflict. Prisoners are often being moved.
Schools are generally a really stupid place to be armed. Some parents do not teach their children anything about guns. Most kids are just so inquisitive, they have to be kept from guns.
If a business owner bans weapons on his/her premises – which they are allowed to do – then each potential customer can decide whether to patronize that business. That's the American way. Mind you, there are a certain number of people who carry weapons anyway, but those are the sort likely to disrespect a whole lot of other laws. Those are the ones we need to worry about.
The Washington protesters were carrying openly. Carrying a weapon openly is unusual behavior. It tends to cause talk. So do hair colors not a shade that humans have naturally, short-shorts on guys, preaching on a public streets, clowns and lots of other activities. If you don’t want to draw attention to yourself, don’t do strange things.
Many people are uneasy when they know that they are around guns. (I’m not, but if you show me a chainsaw, you’ll see uneasy.) When you meet a uniformed police officer, what do you look at first?
I thought so.
Whether the explanation for carrying a weapon openly is that it’s a power trip, or the feeling that a weapon makes us feel 10 feet tall, or an in-your-face declaration that you’re mad as hell and won’t take it anymore, or even a substitute penis, carrying openly remains truly stupid. And carrying in certain locations is just plain stupid.
Here in West Virginia, lots of folks carry weapons in the woods. But they know enough to put the weapons away or stick them under a shirt when they leave the woods.
The Washington protesters have actually hurt the overall expression of support for Second Amendment rights. By their bizarre behavior, they invite the other citizens to assume that everyone who has any interest in weapons is a nut. This is important. For the present, self-protection using a gun is a personal right. The Supreme Court says that government cannot abridge that right. The decision was a by a vote of 5–4. A Justice leaves, then there is a fine chance that the next decision is also a 5 - 4 -- the other way.
Former Supreme Court Justice Stevens has recently publishes a book which argues for what he sees as six necessary amendments to the Constitution. Some of them has a good bit of merit. (Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, by John Paul Stevens) But he proposes to alter a Second Amendment in a manner that leaves me cold:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms while serving in the militia shall not be infringed.
Right now, a whole lot of people really don’t have a strong view on the subject. When so-called “friends” of the Second Amendment act eccentric, they are driving citizens to conclude against personal self-determination.
I don't have all the answers. Hell, I don't even know all of the questions. But I know that firearms rights are facing plenty of noise is it as is, without misguided “friends” creating more.
Lord, protect me from my friends.
They were brave to take on the State.
Or, maybe they are just a bunch of morons.
Po-ta-to, Po-tah-to.
Let’s have a show of hands: Who thinks that the protesters did anything at all positive for the promotion of Second Amendment rights?
Come on, don’t be bashful, raise your hands!
Didn't think so.
Oh, I almost forgot to mentioned the very best part: Most of the protesters were armed. And most were carrying weapons openly - revolvers, semi-autos, and the odd AK-47 or two.
I don’t mean to imply that guns in civilian hands is wrong. Quite the contrary. There are good, solid reasons why weapons belong in responsible citizens’ hand. But weapons are just hunks of steel and plastic. They just sit there. They can be put to an evil use, but it takes human interaction to cause problems. Some people are evil, and they are the ones most likely to cause problems. But be it guns, bows, or nuclear weapons, they all need some human activity before they go “Bang,” “Twang,” or “BOOM.”
I'm disinterested in the fact that the Washington Legislature doesn’t want armed people in the visitors” gallery. It’s dull. It’s not even unreasonable. There is a time and a place for everything. Even rights. If you decide to come into No. 3 Equity Court to exercise your sacred First Amendment rights, you will be asked to leave. Or ejected. Po-ta-to, Po-tah-to.
In West Virginia, one cannot take a weapon onto the state capitol grounds. A bill is currently pending which would allow people at the Capitol to leave a weapon locked in their cars. That is thoroughly reasonable. Among other things, I bet some armed people do that anyway.
Nobody can possess a weapon in a courthouse – nor should they. It's a place of conflict. Prisoners are often being moved.
Schools are generally a really stupid place to be armed. Some parents do not teach their children anything about guns. Most kids are just so inquisitive, they have to be kept from guns.
If a business owner bans weapons on his/her premises – which they are allowed to do – then each potential customer can decide whether to patronize that business. That's the American way. Mind you, there are a certain number of people who carry weapons anyway, but those are the sort likely to disrespect a whole lot of other laws. Those are the ones we need to worry about.
The Washington protesters were carrying openly. Carrying a weapon openly is unusual behavior. It tends to cause talk. So do hair colors not a shade that humans have naturally, short-shorts on guys, preaching on a public streets, clowns and lots of other activities. If you don’t want to draw attention to yourself, don’t do strange things.
Many people are uneasy when they know that they are around guns. (I’m not, but if you show me a chainsaw, you’ll see uneasy.) When you meet a uniformed police officer, what do you look at first?
I thought so.
Whether the explanation for carrying a weapon openly is that it’s a power trip, or the feeling that a weapon makes us feel 10 feet tall, or an in-your-face declaration that you’re mad as hell and won’t take it anymore, or even a substitute penis, carrying openly remains truly stupid. And carrying in certain locations is just plain stupid.
Here in West Virginia, lots of folks carry weapons in the woods. But they know enough to put the weapons away or stick them under a shirt when they leave the woods.
The Washington protesters have actually hurt the overall expression of support for Second Amendment rights. By their bizarre behavior, they invite the other citizens to assume that everyone who has any interest in weapons is a nut. This is important. For the present, self-protection using a gun is a personal right. The Supreme Court says that government cannot abridge that right. The decision was a by a vote of 5–4. A Justice leaves, then there is a fine chance that the next decision is also a 5 - 4 -- the other way.
Former Supreme Court Justice Stevens has recently publishes a book which argues for what he sees as six necessary amendments to the Constitution. Some of them has a good bit of merit. (Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, by John Paul Stevens) But he proposes to alter a Second Amendment in a manner that leaves me cold:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms while serving in the militia shall not be infringed.
Right now, a whole lot of people really don’t have a strong view on the subject. When so-called “friends” of the Second Amendment act eccentric, they are driving citizens to conclude against personal self-determination.
I don't have all the answers. Hell, I don't even know all of the questions. But I know that firearms rights are facing plenty of noise is it as is, without misguided “friends” creating more.
Lord, protect me from my friends.
10 February 2015
Another Olio of Miscellany
When I sweep up my hard drive, I put a few unconnected things in these Dispatches. And I’m the first to admit that recently, I’ve slowed down on blogging. Who knows? The old reputed Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times,” may be true.
911 - Dull, Dull, Dull
About 35 years ago, a big group of representatives of emergency service agencies in Marion County designed the first 911 system. It was a pain. Nobody who does that business is a normal person. The first 30 minutes of every meaning was spent warming up by cursing the antecedents and questionable progeny of the people there. But we got a 911 system.
Several months ago, I had the unwelcome experience of having that 911 system accessed for me. The only thing I can say is that 911 worked precisely as it was planned. The call was answered immediately; while one dispatcher complete the call, another was alerting Co. 20 (my old company) and Station 3. I was - extremely? That doesn’t seem to cover it - glad to hear the first engine pulling up. And to the people who responded, it was a yawn. After all, you don’t want people to come in a personal emergency who think that it’s an emergency. Like all professions, this is another day at the office. That's the way it ought to be.
I remembered those meetings long ago. What developed was something that wasn’t flashy, not dramatic, but worked.
A little story - Before 911, different departments used different radio procedures and language, including “10-codes.” The feeling was to go to clear voice. At the time, the “Emergency” (remember Johnny & Roy?) was on the tube. And so, one young fellow suggested that the new radio procedures use what the show featured - “Responding,” “In service,” “Out of service,’ and so forth.
Geez, it’s been a long time since I’ve thought of that. To my brothers & sisters, now you know.
War Powers
A big deal is being made over the fact that Congress is interfering with the President’s power to use military force. This has happened for the last two administrations. In the Bush 43 administration, one of the spoil sports was the last Senator Robert C. Byrd. (Hey! When I mention Senator Byrd’s name, y’all need to stand up and bow yer heads.)
He has a peculiar problem with the President acting with no interference.
Just because IT’S IN THE DAMN CONSTITUTION.
Fifth Decade:
When I started law school, I became a notary public. In West Virginia, pretty much every lawyer does that, but there were few or none at the law school.
Recently, this child just signed up for his fifth 10-year commission as a notary. Where did the time go? No, really - Where did it go?
Pro Bono:
Pro bono (legal help for free) services are back on the front burner in WV. As I prepare to weigh in (not in these Dispatches), I just ran across a couple of passages in a John Grisham novel that seem apt:
“I am a human being first. Then I’m a lawyer. It’s possible to be both.”
“My firm preached pro bono to all its associates. [That is, younger lawyers.] But the free work had damn well better not interfere with billings.”
Pippa passes.
911 - Dull, Dull, Dull
About 35 years ago, a big group of representatives of emergency service agencies in Marion County designed the first 911 system. It was a pain. Nobody who does that business is a normal person. The first 30 minutes of every meaning was spent warming up by cursing the antecedents and questionable progeny of the people there. But we got a 911 system.
Several months ago, I had the unwelcome experience of having that 911 system accessed for me. The only thing I can say is that 911 worked precisely as it was planned. The call was answered immediately; while one dispatcher complete the call, another was alerting Co. 20 (my old company) and Station 3. I was - extremely? That doesn’t seem to cover it - glad to hear the first engine pulling up. And to the people who responded, it was a yawn. After all, you don’t want people to come in a personal emergency who think that it’s an emergency. Like all professions, this is another day at the office. That's the way it ought to be.
I remembered those meetings long ago. What developed was something that wasn’t flashy, not dramatic, but worked.
A little story - Before 911, different departments used different radio procedures and language, including “10-codes.” The feeling was to go to clear voice. At the time, the “Emergency” (remember Johnny & Roy?) was on the tube. And so, one young fellow suggested that the new radio procedures use what the show featured - “Responding,” “In service,” “Out of service,’ and so forth.
Geez, it’s been a long time since I’ve thought of that. To my brothers & sisters, now you know.
War Powers
A big deal is being made over the fact that Congress is interfering with the President’s power to use military force. This has happened for the last two administrations. In the Bush 43 administration, one of the spoil sports was the last Senator Robert C. Byrd. (Hey! When I mention Senator Byrd’s name, y’all need to stand up and bow yer heads.)
He has a peculiar problem with the President acting with no interference.
Just because IT’S IN THE DAMN CONSTITUTION.
Fifth Decade:
When I started law school, I became a notary public. In West Virginia, pretty much every lawyer does that, but there were few or none at the law school.
Recently, this child just signed up for his fifth 10-year commission as a notary. Where did the time go? No, really - Where did it go?
Pro Bono:
Pro bono (legal help for free) services are back on the front burner in WV. As I prepare to weigh in (not in these Dispatches), I just ran across a couple of passages in a John Grisham novel that seem apt:
“I am a human being first. Then I’m a lawyer. It’s possible to be both.”
“My firm preached pro bono to all its associates. [That is, younger lawyers.] But the free work had damn well better not interfere with billings.”
Pippa passes.
29 November 2014
Ferguson: We’re Missing the Point; or, How We Can Bloviate Endlessly
On Black Friday, assorted malls, Walmarts’ and other retailers were inconvenienced by citizens protesting the whole Ferguson, MO, situation. (Even so, the retailers scored about an 8% increase over the sales on Black Friday last year.)
First, we need to separate the “Ferguson-Incident” from “Ferguson-the-Issue.” The concept that the St. Louis grand jury got it wrong and that “we” need a do-over is a suckers' bet. [See note 1] If anyone defines “success” as what will happen in Missouri, they had missed the point.
The Ferguson-Incident really matters to the people who directly experienced it and to those with direct contacts to it. It matters to the decedent’s family and friends. It matters to the officer. [See note 2] It matters to the witnesses. It matters to the authorities who are responsible to find out what happened in that particular incident.
But the rest of America is substantially impaired to judge this Ferguson-Incident. If it represents a starting point for a national discussion, that’s fine. But the Ferguson-Incident is one data-point in the discussion. No more. No less.
Maybe an out-of-control officer assassinated an innocent victim. Maybe a bad guy ran into an officer minding his own business. I don’t know. If I express an opinion, it has to be based on third- (or more) hand information. There is no way any of us can fairly judge from what evidence has been leaked from the grand jury, almost invariably by someone who has a dog in that fight. Even forensic evidence is merely evidence. Humans have to interpret that and sometimes humans get it wrong.
What? I hear a lot of You-have-to-be-kidding-me’s. A video from a few minutes before shows thus and so. On the other hand, the ballistics show thus and so. One witness says one thing and another witness says another. I read it in the the news, so I know what happened. Don’t I?
As important the Ferguson-Incident is to the people directly involved, the rest of us are doing little but counting faeries dancing on the head of a pin.
Here is the real point: A significant part of the national community perceives that justice is racially biased. Another part of the national community perceives that it’s not, but if it is, it’s rational. That’s the issue.
We need to accept that the majority of folks speaking out actually believe what they are saying. They are right. They are wrong. It doesn’t matter. People act on beliefs which are sincerely held. When the beliefs clash, human nature seems to tell us to shut our minds, marshal our arguments, and defend our position to the last man.
After all, if we can prove that the other side is wrong, they will fold their tent and go home.
Won’t they?
Not hardly. The normal human response is to dig in. Then, ultimately, some belief is accepted by a bare majority. And then you have others who are royally – and genuinely – pissed off.
Oh, I hear the You-have-to-be-kidding-me’s again. Can I not see that [whatever] is the truth?
Actually, no.
That’s why the this Ferguson-Incident represents only an example of how we look at race to determine the bias of justice.
Oh, of course the justice system is biased. You are biased. I am biased. All God’s children are biased, especially those who are aghast that anybody dares to say that they are biased. In my experience, the justice system is heavily biased against people who do harmful things to others. We expect that bias. But the devil is in the details. What other biases exist that we agree is unfair or yields a poorer quality of justice.
I have some ideas. Other people have different ideas. I suspect that all of the notions have a degree of truth in them. This American social experiment is complicated. There is no single cause for a single effect. We have a constant competition of ideas, all going on at once.
What is a mature society to do?
1 – Slow down. The Ferguson-Incident is a data point. While it is important to the people involved, if the rest of us claim “a piece of the rock,” we make whatever happened in Ferguson the whole point.
2 – Speed up. Actually, we need to go from a dead stop. Americans say they want answers to the problems of American life. But we want simple answers when the answers are not simple. We need some real answers. We need to accept that this is a continuing process of never-ending improvement. We need to invite dissent, not merely tolerate it.
3 – We need to confront the entire problem of justice, not just futz around making it look better. If you have a turd, spread icing on it, and decorate it with candles, it’s still not a birthday cake.
A rare group moderate Senators had an intriguing on how to handle the gun debate. Some suggested a “National Commission on Violence,” where the participants have not already decided what to conclude.
How about dealing with a much larger issue: A National Commission for Justice, Violence, Economics, and Responsibility.” I can picture it letting others than the Al Sharpton’s or Rush Limbaugh’s of the world be heard --respectfully. I can picture – I think – that we might listen and participate in the discussion without automatically going into a defensive mode.
This is important stuff. If we pay attention to that because it because of the Ferguson-Incident, so be it. But now it’s time to STFU and actually find some answers.
Note 1: Actually, a do-over is possible. The government can present a case to the grand jury again and again until the grand jury issues an indictment. I don’t really imagine that any future grand jury would have any more information than the grand jury which is already sitting. That particular grand jury said that the evidence did not satisfy even a probable cause standard. That is the easiest proof standard. Also, a federal investigation is possible. But a federal civil rights violation would be still harder to prove. The Feds have to prove a specific civil-rights-related intent.
Note 2: I use “decedent” and “officer,” rather than any of the victim vs. bad guy, officer vs. bad guy, etc. I still was not there when it happened.
First, we need to separate the “Ferguson-Incident” from “Ferguson-the-Issue.” The concept that the St. Louis grand jury got it wrong and that “we” need a do-over is a suckers' bet. [See note 1] If anyone defines “success” as what will happen in Missouri, they had missed the point.
The Ferguson-Incident really matters to the people who directly experienced it and to those with direct contacts to it. It matters to the decedent’s family and friends. It matters to the officer. [See note 2] It matters to the witnesses. It matters to the authorities who are responsible to find out what happened in that particular incident.
But the rest of America is substantially impaired to judge this Ferguson-Incident. If it represents a starting point for a national discussion, that’s fine. But the Ferguson-Incident is one data-point in the discussion. No more. No less.
Maybe an out-of-control officer assassinated an innocent victim. Maybe a bad guy ran into an officer minding his own business. I don’t know. If I express an opinion, it has to be based on third- (or more) hand information. There is no way any of us can fairly judge from what evidence has been leaked from the grand jury, almost invariably by someone who has a dog in that fight. Even forensic evidence is merely evidence. Humans have to interpret that and sometimes humans get it wrong.
What? I hear a lot of You-have-to-be-kidding-me’s. A video from a few minutes before shows thus and so. On the other hand, the ballistics show thus and so. One witness says one thing and another witness says another. I read it in the the news, so I know what happened. Don’t I?
As important the Ferguson-Incident is to the people directly involved, the rest of us are doing little but counting faeries dancing on the head of a pin.
Here is the real point: A significant part of the national community perceives that justice is racially biased. Another part of the national community perceives that it’s not, but if it is, it’s rational. That’s the issue.
We need to accept that the majority of folks speaking out actually believe what they are saying. They are right. They are wrong. It doesn’t matter. People act on beliefs which are sincerely held. When the beliefs clash, human nature seems to tell us to shut our minds, marshal our arguments, and defend our position to the last man.
After all, if we can prove that the other side is wrong, they will fold their tent and go home.
Won’t they?
Not hardly. The normal human response is to dig in. Then, ultimately, some belief is accepted by a bare majority. And then you have others who are royally – and genuinely – pissed off.
Oh, I hear the You-have-to-be-kidding-me’s again. Can I not see that [whatever] is the truth?
Actually, no.
That’s why the this Ferguson-Incident represents only an example of how we look at race to determine the bias of justice.
Oh, of course the justice system is biased. You are biased. I am biased. All God’s children are biased, especially those who are aghast that anybody dares to say that they are biased. In my experience, the justice system is heavily biased against people who do harmful things to others. We expect that bias. But the devil is in the details. What other biases exist that we agree is unfair or yields a poorer quality of justice.
I have some ideas. Other people have different ideas. I suspect that all of the notions have a degree of truth in them. This American social experiment is complicated. There is no single cause for a single effect. We have a constant competition of ideas, all going on at once.
What is a mature society to do?
1 – Slow down. The Ferguson-Incident is a data point. While it is important to the people involved, if the rest of us claim “a piece of the rock,” we make whatever happened in Ferguson the whole point.
2 – Speed up. Actually, we need to go from a dead stop. Americans say they want answers to the problems of American life. But we want simple answers when the answers are not simple. We need some real answers. We need to accept that this is a continuing process of never-ending improvement. We need to invite dissent, not merely tolerate it.
3 – We need to confront the entire problem of justice, not just futz around making it look better. If you have a turd, spread icing on it, and decorate it with candles, it’s still not a birthday cake.
A rare group moderate Senators had an intriguing on how to handle the gun debate. Some suggested a “National Commission on Violence,” where the participants have not already decided what to conclude.
How about dealing with a much larger issue: A National Commission for Justice, Violence, Economics, and Responsibility.” I can picture it letting others than the Al Sharpton’s or Rush Limbaugh’s of the world be heard --respectfully. I can picture – I think – that we might listen and participate in the discussion without automatically going into a defensive mode.
This is important stuff. If we pay attention to that because it because of the Ferguson-Incident, so be it. But now it’s time to STFU and actually find some answers.
Note 1: Actually, a do-over is possible. The government can present a case to the grand jury again and again until the grand jury issues an indictment. I don’t really imagine that any future grand jury would have any more information than the grand jury which is already sitting. That particular grand jury said that the evidence did not satisfy even a probable cause standard. That is the easiest proof standard. Also, a federal investigation is possible. But a federal civil rights violation would be still harder to prove. The Feds have to prove a specific civil-rights-related intent.
Note 2: I use “decedent” and “officer,” rather than any of the victim vs. bad guy, officer vs. bad guy, etc. I still was not there when it happened.
02 November 2014
Those Darn Negative Ads; or, If You Can’t Say Something Nice, You’re on the Right Track.
Last week, the Times-West Virginian (the local paper) ran its regular “man in the street” feature. The question was, “Do you pay attention to negative political ads?”
Three of the respondents said no, they didn’t. One guy said he doesn’t pay attention to any political ads. And one lady said she votes against anyone who runs a negative ad.
If only it were that easy.
To say the least, this was not a valid statistical sampling of this community. Nor was it a valid sample of any community.
The reason the politicians use negative ads is simple: They work.
We have a very weak law of libel in the United States. The First Amendment is so strong that it takes a ton of libel to overcoming it. And for political ads, all bets are (nearly) off. Against a political figure, you can say safely say almost anything with a straight face.
A good example is how Minnesota Sen. Wellstone was treated in his 2002 reelection campaign. Opponents ran ads that mischaracterized some of the senator's procedure votes. The opponents said that the Senator wanted to tax all dead people and that he really disliked veterans. But the ads didn’t mention that these were procedural votes which passed the Senate with scarcely a dissent. They had nothing to do with any senator’s ultimate opinion. All Wellstone could was try to ineffectively correct the record. (Sen. Wellstone died in a plane crash two weeks before the election. His opponent, Norm Coleman,won.)
Peoples fear reactions are much stronger than their reactions to positive things. Wellstone's attempt to limit the damage had nothing like the power of good negative ad.
One particularly nasty campaign is the West Virginia race over the open seat of Sen. Rockefeller. The Democratic Secretary of State has been attacked because she endorsed Obama in 2008 (Who was she supposed to endorse?) and because she doesn’t strongly (enough) support coal interests. At the same time, she has attacked her Republican opponent because her husband got a job with an investment bank, presumably the because the Republican candidate (who is in Congress) made some sort of secret deal.
Neither candidate can hope to effectively set the record straight. Their response? – Run more negative ads.
We got three ads in the morning mail yesterday. Each is an 8 x 10, glossy paper, printed on both sides. All told, they cost about $1 each to deliver.
One is screed which blames all Democrats for the EPA’s war on coal (and there indeed a war), West Virginia’s “failed educational system” (the Mountain State is consistently in the bottom five), some sort of failure in funding the emergency services (beats me what they’re talking about) and that Obamacare has reduced the number of folks who are covered by insurance. (I'm not sure, but I kinda doubt it.) It is produced by “Go West Virginia Inc.” It’s address is a PO Box in the pleasant little town of Elkins, Randolph County. It is not incorporated in West Virginia. So we know nothing about it. We have no idea whose money paid for it.
The second is from “Grow West Virginia Inc.” Oddly, they use the same post office box as “Go West Virginia.” It accuses an incumbent State Senator for supporting ISIS (!!), mandating Obamacare (the Congress didn’t leave much choice) and for having voted for Cap & Trade. Cap & Trade must be bad if it’s mentioned in the same breath as supporting ISIS. Not one in 100 people understand it. I sure don’t. And Grow West Virginia is equally as obscure as Go West Virginia.
Third, surprisingly, is one paid for by an actual campaign. This accuses the same State Senator for having “[taken] money away from seniors[‘] programs to line casino investors['] pockets.” There is no doubt a story there. By the way, I am pretty annoyed that the campaign bought a list which identified me as a “senior.”
There are 3 items that are supposed to scare me. What to do?
To be brutally frank, I don’t expect people to do jack about it. The politicians count on the public to accept this shit. So far, they are right. People believe all kinds of unbelievable things. People take an outfit like Go/Grow West Virginia as some kind of public service group. The public is so used to lying that they don’t hold it against anyone. Sure, money is king in politics.
But just as there have to be buyers of votes, there have to be people willing to sell.
Are we willing to sell our votes for a lie? It might be a good idea to question the “factual” basis for a political ad, even one from someone who doesn’t hide behind the Association for Mom & Apple Pie.
Also, it might be a good idea to assume that anything produced by little groups with an unknown yet nice name has no relation to reality. That is, they are lies.
And finally, we might hold politicians responsible for what their campaign does. If s/he lies, s/he proves that s/he is willing to lie for personal gain. If they both lie, vote for some minor party or write someone in.
And if after a few campaigns, negative ads have quit working, at least they’ll try some other way to lie.
In light of the Citizens United decision, we cannot control political propaganda. It might not be a good idea to try to control it. But let’s quit selling our votes so damned cheap. It’s embarrassing.
Note to candidates:
Your signs spread everywhere are a legitimate part of the campaign. That’s until 7:30 PM on Election Day. Then they are litter, junk and an eyesore. I admit, they do made great makeshift target holders on a firing range.
Three of the respondents said no, they didn’t. One guy said he doesn’t pay attention to any political ads. And one lady said she votes against anyone who runs a negative ad.
If only it were that easy.
To say the least, this was not a valid statistical sampling of this community. Nor was it a valid sample of any community.
The reason the politicians use negative ads is simple: They work.
We have a very weak law of libel in the United States. The First Amendment is so strong that it takes a ton of libel to overcoming it. And for political ads, all bets are (nearly) off. Against a political figure, you can say safely say almost anything with a straight face.
A good example is how Minnesota Sen. Wellstone was treated in his 2002 reelection campaign. Opponents ran ads that mischaracterized some of the senator's procedure votes. The opponents said that the Senator wanted to tax all dead people and that he really disliked veterans. But the ads didn’t mention that these were procedural votes which passed the Senate with scarcely a dissent. They had nothing to do with any senator’s ultimate opinion. All Wellstone could was try to ineffectively correct the record. (Sen. Wellstone died in a plane crash two weeks before the election. His opponent, Norm Coleman,won.)
Peoples fear reactions are much stronger than their reactions to positive things. Wellstone's attempt to limit the damage had nothing like the power of good negative ad.
One particularly nasty campaign is the West Virginia race over the open seat of Sen. Rockefeller. The Democratic Secretary of State has been attacked because she endorsed Obama in 2008 (Who was she supposed to endorse?) and because she doesn’t strongly (enough) support coal interests. At the same time, she has attacked her Republican opponent because her husband got a job with an investment bank, presumably the because the Republican candidate (who is in Congress) made some sort of secret deal.
Neither candidate can hope to effectively set the record straight. Their response? – Run more negative ads.
We got three ads in the morning mail yesterday. Each is an 8 x 10, glossy paper, printed on both sides. All told, they cost about $1 each to deliver.
One is screed which blames all Democrats for the EPA’s war on coal (and there indeed a war), West Virginia’s “failed educational system” (the Mountain State is consistently in the bottom five), some sort of failure in funding the emergency services (beats me what they’re talking about) and that Obamacare has reduced the number of folks who are covered by insurance. (I'm not sure, but I kinda doubt it.) It is produced by “Go West Virginia Inc.” It’s address is a PO Box in the pleasant little town of Elkins, Randolph County. It is not incorporated in West Virginia. So we know nothing about it. We have no idea whose money paid for it.
The second is from “Grow West Virginia Inc.” Oddly, they use the same post office box as “Go West Virginia.” It accuses an incumbent State Senator for supporting ISIS (!!), mandating Obamacare (the Congress didn’t leave much choice) and for having voted for Cap & Trade. Cap & Trade must be bad if it’s mentioned in the same breath as supporting ISIS. Not one in 100 people understand it. I sure don’t. And Grow West Virginia is equally as obscure as Go West Virginia.
Third, surprisingly, is one paid for by an actual campaign. This accuses the same State Senator for having “[taken] money away from seniors[‘] programs to line casino investors['] pockets.” There is no doubt a story there. By the way, I am pretty annoyed that the campaign bought a list which identified me as a “senior.”
There are 3 items that are supposed to scare me. What to do?
To be brutally frank, I don’t expect people to do jack about it. The politicians count on the public to accept this shit. So far, they are right. People believe all kinds of unbelievable things. People take an outfit like Go/Grow West Virginia as some kind of public service group. The public is so used to lying that they don’t hold it against anyone. Sure, money is king in politics.
But just as there have to be buyers of votes, there have to be people willing to sell.
Are we willing to sell our votes for a lie? It might be a good idea to question the “factual” basis for a political ad, even one from someone who doesn’t hide behind the Association for Mom & Apple Pie.
Also, it might be a good idea to assume that anything produced by little groups with an unknown yet nice name has no relation to reality. That is, they are lies.
And finally, we might hold politicians responsible for what their campaign does. If s/he lies, s/he proves that s/he is willing to lie for personal gain. If they both lie, vote for some minor party or write someone in.
And if after a few campaigns, negative ads have quit working, at least they’ll try some other way to lie.
In light of the Citizens United decision, we cannot control political propaganda. It might not be a good idea to try to control it. But let’s quit selling our votes so damned cheap. It’s embarrassing.
Note to candidates:
Your signs spread everywhere are a legitimate part of the campaign. That’s until 7:30 PM on Election Day. Then they are litter, junk and an eyesore. I admit, they do made great makeshift target holders on a firing range.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
