Guns don't kill people; people kill people, says the NRA.
People use guns to kill people, says Pug Mahoney.
"That's the price we pay for our right to bear arms under the Second Amendment," say gun advocates.
What's with this "we" stuff?
Speak for yourself. That may be the price you are willing to pay. But it's really being paid by others, not by you. When someone close to you becomes that price and you watch them die, then you can say it was an acceptable price. Then you can talk about a price you are willing to pay. Until then, be quiet.
There are now more guns in America than there are people. Some 370 million guns in a country with a total population of 350 million, according to a summary of various estimates.
But no matter how you count them, it's clear that America leads the world in the number of guns available to people, and also leads the world in the number of gun deaths, including homicide, suicide and accidental shootings.
Conclusion: More guns leads to more deaths.
Fewer than 5 percent of the world population is American, but they own 42 percent of all the guns in the world. And Americans were responsible for fully one-third of all mass shootings worldwide from 1966 to 2012, according to a study by Adam Lankford of the University of Alabama.
America's gun homicide rate was 33 per million in 2009, according to a report in the New York Times, compared to 5 per million in Canada and 0.7 in Britain. (Here's a link to that report: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings)
Each time there is a mass shooting in America, the current president proclaims, "Now is not the time" to talk about stricter gun control.
But when is the time? When will that time come? How many more must die before government officials wake up and smell the gun powder?
The president has also said that mass shootings are a mental health issue, not a gun issue. That's only partly true, and it's no reason to accept these tragedies as "the price we pay" for the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms.
Moreover, this attitude ignores the opening phrase of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia ..." The rest of the amendment refers to this militia as being "essential to the security of a free state," and the right of a state's "people" -- plural -- to keep and bear arms. There is no reference to the right of an individual to have as many firearms as one might want.
Clearly, a person with an unhealthy or dangerous mental status should not have access to a high-capacity, military style weapon, or even a single-shot pistol.
Nevertheless, gun advocates insist there is little that can be done to limit, much less eliminate, mass shootings such as those so common in America. Studies have shown a clear correlation between the number of guns in a country, and the number of violent deaths caused with these firearms. Further, the extent of mental or emotional health issues had little bearing on the final statistic, that more guns means more death.
To claim that mass shooting is primarily or solely a mental health issue and not a gun issue is to ignore fact and reality, and therefore little can be done. It is the price we pay for the right to keep and bear arms, according to that argument.
It is a fallacy to believe that understanding means acceptance and acceptance brings agreement.
Reasons are not always excuses.
We can understand the reasons for a person's speech or behavior, but that does not mean we must accept it or agree with it. Some speech or behavior is unacceptable no matter the reasons or circumstances. We may understand the reasons, but that does not excuse the speech or behavior.
This is especially true for gun violence. Too often, guns and people don't mix.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
Saturday, November 4, 2017
Altruism vs Greed
For the past one hundred years and more, every president of the United States has had a background and experience in politics, government, or the military.
The exception is the current occupant of the Oval Office, who has experience in none of the above.
Beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt, experience in politics and government was the primary background for presidents. Harry Truman served as governor of Missouri and as a U.S. senator before being elected vice president with FDR, then was elected to the presidency in his own right.
Dwight D. Eisenhower had a distinguished military career, then became president of Columbia University before being elected president in 1952.
John F. Kennedy served in the U.S. Navy during World War 2, later to become a senator, and was elected president in 1960.
His successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, spend many years in the Senate and as vice president under JFK, moving to the presidency after Kennedy was assassinated.
Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter each had successful political and government careers before moving to the presidency.
Ronald Reagan, at first an actor, became active in politics and was elected governor of California before moving up to the White House as president.
George H.W. Bush first served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency before becoming vice president under Reagan and then elected president himself.
Likewise Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who each had long and successful careers in politics and government before moving into the White House as president.
In between those two was George W. Bush, who grew up in a political family and served for years in government before being elected president.
Now we have a salesman and developer who amassed a fortune in real estate before moving to a reality TV show and then deciding to use his skills as a pitchman to sell himself to the American public as a politician and expert in government.
"Only I can fix it," he has said, and "I'm the only one that matters" when it comes to making foreign policy decision. Not the career people in the State Department.
Persuasive rhetoric is one thing. Successful sales pitches is another. Neither is an adequate substitute for experience in politics and government, especially when perched atop an ego the size of Mount McKinley (with apologies to the president after whom that mountain was named.)
The exception is the current occupant of the Oval Office, who has experience in none of the above.
Beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt, experience in politics and government was the primary background for presidents. Harry Truman served as governor of Missouri and as a U.S. senator before being elected vice president with FDR, then was elected to the presidency in his own right.
Dwight D. Eisenhower had a distinguished military career, then became president of Columbia University before being elected president in 1952.
John F. Kennedy served in the U.S. Navy during World War 2, later to become a senator, and was elected president in 1960.
His successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, spend many years in the Senate and as vice president under JFK, moving to the presidency after Kennedy was assassinated.
Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter each had successful political and government careers before moving to the presidency.
Ronald Reagan, at first an actor, became active in politics and was elected governor of California before moving up to the White House as president.
George H.W. Bush first served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency before becoming vice president under Reagan and then elected president himself.
Likewise Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who each had long and successful careers in politics and government before moving into the White House as president.
In between those two was George W. Bush, who grew up in a political family and served for years in government before being elected president.
"Only I can fix it," he has said, and "I'm the only one that matters" when it comes to making foreign policy decision. Not the career people in the State Department.
Persuasive rhetoric is one thing. Successful sales pitches is another. Neither is an adequate substitute for experience in politics and government, especially when perched atop an ego the size of Mount McKinley (with apologies to the president after whom that mountain was named.)
Friday, November 3, 2017
Jobs, jobs, jobs
Correlation is not causation
Hurricanes or no, the U.S. economy added 261,000 jobs in October, led by food services and drinking places, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The gain offset a decline in September, the agency said, due largely to the impact of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.
Professional and business services, manufacturing and health care also posted increases.
All together, the growth brought the unemployment rate down another notch, to 4.1 percent. In addition, the number of people out of work declined by 281,000 in October, the BLS reported.
So what does it all mean? As the jobless rate remains at full employment level, people looking for jobs are finding them and, coupled with the separate look at national output (Gross Domestic Product), which grew at an annualized pace of 3 percent in the third quarter of this year, it means that America is doing well.
Moreover, the economic recovery of the past seven years is continuing, and investors in the stock market are recognizing that as they push Wall Street averages to record levels.
That does not mean, however, that continuing economic recovery will boost the stock market to higher and higher levels. Nor does it mean that higher stock indices are a barometer of future national economic performance. Stock prices are a reflection of investor attitudes, not of consumer purchasing and corporate production.
Correlation is not necessarily causation.
The stock market crash of 30 years ago was largely caused by automated computer-driven sales, not of human reflection on what a dip might portend. The machines were programmed to sell if they perceived a drop in prices. In turn, this tipped other computers also to sell. Result: An avalanche of selling.
Since then, experts have modified their computer selling instructions to account for occasional slight dips, telling them not to panic.
But does that mean humans are immune to panic selling? No. But it does diminish the risk.
All that said, there is still the chance that the market averages have reached the point where a "correction" is in order.
Or, as J.P. Morgan is reported to have said when his elevator operator asked him what the market will do, "It will fluctuate."
Hurricanes or no, the U.S. economy added 261,000 jobs in October, led by food services and drinking places, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The gain offset a decline in September, the agency said, due largely to the impact of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.
Professional and business services, manufacturing and health care also posted increases.
All together, the growth brought the unemployment rate down another notch, to 4.1 percent. In addition, the number of people out of work declined by 281,000 in October, the BLS reported.
So what does it all mean? As the jobless rate remains at full employment level, people looking for jobs are finding them and, coupled with the separate look at national output (Gross Domestic Product), which grew at an annualized pace of 3 percent in the third quarter of this year, it means that America is doing well.
Moreover, the economic recovery of the past seven years is continuing, and investors in the stock market are recognizing that as they push Wall Street averages to record levels.
That does not mean, however, that continuing economic recovery will boost the stock market to higher and higher levels. Nor does it mean that higher stock indices are a barometer of future national economic performance. Stock prices are a reflection of investor attitudes, not of consumer purchasing and corporate production.
Correlation is not necessarily causation.
The stock market crash of 30 years ago was largely caused by automated computer-driven sales, not of human reflection on what a dip might portend. The machines were programmed to sell if they perceived a drop in prices. In turn, this tipped other computers also to sell. Result: An avalanche of selling.
Since then, experts have modified their computer selling instructions to account for occasional slight dips, telling them not to panic.
But does that mean humans are immune to panic selling? No. But it does diminish the risk.
All that said, there is still the chance that the market averages have reached the point where a "correction" is in order.
Or, as J.P. Morgan is reported to have said when his elevator operator asked him what the market will do, "It will fluctuate."
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Power Play
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Some time ago, the U.S. government demanded a trove of emails from Microsoft in a case involving an accused drug dealer. Microsoft refused the warrant, on the grounds that the computer server holding the stuff was not in the U.S. but in Ireland, and therefore the U.S. warrant had no jurisdiction.
Government lawyers pursued the case through several levels, and now it's headed for the Supreme Court.
This could have been avoided, according to a former attorney general for Ireland, if the U.S. had simply asked the Irish government for the information. The Irish government then could go to an Irish court for an Irish search warrant. But no, U.S. prosecutors insisted that a warrant issued to an American company must be complied with, no matter where the relevant stuff -- in this case digital emails -- was stored. In this case, it was an American company with facilities in Ireland. The Irish government itself did not have the data.
Now here comes the problem. If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the warrant and rules against Microsoft, then every piece of data owned by anyone in the world, if stored on an American-owned computer server, could be subject to a warrant issued by an American court against an American company. This would include Apple, Google, Yahoo and other U.S. companies as well as Microsoft.
It could also affect American operations of foreign owned businesses. And if the U.S. can issue search warrants against overseas operations of American companies, it follows that other nations could follow that legal precedent and issue search warrants for data stored on computers in the U.S.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Some time ago, the U.S. government demanded a trove of emails from Microsoft in a case involving an accused drug dealer. Microsoft refused the warrant, on the grounds that the computer server holding the stuff was not in the U.S. but in Ireland, and therefore the U.S. warrant had no jurisdiction.
Government lawyers pursued the case through several levels, and now it's headed for the Supreme Court.
This could have been avoided, according to a former attorney general for Ireland, if the U.S. had simply asked the Irish government for the information. The Irish government then could go to an Irish court for an Irish search warrant. But no, U.S. prosecutors insisted that a warrant issued to an American company must be complied with, no matter where the relevant stuff -- in this case digital emails -- was stored. In this case, it was an American company with facilities in Ireland. The Irish government itself did not have the data.
Now here comes the problem. If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the warrant and rules against Microsoft, then every piece of data owned by anyone in the world, if stored on an American-owned computer server, could be subject to a warrant issued by an American court against an American company. This would include Apple, Google, Yahoo and other U.S. companies as well as Microsoft.
It could also affect American operations of foreign owned businesses. And if the U.S. can issue search warrants against overseas operations of American companies, it follows that other nations could follow that legal precedent and issue search warrants for data stored on computers in the U.S.
Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
Precedent President
Rather than renominate Janet Yellen to a second four-year term as chair of the Federal Reserve Board, as has been customary when a new president takes office, Donald Trump passed over her and picked another board member, Jerome Powell, instead. Powell is known as a moderate in his positions.
Why the president changed this precedent is open to speculation, but a likely reason could be that Powell's background and business leanings are near the top of possibilities. News reports point out that Powell is a deep-rooted establishment Republican with strong ties to the financial industry, as a lawyer and an investment banker.
This suggests that Trump picked Powell because he is more likely to follow the president's preferences, so the Fed's monetary policy would be more in line with the government's fiscal policy. His appointment as chairman must still be approved by the Senate.
Yellen will remain as a member of the Fed's board of governors after her term as chair expires in February.
In his thank-you note to the president, Powell gave no hint that he would attempt to change the Fed's attitudes, and that he would follow the Fed's "longstanding tradition of monetary policy independence."
The nomination came a day after the Fed announced it was holding its target for its key lending rate at the range of 1 percent to 1.25 percent. The same day, the Bank of England announced it was raising its key lending rate to 0.5 percent from 0.25 percent. It was the first time in a decade that the British central bank raised interest rates, and came as the United Kingdom faces potential problems as the nation makes plans to leave the European Union.
Why the president changed this precedent is open to speculation, but a likely reason could be that Powell's background and business leanings are near the top of possibilities. News reports point out that Powell is a deep-rooted establishment Republican with strong ties to the financial industry, as a lawyer and an investment banker.
This suggests that Trump picked Powell because he is more likely to follow the president's preferences, so the Fed's monetary policy would be more in line with the government's fiscal policy. His appointment as chairman must still be approved by the Senate.
Yellen will remain as a member of the Fed's board of governors after her term as chair expires in February.
In his thank-you note to the president, Powell gave no hint that he would attempt to change the Fed's attitudes, and that he would follow the Fed's "longstanding tradition of monetary policy independence."
The nomination came a day after the Fed announced it was holding its target for its key lending rate at the range of 1 percent to 1.25 percent. The same day, the Bank of England announced it was raising its key lending rate to 0.5 percent from 0.25 percent. It was the first time in a decade that the British central bank raised interest rates, and came as the United Kingdom faces potential problems as the nation makes plans to leave the European Union.
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
Independent Fed
The economy is doing well, but the Federal Reserve said it's not ready to tap the brakes to prevent an unmanageable surge.
The Fed's Open Market Committee said it will hold its key lending rate where it has been for some time now, in the range of 1 percent to 1.25 percent, partly because inflation remained below its 2 percent target rate even as unemployment low, at just about full employment.
Something to watch, however, is whether the president will nominate Janet Yellen for a second term as chair of the monetary watchdog board or replace her with someone more in tune with his own preference for less regulation in any and all government activities.
Even so, the two potential nominees are generally regarded as moderate, and whether they stay in that mold, even keeping to the Federal Reserve Board's traditional independence, will be something to watch for.
President Donald Trump has been talking up the need for looser reins overall so the nation's economy can "take off like a rocket." GDP has been growing at 3 percent, but if a surge shows up, the Fed traditionally has acted to prevent sudden surges.
Meanwhile, as the Fed voted to keep the key lending rate low, the Bank of England is expected to boost its key rate when it meets this week.
The Fed's Open Market Committee said it will hold its key lending rate where it has been for some time now, in the range of 1 percent to 1.25 percent, partly because inflation remained below its 2 percent target rate even as unemployment low, at just about full employment.
Something to watch, however, is whether the president will nominate Janet Yellen for a second term as chair of the monetary watchdog board or replace her with someone more in tune with his own preference for less regulation in any and all government activities.
Even so, the two potential nominees are generally regarded as moderate, and whether they stay in that mold, even keeping to the Federal Reserve Board's traditional independence, will be something to watch for.
President Donald Trump has been talking up the need for looser reins overall so the nation's economy can "take off like a rocket." GDP has been growing at 3 percent, but if a surge shows up, the Fed traditionally has acted to prevent sudden surges.
Meanwhile, as the Fed voted to keep the key lending rate low, the Bank of England is expected to boost its key rate when it meets this week.
It's Mueller Time
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The special counsel probe into government wrongdoing and possible collusion with foreigners during the presidential election campaign is led by a federal prosecutor who took down the Brooklyn Mafia, the Enron company, and the Arthur Andersen accounting firm.
So this legalistic pit bull, as the New York Times characterized Andrew Weissman, should be afraid of the Trumpian machine because ... ?
Meanwhile, the president's squad continues its distraction tactics to refocus public attention away from the probe to its allegations of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Good luck with that one, considering that there is little or no evidence to support their charges.
Nevertheless, they persist in what can be called the "Yeah But Syndrome," which manifests in such defensive claims as "Yeah, but they do it too." Or, "Yeah, but she hit me first." Or this one: "Yeah, but the other guy is even worse."
That final claim is the defense of last resort for those who eventually admit that their guy really is the arrogant, ignorant liar that the evidence has been showing for months.
Which means they remain loyal to their hero regardless of the list of failings that grows longer by the day.
Reality check: Hillary Clinton did not gain the presidency, so it doesn't matter what she may or may not have done during the campaign. Donald Trump did win through to the Oval Office, so it matters a great deal what he and his team said and did during the campaign and what they now say and do, because this affects the entire nation.
Anyway, soon the Traveling Twit will leave for an extended visit to the Far East, including Japan, South Korea and China. On the good side, this may mean that he will be out of Twitter range for perhaps a week.
Then again, maybe not.
Meanwhile, the president and his devotees keep lashing at Democrats and Hillary Clinton, insisting that the probe by Robert Mueller and his crew should really be focusing on what the Dems did, and not on what they insist is the guy who now sits in the Oval Office or his associates.
However, to paraphrase what Trump himself has said, it's because you are the president, and she's not.
Add to that the reality that two close members of the Trump team have been indicted, and a third has copped a plea of guilty to a range of charges dealing with a bunch of stuff. (You could look it up. It's too long to detail here.)
One more thing to keep in mind: The defenders respond loudly that since the allegations show no immediate, direct connection to the president, that means there is no evidence or proof of collusion.
Yet.
Stay tuned.
The special counsel probe into government wrongdoing and possible collusion with foreigners during the presidential election campaign is led by a federal prosecutor who took down the Brooklyn Mafia, the Enron company, and the Arthur Andersen accounting firm.
So this legalistic pit bull, as the New York Times characterized Andrew Weissman, should be afraid of the Trumpian machine because ... ?
Meanwhile, the president's squad continues its distraction tactics to refocus public attention away from the probe to its allegations of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Good luck with that one, considering that there is little or no evidence to support their charges.
Nevertheless, they persist in what can be called the "Yeah But Syndrome," which manifests in such defensive claims as "Yeah, but they do it too." Or, "Yeah, but she hit me first." Or this one: "Yeah, but the other guy is even worse."
That final claim is the defense of last resort for those who eventually admit that their guy really is the arrogant, ignorant liar that the evidence has been showing for months.
Which means they remain loyal to their hero regardless of the list of failings that grows longer by the day.
Reality check: Hillary Clinton did not gain the presidency, so it doesn't matter what she may or may not have done during the campaign. Donald Trump did win through to the Oval Office, so it matters a great deal what he and his team said and did during the campaign and what they now say and do, because this affects the entire nation.
Anyway, soon the Traveling Twit will leave for an extended visit to the Far East, including Japan, South Korea and China. On the good side, this may mean that he will be out of Twitter range for perhaps a week.
Then again, maybe not.
Meanwhile, the president and his devotees keep lashing at Democrats and Hillary Clinton, insisting that the probe by Robert Mueller and his crew should really be focusing on what the Dems did, and not on what they insist is the guy who now sits in the Oval Office or his associates.
However, to paraphrase what Trump himself has said, it's because you are the president, and she's not.
Add to that the reality that two close members of the Trump team have been indicted, and a third has copped a plea of guilty to a range of charges dealing with a bunch of stuff. (You could look it up. It's too long to detail here.)
One more thing to keep in mind: The defenders respond loudly that since the allegations show no immediate, direct connection to the president, that means there is no evidence or proof of collusion.
Yet.
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)