Empty Words

Us Versus Them

Politics has always been a team sport.  We divide into teams, Republicans versus Democrats or Conservatives versus Liberals.  There are smaller teams, too, Libertarians, Environmentalists, Communists and even more.  We self identify and, often, belong to more than one team.

Many don't join a team, at least not officially.  But we often side with one team or another with regularity.

Catering to this political division, our television news networks have recently become voices for "primarily" one team.  Fox News is often seen as a "Republican" voice.  More recently MSNBC has become a "Democratic Party" voice.

We trust and read and listen to people we perceive are on our team.  They have credibility.  They are seen as honest, intelligent, articulate, wise.  People who are seen as members of the "other team" are foolish, gullible, doctrinaire, duplicitous and, generally, just plain stupid.

Hence Liberals tend to fawn over the writings of Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, giving him nearly unlimited credibility, regardless of what he writes and on what subject.  Meanwhile Conservatives see him as foolish and much worse.

On the issue of gun control, Conservatives love Wayne LaPierre, chairman of the NRA, while Progressives regard him a paid lackey for the gun industry who cares nothing about the death of innocent children.

Us versus Them.

Then along comes Pulitzer Prize Winning Playwright David Mamet, author of Glenarry Glen Ross, Speed the Plow and other great plays.  He's an Oscar nominated screenwriter for The Verdict and Wag the Dog and more.  Generally his movies and plays are clearly anti big business anti Capitalist tomes.  As a Liberal and Progressive, surely he's one of us. Isn't he?

I mean he's sure as hell no Wayne LaPierre, is he?  Well, Huffington Post readers who actually pay attention already know he is a Hollywood misfit, a conservative is a big liberal pond.  But nearly the rest of the world is shocked by his cover story in this week's Newsweek: Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm

I want to encourage you all to read the Newsweek essay linked above and below.  It's stunningly brilliant.  And Manet, just like Wayne LaPierre is completely correct.  Here's a tiny snippet or two:

My grandmother came from Russian Poland, near the Polish city of Chelm. Chelm was celebrated, by the Ashkenazi Jews, as the place where the fools dwelt. And my grandmother loved to tell the traditional stories of Chelm.

Its residents, for example, once decided that there was no point in having the sun shine during the day, when it was light out—it would be better should it shine at night, when it was dark. 

Similarly, we modern Solons delight in passing gun laws that, in their entirety, amount to “making crime illegal.” What possible purpose in declaring schools “gun-free zones”?

Who bringing a gun, with evil intent, into a school would be deterred by the sign?

Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot. 

Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime.

Read his entire essay here: Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm

Ending Gun Violence

This past Wednesday President Obama outlined a broad and complex series of initiatives to curb gun violence in America.  Many steps he outlined will require new legislation, but a large number of measures he instituted through Executive Order.  By and large I agree with his "Executive Order" measures.  However, new legislation is unlikely to pass.

There are two very unfortunate side effects of the Obama initiatives.  First his heavy handed and combative approach further deepened the divide in our society over this contentious issue.  Obama further inflamed tempers and increased friction in our already over-heated political atmosphere.  Lats face it, President Obama does not want to be, and is incapable of being, a conciliator.

Second, every step President Obama outlined, even if fully implemented would not curb gun violence one tiny bit.  It likely would make it worse.

Gun violence can be curbed. In fact it can be nearly eliminated.  But not by making criminals out of America's most law abiding citizens.  Obama's laws are all designed to restrict and restrain good honest people, they do nothing to affect the criminals.

Many cities and communities across America are taking real action to reduce gun violence.  None are doing it by further restricting guns.  One example is tremendous success is Aurora, Illinois.  Aurora is Illinois second largest city, is near Chicago, and was one of the deadliest cities in America just a few short years ago.

Just eight years ago the murder rate in Aurora exceeded the rate in Chicago.  Over the last eight years gun violence and murders in Chicago has gotten worse, while in 2012 Aurora did not have one single homicide!  Not one!!  And there were only 61 incidents of gun violence, an 80% reduction from the peak in 1996.

How did Aurora do it while simultaneously having a population explosion?  It took a multifaceted d approach to solving the underlying issues of poverty, gang violence, education and opportunity.

Aurora Police Chief Greg Thomas said there are no quick fixes for reducing the number of murders in any community.

Thomas said that a key factor was getting help from the community, getting kids into after-school programs and the Junior ROTC.

The police department also tried to keep young people from joining gangs through it’s “Knock and Talk” program.

If the police caught wind that a certain young person was trying to become involved in a gang, police would talk to the young person’s parent and inform them of the signs to watch for from their son or daughter.

Rev. Pat McManus, pastor at Kingdom Impact Center, is one of several aurora ministers who held prayer vigils at every murder scene in past years, encouraging neighbors to fight back. “We’re all working together, doing the same thing, having the same focus to truly see the city turn,” he said.

Thomas said Aurora started focusing in 2005 on the worst of the repeat criminals and getting them locked up in federal prisons.

“If you look at about 2005 to 2007, we took about 150 high-ranking gang members, shooters off the streets in Aurora, with help from federal partnerships with the ATF and FBI. I think that was a big contributor,” Thomas said.

Thomas said the reduction in the murder rate is the culmination of a long team effort, and the results have been dramatic. Thomas credited a crackdown on gangs, assisted by federal authorities. Thomas also credited use of the CompStat system, which uses crime statistics to focus police resources on hot spots of activity.

East Aurora was once the center of much of the city’s gang and drug violence, but in the neighborhoods, and the lively businesses, residents feel the change. “I believe my kids are in less danger,” one woman said.

“I feel a lot safer,” one man said.

“I think it should get out, you know? Come live in Aurora, It’s a safe place,” another man said.

Certainly the growth Aurora has experienced has helped by opening up job opportunities.

One thing Chicago's overly tough gun laws have proved beyond any doubt: Gun Control DOES NOT reduce gun violence.  Social, civic and law enforcement solutions like those implemented in Aurora do.

The following resources were helpful in preparing this blog entry.  In some cases quotes for city officials and residents were taken from these news stories and I am indebted to the reporters who did the real work in researching this information:

CBS 2 Chicago

Democratic Underground dot com

HUFF POST Chicago

City of Aurora Website

Choice

I am working on my next blog entry on curbing violence and violent crime.  As I mentioned in last week's blog entry, gun control is not part of any real solution.  None-the-less President Obama and many Governors are making Gun Control their primary response to the current wave of violence.  Unfortunately, Obama's approach is badly dividing Americans. That is a shame and will only serve to further polarize our nation.

One example of the heated feelings being generate by the left's current attack on guns, is this image and message, which has gone viral on Facebook and elsewhere.  Keep in mind that AT LEAST 50% of all Americans agree with this message.

The Gun Control Battle: Attack the Law Abiding Citizens

As I stated in my last blog entry, Liberals love to condemn inanimate objects, organizations, corporations, large demographic groups of people and (very, very, very rarely) the government rather than individuals in placing blame for society's ills.  I tangentially pointed out that law abiding citizens were likely to be blamed (especially if they are part of a large group) but lawbreakers are showered with excuses, mitigating circumstances and forgiveness.

It is a curious mindset that defies explanation.  But it has been on full display this last two weeks courtesy of the lower Hudson Valley Journal News, a Gannett newspaper, and their dynamic web site, lohud.com. The Journal News decided to publish, on an interactive map, the names and addresses of all REGISTERED GUN OWNERS in their area.

It certainly didn't matter to the Journal News that, statistically, these are probably the most honest and law abiding citizens in their readership area.  It didn't matter that these folks went out of their way to meticulously obey the law. These people were named and branded as public enemy number one!

Now, obviously, The Journal News couldn't list the names of the illegal and unregistered gun owners, because, well, these people are actually criminals.  But,as near as I can tell, The News Journal, pretty much always ignores criminals.

I couldn't find, for example, a listing, interactive or otherwise, of registered sex offenders.  As a parent and grandparent I'm a lot more interested in who is a sex offender in my neighborhood than who is a gun owner.

There is no list of parolees who have been released from prison, but are still paying the price for their crimes against the community.

There are no gang member listings or even locations of gang activity.

I couldn't find a list of under performing schools or teachers.

Any interactive list of deadbeat dads who fail to provide for their children was curiously missing, too.

This is all because Liberals blame the guns.  It's easy, clean and simple.  We never blame people.

As we build new gun control laws, you can bet they will only further restrict honest, law abiding, registered gun owners.  They will do nothing to restrain criminals or reduce criminal gun violence.

Gun murders can be reduced or nearly eliminated.  One major metropolitan area has actually done it! ZERO murders in 2012!!! And gun control laws had absolutely nothing to do with the solution. More on that in my next blog entry.

Solving Gun Violence

A tragic and horribly misplaced approach of today's liberal and progressive leaders is to blame inanimate objects or cultural attitudes or corporations (which today's liberals see as inanimate objects) or, rarely, government for any and all of today's ills.  But we avoid any assignment of personal responsibility at all costs. Even if the cost is in human lives.

Gun deaths and gun violence is no exception.

First we blame the guns themselves.  And, of course that allows us to blame the NRA. From there it's easy to blame the gun manufacturers, gun sellers and gun owners (as a group, of course, and primarily if they're legal, registered gun owners).

Quickly we blame lax gun laws, gun shows and gun registration.  We blame large ammunition clips and semi-automatic weapons.

Next we blame the lack of jobs, poverty in general, or as Reverend Jessie Jackson did this week, a "lack of dreams."

Curiously we don't blame Hollywood or the media culture of violence very often. I'm guessing that's because many of the people in Hollywood are wealthy liberals who contribute verbally and, rather rarely, financially to our causes.  Best not bite the hand that feeds. But that's a very minor side point.

But we avoid any assignment of personal responsibility.  We do not, under any circumstances blame personal lifestyles, personal choices or personal decisions. We never allow any blame that would insult or hurt an individual or the choices they have made or failed to make.

If a person drops out of school, that's the school's fault. A school system is a great inanimate object.  But we never blame the teachers, or even dare to measure a teacher's ability or success.  That's personal and we don't do personal.

Because of our tragically failed approach to problems we have the great tragedy of gun violence in our society.  And the iconic symbol of our failure in curbing gun violence is not Newtown, Connecticut, but Chicago Illinois.

Chicago had 500 hundred murders this year, 87.5% of which were "gun related."  And they took place in city with the tightest, toughest gun laws in America.  Babies, children, teen and adults were all killed, with the toughest gun laws in place.

Did you realize that virtually no murders are committed by people with "concealed carry" permits? Nationally. Almost none. It turns out that murders are committed by criminals.  Who knew?

I personally have no problem with tougher gun laws.  I believe some new gun laws will emerge from Congress this next year and they'll have my strong personal support.  They won't solve any problems, but my fellow liberal will feel better.

But no gun law currently being proposed or discussed will prevent the tragedy in Newtown or reduce murders in Chicago (or anywhere else).

Both Ann Coulter and the vilified NRA know exactly how to stop future Newtown's from happening.  We will condemn them with our strongest voices of righteous indignation. We will call them "racists" and "neanderthals" and then we will quickly and quietly implement their solutions because they are right. Curiously, Ann Coulter is almost always right.

And Larry Elder knows how to solve the poverty problem, which does lead directly to the gun and gang violence in Chicago.  Our problem is that, as liberals, we've decided to take personal responsibility off the table and, therefore we cannot consider Elder's solutions.  Let me print some of what Elder has to say:

“To avoid poverty, UCLA public policy professor James Q. Wilson said that everyone — not just blacks — must do three things: finish high school, don’t become a parent until at least the age of twenty, and get married before having a child. Do this and you will not be poor,” 

Elder said. “I once asked Kweisi Mfume, then the head of the NAACP the following question: ‘As between the presence of white racism and the absence of black fathers, which poses the bigger threat to the black community.’ He immediately responded, ‘The absence of black fathers.’ Screaming about racism won’t solve this problem.”

“And if every white person, as my friend Walter Williams likes to say, suddenly became as pure as Mother Teresa, the problem of a 50 percent urban high school drop out rate would remain,” he added.

I want to be clear. I favor gay and lesbian marriage.  But Elder is right, we need two parent families.  Two men, two women or a man and women, I don't care.  But marriage need to occur before childbirth.  And life long commitment is a key.

Poverty rarely occurs in two parent families.  School drop-outs are reduced, too. Be honest, a single parent doesn't have the time or financial resources to attend school meetings, join the PTA and lead fund drives for more resources.  They often don't have the time to help with homework.

Poor single parents are good people, but they are handicapped  financially and functionally.  They love their kids, but they are stressed to the limit.

We cannot and must not legislate marriage. But, as a society, we need to realize strong family units are a key to a healthy society.  And, as liberals, we must look beyond the inanimate and toward the personal if we are truly to make an impact and begin to actually solve problems.

Thelma and Louise

Are we going to the edge of the cliff? Or are we going to go, full throttle, over the edge?

I've already stated it is best for the country if we pull a full Thelma and Louise and sail right over the edge.  If somehow you don't know the Thelma and Louise reference, please go rent, borrow or buy the excellent movie.  While it will teach you only a little about economics, it will teach you a great deal about humanity.

Indeed, what's happening in Washington is mostly "theater." We have players acting on the stage to impress the audience.   Both House Speaker Boehner and President Obama are striving for an Academy Award.  They want to win.  Neither actually wants whats best for the American People, the economy or the future.

These are small men with small minds and smaller hearts.  There's no Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in this bunch.  And that is a shame.  Like Thelma and Louise, we deserve better.

Kathleen Parker wrote an excellent piece about President Obama and Speaker Boehner yesterday.  I urge you to read the entire article, but here is a small excerpt:

The cliff negotiations between President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner have taken on the aspect of a game of chicken. Boehner needs spending cuts; Obama needs revenue. America needs both.

Who will blink first before we plummet off the edge into automatic tax increases for all, government spending cuts and a probable recession? 

After so many years of partisan intransigence, it's easy enough to assume that all parties are equally guilty, but this time Obama is driving the herd. Elections have consequences, as the president keeps reminding us. By this, he apparently means that he will have things his way, the rest of the country be damned.

Happy Holidays! Here's President Obama's Gift to You

You Owe $51,252.21.  That is your personal share of the National Debt.  If you have a son or daughter, they each owe the exact same amount.

As a Nation we owe $16,353,231,308,750.00 at this second.  By the time you read this it will be more.

Tomorrow, we all will owe more.

When President Obama and his family return from their taxpayer paid $4 million vacation to Hawaii we all will owe more.

Leadership in Washington, D.C. does not exist today.

The World is NOT Coming to an End

TODAY'S HEADLINE:  Fiscal Cliff Talks Frozen

Two thoughts.  First and, by far, most important: If Congress fails to act the world will not come to an end.  Far from it. In fact I believe the complete failure of talks is the optimal outcome.  We need to aggressively deal with the national debt. This is the only approach that does that.

I am confident the economy will not go into recession.  In fact, I predict with confidence, it will improve.  After all Nancy Pelosi's $800 million dollar stimulus had no effect on the economy.  Neither will this tax increase coupled with the minor spending reduction.

This is much ado about nothing.

Second, in spite of my bold suggestion we allow the tax cuts to expire and the spending cuts to take effect, neither will happen.  Compromise will be reached.

Green Chri$tma$

File this one under "speaking truth to power."

Stan Freberg created his comedic mini-opera " Green Chri$tma$" all the way back in 1958. Logging in at a whopping 6 minutes and 52 seconds it was too long for most radio station's formats.  But that isn't what kept it from being played on AM and FM stations back in the late 50's.

Freberg was an advertising powerhouse in the 1950's sought after by major clients worldwide. He was also a major comedy recording artist for Capitol Records.  Virtually his entire catalog is still available for purchase or download. 

Popular history says that Stan Freberg was inspired to write "Green Chri$tma$ when he happened upon a magazine advertisement showing a family, on Christmas morning, thrilled with receiving four new whitewall tires for Christmas. For the son and grandson of ministers, it was just too much, and he had the first draft written that afternoon.

"Green Chri$tma$" performed by Stan Freberg and the folks from his advertising group. Some of the greatest advertising and musical geniuses of the day worked with Mr Freberg in creating this masterpiece.  Musical arrangement was written by Billy May, who directed the Capitol Records house orchestra. Other vocal performances are by Daws Butler, Marvin Miller, Will Wright and the Jud Conlon Chorale.

While the creation of "Green Chri$tma$" was truly inspired, getting it released and on the air turned out to be a nightmare. At first, Capitol Records refused to release the record. Capitol told Freberg the record was offensive to everybody in advertising, and predicted confidently that Freberg would never work in advertising again. 

Freberg doubled down and  threatened to cancel his entire recording contract with Capitol if they didn't release his masterpiece.  He went so far as to talk to a competitor,  Verve Records, and Verve jumped at the chance to sign Freberg. They offered to release the record without even hearing it. Rather than lose Freberg, Capitol released Green Chri$tma$ quietly, with no promotion or publicity.

In spite of Capitol's efforts to "fly under the radar" Freberg's record was attacked immediately in advertising trade magazines. And advertisers flexed their muscles and forced radio stations to censor the song and keep it off the air. It was played only twice in New York by one disc jockey, and the station's sales department threatened to have him fired if he played it again. The story was repeated station after radio station. In spite of overwhelming listener requests, stations bowed to advertisers and refused to air the song.

And it got worse!  An editorial in the Los Angeles Times condemned it, but the author later admitted he had never listened to it.   The head of CBS refused to even listen to the song because he "already knew what it was all about."

However, the mail Freberg received from the public, including Christian clergy and rabbis, was overwhelmingly positive.

However, Freberg did get both the first and last laugh.  The song became an underground hit is an age when copies had to be made on home tape recorders.  Even more importantly Coca-Cola and Marlboro, both recognizably satirized in the record without being named, asked Freberg for advertising campaigns. On principle he turned down cigarette company Marlboro, but he created a very successful campaign for Coca-Cola.

Today Green Chri$tma$ is considered a work of art by an advertising genius who had the courage to see exactly what his profession was doing and to call them on it.  Freberg was willing to speak truth to power and win.

Ding Dong Death Watch

There are genuinely serious issues facing us today.  Hamas is retaliating for Israels massive missile strike with new, long range missiles hitting the suburbs of Tel Aviv.  We may on the verge of outright war in the Middle East which could easily escalate into a world wide conflict.

Europe has fallen back into a real recession.  Strikes are occurring in many countries and Spain and Greece are on the verge of default once again.  The economic implications for the United States are immense.

General David Petreas has been forced to resign as the head of the C.I.A. in a sex scandal that seems to grow daily.

And the events in Benghazi, Libya are just now beginning to emerge.  Susan Rice, our United Nation's Ambassador has been tarnished by her role in making a series of misleading statements (or attempted cover-up) of events surrounding the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Unfortunately this mess gets uglier by the day at a time when we need President Obama and his entire national security team to focus on world events.

But I today I must spend a few comments about the potential death of a great American Institution, Hostess Bakeries and their flagship confections, the Twinkie and Dong Dong dessert snacks.  If striking bakers don't return to work by the close of business today, the CEO of the bankrupt Hostess Brands, the parent of Hostess, has promised to close the business and liquidate all assets.

While the names Twinkie and Ding Dong will no doubt be sold in the liquidation, it's unlikely the snacks will ever be the same.  

The bakers are fighting a rather small reduction in wages ordered by the bankruptcy court.  The strike is illegal and the court has ordered the strikers to return to work.  If they don't, and the company liquidates, 18,000 employees will all lose their jobs.  

And all America will lose their Twinkies and Ding Dongs, perhaps forever.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hostess has been mismanaged.  They had just clawed their way out of bankruptcy two short years ago.  Now they're already back.  That's not the Baker's Union fault, that's management.

On the other hand Hostess cannot compete with the brilliantly run McKee Foods, maker of Little Debbie Snacks, who operate non-unionized plants with significantly lower costs.  Saddled with huge union costs, high medical benefit costs and gigantic pensions (which the Bankruptcy Court is now proposing to reduce), Hostess simply cannot compete profitably in the cost conscious American marketplace.

Let's hope that calmer minds prevail in each of the crisis we face today, even the Twinkie Crisis.  
___________________________________

ADDENDUM November 23, 2012:  Everyone tried to save Hostess, the Teamsters Union, Management and even the Bankruptcy Judge, but the Baker's Union was determined to close the company and place it into liquidation.  I've read dozens of articles and cannot find one word of explanation from the Baker's Union as to why they refused every effort to resolve this crisis. 18,500 people will now all lose their jobs.  No one believes the 6,500 Baker's Union members will ever get their jobs back, even with new owners.

Why did the union work so aggressively against the interests of their members?  Why do we have 6,500 Baker's Union members suffering this Christmas?  I'd welcome input, especially from any member of the Union, especially the Union Leaders.

Red State has an in depth analysis of this failure and the union's mysterious failure to help thier members: Let Them Eat Cake

Why Romney Lost

There is no point in writing a post telling you why Romney lost because I've already spent an entire year telling you why Romney would lose.  And he lost for the exact reasons I already have posted.

November 18, 2011 - Why Mitt Can't Win

February 19, 2012 - Mitt Romney Can't Win

July 18, 2012 - Dear Mr Romney

September 18, 2012 - NOT BREAKING NEWS: Mitt Romney Can't Win

September 28, 2012 - Why Mitt Romney Must Win and Why Mitt Romney Will Lose

November 1, 2012 - Obama is a Lock for an Eight Year failed Presidency

But there are a couple of new points I can add.

My first point is that President Obama waged a brilliant campaign.  Many now say his 2012 campaign will be studied for years to come. He had everything working against him from high unemployment to exploding national debt to a Watergate caliber scandal (Benghazi) that would have easily sunk any other President.

But he ran a text book campaign including the key act of defining the opponent in May and June before the opponent has a chance to define himself.  Romney was quickly defined as an elitist, out of touch, business CEO, a multi-millionaire who genuinely had no regard at all for the lower classes.

Meanwhile Romney also ran a textbook campaign: but his was the textbook about how to lose!  Romney never responded to a single attack in a timely manner.  After playing four quarters of defense, he then tried to run out the clock.

My second point comes from a genuinely great analysis of voter turnout in Real Clear Politics today: The Case of the Missing White Voters by Sean Trende.  Trende points out that minority turnout equaled Obama's first election in 2008.  It had been expected minority turnout would drop.  What did drop and drop dramatically was white middle class turnout.  Had Mitt Romney simply got the votes John McCain and Sarah Palin got in 2008, he would have won.

Obama's ground game was superb.  He got his vote out. And by successfully turning off the middle class voters with his negative defining of Mitt Romney, potential Romney voters stayed home.  

Romney's ground game was, well, pathetic.  He counted on "enthusiasm" instead of a real get-out-the-vote effort.  The Republican Party is also largely to blame.  There are real lessons to be learned here.

But there is also a lesson about enthusiasm.  Romney never got people excited.  And he failed to use the single most powerful weapon in his (potential) arsenal, Sarah Palin, until it was too late.

Palin should have been the keynote speaker at the convention.  Certainly not the traitor Chris Christie, who gave a lackluster speech that was all about Chris Christie.  And Palin should have been on the road.  

To her credit Sarah Palin was on Romney's side to the very end and, when finally asked, recorded robo-calls for Romney.  It was way too little, way too late.

But that's not Romney's style. In fact, Romney has no style. Therein lies the entire problem.