Paranoia Strikes Deep

    I think it is wrong that the NRA's leadership has cornered the market on paranoia. In the interest of fairness I would like to indulge in a little paranoia of my own. Rahm Emanuel popularized the axiom about never letting a good crisis go to waste, and the NRA capos are true believers in that axiom. In the wake of the Newtown shootings, the NRA's mouthpiece, Wayne LaPierre, declared their conviction that something had to be done about violence in the media, violent computer games, and the mentally ill.

   
    But guns are not a problem.

    Granted, crazy people who are pumped up on Mortal Kombat and slasher flicks would be far less effective at mass murder if they had to use a chainsaw, or knife, or even a decent bolt-action Mosin-Nagant rifle. But the point is that they are crazy. Crazy!

   
    So let's get paranoid, shall we?

    The NRA--as I have previously suggested--is less about training and educating people in safe gun use and responsible ownership than it is about shilling for gun manufacturers. Because guns are what you call a durable good (they last for years and years) the only way to increase sales is to create an increased perception of need in peoples' minds. They do that by creating a climate of fear and imminent conflict between armed citizens and an intrusive government determined to take away peoples' guns. They also harp on the idea that society is is in peril from people that aren't like us; people who want to steal our stuff, who hate our values, dark people, bad guys, and crazy people.

    All this to get us to buy more guns and more expensive guns.

    But the NRA isn't just about selling guns. It is also a flank in a vast conspiracy on the right that is committed to preserving the privileges and profits of a few oligarchs at the expense of our liberties, health, safety and lives. The various divisions in this conspiracy move in lockstep. Their talking points are coordinated, uniform and their objectives are identical; feed the sheep and then feed the oligarchs. This, by the way, is proving a successful formula in Vladimir Putin's Russia.

    A key element in the conspiracy is the America Legislative Exchange Council (aka ALEC). ALEC is a group that purports to bring legislators and businessmen together to craft legislation, usually at the state level. Some of their prouder achievements are "stand your ground" laws and the Arizona and Alabama "show me your papers" statutes. These latter statutes, which included provisions to lock up illegal aliens in detention centers until they could be deported were largely written at the behest of the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison operator in the country. CCA likes "three strikes and you're out" laws that send people found guilty of three felonies to prison for life.  And, they like mandatory (long) sentences  for certain drug offenses. As a general rule they like (and promote) laws that put as many people as possible behind bars (preferably CCA's bars) for as long as possible.

    I don't think I am alone in being uncomfortable with the prospect of a for-profit enterprise spending a lot of money on legislation and legislators to make it easier to fill said for-profit enterprise's prisons and detention facilities.

    When I hear Wayne LaPierre rail against the mentally ill and demand we do something (other than a decent background check which might prevent them from buying a gun) I find myself wondering when ALEC and Wayne's fellow travelers in CCA will introduce legislation to mandate confining mentally ill persons in newly built asylums funded by taxpayers and operated by private corporations.

    Never let a good crisis go to waste. Is that paranoid enough?

Wayne's (Dystopic) World

Where to start? So much has been written about the school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut that it is hard to marshal my thoughts and write anything coherent. After the shootings I tried to push the horror  into a mental "box" where it was solely an intellectual problem, but it wouldn't stay there. I saw a picture of my lovely grand-niece, old enough to have been in that school, and felt consumed by anger and fear for her safety, and the safety of so many children.

Predictably the debate about guns began almost immediately. Most of the arguments from Littleton, Jonesboro, Virginia Tech, Tuscon, Aurora, Portland were re-hashed. It isn't the guns, it's the video games, the culture, the lack of God in the schools. You knew they were coming.

I am happy to acknowledge that mental illness, and video games and violent television and movies play a part. I also think that corrosive public discourse, in which any disagreement equals "fightin' words" and people who don't get their way at the polls try to deligitimize democratic processes.

One of the more rancid bits of paranoia suggested that the attack was "staged" or organized by the government. This played to NRA Executive Vice president Wayne Lapierre's pre-election predictions that Obama was coming for America's guns if he got reelected. In Wayne's world, President Obama's unwillingness to address gun issues isn't because he is uncomfortable with the Constitutional issues associated with confiscating billions of dollars worth of legal property owned by American citizens. No, it is because Obama was lulling us into a false sense of security. Now that he has been reelected he will come for our guns while black helicopters swoop down on our cities and neighborhoods.

A number of folks have gone on television to decry the "politicization" of the tragedy by suggesting it is time to talk about guns. Fortunately, they were able to exercise their indignation the week before on Bob Costas who pointed out that Jovan Belcher had some serious problems that, when combined with a gun, turned deadly for his girlfriend and himself, and that maybe it was time to talk about the gun part of the equation. The dawn came up like thunder.

If it is politicization to suggest that guns are part of the problem and that we ought to talk about them, is it not also politicization to insist they should be off-limits? Aren't political discussions about limits and compromises by their very nature? If saying something is off-limits isn't politicizing the something, then I don't know what is.

Let's think about what happened a week ago. A disturbed young man named Adam Lanza killed his mother in her house. then he took her guns (2 pistols and a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic carbine) to a school where his mother worked. He entered the school premises and began shooting people. He killed 20 school children, six adults, and himself. We don't know why he did it. We don't know if he planned it or acted on some sort of impulse. Among all the unknowns, I think it is fair to conjecture that -- if he had not had the guns -- a lot of those children and adults would be alive today.

Some folks have made the argument that it wasn't the guns, per se. They make comparisons to an event in China earlier in the week, in which a man entered a school's premises, armed with a knife, and attacked 22 children; implying some sort of equivalence. None of the children in the attack in China died however.

The argument that if "they" can't get a gun, they'll just use something else like a knife or pipe-bomb, or baseball bat is to be blunt, crap. Using a knife to kill a large animal (including a person) is hard, tiring work. You can slash at your victims, which cause painful lacerations but is likely not going to kill them. But if you do want to kill, you have to close with your victim and drive the knife in deep through bone and muscle and then get it back out again. Again, it is hard work. It takes time and potential victims can either run away or attack you.

The same general conditions apply to baseball bats. They too take a lot of work and give potential victims time to flee or attack you.

Pipe-bombs and other improvised explosive devices could be used for mass-murder but they tend to require an expertise that isn't common in the general population. They also require procurement of specialized ingredients that alert authorities to the danger you may represent. Still, they have factored into the plans of some mass-killers. The Columbine killers planned to set off propane bombs, and the Aurora movie theater killer booby-trapped his apartment with bombs, probably to kill investigators who followed up on his crimes.  But pipe-bombs and other IEDs require an element of planning that isn't consistent with what we see in a lot of these instances.

Mass-killers like guns with rapid rates of fire and large capacity magazines because they are highly effective for doing what the killers want to do.  Is it politicizing the issue to acknowledge that reality?

Another ludicrous idea that pops up during these "debates" is that the tragedy in Newtown could have been prevented if only the principal, or a teacher, or maybe the janitor had been armed. As of yesterday, Wayne LaPierre elevated this particularly dystopian vision to the NRA's organizing principle for their "response" to the tragedy, using the pithy equation that "the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

In Wayne's world, every school that wants one, should have an armed guard who is trained to shoot it out with the legions of bad guys that Wayne imagines are waiting in the dark to storm our schools. Of course his proposal won't help the customers in movie theaters or shopping malls, or churches. Wayne thinks more of them should pack heat so they can gun down bad guys on an as-needed basis; such as in a dark movie theater filled with panicked movie-goers and smoke and a shooter who is spraying the audience.

You see, if Wayne has any idea how difficult very experience police and SWAT officers consider that kind of scenario, he isn't letting on. And it is difficult. It is a nightmare to even think about. Or take it out into the light; imagine a shooter in a busy mall (not too hard, since it happened in Portland in the last two weeks). Imagine trying to fix the shooter while the crowd rushes past you in a panic. Imagine also what the police will think of you wielding a weapon as they respond to the site and have to decide (in less than a second) whether you are a threat or not.

Wayne isn't really interested in armed good guys shooting armed bad guys. He is just interested in armed guys, period. He is interested in putting as many weapons in peoples' hands as he can.  In the last two decades, the NRA has gone from an organization that was dedicated to teaching responsible and safe gun use to one that is a lobbying group for gun makers (a transformation I am not sure a lot of NRA members realize has happened) and Wayne LaPierre earns his daily bread.

Well-made guns last a long time, so in Wayne's world the way to sell more guns is to scare people into buying them; by saying that "the government" is going to take your guns (and the rest of your freedom while they're at it). Wayne has been waving this bogey day in and day out for twenty plus years in the finest tribute of imitation ever paid to Josef Goebbels.

Wayne has the perfect bogey-man in Barack Obama. He is a Democrat (bad enough) and he's black, which means he must be the leftiest of the left. The fact that in his first term never indicated the slightest interest in confiscating guns is certain proof of his bad intentions because it means he is going to seize them once he is reelected (see rancid paranoia above).

Yesterday, Wayne shared his vision of the future for those who survive to inherit it. It is a world in which citizens are armed and ready, confident that their guns (as many as they want and can get their hands on) are secure and in which they and their children live in a cross-fire.

It shouldn't be our vision and it sure as hell should not be our future.

 

So, Ryan....

So, its Paul Ryan. What does choosing him mean for Mitt Romney and the remaining presidential campaign? Now that the commentariat have had their say, and the cliches have all been dispensed with, some thoughts:

• Barack Obama now has the "mandate election" he wants. Romney wanted the election to be a referendum on Obama. The problem with that tactic is that Obama turned the tables and made the election a referendum on Romney.  Romney was losing that race. Romney talked about the race as a choice for America, "its about the economy;" but by making it about Obama's fitness to occupy the office, he personalized the race and opened his flank to an attack he was ill-equipped to counter. So now it really is about a choice for America. This is where Obama wanted to be. If Ryan takes the lead in explaining his (and now Romney's) budget plans, he will have to meet Obama on ground that the President is very comfortable on. Moreover, Ryan will have to persuade voters of the merits of policies that they haven't shown much approval for, yet. If Ryan adopts the traditional posture of attack dog, the Democrats will be able to define Ryan's economic plans and ideas in whatever manner they choose. 
• This is high-risk for Romney -- and potentially high-payoff; high-risk for reasons stated above, and a few that will follow, and high-payoff if Ryan is able to energize younger, idealistic voters for whom, Ryan's libertarian views resonate. Ryan has made much in the past (and much less recently) of the influence Ayn Rand has had on him. Rand retains a high degree of popularity among younger voters who don't necessarily buy 100% into Rand's objectivist philosophy, but buy enough that they would -- ideally -- like to see some of the her ideas enacted. A lot of these voters live in states like Colorado (a crucial swing state) and Oregon and Washington, states that are thought solid for Obama; if Ryan can soften those states up, then Obama will have to spend resources that can be better spent in Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, etc.
• Romney risks being upstaged by Ryan. If Ryan emerges as the "ideas" guy on the team, then what role does Romney have? Does he take on the attack dog job? It is a cliche that people don't vote for a ticket because of the VP choice. The VP may make them more comfortable about voting for the presidential candidate, but if they really don't like number one, they won't vote for number two. Right now, Romney is deeply disliked. If he allows Ryan to take the high -- ideas -- road and assigns himself the low road, his chances will crater.
• Ryan is probably a better campaigner than many critics think. He is a likable guy. He has a lot of energy and exudes the kind of confidence that goes with being an introverted person who has thought long and hard about something, mastered it and, in doing so, is comfortable in his own skin. This is an appealing trait to many Americans. It sort of reminds us of Jimmy Stewart in Mr Smith Goes to Washington. Guess who else has this trait? Barack Obama.
• Romney (and the Republicans) are playing long-ball. The Republicans are better at long-ball than the Democrats. Their public rhetoric has it that this is Romney's election to lose. That has never been true. In addition to the incredible powers that incumbency gives any President, Obama has always been a tough proposition for any Republican to beat. Why? because for all purposes and intents, Obama is governing as a Republican. His signature measure, Obamacare, is Republican in its DNA. His approach to financial reform would have fit nicely in just about every Republican administration from Ike to Bush 41. Running against Obama's record is like running against your parents'. In Romney's case that is literally true. So, this race has never been the Republicans to lose. They are likely to lose it. So they have to plan for 2016. What better way to do so than to launch their 2016 candidate now (yes, the Republicans are that hierarchical) . And, if lightning strikes and they win this year, then Ryan will be in position as the 2020 candidate.

Health Care Reform and Flu (and the Zombie Apocalypse)

In previous posts I have argued that health care reform is not just a "right," but a public good; sort of like police, fire and ambulance services. I'd like to revisit that idea, specifically regarding the nation's preparedness for a severe epidemic of swine or avian influenza or other fast moving communicable disease. Not sure what put this buzzer in my brain; maybe it was watching The Walking Dead and thinking about zombie apocalypses.

Anyway, starting shortly after 9/11 and the anthrax letters over the following month, the United States began really thinking about how it would handle a widespread epidemic of infectious disease. Actually the thinking began during the Clinton Administration, but it took 9/11 and the anthrax letters to spur serious action and planning. A few years after 9/11, SARS, followed by avian influenza in Asia and and swine flu in Mexico further propelled interest in planning for severe epidemics.

As the Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and Defense, and state and local governments think about preparedness, some things need to be taken into account.

For instance, what do Americans do now if they feel ill? People who have jobs that provide sick leave will likely stay home until they feel better. If they have health coverage, they may go to their doctors or primary care centers--often relatively soon in the course of their illness. On the other hand, people who don't have jobs with sick leave or medical benefits will likely stay at work until they either get better or until they are so ill that they have to seek care, likely at a hospital emergency room; at which point they may be highly infectious, and will have been highly infectious for a while.

Remember, we are talking about the status quo, what people do now, under "normal" circumstances.

So, think about what the national and state and local governments want people to do in case of an avian or swine flu epidemic (or zombie apocalypse, if that works for you). They would like them to stay at home as much as possible. They would like them to contact their physicians and primary care clinics for advice and not congregate in hospital ERs--which would likely serve as an accelerant for disease transmission. In other words, the governments would like Americans (and may plan to compel them) to behave in a manner that they have not been conditioned by their health system to behave.

Our governments spent billions of dollars planning and preparing for attacks with biological agents in the weeks and months following 9/11. We spent billions more planning and preparing for severe flu epidemics. But we have paid little or no attention to the health care systems that Americans will use in the event; or how Americans of all stripes will interact with those health systems. Americans who have little or no health coverage, or whose employers do not provide sick days -- or will fire them if they stay home sick, or with sick children -- are not incentivized to do what the authorities would like them to do should we ever face a serious communicable disease epidemic.

A key virtue of the current health care reform--call it Obamacare or Romneycare--is that workers will have options to staying at work, sick, until they can't stand it and go to an ER where they can mingle with infected and uninfected persons in great numbers and close quarters.

Yet critics of health care reform complain of the cost, or of government intrusion, not realizing the cost that a modern day Spanish flu would wreak on our economy, or the extent of government intrusion that would be needed to keep millions of Americans away from work and emergency room care and at home in quasi-quarantine.

Mostly, I find the rhetoric of "job-killing health care reform" ironic, if not a bit obscene. Let us have a good outbreak of avian or swine flu, and it won't be jobs that are killed. It will be the people who worked at them.