Why We Need Mail -In Ballots In Every State

If mail balloting was available in FLA - like here in Colorado - voters would not have had to wait in line for hours only to find not enough ballots available at the polling station in North Miami.

"Save your hundreds of millions of dollars Don't replace your aging machines. Throw them on the scrap pile.. Go back to paper ballots. Then think hard about abolishing the polling place and moving to a system that puts the voter first and ensures in every election far more people are casting ballots." -  Phil Keisling, former Oregan secretary of state, in interview with Cynthia McFadden on NBC Evening News Saturday.

 Colorado Mail Ballots arrived at our home more than two weeks ago and we each filled our ballots  out : a total of three pages of voter choices, including for positions such as Governor, and state Attorney General as well as minor (county) positions and at least a dozen propositions and amendments. The latter included a proposition (112) to prohibit frack wells within 2500' of homes, an amendment (A) to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, and another amendment (73) to provide increased funding for public schools by raising state taxes.

Both of us, let me note, have also done the traditional thing of going out to the polling station - both here in the Springs and earlier in Columbia, Maryland - and believe me there is no comparison.  It is far easier to not have to take time off from a job to vote, or to battle illness, physical handicap or whatever. Nor is it necessary to stand in long lines to wait to cast a ballot- only to learn on arriving at the polling station there are no more ballots (See top graphic, in what transpired over the weekend in North Miami). 

In the N. Miami case the powers-that-be in Dade County had underestimated the number of ballots needed. Such fiascoes are avoided with mail ballots because ab initio the voter records are checked before ballots are mailed out.

Why don't more states offer the convenience of mail ballots and early voting? Who knows? But my suspicion is basically they want  to make it difficult to vote for certain demographic groups they don't trust - such as African-Americans, Native Americans and others.

Now it appears libertarian knucklehead Jon Caldara wants to take the state back to the olden days of traipsing to the polls to cast votes. Never mind if you're deathly ill, an invalid, or can't get time from work.  He believes it's the "American" way, like he believes other balderdash (such that health care is not a positive right.)

On Caldara's Independence Institute bio page it proclaims he "hates bullies".  Well, for a guy who hates bullies he sure as hell does a good job emulating them.  His latest target - after going after those who defended health care as a right- is Colorado's mail in ballots.He insists these "skew results to the left" - but when one reads between the lines of his recent tract (Denver Post, Sunday, Oct. 28, p. 2K) it is clear he considers them unAmerican, or at least not patriotic.  He blabs, for example:

"The  ballot isn't just the symbol of democracy - it is democracy. It is the very instrument of self-governance.  The ballot is the fundamental building block of our Republic....So isn't it a little odd that in Colorado we fling these sacred ballots through the mail like King Sooper's coupons...."

Well hey, Jon, would you rather show up at a "proper" polling station after wasting hours of your time waiting in line only to find out they are all out of ballots?  Or, would you prefer a station inundated with electronic voting machines, for which there isn't an iota of QA?  No ability to check that the "sacred" ballot you cast has any paper trail?  Hell, we already know some of  the most notorious hacking stories have recently been exposed e.g.

An 11-Year-Old Hacked Into a U.S. Voting System Replica in 10... - Time

Wherein we learned:

"Emmett Brewer , the 11-year-old who successfully hacked the replicated Florida voting site, wasn’t the only child who got into the election systems at the conference. In total, about 50 kids ranging in age from 8 to 16 attended the conference, DEFCON said in a tweet, and around 30 of them were able to hack into the imitation election websites."

For any who gullibly believe Diebold machines - for example- are as good as paper ballots, I invite you to take a gander at the machine below showing vote switching (from 2012) in action, e.g. at: http://wonkette.com/488754/watch-this-pennsylvania-voting-machine-hilariously-refuse-to-accept-a-vote-for-barack-obama

Things better now, you say? Problems solved? Not so, as one early voting Texan observed, who voted whole ballot D, and found his vote being switched to Ted Cruz before his eyes (instead of Beto O'Rourke)

Zeynip Tufekci in her recent NY Times piece ('The Election Has Already Been Hacked') puts a further light on the underlying issue with elections in this country:

"This election has already been hacked even if not a single voting machine has been compromised. It has already been hacked even if not another ruble has been spent on spreading disinformation. It has already been hacked even if voter registration information has been undisturbed and no vote tallies are altered.

Why, because in much of the United States, we are no longer able to assure people that none of those things has happened. A recent poll shows that 46 percent of the American electorate do not think their  votes will be counted fairly, and about a third think it is likely that a foreign country will tamper with the results."

My bet is if all these Americans could use mail in ballot like those of us in Colorado, Oregon and Washington, that would not be such a huge concern. Why? Because we (all 3 states) use PAPER ballots that are not vulnerable to outside hacks given they're counted by hand. Also our internal checks disclose integrity, i.e. as Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett put it, quoted in The Boulder Daily Camera :

“Local governments and county clerks do a really good job regulating the integrity of elections, and I’ll stand by that record any day of the week. "

The same holds in Oregon and Washington, the only two states where voting is done completely by mail (CO still allows voters to go to polling places if they prefer. Kind of antiquated, but maybe it gives mainly older folks something to do or perhaps feel more red, white & blue.) .  Indeed, in an NBC News segment on Friday ('Securing the Vote')  reporter Cynthia McFadden traveled to Oregon where she interviewed  Phil Keisling former Dem secretary of state and  current officer holder, Republican  Dennis Richardson.

As Keisling explained: "I think the polling place has become the single biggest voter suppression device in American politics."

Both agree their state's system (the first to adopt an entirely vote-by-mail method):  "gets more people voting and is cheaper and more secure."

The reason? They use only paper ballots.  Each of 2 1/2 million registered voters receives a ballot via the U.S mail, no form has to be filled out, it doesn't have to be asked for.  As Keisling put it: "You just give everyone their ballot and let them decide how they want to mark it, if they want to mark it at all."    There's no need to be impeded because of child care demands, or inclement weather, or the artificial barrier of having a specific kind of ID card which 32 states now require. Kind of ridiculous, just as Caldara's insipid complaints, in a nation that features one of the lowest voter participation rates on the planet.

As for security, like here in Colorado each signature is verified by comparison to that on the voter registration card.  What about voters who've died, moved or changed their names? Is there a danger someone might use their ballot? According to Phil Keisling:

"They'd be committing a felony, vote by vote. This is about one of the stupidest ways to try to steal an election."

When McFadden asked the duo about the plans of many other states to invest in new electronic voting machines, the advice was instant:


McFadden concluded that "though much of the country is divided along party lines, these two are in total agreement when it comes to the state's vote by mail system".

The point is, contrary to Caldara's vapid presumptions about single day polling at specially assigned places, there is nothing "sacred" or "sacrosanct" about ballots if they can be hacked or votes switched.  Or if the process in general raises suspicions concerning fairness!  The sacredness of the voting process then inheres in its being faithfully executed according to the will of the voter. This also means the mechanics of how voting is done are immaterial, again so long as the process bears integrity and is faithful to the  voter's will. Mail balloting, contrary to Caldara's bitching, is one of the best ways to ensure the franchise is protected, as both Keisling and Richardson agreed.


But Caldara's bitching goes further,  fulminating  that "But wait there's more! Colorado is currently the only state that has same day voter registration!"

So what? The idea is to make voter registration, and hence voting, easier not more difficult,  you dumb cluck.  But he goes on to tie that ease of mail balloting and same day registration into a conspiracy ideation involving "big data" and using "social media, email, snail mail, phone calls etc." to vacuum up votes.  Nope you can't make this up.

Caldara still in a feverish mental state adds:

"all mail ballots fundamentally changed electioneering, giving an advantage to the team that is more tech savvy and with the most foot soldiers to chase voters."

In other words, the fool is whining about the side having the better ground game, which I thought any one into :"electioneering" would grasp is top priority. I mean, if you don't get your voters out - especially tomorrow for one of the biggest elections in our history, it's all for naught.  So truly all Caldara has presented us with is a big straw man complaint.

Probably figuring he needed another alternate gripe he then bitches - get this - about mail ballots allowing too much time to vote. Can you believe this?  He writes:

"We used to have an election day, a 12 hour period for civic minded folk to get to their polling place. Voting was for those with the tiniest bit of motivation. Political 'machines' had only 12 hours to get their people to the polls.  We no longer have election day, we have election month.."

So what?  Caldara seems to also forget the U.S. is one of the few nations that has voting on a workday. Well, newsflash, for  many citizens that is a difficult bar to voting.  It often presents a choice of  going to a polling station or lost time (and money) on the job, and other inconvenience, especially if one must wait in a long line. Mail voting totally eliminates all of that, as well as possible intimidation tactics used by a suspicious opposition at polling stations- sporadically questioning or confronting people.

Rather than have to face such barriers, as well as possible vote suppression or other tricks - like being told one's name doesn't perfectly match the voter record (as in Georgia, used by bullyboy Kemp) why not mail ballots? Caldara's incredible answer:  It's too easy!

Why is voting, especially requiring special IDs and polling places, rendered so damned hard in the U.S. of A.?  Michael Moore on 'The Last Word' Friday night, offered perhaps the best explanation:

"The reason it's made hard is that those in power, who are beholden to the rich, the wealthy who buy our politicians and elections, don't want more citizens voting.. The last thing those in power, the one percent, want is for you to show up, because there's so many more of working people and poor people than rich people. The more that they can make it hard for people to have their voice heard, the longer they can continue the status quo. So to upset that status quo, you have to get out there and vote."

Moore then advises for each person who may be dithering, to think of 5 friends or family members who don't tend to vote and consider "making it your mission to get them to vote".  Also, maybe having a  voting party to go together to the polling place and cast votes then celebrate after.  As for possibly losing a day's pay, Moore says: "There is no more important day to sacrifice for your country- even giving up a day's pay -  than Tuesday."

But really, it shouldn't be that damned difficult, no matter what Caldara says.

Folks, it's time - after this election - to push activism in the direction of getting your state reps to implement mail and paper ballot systems. Systems that put you the voter at the center of your right and franchise, not an artificial place that is a venue for suppression-  or a vast and inefficient waste of time and energy as the North Miami voters discovered.

See also:

Stop Blaming Millennials for Not Voting. Blame America’s Screwed-up System—and Fix It!

And:

Here's Why Democrats' Chances for a Big Midterms Win Are Looking Even Better — And What Still Stands in Their Way

Libertarian Columnist Jon Caldara Needs An Education On Human Rights

The impetuous libertarian gun fanatic and rabble rouser Jon Caldara is at it again in his latest Denver Post op-ed ('Jared Polis and the New Human Rights', Perspective, Oct. 7). Caldara writes:

"Jared Polis insists: 'Health care is a human right'.   Either my understanding of human rights is completely wrong or Polis's understanding of the English language is. I thought human rights were guarantees through natural law that you can do some things even if the society around you wants to stop you. Those activities and beliefs behind them, can't be ripped from you even if you're in the political minority. The government can't take away your speech, and expression, yur ability to assemble, own firearms. Government can't take property without due process, inflict cruel punishment."

Here Caldara demonstrates the typical truncated libertarian view that only negative rights count. In other words,  there are only “negative” rights inherent in the Bill of Rights, and there can be no “positive” ones.   A negative right implies that there are ‘x’ things the government can’t do to you, e.g.  take away your guns or your property without good legal basis ("eminent domain"). . By contrast, positive rights assert there are actual positive rights to which you are entitled under the Bill of Rights, say health care and privacy. Most of those on the Right (as well as libertarians like Caldara) , who have only passing acquaintance with the Federalist papers, assert positive rights don’t exist, but they are wrong. They merely show they fail to grasp the concept of an "unenumerated right", i.e. under the ninth amendment of the Bill of Rights..

The latter has been well explicated, for example, by Prof. Garry Wills (‘A Necessary Evil: A History Of American Distrust of Government’, Simon & Schuster, 1999).   As Prof. Wills has pointed out, the unenumerated rights are all those rights not already specifically declared or described in the existing Bill of Rights.  The Founders thereby realized and understood there could exist rights in the future they hadn’t conceived of at the time of the Constitutional Convention, and so allowed those (then) undefined rights to become realized later. In other words, the rights allotted citizens are not limited to the rights actually and specifically delineated, i.e. in the Bill of Rights.

This opens up the basis for positive rights, not merely negative ones. Hence, Jared Polis - unlike our friend Jon Caldara- simply grasped the concept of the unenumerated right and how it paved the way for rights such a health care and privacy.

And why not? (Apart from the fact the U.S. is a signatory to a 1994 UN Declaration that health care is indeed a right.)  Think about it carefully, from the perspective of Caldara that health care must not be a right, never and no how.   So let us say I have no access to competent health care and in Caldara's view, no right to it.

I then contract Avian flu, Ebola or some other highly virulent disease, but for which I can get no care. (No money to pay for it) I am turned down at place after place and end up circulating amidst large crowds merely spreading the particular  contagion to others. HOW is this helpful to the community I live in, how is it beneficial to our national security? It isn't! 

This is where Caldara's ill-informed logic breaks down, i.e. "The new progressive bill of rights means the people around you owe you stuff".

No, that is Trump think.  What it means is that by conferring positive rights like health care the whole community benefits because that one loose end which could unleash an epidemic is sealed. Closed, not left open.  Rather then thinking in a limited fashion about "grabbing others' stuff" one is led instead to concur that all partake of the protections afforded by the tax commons. That goes for national defense - but also for health care.

It also includes an inherent right to privacy - another positive right. For example, if the presumption is no right to privacy then the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights is meaningless. To restate that Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

But note, “secure in one’s person, house, papers, effects” implies PRIVACY! These are after all MY private papers, my private effects, my house, etc. If an inherent right to privacy was a myth then by all accounts being secure in one’s person, papers, effects wouldn’t matter. Hell, let the whole freakin’ world see ‘em! This is why in a fascist dictatorship “personal effects” don’t exist. “Personal papers” has no meaning. The state has full monopoly, de facto ownership on whatever the person has, even his own body. Hence, in fascist dictatorships, such as existed in Nazi Germany, all personal effects, papers could be seized by the Nazis on a whim or remote suspicion - under the Reich Laws. A fundamental right to privacy, meanwhile, insists there exist bona fide entities that one can uniquely own, e.g. papers, effects – including photos or what not- that are private. Without this fundamental right, then, “personal papers, effects” has no meaning hence the 4th amendment is meaningless.

Again, this is not exceptional so Caldara's limited view of rights  as only negative breaks down. Caldara is correct that a right (positive or negative) retains that property irrespective of the population affected, as when he writes:

"In a society of only three people it would still be a violation of human rights for two of them to force the third into a religion, or take his arms".

 

True, but this is not the same as a government of three agreeing to a contract that health care for all members is a right - a shared responsibility - to protect each from a terrible disease that may befall one and spread to the others.  In other words, the extension of the positive right is a matter of mutual self-interest.   This is why Caldara's logic also breaks down when he writes:

"If it is a right to demands goods or services at someone else's expense then one person out of our fictional society of three could demand health care...and the other two must provide him that human right."

Well, they could also refuse - and die themselves- say if he contracts cholera.  Caldara's claim is that "it's not a freedom" i.e.  for the recipient of the care (say oral rehydration with salts in the case of cholera) but rather a "liability for the other two to provide".   My argument is that it is not a liability but a very wise form of self protection to take proactive care of the 3rd member of the fictional society.  Hence, it is beneficial to this mini society to deem health care a right, just as it would be for any larger society.

The whole problem, as I see it, is a failure of vision (and political moxie and will) to see positive rights as beneficial to whole communities or nations, not as liabilities to be avoided.   Caldara is right about one thing, all human rights are unconditional - and that includes health care and privacy.

Demise Of The Denver Post Has Nada To Do With "Too Much Liberal Content"

The last gasp of the "Voice of the Rocky Mountain Empire" now appears to be only weeks away. A steady stream of news regarding cuts to reporters, editors, photographers, videographers, page designers and  others, now threatens to end the 125 year run of The Denver Post which has won 9 Pulitzer prizes. For those of us who love to get our news and information from  hardcopy, print papers - this is an unmitigated disaster. Especially as the only alternative here in Colorado Springs is the cartoon paper known as The Gazette, which I take to be the print version of "Fox and Friends".

My love of newspapers probably began when,  as a seven or eight -year old,  I'd take out the "Green Sheet" from The Milwaukee Journal and work its various puzzles and games, and read the science articles.  Thenceforth in every place I lived, whether Miami (Herald), New Orleans (States Item and Times Picayune), Barbados (Nation, Advocate News), Baltimore (Sun, Evening Sun), or Colorado, I'd be sure to have the daily paper delivered.

There was something special about opening any of them up in the mornings to read the news, cup of Java at the ready with a few English muffins and avocado - maybe a hard boiled egg and slice of bacon.  But alas, in each locality, retrenchment often followed - usually preceded by losing the 2nd paper of the day . For Milwaukee,  it was the Sentinel (later folded into the Journal to become the Milwaukee Journal -Sentinel). For Miami it was the demise of The Miami News leaving only the Herald, and for Baltimore it was the folding up of the Evening Sun - - the paper that gave the great H.L. Mencken his start.

In the case of The Denver Post, I began to get worried some ten years ago when a number of liberal reporters like Cindy Rodriguez and Michael Booth were rendered redundant.. At that turning point the paper lost many of its liberal readers, and in truth, I cut my subscription down to 5 days a week.  I confess to being less interested in reading the blabber of conservative mouthpieces like Thomas Sowell, or their many clones hailing from assorted "think tanks" like the Hudson Institute, The American Enterprise Institute and others.

Then, in the last two years the Post's proportion of ads increased significantly while the original reporting - whether on the state's health care woes, the environment, higher education or assorted protests, dwindled. At that point I cut my subscription down to 2 days a week, Wednesdays and Sundays, opting to read The Financial Times online the other days.

Now, that appears to have perhaps been what many others did as well, given The Post now has its "marching orders" to cut the original 250 plus staff to 75  by July 1st.  More humiliating, the remaining core staff has had to move out of its original Denver News bldg. in downtown Denver, to a nondescript,  industrial building in Aurora.  

What hastened the paper's demise? The most immediate reason was that it allowed itself to be purchased by a hedge fund (Alden Global Capital of NYC) and thus was answerable to its shareholders.  As their pickings grew ever more slim, they began to demand the paper make severe cuts.  But as we know, nothing of quality ever comes of cuts. As one wry journalist (Jimmy Cozier)  in Barbados once put it  : "So, you're really gonna cut my legs off at the ankles and expect me to challenge competitors in a 5 K?"

For this reason the Post editorial board issued a plea in its April 8 Perspective section:

"Denver deserves a newspaper owner who supports its newsroom. If Alden isn't willing to do good journalist here it should sell the Post to owners who will."

True, but please, just leave out Philip Anschutz - who owns the rag known as the COS Gazette.

Then there is liberal gadfly Jon Caldara who wrote "many conservatives can't  hide their delight, at the Post being put on a ventilator."

Adding:

"It reinforces our view that papers are dying because we consumers want actual balance in reporting and the market is responding."

Ah yes, the market.  As I noted in my book, The Elements of the Corporatocracy, the market  is an abstraction which embraces the dynamics and exchanges in a money culture, consumptive society. Its priorities are not always benign but are faithfully reflected in the movement of speculative  financial markets. In the end it is nothing to base a culture or civilization on. After all. "the market" may be all agog and favor more apps that keep the hoi polloi addicted to their smartphones, or more tawdry electronic trash to fill up homes and storage units.  The market can never be an arbiter of reliable information, and by extension hedge fund ownership of a newspaper can never ensure its survival.

In Caldara's newspaper universe, every piece that attempts to educate the public about climate change, global warming, is "balanced" by a piece that denies it - or attributes it to a "natural cause" like the Sun.   But as I also observed in my chapter on the media corporatocracy, it is a myth to believe left wing or liberal views dominate the press. I cited a 1997 Nation piece, which read:

""The truth is that genuinely left-wing views rarely get a hearing. Norman Solomon had this confirmed while trying to peddle his column, when editors told him 'We've got progressive views covered - we run Anthony Lewis'.  The same Anthony Lewis who has described himself as a 'pro-capitalist, middle of the road tepid centrist', who supported George Bush Sr.'s Gulf  War."

This also explains why  - until the resurgence of robust liberal magazines like ''The New Republic', so many "leftist" authors, writers, journalists (like Greg Palast, Robert Scheer and others) were forced to go to Larry Flynt's Hustler to get their work published   There simply wasn't a place for them in the regular, "vanilla"  mainstream news papers, because corporate boards rejected what they had to offer. (For more on this see Norman Solomon's and Jeff Cohen's text, 'Wizards of Media Oz: Behind the Curtain of Mainstream News')

So I really don't know what planet Caldara inhabits but it's not the one I'm on where The Denver Post is more a centrist alternative to the extreme Right Colorado Springs Gazette.  The only other actual "left" paper, the COS Independent, is a weekly,  not a daily.  It is also of interest to note that, contrary to popular myths, even left blogs are struggling to sustain funding. See e.g.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jeff-tiedrich/78748/even-if-you-cant-or-wont-donate-there-are-other-things-you-can-do-to-help-us-out

And wifey informed me last night that even at "liberal" MSNBC there's a push to have more "Never Trumpers" appear than actual liberals.

Caldara and his whining ilk also bemoan the lack of more conservative intellectual material, which kind of shows me he needs a pair of better glasses.  He's obviously missing the op-ed fare from the toadies of the American Enterprise Institute, Hudson Institute, Stanford's Hoover Institute  etc. 

Besides, there isn't any genuine intellectual fare on the conservative side anyway, at least since William F. Buckley died.  As NY Times columnist and Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman has noted in a recent column:

"As others have pointed out, the real problem here is that media organizations are looking for unicorns: serious, honest, conservative intellectuals with real influence. Forty or fifty years ago, such people did exist. But now they don’t. To understand why, let me talk about what I know: the field of economics. This happens to be a field with a relatively strong conservative presence compared to other social sciences, and as far as I can tell even contains considerably more self-identified conservatives/Republicans than hard science. Even so, trying to find influential conservative economic intellectuals is basically a hopeless task, for two reasons.

First, while there are many conservative economists with appointments at top universities, publications in top journals, and so on, they have no influence on conservative policymaking. What the right wants are charlatans and cranks, in (conservative) Greg Mankiw’s famous phrase. If they use actual economists, they use them the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.

The second problem with conservative economic thought is that even aside from its complete lack of policy influence, it’s in an advanced state of both intellectual and moral decadence – something that has been obvious for a while, but became utterly clear after the 2008 crisis."

And I have certainly given examples of this decadence in critiques of assorted  conservo  economists from time to time, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2018/03/americas-debt-disease-prof-marty.html

The ironic aspect of Caldara's rant is that even he admits in the end it is better to have a Denver Post paper than to be without one, i.e.

"From my point of view battling ever expanding government, we have a better chance slowing it down with a vibrant, even if liberal, paper in town."

He's partly right - but the D. Post still isn't a "liberal paper".   It's a centrist leaning paper - especially if you read its editorials, which features some liberal content - mainly in letters to the editor.

See also:

Denver Post Rebels Against Its Hedge-Fund Ownership - The New ...

Jon Caldara Tries To Use Skewed "Gun Math" To Defend AR-15s And Other Semi-Automatics

Jon Caldara is at it again, in his recent (Nov. 12) Denver Post op-ed ('The Assault Weapon Attack On Math') in which he attempts to diminish the impact of semi-automatic weapons based on the much more prolific stats of killings by other means.

He first cites the 374 "killed by rifle" last year -but points out it is only a small fraction of the 11,004 total killed by "firearms". In other words, 10, 630 were killed by handgun - not rifle So his argument is the media attention to semi-automatic weapons is skewed. He then goes on with:

"Shouldn’t there be over four times the media coverage on the 1,604 people killed with knives last year? Some 472 were killed with blunt instruments like clubs and hammers, some of which had polymer, not wood, handles. And nearly twice as many people were killed with hands, fists and feet?"

Err no, because you are mixing chalk and cheese. Human homicides - given the variety of circumstances (and potential weapons available)-  will always show a diversity of usage, of instrument. But that diversity of assorted killing instruments does not refute the fact that semi-automatic (and  automatic) rifles are an anomaly in terms of the Second Amendment.  By that I mean the authors could no more have imagined such weapons than they could imagine Space Shuttles.

The informal fallacy employed by Caldara is the ignoratio elenchi fallacy also known as irrelevant conclusion. This is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question. The issue in question here before us is whether semi-automatic or automatic rifles are truly allowed under the provisions of the 2nd amendment as originally interpreted.  More on this later.

Even on its own logical terms, Caldara's arguments can be challenged, say in terms of  "the proportion of the mode of killing dictates media and legal attention."  Hence, if the proportion of kills by an assault rifle is low - say compared to other modes of killing - it should receive less attention (including legal) and the others more. Never mind more people can be killed at one time, as we beheld in Vegas.  But if this argument were solid, then - in the arena of air accidents- the FAA would do little or nothing in the way of investigation after plane crashes in which 50 - 60 were killed (say matching the numbers mowed down in the Orlando and Las Vegas mass shootings.)  But the fact is they take such plane crashes very seriously and go over everything - including recovering black boxes. This despite the fact that in the tragic sphere of accidental deaths many more people (37,000) are killed in auto crashes each year., or lightning strikes - as Caldara references.

The takeaway is that single events in which many dozens of people are killed bespeak such anomaly that they cannot be ignored or minimized. This is even more crucial when human motivation is behind the mass killing, i.e. in the case of use of semi-automatic or automatic rifles -  weapons putatively allowed under the 2nd amendment. This is exactly why Australia, after its April 1996  Port Arthur, Tasmania massacre, bought and destroyed more than 600,000 civilian-owned firearms. This was in a scheme that cost half a billion dollars and was funded by raising Aussie taxes.  In other words,  they took this mass shooting deadly seriously. They didn't diminish its import by false analogy or conflating with other types of killing, e.g. by knives, fists, etc.

Recall that  FDR's Solicitor General framed the argument to the Supreme Court thusly:

"The Second Amendment grants people a right that is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only exists where the arms are borne in a militia or some other military organization provided by law and intended for protection of the State."

The SC decision was unanimous in agreeing with that take..

While this sane interpretation prevailed for several more decades, it started to unravel by the 1970s. Then various Right wing groups coalesced to challenge gun control based on spurious "private gun ownership" interpretations, and successively overturned laws in state legislatures.  This despite the fact then Justice Warren Burger had clearly stated this later interpretation was "one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

Well, it's good Justice Burger didn't live to see the arrival of semi-automatic weapons, bump stocks and the claim that the 2nd amendment provides for the ownership of those too! A cockeyed notion that has been pumped by the NRA ever since, more recently with the batshit crazy ad that "your man card is reissued". If you need an AR- 15 to be a man, then decidedly you've a long way to go to reach that phase.

Caldara also tries to muddy the waters regarding the use of semi-automatics vs. automatics  as when he writes:

"There’s no better example of the media’s ability to emotionally bait an issue out of all mathematical proportion than that of “assault rifles". Lett’s clarify again what most reporters don’t, likely since it runs counter to their anti-gun bias. Very, very few people own assault rifles. They are nearly impossible to get due to the limited supply and regulatory burden to get one. An assault weapon is capable of firing several rounds of ammunition with one pull of the trigger. What is falsely reported as an assault rifle is just an average semi-automatic rifle, where only one round is fired with every trigger pull. "

This bit of sophistry ignores a number of hard facts, and hence makes it easy for those not rifle savvy to gloss over his claims. For reference let me quote part of a WSJ article dealing with the AR-15 (Caldara's semi-automatic rifle) published on 12/9/15. It noted:

"The AR-15 re-cocks itself immediately after firing. The only thing keeping the gun from firing again on its own is a sear, a piece inserted in the gun that stops the cycle from continuing. By replacing the sear and a few other key components, an AR-15 can be made fully automatic."

Note then that although Caldara glosses over it, the AR-15 is not any old  single shot rifle, certainly not like the bolt action rifle I used to own and fire when I lived in New Orleans. In other words, it took time - measured in seconds - to work the bolt action to fire again, it did not "immediately re-cock itself after firing"  There IS a qualitative difference. My argument is that if any Founders could be brought back to inspect either type of rifle - and how it works - they'd more surely side with my old bolt action as the one allowed under their  2nd amendment, but not the AR-15.

In Murdock, FL, ca. May, 1986, with an AR-15. 

Once more I am not an anti-gun nut. I have owned and used rifles and fired off shotguns as well in target practice.  (Including in 1968 in New Orleans when testing the "jet effect" nonsense peddled by JFK conspiracy deniers). However, I've never owned anything semi-automatic, or with multi-capacity clips.  This is all by way of full disclosure.  My sticking point here is how the Founders themselves would have interpreted semi-automatics like the AR 15 under the 2nd amendment.

Unlike the whacko contingent of gun owners, I also don't believe the 2nd amendment gives people the "right" to own rocket propelled launchers, bazookas, .50 caliber anti-aircraft guns, or military assault type weapons - capable of mass slaughter. The Second Amendment authors - inhabiting a world where single load muskets were the rule - would have been flabbergasted to see the extent to which their amendment had been misconstrued today, such as by the NRA and their denizens.

As for Caldara's nitpicking about the difference between semi-automatics and automatics, let's just say it is tweedledum vs. tweedledee. As Stephen Paddock showed, one only needs to include a LEGAL bump stock to effectively transform a semi-automatic into a functional automatic. One doesn't  need to be a genius or legal guru to understand the enhanced efficiency and lethality when a bump stock is affixed to a normal semi-automatic.

The argument that the new high powered rifles - such as AR-15s, and Bushmaster .223s are entitled to be owned as a "right" is just plain bollocks. No, you can own a true single shot 30.06  bolt action as a right, because it's a legit rifle with which to go out hunting. You can own a .22  bolt action as a right, and it does a nice job of killing small game especially if you use hollow points.  But you don't need semi-automatic weapons, or AK 47s

Even  though I don't believe the 2nd justifies such powerful weapons, I do acknowledge our laws have been distorted over decades and realize that  - once the horse has escaped the barn- it is difficult if not impossible to get it back in. Thus, I am not for banning such guns, but properly regulating them, using a national registry system such as adopted in Australia and similar to what we already have for auto vehicle ownership. Thus you receive your gun owner ID with photo, and registration number (with serial nos., of all weapons) entered in a national (or state) database and computer -connected to the Homeland Security fusion centers across the country.

Once any mass shooting then occurs, the fusion centers will instantly be able to pick up on the serial number(s) of the weapon(s)  used, the perp and his background. No fuck ups as with the military not reporting certified psychos to the FBI for the current national database.  At that point of infraction in the new system,  the perp is facing justice - if not meted out at the scene - and his gun license permanently revoked.  I would also assert licenses need to be revoked for reckless actions, such as target practicing on trees  (near camp sites) as occurred near Pike National Forest several years ago.

That father, shot in the head, would still be alive today with his family had stringent registration requirements been in effect. Those would have deterred the gun crazy lunatics from firing their Bushmasters in a forest- near camping grounds.


See also: 'What Jon Caldara Gets Wrong About Assault Weapons':

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/17/what-jon-caldara-gets-wrong-about-assault-weapons/

Skewering the "Americans Are Getting Richer" Trope

It seems very plausible now  that the basis for much of the nation's polarization is the mutation of the culture wars into class wars. The latter primarily driven by slowing economic growth and an increasing poverty especially among the lower middle class.  Even Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute worried when he wrote (Denver Post, Sept. 17):

"A warning to my friends on the political right: Economic inequality is real....the difference between 2 percent and 3 percent growth isn’t 1 percent. It’s a difference of over 33 percent (check a calculator if you need). Compound that over a decade and you get an idea what was lost. Lost was what gave past generations their first real job, a first home, a college education without crippling debt, a savings for retirement and the sense of security ...What I’m talking about is the end of The American Dream. The difference between 2 percent and 3 percent is the hope and security of a nation."

So even Caldara admits economic conditions are worsening and that must include incomes, So how can the WSJ in one editorial (Sept. 14, p. A16, 'Americans Get Richer') claim:

"Last year real median income rose 3.2% the second consecutive increase as 2.5 million Americans rose out of poverty".

Leading to the assertion of a new median income (last year)of  $59,200. But is it real? Or better, what exactly underpins the claims?   The website 'Motley Fool'  provides an answer how, in a piece headed 'Here's How 44 Million Americans Are Getting Richer':

"According to a new Bankrate survey, there are 44 million Americans who currently have some sort of side hustle on top of a regular job. Not familiar with the term? A side hustle is basically a way of generating income outside of one's primary paycheck...Side hustles come in many shapes and forms. Walking other people's dogs on the weekend is a legitimate side hustle, as is telemarketing during evening hours. Want to wait tables twice a week? Welcome to the side hustle club. No matter what sort of additional work you're willing and able to take on, committing to even a small amount could mean the difference between struggling financially and paying your bills -- and it's encouraging to see so many folks making the effort."

Yes, it may well be "encouraging" but it shouldn't be necessary in a normal and equitable economy to have to work extra gig jobs to have sufficient income to meet one's needs. This, of course, gets to the heart of Caldara's complaint about slowing economic growth. It basically means Americans have to work more and longer just to keep pace.  Even the temporary "good news" won't last because there's no assurance growth will even stay paced at 2 % per year, it could easily slip to 1 percent.  See my extensive post on exactly why this growth erosion is occurring - to do with the continual degradation of energy quality, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/44-trillion-in-deficits-by-2024-minus.html

Strangely, very few authors have managed to look at the real culprit preferring to be distracted by x number of red herrings.

In the interest of completeness, one day after the WSJ cheery editorial came out, some other rather more sober news did on page A9 ('The Flip Side Of The New U.S. Economy) noting the transition of millions of steady American workers, e.g. with steady jobs, to now doing "contract" work.

"Millions of contractors now do heavy lifting, paper pushing and other jobs for American companies that have replaced employees with outside workers. Within the next four years nearly half of the private sector work force in the U.S. will have spent at least some time as a contractor, temporary employee or other type of outside job estimates MBO Partners, a provider of support services to self-employed professionals.

The contractor model offer companies lower costs, more flexibility and fewer management headaches. Workers get far less from the arrangement. The costs hit home in every paycheck and every day on the job, according to interview with dozens of current and former contractors, s well as many of the more than 150 responses to a survey by The Wall Street Journal. The survey also asks readers to describe their experiences as a contractor".

So here again we see the underbelly of the "richer" trope which really isn't richer at all. Outside of the numerical value of the "higher income" a contactor (or gig worker) may get are the costs not mentioned: no health care benefits (the contractor has to pay himself), no sick days, no 401k plan or other perks or vacation days. As the WSJ reality check piece  put it:

""While regular employees get a relatively stable paycheck and benefits contract workers are on their own."

That seems like a pretty high extra cost to me! SO yeah, maybe a guy like one of these contractors discussed is getting $59,000 a year - and more than he'd get at another job. But what about after he has to pay $1,000 a month for a COBRA or other health insurance policy?  Well, that brings that fantastic "richer" income down to a pedestrian $37,000 a year - and we aren't even factoring in saving for retirement such as a 401k plan would allow.

The Federal Reserve's own stats disclose that 46 percent of Americans are unable to scratch up even 400 bucks to meet a minor emergency.  More sobering and tied to it, the personal savings rate is now 3.5 % the lowest since the worst of the Great recession in 2008.  In terms of those who do have 401ks there is the massive problem of "leakage"  or borrowing from one's 401k plan and undermining retirement savings.

Bottom line? Americans aren't getting richer, they are working harder than hell as freelancers and contractors- including doing extra jobs- just to stay afloat because wage stagnation is real and persistent. It is time the financial press stop the propaganda when anyone in an extra gig or contractor job can see right through it.

"Why Trump Won" - Absolute Claptrap From Trumpkin Jon Caldara

Jon Caldara's accompaniment to his byline insists he is president of the Independence Institute , which has generally professed to be a non-partisan source of opinion, information. But from his latest piece ('And That's Why Trump Won',  Dec. 24) in The Denver Post, it's clear he's merely another pro-Trump PR moron trying to sell people baloney at cheapo rates.

Without reciting too much of his codswallop, he basically has the chutzpah to compare the crazy Right's indignation at Obama's election with the Left's reaction to Trump, with the dazzling distinction that

"I swear to God, no one I know of broke down in tears when Obama won"

Well, maybe because deep in their fake news heart of hearts they knew- when all was said and done- Obama was a rational, sane man, not a psychotic serial pussy grabber, two -bit chiseling, faux business weasel, racist xenophobe and authoritarian Hitler-esque narcissist.  For all the false claims (e.g. "socialist") the Right tried to lay on Obama, he was in the end a steady, no drama Neoliberal, and former constitutional lawyer. Oh, and a bible-believing Christian to boot.

This normality contrasts to the deranged egoism and pure ineptitude of a nincompoop who tweets policy positions and economic opinions at will. Often to the extent that CEOs of major corporations (after his GM tweet yesterday- sending shares briefly plummeting ) are treating his Twitter offal in much the same way as a hazardous waste spill or a health scare, in other words as "crisis management". This according to CBS finance commentator Melanie Hobson this morning, who pointed out how corporate heads are sick at the thought of this loon, "alone in a room with his phone", just popping off at anything that comes to mind. This is the effing asshole Caldara and his Trumpy dregs voted into power.  Hobson then detailed how companies are strategy planning to respond to the next random attacks from this Twitter troll.

Then there have been Trump's lies which continue to undermine the very intelligence agencies that will be protecting his sorry ass - not to mention the nation he is supposed to defend.  The latest was the lie that spat out again from his twitter:

"The 'intelligence' briefing on so-called 'Russian hacking' was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case"

Which was totally shot down by the intel community noting the Friday briefing had always been planned for that day. There was no "delay". Is this something Caldara and his cronies can really live with the next 4 years (IF we're lucky)? A lying ass punk who can't tell the truth to save his sorry ass..

If ANY person isn't disturbed by these sort of responses and cavalier attitudes they need to get themselves checked out by a therapist because they aren't in contact with reality. I would nominate Jon Caldara to be first up for serious psychological evaluation before he writes his next column full of BS.

And don't get me started on all his business entanglements which as a recent Newsweek article ('Tangled Up In Orange'. Dec. 23rd, p. 26) put it:

"Already there is a situation where the President of the United States could be blackmailed by a foreign power"

Referencing Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's earlier divulged plan (to associates) that he "intended to impede America's use of a critical Air Force base in Turkey"  should Trump win the presidency. Then there are Trump's other foreign entanglements, including with the Duterte government in the Philippines. As author Kurt Eichenwald noted:

"The Trump family's dealings in the Philippines will set off a constitutional crisis on the first day of Trump's presidency if anyone in the federal government decides to abide by the law."

Referencing the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

So, let's get this straight: between Trump's rejection of critical intelligence briefings and conclusions, and his foreign entanglements not to mention the total lack of impulse control, we're all supposed to fucking sleep easy at night? Gimme a break! Also, give me the bland, "no drama" Obama any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

The emphasis on Obama's sheer boring normality as a former Illinois state Senator and Democratic Senator is crucial to emphasize here to contrast with the unhinged insanity of Trump. And this needs to be done repeatedly, because I fear too many in the coming weeks - especially in the media- may fall down on the job and not hold a severe enough spotlight on Trump. Opting to choose the easy path of "normalization" that his follower yahoos (like Caldara) already have.

 This is also essential in order to appreciate Caldara's next bit for the balderdash it is, referencing the Right's response to Obama's election - compared to the Left's justifiable angst at Trump's ascension thanks to hacks - including of voting machines in key states.:

"Celebrities didn't post videos of their panicked hissy fits. Teachers didn't scare little grade school kids with doomsday prophecies."

Well, they didn't have to because they instinctively recognized Obama's inherently sober temperament, control of impulses and sensible disposition ("Mr. Spock" persona) . Hence, such reactions weren't needed by any person grounded in reality, i.e. sane.. So Caldara's verbal excrement is merely the screeching of a deranged banshee knowingly agitated by the fact he has supported a psychologically unstable, autocratic buffoon who promises to wreck this nation.

But the biggest bunch of bollocks may be this:

"Watching this meltdown it's clear the anti-Trumpies aren't just poor losers. They just don't get that Trump won because in great part, they had been such poor winners. The hard-edged progressive left just couldn't help doing a dance in the public policy end zone. The Trump victory was the ref's flag for 'excessive celebration'."

Huh?  WHAT excessive celebration? You mean putting together a stimulus package without which this nation would likely have fallen not only into recession but depression? (And for which the Repukes only gave minimal lip service). OR - are you referring to getting the ACA through without any GOP votes - despite the fact that 20 million now depend on it - more than two thirds of them TRUMP voters!   Seems you missed the memo that a good part of your white- worker industrial base actually WANTED THIS PUBLIC POLICY DANCE, as you call it.

Meanwhile, Denver Post letter writer Mike Pisaano had this to retort in last Sunday's paper to Caldara's codswallop:

"Trump did not win because of a Democratic meltdown caused by  “excessive celebration” of Obama’s public policy successes on gay marriage, health care, and environmental and energy changes. It’s because not enough Republican voters are disgusted by a candidate who brags about assaulting women or has regrets about not dating his own daughter. It’s because not enough Republican voters are outraged when Trump disparages John McCain for getting shot down over enemy territory and enduring five years of torture in captivity. It’s because not enough Republican voters are appalled when Trump calls Mexicans rapists and promises to exclude people who embrace Islam from entering the U.S."

Letter writer Ellen Haverl was no less severe and unforgiving in assessing Caldara's claptrap:

"Jon Caldara doesn’t remember anyone breaking down in tears when Barack Obama won because, despite one’s issues with him, his win did not mean the end of civilization as we know it. The reason there is such backlash against the Trump win is because the upcoming leader of the free world is a narcissistic, racist, sexist bully who will rule with a heavy fist. I’m proud to cry and march and sign any document I can to let everyone know that a Trump presidency is unacceptable to me and millions of Americans who genuinely fear for the future of our country. It’s called free speech, something Mr. Trump is not a fan of."

Ah yes, free speech. Something the Trump backers endlessly invoked after Obama was elected, depicting him in every disrespectful way imaginable including as a witch doctor with bone through his nose in their blogs. But now,  in their faux righteousness , they somehow expect all of us on the Left to shelve any animosity and just sing "Kumbaya" as we line up behind Trump.. Sorry, doesn't work like that!

This turkey Caldara then bellyaches about how we have accurately described his anti-global warming lot as "deniers" when they've rejected the consensus science of climate change. He writes:

"It's not that they imposed massive environmental and energy restrictions...it's that they insultingly label those who've come to a different conclusion on global warming as 'deniers':

WTF are you talking about? What "different conclusion"? You cannot have a solid, or sound conclusion unless you base it on real science and the D-E-N-I-E-R-S have NONE! Let me repeat that, none - NO science which stands up to even the most basic scrutiny of thermal physics or actual climate science. These birdbrains don't even accept that the glaciers are melting when they're doing it in from of their stupid faces, e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRTInYTxLr4

So this is basic stuff. IF some semi-educated yahoo denies the sphericity of the Earth, then he IS a denier of the science of geodesy. If a similar yahoo denies  - despite all the evidence from ice cores - that more and more CO2 is warming the Earth then sorry, he IS a fucking denier! Case closed!

Or would Caldara rather we get into the realm of politically correct language and refer to his bunch as

"long term CO2 concentration serial disputators"

Or:

"climate science consensus equivocators"

Well, not going to happen. And just as his gaggle of climate DENIERS despise PC euphemisms, so do we. 

Caldara's op-ed babbling merely reaffirms again how badly divided this country is, and how much more divided it is going to become in the ensuing 4 years. The reason for an ever increasing gulf is simple: Those who treasure and abide by REALITY will never embrace bollocks, bullshit and fake news fantasy even from the likes of FAUX News' pundits, Trumpian pseudo-conspiracy creators and racist enablers. cheerleaders. And so long as enough people stand with the truth against recycled, misbegotten garbage and lies, this divide will remain. Oh, and as the garbage quotient grows so will the divide until two different nations will be effectively at war with each other.


See also: The Case For Beginning Trump's Impeachment NOW:

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/04/does-impeachment-begin-now-the-case-for-building-the-end-of-trumps-presidency-before-it-even-starts/