If Bernie Sanders Is A Socialist, I'm A Muslim.

Following the obligatory national anthem (althernatively, the Pledge of Allegiance), Hillary Clinton and Bernard Sanders squared off last night in Flint, Michigan before CNN's Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon.

The first nine questions, six from Cooper and/or Lemon and three from locals, were about the water crisis in Flint (excerpt below). The two candidates suggested all manner of measures to fix the problem, including rebuilding infrastructure, hiring residents to deliver water to other residents while the lead pipes are replaced, committing to economic development, having the CDC examine each child, an investigation to assess responsibility. And of course, that the governor should resign



.





If the suggestions were a little unimaginative, they nevertheless were sound and necessary. After hearing the candidates' plans, which would require a huge financial investment, Anderson Cooper asked how the proposals would be financed. No, of course, he didn't, instead opting for "This crisis in flint as you know, as everybody in the room knows was created by the government. Your policies are about expanding government. Why should people from flint trust that more government is the answer?"

This question, ignorant though it was, presented the respondents with a hanging curve. Nonetheless, Clinton didn't volunteer a response, which was unsurprising, given that she would have ahd to defend government.   However, Sanders the Socialist responded

That’s a good point, Anderson.

Listen, I suppose they can trust the corporations who have destroyed Flint by a disastrous trade policy which have allowed them to shut down plants in flint and move to China or Mexico. We could trust them I’m sure

Or maybe — you know, maybe, Anderson, tell you what — we should — maybe we should let Wall Street come in and run the city of Flint...

That was a fairly good reply, given that it coincided neatly with one of Sanders' two major themes, runaway corporate America- his only theme insofar as it is linked to campaign financing. But it could have been better. Sanders might have mentioned that the wheels were set in motion when the first of four emergency managers was hired to run the city government.   His successor ended the city's contract with the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department in order to join another water authority, which had not completed construction. The emergency manager then decided the city would get its water from the Flint River, When it became clear that the water was grossly substandard, the Detroit authority gave to the city an opportunity to switch back to its water, an offer the then-emergency manager (photot from Jessica J. Trevino/DFP) refused.

It's more complicated than that, as this timeline from the Detroit Free Press indicates. But there is nothing Sanders does any better than taking a complicated matter, such as corporate control of the economy, and simplifying it so the average voter can understand. But he stood through nine questions- albeit not all of them addressed to him- without once uttering the word "private."

"Privatization" is what Democrats helpfully call it, especially if the issue is Social Security. To many voters- especially independents and Republicans- it's "crony capitalism."  In the Flint water catastrophe, the state's Department of Environmental Quality discouraged the city from taking the necessary steps to undo its mistake and the Emergency Manager, concerned only with short-term costs, acted in complete disregard of the interests of residents and businesses.

It's not surprising that Mrs. Clinton did not correct the impression that government was solely at fault. It is, however, disappointing that Clinton, who has worked hard (and successfully) to maintain impressive support from the black community would not emphasize the tragic consequences of wresting control of city government from its residents to give it to a higher authority.  It is, moreover, disappointing that a self-described "socialist" would not mention any form of the word "private" during this discussion- or at any point during the debate.

 







Share |

Firearm Disinformation

O,K. This first part is just funny. Or maybe it's me.  Last night, on AC 360 Later, AC (as he apparently prefers being known) included as a panel guest Emily Miller, whom he identified as "senior opinion leader at 'The Washington Times,' author of 'Emily Gets Her Gun, But Obama Wants To Take Yours.'"  A portion of the argument proceeded as

BELCHER: Am I hearing you correctly that you are now for a universal background check? Because many of the Republicans in the House are not. 

MILLER: No, Cornell, that's actually not the issue I'm saying at all. 

I'm talking about the current issue we have in this country. It is illegal to have a gun if you have been adjudicated for mental illness or if you have put in patient in a mental hospital. That's a good thing, because none of us want crazy things having guns. Look what happened. 

(CROSSTALK)

SULLIVAN: Could we not use the term crazy people, please?

MILLER: Why?

SULLIVAN: People who have mental illness are not crazy. There's a huge spectrum of mental illness. 

MILLER: This man is schizophrenic. 

After the compassionate Miller maintained "none of us want crazy things having guns," Andrew Sullivan replied "could we not use the term crazy people, please?"  To that, Miller actually asked "why?" and Sullivan noted "People who have mental illness are not crazy. There's a huge spectrum of mental illness."   Anderson Cooper:added "Guys, stop. Let's just put a brake on this for a second. Let's just not talk over each other. It just drives everybody nuts."

But the main takeaway from the discussion should not be that a gun fanatic doesn't understand that "crazy" is an imprecise term, a colloquialism meant to bypass serious thought (or maybe she does understand).  Nor is it that no one condemned her for calling American citizens- albeit "crazy" ones- "things."  Nor that Anderson Cooper, he of the "he said, she said" school, believes there is a moral or intellectual equivalence between labeling mentally ill people "crazy things" and stating "there's a huge spectrum of mental illness."  Now we know, thanks to AC, that the idea there is a huge spectrum of mental illness is mere hypothesis.

There is more (see below) to the exchange. The gun fanatic claims the Congressional Research Office concluded (text of report, here) there has been no increase or decrease in mass shootings the past ten years.  But the report she cited, issued in March, 2013, does not seem to take a position on whether the incidence of this offense has been increasing- although there is some evidence it has, an observation inconvenient to her argument.  

Displaying impressive sleight of hand, Miller claims "As gun ownership in this country has increased to about 300 million guns in this country now, gun crime -- all crime has gone down." But (self-reported) gun ownership has increased only in the past year or two, whereas the crime rate has been declining since the late 1980's- when gun ownership was higher than it is now.  (Concentration of more firearms in fewer hands is the major characteristic currently.)  But if she wants to play the correlation game, we ought not to ignore the academic literature which

indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.  Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Nor disregard researcher Richard Florida, who found

Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

But the main takeaway (there is that cliche, again) is the right's application of the mental health dodge. Here is Emily Miller spanking the state of Rhode Island because there was no referral by police of Aaron Alexis to a mental hospital which in Rhode Island, she implies, would not have been entered into FBI NCIS records:

The things that -- I say there can be things that can be done. That's why I wrote my column today. For example, this shooter was in Rhode Island recently, called the police and said, I'm hearing aliens talk to me and I have had to switch hotels. The police should have put him in a mental hospital. 

If he had been put in patient mental hospital, as Dr. Drew referenced in the previous segment, he would have been put in the prohibited category. But here's the kicker. He was in Rhode Island. Rhode Island has one of this country's worst records for putting member health records into the FBI's NICS check. 

Sensing an opening, Democratic activist Cornell Belcher asks "Am I hearing you correctly that you are now for a universal background check? Because many of the Republicans in the House are not."  Miller responds "No, Cornell, that's actually not the issue I'm saying at all."

So what we have is a an editor at a major daily newspaper (whose book was marked by inaccuracy, distortion, and dishonesty) arguing that "crazy things" should be involuntarily committed...  but not denied firearms.  And that- believe it or not- is the incoherent position of the National Rifle Association. Imagine the coincidence.



******************************************************************************************************




COOPER: Let me bring in Emily Miller, senior opinion leader at "The Washington Times," author of "Emily Gets Her Gun, But Obama Wants to Take Yours."

You heard what Andrew said. Do you own that? Do you accept that?

EMILY MILLER, "THE WASHINGTON TIMES": Well, all I know is what happened on Monday at the Navy Yard was absolutely horrendous, obviously.

The things that -- I say there can be things that can be done. That's why I wrote my column today. For example, this shooter was in Rhode Island recently, called the police and said, I'm hearing aliens talk to me and I have had to switch hotels. The police should have put him in a mental hospital.

If he had been put in patient mental hospital, as Dr. Drew referenced in the previous segment, he would have been put in the prohibited category. But here's the kicker. He was in Rhode Island. Rhode Island has one of this country's worst records for putting member health records into the FBI's NICS check.

Had he been put into a mental hospital in Rhode Island, we wouldn't know about it. He still would have passed his background check. Until this background check system is fixed, which means mental health records put into the system -- I suggest people look at FixNICS.org.

You can look at every state. And Massachusetts is another horrible one that won't put these records in. How are we supposed to catch these psychotic, schizophrenic people if the records aren't being put into the system? That's something positive we all could work on.

COOPER: Which is something that the NRA says a lot.

BELCHER: Am I hearing you correctly that you are now for a universal background check? Because many of the Republicans in the House are not.

MILLER: No, Cornell, that's actually not the issue I'm saying at all.

I'm talking about the current issue we have in this country. It is illegal to have a gun if you have been adjudicated for mental illness or if you have put in patient in a mental hospital. That's a good thing, because none of us want crazy things having guns. Look what happened.

(CROSSTALK)

SULLIVAN: Could we not use the term crazy people, please?

MILLER: Why?

SULLIVAN: People who have mental illness are not crazy. There's a huge spectrum of mental illness.

MILLER: This man is schizophrenic.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Guys, stop. Let's just put a brake on this for a second. Let's just not talk over each other. It just drives everybody nuts.

SULLIVAN: I'm sorry.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Andrew's point is anybody who is in a mental hospital is not -- it doesn't mean you're crazy. But go ahead.

(CROSSTALK) MILLER: Somebody who's paranoid -- I'm referring to the shooter on Monday. If Andrew wants to protect him, that's his own problem.

I'm telling you someone who slaughters 12 people and is hearing voices is a paranoid schizophrenic is the definition of crazy or insane. And you don't need P.C. police to be stopping that. That's real and he should have been in a mental hospital.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Andrew, to Emily's point -- and it's the point the NRA makes, is that a lot of these states are not reporting all the information they could be reporting and should be reporting in order to make this background check that does currently exist more effective.

SULLIVAN: And, of course, I agree with that, absolutely.

My only issue there is I think we should be careful if we're trying to de-stigmatize mental illness to suddenly broadly call anybody with mental illness crazy, crazy people. That actually makes it less likely for people to seek help. It actually re-stigmatizes this.

MILLER: That's not the issue. Andrew, you're talking about two different things. We're talking about what can we -- stop mass shootings, which are very rare? They account about, according to Congressional Research Service, about 18 people a year. They're very rare.

But the one thread we have, when talk about Aurora, Newtown, the Navy Yard, all of them.

(CROSSTALK)

BELCHER: They're increasing, though.

MILLER: They are not increasing.

BELCHER: Yes, they are.

MILLER: No, that's completely -- based on what facts?

BELCHER: Based on the fact that every year there's more and more of them.

MILLER: OK. Cornell, let's talk about real facts which is Congressional Research Service, so the congressional arm of Congress, did a report in April, looked at 10 years.

There's no increase, there is no decrease. They are unpredictable. There's been about 500 people killed by these mass shootings. Just throwing out these things does not make them to be true.

(CROSSTALK) COOPER: The CRS does say in that same report that there's a lot of information we do not know about how people use guns and that they recommend -- and I don't want to misquote it -- but that they recommend sort of not a database, but gathering more information, actually studying how people use guns in this country, which is something a lot of groups resist.

MILLER: Andrew, that's true. I mean, Anderson, that's true that they did say that.

But back to the facts if we're going to just talk about facts on this show, it is estimated it's been an average of 18 people killed by mass shootings. When the president says that this is increasing, that is not true. What we do have is gun control. And all gun crime has decreased since 1991 by 40 percent.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: As gun ownership in this country has increased to about 300 million guns in this country now, gun crime -- all crime has gone down. There are about 8,000 people killed every year by gun crime. About a quarter of those are criminals, about 22 people, 18 people a year in these mass shootings.

(CROSSTALK)

SLAUGHTER: Let's talk about another fact, because the other fact is what Andrew said, which is regardless whether they're going up or down in this country, they happen every couple of months, to the point...

MILLER: No, they have not happened since...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Let her finish her sentence, and then we can have an actual conversation.

Go ahead.

SLAUGHTER: It doesn't -- it happened in Norway and the whole country came to a halt. It happened in Scotland at Dunblane. The whole country came to a halt.

This happens. And my kid said in high school today, it was like, oh, yes, there was another shooting. What do we do about the fact that we now just accept as part of our lives...

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: But Emily is saying there is something we could do, and that's report. Again, Emily, stop me if I'm wrong. But follow the current laws, report more accurately to make the checks that exist, to make them more efficient and actually make them work.

SLAUGHTER: But this shooter wouldn't have gotten picked up because the police didn't actually do anything.

COOPER: Well, he did try to buy a handgun, which he was prevented.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: Anderson, that's not accurate. This is a gun range that I go to, Sharpshooters. He did not try to buy anything than the shotgun he bought, something that Vice President Biden has encouraged quite a lot.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: The report I just saw said that he attempted to buy a handgun, but because he was from out of state, he was informed...

MILLER: That's not true, Anderson. "The New York Times" actually said that he tried to buy a rifle.

COOPER: Right. I'm not talking about that report. I'm talking about a handgun. We will double-check.

MILLER: Not true.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: OK. We will double-check it. But clearly the background check that exists, it wasn't an issue because he bought a shotgun.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Right. And he bought a shotgun and nothing came up.

KRISTOL: But, look, on studying this, there's been a ton of social science work on crime and on gun violence and what the efficacy or lack thereof of various types of gun control laws.

James Q. Wilson, great social scientist, a teacher of mine, I think maybe of Andrew's, too, was not particularly a gun rights guy I think to start off. I think he was actually an open-minded social scientist. He studied this over the years and came to the conclusion that most of these gun control efforts -- and Andrew is right about this -- in a country that starts off with 300 million guns -- that's just a fact that we have to deal with -- don't do much good.

Some of them have contrary -- have sort of perverse consequences. I agree with you on the mental health issue. Everyone is now saying because this guy was clearly disturbed that we have to report everyone who ever goes into a mental health hospital or seeks mental health treatment.

I'm not so sure that's a great idea. You would discourage people. People have episodes, or they get depressed, they get treatment. I don't know, 20 years from now, do you want that to be in a database? I don't have a view on this. I'm just saying these things as a matter of actual public policy as opposed to reacting to a terrible tragedy are much more complicated.

(CROSSTALK)

SULLIVAN: I agree. I came of this -- I'm English.

So I came at this -- came to this country 30 years ago -- looking at this country. It's a different country. And it does place a premium on freedom in a way that other countries do not. And the result of that is that when you look at other countries, the rate of murder, fatal murder, not violence, but fatalities, because God knows the English are violent as hell, but they don't have enough guns to kill each other.

BELCHER: They don't have access.

SULLIVAN: We nonetheless will have -- because it's a free country with a Second Amendment, we will have much higher levels of carnage through gunfire than any other country, and we do.

COOPER: We got to take a break.

And Emily raised a good point about the misreporting that a lot of media outlets did, including -- well, pretty much everybody did yesterday.

And I just want to clear up. This is from the lawyer for Sharpshooters, a small arms range. Emily, I think you go there.

MILLER: Yes.

COOPER: This is from their lawyer, J. Michael Slocum.

"The shooter did not attempt to buy an AR-15 as we said from the range. He did ask about purchasing a handgun. No brand was specified, but he was told he could not purchase a handgun, except for delivery to his home state through another federally licensed firearm dealer."

And that's when he decided to purchase the shotgun.

(CROSSTALK)

MILLER: Yes, federal law, you can't purchase out-of-state handgun.

COOPER: Right.

So, listen, Emily Miller, it's great to have you on the program again.



Share |

Tax Tale

Somewhere in an alternate universe, Herman Cain is telling the truth- about something.

First, he's for an electrified fence at the border, bragging to a Tennessee audience "It’s going to be 20 feet high. It’s going to have barbed wire on the top. It’s going to be electrified. And there’s going to be a sign on the other side saying, ‘It will kill you — Warning." Then on Meet The Press, Cain maintains "It's a joke. That's a joke...... I've also said America needs to get a sense of humor. That was a joke, O.K.?"

Meeting the very next day with Maricopa County immigration foe and sheriff Joe Arpaio, Cain told a press conference "I don't like to offend anyone...however, I don't apologize for using a combination of a fence. And it might be electrified -- I'm not walking away from that...." And the next day (evening) at the GOP presidential debate (transcript here) at the Home of Family Values and Christian Commitment, Las Vegas, Nevada, he was asked by host Anderson Cooper "So would you build an entire fence along the entire border, and would you have it be electrified?"

k S

We then learned that Herman Cain supports "a combination of a fence, technology, as well as possibly boots on the ground for some of the more dangerous areas," enforcement of existing federal immigration laws, and authority for states to impose their own restrictions on illegal immigrants. And of course, "to secure border," to differentiate himself from the other candidates who, presumably, want an insecure border.

The one thing missing from his answer was any reference, pro or con, to electrification. So we have heard Herman Cain supporting an electrified fence, opposing an electrified fence, supporting an electrified fence, and avoiding any position on an electrified fence. One could argue that Cain is a confused candidate; but given the free pass given him by Cooper, who didn't press him on the issue, he may be smarter than we give him credit for.

Or just more dishonest. Cain was battered on his 9-9-9 plan by former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, who noted

....reports are now out that 84 percent of Americans would pay more taxes under his plan. That’s the analysis. And it makes sense, because when — when you don’t provide a standard deduction, when you don’t provide anything for low-income individuals, and you have a sales tax and an income tax and, as Michele said, a value-added tax, which is really what his corporate tax is, we’re talking about major increases in taxes on people.

Cain said of Santorum's criticism "That simply is not true. I invite people to look at our analysis, which we make available."

Oh, but it is true. According to the Tax Policy Center, approximately 83.8% of tax filers would pay more total federal tax under 9-9-9 than under the current system. The Center explained

Based on descriptions from the Cain campaign website and Fiscal Associates, the firm that analyzed the proposal for the Cain campaign, we conclude that all three taxes are versions of well-known forms of consumption taxes, although collected in different ways and with a few modifications. The bases of all three taxes are essentially the same as the base of a national sales tax.

A national sales tax can come in two forms: a consumption tax or a value-added tax. Expert analysis indicates Cain's proposal more clearly resembles a value-added tax. Michele Bachmann, identifying herself as "a former federal tax litigation attorney" (that would be for the IRS), surprisingly was accurate when she stated

But Anderson, how do you not have a value-added tax? Because at every level of production you have a profit, and that profit gets taxed, because you produce one portion at one level, and then you take it to the next supplier or vendor at the next level, and you have an exchange. That is a taxable event.

And ultimately, that becomes a value-added tax. It’s a hidden tax. And any time the federal government needs revenue, they dial up the rate and the American people think that it’s — that it is the vendor that creates the tax, but it’s the government that creates the tax.

After Rick Perry (who twice referred to Cain as "brother") bemoaned the fact that Cain's taxes would be added on to existing state sales taxes, Cain talked about apples and oranges, then contended "it is not a value added tax." Were he still talking fruit, Cain would have been right; as a claim about his tax plan, he was not.

The Godfathers Pizza founder maintained also "it does not raise taxes on those that are making the least." Fortunately, a chart from the Tax Policy Center (by way of Jed Lewison at DailyKos) makes clear Herman Cain's intentional deviation from objective reality:

When the second leading GOP presidential candidate is for, against, for, maybe for or against an electrified fence, he merely demonstrates his dishonesty. But when he has to be corrected on tax policy by Michele Bachmann, he is revealed as truly ridiculous.

Share|

Anderson, Open Thine Eyes

Back from an extended vacation on another planet, CNN's Anderson Cooper (10/16 on 360Degrees) says

Tonight: It is hard to believe this can still happen in America. An interracial couple tries to get married, but the justice of the peace says no.

As everyone knows now, it (video below) is

the story of Beth and Terence McKay, an interracial couple who just wanted to get married, and the justice of the peace in southeastern Louisiana who refused to perform the ceremony. He refused because merely Beth is white, and Terence, her former fiance, now her husband, is African-American.

And as almost everyone knows, the younger generation is more tolerant of races other than their own and are more likely to find relationships, romantic and otherwise, with individuals of other races reasonable, normal and ordinary than have the older (or previous) generations. For that and other reasons, such relationships are now more widely accepted in the U.S.A.

Up to a point. This shouldn't be necessary to point out, and- arguably- most Americans understand this, but the election of Barack Obama as President did not nullify human nature, or even radically alter the relationship of blacks to whites.

Admittedly, this is a surprise to some: 1) liberals (with the mainstream media sometimes getting into the act), who understandably implied during the presidential election campaign that election of the first black would bring about a whole new country ("Morning In America," anybody?- video way below), a minority of such progressives actually believing it; 2) conservatives, who have a vested interest since the inauguration of a black President to argue that, hey, all our problems now are solved and the need for government action abolished- "nothing to see here, just move on"; and 3) Independents, who generally not as ideologically motivated as liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, might have been looking around last fall for a reason to vote for either John McCain or Barack Obama- and found it in the opportunity to be part of "history." (Barack Obama's margin of victory slightly exceeded that suggested by pre-election polls.)

With society moving in a more tolerant direction, it may be "hard to imagine this could still happen in America." But whether in 1959, 1979, or 2000, there always have been Justices of the Peace like Louisiana's Keith Bardwell, which should have been as expected as it is unacceptable.



Watch CBS News Videos Online



Next: It's not just interracial marriage.

Quote Of The Week

"If they let him get away with this maverick act, when he has got 169 lobbyists in his campaign - Barack Obama has zero -- well, then, they will deserve to lose. If McCain is a maverick reformer, then I'm a Hasidic diamond merchant. "

-CNN contributor Paul Begala, on "Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees," September 5, 2008

McCain In Full Pander Mode

Senator John McCain at the CNN/YouTube debate on November 28, 2007, responding to Anderson Cooper's question "Is waterboarding torture?":

And again, I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not "24" and Jack Bauer.

Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The Army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn't think they need to do anything else.

My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue and, clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.
(Applause)

Fast forward to February 13, 2008. The Senate approves by 51 to 45 an intelligence authorization bill containining a provision, sponsored by Dianne Feinstein (D.- Cal.), which would restrict the C.I.A. to the 19 intelligence techniques authorized by the Army Field Services Manual, which prohibits eight specific techniques, including waterboarding. And John McCain, under attack from the far right of his party? He joins 42 other Repubs in voting against the measure. (Five Republicans vote "aye" and one does not vote.)

Score it a victory for Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter & Co.- and a defeat for candor.