Shooting in Arizona (posted by DT)

I know you're all dying for my thoughts about the shooting of a congresswoman in Arizona the other day.

I don't think that the actions of one quite crazy man can be pinned on the "political discourse". Republican hyperbole about health care in particular is indeed reprehensible, but this guy doesn't seem to be acting in reaction to any of that- his political views were, one might say, quite quirky.

But the issue that comes up for me is that it's so easy to buy a semi-automatic gun that any lunatic can get one- legally! I know Gun Control is a lost cause in the USA, and yes it's true that criminals are going to find a way to get a gun no matter the laws, but this shooter is just the kind of guy who might not know where to find one so easily the day he decides to make a name for himself. There should be many more controls on gun purchases- too bad nobody who lives more than 100 miles from an ocean agrees with me.

Father's Day Blogging (posted by DT)

Well I figure that on Father's Day I should be allowed to spend time ignoring my children briefly so that I can blog on all the things rattling around in my head lately. Here goes the roundup:

• The Gulf Oil Spill: Fascinating turn of events last week when Republican congressman Joe Barton of Texas decided to switch up the tone of the congressional hearing with BP's president and actually apologized for the White House "shakedown" of the oil giant in pressuring them into putting up $20 Billion for future reimbursements of those hurt by the spill. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_bp_s_ally Barton was quickly pressured into an apology of his own, but this kind of thing reminds me of someone's definition of a gaffe that I heard a while back: a gaffe is when a politician accidently says what he really thinks. Exactly. There are significant numbers of politicians who may say they believe in "taking responsibility" and "free markets", but they really seem to just want what Business wants. Corporate Welfare is no problem as long as the money is going to wealthy corporations and not diverted to poor people or immigrants. And now I see that congress is debating a measure that would raise the liability cap on oil spills from $75 million to $10 billion. Wait a minute: why is there a liability cap on oil spills at all??? If we believe that corporations, like people, should take responsibility for their errors, why shouldn't BP pay back every dime that is lost by every fisherman in the Gulf? How could anyone be in favor of capping their liability after they destroyed a huge swath of US coastline? What has BP done to deserve our protection?
• Gun Nut Nonsense: Jeff Jacoby's op-eds in the Boston Globe are usually a good bet to get me roiled up. This one www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/06/20/the_instrument_of_crime_remains_only_an_instrument/ is no exception. Jacoby writes that guns are merely the instrument of crime, not the cause, and makes analogies to crimes committed using camcorders (to illegally record women in a bathroom) and cars so ask why we would limit guns when we don't limit cars or camcorders. Well, for starters, how about because handguns have no purpose other than to kill people? Cars, knives, and camcorders have many legitimate and socially useful purposes- we have to put up with horrible vehicular homicides and drunk driving in order to make use of all the good things that cars provide. But what are guns doing for us? Not much. And furthermore, society does put restrictions on car use- we license drivers, take away their driving privileges if they drive badly, and have laws prohibiting driving while drunk. These seem somewhat equivalent to laws limiting use of handguns. Now I have no illusions that significant gun control is coming- in spite of what the NRA and the Right Wing Nut Machine would have you believe, there is no secret Democratic plan to take away guns because the votes aren't there- but that doesn't mean I concede the point on the merits. The lack of gun control laws in our country is crazy and unjustifiable, but it's not going to change any time soon.
• In my correspondence with some rabid right wingers, we've continued to go over the old ground around stimulus spending and its usefulness. One data point I hadn't considered much is the fact that federal stimulus spending isn't really injecting lots of extra money into the economy as much as it's replacing state cutbacks. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-13/economy-in-u-s-slows-as-states-lose-federal-stimulus-funds.html States have to balance their budgets, but the recession has decreased tax revenues, causing massive budget cutbacks. Much of this was ameliorated this fiscal year by federal stimulus, but as that winds down and the economy hasn't really returned to health, state cuts are expected to be bigger than ever for next fiscal year. This doesn't bode well for the recovery at all, and is a good reason for additional stimulus. Unfortunately, that won't happen because the Tea Party types won't let Republicans vote for more deficits, and Democrats are too spineless to do it on their own. If we have another "double dip recession" this year, though, Democrats will have only themselves to blame for their pathetic display. Meanwhile, I'm still left debating whether stimulus was a good idea at all, when most legitimate economists say it kept us from another Great Depression.