Honestly?

There appears to be a mini-epidemic of media prefacing their message with the word "Honestly..."

A major tech company is advertising their computers with a young women speaking who prefaces her remarks about how wonderful their computer is with "Honestly..."

In the last couple months I have heard members of Congress commenting on the people's business, prefacing their remarks with "Honestly..."

Political pundits regularly preface their remarks with "Honestly..."

As I contemplate why they say "Honestly" as a preface to their remarks the following questions pop into my head:

Do they preface their words with "Honestly" because they often lie but are actually telling the truth this time?  Otherwise why would they feel the need to preface their remarks with "Honestly..."? 

Since they apparently often lie, am I to believe they are actually telling the truth this time?  Or are they just particularly interested in having me believe this lie?

More fundementally, is this epidemic reflective of the fact lots of folks in the public eye believe honesty in the public realm is no longer a matter of character, but rather a matter of convenience? 

Another Corporate conspiracy

For three score years I have never needed glasses for much of anything.

Suddenly I find myself stocking my car, the table by my bed, my briefcase - even my toolbox - with reading glasses.  I need them to read economist, I need them to read the printing on prescriptions, the list of contents on food.  With cans of paint or other hardward store items I sometimes feel like I need a microscope to read how to avoid being poisened, or properly use the product.

It seems to me it all happened in the last couple years.  I have figured out it must be a conspiracy by the 1%.  I thought it might be the government conspiracy but couldn't figure out how they would make the print on everything smaller without passing a bunch of laws that CNN would be talking about 24/7 endlessly, so I would have heard about it.    My eyes have worked fine for 60+ years so the problem clearly couldn't be me, so it must be the 1%.

I figure that since the economy sucks the 1% don't want to risk putting their money into expanding businesses and hiring people.  Not much money to be made there and it is a lot of risk.  So instead they have looked for every possible way to pump up the profits of their corporations.  I would imagine they were all sitting around the country club one day jawing about how tough it was to make more money when one of them had a brilliant idea.  If they just started making the print smaller on everything their corporations make they could cut their costs by squeezing more words on a smaller piece of paper - saving both ink and paper. 

But the side effects where the best part of their insight.  All they had to do was increase their holdings in companies that make glasses, and bask in the boom of sales of reading glasses caused by the smaller print.  And as a further side affect they could fill their packaging with disclaimers in print so small no one would read it, and use the disclaimers to avoid lawsuits if someone is injured.  After all, one of the real failures in the American way is that there is always some sharp lawyer with a golden tongue who wants to make the people that create things pay when people get hurt.  Those lawyers have no idea how hard it is to keep profits up if you have to make sure what you are selling is safe.

I haven't had a chance to check my theory, but it's a damn good theory so I am going to assume it is correct until I get a chance to check it.  Don't have time to let a lack of facts keep me from understanding what is happening in the world if I am going to become part of the 1%.

Understanding the Boston Bombers -

After I heard the FBI had interviewed the older brother and didn't think he presented a threat, I thought it might be interesting to look at what astrology (at the least the parts of astrology that I think have some predictive value) would predict about the behavior of the two Boston Bombers.  Below is what I found:

(see * below for the sources for the quotes - dates and places of birth came from online biography website - both were born in Central Asia - no time of birth was available):

Tamerlan Tsarnaev - The older brother was born on October 21, 1986.  Using what Astrology says about someone born on this date paints the following picture.   :

He was born in the Chinese year of the Fire Tiger - 

"This type of Tiger finds it difficult to contain his enthusiam and boundless energy...He is independent and unconventional, and his moves are hard to predict.  The only thing one can be sure of is that when he acts, he will be dramatic and influential....He seeks constantly to convert his nervous energy and inspirations into forceful action...he is a thoroughly optomistic soul and has no use for doomsday prophets..."  * 1

His Sun sign is Scorpio - 

"This is the sign of extremes.  Scorpio people are variously described as powerful, weak, independent, clinging, passionate and cold....a bundle of contradictions encompassing the best and worst of human nature...The key..is intensity...you do nothing by half measures...you live on many levels...you present a calm and smiling face to the world..(but you are)... ferociously persistent and extremely strong willed...you always have a hidden agenda..." *2

 His Moon sign is Gemini -

"Versatile, witty, charming, lively, amusing...(but)...disorganized, inconsistent, superficial, cunning and manipulative.."  * 2

His Mars (considered to govern in what ways you are aggressive) is in Aquarious - 

"...There is an element of reform or fighting for freedom in your outlook.  High strung and unpredictable, you struggle between wanting to do things alone and group activities..."  *2

Dzhokhar Tsarneav - The younger brother was born in Central Asia on July 22, 1996.

He was born in the Chinese Year of the Water Rooster - 

"This is an intellectual....He has tremendous energy and initiative at his disposal and will seek to use his resources...to speed up progress...His mind functions with computerlike efficiency and thus could lose sight of the main issues when he overstresses details...."  * 1

His Sun sign is Cancer - 

"Complex, fragile, unpredictable...need constant support and encouragement..desperately want...approval..but resent wanting it....have a real blind spot when it comes to seeing a failing in one you love...when you are close to someone, you believe you are supposed to help that person..."  * 2

His Moon sign is Virgo - 

"Intellectual, meticulous, industrious, steadfast, responsible but critical, high-strung, standoffish, argumentative...."  * 2

His Mars is in Virgo -  

"...ambitious and proud, though this is not always apparant on the surface.  Extremely strong-willed... can separate self from emotions when it comes to making decisions.  In your work you are shrewd, calculating and quietly determined...." *2

I wonder if the FBI knew anything about Scorpio's born in the year of the Fire Tiger when they interviewed the older brother.  Whatever criteria they used certainly didn't do the job.  We have a blind spot in the US about astrology because both scientific and religious leaders defending their turf see it as a threat to their authority.  I hope that blind spot doesn't extend to the FBI investigating terror suspects, but am not optomistic.  I think it could provide reliable useful information based on readily verifiable facts.

* 1.  "The Handbook of Chinese Horoscopes", Theodora Lau.
* 2.  "The Only Astrology Book You'll Ever Need", Joanna Martine Woolfolk 

What Western Medicine is good at - and not so good at

Western medicine has become very good at:
1.  Dealing with trauma injuries.  The bomb blast at the Boston marathon where hundreds of people were injured, but only three died is a good demonstration of how quickly and effectively we deal with trauma injuries.

2.  Attacking specific pathogens - In the last 100 years we have eliminated many diseases that plagued our species by identifying the pathogen, and figuring out how to kill it.

We became good at these aspects of medicine because a lot of smart people whose primary focus was solving specific problems, figured out how to solve a lot of different problems.  The logical parts of our brain that dominate in our culture are ideally organized to attack these sorts of problems.  Classic linear thinking - break the problem down into individual components and then figure out each component.

Western medicine is not so good at general wellness and health.  In large part this is because our general health depends on maintaining a particular chemical balance in our bodies.  But the problem is much more diffuse and complex than focusing on a specific pathogen, or specific type of physical injury.  The "break it down to small components" approach does not work well because:

1.  Every chemical in our body interacts with or is influenced with many other chemicals.

2.  We are not clones, each of us has a slightly different chemical fingerprint.

Right now most of the smart people with access to the money and tools to make headway on understanding this complex interaction are funded by or employed by drug companies.  Drug companies are making billions of dollars with the current approach that develops new drugs that accomplish specific goals (lowering cholesterol for example) without really understanding how the particular drug will interact with all the other chemicals in the bodies chemical balance.  The current system is working for those companies, even if it isn't working in terms of the making really big strides forward in understanding each individual's chemical characteristics.   

Think of the drug advertisements to which we all are constantly exposed.  Airy feel good visuals and music to get you feeling good about the drug, while in the background some guy drones on about all the potentially really bad side effects.  Do the drug companies have any idea how to figure out who might be affected by these really bad side affects?  No.   Do they care - well certainly not in the sense of doing anything that will impact their short term profits. 

It is my opinion the medical profession goes along with this sorry system because we have granted a medical monopoly to the people with the highly developed linear thinking skills that work so well with trauma injuries and pathogens.  They have created a system that requires years of intensive focused linear thinking to become Doctors.  As a result the people that run the medical monopoly distrust non-linear thinking, they think linear thinking is going to solve all medical problems.  They inadvertently stifle non-linear thinking in the medical profession. 

The next big medical advance needs to be a coherent theory of how our bodies chemical systems develop their individual differences, and what that tells us about how the system interacts.  Once we have that theory, linear thinking will probably unravel all the mysteries eventually.  But it is going to be non-linear thinking that produces the initial theory and the medical profession is currently almost incapable of taking a theory that arises out of something other than their linear comfort zone seriously.

Is Economic Growth Always What We Need?

This last week the financial world was buzzing about the decision by the Bank of Japan (BoJ) to start printing enormous amounts of money and use the money to buy financial assets in financial markets.   The BoJ's plan is a lot like what the Federal Reserve has been doing in this country, only supersized.  The BoJ goal is to jump start growth in gdp.

Growth is all economist's ever talk about.  Nothing, in economic jargon, transcends the importance of growth.  I think some people have lost sight of the purpose and true meaning of growth in their obsession with the buzz word.

Growth is the pursuit of more material wealth.  Quality of life issues aren't really factored into growth.  GDP doesn't consider how healthy people are, how happy people are, how nutritional thier food is, how safe their environment is.

Japan's new prime minister is obsessed with generating growth, hence the new policy.  Is this what is good for Japan?

Some simple facts about Japan.  It is a country with an aging, and shrinking population, who have one of the highest living standards in the world.  The Bank of Japan's goal is largely to generate inflation.  It's result will be to drive down the value of the Japanese yen.  So the aging, shrinking population of Japan will not have the purchasing power they would have had otherwise.

But the BoJ's policy will drive up stock and bond prices, so lots of financial professionals will make tons of money.  Business will be happy because a lower Yen means they can sell their products to other countries at lower prices.  In essence the policy will be taking money out of japanese workers paychecks so business can offer their products to consumers in other countries at lower prices.

As has characterized the last couple decades in the west, Japan's Government policy favors the wealthy at the expense of the majority of citizens.

Growth is crucial to pull a poor country with a rapidly expanding population out of poverty.  For a developed country, growth's benefits are more nuanced.  Growth often produces environmental damage, encourages unhealthy behavior and often does more to make rich folks richer than to bring to neediest up to a reasonable standard of living.

Oh, and incidently, the BoJ action could set of the 21st century version of a 1930's trade war.  In which case everyone will suffer.

Obama's Mapping the Brain Project

President Obama has proposed a 100 billion dollar effort to map the brain.  It makes me grind my teeth.

It is not that mapping the brain is a bad idea.  It probably would result in valuable basic research.  What makes me grind my teeth is that it will probably slow down the evolution of our understanding on how our brain really works, because it ignores the half of our brain function that we know the least about to push a big pile of money into learning more about the half we already know quite a bit about.

I heard a program about the project this morning on the radio*.  A brain research guy from Stanford made comments that, to me, epitomized the problem.  He was talking about the brain as this machine - like all brain researchers needs to do to make big strides in human understanding is to map the connections where all these electrical events occur.   He speaks of the brain like it is sort of a big 3-D motherboard.  He (and all the other experts) all qualified their comments to downplay expectations - they clearly realize there is much they don't understand about the brain, but every single one of them spoke of the brain as if it were a machine communicating by electrical impulses.  It is a half truth, and this proposal is following a long tradition of brain research ignoring the other half.

When was in college I took some brain classes in 1973-74.  Brain science at that time also saw the brain as a machine.  In class we cut open heads (of animals - not each other) and cut out parts of the brain to see what happened to the animal when it recovered.  Or inserted electrodes into particular parts of the brain, then zapping a little electricity into the brain to see what part twitched.  

Even at that time many in brain research had begun to realize that decades of cutting open the heads of animals produced some useful information, but didn't begin to explain how the brain works.  But, at that time it was what brain researcher's did, so they kept doing it because they didn't have any better ideas.  

Far more intriguing to me at the time was a line of research that went back as the late 1800's (mostly for veterinary purposes - understanding livestock) that showed the chemical make-up (neurotransmitters) of mammalian brains varied greatly over the course of a day, a month, a year and the variations were both predictable and reflected in behavior (think of the studies on crime and the full moon for example).   This suggested a new way of looking at the brain - even if our brains were largely stamped out of the same genetic mold, variations in our brain chemistry individual to each of us could be the factor that makes each of us unique individuals.  It is both a machine and an ongoing chemical process that modifies how the machine functions.  

Even though my career went a different direction I followed brain research pretty closely for the next couple years, and saw evidence other people were also starting to think of the neurotransmitter data as providing a new way to look at the brain - as a chemical process.  The particular balance of chemicals at the start of the process (at conception and in the early years of brain development) influences how the reaction proceeds and the relative influence of different systems using different neurotransmitters.   At one point, perhaps about 1976 or 1977, I read a quote from a researcher from the National Institute of Health about some neurotransmitter related research saying the study results sounded a little bit like astrology.  The statement was qualified quickly (the next sentence as I recall) by a comment to the effect that he wasn't seriously suggesting astrology was related to neurotransmitters.

Then by the early 1980's reported research relating to neurotransmitter variations had dropped off the research map.  I think part of it was astrology.  Although people today don't have a "moral" problem with astrology, in the 1970's astrology was viewed by the public - and hence by science - rather like Islamist's today view western culture - something to be shunned at best   Thirty years ago no one who wanted to have a career in brain science could say anything that sounded remotely like they wanted to do research on when and where people were born and how that affected their personality - since that was the province of astrology.  

I also think part of it was the daunting nature of trying to do research.  The only way to approach finding out if brain chemistry differs between people born in different circumstances was by finding objective physical or behavioral markers and developing a massive statistical database.  It would have required decades to compile the data.  A young scientist's career would be decades old before he would have the data to start testing theories (and more important - publishing).

But I think the biggest problem was the arrival of digital imaging.  Why embark on a career that requires spending decades gathering a massive statistical data base when you can play with electronic toys that can look inside the brain.  Surely once we can look inside a working head knowledge will gush forth?

Thirty years later I have seen ton's of reports on brain research based on digital imaging.  We have learned some things.  But from what I can see we are no closer to understanding why people have different personalities, or why some people seem to have no empathy or feeling for others.

Now we are going to spend $100 billion dollars on more research based on the notion the brain is a machine.   It won't be wasted money - we will get some useful information out of it.  But the opportunity cost is huge.  It is sort of like spending $100,000 to buy a minivan.  You will get some utility out of the vehicle - but you paid way to much and that is $70,000 you won't have to put to other purposes.

Here are some things I am very confident about:

1.  This brain mapping project won't do a whole lot to help us understand why people are different.  We won't make much headway in learning what it was in the brain of a 20 year old that led him to walk into a school and kill 26 people.

2.  The chemistry of our brain is linked directly to the chemistry of our body.  The chemical signature of our brain reflects what is happening in our body.  This brain mapping project won't get us much closer to personalized medicine - the ability of Doctors to look at you as a particular combination of chemical processes and prescribe treatments or medicines, or diagnose problems specific to you - instead of what is considered appropriate for the "average" person.  Knowing the wiring of our brain will tell us little or nothing about this, knowing the chemical mix in our brain might. (for more discussion on this point see the link below)

In short, I see this brain mapping project as Obama's lets send someone to the moon moment.  It is dramatic, but it is far from the best use of the money, and will suck resources away from other lines of inquiry that could produce really tangible results that would help solve a lot of basic human issues much sooner.

For a related discussion see:  http://motrvoter.blogspot.com/2012/05/big-surprise-genetics-is-of-little-use.html

*The program - NPR's forum on KQED, broadcast at 9:00 AM, 4.3.13 here in California

Why the Capital Gains tax breaks are misdirected

For fifty years economists and politicians have pushed lower tax rates for Capital gains as a measure that encourages investment.  Does it?   Or is it an example of politicians and economists who have very simplistic and fuzzy notions about motivating people (which notions often incidentely happen to serve their own self interests.)

Quick review on what the discussion is about.  Money you are paid for doing a job is taxed as ordinary income.  The current effective Federal income tax rate for most of us is probably about 25% or so, and many who make more money 30% or more.   On the other hand, if your income comes from investments, either from buying and selling stocks, bonds or real estate, or from "qualifed" corporate dividends, you will often pay about half the tax rate paid by someone working for a living.

Now just on basic instinct it seems like folks who are making money because they own things and don't need do to much of anything to receive their income should, if anything, perhaps pay a little higher tax than folks who are working hard, and perhaps incurring some physical risk from the act of working.  Just as a matter of fairness.  So there must be some good reason why tax policy has the opposite effect, right?  It must be set up to reward people for investing, right?

Lets see if this works by considering a hypothetical.

Richie Rich inherited property from which he makes $220,000 a year from capital gain and qualified dividends.  He spends the entire $220,000 a year on living expenses, plays a lot of golf, travels and generally enjoys life because he doesn't need to work.   

Hard working Harry makes $220,000 from working hard for long hours.  He spends about $120,000 a year on ordinary living expenses and the other $100,000 a year he invests.

Assume both Ricky and Harry won't have to pay much tax on the first $20,000 they make (which is true for all taxpayers) , but on the remaining $200,000 they will pay an average of around about 30% on ordinary income and about 15% on capital gain.

The result?  Richie Rich will pay about $30,000 tax on his $200,000 since it is all capital gain.  Hardworking Harry on the other hand, will pay about $60,000 on his $200,000.

So Harry pays twice as much tax as Richie, even though Richie never worked a day in his life, didn't invest a dime of his income, while Harry works hard at building society and actually invested $100,000.

This hypothetical reveals the fatal flaws of the Capital Gains tax.  

1.  It looks at where income comes from, rather than where it goes.
2.  It often rewards the non-productive rather than the productive.

When enough voters figure this out, perhaps the politicians and economists will also figure it out, so pass it on.

Sequester Blues

Being a small business person - as in very small - 4 employees currently - I am scratching my head about why I am spending my time scrambling to make ends meet and not lay people off while politicians constantly pontificate about how concerned they are about protecting small business.

Admittedly my business is sort of a canary in a coal mine - I am really impacted by changes in the larger economy - it usually hits me first.  That being the case I have to assume this whole sequester mess does not bode well for the overall economy.

Republicans and Democrats are both pointing the finger of blame at the other.  Both parties have their blind spots, but when I look at the objective facts of history since the second world war, I find the Republicans to be the problem - and it isn't even close.  When Republican's have controlled the agenda in Washington taxes have gone down and spending has gone up.  Consistently.  On objective history Democrats have been much more fiscally responsible when they controlled the agenda.  From 1995 when Republicans took over both houses of Congress through 2007 when they lost control Republicans were able to pursue all their pet theories of how to build a good economy.  The end result was a world wide financial collapse and an ongoing mess that we are only surviving because of the Federal goverment bail-outs, absurdly low interest rates from the Federal Reserve along with the Federal Reserve buying tens of  billions of dollars of financial assets every month to support the financial markets.

The Republican refusal to consider raising taxes is stupidity at this point in time.  Nobody likes taxes, but with a huge and growing federal deficit - largely spawned by the Republican administrations fiscal and policy irresponsibility in the last 30 years - handing out tax cuts like candy while increasing spending - we are in a situation where trying to climb way out of this economic mess with cuts in spending is like the discredited old medical practice of treating sick people by cutting a vein and draining out their blood.

Republican's need a reality check to make them face up the the fact that many of their economic theories are self indulgent fantasy.  The only way I think that will happen is when enough other voters figure this out to toss out the House Republican majority in the next election, and maybe not vote Republican for a couple election cycles.  A few years in the wilderness might bring some sanity and reality to Republican economic theorists.

Unfortunately, absent some kind of wake up call to pull the Republican's off their no taxes position, I think we as a country will continue with a crippled economy for a number of years.  At least that is what I am assuming for business and investment planning purposes.  Like to be able to believe something different, but reality is reality.

Two Simple fixes for Government Budgets

These fixes address the basic weakness in any attempt to finance government fairly - Government wields power and even the best intentioned government cannot completely erase the bias of self-interest in establishing their own compensation.

The fixes are based on two assumptions:

1.  The private sector creates wealth, so the measure of compensation of the government should be based on the compensation of the private sector governed.   

2.  Government should be conservative in adopting policies that produce long term obligations.

1.  All governments must compensate employees based on fixed compensation schedules computed off a base of 99% of the average private sector compensation within the jurisdiction.  No government can hire any person at compensation in excess of 4 times the private sector average compensation unless the amount is specifically approved by the voters in the jurisdiction.  Average compensation  for all government employee's cannot exceed 99% of the average private sector compensation.

2.  No government can contract to pay any future employee compensation or benefit that is based on actuarial projections of future economic conditions.  Employee compensation obligations must be funded out of current tax reciepts or current reserve fund.

Being True to your Beliefs - Virtue or Vice?

In political rhetoric the conversation often focuses on honoring a person with strong beliefs and castigating the person who changes his position.

Being true to your beliefs is only a virtue if being sure your beliefs are true is an even higher priority.   That simple truth usually gets lost in the heat of political rhetoric.  I doubt that Hitler, or Stalin, or Ghaddafi were ever accused of not being true to their beliefs.

Being sure your beliefs are true requires constantly reevaluating your beliefs in light of all available information, and requires a willingness to admit you are wrong and change your viewpoint.  

There should be a direct correlation between certainty in your beliefs and the amount of time you spend critically evaluating your beliefs - more time = more certainty.  Unfortunately in politics usually the inverse correlation is more accurate.

Minimum Wage

The minimum wage discussion sparked by President Obama's call for an increase in the minimum wage is a perfect example of the process that constantly leads this country into adopting a policy that is a primarily a compromise between the two most extreme and inaccurate characterizations of reality rather than a policy that will produce the best results.  

On one side of the minimum wage debate folks say an increase in the minimum wage will hurt small business, and cause poor beleagured small business folk to lay off employees, cut their hours or even close up the business, and thus hurt the economy.

On the other side folks say nonsense, increasing the minimum wage will increase the money in peoples pocket, will help the economy, and won't really hurt business. 

Both sides are about equally right and equally wrong.  In fact using a national minimum wage to make a fairer society and boost the economy is like trying to use a sledgehammer to make an ice sculpture.   

Examples of the misdirected nature of the debate:

1.  Proponents of the minimum wage cite San Francisco, where the minimum wage is over $10.00 an hour and the city taxes business to provide health insurance for all workers.  They say - "See, this proves minimum wages increases will be good".  Folks, get a grip.  San Francisco is one of the richest areas of the country, with a very high cost of living,  Just because San Francisco employers can thrive with a $10+ an hour minimum wage and city business taxes to cover employee's health care doesn't mean businesses can do the same thing in other parts of the country that aren't full of well off single folks with lots of money to spend.  

2.  Opponents of the minimum wage paint all small businesses as running on the edge of insolvency.  They argue the minimum wage will force many business owners to close up shop, or lay employee's off to avoid bankruptcy.  Undoubtedly there are businesses where the profit margin is low enough that the owner won't be able to afford to increase hourly wages for minimum wage workers without losing the ability to make an acceptable profit.  But there are also businesses whose business model is built on exploiting minimum wage workers to create huge profits for owners.  And there are businesses that fit every possible niche between those two extremes.

A better National policy would leave minimum wage laws to individual regional governments, but use the Federal tax code to impose high taxes on income derived from businesses where the owners compensation greatly exceeds the average pay of the employee's.  The greater the disparity, the higher the effective tax rate.   Minimum wage workers would drag down the average salary, thereby increasing taxes on the owners of the business - a strong disincentive to those trying to make their fortune exploiting minimum wage workers.

Cultivating a Realistic View of Gun Control - 2

1.  Gun advocates argue that if everyone carried a gun, society would be more safe from criminal activity.  They argue private gun ownership deters criminals. Criminals who can attack a defenseless population and are much more inclined to do so. 

The evidence of history does not support their theory more guns in everyones hands makes for a safer society.   Gun advocates need to explain why 100 years ago in much of the western united states many people carried a gun.  Did that stop crime?  If so explain to me why virtually the entire the "wild west" moved to banning people from carrying firearms in public in the space of a couple decades?

Explain to me why our murder rate with guns is orders of magnitude higher than other similar developed western countries where guns are generally not available?

Explain to me why we subject police officers to psychological tests and hundreds of hours of training before we let them carry a gun?  Yet even after all that training they shoot innocent and unarmed people from time to time because their hormones are surging and they make mistakes in judgment.  

Explain to me why does the military gives soldiers guns but not ammunition unless combat is threatened?


Are there actually documented instances where private citizens intervened to stop a crime?  I have seldom heard of such an event, but in a recent discussion a gun advocate cited the following web site as offerring examples of cases where folks with guns stopped a crime -  http://www.akdart.com/gun3.html

The cite presents lots of anecdotes without reliable documenation, and makes no distinction between people at their home or business defending themselves and people out walking the streets packing heat.  

The site tries to explain away the lack of reliable evidence (such as police reports or media reports) by starting with a disclaimer that the mainstream media doesn't report instances where people successfully defend themselves with guns because the mainstream media is for gun control.  That is certainly not the mainstream media I experience.  The mainstream media is about any story with emotional appeal, and with good guys and bad guys, and any gun confrontation has that appeal. 

The site then starts citing "examples", many of which are about instances where people are in their homes or businesses defending against intruders.  There are virtually no examples of people walking around the streets armed stopping a crime.  

The only instance close that has happened in my recent memory was when that gun toting self appointed vigilante in Florida shot an unarmed black kid he confronted on a street in the kids neighborhood.  Exactly the sort of event one would expect from members of the general public packing heat on the streets.


2.  Gun advocates argue ttat there is no way to stop criminals from having guns - since a black market arises for banned substantces such as drugs, or, once upon a time alcohol.  But the fact is when things are illegal, although markets in the banned substance are almost always developed by criminals, the banned item is vastly more expensive than the same item in a legal free market.  And trading in guns is vastly more difficult than selling illegal drugs that fit in your pocket.  If guns were illegal they would be much less available to the common criminal, or those operating in the heat of passion.  Existing licensing systems for those who need to carry concealed weapons would allow responsible citizens to obtain licenses, so further shrinking a potential illegal market.

In addition if carrying guns in public is illegal and the police stop someone with a gun and no license to carry the weapon, they can arrest them. When guns are legal to carry in public, and the police stop someone with a gun, even if they are on their way from a crime, or just committed a crime the police are unaware of, the police cannot detain that person unless the person has committed some other offense.








One approach is to require weapons that fire lots of rounds rapidly (more than 6 rounds a minute) to have special sized ammunition, and then tightly control that ammunition.

Cultivating a Realistic View of Gun Control

Fact:  Emotionally some people love guns.   Probably the vast majority of gun owners are responsible, hard working citizens whose guns are no threat to others.  But with even the responsible gun owners the mere fact they own guns creates the possibility of accidents, or that guns could get stolen in a burglary, or the owner could sell them to someone less responsible.   So any gun ownership creates some level  of risk to society.  

Fact:  Emotionally some people want to see guns disappear off the face of the earth.  Unfortunately guns represent a tool for those who want to enforce their will on others.   History is littered with the bones of civilizations that imagined that they did not need to be prepared to meet force with force.

Fact:  Historically tyrants have denied access to weapons as a means to control populations and use the population as a resource for their own gain.  While our democracy is a huge step forward in human evolution toward elevating civil society over the rule of brute power we cannot be certain some powerful future forces will not find a way to elevate personal ambition over civil society.  While current technologies in our military make the notion of protecting oneself from the government with your guns ludicrous in the dawning era of drones, satellites and electronic surveillance, we cannot say that having some part of the population have access to guns would not provide some form of protection from some forces seeking to hijack government.

Fact:  One side says guns kill people, the other side says guns don't kill people, peaple do.  In fact ammunition is what kills people.  A gun without ammunition is not much different, in terms of effectiveness as a weapon, from a brick or a big stick, and probably slightly less dangerous than a hammer or hatchet.

Conclusion:  What if we could find the technology to individually identify each round of ammunition.  When a person bought ammunition the purchaser would have to pass a background check and each round would be registered to them.  Then if that round of ammunition is used in a crime the person who is the registered owner would be strictly liable for civil damages to the victim(s) or their families.  

Benefit:  People who love guns, and are willing to take responsibility for the risks inherent in gun ownership, and in insuring their ammunition is not lost or stolen, could have and use as many guns as they want.  When they use their ammunition they would have to collect the shell casings and return them, or destroy them, to be relieved from potential civil liability.  This system, over time, should make ammunition unavailable for the mentally unstable and so expensive as to be unavailable for the casual criminal.

Problem:  Goverment would have a database identifying who had ammunition.  This creates some risk of rogue government, but gun-owners would have plenty of warning if Congress sought to make ammunition or guns illegal, and if Government really is going rogue the fact they know who has ammunition is the least of our problems.  The risk is low and can be ameliorated by a strong commitment to civil society.

Our Political Future

Politics is crazy sometimes.  Economist's tell us that in the United States the areas of the country that are dominated by Republican's are also generally the areas of the country where they receive more federal tax dollars in benefits than they pay in taxes.  The areas of the country where people pay more taxes than they get back in benefits tend to the controlled by Democrats who want more taxes and spending.

Yet in Congress it is the Republican's who are wanting to cut and chop government spending and Democrats that are usually resisting.  The exception, of course, is defense spending.  Many Republican's regard our mind boggling levels of defense spending as untouchable.  At least here politics maybe makes some sense - it's my impression (haven't researched it)  the last round of military base closures 20 years ago ended with the bulk of the military bases being in Republican controlled states - I suspect that fact is a big part of why Republican states get more Federal dollars back than they pay out.

When we look at the negotiating positions of members of Congress on the approaching debt ceiling and, shortly thereafter, the deadline to impose 6% across the board federal spending cuts, we find it is the Republican members of Congress who represent areas of the country who will probably be hit the hardest by cuts in federal spending who are pushing the hardest for big cuts.  They are trying to steer the cuts toward social spending, but the fact is defense accounts for 50% of the spending our income taxes support.  Republicans controlled the agenda for most of the last couple decades and they have continually nibbled away at social programs, then turned around and lavished new money on defense and handed out tax cuts.  As a result of their policies to only path toward getting the country back toward a balanced budget involves either higher taxes or major cuts in defense, or start stealing money from the Social Security trust fund or Medicare.

What are their constituents going to think when the economy in Republican parts of the country get slammed by cuts in Federal spending?  Are the Republican's in Congress that confident in their ideological marketing that they think they can keep voters who vote their pocket book voting for them through (another) deep downturn?  Will Republicans trade ideological purity for irrelevance, as they have in California?  

Gun Control

I see the folks who love their guns are circulating the story of a women in Georgia who shot an intruder with a crowbar - citing the event as a reason why there shouldn't be gun control - and stretching their imagination to say it justifies having assault weapons in the home.  One gun law supporter was quoted as saying   "It's a good thing she wasn't facing more attackers. Otherwise she would have been in trouble and she would have run out of ammunition," said Erich Pratt, director of communications for the Gun Owners of America. 

In the 65 years of my life I can't recall a single instance of a homeowner facing a horde attackers attacking their home.  I'm sure that would make the headlines and I would hear about it.  On the other hand I don't have enough fingers to count the massacres of innocent people that have occurred the last few years by nut cases wandering the streets armed to the teeth. 

Media sources say the NRA is developing TV ads to exploit the story.

They are so out of touch with reality - so deeply enamored with their right to have guns -  so wrapped up in the argument as to be out of touch with reality - it is mind-boggling.  

I'm sure there are people who want to ban all guns, but I think most people don't have a problem with people who choose to have a gun in their house for self protection.  It's foolish - statistically the gun in your house is more likely to kill you or one of your family or friends than an unknown attacker.  But if a gun in the house makes folks feel safer, not a problem - maybe we can require trigger locks and some safety training and licensing to weed out the mentally unstable.  But that seems to me to be a completely different issue than allowing anyone to buy a gun at private sales and gun shows.  Or to buy assualt weapons that have no purpose other than killing or maiming lots of people really quickly.  

80 years ago or so the NRA started as an organization of gun owners who recognized that guns were dangerous and wanted to lobby for regulation.  Today's NRA is nothing more than a public relations company for the gun industry, oblivious for the greater good of this country.

Here is an interesting question.  What countries in this world would you expect people to be lobbying to put armed guards in schools?  It is inconceivable in virtually every other developed western democracy, and most of the non-democracies in the world.  The only ones that occur to me besides the US are Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan and the sub-saharan countries being taken over by Al-Queda.

Minimizing the corruption inherent in our democracy

The "fiscal cliff" deal that was just struck to avoid tax increases to all taxpayers is emblamatic of a basic problem with our democratic institutions - trading pork for votes.  In order to continue current tax levels on most folks, with an increase in taxes for those making over $400,000 a year, Congress "had to" give big tax breaks to the rum industry, Hollywoods film industry, Nascar and algea farmers.  A big part of the reason we have the deficit spending problems we have is that so many enactments of Congress get passed by giving unfair tax advantages to some influential (and wealthy) group with a key member of Congress in their pocket.  Nothing new in this as demonstrated by the movie "Lincoln" circulating in the theatres at the moment.  "Lincoln" documents the great emancipator's ability to cut unsavory deals to get the amendment banning slavery through Congress.  

 I am sure many in Congress don't like this tradition, but go along because "thats the way things get done"  The tradition of pork is supported by a couple of factors that would be applicable even if all members of Congress were high minded persons seeking to do the right thing (we are giving some of them the benefit of the doubt here).

First, every member of Congress, particularly in the house with its two year terms, is looking to their job security - how do they get re-elected.  So they cultivate powerful interest groups that can funnel them money to fund their campaigns, or who are influential in their district.

Second, new members who come to Congress are generally full of untested ideological opinions about what government should do or be, with little practical experience with what works.  Good public policy requires a broad understanding of history, economics, law and social sciences among other topics.  Most of the people who have the ambition to scramble up the political ladder are a little too busy with their ambitions to have time to develop that kind of understanding and the minute they arrive in Washington they are thinking about positioning themselves for re-election.

What if:

1.  Instead of having people constantly worrying about their next campaign we made the terms of House and Senate members longer and limited everyone to one term, and required members to sit out of public life for 4 years after their term.  To avoid the problem of having a Congress full of newby's who can be manipulated by lobbiests (which is what term limites often accomplishes) we could also have elections a year before the prior members term expires, and the newly elected member would serve a one year apprenticeship during which he does not actually vote, but spends his time learning what he will need to do to do a good job.

2.  Another approach that could simultaneously be pursued would be a constitutional amendment giving the president a line item veto.  This would allow the President to strike out pork without vetoing an entire proposal  Some may recall Congress enacted a line item veto back in the early 1990's.  The Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional, hence the need for a Constitutional amendment.  Some argue the line item veto is abrogating the power of Congress.  Seems to me the line item veto doesn't reduce the power of Congress, they can still overturn an item veto by a 2/3's vote.  What it abrogates is the ability of individual members of Congress to hold legislation hostage to further the selfish interests of their supporters or constituents.