Lieonomics

Every time I get into an argument about guns with a gun rights advocate, I hear about this study that purports to prove that cities with laws permitting concealed weapons have lower crime rates. This is an assertion I've heard from several people on several occasions, and the study they describe is always the same. I've never been able to find any research corroborating the assertion, and I've looked more than once.

Turns out there's a reason for that. It was likely bogus. The article, entitled "More Guns, Less Crime", was penned by conservative economist John R. Lott — a fellow who has asserted that abortions are good for crime rates, and apparently has a habit of creating internet sock puppets to comment positively on his work online.

His book is, of course, titled Freedomnomics. Sigh.

Win-Win. Win.

Gosh, why didn't anyone just think of this sooner? We're saved!

McCain: I'll Cut the Deficit by Winning Iraq War

Considering McCain's assertion that U.S. troops staying in Iraq for 100 years would be "fine with him," I can't say this gives me a lot of economic confidence in a McCain presidency.

Not that I really had any, given that he's already admitted he's "not an expert" on "this stuff." Of course, he now denies having said that. Someone really needs to tell McCain about the YouTube:

It's a Bird! It's a Plane! It's...

...the moon. Yes, this past May someone in South Wales mistook the moon for a UFO. They even called 999 (the Welsh version of 911) about it.

Here's an excerpt from the transcript:

Caller: "If you've got a couple of minutes perhaps you could find out what it is? It's been there at least half an hour and it's still there."

Control: "It's been there for half an hour. Right. Is it actually on the mountain or in the sky?"

Caller: "It's in the air."

Control: "I will send someone up there now to check it out."

Well, we all get confused sometimes, no? Just the other day I though my nail clippers were an angry little man wearing a shiny, oblong hat.

The Inconveniences Attending Too Much Liberty

In 1783 William Pitt (the Prime Minister whose actions began the slow dismantling of the hideous British East India Company) stood on the floor of the House of Commons and argued the following:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."

Strong words from the man who would soon become the Prime Minister of Britain — a nation which had only recently lost one of its most profitable tentacles in a revolution spurred by accusations that Britain was indeed in the habit of making "the argument of tyrants" to attain its goals.

Today we celebrate that very event, blowing things to bits in the sky to honor our determination to be a nation of free men (yes, then, men) rather than the worker bees of a corrupt king. Reason and the public good were to be our guiding principles — not necessity. Human freedom was to be held sacrosanct, and its infringement was to be guarded against by the vigilance of a robust populace.

And so to me Independence Day is very much worth honoring, less with hot dogs and streamers than with reflection upon the radical language that led to the formation of our nation.

On July 4, 1776 Thomas Jefferson and 56 other men laid a series of charges at the feet of declared tyrant King George III, making the case that he was no longer fit to govern them. Two of the charges were these:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

King George, of course, disagreed.

History repeats itself, and we have had other King Georges, and other attempts to impinge upon self-evident human freedoms, and other rationales for why necessity trumps the right of humans to be free (or at least the right to argue one's case for freedom before a jury of one's peers).

Bush: Dangerous Gitmo Detainees Could Walk US Streets After Supreme Court Ruling

William Pitt: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."

We've forgotten our roots. We have. Look:



One of our closest data twins is Iran. Iran. We, the descendants of men who would rather die standing than live on their knees, are now the ideological brothers of those whom we accuse of Islamo-fascism when it comes to humanity's most basic of civil liberties — the right not to be tortured.

Pass the celebratory hot dogs!

When someone tells us that giving prisoners the right to a trial means that they'll inevitably strangle us in our beds, we believe them. In a pique of textbook fear-mongering, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino disingenuously frets, "The judge might say to the United States, 'You don't have enough evidence to hold this person.' And then what do we do? ... Is he allowed to leave?" (The implication clearly being "Because if he does, he'll garrote your sons and deflower your daughters.") And we sagely nod along.

Am I missing something here? If a judge might reasonably say "You don't have enough evidence to hold this person," then why are we holding this person? If we know that someone is a terrorist, why not try him or her as such, attain a conviction, and carry on? How can we possibly deny the right of prisoners to a fair trial in one breath and celebrate the Declaration of Independence in the next?

You know, this Declaration of Independence:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

Like it our not, we live in a nation whose greatest linguistic architect was prone to saying things like this: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Hear, hear.

I'm not against fire works and hot dogs. (Well, actually, I am against hot dogs, but that's a separate issue.) I just think we ought to know why we're eating them. (The hot dogs, not the fire works.)

Happy Independence Day, readers. I wish you happy meditations upon self-evident truths.

ThunderCats! HO!

There is going to be a ThunderCats movie! In 2010! Wikipedia says so so I know it's true!

After being shockingly not disappointed by the recent Transformers movie, I am trying not to get my hopes up here. Because if they ruin Mumm-Ra for me I will never forgive them. Ever. Whoever they are.

Picking the Right Wing's Brain: The Overton Window

Today I bring you insidious genius in the form of the Overton Window. This is a technique developed and employed by right-wing think-tanks to shift public debate in a direction favorable to their policy goals.

The fundamental premise is that each idea exists in one of six phases vis a vis the collective mind of the masses:

— Unthinkable
— Radical
— Acceptable
— Sensible
— Popular
— Policy

These categories exist as a continuum through which ideas can move in either direction. For example, legal slavery was once official U.S. policy and is now unthinkable. Allowing women to perform brain surgery was once unthinkable and is now policy. Gay marriage has moved from unthinkable to somewhere in between radical and policy, depending on where you live; national polling indicates that a majority of young Americans now find the notion acceptable.

The goal of the Overton Window is to allow one to think strategically about moving an idea through the continuum. Foreign policy towards Iran presents a useful case study. Bombing Iran was a radical position seven years ago, and now appears to be teetering somewhere around acceptable. While I personally think the act unthinkable, my thought is irrelevant. As a party engaged in attempting to impact policy, my job is to understand how most people (not my cavalcade of progressive acquaintances) feel about bombing Iran and engage in the debate accordingly. Scoffing at the notion of bombing Iran when it comes up in conversation (while doing so feels quite natural to me) won't get me anywhere; arguing that it's not sensible for a variety of reasons would be a far more effective rhetorical strategy for me to adopt, given my understanding of the notion's position in the Overton Window.

This stuff works. Really works. Just ask Rush Limbaugh, or take a look at public debate regarding privatization of Social Security. It's time to appropriate the master's tools.

Cur, the Curative

My two-month vacation officially starts tomorrow. My husband and I just bought a shiny new gadget on wheels Prius. We'll be vacationing in Monterey for our anniversary. Bush's approval ratings are in the low 20's. I feel safe in saying I am the opposite of depressed regarding my existence these days.

Nonetheless, out of curiosity today I scanned through an article entitled something to the effect of "12 Ways to Deal with Depression" or some such (I'm too lazy to link, and it was barely worth the read). The list contained groundbreaking suggestions such as Make Friends! Find a Hobby! Exercise! (Although the winner had to be "Number 9: Get on Your Knees" which was apparently meant to inspire people to pray). That gem notwithstanding, these lists are almost always laugh-worthy to me because, well, duh much? If you spend all your days lazing in isolation on your ever-expanding posterior with nothing to stimulate your intellect but staring at a talking box, of course you're going to be depressed.

I was, however, pleased to see the presence of furry friends on the list. This, I think, is my secret to surviving what has been a horridly stressful year for me pretty much unscathed — DOGS. (And yes, they really do require the dreaded all caps.) It is definitionally impossible to get all woe-is-me, sad-snowflake when you have 25 pounds of wiggle sticking its tongue in your ear. Really, they should be prescribed. Prescription drogs.

While I Wasn't Blogging: More News You Might Have Missed

This just* in: Scanners that see through clothing installed in US airports.

Really, beyond the headline, do you need anything else?

Okay, in case you do, have a quote: "While it allows the security screeners — looking at the images in a separate room — to clearly see the passenger's sexual organs as well as other details of their bodies, the passenger's face is blurred, TSA said in a statement on its website."

I'm sure none of those videos will ever pop up on YouTube.

*By "just" I of course mean 19 days ago, but you know.

While I Wasn't Blogging: News You Might Have Missed

When I was a kid, my parents (posterity and my mother would like me to note that credit here is in fact due to my grandparents) got me a subscription to Ranger Rick magazine. Through reading that magazine I learned about meerkats, cool bugs, and why chopping down the rain forest is bad. I also learned about the Exxon Valdez.

You remember the Exxon Valdez.







To put the following paragraphs in context, in February of 2008 Exxon announced the largest quarterly profits that any U.S. company has ever reported. Ever. Profits so high that the corporation made approximately $1,300 a second in 2007.

$1,300 a second.

Puts our offshore drilling "debate" in perspective, no?

Given that reality, I find it beyond appalling that our highest court in the land (emphasis, apparently, on "high") reversed the $2.5 billion dollar ruling against Exxon in the Exxon Valdez case as "excessively punitive." Excessively punitive to a company that made $2.5 billion dollars in less than three days last year.

Is it even possible to punish this in excess?



According to the Supreme Court, the "reasonable" cost of atonement for the Exxon Valdez oil spill is not $2.5 billion, but $507 million — an amount which the corporation is projected to make in less than one day. And that $2.5 billion was already down from the $5 billion that Exxon was originally ordered to pay by "a jury of its peers."

But see, Exxon doesn't have any peers. Except for maybe Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who had to recuse himself from the case because he owns Exxon stock.

Of the people, by the people.

While I Wasn't Blogging: Phoenix is for Crackheads

Thanks to Tom Waits, I have fully relinquished all anger about paying $4.50 a gallon for gas. Why, you ask? Because I realized it's not overpriced oil I'm paying for — it's the privilege of not having to spend my travel time standing (standing!) next to a whiskeylicious homeless man freestyling on his harmonica and dishing out parenting advice to a women three rows up who (mercifully) doesn't speak any English anyway.

And all of that was after he gravely informed me that a good wife listens to her husband.

Matters hardly improved once we escaped that stalwart bastion of egalitarian eco-friendly transportation, the city bus. After walking three quarters of a mile in 112 degree heat to get to a Circle K, we arrived just in time to see a pock-faced transient tweeker get into a fist-fight with the Circle K cashier over a four-pack of tall cans.

We theorized that maybe Tom Waits intentionally planned his tour to hit as many economically depressed towns as possible in order to boost their economies, in which case more power to him. But may I suggest an Oregonian logging town next time?