Another Senseless Shooting

Over the weekend a crazed gunman shot up a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, killing six people before himself getting gunned down by the police.  Obviously this is tragic news--adding Sikhs to the long list of religious groups that sought refuge for free religious worship in America only to learn that we can produce hateful crazies just like any other part of the world.  Unless some new evidence turns up--which is possible, considering the investigation is ongoing--it'll be hard to be certain what exactly motivated the killer.  This also raises a few other questions:

1) Why did the killer target Sikhs?  Was he even aware they were Sikhs, or was he just looking for any large group of dark-skinned people to shoot?

2) Was this killer actually mentally ill--clearly the attack itself was senseless, but was this guy actually suffering serious psychosis that might have been spotted and prevented earlier on?

3) How long before some conservative politician makes a dumb speech about how if all those Sikhs had concealed carry permits they might have been able to gun down the killer before he could do much damage?  Rather than, say, speaking out against those who use inflammatory language about Muslims (who the killer might have mistakenly taken the Sikhs for) and foreign-borns?

4) How long before some liberal politician makes a tenuous connection between this killer and a local Tea Party movement?  Because of course the Tea Parties have membership rolls and must carefully screen who joins their esteemed organization, so any crazy bigot in their ranks must be welcome.

5) How long before the government decides to expand TSA authority to set up security checkpoints for every public place where more than a dozen people gather?  It seems crazy now, but there was a time when you could get on a plane without any sort of screening.

Hopefully something like this can bring out the best in Americans, and not the worst.

Damned Gangs

Sometimes, you read about a story in the paper that's awful enough to fry your frites and make you lose faith in humanity.  Then, you remember that basically the story of humanity is one of countless horrors interspersed with acts of decency and kindness.  Any alien force judging humankind would understandably be torn between sparing us and zapping us into a fine stew.

One example of the sort of thing that could make you want to give up faith in humanity is this story about a gang-related torture and murder of a 15 year old kid in Montgomery County, Maryland.  The killers--who were all convicted of first degree murder--are facing life in prison.  Sadly, life in the gang-controlled prisons is really not the deterrent it should be.  And ever since Maryland outlawed the Iron Maiden, the Spike Chair, and the Tarantula Cage--thank you very much, liberal State Court of Appeals!--the most suitable forms of justice are not available. 

If this were some sort of cool movie, the gang members would be intercepted on their way to prison by an avenging former cop who had to leave the force because he played by his own rules, then chained together by the necks and dragged at slow speed along the highway behind his car until they dropped from exhaustion and eventually became one with the blacktop.  Sadly, there's likely to be no real justice for the murderers.  One can only hope that they never see freedom again.

Friday Thoughts

1) I have about the same feelings about three different types of wings.  That is, that wings are good, but not great.  The three types of wings I'm referring to are the '70s rock band "Wings", the '90s TV show "Wings", and the longtime pub food staple, buffalo-style wings.  I can't get excited about any of these "wings", but they're okay.

2) Whenever someone disagrees with me on a political issue, I mistakenly assume that they're crazy until I hear what they have to say for themselves.  Then I realize they're actually just stupid.

3) I can usually avoid letting another car cut in front of me in traffic so long as I avoid eye contact.  Because once they're looking pleadingly in my eyes, I just can't bear to say "screw you, wait your turn!"  A lot of the world's troubles can be avoided if there's more eye contact.

4) I suppose if you disagree with me that the world's troubles can be avoided with more eye contact, it might not be because you're crazy or stupid.  It might be because you are wall-eyed.

5) The only reason that "Skeet Archery"--whereby the archer tries to pierce an arrow through a thrown football--is not an Olympic event is because no one has tried to make this happen yet.  I'm convinced it will be a big thing in my lifetime.  If not, I doubt anyone will dig up this post and hold it in my face at my deathbed.  (If someone does do that, then I need new friends).

6) Why is it that women and gay men try to convince straight men that certain female celebrities are attractive when no straight man seems to agree?  You really never see the equivalent, where straight men and lesbians try to convince women that certain guys are absolutely great looking and they should appreciate it.

7) The ratio of people who say that they like jazz music to the people who actually listen to jazz music is about the same as the ratio of people who say they've spoken truth to power to the people who actually have spoken truth to power.

Race-Baiting Alive and Well!

As a proud D.C. resident, it griddles my pancakes from time to time when I see what is little more than blatant racist douchitude get a platform in the otherwise respectable Washington Post.  What I'm talking about specifically is where thoughtful concern about the economics of "gentrification" gives way to what is blatant race-hatred that would fit in better with David Duke's line of thinking. 

Let's take this article as a case in point.  The writer actually says he doesn't know what's worse--the time when D.C. had so many murders it was nicknamed "Dodge City" or the fact that there is now a hipster bar on U Street that holds the same name.  Hmm, let me think--many, many indiscriminate murders or a hipster bar?  Tough call!  While I'm pondering that, I'll try and decide what's worse--a restaurant that offers "artisinal cheese" or an epidemic of rapes and mutilations?  It's like they're both equally bad!

The rest of the article adds bigotry to its stew of stupid--it laments that the white invaders are now appropriating the black culture of the city.  Oh, horrors!  I know how offended I feel when non-Italians open up pizza joints.  Let's go burn down a Dominos!  It was founded by an Irishman!  (In fairness, I won't try selling corned beef in cabbage.  We're good then?)

Consider how the article would read if you simply reversed the races.  "Does it matter that the owners of the new establishments aren't white?  Maybe."  Does it matter that the writer of this piece just penned unapologetic bigotry?  Maybe!

Now, the main point the author is trying to make--that the new joints opening up in the "hip" areas lack a lot of the city's old authenticity--is a fair one, even while overused.  Even the hipsters that the author mocks would be the first to say they'd prefer the city when it was more "real", which I suppose means back when you could find a stabbing when you needed one.  But the resentment regarding the race of the "interlopers" adds ugliness to an otherwise unremarkable piece.  The racial mix of this city--as well as many others--should be a benefit of living here.

It's fine to discuss the unintended consequences of rich folks (white or otherwise) moving into a neighborhood.  While the increased tax base and lower crime rate associated with rich newcomers is a plus, the higher rents and higher prices at the shops that cater to them can put the squeeze on the poorer residents.  But this sense of a city losing its "authetic" nature because of racial influx sounds just as ugly coming from a black writer in 2012 as it did from white writers fifty years ago. 

Another Lousy Jobs Report

If you'd asked me a year ago I would have predicted that by mid-2012 Barack Obama's re-election would have been assured, with the only question being whether he would win by a comfortable margin or a complete blowout.  That's because the Great Recession--which began at the very end of 2007 and hit its nadir in 2009--should have ended by now so that 2012 would be a year of solid job growth and an unemployment number dropping steadily through the year.

For various reasons--and the politically-charged reasons being debatable--that just has not happened.  Unemployment is still above 8% more than four years after the recession began, and job growth is barely keeping pace with inflation.  Of course, those numbers aren't so bad as to guarantee Obama's defeat (say, monthly job losses and unemployment above 9% might have done that) but they certainly keep Mitt Romney in striking distance.  Which is amazing, considering Romney's weaknesses as a candidate and demographic advantages for the Democrats.

This is all distressing to me--not the possible outcome of the election; whichever of these guys wins they're not likely to get anything substantial accomplished due to the closely divided nature of Congress--my concern is more about what longlasting effects this economic mess is having on the country.  The long-term unemployed are atrophying, as they fail to gain experience, skills and of course the money that would enable them to contribute more fully to society down the road.  Economic stagnation is also the principal cause of these massive trillion-dollar deficits that now have our national debt reaching 3/4 of our total GDP--all of which has to be paid off by future taxpayers who now appear less able to shoulder the burden each year.  A weak American economy also affects Asia, the Eurozone and South America--along with the rest of the world--and the cycle builds on itself.  A collapse in America usually means replacing one political party with another, but a collapse in fascist China could have far more devastating effects.

The presidential campaign seems to be boiling down to who Americans (or let's face it--Ohioans, Floridians and Virginians) are more put off by--a rich guy who made a fortune legally but in ways that seem unsavory to those who don't understand economics and the unpleasant decisions thereby required, or a sitting president who might secretly want to nationalize every industry to fit some Fabian socialist model.  What would be more refreshing would be a debate about the following:

1) Taxes.  If there's one person in the country who thinks our federal taxation system is just fine the way it is, I'd be interested in meeting him or her.  The question though is how to fix it--make it more progressive?  Make it more simplified?  What benefits--which deductions, credits, exclusions, different tax treatments for various sources of income--are we willing to give up for the sake of fixing the system?  And how much more revenue should we realistically expect from our tax system?  Or should we not be trying to tax anyone more at this point while the economy is still weak?

2) Spending.  Cuts to spending will be necessary at some point--but should this be put off until the economy is stronger?  Or, counterintuitively, would deficit reduction itself improve the economy by strengthening the bond market or diminishing future uncertainty?  Arguably it is the fear of unknown future austerity measures that is preventing a lot of private spending and hiring and investment.  Is there any truth to this idea?  Also, if there are to be spending cuts now, where best to make them?

3) Regulatory Reform.  While tax rates affect businesses and individuals, this of course only really matters to businesses and individuals that aren't running at a loss.  Regulations though (as well as legal liability) matters whether you're in the red or in the black, and can further hamper risk taking.  Is there room for easing regulatory burdens in a way that doesnt' cause more societal harm?  What reforms should be on the table?

4) Stimulus.  Is there any appetite for a further round of stimulus, and what form should it take?  We've tried a mix of spending increases and tax cuts, with mixed and debatable results, in 2008 and 2009.  What would be different this time, and can it pass?

Sarah Palin, The Baseball That Gave Up Luxury For America or Something

With just weeks left before Mitt Romney has to announce who his pick for Vice President will be, pundits are rending their garments and beseeching the winds over whether he'll go with "safe and conservative" candidates like Ohio Senator Rob Portman or Minnesota Governor Tim "I'm Not Chris Collinsworth" Pawlenty, or "exciting game changer" like New Mexico Governor Susanna Martinez or Florida Senator Marco Rubio.  One thing that every non-insane person agrees on is that Romney does not want to pick "another Sarah Palin".

Dick Cheney, the person who held the Vice President slot prior to Joe "Are You Done With That Soda?" Biden, recently mused in an interview what everyone else already thinks, which was that John McCain's picking of Sarah Palin in 2008 was a "mistake."  Because maturity and a thick skin are not Palin's strong suits, she sniped back at Cheney.  Let's consider some of her response:

“Seeing as how Dick — excuse me, Vice President Cheney — never misfires, then evidently he’s quite convinced that what he had evidently read about me by the lamestream media, having been written, what I believe is a false narrative over the last four years,” Palin said Tuesday night on Fox News. “Evidently Dick Cheney believed that stuff, and that’s a shame.”


Ok, "lamestream" media?  Lady, get some new jokes!  Serious groaner, there.

But also, Cheney's point was that Palin had only been Governor of Alaska for a year and a half at the time she was nominated (thus blunting McCain's argument against Obama that "experience matters").  How exactly is that a "false narrative" created by the "lamestream media"?  Is there some alternative media that measured her time as Governor in dog years?

Of course, Cheney doesn't need to respond to Palins' childlike barbs--in which she suggests she made a "tough choice" by going in the national spotlight (a spotlight she doesn't seem to have shied away from since retiring from public life mid-way through her only term as Alaska Governor), and that she could have lived the "luxurious life" in Alaska (Alaska--full of rich people luxuriating!), and some comparison of herself to a baseball which I won't even touch because that's just too easy.  Her comments sort of proved what an embarrassment and mistake she was for the McCain campaign.

I think 2008 was a year with many headwinds facing the Republicans--an unpopular incumbent, wars that would not end, growing deficits and a financial crisis amid a major recession--but there's really no doubt that Sarah Palin was the nail in the coffin of any chance McCain had of winning the White House.  But if Romney is crazy enough to pick another disaster like that, at least it will provide plenty of entertainment for the next several years.

Pick-up Artist Completely Runs Out of Ideas

I wouldn't call myself an expert pickup artist when it comes to the ladies, but despite my lack of mad "skillz" I can take comfort in the fact that during my single years I have never once (a) had a drink thrown on me (and asking the lady to pour beer on me because it's hot out doesn't count); (b) forcibly grabbed the target of my affections; or (c) had to settle for urinating on the woman's leg after being rejected.  Which is more than I can say for this guy. 

The thought process here is staggering--Timothy here spots a comely lass of potential possibility, he turns on the charm, he approaches her.  He boldly puts his arm around her--a bit aggressive, but for some guys this works.  Here, though, it doesn't--the woman turns around and says "um, really?" (which beats a knee to the groin any day) and that deflates his ego enough that he takes his arm off of her.  Ah, rejection. 

What to do, what to do?  Some guys swallow their pride and move on, hitting on the girl next to her; some guys pathetically keep trying with follow-up lines.  But Timothy here, he's not your average guy.  Nope, he decides to whip it out and pee on this woman's leg.  It's as though he considered every possible thing that he could do after this woman declined his advances, and all he could come up with was using her as a urinal.

I can picture the conversation at the jail house afterwards:

"I'm in for armed robbery.  What are you in for?"

"Some chick didn't like me putting my arm around her at a bar so I peed on her leg.  I'm satisfied I made the right decision."

"Okay, don't take this the wrong way but I'm taking the top bunk."