On Compromise and Gun Control

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) addressing the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay, Florida. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) addressing the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida.   (AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

When Tea Party maverick Rand Paul came to Washington, he rose from the desk that Henry Clay—an ancient Senator from Kentucky who will remain in American history one of the greatest vocal opponents to abolitionism—once called his own. Paul spoke of the profound honour it was to be an orator, like Clay, in the most impactful legislative body in the world.

However, Paul found no honour in Clay—the “Great Compromiser”—himself. The libertarian’s leanings clash with the 50 years of Clay’s career as a stalwart to slavery in the Capitol.

Clay compromised on the 1824 Presidential election when none of the four candidates (including Clay) could reach a sufficient majority in the Electoral College, resulting in a stalemate. He inevitably backed John Quincy Adams and was appointed Secretary of State under his administration. This is referred to as the ‘corrupt bargain’. The cost of Clay’s endorsement would be working under a man who publicly held anti-slavery sentiments. But compromise also meant gaining a coveted position in the White House, even though it was an administration that disagreed with him on the issue that would eventually be settled thanks to a civil war.

Since delivering his maiden speech in the Senate, Paul too has fallen victim to the compromise of Washington.

The Senator, along with 8 other GOP lawmakers, departed for Israel earlier this month and some surprising revelations came to light concerning his stance on foreign aid to the sole Middle East democracy that—up until now—he had been very much in favour of cutting:

The trip is the latest push to boost Paul’s foreign policy cred as he prepares to take his new seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee later this month. It also offers the Senator another chance to distance himself from his father, retiring Texas Rep. Ron Paul, whose libertarian foreign policy views have been widely ridiculed by the GOP.

Like his father, Sen. Paul opposes foreign aid on principle; but he has tempered that position to focus primarily on cutting aid for countries in conflict with the U.S., like Egypt and Pakistan. In recent weeks, the Kentucky Senator has reached out to assure Republican Jewish leaders that he is not interested in cutting funding for Israel. (Business Insider)

Quite a change in tone for a man who once referred to the aid as  “welfare” for the Jewish state, but with U.S. support for Israel at an all time high, Paul has little to lose and much to gain by endorsing continued aid to Israel, especially if he has the 2016 Presidential election in his sights.

* * *

On January 16, President Obama issued two Presidential Memorandums and a Proclamation (see herehere and here) in light of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School that took place a little more than one month ago. The Presidential Actions direct members of the Executive to commission a study on the causes of gun violence and request the Department of Justice to hasten current investigations into federal gun crimes. These directives will hardly dent gun violence in the United States and President Obama is much aware. That’s why he is demanding legislative action in Congress and has even offered a few proposals for the body to consider.

Those proposals are as follows:

  1. banning the sale of new “assault weapons”
  2. banning the sale of high-capacity magazines (over 10 rounds per clip)
  3. mandating universal background checks

Although they might pass unscathed in the Senate, proposal one and two are dead on arrival once they hit the House.

The third is worth paying closer attention to, especially when 9 in 10 Americans back universal gun background checks.

Over the weeks since Newtown, the central question remains: will the diminishing credibility of the National Rifle Association and the discourse on gun control in the wake of the tragedy lead to action?

The White House Strikes Back

‘We the People’ provides U.S. citizens with a way to petition the federal government to take action on a range of issues. If an online petition on the whitehouse.gov website gets 25,000 signatures in 30 days or less, White House policy experts will conduct a review and the the Administration will issue a statement addressing it. Now, we’ve seen how these petitions can get out of hand. In the wake of the Newtown, CT shooting and the ongoing gun control debate that followed, a petition to deport CNN primetime host Piers Morgan received 110,000 signatures before it was dismissed by White House staff. It claimed that Morgan, a British citizen, committed foreign subversion on American soil for espousing an anti-gun narrative on his show. Even better: a petition generated by British nationals to keep Piers in the States and out of Britain was issued around the same time. As partisan as Washington can be, you have to take time to laugh. See why below:
OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE TO
Secure resources and funding, and begin construction of a Death Star by 2016.

The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn’t on the horizon. Here are a few reasons:

  • The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We’re working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it.
  • The Administration does not support blowing up planets.
  • Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?

However, look carefully (here’s how) and you’ll notice something already floating in the sky — that’s no Moon, it’s a Space Station! Yes, we already have a giant, football field-sized International Space Station in orbit around the Earth that’s helping us learn how humans can live and thrive in space for long durations. The Space Station has six astronauts — American, Russian, and Canadian — living in it right now, conducting research, learning how to live and work in space over long periods of time, routinely welcoming visiting spacecraft and repairing onboard garbage mashers, etc. We’ve also got two robot science labs – one wielding a laser – roving around Mars, looking at whether life ever existed on the Red Planet.

Keep in mind, space is no longer just government-only. Private American companies, through NASA’s Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office (C3PO), are ferrying cargo — and soon, crew — to space for NASA, and are pursuing human missions to the Moon this decade.

Even though the United States doesn’t have anything that can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs, we’ve got two spacecraft leaving the Solar System and we’re building a probe that will fly to the exterior layers of the Sun. We are discovering hundreds of new planets in other star systems and building a much more powerful successor to the Hubble Space Telescope that will see back to the early days of the universe.

We don’t have a Death Star, but we do have floating robot assistants on the Space Station, a President who knows his way around a light saber and advanced (marshmallow) cannon, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is supporting research on building Luke’s arm, floating droids, and quadruped walkers.

We are living in the future! Enjoy it. Or better yet, help build it by pursuing a career in a science, technology, engineering or math-related field. The President has held the first-ever White House science fairs and Astronomy Night on the South Lawn because he knows these domains are critical to our country’s future, and to ensuring the United States continues leading the world in doing big things.

If you do pursue a career in a science, technology, engineering or math-related field, the Force will be with us! Remember, the Death Star’s power to destroy a planet, or even a whole star system, is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

On Drones, A Vote for Barack Obama is a Vote for Mitt Romney (And Vice Versa)

predator-firing-missile-sofrep-benghazi-660x320

It’s here.

Today, Americans will head to the polls in what is the 57th quadrennial presidential election in the nation’s 236 year history. Over that time, 44 presidents representing 5 parties or no party (Washington remained an independent throughout his time in office as did Tyler and Johnson at the end of their terms) have received the majority consent from the Electors of each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia who will be mandated by the voters to continue the current Democratic administration of President Obama or start fresh with Republican Mitt Romney. The ballots of the Electoral College — which I’m convinced most Americans believe is a pricey prep school in New Hampshire — will be counted on January 6 by a joint session of Congress.

All in all, it has been 143 years since a president has had no party affiliation. I bring this up because of something my brother suggested to me on Sunday.

“Why not have one party?” he said. “Things would surely go much faster.”

He also went on to say how they should dissolve Congress and install a dictator, but that’s a topic for another day. Either way, my brother has a point. Ever since the election of Barack Obama, Democrats and Republicans have appeared to become more polarized than ever before, putting the breaks on the passage of several pieces of legislation.

Polarized, you say? Except on one thing: foreign policy.

The final debate at Lynn focused upon the attacks on the U.S. compound in Libya, the killing of Osama bin Laden, a mixture of current relations with Afghanistan, China, Israel and Pakistan and most importantly: concerns over the growing tensions with naughty, naughty Iran.

Although the Commission on Presidential Debates brands the one vice-presidential and three presidential face-offs as just that — debates — this sounded more like the Presidential Agreements.

Obama and Romney found their greatest agreement on the use and authorization of drone strikes. Now, I’d like to think that the progressive borg would generally be disappointed in the President for going along with such an egregious attack on foreign innocents; I should have known better.

Instead, all we heard was how Governor Romney played it easy by copying — word for word — Barack Obama’s blessed policy.

A policy that will inspire more people like Faisal Shahzad. Remember him? Oh, yes! The Pakistani American Time Square bomber. Here’s what he had to say on the droning of his Muslim brothers and sisters:

“Well, the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don’t see children, they don’t see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody. It’s a war, and in war, they kill people. They’re killing all Muslims.”

“I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people. And, on behalf of that, I’m avenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their own people, but they don’t care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die.”

Happy voting!

My Prediction on The Predictions

Why do we make predictions? Well, financial gain aside for our betting New York Times statisticians and the relatively decent salary they’re paid, I think we make them because we have no shame.

As of this post, Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight blog is holding Barack Obama’s chances of being reelected on Tuesday at 85.5 percent (up 10.5 percent since October 28), a ballsy prediction in the eyes of many conservative talking heads.

And although the liberal masses show much fanfare for Silver, who has voted for Democrats in the past and more recently supported Barack Obama in his first race for the White House, he won’t be voting this time around according to his interview with Charlie Rose (Silver hasn’t voted once since joining The Times). One vote lost for the President, but the hoards of progressives who peruse his blog can be rest assured that his early projection of an Obama victory is correct. Or can they?

Silver’s predictions have been wrong before and not just during one campaign season according to Margaret Sullivan (Silver’s public editor):

In 2008, Mr. Silver had John McCain, Republican, favored in Indiana, and Barack Obama won.

In 2009, he had gay marriage favored to pass in Maine, and it did not.

In 2010, he had Sharron Angle, Republican, favored in Nevada, and Harry Reid won.

In 2010, he had Ken Buck, Republican, favored in Colorado, and Michael Bennet won.

In 2010, he had the Tea Party Republican, Joe Miller, favored in the Alaska Senate race, and the moderate Republican, Lisa Murkowski, won.

In 2010, he had Bill Brady, Republican, favored in the Illinois governor’s race, and Pat Quinn won.

In 2010, he had Republicans projected to win 55 House seats, and they won 63.

There were three cases in which Mr. Silver had Mitt Romney favored in the primaries, but Rick Santorum won.

Nate Silver wants to be right because his job depends on it. As do the jobs of two profs at the University of Colorado.

The political science professors, Kenneth Bickers and Michael Berry, have retroactively predicted the winner of each Presidential contest. What makes Bickers’ and Berry’s model so different than all the others? It includes state-to-state economic data from all 50 states as well as D.C. and renders a forecast for the Electoral College, not just the popular vote. Unemployment, both from the state level and nationally, is a key factor as are changes to income levels in battleground states.

They conclude the following:

“Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes [...] and short of the 270 needed to win.

“Of the 13 battleground states identified [...] The model foresees Romney carrying New Mexico, North Carolina, Virginia, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.”

Quite the opposite from Silver’s projections and without the perceived partisan influence:

“… Mr. Obama is at about 50 percent of the vote in the polling average in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan; at close to 49 percent in Ohio; and at about 48 percent in Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia and Colorado.”

My prediction? Someone’s going to be very wrong come Wednesday morning.

From Moneybags to Pollsters

A couple of weeks ago, billionaire blowhard Donald Trump — whose fascination with the current U.S. president is now beyond concerning — released a highly anticipated announcement to the public via YouTube (how trendy).

Many thought Trump had a copy of decade old divorce papers drafted by Michele Obama’s lawyers (according to Edward Klein’s The Amateur, the couple apparently hit a rough patch after Barack lost an Illinois Democratic Party primary race for a seat in the U.S. House). I, however, thought Trump had something that would actually hurt Obama.

In fact, it wasn’t much of an announcement at all, but a request. He wanted President Obama to hand over his passport and college applications along with any related records. We got fooled. Again.

According to ‘The Donald’, Obama is “the least transparent president in history,” and offered to reward a charity or charities of the President of Kenya‘s choosing with a sum of $5,000,000 if sent the documents in a timely manner. I will not pretend to know what he’s looking for in the records only because I have a feeling — and this might come as a real shocker to you — Trump doesn’t care about the records. We just need some attention ahead of the next season of The Celebrity Apprentice (coming this March! Great tease, ol’ pal! You had us all watching for a second!).

As to whether Trump will be true to his word is not something you should hold your breath on. We’ve hit the deadline, the bet is off, and so the game continues.

Remember when just about every Tea Partier in America thought Barack Obama was ineligible for Office? That the President was indeed an Impostor-in-Chief who hailed from the Kenyan outback was what many of them claimed. Trump spearheaded the campaign to get his hands on Obama’s long form birth certificate. I can’t remember the pre-birther Donald Trump, but if I could, I’m sure I wouldn’t miss him.

The White House published the infamous long form birth certificate on April 27, 2011.

Although it was a bittersweet victory for Birther-in-Chief Trump (great publicity, yet still the village idiot), who paraded on just about every cable news channel following (and before) the release, he did get Obama to do it. He played the President.

I think the President did well channeling his predecessor by taking some advice from my all-time favourite gaffe:

“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” — Pres. George W. Bush in Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

Partisan Grandstanding

Nate Silver is the pollmeister behind the New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight blog, a poll-aggregator that — using a trade secret algorithm — determines the chances of House, Senate and Presidential candidates during election season.

This guy is good, unless his data is hurting your candidate. Then he’s a bastard.

Silver’s website got him dragged into a spat with MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough when the congressman turned morning anchor called him an “ideologue” and a joke. Why? Well, when Scar made those accusations, Nate Silver pegged Obama as having a 73.6 percent chance of winning another four years in the White House. This weekend, Silver’s prediction (again, all based on relevant battleground polls and neat calculus) broke the 80 percent barrier.

Silver rebutted calling Scar “math challenged.”

I agree. Mind you, Joe is a Republican who has a dog in the fight. Not just politically, but also when it comes to who’s paying his $4,000,000 annual salary: would anyone in their right mind watch election night coverage on November 6 if we all had a pretty good idea who the President-elect would be the following morning? I’ll let you draw your own conclusion.

Silver describes himself as a liberal-libertarian who won’t be voting on Election Day. That said, he is publicly partisan, votes for Democrats more often than not and supported Obama in 2008 (see “What is your political affiliation?”).

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy (I detest the use of the term “Superstorm Sandy” — sounds like something I should’ve bought tickets to), I find it absolutely disgusting that people as high profile as Trump and Silver dupe this low (please see below).

After the storm struck the East Coast, Trump extended his initial deadline of October 31 at 5 PM to the following Thursday at noon. Fair, right? The President was busy dealing with a state of emergency that has claimed 185 lives (as of this post) and is estimated to have cost $50 billion in damages.

Silver fell to Trump’s level of civility when he as well put money on the line at the wrong time.

He attempted to make a bet with Scarborough that if Romney were to win on Tuesday, he would donate $1,000 to the American Red Cross (vice-versa if Joe accepted and Obama won). Silver was quickly called out on Twitter for this stunt and rightly so (with 290,000 followers, you’re bound to get some flack). Scarborough agreed to donate $1,000 that day, unconditionally. Silver decided to make a further fool of himself by raising his initial wager to $2,000.

Whether its $5 million or two grand, I have no respect for those who are the new celebrity class of punditry to be playing with people’s lives, especially when they live in one of the cities Sandy crippled and killed in. Would the people of New York City look at you in a better light if you handed over the money without wagering like a pair of bourgeois prigs (thanks, Conrad Black)? I don’t know. However, your lack of humanity, given the state of the city, is pathetic. Your lack of compassion for your own people makes me want to throw up. All in all, Donald J. Trump and Nate Silver have taken their status and tarnished it with these petty games of flaunting wealth and pride when thousands of their brothers and sisters, only a few miles away, have lost it all.