July 2012 – Page 4 – Shall Not Be Questioned

“Betting” is a Good Term for Believing in GM

Earlier this week, the President said this about auto bailouts:

I refused to turn my back on a great industry and American workers. I bet on American workers. I bet on American manufacturing. Three years later, the American auto industry has come roaring back. And what happens in the auto industry can happen in other industries.

Please, please don’t do to other industries what has happened to GM. I don’t just mean the fuzzy math attached to the bailout repayments.

Despite President Barack Obamaâ€™s stories about a resurgent GM ready to repay its bailout tab, the automaker and its former bank still owe taxpayers nearly $42 billion, according to an inspector generalâ€™s report.

GM owes $27 billion on the nearly $50 billion it received from the auto bailout and Ally Bank, the companyâ€™s lending arm, owes $14.7 billion of the $17.2 billion taxpayer-funded bailout it received.

I mean that I hope other American industries don’t start making products as terrible as General Motors. To say they are roaring back has a slightly different meaning after my recent experience renting a Chevy for four days.

My first car was a 1999 Chevy Cavalier. It was a former rental, but it served me exceptionally well. That thing took me up and down the East Coast constantly for years. I sold it to my aunt when I needed to upgrade to something larger, and I believe she only recently replaced it. My mother had a matching Chevy Cavalier, and she had a similar experience. Her car was only taken off the road after she sold it to my cousin who wrecked it. Needless to say, I was a big fan of Chevy even after I bought my Honda. I figured that if I ever went with an American car again, it would be a Chevy.

After renting a Chevy Aveo for the quick trip to Nashville and back, neither my mom or I will ever buy another General Motors product again. In fact, I told Hertz that if this is their new standard of smaller rental cars, then I won’t rent from them ever again, either. Roaring was a good term for what the inside of the car sounded like as we drove. The tiny gas tank had us pulling off just as often as if were driving one of our own SUVs. The seats were uncomfortable, and the car started shaking any time you took it above 75. It wasn’t any kind of maintenance issue with the car, it was just the car.

I beg you, Mr. President, please don’t ask other industries to model themselves after GM. I’d hate to see all American-made products go downhill so that customers actively seek out foreign brands. It’d hate it if that’s his idea of making the economy “work.”

Pennsylvania Taxpayers on the Hook for Penn State

The NCAA levied their punishment on Penn State earlier this week, but maybe it’s time for the taxpayers to come down hard on the legislature and Governor since residents are actually the ones being punished. David Post sums up the situation quite nicely in this post at Volokh:

So let me get this straight: The NCAA is ordering the taxpayers of Pennsylvania, because of the misdeeds of their agents, to set up an endowment program for preventing child sexual abuse and fund it to the tune of sixty million dollars?? And oh, by the way, taxpayers of Pennsylvania: you can take it out of lab space, computers, and teaching salaries, but YOU MAY NOT PAY THIS FINE BY REDUCING CURRENT SPENDING ON ATHLETICS!

This would be hilarious, except it is pathetic, and it has real consequences. I happen to teach at a (different) public institution in Pennsylvania, and I can tell you this: $60 million is a decent-sized chunk of a higher education budget that is under severe strain these days, with the Governor having recently proposed a 30% cut in all higher ed funding because, as he put it, â€œwe simply donâ€™t have the money.â€

Most of the coverage we read about the news of the punishment on the day it broke didn’t mention that it cannot come out of the athletics budget. Our attitude was that the fine should only be paid by football budget and nothing else. If football staff had to be let go or the program dramatically reduced, so be it.* But with this news, oh no, this is not okay. We plan on letting our local lawmakers know that we find this be quite unacceptable to be on the hook for the civil penalties related to the criminal acts of others. Penn State can work its ass off fundraising for the money, but they should not be able to just toss it off to taxpayers or slash from academic programs to pay off for the bad behavior of the athletic staff.

However, taxpayers in Pennsylvania aren’t just screwed by this fine because insurance isn’t likely to pay off any claims that come from the Sandusky actions or cover-up.

The Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance argues that Penn State withheld key information needed to assess risk, at least after school officials investigated a May 1998 complaint that Sandusky had showered with a boy on campus.

In a memo filed this week in Common Pleas Court in Philadelphia, the company argues that Penn State failed to disclose that it had information about Sandusky that “was material to the insurable risk assumed by PMA.”

The company, which has long insured the university, also argues that its policies after March 1, 1992, were amended to exclude “abuse or molestation.” The insurer also argues that coverage for such behavior is excluded as a matter of public policy in Pennsylvania.

Oh, and if that isn’t enough, it appears all taxpayers are picking up the dime for the feds to hire the ousted President.

Graham Spanier might have been ousted from his post at the helm of Penn State over the sex-abuse scandal that engulfed the university, but it seems heâ€™s found a backup employer: the American taxpayer. …

His lawyer confirms to the Loop that Spanier is working on a part-time consulting basis for a â€œtop-secretâ€ agency on national security issues.

I guess they knew he was good at keeping secrets and leading cover-ups of government employees behaving badly.
Continue reading “Pennsylvania Taxpayers on the Hook for Penn State”

Schumer Attempting to Attach Magazine Ban to Cybersecurity Bill

In a way I’m glad for this. I could stand a good fight to all this sneaking around:

S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

The amendment would only affect sales and transfers after the law took effect.

So there we have it folks. Our opponents have made their move. Now we have to counter.

Another Illegal Mayor?

It looks like there’s a potential opportunity to add to the list of criminal mayors in Bloomberg’s anti-gun group.

In a CBS 21 News exclusive into the Harrisburg financial crisis, CBS 21 News has learned that the United States Justice Department is conducting a wide-ranging criminal investigation into financial transactions during the administration of former Harrisburg Mayor Stephen Reed.

Multiple sources have confirmed that a secret federal grand jury has convened in Williamsport to investigate Harrisburg’s financial mess, specifically financial transactions involving current and former city officials, including former Mayor Stephen Reed. …

Now, sources tell CBS 21 News the grand jury is looking at evidence concerning campaign contributions and if former Harrisburg officials personally profited from city business.

While Reed is not currently a member of MAIG, he was part of the organization before being ousted from office.

Brady Out of Politics?

The National Journal reports:

The nation’s largest anti-gun violence lobby is taking a step back this week in the wake of the Auoroa, Colo., shootings. No aggressive pushes for specific policy fromÂ The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Instead, they’ve launched the “We Are Better Than This” national campaign to get the public talking about gun violence.

They believe they are in hearts and minds territory, and they are correct. This is a good place to have them.

NRA’s Grading Mistakes

I recognize that NRA is a large organization. Whether it’s trying to balance the demands of more than 4 million members or even just trying to find consensus among the many divisions, it’s not exactly a small or easy operation. Even as large as it is, many employees carry more than their weight. The average gun owner isn’t keeping up with what’s happening in their own state, much less keep up with legislative happenings in multiple states. During an election year, there are hundreds of races to track in each state. With that kind of workload, mistakes happen. However, the response to those mistakes is not always what it should be – and that’s a problem.

From the Topeka Capital-Journal:

As a longtime member of the National Rifle Association and a concealed-carry permit holder, Rep. John Grange was surprised to see a card from the NRA asking members to vote for his opponent, Rep. Forrest Knox, in their state Senate primary.

Grange was even more surprised to see one of the reasons.

The card claimed that Grange “refused to answer” the NRA’s candidate questionnaire, which the card said is “often a sign of indifference, if not outright hostility, to the rights of gun owners and sportsmen.”

According to the article, Rep. Grange did complete the questionnaire and mailed it nearly two weeks before the stated deadline. NRA did post his A- rating on the PVF website, but he called to get a correction to the postcard which was obviously misleading. He was refused.

Grange said he was “really upset and crushed” that the NRA refused to send another card setting the record straight.

“They’ve lost my membership,” Grange said. “I’ll never renew.”

NRA better hope this guy has no future in politics – ever. It sounds like they have not only lost a member, but an ally. I doubt he would go anti-gun, but it would be perfectly reasonable for him to refuse to do any favors.

Before I jump on this too much, I do have a few things to add. One, I don’t follow Kansas politics to know if there’s some key reason why NRA would want to keep the attention focused on Rep. Knox and not concern itself with the blowback from screwing over an A- sitting lawmaker. Two, what I do know about Kansas politics is that I’ve been told there are massive divisions within the state GOP, so that may be key to inaction in this case. Three, I don’t know specifics of their histories on the issue, only that NRA currently has both candidates fairly well rated.

Now, on to my issues with this situation.

One, NRA owes local members answers on its decision to endorse. I don’t know what factors went in to deciding to endorse in a primary where there is no incumbent to the seat and the two candidates are A- and A+ rated. It’s not like there’s a clear anti-gun vote on the line here. Regardless, it doesn’t seem wise simply because of what is at risk – especially when the article cites the Senate as the road block for key legislation. They should answer questions from members in the district about why the endorsement was issued. If one candidate was truly worth the risk of pissing off the other faction of the GOP, then they should be able to say why that is the case.

Two, NRA screwed up a mailing that may not have been wise in the first place. Historically, NRA hasn’t mailed postcards for every endorsement. Why do it for a primary endorsement when both candidates are reasonably well rated? It’s a state senate race. Even if Rep. Grange had not returned the questionnaire, surely he had a voting record having been in office for seven years. The point is that saying he had no grade or did not ever respond to them, while adding in a jab that it might mean he’s really anti-gun, seems quite disingenuous. It seems they should eat the cost of another postcard mailing even if the endorsement stands.

Why should they correct the record? Because apparently this isn’t the only instance of this type of mistake in the state this year.

Regardless of the issues on the questionnaire, Grange was intensely disappointed at the NRA telling its members he refused to fill one out. He said he had heard the same thing happened to Sen. Jeff Longbine, R-Emporia, though Longbine couldnâ€™t be reached Tuesday to confirm or deny it.

If this did happen in another district, they need to make sure that organization’s reputation for actually helping pro-gun lawmakers remains intact. Too many mistakes without a reasonable resolution won’t exactly send the message that NRA will make sure members know who to turn out for come election day. Even worse, it will breed distrust among NRA members who happen to support the candidates getting the shaft. If they follow Rep. Grange’s lead, it won’t just be about the lost members. There is a good chance they will speak out against the organization to other candidates for office.

Hopefully, Kansas Republicans – politicians and voters – will feel like mistakes are addressed in a reasonable and timely way. Like I said, there is likely more to the story than what the press is reporting, but that doesn’t mean that NRA needs to risk burning bridges because of silly mistakes that have fairly simple solutions. We have enough enemies of the Second Amendment without getting folks who are with us on most of the issues to walk away from the table.

A 3D Printed AR-15

Gun control is fast becoming impossible, whether our opponents in the gun control movement want to admit it or not. This was printed on a plastic 3D printer:

In short, this means that people without gun licenses â€” or people who have had their licenses revoked â€” could print their own lower receiver and build a complete, off-the-books gun. What a chilling thought.

Just our brief experiments with 3D printing magazines and CNC milling an AR15 and a CNC 1911 have shown the technology is already there, pretty much. All it would take is the gun control crowd getting their way to create the proper underground market. You’ll have less luck locating clandestine build shops than you will marijuana grow operations. It’s also likely only a matter of time before criminals get wise to this tech regardless.

The Tyranny of the Low Information Voter

I believe it was Jim Geraghty that coined the headline of this post, but it keeps turning around in my mind. Tam highlights a particularly vacuous campaign video appearing this season in Indiana. The worst part about an election like this is that the partisans, on both sides, have already made up their minds. Studies have shown that partisans are generally the best informed voters, when it comes to the issues, no matter what side you’re on. The rest of this silly season is bringing the folks, who barely pay attention, over to your side so you can actually win the election. Whether anyone likes it or not, you need these people to actually win.

So you get politicians making these vacuous ads, because they want the low-information voters* to like and identify with them — I’m a great politician, you see. I care about our troops, and you care about our troops too, so don’t you think I’m a great guy to vote for? I not only care about our troops in general, but out troops from your very specific tribe!Â How wonderful! — Â The low-information voter won’t know much in November, but politicians will be hoping ads like this strike an emotional chord, and stick strongly in the memories of people who barely pay attention. This is how elections are won and lost, unfortunately, when partisans can’t decisively win on the strength of their base. That’s the case for neither party today.

In parliamentary systems, partisans are more free to be loyal to parties that most closely match their beliefs, and leave the coalition building to the politicians in the government. In our system, coalition building happens outside the apparatus of government, and compromises are forged in civil society. Some argue the former is better, but I tend to think the latter is. I’d much rather trust civic entities to make compromises than state entities. But the unfortunate side effect of forging coalitions in civil society is having to persuade the low-information voter that your guy is really their guy, and the result are ads like Tam highlights. I wish I knew how to fix that problem, without putting more power in the hands of politicians, but I don’t really have a good answer.

* Before libertarians get offended that I’m suggesting they are low information voters, rather than partisans, they are not. Libertarians are among the most partisan and informed around. But not enough people don the wookie suit to be a real factor in elections. You have many people who are libertarianish, but Â a strong ideology that doesn’t involve a deity is a rare breed, whether your deity is God or Government. Winning the unwashed masses will take some degree of pragmatism.

He’s Going For It…

President Obama is going for gun bans and sale restrictions:

President Obama touched the third rail of guns here on Wednesday, pivoting off last weekâ€™s Colorado movie theater shootings to call for a â€œconsensus around violence reduction” in the country.

With the last public event of a four-day trip that started with a visit to the Aurora, Colo., hospital where almost two dozen victims were brought after the shootings, Obama threw his weight behind measures to strengthen background checks at gun shows and other efforts to keep weapons out of the hands of mentally-ill people.

â€œThese steps shouldnâ€™t be controversial, they should be common sense,â€ Obama said during the National Urban League conference. …

â€œBut I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldier and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,â€ he added. …

â€œThereâ€™s talk of new reforms. Thereâ€™s talk of legislation. And too often those efforts are defeated by politics and by lobbying and eventually by the pull of our collective attention elsewhere. But what I said in the wake of Tucson is weâ€™re going to stay on this persistently.â€

Obama said he’d “continue to work with members of both parties and with religious groups and with civic organizations to arrive at a consensus around violence reduction.”

And with those comments, AK-47s will be backordered until the election.

UPDATE: Sean has the video.

CSM on Post-Massacre Gun Sales Spikes

The Christian Science Monitor talks to a few gun shop owners, and concludes that it’s largely fear of gun control that drives the spikes in sales after mass shootings, and not people rushing to gun shops with a desire to protect themselves. Clayton Cramer pins this increase in sales on the gun control crowd, and notes:

So gun control advocates, when you keep talking about gun control, remember that when at least some of these reactionary purchasers do something stupid or tragic, it is because you panicked them into it.

What makes us evangelize firearms so much, other than the fact that as people who enjoy a hobby and lifestyle, we want to share it with other people, is that we need more political allies to defeat the likes of Brady, CSGV, MAIG, and VPC. Sometimes I think the gun control groups have done more to create new shooters than the NRA has.

Another thought is, if these post-massacre spikes are being driven by people worried about new gun control, it goes to show that rational political ignorance is alive and well among gun owners too. Even in a hostile political environment, it’s rare that legislation pass so quickly one needs to run out the next day. I wish some of them would get seriously engaged with the political fight, rather than engage in panic buying.