Voting Jobs Away

It seems that the employees of Olin who work in a plant making centerfire ammunition decided to send their jobs down to Mississippi and out of Illinois. The company apparently gave the union a second chance to vote on contracts, but the workers still said no.

One big issue appears to have been cutting out the fifth week of vacation. Five freakin’ weeks of vacation. Because an entire month at four weeks is just not enough. Most of the workers interviewed don’t seem to care that they are losing their jobs. One expressed a bit of sanity and pointed out that a fifth week of vacation can’t compete with being able to keep his job that he’s held for 11 years. Maybe they could offer him a nice relocation package and a promotion to train the hundreds of new hires in Mississippi. Sanity should be rewarded.

Self Absorption

Tam’s note on politicians:

It takes a special kind of hubris to wake up one morning and decide that what this world is lacking is your visionary leadership, and an even more perfectly-distilled narcissism to think that if millions of people don’t like you, the problem is with all of them.

Pretty much. It occurred to me this election how I’d feel to have a group of people surrounding me with my name on buttons, stickers, hats, all cheering me on and chanting my name. Answer? Pretty damned awkward. In fact, creepy would probably be a better word. I don’t think I could ever be comfortable with it. Would you be? Think about the kind of person who would be comfortable with it, and you see the issue.

That’s not to say there aren’t politicians out there motivated by public service, but you have to have a bit of a narcissistic streak to want this kind of job. I’ve generally found office holders at the state and local level tend to be more real people. The higher you go, the more perfectly distilled the narcissism. Makes sense if you think about it. In a state level race at best you’ll get a room loosely filled with people cheering you on. Many of them will be friends and people you know. But imagine a Greek themed stadium full of people, all set up just for you, projecting their hopes, dreams and aspirations onto you, all because you can read a mean speech from a teleprompter. That’s a fundamental flaw in the human species that transcends politics.

Brady Goes Down to Defeat

Normally, I’d love writing that headline, but not for this particular Brady. The prospects for getting a pro-gun Governor of Illinois are very dim now, and as Bitter mentioned, the state House race we put the most effort into this year lost by 99 votes. Ninety-nine votes. This would have replaced an anti-gun Democrat with a pro-gun Republican. Despite winning in every other race, this one still stings. It would have been a great pickup for gun rights in our district, and in Pennsylvania. Never believe one vote doesn’t count, or one person can’t make a difference. Had I been able to send one or two more people to help out this campaign, we might have been able to make up those ninety-nine votes.

Can Condos Ban Guns?

It’s an interesting question, and it’s coming up in New Jersey. I’ve often heard of homeowners associations banning signage, or dictating what color you paint your house. But can they ban guns, or otherwise infringe on civil liberties? There’s quite a lot of confusion about how civil rights law is applied within the gun rights community, but it seems to me you might be able to sue the homeowners association under 18 USC 1595, which provides for civil action against violators of the Civil Rights Act, namely 18 USC 241, conspiracy against rights. Civil Rights Law isn’t something I’m an expert on, so maybe this isn’t actionable, but unlike pure advocacy against gun rights, which is not considered a legal conspiracy, actually preventing people, or conspiring to prevent people, from exercising a constitutional right would seem to be to be unlawful activity under the Civil Rights Act, and subject to civil as well as criminal penalties.

UPDATE: Thinking about it more, if you were a prospective homeowner, coming into an association that banned guns, you probably don’t have a case, because you willingly agreed to surrender your rights. If you were an existing homeowner within an association, and that association votes to ban guns, I think you may have a case. You may have contracted to abide by the dictates of the homeowners association when you bought the house, but I think a reasonable argument could be made that can’t extend so far as to deprive one of constitutional rights.

Right on Cue

The Bradys are beginning their bid to win back the support of the Democratic Party by arguing that NRA was hapless to save endorsed Democrats this election. I will retort back that this election was not about gun control or gun rights. In races where gun control groups tried to press the issue, they were defeated severely, such as in Pennsylvania, and in Virginia.

99 Votes

99 votes needed to win, 99 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 98 votes needed to win.
98 votes needed to win, 98 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 97 votes needed to win.
97 votes needed to win, 97 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 96 votes needed to win.
96 votes needed to win, 96 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 95 votes needed to win.
95 votes needed to win, 95 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 94 votes needed to win.

Get the hint, folks?

It appears as though we have a CeaseFire/Brady/Bloomberg lovin’ candidate who kept his seat by just 99 votes. We didn’t know until today because of the process needed to count absentees. It may be close enough to trigger a recount, but both sides seem to believe it’s going to have the same final result.

For the gun owners in the district who got the personal emails asking them to give just a couple of hours of time, enjoy your anti-gun representative who doesn’t even believe you have the right to defend your life & family on your porch or outside of your home. For Adam Z., THANK YOU for driving out of your own home district to come help out.

94 votes needed to win, 94 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 93 votes needed to win.
93 votes needed to win, 93 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 92 votes needed to win.
92 votes needed to win, 92 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 91 votes needed to win.
91 votes needed to win, 91 votes needed, get off your butt & help us out, 90 votes needed to win.

When Not Being a Criminal is a Problem

Last night, we caught an episode of Border Wars that just really set me off. Most of the folks they featured were caught crossing illegally, and it was pretty obvious. Their documents were either clearly faked, their behavior/clothing/attitude was so off that anyone with common sense would agree there was something worth checking, or they were caught in the act of sneaking across illegally. Yay, we like when law enforcement does a good job of catching those folks.

But then one guy pulled up in his car. He was an American citizen coming back into the country, and they pulled him out of line for a search because his car had some scratches on it and he looked a bit stiff. They pulled in a drug dog who may have possibly smelled something, but it wasn’t a hard hit. They pulled up the carpet, got under the car, yanked everything out, and went through to read any and all papers he had in the vehicle. No sign of any drugs, no indication that the car had been altered to hide drugs, no hit on the person. Nothing. And they were clearly frustrated. Then, one of the officers found a copy of a warrant. They called up to the local authorities who issued the warrant, and they confirmed that the guy had come in, the legal issue was resolved, and he was not wanted for any crime whatsoever. While all of this was going on, the citizen was being detained in their offices. The golden moment came when a supervisor came out and shared in his frustration at not being able to charge him with anything. When the officer doing the search closed up the car and officially declared it clean, the supervisor sighed and said, “Well, you win some, you lose some.”

EXCUSE ME?!?!?!? What fucked up view of the law do you have to have when finding an American citizen who hasn’t committed a crime is a sign of a bad day, and considered “losing some”? Does someone need to head down there with a gentle clue bat reminder that Americans are innocent until proven guilty? And if car scratches and being uncomfortable around officers who view people as guilty until innocent are all the evidence you need of wrongdoing, then I’m sure I should be hauled off.

So, even though there could be more at issue than what’s in the article, my outrage meter has already been set to “OMG – Fire them!” for the week when I read about a case in Philly that involves the police taking guns & licenses off a guy.

On two afternoons in a row last week, Solomon, 24, was arrested after hanging out at a North Philadelphia bus stop, and each time, the cops confiscated from him a legally owned gun and a separate license to carry a gun, the licensed security guard said yesterday.

“They locked me up for loitering at a bus stop,” said Solomon, who has a special concealed-carry permit for security-training officers and one of the controversial gun permits issued by Florida. “And they took my guns away.”

Police think that Solomon was being insolent and used poor judgment, including by showing up armed at the same bus stop at which he was arrested the previous day.

“If he’s that defiant, should this guy have a gun?” said Sgt. Ray Evers, a police spokesman. “The most uncommon human trait is common sense. He’s not using good, adult judgment.”

First, let’s take issue with a cop who classifies the most rare trait in all of humanity as common sense. There’s a reason it’s called common sense. It’s pretty common. If you think it’s the most rare of all traits, then I do believe that means you may be the one lacking it.

Second, would you like to know what Solomon was doing that is considered a violation of this most rare and precious trait we call common sense? Standing at a bus stop. Waiting on a bus. Is it really defiance to continue to wait on a bus? Police say that because he let some busses go by, he was suspicious. That might be the case. But, if his version is remotely true, not unreasonable. He says that the first couple of busses were loaded with kids because school just let out, and he didn’t want to be on a bus full of kids. As someone who recently spent 6 hours surrounded by misbehaving kids on a plane, I’m not going to condemn that judgement. If I had time on my hands, I’d consider waiting for another bus, too. Again, not an unreasonable position.

But, it gets better.

Solomon, of Germantown, an independent contractor who works with the Parapet Group, a security and law-enforcement training company, said he was taken into custody and held for seven hours. He said city police confiscated his gun and his Act 235 license, issued by State Police to security-training officers.

Solomon had received that same gun back one week earlier, after petitioning the courts for months to return it. The gun had been confiscated when he was a passenger during a 2009 car stop, he said, adding that he was never charged in that case. …

[In the latest incident, Solomon] was again taken into custody and held for six hours. He said he received a property receipt for his gun, but not his permit. He was not charged with a crime, according to online court records.

Evers said that Solomon has been “evasive and uncooperative” and that police had every right to take his guns and permits.

So they can’t find anything to charge him with, but they keep taking his guns and permits. More importantly, he’s having to go through legal hassles to get his guns back months after the incidents. I consider myself close to quite a few police officers, so I feel bad highlighting the negative ones in their ranks, but my Lord. Just because a person doesn’t do what you want, doesn’t mean you get to take the gun. You might have a bad feeling about someone, but that doesn’t make them a criminal. You have to do the job of finding evidence and pressing charges, and you know, that crazy process of convicting a person. It’s what our judicial system was founded upon, and our rights should be respected until a person is proven guilty.

Why the Poor Senate Showing?

It’s hard to argue the GOP didn’t fall down a bit in the Senate races. In the races the GOP did win, the margins were closer than many of the House races, and in the ones they lost they lost pretty substantially. Jim Geraghty argues that it might have to do with the quality of candidates, a sentiment echoed by Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner. I tend to think this is a correct analysis, largely driven by the fact that the structure of the Tea Party movement. When it comes to Congressional Districts, most seem to have only one or two Tea Party groups, who presumably don’t find it too difficult to coordinate on local races, like a House race. The Tea Party movement at the local level have some defined structure, and look more like traditional political civic groups. But take that out to a statewide race and the Tea Party starts to look more like a mob than an organization. As our Founding Fathers were aware, mobs seldom make prudent choices.

Choices like Angle and O’Donnell, are examples of this, though there are many more. None of these candidates to me looked like winners. The big unknown question was how far could Tea Party enthusiasm take lackluster candidates in state wide races. The answer would appear to be not very far. This isn’t surprising considering Tea Party supporters only make up about 30% of the population. It doesn’t change the fundamental dynamic that you still have to build a coalition to win.

Choosing the right candidate is difficult when you’re an organic movement, made up of people who normally don’t participate in the political process. Organic movements are going to gravitate towards candidates based on ideological compatibility, rather than their ability to actually run a statewide campaign and win. When assessing the viability of a candidate’s political potential for federal office, I’m only looking at a couple of factors in order of importance:

  1. His or her ability to raise money.
  2. His or her ability to manage a campaign, or hire the right people to do it (see above)
  3. His or her ability to connect with ordinary Americans who are not ideological in their political preferences.
  4. His or her values in comparison to the voters they will be going before.

For a state level or local race, fundraising can drop in importance, depending on the district. A candidate that’s willing to go knock on thousands of doors, and has a way with people, can overcome a fundraising deficit in a local race. There are plenty of politicians in state and local offices who are dogged campaigners, but can’t raise money worth a damn when they try to move to a higher level office. That’s one reason, as much as I love Sam Rohrer, I didn’t think his candidacy had a chance. Look at any race, and how or why they lose comes down to one or more of these issues. When I’m looking at a candidate in a primary race, I’m only looking for someone who’s ideology roughly matches up with my own. I’m more interested in someone that can win in the district they are running in. Depending on the district, this is either going to mean high ideological compatibility, or having to pick a few issues of importance and compromising on the rest. In Delaware, Nevada, and many other places, Tea Party backers needed more of the latter and less of the former. I think the organic nature of the Tea Party movement is going to mean they get it wrong in state wide races just about as often as they get it right. How one could improve candidate selection, without destroying the grassroots nature of the movement,  is an interesting question.

Harry Reid’s Survival

Reid coasted to an easy five point victory over Sharon Angle, and as predicted, the GOP failed to win control of the Senate. The Democrats have 51 firm seats as of now, and look to pick up another two. Prospects for the Senate were grim the moment that O’Donnell defeated Castle in the Delaware Primary, and Lisa Murkowski announced a write-in campaign.

This leaves Reid still Majority Leader in the Senate, and to be honest, that’s the best outcome for us. This prevents Durbin or Schumer becoming majority leader. A great many conservatives were upset by NRA’s refusal to endorse Sharon Angle, but I think it’s hard to argue they made a poor strategic decision by sitting this one out. Reid probably would have won the day regardless, and now we at least have a majority leader we can hopefully still work with.