Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture – III

This is the third in this series. I recommend that you read or re-read Part I, which you can find here as well as Part II, which you can find here.

In both Parts I and II I outlined misbehavior by police in my own experience, as well in the news. I don’t want the reader to come away as a result with the impression that I think the police, as a whole, is corrupt or anxious to kill. It is the usual situations of a few bad apples.

But there are many important reasons why there is often incompetence and/or corruption in the police. Most important is that the police in the US are unionized. I happen to favor unions in the private sector, where the bargaining power of the individual worker is none existent, and where the demise of unions is a major factor in the wage stagnation that we are now experiencing.

But the police are different. The police are in many ways a quasi-military force, who like the military, often have to put their lives on the line, and have the power of life or death over those they confront. It is vital that they obey orders from their superiors, and not put the interest of themselves, or of their comrades, over that of the public. Insubordination ought to no more be tolerated in the police, than it would be in the military.

Can anyone image a members of our military turning their back in disrespect on the President of the United States, or large numbers staging a slow-down because they are displeased with the policies instituted by their superiors, as the police recently did relative to the mayor in NYC. A quick court marshal would follow. We need the same discipline for our police forces throughout the US.

All this occurred in New York because the mayor, who has a son of color, expressed empathy for the demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights to peacefully demonstrate, and put into words what every father of an African-American knows (but which is probably good advise for all races) be very polite and non-confrontational with the police. Or maybe it occurred because the police were angry because they liked the freedom to stop and frisk at random in neighborhoods of color, which the new mayor and new police commissioner ended.

But what finally triggered the expression of their pent-up anger, was the assassination of two of their comrades by a deranged man, who had indicated that much of his anger against the police was triggered by the demonstrations. Of course, his anger wasn’t just directed against the NYC police, for before undertaking that wanton act, he shot his girlfriend, and thereafter shot himself, something he had considered doing in the first place.

So what are we to make of this wanton killing by a deranged man. The head of the police union immediately pointed the finger at the mayor.

I rather think that there is a clearer connection, for it falls into line with the many killings by deranged men at schools, recently at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Connecticut. See here, but less unusual then most think. CNN reports: 

After Tuesday's shooting at an Oregon high school, many media outlets, including CNN, reported that there have been 74 school shootings in the past 18 months.

That's the time period since the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where 20 children and six adults were shot to death.

It prompted me to publish a letter in the North Jersey Record, which I reproduce below:

As I did in my previous blog posts, I set forth below the transcript of the letter for those who may have difficulty reading the clipping.

The tragic death of New York Police officer Rafael Ramos makes him another victim of a deranged man with a gun, though it has been presented as being the result of demonstrations against the killing of unarmed African-American men, and even as a result of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s action in ending the racially charged and racially profiled policy of stop and frisk.

It is no such thing!

It is no different from the many tragic death around the country, highlighted most recently by the murders at Sandy Hook in Connecticut. These are murders by deranged persons, who should have been in treatment, and who have easy access to guns.

How much longer must this country live with an atmosphere where the joy of owning a gun and the feeling of power that it gives its owners, not to speak of the all the money to be made by manufacturers and dealers, trumps the right to life of innocent people, whether they are school children or police officers.

It is difficult to understand why the right to own and drive an automobile can be licensed, but the right to own and shoot a gun cannot.

The second amendment has been completely distorted and given a meaning, which it does not have, and was never meant to have by its authors and did not have for most of this countries history.

Emil Scheller
Fort Lee, December 27

As I write this blog post I am reminded of the reaction of the President of the NRA, the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers, after the Sandy Hook shooting. He said:

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Well, the two cops had guns. It didn’t stop their killer. Does the NRA care? Do they care about anything but the profits of the gun manufacturers for whom the solution will always be “we want to sell more guns – we want more profits!!!

But let us not be deceived. We have many more problems with our criminal justice system.

I will go into greater detail in future posts. But for now allow me to just set out a graph that speaks volumes.

What is there about the US that would make us have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world?

I will come back to this in another context, but for now allow me to express my disappointment that our President, in his sixth State of the Union address, did not speak about this subject. It is one of the few areas where he might be able to find common ground with Republicans.

The Washington Post reports: 

But on issues of sentencing reform and prison recidivism, Republicans — especially several governors in Southern states — have been the leaders, earning praise from prison reform groups on both sides of the aisle for efforts to save money by implementing rehabilitation programs and curbing skyrocketing prison costs.

A nonpartisan study issued last year about how one of the bluest states in the union, Massachusetts, could cut prison costs credited Republicans states for how they have tackled prison reform…

‘This is our chance to show we can provide solutions to affect significant problems,’ said Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

The renewed focus on costsaving reforms marks a dramatic, decade-long shift by Republican governors, many of whom previously won election by stumping on tough-on-crime platforms.

But, as many of those governors have noted, one way to cut state costs is to decrease the number of people being locked up for nonviolent offenses and rid the law books of mandatory minimum sentences for such offenses.

In addition to Perry, prominent Republicans who once trumpeted tough-on-crime ­stances and now call for sentencing changes and rehabilitation programs for drug and other nonviolent offenders include former Florida governor Jeb Bush and former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a tea party hero, has made reform of mandatory minimum sentences a major focus in recent months.

“We’re not a soft-on-crime state, you know what I’m saying? . . . We’re tough on crime,” Perry said. “But I hope we are also seen as a smart-on-crime state.”

That is quite a change from the tough on crime of Republicans in years and decades past, when, e.g. George H.W. Bush used the famous, or infamous, Willie Horton ad (See here) in his campaign against Michael Dukakis.

But whatever the past, this is an issue that now appears to have Republican support, and if the President and the Democratic Party don’t seize the opportunity, the chance for reform may well be wasted.

I will have more to say in the area of the American Justice system next time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

While I have decided not to dwell on the Israeli issue any further, I cannot ignore the outrage of the Boehner/Netanyahu axis. They are both a disgrace in meddling in the domestic affairs of the other’s country. Netanyahu will face elections in Israel on March 17 according to Fox News, but instead of campaigning in Israel, he will campaign by addressing the US Congress on March 3, two weeks before the Israeli election. This is a blatant and transparent attempt on the part of both the Speaker and the Prime Minister to meddle in the affairs of the other country. Even while this is likely to aid Netanyahu in Israel, it is at the same time an attempt to embarrass the President of the US, by Netanyahu coming here, once again, in his ongoing and endless attempt to influence the US not to negotiate with Iran and instead go to war. He has said the US has no right to tell Israel not to attack Iran, which the US has never done, while trying to ensnare the US into war with Iran.

Netanyahu’s crude attempt to meddle in American domestic affairs has a long and infamous history. He is the proverbial child always crying wolf and has been doing so since more than two years. On September 12, 2012 I published an article entitled: “I am an American”, from which I quote:

But Netanyahu has gone out of his way to violate every rule of diplomatic behavior. In my view he has been a disaster for Israel. Since any Letter to the Editor has to be short I commend readers to "Peter Beinart on Netanyahu’s Bullying Act" from The Daily Beast.

That article relates in some detail Netanyahu’s long history of meddling in American politics, so much so that the Republican Secretary of State James Baker briefly had him banned from the State Department. But beyond that, and I quote from the article, “Netanyahu has been brazenly intervening in American politics—often with an eye to screwing Democratic presidents.”…

But now he has the gall to come to the US and use our airwaves to try to dictate American foreign policy. Appearing on US Television, Netanyahu declared: “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.” I agree with the Prime Minster that no one has a right to place a “Red Light” before Israel. But, in fact no one has!!!...

The attempt by any country to dictate American policy, particularly on issues of war and peace must be rejected by all Americans.

What did the Prime Minister show to the US to demonstrate the imminent danger? Look here.

That was two years ago. Is Iran now in the final stage? Not even the man who keeps crying wolf claims that is the case. The negotiations, whether they finally succeed, or not, have delayed the Iranian progress. If the danger ever was anywhere near as imminent as the fear monger claimed, the Iranian’s would have the bomb today.

And what is the alternative to the present course? To go to war? Netanyahu is ready to hold the coat of the US. Israel is not about to commit that folly, nor would its military and intelligence agencies allow it. Should there be more sanctions by the US, which would end the negotiations, and worse, end the unity of the allies in imposing multi-lateral sanctions?

But quite aside from that, does his diagram look like an atomic bomb?

Here is a terrific YouTube video on that subject.



I urge the reader to watch it. If nothing else, it is funny and it does a good job of relating the history of the “the boy who cried wolf”. He points out that the cry that Iran is about to get “the bomb” goes back to 1992.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

The Real Battles Are Between Elections

I find it amazing how much the media, and as a result, the general public, focuses on the Presidential elections to the detriment of other events, and how much issues are defined between elections, as well as by the outcomes of so-called off year elections to the Congress, and in state elections.

We have just had a Presidential election and speculation has already started as to who the candidates for President might be four years hence.

Yet what was noteworthy in the just-concluded Presidential election was the extent to which issues were defined before the campaign started. I don’t want to attempt here to catalogue the issues that were, or were not discussed, but to illustrate the point by mentioning some.

We had three debates between the major candidates, yet neither Global Warming (possibly better called Climate Change) nor the carnage of our youth in our inner cities ever came up.

Climate Change did come to the fore toward the end of the campaign because of the devastation of storm Sandy, and guns came to the public’s consciousness and entered the political lexicon after the election as a result of the wanton killing of 20 children (and seven adults) in a suburban town in Connecticut, but even now the atmosphere that has been created by the very profitable and free-spending gun manufacturers, makes it incumbent for our President and others to proclaim their adherence to, and support of, the second Amendment, and for our President to show how he too loves guns by publishing a photo showing him with a gun.

But what of the second amendment? As recently as 1939 the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that restrictions on the possession of certain types of shotguns did not violate the Constitution because it has no “reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

So how did we get from there to here? It was not as a result of any election, or the debate or discussion during any election. It was through large expenditures in propaganda by the gun manufacturers, who after taking over the NRA, which used to be a non-political sporting association, used it as a front to propagandize the issue and eventually to intimidate law makers by huge expenditures in opposition to those who did not adhere to their agenda. But this was done over many years, in between elections, and in by-elections, until a bare majority of the Supreme Court  (the usual 5 to 4) in the Heller case accepted the position of the gun manufacturers.

At the same time, the media, as is their wont, misrepresented the views of the public by giving the impression that most Americans were rushing out to buy guns, when, in fact, a small minority were buying many guns, or as Reuters reported: 

“Even as gun purchases rise, the share of U.S. households with a gun has been falling for decades, from 54 percent in 1977 to 32 percent in 2010, according to the University of Chicago's General Social Survey.”

But what else has been going on between elections? One of the things I noticed between elections was that whenever a discussion of increasing inheritance taxes came up, the radio station to which I frequently listened, had a huge up-tick in ads offering counseling for estate planning, which most listeners would not have needed since few had enough assets to be effected by such increases, but which gave the impression that most were likely to be effected. The ads intended to seem non-political, in fact seemed clearly to have that purpose.

And what about the slogans that are so carefully crafted and repeated over and over between elections?

We don’t tax too little; We spend too much.

We want the economy, not the government to grow.

Generational Theft (What greater generational theft can there be then to leave future generations a world of hurricanes, typhoons, rising water levels, forest fires, and tsunamis, or a lack in education, or in infrastructure?)

We are Pro-Life! (Who wouldn’t be) and how does that match up against being “Pro Choice”.

Support the troops!

Cut and run!

Tax and Spend!

These aren’t just slogans during an election. They are repeated over and over again between elections, and they determine how issues are defined and discussed during elections.

In the Presidential “debates” there is an effort to avoid any real discussion. Here is how the Commission on Presidential Debates said the 2012 Presidential debates would be moderated:

“The first debate will focus on domestic policy…The moderator will ask a question, and each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond.”

 “The second presidential debate will be a town-hall style meeting. Voters will be allowed to ask questions directly of each candidate…Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond.”

 “The format for the third presidential debate will be identical to that of the first presidential debate.”

It should be noted that the candidates cannot even decide on the topics they want to address, and does anybody really think that an enlightening answer can be given in two minutes. Is it any wonder that we have the focus on who scowled, who invaded the others space, or who looked at his watch.

And then the media lauds the small state caucuses that are so important in deciding who gets nominated. Not only does this mean that a small percentage of a small population, has an outsize voice, but these people, according to the media, don’t decide whom to vote for until they have shook their hands. Boy, that really tells us what the candidate stands for!!! Or as the website for New Hampshire lauds its state: “Shake hands with as many Presidential Candidates as possible.”

And then there is the argument that the best government is the one closest to the people. That is supposed to mean that the state government is better than the Federal, the town or village government is better than the state, etc. But what it really means is that the smaller the jurisdiction the fewer people vote, the less information on the candidates and the issues is available, and very few even know who represents them. But that according to these avatars of the Right that is what is best for us. Government closest to the people indeed!!

But the fact is that while we are celebrating the re-election of Obama we have already forgotten the shellacking Democrats took only two years ago. To be sure gerrymandering played a role in the fact that even though Democrats won one million more votes than Republicans in the total votes for House seats, an even greater factor was the turnout was far, far smaller in the “off year election” than in the Presidential one, and there is the rub. Unless we can get people to turn out in the off year elections and in the State governors elections and in the state legislative elections, getting the turnout in the Presidential election will never, never be enough.

Finally, we need run off elections. No country in Europe, or in most of the world, would let a candidates win by less than a majority. It is doubtful that Senator Marco Rubio, who is being touted as the Republican savior, (God only knows why) would have won his seat if there had been a run-off. He won with 49% of the vote, with former Gov. Charlie Crist garnering 30% and Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek polling 20%. It is highly likely that if there had been a runoff that Meek’s vote would have gone to Crist, and Rubio, who was rated by the Koch Brothers-financed group Americans For Prosperity as the “only perfect senator,” would have lost.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Guns

In my last post "Guns, The Cliff, The Right, & The Left" I pointed out that the NRA is not what the media made them out to be.

As I said in that post:

Who in Hell is the NRA? They have been represented by the media as the representative of gun owners, of hunters, of sportsmen. Are they? According to their own website they have four million members. The adult population of the United States is 250 million adults over the age of 18.  

In response thereto one of my subscribers wrote:

…it seems to me the gun problem in this country has become insurmountable. You know the first thing that happened after the school shooting was a huge surge in gun purchases, because of the fear of gun restriction legislation. How do you deal with this type of mentality? How do you deal with all the illegal weapons out there? I'm very pessimistic about our ability as a nation to deal with this problem.  

I don’t share that pessimism because the facts, and in my view, we must always start with the facts, do not support this pessimism. The writer explains her pessimism by pointing out that: 

…the first thing that happened after the school shooting was a huge surge in gun purchases…

Yes, that is what the media reported, but the media, as usual, does not tell the whole story. CNN, in a report which didn’t get the coverage it deserved, reported that it is a matter of:

Fewer U.S. gun owners own more guns.

It wasn’t a surge of most people, or even a great many people, who bought guns. It was a small number of gun nuts buying more guns. That is not at all discouraging.

The article went on to say:

… the number of U.S. households with guns has declined, but current gun owners are gathering more guns.

…both the number of households owning guns and the number of people owning guns were decreasing.

…20% of the gun owners with the most firearms possessed about 65% of the nation's guns.

The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010,

…The false perception that there are more gun owners has helped bolster a political narrative, emboldened the National Rifle Association and left politicians worried about losing support…

There is a myth pushed by the gun industry, the NRA and the trade associations for gun makers that gun ownership is up," he said. "[That] there are more gun owners, when the opposite is true, gun ownership is declining."

Thus, as I have always preached FACTS FIRST!!

According to Mayors Against Guns:

87 percent of NRA members agree that support for Second Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.

79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees – a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.

86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy a gun or who they buy it from.

And according to the Pew Research Center for People and the Press:

...about two-thirds (65%) think that allowing citizens to own assault weapons makes the country more dangerous. Just 21% say that permitting these types of weapons makes the country safer.

Whether to ban semi-automatic guns – 44% favor such a ban, while 49% are opposed.

Ok, more are opposed to banning assault weapons than are in favor. But that is by a small margin, which from the first statistic, that 65% think that allowing citizens to own assault weapons makes the country more dangerous, and that just 21% say that permitting these types of weapons makes the country safer, suggests that many, if not most, of these people may be persuadable.

At least as interesting are the statistics on views by demographics. Again according to Pew Research Center for People and the Press, Whites believe that allowing citizens to own assault weapons makes (the) country more dangerous, comes in at 26% to 61%, but among Blacks it is the reverse, at 83% to 10% and women it is 73% to 15%. Finally, while Hispanics have not been polled adequately the Daily Kos reported, 56% to 32% in favor of an assault weapons ban.

That is a lot of figures to ponder, but facts are very important.

If an assault weapons ban were to pass would it solve the problem? NO! Would a ban on large clips solve it? No! There are just too many guns out there! To really make a dent a repurchase program would be necessary. But to solve big problems we need to take one step at a time. It takes time, but start we must.

Allow me to just make some comments on the Second Amendment, which because of the political pressure (and money creates pressure, and the gun lobby has lots of money), has been grossly misrepresented. The amendment reads:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Now let us ask ourselves, and original intent advocates, if consistent, ought to be the first to ask this question, why was this amendment put into the Bill of Rights. In fact why do we have Bill of Rights?

The answer should be obvious. The framers had just finished replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution, which greatly increased the powers of the Federal government. State Rights advocates were worried that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government. They were particularly worried that the new government might eventually abolish slavery. And so they wanted to make sure that states had access to militias, which might resist the powerful Federal government. But it was never intended to be a restriction on the States.

This is in fact what happened in 1860. Had the states not had militias there could not have been a Civil War. Thus to interpret this as applying to the states is absurd on its face.

So how did the Supreme Court find it applied to individuals and to the States? Well they did that in 2008 for the first time in American history by the usual five to four vote. Never before was this interpretation given.

And what did they base it on? Amendment XIV passed at the end of the Civil War to protect the newly freed slaves.

The amendment reads:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So an amendment intended to protect the newly freed slaves, ends up, in our topsy-turvy world, exposing them to the worst of gun violence.

Since the Civil War was fought to put an end to the idea of secession, and to armed revolt against the Federal government, it is ironic that Lincoln never thought of the importance of repealing the Second Amendment. But that is the irony of history.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did hold that reasonable regulations are not unconstitutional, either at the State or Federal level.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.

Guns, The Cliff, The Right, & The Left

It’s madness all around!!

In my last post "The Fiscal Cliff" I quoted The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as reporting that more than 30,000 people are killed by guns in this nation each year. This is mostly in our cities and in our poor African-American communities, but it has not, and continues not to raise the conscience of the media or the Nation. But 20 children and six adults killed in a suburb in Connecticut get two weeks of coverage and a Nation outraged. Something is wrong with our values.

Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s executive Vice President, speaks and says that the answer to gun violence is more guns, every cable news channel covers his speech. The following Sunday all the Sunday morning news programs have a representative of the NRA on their show. Why? Why?

Who in Hell is the NRA? They have been represented by the media as the representative of gun owners, of hunters, of sportsmen. Are they? According to their own website they have four million members. The adult population of the United States is 250 million adults over the age of 18.  

Four million is a tiny percentage. The NRA speaks only for the gun manufacturing industry. The media has allowed the myth that they speak for anyone else. Annual membership in the NRA costs only $25.-  so they clearly don't get their money from their members. They get it from gun manufacturers. The NRA speaks only for the gun manufacturing industry. The media has allowed the myth that they speak for anyone else.

It is time to unmask this charade!!!

As for the Cliff, the Right claims they are worried about the deficit, but reducing it by increasing tax revenues from the income tax, or the estate tax, or the capital gains tax, or on dividends is opposed fanatically. Do they really care about the deficit? Or is that just a ruse for their true desire to, in the words of their hero, Grover Glenn Norquist, “just want to shrink it (government) down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

The Left e.g. Paul Krugman, insist that the best think for the economy is an increased deficit, at least in the short run. But they are adamant that taxes on the rich must be raised, which lowers the deficit and going over the cliff would have decreased the deficit by a hell of a lot.

They tell us that the most important thing that our government can do is increase jobs, but they seem to almost relish the idea of going over the cliff, which would cost untold jobs. They described any deal as a bad deal that reduces entitlement benefits by one iota, but this deal gave not one inch on entitlements, and they call it a bad deal.

I must admit that I find myself disappointed by the deal in that it did not raise enough revenue. But for me that makes sense, since I believe that debt does matter. But if you argue that it doesn’t, why is this important? But as I read the reports I come away with the feeling that the early estimates of how much revenue was raised are just that, early estimates. I have a feeling that these early estimates do not take into account the reductions in exemptions or other aspects. The “deal” may yet show much more revenue estimates than are now being recognized.

In the words of our self-described Socialist Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders:

This agreement preserves incentives for the development of clean energy by encouraging companies that are creating jobs in America and helping reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming. That is a win-win for our economy and our environment. In Vermont and across the country, hundreds of wind manufacturing plants already are producing wind turbines, and the industry is providing jobs for 75,000 American workers. The fact that we have doubled wind generation since 2008 is an American success story. Extending the Production Tax Credit means we can continue the tremendous growth in wind and other safe, clean, renewable sources energy that must be developed if we are to reverse global warming. 

This agreement also is a major victory for Social Security recipients and for disabled veterans. Despite an eleventh-hour bid by Senate Republicans, the final bill does not include their proposed change in how cost-of-living adjustments are calculated. As the founder of the Defending Social Security Caucus and the incoming chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, I am proud that organizations representing seniors and veterans worked together to block the switch to a so-called chained CPI as a way to cut future benefits for more than 55 million Americans.

But regardless of anything else, the President is our quarterback and unlike others, I refuse to indulge in the “Monday morning quarterback” syndrome.

What is obvious is that the President is first and foremost concerned with the economy and jobs. He is not willing to let the economy tank and the progress we have made in creating jobs to be stymied. The deal caused a huge jump in the markets throughout the world, and as for jobs, quoting Reuters: “(t)he ADP National Employment Report showed the private sector added 215,000 jobs in December, comfortably above economists' expectation of a 133,000 gain.” That is something to be celebrated.

I have great difficulty understanding my friends on the Left.

When Bill Clinton “triangulated” and signed into law a devastating revision in our “Aid to Families with Dependant Children," put into place the outrageous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in our military, signed DOMA into law, acquiesced in the repeal of Glass-Steagal, and allowed an outrageous new bankruptcy law that denied bankruptcy to people with excessive credit card debt, (See here for my comments on May 5th, 2009) and famously said “The era of big government is over” the Left for the most part was quiet. Now that we have a President who fights for our values, it is never good enough, and we act like “Monday morning quarterbacks” at every turn.

I know! I heard it over and over again! “We are only trying to get him to do the right thing.” But what is “the right thing” in an age of intransient sabotage, of hostage taking of our economy, or in the words of the former Treasury Secretary in the Republican Administration of G.W. Bush, PaulO’Neill, “Those Who Won’t Raise Debt Ceiling Are Terrorists”.

When terrorists take hostages and demand a ransom, those who care about the hostage must always ask themselves, “Do we let them kill the hostage?” or do we pay ransom. How much? Do we pay a little to keep the hostage alive, or do we pay a lot to have the hostage released. These are always agonizing questions. The quarterback must call the plays. The second guessers and the “Monday Morning Quarterbacks” must stand down.

E.J. Dionne, writing in the Wahington Post said:

To be deemed a serious analyst at the moment seems to require a lot of hand-wringing and sneering over how awful Congress looked the past few days as it rushed a “fiscal cliff” deal into law.  

So permit me to burn my membership card in the League of Commentators and Pundits.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.