So there's what's right... and there's what's smart.
Someone tried to start a war in Dallas tonight... and I GUARANTEE you, that police around the country are going to react.
Reports are that 11 cops and one bystander were shot... by at least two people with rifles and two more with pistols... and at least 5 are dead right now, with 3 more in critical condition.
At best, police are going to be hyper-vigilant for trouble... Hopefully NOT seeing it where there isn't any and overreacting...
... but it would amaze me if there wasn't at least some overreaction. At least some anger and fear and grief and frustration that spills over into violence...
... and if you don't think there are people who want to exploit that overreaction, you' really don't understand what's going on in this country right now.
Think about it... if you were an enemy of this country... internal or external... If you were a white supremacist, or a black separatist, or an anti-american islamist... Wouldn't it be great if you could get us to start a civil war against ourselves? Set cops against the public, black against white?
... and how much worse will it get if... when... there are more incidents?
Understand... this wasn't a random or spontaneous act of anger or frustration. This was a deliberately planned and executed attack, with pre-planned siting, and a planned evade and exfil, that they executed properly.
That doesn't mean they were professionals, or had any training... but it does mean this was a deliberate act of political violence.
This was a terrorist provocation attack.
The purpose of terrorism is not just to cause direct damage... it is to provoke overreaction from the controlling authority, against the populace, in order to increase internal strife and chaos, and to increase resentment and reaction against the controlling authority.
... and I can't think of any better way to draw such an overreaction right now, than to start killing cops at a black lives matter protest.
Can you?
Smart people... people who really should know better... Are already reaction in anger and fear, and saying things like "this is black lives matters fault', or "the cops deserved this"...
... That's exactly what they want...
... Because that's what terrorism does...
That is the goal, and purpose, of terrorist attacks. It is to create terror, chaos, strife... To draw overreaction and create resentment, that the terrorists can take advantage of.
... and it's working.
So... here's my advice... For everyone, but especially if you are a young black male.
Stay home... ESPECIALLY at night... until next Monday.
It's a heat wave weekend... violence always goes up with heat waves anyway... now this? STAY HOME.
Don't go anywhere there are big crowds. Don't go to protests or vigils or anything else. STAY HOME.
If you DO get pulled over, and you get hassled... don't get visibly angry, don't fight, don't yell, don't scream... DO record the encounter if you can...
...and wait...
Wait until you aren't under the control of an angry scared man with a gun pointed at you... Wait and get a lawyer. Wait, and file a complaint with the Justice Department and the state AG.
Is it wrong... Hell yeah...
But you can't fix it if you're dead.
Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts
Thursday, July 07, 2016
Friday, March 16, 2012
Adultery, Prostitution, Rape, and Islam
This post is a consolidation and recapitulation of a couple of comments made across a couple of posts from the week or so, on the subject of rape in the islamic world.
Last week, Clayton Cramer posted a piece about the Beslan terrorist attack, in which he noted that the personal testimonies of the victims that some of the hostages were raped, seemed to have been scrubbed from official records, and regional reportage of the incident; and that Wikipedia had a pretty transparent apologia over the incident (go read the linked piece for the full context, I'd have to excerpt the whole thing to make sense here) quoted here:
Apparently my comment (and those of the other commenters) triggered some further interest on Claytons part about rape in the muslim world; particularly in the context of Surah 23:1-11
A few days later, Clayton posted a further missive on Sharia law and Rape:
For some reason, Americans in general know very little about this.
The false statistics of sexual abuse in the United States (and believe me, if you've seen a statistic on sexual violence in the American media, it's almost certainly false. This topic is so politicized as to be completely unreliable at this point) are ridiculously well publicized; but the actual genocidal horror (and yes, it is very much a part of the African and eastern European genocides, and for genocidal reasons) of sexual violence in Islam and particularly in Africa is basically unknown.
That idea simply dumbfounds me, never mind making me angry.
Last week, Clayton Cramer posted a piece about the Beslan terrorist attack, in which he noted that the personal testimonies of the victims that some of the hostages were raped, seemed to have been scrubbed from official records, and regional reportage of the incident; and that Wikipedia had a pretty transparent apologia over the incident (go read the linked piece for the full context, I'd have to excerpt the whole thing to make sense here) quoted here:
The lack of food and water took its toll on the young children, many of whom were forced to stand for long periods in the hot, tightly-packed gym. Many children took off their clothing because of the sweltering heat within the gymnasium, which led to rumors of sexual impropriety, though the hostages later explained it was merely due to the stifling heat and being denied any water.In his last paragraph he wrote:
The two sources that this paragraph gives for this claim says nothing that indicates that the claims of rape were incorrect. I find myself troubled by how many books and articles refer to this claim, which seems unfortunately quite plausible--and yet I can't find any immediate newspaper accounts that refer to it. Can you help me?As someone who is familiar with the region, I responded:
You almost certainly won't; and you can guarantee any Chechnyans will edit out any mention of it in wikipedia.This is a cultural pathology very familiar to those who know islamic culture, and balkan and transcaucasian culture; but is really not well understood here in the United States (not that rape shame isn't a huge problem here as well, it's simply an entirely different order of magnitude).
Cultural rape shame in the region is EXTREME (both islamic, and christian), and it will almost certainly never be acknowledged in local sources, or by Ossetians.
Apparently my comment (and those of the other commenters) triggered some further interest on Claytons part about rape in the muslim world; particularly in the context of Surah 23:1-11
The believers must (eventually) win through,-This passage is taken by many muslims, as a commandment to be chaste except in marriage OR with slaves and captives. It has been used as justification by muslims to rape slaves, prisoners, hostages etc...
Those who humble themselves in their prayers;
Who avoid vain talk;
Who are active in deeds of charity;
Who abstain from sex,
Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
But those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors;-
Those who faithfully observe their trusts and their covenants;
And who (strictly) guard their prayers;-
These will be the heirs,
Who will inherit Paradise: they will dwell therein (for ever).
A few days later, Clayton posted a further missive on Sharia law and Rape:
I spent some time this evening researching the claim that sharia law requires four male, Islamic, adult eyewitnesses to get a rape conviction. This turns out to be true, but slightly misleading, or at least, incomplete. Sharia law, with its very severe punishments, does apparently require four male, Islamic adult eyewitnesses for the crime of zina (which includes rape, adultery, and premarital sex, and does not distinguish them clearly). In some countries, eight adult females can provide the testimony, or some combination of men and women.I felt I needed to expand greatly on my previous comment about rape and shame in the islamic world:
It turns out that the standard, which may have been intended primarily to prevent a person accused of adultery from being executed without extraordinary evidence, is so demanding that a non-sharia based-law is used to punish rape, with much less severe punishments, in many Muslim countries. The reported rape rates in Muslim countries are so astonishingly low that I am inclined to think that these crimes are just not being reported.
Unfortunately, yes.Frankly, I haven't even begun to touch on this subject. I personally could write a short book on it, never mind a real expert on this subject. I know there are several books on the subject of sexual violence in Islam, and sexual violence in africa; generally first person accounts by refugees, or serious scholarly/governmental report type things. I don't know of any books that seek to be serious reportage, commentary, and analysis on the subject.
Actual rape is shockingly common in the islamic world, particularly in Africa and the Arabic portions; particularly among the lower economic classes, and among what are effectively lower caste populations of indians, pakistanis, afghanis, indonesians, africans, and other darker skinned or mixed race muslims; who are imported into the arabic and other lighter skinned muslim countries as cheap labor (because many of them speak arabic, and have no resources or education to help them protect themselves).
These people are effectively made into indentured servants, or even slaves; and their masters take the "masters privilege".
Rich arabs, particularly "royalty" (though the arabic definition of royalty is... expansive. There are thousands of Saudi princes for example) tend to view the lower class staff as fair game, or even as their due, or just reward.
Often rape is used as a means of control, or shaming, of either a woman or her family (which may "force" the family to kill the woman to "restore their honor"). It can even be used to gain business advantage.
Also, gang rape, by roving bands of young men, is sadly not uncommon. Usually, they excuse their behavior as "punishing the wicked temptress" for "tempting" them with their wicked bodies, uncovered ankles and wrists etc...
You will find, if you look closer into it, that most muslim women who are punished for "adultery", are in fact rape victims.
Sadder still, the rape gangs have moved into europe with large scale lower class muslim immigration; particularly in Germany, Sweden, and France. The city of Malmo in sweden has essentially been declared a no-go zone for white women. They have even seen some rape gang activity in Canada and the UK.
I can't even get into Africa without getting angrier than hell... In the sudan, tanzania, djibouti, eritrea, somalia, ethiopia, the congo, sexual violence is so commonplace as to be beneath notice. Again, you'll find that most women in Muslim africa punished for "adultery" or "prostitution" are in fact rape victims.
The final major factor is the cultural rape shame. It's so severe in the islamic world that there is a near 80% death rate from it; either by suicide, murder, stoning and other "punishment", and honor killings.
For some reason, Americans in general know very little about this.
The false statistics of sexual abuse in the United States (and believe me, if you've seen a statistic on sexual violence in the American media, it's almost certainly false. This topic is so politicized as to be completely unreliable at this point) are ridiculously well publicized; but the actual genocidal horror (and yes, it is very much a part of the African and eastern European genocides, and for genocidal reasons) of sexual violence in Islam and particularly in Africa is basically unknown.
That idea simply dumbfounds me, never mind making me angry.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
The Greatest Fraud in the History of the Human Race
People in this country are angry.
They're angry for a lot of reasons, but mostly they're angry because they feel they have been, and continue to be, cheated.
And they're right.
The current budget crisis (as opposed to all the other budget crises over the last 50 years) has highlighted something that most Americans have tried... mostly successfully... to ignore for the past.. oh 37 years or so:
We're broke, and we're getting broker.
Not only are we broke, but we've run up about four times as much debt as we have income...
There are of course lots of reasons why we're broke, but to most people it's obvious that "taxes are too low" isn't one of them.
Most people meaning "everyone other than democrats" of course.
Of course, part of the reason why we're broke is because of military spending. Wars are expensive after all... But really, it's only a small part (about 4% or so).
Part of why we're broke is just that the federal government is huge, overstaffed, inefficient and wasteful... A not insignificant part actually (maybe 20%)... but still, not really enough to account for it.
The real reason why we're in a hole, and digging fast is simple:
We have been the (somewhat willing, mostly ignorant and apathetic) victims of the greatest fraud in the history of the human race.
That fraud is called Social Security; which together with medicare, medicaid, and "social safety net" spending (also part of the fraud) make up about 60% or so of federal spending (and growing every year).
Social Security was sold to the American people as insurance, or a pension; which they would pay into for their working life, and when they retired, be able to live on, or at least supplement their income with, just like any other pension.
The problem is, the entitlement package was a pyramid scheme from day one; and congress has been taking their ill gotten proceeds out of it since day two.
The only things that made social security work from the beginning, were demographics, and the single greatest expansion of wealth in recorded history (both occurring between 1945 and 1968).
Initially the age of retirement was set older than the average age of death for workers (the average worker died at 58 in 1934, vs the average lifespan of 65).
That, combined with the increases in birth rates, and reduction in infant and childhood mortality rates from the '30s through the mid '60s; ensured that there would be far more workers being taxed, and more total taxes collected; than people being paid benefits, or total benefits paid; for at least 65 years from 1945.
In 1934, only about half the population made it to 65 (though those that did averaged a life expectancy of 72 years).
Then, the baby boom and the post World War two medical boom happened (these were not unrelated of course).
From 1946 to 1964, birth rates in the U.S. went up by about 50%, while at the same time lifespan increased dramatically (to 72 by 1964).
This ensured a huge and growing surplus in taxes collected vs. benefits paid for the next 30 years or so, as these "excess" people entered the work force.
It also ensured a huge crash, as the post '64 birth rates went back down to normal; meaning that combined with increased lifespans, after around 1986 or so, the retired population would be growing faster than the workforce (as of 2010 about 1.5 million more people leave the workforce through retirement per year than join it through starting employment. That may end up as much as 3 million more within 10 years.)
Since 1934 the number of people who live past the age of 65 has increased from 50% to 77%, with an average lifespan for those who do of over 80 years (the total national average life expectancy is 78, but 23% of the population don't make it to 65).
In 1934 there were about 7 million people in the U.S. over 65 out of a population of about 125 million (about half of which were working). In 2010 there were about 40 million over 65 out of a population of about 300 million (about half of which were working).
The ratio of workers to retirees started out at about 8 to 1 in 1934; but by 2010 had reduced to about 3.5 to one.
Also, inflation in America remained below 3.5% annual averaged until 1968; when it surged to over 10%, reaching almost 20% by the end of the 70s, and it didn't return to normal until the mid 80s (we are now averaging about 3.4%, but most expect inflation to top 10% again within the next few years because of the currency manipulations the fed is making on behalf of the last three administrations).
That 15 year surge of inflation devalued the contributions of every American from before 1968 dramatically, and the situation didn't normalize until 1984; such that all contributions from prior to 1984 are worth about 1/4 what they would have been on a constant dollar basis.
Basically, that period of inflation it took about 10-15 years of social security taxes and flushed them down the drain.
Now, it's around 65 years from 1945, and social security payments are set to exceed receipts within the next two years (or may have done so already depending on whose accounting you believe).
Exactly as one would predict based on how it's structured, and the economic and demographic makeup of America.
We have known this was coming since 1968... Hell we knew it was possible when social security was created in 1934; but assumed the demographics of America wouldn't change as dramatically as they did.
Then the baby boom happened, and the 1970s happened, and here we are.
Social security is a bankrupt fraud. A ponzi scheme. It always has been. The people of America have been conned, and they're angry.
Americans over 50, for the most part, feel they are entitled to their social security benefits. They were promised them, and they paid their entire working life thinking they were guaranteed... but it was a scam.
If social security was really insurance, or a pension, they'd be right. It would be theres, and no-one would be able to take it away. That's how the system was sold to them. Thats what they were taught for decades... and that is a huge lie. A con game.
Because of that "single greatest expansion of wealth in human history" thing I mentioned earlier, the crash didn't have to happen. Social security shouldn't be broke.
If Social Security had been run as a pension fund, it would be flush right now, and for the forseeable future; because all the contributions in excess of payments would have been making money for the last 77 years.
Remember, from 1934 until 1986, the workforce was still growing far faster than the retired population. Not only that, but real income (inflation adjusted) just about doubled (in 1934 the average household income was $1525 a year, an inflation adjusted $25,000. In 2011 the average household income is just under $50,000).
This means that for about 40 years, the surplus was actually about double what it needed to be just to be self sustaining (presuming a 4% annualized average return).
If it was a wisely managed pension fund, with an average rate of return, those surpluses combined with moderate and safe returns on investment would have insured retirees an excellent income; while covering the big demographic hole for the next 30 years, as the rate of retirees exceed the rate of people entering the work force.
However, instead of actually investing that money, congress used it as part of the general fund, in order to make their budget deficits look smaller than they really were (and have done so every year since 1958). No actual investment has been made... in fact they've used those funds to justify even more borrowing and spending.
The thing is, Social Security was never actually organized as an annuity or insurance plan, or even as a conventional pension plan; as it should have been (neither was Medicare/Medicaid, nor state or federal "unemployment insurance" other than private unemployment insurance carried by employers and provided by non-state actors).
If they had been an annuity or a pension and post retirement health care plan; you would own them as your own assets, and you would receive far more from them than the current benefits schedule; plus you'd be able to leave them to your kids, take loans against them or use them as collateral, and set your own payout schedule.
Most people in this country work for about 45-49 years, and the average 22-34 year old today makes $25,000 per year, with wages generally slightly outpacing inflation (so it's reasonable to assume a constant dollar basis).
The contribution to Social Security and medicare that employers and workers combined is 15.2% of their annual wages and earnings (up to $106,800).
15% of that saved annually, earning 4% (just over the 50 year average rate of inflation at 3.4%, which is extremely pessimistic. The average rate of return on pension plans over the past 50 years is about 8%), for 45 years, and assuming never receiving a pay increase (again obviously not correct. The average 50 year old worker makes around $50,000) would leave a 67 year old retiree who began working at 22 and never received anything more than a cost of living raise a fair bit of money for their retirement.
What's a "fair bit"?
Try around $350,000. In fact, even if you just managed to save cash, with no pensions or investments whatsoever, you would have $170,000.
If instead we assumed a normal rate of pay raises (3% annual average across the entire workforce, plus inflation/COLA of 3.4%), and a normal rate of return (8% average for conservatively managed pension plans over the last 50 years) that fair bit turns into between $1 million, and $1.5 million
Oh and these are numbers after taxes, presuming taxes remain at current levels... which they probably won't. Historically, since the 1960s taxes have gone down in this country, but that's almost certainly about to change.
Also remember, this is on a constant dollar basis, so thats expected to rise with inflation. this is a purchasing power parity number with today.
That same 67 year old worker can expect about $15,000 a year from social security, or about $1275 a month (the average retired worker today receives $1180 per month, or $14,160 per year)... or could if the system actually worked, wasn't broken and bankrupt etc...
The average worker survives their retirement at 67 by 11 years. Even if you had only saved cash, and your savings had only kept pace with inflation, you'd be beating the "benefit' from social security, with about $1275 a month.
And of course, if you had a normal career, with a normal pension plan... Well, even being very conservative, you would have something like $95,000 a year.
More importantly, you would have an asset. It would be yours, to do with as you like. You could leave it to your kids, borrow against it to pay off your mortgage, or even take a lump sum to do so and not worry about a payment again... anything you wanted.
And of course, that ignores any asset value you may have, like a house with a paid off mortgage (which, ignoring the recent bubble, will on average increase in constant dollar value about 50% over the life of a mortgage), any other investments or savings etc...
Ok, but what about health care?
An individual health care plan runs about $4-5,000 a year in todays dollars, a family plan usually runs between $8000 and $12,000 (in most states anyway, some are much higher); which in the U.S. is generally paid 80% by employers and 20% by employees.
Since we are talking about individuals, let's presume you can continue that $5,000 a year cost post retirement, but paid out of your own retirement savings rather than medicare.
Even with just savings, presuming your 11 year average retirement you only come out slightly behind Social Security; and with any kind of investment whatsoever you come out at the least 100% ahead.
But they're not run that way.
They are, and always have been, taxes; which are conventionally referred to as insurance, as basically part of a massive 77 year fraud.
Well.. 46 year fraud for the medicare portion...
Congress has been taxing everyone 15% for the "privilege" of earning wages, for the last 77 years; and using that money to pay for spending that gets them reelected. In return they have promised that you are "entitled" to a small payout, with the caveat that it's as much or as little as they want to give you, when they want to give it to you, for as long as they want to give it to you.
And yet, people defend this system?
In reality they don't. They defend the idea of the system they BELIEVE they had, because they were defrauded by congress for 77 years.
But it was all a lie.
Now, that lie is being exposed... and people are shocked, and angry. They want what was promised to them.
The politicians are smart enough to know that these people vote, and for the most part young people (who haven't believed they were going to get their social security benefits in 20 years) don't.
So, we're inevitably going to end up taxing the productive more, and accruing more debt.
There are about 150 million workers in the united states, earning an average of $25,000 a year; for a total personal income of about $3.75 trillion dollars a year (this year the actual estimate is $3.51 trillion)
However, only about 47% of those pay more taxes (including social security taxes) than they receive in net payments and benefits.
So that's about $1.85 trillion net positive income.
At this point social security is so broke, and the government has borrowed from it so much; that you could tax every productive worker at 100% of their income for 20 years, and STILL not make up the unfunded liabilities of the system (which currently stand at $18 trillion dollars for social security alone - $62 trillion for the whole shebang - , with an additional 1.4 trillion per year added for the next 20 years).
We'd still be 10 trillion short, and of course no-one would bother working at 100% tax rate, they would just become unproductive workers like the bottom 47%; not only not solving the problem, but making it worse.
Ok... how about we tax total corporate profits? Surely the "big corporations" can afford it, and if we take everything they make, that should cover it right?
Well, no.
Total corporate profits in the U.S. are about $6 trillion annually, and have actually been pretty consistent on a constant dollar basis since the late 80s; minus the internet bubble and the housing bubble.
Ok, so we could tax them at 100% for four years and that would cover it right?
Well no, because if we did, total corporate profits would instantly fall to zero. There would be no incentive to produce profit, and companies would either close up shop entirely, or simply plow the money back into the business as expenses so as to show no profit.
And of course theres the fact that about 50% of all "corporate profits" are actually from small businesses; and half of those are form sole proprietorships or limited partnerships.
Basically your plumber, electrician, corner store owner, mom and pop shop...
Their "profits" are actually their only income... and they wouldn't be able to protect themselves from taxes the way a bigger company can.
50% of the employment in this country also comes from small businesses... You think unemployment is bad today at around 9% (officially. The "real" number is probably more like 15%) how bad do you think things would be if we went to 50% or more unemployment overnight?
Hell, why do you think unemployment is so high today, while companies are sitting on big piles of cash?
Simple: It's because the management of those companies is TERRIFIED of what congress, and this administration are going to do to them. They don't know if they're going to be able to survive whatever it is they do.
In past years, American business could count on the fact that politicians understood you couldn't slaughter all your cows to pay your bills this year, or you wouldn't have any calves to sell next year.
With the current congress and administration... Frankly, businesses see that as a scenario the government might try, in an effort to save their own skins against the rising tide of angry Americans.
OK, what about cutting spending?
Well, it's a great idea. It's something we should definitely do. We could probably cut spending by 20% or so and not have it significantly impact the lives of most Americans, or our ability to defend ourselves, and we absolutely should (that includes cutting 20% off the military, and off current entitlements etc... through waste cuttting and shrinking the federal government in general... REAL waste cutting by people who actually know how to do it, not congress... which won't happen of course).
... And don't try to feed me that con about reducing demand or understimulating the economy. Keynes was wrong, and Bastiat was right. It's all the broken window fallacy, and if you don't understand what that is, go look it up...
There's a problem though...
The remaining 80% of spending really is non-discretionary unless we completely restructure current entitlement programs.
The U.S. government will spend 4.3 trillion dollars this year, on projected 2.8 trillion in revenue; a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit.
A 1.5 trillion deficit is by the way, almost as much as the entire 1998 budget (the last "balanced" budget we had in this country... Actually it wasn't, the last actual balanced budget we had was in 1957 but a certain percent of federal spending is carried off books every year. 1998 had an actual deficit of about $60 billion); at 1.6 trillion... though there has been 33% inflation since '98 so in constant dolar terms the budget would be $2.1 trillion.
From $2.1 trillion in constant dollars to 4.3 trillion..
Not only have we more than doubled the constant dollar budget since 1998 (on 33% inflation, meaning the budget is growing almost 250% faster than inflation... not 50% faster, not 1.5 times faster... 2.5 times faster), we've almost tripled the gross debt from 5.6 trillion to 14.6 trillion.
Half of that 9 trillion increase in debt has been in the last two years. The Bush administration took us from 5.7 trillion to 9.8 trillion in 8 years... But the Obama administration managed to add 4.8 trillion in just two (and on pace to add another 4 trillion before January 2013).
By the by, Bushes last years spending was $3 trillion on $2.6 trillion in revenue, for an actual deficit of $400 billion... at the time thought of as enormously high (and about $200 billion more than projected, because of additional military appropriations).
Obamas first year actual spending was $3.5 trillion on $2.1 trillion in revenue, for a $1.4 trillion deficit. His second year actual spending was $4.5 trillion (almost $1 trillion over budget by the way) on $2.2 trillion in revenue.
Yes a $1 trillion dollar year over year spending increase, that can't be blamed on Bush, in a year that military expenditures were actually reduced, so you can't blame it on the war either.
Of course it isn't really Obama, it's congress; I'm just using the common popular rhetoric.
After this years "cuts" (which really aren't, they're just reductions in the planned increases) we're "down" to a 4.3 trillion planned budget (which doesn't account for overages and off budget expenses, which have for the last two years been more than $1 trillion each year).
Even if we make a 20% real cut down to 3.5 trillion, that still leaves a $700 billion deficit... and that's before you account for the $6.1 trillion a year in total unfunded liabilities we are accumulating... which without huge cuts in entitlements, at best we'll trim to $5 trillion.
In constant dollar terms, and minus the theoretical 20% across the board cuts from shrinking government (which need to happen, but probably won't); 60% of the increase in federal spending since 1998 has come from increases in social security, medicare, medicaid, and social spending programs. Only 20% has come from military spending, and only 10% from "infrastructure" and 'stimulus".
We have to cut entitlements and social benefits. The currently make up about 60% of government spending, and will increase to 100% of federal spending within 10 years (at todays budget levels) if we don't.
There is no choice. It has to be done.
Historically, the U.S. Federal government has never been able to achieve more than a 19% annual 10 year average revenue return on gross domestic product. If taxes increase they reduce personal spending, corporate profits and spending, and overall economic growth, to the point that revenues fall back below 19% within a few years.
At todays levels of GDP of around 15 trillion dollars (and currently not keeping pace with inflation, so it's falling in constant dollar terms; but historically we've grown between 4% and 5% annual average over the last 50 years, slightly outpacing inflation) we can sustain a real expenditure level of about $2.85 trillion.
Our revenues this year look like they're going to be about $2.8 trillion... or just about the maximum we can expect to get based on current economic production. There's really no room for long term "revenue enhancement", and short term revenue enhancement is counterproductive.
We can't tax our way out of it, that's the maximum tax revenue we can collect (at least for more than about 4 years... and the suppression of growth for the following six years will just make the 10 year average the same... so it's the real maximum).
We need to cut about $1.5 trillion from the budget, and a "real" expenditure level of over $2 trillion.
Annually, not over 10 years.
That would be a 20 trillion cut over 10 years if we want to report things the way congress likes to; not $100-$200 billion annual reduction in increases, as we just passed through congress.
$2 trillion, right off the top, no questions no comments no bluffing.
The most we can realistically cut without radically restructuring entitlements is about $900 billion (or 9 trillion over 10 years).
Oh and of course, thats without even starting to pay down the almost $15 trillion in national debt. Let's call it another $500 billion to be able to pay the debt off in 30 years; so $2.5 trillion.
Which, funny enough, puts us right back around 1998 constant dollar expenditure levels +$300 billion or so.
Let me ask you something?
Was 1998 really a horrible year? Was federal spending so low that it killed our economy? Were old people dying in the streets because they didn't have enough social security?
Of course not.
We COULD go back to that spending level in constant dollars (meaning adjusted for inflation since then). In fact, at current revenue levels, if we didn't feel like paying down the debt, we could increase spending by about 40%. Or we could actually use that to pay down the debt.
We can't tax our way out of it, we have to cut. It's that simple.
There is no solution to this problem that doesn't involve cutting spending by about 40%.
Let me repeat that:
THERE IS NO SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T MEAN A 40% SPENDING CUT
Or at least no solution that doesn't massively hurt everyone in this country for the next 20 or 30 years.
4% of that or so can come out of military spending, another 4% from discretionary spending (that's a 20% cut in each by the way, it's 8% of the total budget combined); the remaining 32% are going to have to come out of entitlements.
...And that's not going to happen.
Politicians won't do it, because they know they will lose votes.
The AARP and the left wing lobbies won't let them, even if the "right" had the guts to push it, which they don't.
The only thing we can do, is limit the damage as best we can, and work through the pain. There is no other option.
We are going to have to increase the retirement age. There is no other option.
We are going to have to reduce medical spending somehow. There is no other option.
We have to do it now, or at least soon; because every year we don't the problem just gets worse. It was punting it down the road every year since 1974 (the first time the excessive entitlements spending problem was brought into the congressional sphere) that got us into the mess we're in now.
We have to do it now, because every year we don't the hurting gets worse, and the time it will take to gut through it gets longer.
We have to do it now... because we've run out of other peoples money to spend.
They're angry for a lot of reasons, but mostly they're angry because they feel they have been, and continue to be, cheated.
And they're right.
The current budget crisis (as opposed to all the other budget crises over the last 50 years) has highlighted something that most Americans have tried... mostly successfully... to ignore for the past.. oh 37 years or so:
We're broke, and we're getting broker.
Not only are we broke, but we've run up about four times as much debt as we have income...
There are of course lots of reasons why we're broke, but to most people it's obvious that "taxes are too low" isn't one of them.
Most people meaning "everyone other than democrats" of course.
Of course, part of the reason why we're broke is because of military spending. Wars are expensive after all... But really, it's only a small part (about 4% or so).
Part of why we're broke is just that the federal government is huge, overstaffed, inefficient and wasteful... A not insignificant part actually (maybe 20%)... but still, not really enough to account for it.
The real reason why we're in a hole, and digging fast is simple:
We have been the (somewhat willing, mostly ignorant and apathetic) victims of the greatest fraud in the history of the human race.
That fraud is called Social Security; which together with medicare, medicaid, and "social safety net" spending (also part of the fraud) make up about 60% or so of federal spending (and growing every year).
Social Security was sold to the American people as insurance, or a pension; which they would pay into for their working life, and when they retired, be able to live on, or at least supplement their income with, just like any other pension.
The problem is, the entitlement package was a pyramid scheme from day one; and congress has been taking their ill gotten proceeds out of it since day two.
The only things that made social security work from the beginning, were demographics, and the single greatest expansion of wealth in recorded history (both occurring between 1945 and 1968).
Initially the age of retirement was set older than the average age of death for workers (the average worker died at 58 in 1934, vs the average lifespan of 65).
That, combined with the increases in birth rates, and reduction in infant and childhood mortality rates from the '30s through the mid '60s; ensured that there would be far more workers being taxed, and more total taxes collected; than people being paid benefits, or total benefits paid; for at least 65 years from 1945.
In 1934, only about half the population made it to 65 (though those that did averaged a life expectancy of 72 years).
Then, the baby boom and the post World War two medical boom happened (these were not unrelated of course).
From 1946 to 1964, birth rates in the U.S. went up by about 50%, while at the same time lifespan increased dramatically (to 72 by 1964).
This ensured a huge and growing surplus in taxes collected vs. benefits paid for the next 30 years or so, as these "excess" people entered the work force.
It also ensured a huge crash, as the post '64 birth rates went back down to normal; meaning that combined with increased lifespans, after around 1986 or so, the retired population would be growing faster than the workforce (as of 2010 about 1.5 million more people leave the workforce through retirement per year than join it through starting employment. That may end up as much as 3 million more within 10 years.)
Since 1934 the number of people who live past the age of 65 has increased from 50% to 77%, with an average lifespan for those who do of over 80 years (the total national average life expectancy is 78, but 23% of the population don't make it to 65).
In 1934 there were about 7 million people in the U.S. over 65 out of a population of about 125 million (about half of which were working). In 2010 there were about 40 million over 65 out of a population of about 300 million (about half of which were working).
The ratio of workers to retirees started out at about 8 to 1 in 1934; but by 2010 had reduced to about 3.5 to one.
Also, inflation in America remained below 3.5% annual averaged until 1968; when it surged to over 10%, reaching almost 20% by the end of the 70s, and it didn't return to normal until the mid 80s (we are now averaging about 3.4%, but most expect inflation to top 10% again within the next few years because of the currency manipulations the fed is making on behalf of the last three administrations).
That 15 year surge of inflation devalued the contributions of every American from before 1968 dramatically, and the situation didn't normalize until 1984; such that all contributions from prior to 1984 are worth about 1/4 what they would have been on a constant dollar basis.
Basically, that period of inflation it took about 10-15 years of social security taxes and flushed them down the drain.
Now, it's around 65 years from 1945, and social security payments are set to exceed receipts within the next two years (or may have done so already depending on whose accounting you believe).
Exactly as one would predict based on how it's structured, and the economic and demographic makeup of America.
We have known this was coming since 1968... Hell we knew it was possible when social security was created in 1934; but assumed the demographics of America wouldn't change as dramatically as they did.
Then the baby boom happened, and the 1970s happened, and here we are.
Social security is a bankrupt fraud. A ponzi scheme. It always has been. The people of America have been conned, and they're angry.
Americans over 50, for the most part, feel they are entitled to their social security benefits. They were promised them, and they paid their entire working life thinking they were guaranteed... but it was a scam.
If social security was really insurance, or a pension, they'd be right. It would be theres, and no-one would be able to take it away. That's how the system was sold to them. Thats what they were taught for decades... and that is a huge lie. A con game.
Because of that "single greatest expansion of wealth in human history" thing I mentioned earlier, the crash didn't have to happen. Social security shouldn't be broke.
If Social Security had been run as a pension fund, it would be flush right now, and for the forseeable future; because all the contributions in excess of payments would have been making money for the last 77 years.
Remember, from 1934 until 1986, the workforce was still growing far faster than the retired population. Not only that, but real income (inflation adjusted) just about doubled (in 1934 the average household income was $1525 a year, an inflation adjusted $25,000. In 2011 the average household income is just under $50,000).
This means that for about 40 years, the surplus was actually about double what it needed to be just to be self sustaining (presuming a 4% annualized average return).
If it was a wisely managed pension fund, with an average rate of return, those surpluses combined with moderate and safe returns on investment would have insured retirees an excellent income; while covering the big demographic hole for the next 30 years, as the rate of retirees exceed the rate of people entering the work force.
However, instead of actually investing that money, congress used it as part of the general fund, in order to make their budget deficits look smaller than they really were (and have done so every year since 1958). No actual investment has been made... in fact they've used those funds to justify even more borrowing and spending.
The thing is, Social Security was never actually organized as an annuity or insurance plan, or even as a conventional pension plan; as it should have been (neither was Medicare/Medicaid, nor state or federal "unemployment insurance" other than private unemployment insurance carried by employers and provided by non-state actors).
If they had been an annuity or a pension and post retirement health care plan; you would own them as your own assets, and you would receive far more from them than the current benefits schedule; plus you'd be able to leave them to your kids, take loans against them or use them as collateral, and set your own payout schedule.
Most people in this country work for about 45-49 years, and the average 22-34 year old today makes $25,000 per year, with wages generally slightly outpacing inflation (so it's reasonable to assume a constant dollar basis).
The contribution to Social Security and medicare that employers and workers combined is 15.2% of their annual wages and earnings (up to $106,800).
15% of that saved annually, earning 4% (just over the 50 year average rate of inflation at 3.4%, which is extremely pessimistic. The average rate of return on pension plans over the past 50 years is about 8%), for 45 years, and assuming never receiving a pay increase (again obviously not correct. The average 50 year old worker makes around $50,000) would leave a 67 year old retiree who began working at 22 and never received anything more than a cost of living raise a fair bit of money for their retirement.
What's a "fair bit"?
Try around $350,000. In fact, even if you just managed to save cash, with no pensions or investments whatsoever, you would have $170,000.
If instead we assumed a normal rate of pay raises (3% annual average across the entire workforce, plus inflation/COLA of 3.4%), and a normal rate of return (8% average for conservatively managed pension plans over the last 50 years) that fair bit turns into between $1 million, and $1.5 million
Oh and these are numbers after taxes, presuming taxes remain at current levels... which they probably won't. Historically, since the 1960s taxes have gone down in this country, but that's almost certainly about to change.
Also remember, this is on a constant dollar basis, so thats expected to rise with inflation. this is a purchasing power parity number with today.
That same 67 year old worker can expect about $15,000 a year from social security, or about $1275 a month (the average retired worker today receives $1180 per month, or $14,160 per year)... or could if the system actually worked, wasn't broken and bankrupt etc...
The average worker survives their retirement at 67 by 11 years. Even if you had only saved cash, and your savings had only kept pace with inflation, you'd be beating the "benefit' from social security, with about $1275 a month.
And of course, if you had a normal career, with a normal pension plan... Well, even being very conservative, you would have something like $95,000 a year.
More importantly, you would have an asset. It would be yours, to do with as you like. You could leave it to your kids, borrow against it to pay off your mortgage, or even take a lump sum to do so and not worry about a payment again... anything you wanted.
And of course, that ignores any asset value you may have, like a house with a paid off mortgage (which, ignoring the recent bubble, will on average increase in constant dollar value about 50% over the life of a mortgage), any other investments or savings etc...
Ok, but what about health care?
An individual health care plan runs about $4-5,000 a year in todays dollars, a family plan usually runs between $8000 and $12,000 (in most states anyway, some are much higher); which in the U.S. is generally paid 80% by employers and 20% by employees.
Since we are talking about individuals, let's presume you can continue that $5,000 a year cost post retirement, but paid out of your own retirement savings rather than medicare.
Even with just savings, presuming your 11 year average retirement you only come out slightly behind Social Security; and with any kind of investment whatsoever you come out at the least 100% ahead.
Note: i should mention that as of today, actually, in general, Americans between 65 and 75 are doing quite well. They have higher median income and assets and lower expenses than the median of the general population. However, the bottom 22% of seniors are not doing at all well, with social security their only real income, and medicare their only medical care.If Social Security and Medicare had been run as proper pension and health care plans, we'd have no problem with payments, and Americas older population would be rich.
But they're not run that way.
They are, and always have been, taxes; which are conventionally referred to as insurance, as basically part of a massive 77 year fraud.
Well.. 46 year fraud for the medicare portion...
Congress has been taxing everyone 15% for the "privilege" of earning wages, for the last 77 years; and using that money to pay for spending that gets them reelected. In return they have promised that you are "entitled" to a small payout, with the caveat that it's as much or as little as they want to give you, when they want to give it to you, for as long as they want to give it to you.
And yet, people defend this system?
In reality they don't. They defend the idea of the system they BELIEVE they had, because they were defrauded by congress for 77 years.
But it was all a lie.
Now, that lie is being exposed... and people are shocked, and angry. They want what was promised to them.
The politicians are smart enough to know that these people vote, and for the most part young people (who haven't believed they were going to get their social security benefits in 20 years) don't.
So, we're inevitably going to end up taxing the productive more, and accruing more debt.
There are about 150 million workers in the united states, earning an average of $25,000 a year; for a total personal income of about $3.75 trillion dollars a year (this year the actual estimate is $3.51 trillion)
However, only about 47% of those pay more taxes (including social security taxes) than they receive in net payments and benefits.
So that's about $1.85 trillion net positive income.
At this point social security is so broke, and the government has borrowed from it so much; that you could tax every productive worker at 100% of their income for 20 years, and STILL not make up the unfunded liabilities of the system (which currently stand at $18 trillion dollars for social security alone - $62 trillion for the whole shebang - , with an additional 1.4 trillion per year added for the next 20 years).
We'd still be 10 trillion short, and of course no-one would bother working at 100% tax rate, they would just become unproductive workers like the bottom 47%; not only not solving the problem, but making it worse.
Ok... how about we tax total corporate profits? Surely the "big corporations" can afford it, and if we take everything they make, that should cover it right?
Well, no.
Total corporate profits in the U.S. are about $6 trillion annually, and have actually been pretty consistent on a constant dollar basis since the late 80s; minus the internet bubble and the housing bubble.
Ok, so we could tax them at 100% for four years and that would cover it right?
Well no, because if we did, total corporate profits would instantly fall to zero. There would be no incentive to produce profit, and companies would either close up shop entirely, or simply plow the money back into the business as expenses so as to show no profit.
And of course theres the fact that about 50% of all "corporate profits" are actually from small businesses; and half of those are form sole proprietorships or limited partnerships.
Basically your plumber, electrician, corner store owner, mom and pop shop...
Their "profits" are actually their only income... and they wouldn't be able to protect themselves from taxes the way a bigger company can.
50% of the employment in this country also comes from small businesses... You think unemployment is bad today at around 9% (officially. The "real" number is probably more like 15%) how bad do you think things would be if we went to 50% or more unemployment overnight?
Hell, why do you think unemployment is so high today, while companies are sitting on big piles of cash?
Simple: It's because the management of those companies is TERRIFIED of what congress, and this administration are going to do to them. They don't know if they're going to be able to survive whatever it is they do.
In past years, American business could count on the fact that politicians understood you couldn't slaughter all your cows to pay your bills this year, or you wouldn't have any calves to sell next year.
With the current congress and administration... Frankly, businesses see that as a scenario the government might try, in an effort to save their own skins against the rising tide of angry Americans.
OK, what about cutting spending?
Well, it's a great idea. It's something we should definitely do. We could probably cut spending by 20% or so and not have it significantly impact the lives of most Americans, or our ability to defend ourselves, and we absolutely should (that includes cutting 20% off the military, and off current entitlements etc... through waste cuttting and shrinking the federal government in general... REAL waste cutting by people who actually know how to do it, not congress... which won't happen of course).
... And don't try to feed me that con about reducing demand or understimulating the economy. Keynes was wrong, and Bastiat was right. It's all the broken window fallacy, and if you don't understand what that is, go look it up...
There's a problem though...
The remaining 80% of spending really is non-discretionary unless we completely restructure current entitlement programs.
The U.S. government will spend 4.3 trillion dollars this year, on projected 2.8 trillion in revenue; a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit.
A 1.5 trillion deficit is by the way, almost as much as the entire 1998 budget (the last "balanced" budget we had in this country... Actually it wasn't, the last actual balanced budget we had was in 1957 but a certain percent of federal spending is carried off books every year. 1998 had an actual deficit of about $60 billion); at 1.6 trillion... though there has been 33% inflation since '98 so in constant dolar terms the budget would be $2.1 trillion.
From $2.1 trillion in constant dollars to 4.3 trillion..
Not only have we more than doubled the constant dollar budget since 1998 (on 33% inflation, meaning the budget is growing almost 250% faster than inflation... not 50% faster, not 1.5 times faster... 2.5 times faster), we've almost tripled the gross debt from 5.6 trillion to 14.6 trillion.
Half of that 9 trillion increase in debt has been in the last two years. The Bush administration took us from 5.7 trillion to 9.8 trillion in 8 years... But the Obama administration managed to add 4.8 trillion in just two (and on pace to add another 4 trillion before January 2013).
By the by, Bushes last years spending was $3 trillion on $2.6 trillion in revenue, for an actual deficit of $400 billion... at the time thought of as enormously high (and about $200 billion more than projected, because of additional military appropriations).
Obamas first year actual spending was $3.5 trillion on $2.1 trillion in revenue, for a $1.4 trillion deficit. His second year actual spending was $4.5 trillion (almost $1 trillion over budget by the way) on $2.2 trillion in revenue.
Yes a $1 trillion dollar year over year spending increase, that can't be blamed on Bush, in a year that military expenditures were actually reduced, so you can't blame it on the war either.
Of course it isn't really Obama, it's congress; I'm just using the common popular rhetoric.
After this years "cuts" (which really aren't, they're just reductions in the planned increases) we're "down" to a 4.3 trillion planned budget (which doesn't account for overages and off budget expenses, which have for the last two years been more than $1 trillion each year).
Even if we make a 20% real cut down to 3.5 trillion, that still leaves a $700 billion deficit... and that's before you account for the $6.1 trillion a year in total unfunded liabilities we are accumulating... which without huge cuts in entitlements, at best we'll trim to $5 trillion.
In constant dollar terms, and minus the theoretical 20% across the board cuts from shrinking government (which need to happen, but probably won't); 60% of the increase in federal spending since 1998 has come from increases in social security, medicare, medicaid, and social spending programs. Only 20% has come from military spending, and only 10% from "infrastructure" and 'stimulus".
We have to cut entitlements and social benefits. The currently make up about 60% of government spending, and will increase to 100% of federal spending within 10 years (at todays budget levels) if we don't.
There is no choice. It has to be done.
Historically, the U.S. Federal government has never been able to achieve more than a 19% annual 10 year average revenue return on gross domestic product. If taxes increase they reduce personal spending, corporate profits and spending, and overall economic growth, to the point that revenues fall back below 19% within a few years.
At todays levels of GDP of around 15 trillion dollars (and currently not keeping pace with inflation, so it's falling in constant dollar terms; but historically we've grown between 4% and 5% annual average over the last 50 years, slightly outpacing inflation) we can sustain a real expenditure level of about $2.85 trillion.
Our revenues this year look like they're going to be about $2.8 trillion... or just about the maximum we can expect to get based on current economic production. There's really no room for long term "revenue enhancement", and short term revenue enhancement is counterproductive.
We can't tax our way out of it, that's the maximum tax revenue we can collect (at least for more than about 4 years... and the suppression of growth for the following six years will just make the 10 year average the same... so it's the real maximum).
We need to cut about $1.5 trillion from the budget, and a "real" expenditure level of over $2 trillion.
Annually, not over 10 years.
That would be a 20 trillion cut over 10 years if we want to report things the way congress likes to; not $100-$200 billion annual reduction in increases, as we just passed through congress.
$2 trillion, right off the top, no questions no comments no bluffing.
The most we can realistically cut without radically restructuring entitlements is about $900 billion (or 9 trillion over 10 years).
Oh and of course, thats without even starting to pay down the almost $15 trillion in national debt. Let's call it another $500 billion to be able to pay the debt off in 30 years; so $2.5 trillion.
Which, funny enough, puts us right back around 1998 constant dollar expenditure levels +$300 billion or so.
Let me ask you something?
Was 1998 really a horrible year? Was federal spending so low that it killed our economy? Were old people dying in the streets because they didn't have enough social security?
Of course not.
We COULD go back to that spending level in constant dollars (meaning adjusted for inflation since then). In fact, at current revenue levels, if we didn't feel like paying down the debt, we could increase spending by about 40%. Or we could actually use that to pay down the debt.
We can't tax our way out of it, we have to cut. It's that simple.
There is no solution to this problem that doesn't involve cutting spending by about 40%.
Let me repeat that:
THERE IS NO SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T MEAN A 40% SPENDING CUT
Or at least no solution that doesn't massively hurt everyone in this country for the next 20 or 30 years.
4% of that or so can come out of military spending, another 4% from discretionary spending (that's a 20% cut in each by the way, it's 8% of the total budget combined); the remaining 32% are going to have to come out of entitlements.
...And that's not going to happen.
Politicians won't do it, because they know they will lose votes.
The AARP and the left wing lobbies won't let them, even if the "right" had the guts to push it, which they don't.
The only thing we can do, is limit the damage as best we can, and work through the pain. There is no other option.
We are going to have to increase the retirement age. There is no other option.
We are going to have to reduce medical spending somehow. There is no other option.
A side rant on that topic... Between 60% and 80% of every dollar spent on medical care in this country goes to taxes, insurance, legal fees, administrative overhead, and regulatory compliance; almost entirely imposed by the government. That's an easy fix, but we won't do it, for the same reasons listed above.We are going to have to eliminate social security for everyone below a certain cutoff age; and move them to some kind of private accounts system as I describe above. There is no other option.
We have to do it now, or at least soon; because every year we don't the problem just gets worse. It was punting it down the road every year since 1974 (the first time the excessive entitlements spending problem was brought into the congressional sphere) that got us into the mess we're in now.
We have to do it now, because every year we don't the hurting gets worse, and the time it will take to gut through it gets longer.
We have to do it now... because we've run out of other peoples money to spend.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Holy fuckballs... they "caught" Whitey Bulger
Seriously?
Ok, let's get this out there right now. Jimmy Bulger was never REALLY on the run. People have known where he was at various times and places, pretty openly. He flagrantly travelled back and forth to Ireland using known aliases.
They never really went after him all that hard for that matter. The FBI would rather have had everyone forget about him, rather than try to put on a trial and drag up one of the most corrupt episodes in Bureau history.
Think about this for a second... This guy spent 16 years "on the run", never really trying to conceal his identity or change his looks; all the while on the FBIs 10 most wanted list, with a reward for any information leading to his capture...
... really... If the FBI had really wanted him, they would have had him.
Frankly... if Bulger got "caught", it's because he wanted to be caught... Or perhaps, because he didn't want to NOT be caught anymore (small difference, but important)
I'd say that Jimmy, or maybe Cathy Greig, wanted to go home. He's 81, he's been "running" since he was 65, his brother is now 77... I think he probably figured it was time.
And god help us if there actually is a trial... because Jimmy never had a problem stirring shit up. This is the guy who knows where the bodies are buried, because he helped bury them.
There are a hell of a lot of people shitting themselves from DC to Dover Maine this morning; spitting up their morning coffee as they watch the news and read their papers.
Honestly, unless you happen to be one of my family reading this linked off facebook, or happened to grow up in Mass, New Jersey, Chicago, Kansas City, or Louisiana; I doubt any of you reading this has any clue just how corrupt Massachusetts politics are...
Ok, let's get this out there right now. Jimmy Bulger was never REALLY on the run. People have known where he was at various times and places, pretty openly. He flagrantly travelled back and forth to Ireland using known aliases.
They never really went after him all that hard for that matter. The FBI would rather have had everyone forget about him, rather than try to put on a trial and drag up one of the most corrupt episodes in Bureau history.
Think about this for a second... This guy spent 16 years "on the run", never really trying to conceal his identity or change his looks; all the while on the FBIs 10 most wanted list, with a reward for any information leading to his capture...
... really... If the FBI had really wanted him, they would have had him.
Frankly... if Bulger got "caught", it's because he wanted to be caught... Or perhaps, because he didn't want to NOT be caught anymore (small difference, but important)
I'd say that Jimmy, or maybe Cathy Greig, wanted to go home. He's 81, he's been "running" since he was 65, his brother is now 77... I think he probably figured it was time.
And god help us if there actually is a trial... because Jimmy never had a problem stirring shit up. This is the guy who knows where the bodies are buried, because he helped bury them.
There are a hell of a lot of people shitting themselves from DC to Dover Maine this morning; spitting up their morning coffee as they watch the news and read their papers.
Honestly, unless you happen to be one of my family reading this linked off facebook, or happened to grow up in Mass, New Jersey, Chicago, Kansas City, or Louisiana; I doubt any of you reading this has any clue just how corrupt Massachusetts politics are...
Monday, November 08, 2010
"Correcting" the so called "Corrections" system
As of today, it should be clear to everyone in this country, that our system for dealing with criminals (I won't call it a "criminal justice" system since justice has so little to do with it), is utterly broken, beyond any conventional concept of repair.
At this point, again I say, it should be clear we can't just "fix it", we need to start over again, with a different concept.
I have a radical idea.... how about this time we start with an HONEST concept... because right now we are anything but honest about what the real function of the "criminal justice" system is; and that dishonesty is what has made all our efforts to date fail miserably.
Today, although we will never admit this to ourselves publicly, there are three things keeping the "Corrections" system going:
That's really what it comes down to though, is punishment.
Punishment isn't SUPPOSED to "help" them. Punishment isn't supposed to "rehabilitate" them.
The very term "department of corrections" is a hypocritical misnomer.
Americans (and to a large extent most other cultures), put people in prison to punish them, not to "fix" them.
"Correctional system", "penitentiary"... All high minded hypocritical myths.
The reason "Sheriff Joe" "Americas Toughest Sherrif" is so popular (despite being the worst sort of self aggrandizing, corrupt, civil rights abusing scum) is because he reassures people that he is "punishing the bad guys"; and THAT is honestly what people want.
Eastern State Penitentiary, the first "modern" penitentiary style prison, was deliberately fashioned to resemble monks cells (which is where we got the name for inmate housing units), in the belief that isolation, contemplation, prayer, and penitence (thus the name), would reform criminals into decent men. It was held up as the new "humane" model. In reality it drove prisoners mad and they killed themselves, and each other, in droves.
So long as we refuse to acknowledge the true purpose behind "custodial sentencing" and pretend it has anything to do with the offender coming out better on the other side, we are stuck with what we've got (And rapidly getting worse).
We have to stop pretending that punishment does anything but feed our base emotions.
We have to stop pretending that the negative prospect of prison is sufficient to deter criminals from committing crimes. Most criminals by nature have a poor appreciation for consequences, poor impulse control, and an inability to make valid risk/reward calculations.
When you put a criminal away, all you are doing is warehousing him where he can't commit that crime anymore. That does serve a valid purpose, but it costs a huge amount of money, and doesn't fix the problem.
The so called "criminal justice" system can no longer serve as a jobs program for law enforcement, lawyers, administrators, and corrections personnel; nor can it simply be warehousing of offenders until we release them to commit their next offense.
So, here it is, really simple; my pie in the sky ideal for how to deal with crime and punishment.
This has to happen for ANYTHING to have any hope of working. That would eliminate something like 80% of the offenses in higher criminal courts, and drastically reduce prison populations (at least 40%, most likely something more like 80%).
Step 2: We must not only stop, but revert the proliferation of felonies
Right now, you can be convicted of a felony in some states, for as little as selling the wrong kind of fish at the wrong time. We have established a ridiculous number of offenses as "high crimes" (what felonies are intended to be); without any real justification or social purpose, except to inflate those whom the state can claim as convictions, claim higher punitive penalties from, or incarcerate for longer periods of time.
Accordingly, all crimes currently classified as felonies must be reclassified as misdemeanors unless they meet one or more of the following conditions:
We must eliminate custodial sentences for non-violent crimes, including felonies, unless those crimes involve:
In this regard, any action taken while intoxicated or impaired should be considered qualifying, HOWEVER only if criminal damage or injury to others results.
I believe that people should be allowed to drink, swallow or smoke whatever they want, but if their choices cause impairment which then causes damage or injury to others, they should be punished SEVERELY; and crimes involving impairment should be considered intentional for purposes of determining severity.
Also for purposes of determining the severity of an offense, coercion or fraud shall be considered equivalent to force (force being defined as violence, or the threat of violence).
All other criminal offenses should be punished by restitution and compensatory and punitive damages to the victim, compensatory and punitive fines to the state, labor for public benefit, public humiliation, and two years of convict status (which can be reduced by order of a judge only after discharge of all obligations).
Further, on discharge of all other obligations, convicts shall be given a term, of "probation" equal to the length of their existing sentence.
The crimes, sentences, and photographs of all those convicted of criminal offenses should be published in all local newspapers, as well as on local and national web sites; and announced on local television.
All convicts should be required to wear a distinctive article (bracelet, necklace, ankle bracelet etc...) which lists their crime and sentence, and which cannot be covered up while in public.
Convicts must wear this article, until such time as their sentence and obligations have been discharged. At any time, the convict should be legally required to disclose their crime and sentence to anyone who asks; unless doing so would cause danger or disruption.
If a convict is able to earn more than a state mandated minimum wage in their private pursuits, they may continue performing them, and pay restitution and fines directly. If not, then they are directed to work for the state, at a competitive wage for such jobs as they perform, while meeting prevailing employment standards for such a position (i.e. if the only job they qualify for is ditch digger, it's the only job they can get; and they still have to compete for it with non-convicts).
If the convict is unable to meet basic standards of work, or is unwilling to work, then they will be reduced to menial forced labor at minimum wage. If they refuse this, they will be incarcerated, as a regular inmate, for the term of their sentence.
Restitution, damages, and fines should of course be directly garnished from the convicts wages; but should be considered pre-tax income deductions for tax purposes.
All custodial sentences shall have terms of two, five, ten, twenty five years, or life (or death in states that allow it).
Different charged offenses can be combined consecutively to "stack" sentences; but only if those offenses make up separate criminal acts (if one crime involved 8 different chargeable elements with a 2 year sentence for each, then the convict would recieve 8 two year sentences to run concurrently. If he committed the same crime on 8 different occaisons, he could recieve consecutive sentences, for a total of 16 years incarceration)
There is no parole, however sentences can be reduced (more on that later).
Forcible rape, aggravated sexual assault, sexual molestation, aggravated kidnapping, intentional premeditated or depraved homicide (what would be first degree murder in most jurisdictions), felony murder if the homicide is heinous by itself, any intentional negligent or depraved indifference crime resulting in mass death or mass grievous injury (mass being defined as multiple victims who were not individually targeted, or multiple victims who were unknown to the criminal and whom they had no individual an personal motive to harm), any crime involving tampering with a court or an election, any crime involving the intentional deprivation of an individuals basic human and civil rights (as enumerated in the declaration of independence, and the constitution), torture, espionage, treason; or any attempt to commit those crimes, or conspiracy to commit those crimes; shall all be considered "heinous crimes".
Heinous crimes should all carry the maximum length of incarceration, and should be eligible for the death penalty in jurisdictions that allow it.
It is important however, that all state and federal laws about the definitions of these crimes must be clarified and harmonized to meet the highest standard of criminal act, and criminal intent (for example, a potentially but not explicitly sexual element to a simple assault - such as public nudity or forced nudity -, would not make it sexual assault. The intent and act must be sexual in nature, and involve sexual contact or acts, or attempted sexual contact or acts. Forcible rape must be limited to actual acts of physical violence, or coercion by threat of violence, resulting in a sexual act).
Oh and yes, I really do believe that voter fraud and election fraud should be punishable by life in prison. So should criminally preventing someone from voting who has the lawful franchise. Any criminal deprivation of rights should be considered as serious as rape or murder.
In addition to their custodial sentence, of course, all penalties that apply to non-custodial sentences would also apply. Restitution, damages, fines and fees, as well as all other conditions of convicts.
Sentences can be reduced, by a judge, on review of the case, and circumstances. A review will be automatically initiated at the time the convict discharges their restitution, damages, and fines, should they do so before the term of their incarceration is completed. Criminals convicted of heinous crimes however, would not be eligible for early release except for humanitarian reasons.
While serving a custodial sentence and incarcerated, unless disabled and unable to do so, the convict will be required to perform productive labor for at least 8 hours a day, five days a week; for which they will be paid at minimum, a base sum equal to the cost of their incarceration (for which they will be charged). They will also accumulate sick leave benefit, and paid vacation days, equivalent to a government employee of the same grade as whatever productive labor they perform.
If the convict is disabled and unable to perform any work, they will be given the same disability status as any disabled individual; and will receive the equivalent of all federal and state disability payments and benefits, to offset the cost of their incarceration.
The convict is to be given the opportunity to voluntarily learn useful job skills, and perform at a useful job at market rates, which can earn them money to pay their fines and restitution.
If the convict has useful skills which can be applied to work that can be performed within the terms of their incarceration without undue risk, this is to be allowed.
The convict is also to be offered the opportunity to work overtime, and earn more money; to be used to pay the cost of their incarceration, their fines and restitution; the balance of which should be the inmates to control as they see fit.
This should not imply the inmate has a right to any job other than basic labor paid at a rate sufficient to cover the cost of their incarceration. Only that the opportunity to seek and perform other employment must be allowed.
If a convict refuses to work, or does not meet minimum standards of work, they are to be restricted to solitary confinement without public exercise, visitation, or communication privileges (excepting legal and spiritual council), and reduced to subsistence ration. Additionally, any work day the convict refuses to work, the cost of their incarceration for that day will be added to their obligations.
Some of this may seem ridiculous (vacation days for convicts?) but it serves an important purpose. The convict should understand, they are performing a job, for pay. They benefit from their own labor, and they have to pay for their own upkeep. If they work harder or more or at a better job, they get ahead; just like everyone else.
This kind of normalization is really the only way to produce people who won't reoffend when they get out. Get them useful job and life skills they can transfer to the outside world; and get them in the habit of meeting standards of behavior; you'll see a huge difference.
Any convict caught committing any felony while incarcerated will be subject to immediate extension of their sentence to life in the case of non-violent felonies, or death in the case of violent felonies. Self defense (against ANY crime or attempted crime against them, not just murder) is considered a valid defense against such charges however.
On their release from custody, convicts will be liable to the same penalties and strictures as those who have received non-custodial sentences.
Any further felony committed by any felony convict, whether incarcerated or not, prior to the discharge of any and all obligations (fines, restitution, service or labor), or in the convicts "probation" period will result in an automatic custodial sentence of at least five years; even for offenses that would not normally carry a custodial penalty.
Any violent felony committed prior to the discharge of any and all obligations shall result in an automatic custodial sentence of life in prison, or death.
On the discharge of their fines and restitution, and completion of any service or labor requirements, and any probation period; all convicts shall have all their civil rights restored, including the right to vote, and the right to keep and bear arms.
Private employers may discriminate against convicts, even after their obligations have been discharged, should they choose to do so. The federal, state, and local governments however may NOT discriminate against convicts whose sentences have been discharged however, except for those convicted of Heinous crimes (who should, in general, not be released anyway) or in the case of employment in law enforcement, criminal justice, corrections, national security, or the military.
Any repeat offense of the same felony, or any violent felony by a convicted felon who has discharged their sentence, shall cause a convict to be considered an incorrigible offender, and subject to an automatic sentence of 25 years, life, or death at a judges discretion (25 years for any crime that would normally rate a sentence less than 25 years. Life for any crime that would normally rate 25 years. Death for any heinous crime, or crime that would normally rate life). As always, this is subject to review and reduction by a judge after the convict has discharged their obligations (excepting heinous crimes).
I call this the "one chance, don't blow it" rule. I believe it is fully justified, because the nature and scope of felonies is being dramatically reduced; the standards for offense are much higher, and the ability of someone to reintegrate into society without re-offending should be much better under this regime.
That's it. Not exactly simple, but a lot less complicated than our current system... and if anything can work, it ought to be this.
At this point, again I say, it should be clear we can't just "fix it", we need to start over again, with a different concept.
I have a radical idea.... how about this time we start with an HONEST concept... because right now we are anything but honest about what the real function of the "criminal justice" system is; and that dishonesty is what has made all our efforts to date fail miserably.
Today, although we will never admit this to ourselves publicly, there are three things keeping the "Corrections" system going:
- It's a jobs program for law enforcement and "corrections" officers, and administrators
- Non-offending people ARE actually safer when offenders are imprisoned (the problem is, what happens when they get out).
- The punitive principle.
That's really what it comes down to though, is punishment.
Punishment isn't SUPPOSED to "help" them. Punishment isn't supposed to "rehabilitate" them.
The very term "department of corrections" is a hypocritical misnomer.
Americans (and to a large extent most other cultures), put people in prison to punish them, not to "fix" them.
"Correctional system", "penitentiary"... All high minded hypocritical myths.
The reason "Sheriff Joe" "Americas Toughest Sherrif" is so popular (despite being the worst sort of self aggrandizing, corrupt, civil rights abusing scum) is because he reassures people that he is "punishing the bad guys"; and THAT is honestly what people want.
Eastern State Penitentiary, the first "modern" penitentiary style prison, was deliberately fashioned to resemble monks cells (which is where we got the name for inmate housing units), in the belief that isolation, contemplation, prayer, and penitence (thus the name), would reform criminals into decent men. It was held up as the new "humane" model. In reality it drove prisoners mad and they killed themselves, and each other, in droves.
So long as we refuse to acknowledge the true purpose behind "custodial sentencing" and pretend it has anything to do with the offender coming out better on the other side, we are stuck with what we've got (And rapidly getting worse).
We have to stop pretending that punishment does anything but feed our base emotions.
We have to stop pretending that the negative prospect of prison is sufficient to deter criminals from committing crimes. Most criminals by nature have a poor appreciation for consequences, poor impulse control, and an inability to make valid risk/reward calculations.
When you put a criminal away, all you are doing is warehousing him where he can't commit that crime anymore. That does serve a valid purpose, but it costs a huge amount of money, and doesn't fix the problem.
The so called "criminal justice" system can no longer serve as a jobs program for law enforcement, lawyers, administrators, and corrections personnel; nor can it simply be warehousing of offenders until we release them to commit their next offense.
So, here it is, really simple; my pie in the sky ideal for how to deal with crime and punishment.
Step 1: drug addiction, possession, use, and sale, must be decriminalized
This has to happen for ANYTHING to have any hope of working. That would eliminate something like 80% of the offenses in higher criminal courts, and drastically reduce prison populations (at least 40%, most likely something more like 80%).
Step 2: We must not only stop, but revert the proliferation of felonies
Right now, you can be convicted of a felony in some states, for as little as selling the wrong kind of fish at the wrong time. We have established a ridiculous number of offenses as "high crimes" (what felonies are intended to be); without any real justification or social purpose, except to inflate those whom the state can claim as convictions, claim higher punitive penalties from, or incarcerate for longer periods of time.
Accordingly, all crimes currently classified as felonies must be reclassified as misdemeanors unless they meet one or more of the following conditions:
- Physical violence sufficient to cause grievous bodily harm, grievous trauma (such as rape and molestation), or substantial risk of loss of life (or more).
- Physical or monetary damages equal to or greater than two years income at minimum wage, presuming a 1940 hour work year.
- Crimes against basic human rights, including terrorism, tampering with courts, deprivation of rights etc...
- Grave harm to the national security of the united states, including espionage and treason.
- Criminal negligence, gross indifference, coercion, conspiracy, or fraud sufficient to cause the above.
Step 3: We must completely overhaul our punishment and societal protection model
We must eliminate custodial sentences for non-violent crimes, including felonies, unless those crimes involve:
- Gross negligence or indifference leading to violent consequences or the loss of life (anything from drunk driving to greater liability issues)
- Coercion, force or fraud causing damages in excess of five years of minimum wage (because this is effectively slavery for the victim)
- Special circumstances which are considered "heinous" (more on that later).
In this regard, any action taken while intoxicated or impaired should be considered qualifying, HOWEVER only if criminal damage or injury to others results.
I believe that people should be allowed to drink, swallow or smoke whatever they want, but if their choices cause impairment which then causes damage or injury to others, they should be punished SEVERELY; and crimes involving impairment should be considered intentional for purposes of determining severity.
Also for purposes of determining the severity of an offense, coercion or fraud shall be considered equivalent to force (force being defined as violence, or the threat of violence).
All other criminal offenses should be punished by restitution and compensatory and punitive damages to the victim, compensatory and punitive fines to the state, labor for public benefit, public humiliation, and two years of convict status (which can be reduced by order of a judge only after discharge of all obligations).
Further, on discharge of all other obligations, convicts shall be given a term, of "probation" equal to the length of their existing sentence.
The crimes, sentences, and photographs of all those convicted of criminal offenses should be published in all local newspapers, as well as on local and national web sites; and announced on local television.
All convicts should be required to wear a distinctive article (bracelet, necklace, ankle bracelet etc...) which lists their crime and sentence, and which cannot be covered up while in public.
Convicts must wear this article, until such time as their sentence and obligations have been discharged. At any time, the convict should be legally required to disclose their crime and sentence to anyone who asks; unless doing so would cause danger or disruption.
If a convict is able to earn more than a state mandated minimum wage in their private pursuits, they may continue performing them, and pay restitution and fines directly. If not, then they are directed to work for the state, at a competitive wage for such jobs as they perform, while meeting prevailing employment standards for such a position (i.e. if the only job they qualify for is ditch digger, it's the only job they can get; and they still have to compete for it with non-convicts).
If the convict is unable to meet basic standards of work, or is unwilling to work, then they will be reduced to menial forced labor at minimum wage. If they refuse this, they will be incarcerated, as a regular inmate, for the term of their sentence.
Restitution, damages, and fines should of course be directly garnished from the convicts wages; but should be considered pre-tax income deductions for tax purposes.
All custodial sentences shall have terms of two, five, ten, twenty five years, or life (or death in states that allow it).
Different charged offenses can be combined consecutively to "stack" sentences; but only if those offenses make up separate criminal acts (if one crime involved 8 different chargeable elements with a 2 year sentence for each, then the convict would recieve 8 two year sentences to run concurrently. If he committed the same crime on 8 different occaisons, he could recieve consecutive sentences, for a total of 16 years incarceration)
There is no parole, however sentences can be reduced (more on that later).
Forcible rape, aggravated sexual assault, sexual molestation, aggravated kidnapping, intentional premeditated or depraved homicide (what would be first degree murder in most jurisdictions), felony murder if the homicide is heinous by itself, any intentional negligent or depraved indifference crime resulting in mass death or mass grievous injury (mass being defined as multiple victims who were not individually targeted, or multiple victims who were unknown to the criminal and whom they had no individual an personal motive to harm), any crime involving tampering with a court or an election, any crime involving the intentional deprivation of an individuals basic human and civil rights (as enumerated in the declaration of independence, and the constitution), torture, espionage, treason; or any attempt to commit those crimes, or conspiracy to commit those crimes; shall all be considered "heinous crimes".
Heinous crimes should all carry the maximum length of incarceration, and should be eligible for the death penalty in jurisdictions that allow it.
It is important however, that all state and federal laws about the definitions of these crimes must be clarified and harmonized to meet the highest standard of criminal act, and criminal intent (for example, a potentially but not explicitly sexual element to a simple assault - such as public nudity or forced nudity -, would not make it sexual assault. The intent and act must be sexual in nature, and involve sexual contact or acts, or attempted sexual contact or acts. Forcible rape must be limited to actual acts of physical violence, or coercion by threat of violence, resulting in a sexual act).
Oh and yes, I really do believe that voter fraud and election fraud should be punishable by life in prison. So should criminally preventing someone from voting who has the lawful franchise. Any criminal deprivation of rights should be considered as serious as rape or murder.
In addition to their custodial sentence, of course, all penalties that apply to non-custodial sentences would also apply. Restitution, damages, fines and fees, as well as all other conditions of convicts.
Sentences can be reduced, by a judge, on review of the case, and circumstances. A review will be automatically initiated at the time the convict discharges their restitution, damages, and fines, should they do so before the term of their incarceration is completed. Criminals convicted of heinous crimes however, would not be eligible for early release except for humanitarian reasons.
While serving a custodial sentence and incarcerated, unless disabled and unable to do so, the convict will be required to perform productive labor for at least 8 hours a day, five days a week; for which they will be paid at minimum, a base sum equal to the cost of their incarceration (for which they will be charged). They will also accumulate sick leave benefit, and paid vacation days, equivalent to a government employee of the same grade as whatever productive labor they perform.
If the convict is disabled and unable to perform any work, they will be given the same disability status as any disabled individual; and will receive the equivalent of all federal and state disability payments and benefits, to offset the cost of their incarceration.
The convict is to be given the opportunity to voluntarily learn useful job skills, and perform at a useful job at market rates, which can earn them money to pay their fines and restitution.
If the convict has useful skills which can be applied to work that can be performed within the terms of their incarceration without undue risk, this is to be allowed.
The convict is also to be offered the opportunity to work overtime, and earn more money; to be used to pay the cost of their incarceration, their fines and restitution; the balance of which should be the inmates to control as they see fit.
This should not imply the inmate has a right to any job other than basic labor paid at a rate sufficient to cover the cost of their incarceration. Only that the opportunity to seek and perform other employment must be allowed.
If a convict refuses to work, or does not meet minimum standards of work, they are to be restricted to solitary confinement without public exercise, visitation, or communication privileges (excepting legal and spiritual council), and reduced to subsistence ration. Additionally, any work day the convict refuses to work, the cost of their incarceration for that day will be added to their obligations.
Some of this may seem ridiculous (vacation days for convicts?) but it serves an important purpose. The convict should understand, they are performing a job, for pay. They benefit from their own labor, and they have to pay for their own upkeep. If they work harder or more or at a better job, they get ahead; just like everyone else.
This kind of normalization is really the only way to produce people who won't reoffend when they get out. Get them useful job and life skills they can transfer to the outside world; and get them in the habit of meeting standards of behavior; you'll see a huge difference.
Any convict caught committing any felony while incarcerated will be subject to immediate extension of their sentence to life in the case of non-violent felonies, or death in the case of violent felonies. Self defense (against ANY crime or attempted crime against them, not just murder) is considered a valid defense against such charges however.
On their release from custody, convicts will be liable to the same penalties and strictures as those who have received non-custodial sentences.
Any further felony committed by any felony convict, whether incarcerated or not, prior to the discharge of any and all obligations (fines, restitution, service or labor), or in the convicts "probation" period will result in an automatic custodial sentence of at least five years; even for offenses that would not normally carry a custodial penalty.
Any violent felony committed prior to the discharge of any and all obligations shall result in an automatic custodial sentence of life in prison, or death.
On the discharge of their fines and restitution, and completion of any service or labor requirements, and any probation period; all convicts shall have all their civil rights restored, including the right to vote, and the right to keep and bear arms.
Private employers may discriminate against convicts, even after their obligations have been discharged, should they choose to do so. The federal, state, and local governments however may NOT discriminate against convicts whose sentences have been discharged however, except for those convicted of Heinous crimes (who should, in general, not be released anyway) or in the case of employment in law enforcement, criminal justice, corrections, national security, or the military.
Any repeat offense of the same felony, or any violent felony by a convicted felon who has discharged their sentence, shall cause a convict to be considered an incorrigible offender, and subject to an automatic sentence of 25 years, life, or death at a judges discretion (25 years for any crime that would normally rate a sentence less than 25 years. Life for any crime that would normally rate 25 years. Death for any heinous crime, or crime that would normally rate life). As always, this is subject to review and reduction by a judge after the convict has discharged their obligations (excepting heinous crimes).
I call this the "one chance, don't blow it" rule. I believe it is fully justified, because the nature and scope of felonies is being dramatically reduced; the standards for offense are much higher, and the ability of someone to reintegrate into society without re-offending should be much better under this regime.
That's it. Not exactly simple, but a lot less complicated than our current system... and if anything can work, it ought to be this.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Modern Jurisprudence is PROFOUNDLY Broken
Two contrasting stories out of the Supreme Court today, that bring home the fact that jurisprudence in this country is profoundly... hopefully not irreparably... broken.
First, from the New York Times:
and in a complete reversal of logic, this judgement:
It seems clear to me, that both of these decisions are examples where justices are deciding a case based on what they want to do and finding a way to justify it, rather than a considered opinion of the law and the constitution.
In the first case, the majority came to what I believe is the right decision on constitutional ground, but for what appear to be the wrong reasons. The minority on the other hand are supporting an unconstitutional practice, based on pragmatic considerations.
In the second case, the majority supported a CLEARLY unconstitutional practice for pragmatic reasons; and the minority dissented based on the constitution.
Both cases however, highlight a major problem with our "justice system" today: We can't deal effectively with our criminals, our prisoners, or our prisons.
There are many reasons for this of course, but what it comes down to, is that there are too many crimes, too many criminals, and too little honesty in how we deal with either.
Both of these cases are about recidivism. The plain fact is, more than 40% of people who go to prison, go back. More than 60% who go to prison for violent crimes go back. More than 80% who go to prison for sex crimes go back.
There have been a number of attempts at dealing with these difficult facts; none of them effective, and most of them unconstitutional.
In the case of the criminals under 18 being imprisoned for life because of sentence enhancements... The problem here isn't that it's a 17 year old in prison for life for something other than rape or murder... Its that "sentence enhancements" even exist at all.
Firstly, I think the whole "global consensus" thing is not only irrelevant, but dangerous and unconstitutional (interpretation of American law should ONLY be based on the Constitution, and the constitutions of the several states)
Yes, the law evolves, and yes it is influenced by changing moral standards, which is influenced by world culture.
When we wrote our constitution, it was in large part based on principles inherent in English common law; as was the early constitutional scholarship and interpretation until we built up our own body of case law. The goes further back to the greeks, romans, even the Assyrians. Certain basic principles of law and justice are universal; or have filtered up through from the earliest formalized conceptions of both rights, and laws.
However, it is important that case law be consistent with the written constitution; and that any case law which is not be ignored in interpretation of future cases, and hopefully be reversed.
If the American people want to change their constitutions, they can. There is a mechanism for that. Until they do, there should be no other arbiter for American law than the constitution.
One of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence is that the law should be knowable, and predictable; not arbitrary and capricious. One should not need to follow "evolving moral standards" and case law in other countries, to know whether one is violating the law.
In a system where ignorance of the law is no defense, the law must be written and knowable. The fact that in todays world it is not; is not an indication that we have evolved morally, it is an indication that modern jurisprudence is profoundly broken.
All that said however I agree that the law in question should have been struck down, just for a different reason.
I believe that "sentence enhancement" conditions are themselves a bad thing. They are invalid and unconstitutional as far as I am concerned. A crime is a crime, and one should be punished the same way for the same crime, as everyone else.
Certainly, there can be special circumstances, but they shouldn't increase punishment; a maximum punishment should be set, and that's it. There should be discretion for judges to reduce sentences, but not to increase them. Three strikes laws, hate crime enhancements, all of them need to go.
The problem that three strikes laws are intended to solve (high recidivism rates), is more properly addressed by longer or more harsh initial sentences, combined with better rehabilitation and reintegration efforts, and a better running of our penal system.
In the second case, we again have an issue of inappropriate sentencing.
Genuine sexual predators (rapists, molestors etc..) need to be put away for life without parole, or they need to die (though I have grave reservations about the death penalty). Either way, they need to be permanently removed from society.
For some reason, we treat sex crimes as far less serious than major property crimes, or other violent crimes; as if rape were not every bit as serious as attempted murder (believe me, it is).
Some things require ultimate sanction, and serious sex crimes are among those things.
On the other hand though, we now classify the most piddling things as sex crimes. Right now, we have hundreds of 18 and 19 year old young men in prison around this country, for having consensual sex with their 17 year old girlfriends (somehow, we almost never imprison older young women for sex with teenage boys). We make people register as sex offenders for having consensual sex in the back of their cars in a parking lot...
Which just reinforces the point: We're broken both ways. We are far too harsh on one side, and far too lenient on the other; and just plain broken all the way around, because a sentence doesn't mean what it says it means.
The very idea that a state official can simply decide you are too dangerous to be let out of prison, EVEN THOUGH YOUR JUDICIAL SENTENCE IS OVER... It's disgusting. It's abhorrent to the very nature of our country, and our constitution.
Three strikes laws, sentence enhancements, sex crime laws... All are seriously broke; because they are attempting to deal with practical problems, in an impossible way. You can't achieve the goals they're trying to achieve, with the techniques and tools they are using.
We're broken. We need to fix it. We need to protect society from real criminals, real dangerous people, real evil people; and we need to provide a strong incentive for the "casual criminal" (and we are all "Casual Criminals" now). But we need to do it, without destroying what it means to be American.
In order to do this, we must first reduce our prison population, not by releasing the truly dangerous; but by DRAMATICALLY slashing the amount of people we imprison (both today, and in the future).
The first thing we need to acknowledge, is that the so called "war on drugs" has not only failed, but was wrongly conceived in the first place.
Imprisoning people for drug use simply does not achieve the goals it is intended to achieve. It doesn't reduce drug use at all. It doesn't reduce crime at all, in fact it increases it. It turns people who might otherwise be productive... or at least LESS of a drag on our society; into total dependents. It frequently makes them into "harder" criminals.
It just doesn't work.
Frankly, I think we should entirely decriminalize drug use and possession; even if we choose to maintain prohibition on importation, sales, and distribution.
Then there is the question of the proliferation of felonies... Damn near everything is a felony these days. Two students in Virgina were charged with felonies last year for THROWING SNOW BALLS. Schoolchildren have been charge with felonies for drawing pictures with guns in them...
Felonies are supposed to be reserved for "high crimes". Those things which must be punished by long term removal from society.
Does anyone really believe it is necessary to send someone to prison for two years, for serving hotdogs wrapped with bacon out of a cart (yes, that is a felony in several jurisdictions in this country).
The fact is, we classify far too many things as felonies, which simply should not be. We need to eliminate most of those felonies.
What it comes down to, is that we should reclassify most non-violent felonies as misdemeanors, and eliminate custodial sentences for them; substituting EXTREMELY HIGH fines, and supervised restricted release (ankle bracelets etc...).
Combined, that would reduce our prison population by more than three quarters immediately (the drug changes alone would cover 60%). This would allow us to deal with the remainder of that population more appropriately. More harshly for those who need it, and with a higher focus on rehabilitation for those who are willing to make the effort.
Importantly, it would allow us to eliminate early release for those who have not made serious and genuine rehabilitation efforts; allowing prison officials and judges to exercise discretion appropriately.
Perhaps when we no longer have to be so concerned about overcrowding, and inappropriate early releases, and imprisoning those who should not be; we can restore some sanity to the system as a whole.
But that's all related to the practical issue.. The pragamatic justice as it were..
The bigger issue here, is that under todays conception of jurisprudence, it is impossible to know or understand whether you are breaking the law or not. Whether your crime is a felony or not. Exactly what that crime might be, or what the punishment for it might be.
That isn't law, or justice; and it isn't what our country is supposed to be.
First, from the New York Times:
NO MORE LIFE SENTENCES FOR MINORS WHO HAVEN'T MURDERED.... In yet another 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court said this morning that incarcerated minors can't receive life sentences if they haven't killed anyone.
By a 5-4 vote Monday, the court says the Constitution requires that young people serving life sentences must at least be considered for release.
The court ruled in the case of Terrance Graham, who was implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17. Graham, now 22, is in prison in Florida, which holds more than 70 percent of juvenile defendants locked up for life for crimes other than homicide.
"The state has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a nonhomicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. "This the Eighth Amendment does not permit."
The Eighth Amendment, of course, prohibits cruel and unusual punishments.
Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts also sided with the minority, though he agreed with the majority on the specific case of Terrance Graham's fate.
In Justice Kennedy's majority ruling, he made note of the "global consensus" against life-sentences for youths who haven't committed murder. The sentence will likely enrage the far-right, which tends to throw a fit when justices take note of international developments.
In a concurrence, Stevens, joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor, threw an elbow at one of their colleagues: "While Justice Thomas would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old ... Court wisely rejects his static approach to the law. Standards of decency have evolved since 1980. They will never stop doing so."
and in a complete reversal of logic, this judgement:
AP: High Court: 'Sexually Dangerous' Can Be Kept in Prison
WASHINGTON (May 17) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered "sexually dangerous" after their prison terms are complete.
The high court reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered "sexually dangerous."
"The statute is a 'necessary and proper' means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned by who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others," said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.
President George W. Bush in 2006 signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which authorized the civil commitment of sexually dangerous federal inmates.
The act, named after the son of "America's Most Wanted" television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.
A fifth man who also was part of the legal challenge was charged with child sex abuse, but declared incompetent to stand trial.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the government to hold indefinitely people who are considered "sexually dangerous."
But "we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress legislative power sufficient to enact" this law, Breyer said.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying Congress can only pass laws that deal with the federal powers listed in the Constitution.
Nothing in the Constitution "expressly delegates to Congress the power to enact a civil commitment regime for sexually dangerous persons, nor does any other provision in the Constitution vest Congress or the other branches of the federal government with such a power," Thomas said.
Thomas was joined in part on his dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia.
It seems clear to me, that both of these decisions are examples where justices are deciding a case based on what they want to do and finding a way to justify it, rather than a considered opinion of the law and the constitution.
In the first case, the majority came to what I believe is the right decision on constitutional ground, but for what appear to be the wrong reasons. The minority on the other hand are supporting an unconstitutional practice, based on pragmatic considerations.
In the second case, the majority supported a CLEARLY unconstitutional practice for pragmatic reasons; and the minority dissented based on the constitution.
Both cases however, highlight a major problem with our "justice system" today: We can't deal effectively with our criminals, our prisoners, or our prisons.
There are many reasons for this of course, but what it comes down to, is that there are too many crimes, too many criminals, and too little honesty in how we deal with either.
Both of these cases are about recidivism. The plain fact is, more than 40% of people who go to prison, go back. More than 60% who go to prison for violent crimes go back. More than 80% who go to prison for sex crimes go back.
There have been a number of attempts at dealing with these difficult facts; none of them effective, and most of them unconstitutional.
In the case of the criminals under 18 being imprisoned for life because of sentence enhancements... The problem here isn't that it's a 17 year old in prison for life for something other than rape or murder... Its that "sentence enhancements" even exist at all.
Firstly, I think the whole "global consensus" thing is not only irrelevant, but dangerous and unconstitutional (interpretation of American law should ONLY be based on the Constitution, and the constitutions of the several states)
Yes, the law evolves, and yes it is influenced by changing moral standards, which is influenced by world culture.
When we wrote our constitution, it was in large part based on principles inherent in English common law; as was the early constitutional scholarship and interpretation until we built up our own body of case law. The goes further back to the greeks, romans, even the Assyrians. Certain basic principles of law and justice are universal; or have filtered up through from the earliest formalized conceptions of both rights, and laws.
However, it is important that case law be consistent with the written constitution; and that any case law which is not be ignored in interpretation of future cases, and hopefully be reversed.
If the American people want to change their constitutions, they can. There is a mechanism for that. Until they do, there should be no other arbiter for American law than the constitution.
One of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence is that the law should be knowable, and predictable; not arbitrary and capricious. One should not need to follow "evolving moral standards" and case law in other countries, to know whether one is violating the law.
In a system where ignorance of the law is no defense, the law must be written and knowable. The fact that in todays world it is not; is not an indication that we have evolved morally, it is an indication that modern jurisprudence is profoundly broken.
All that said however I agree that the law in question should have been struck down, just for a different reason.
I believe that "sentence enhancement" conditions are themselves a bad thing. They are invalid and unconstitutional as far as I am concerned. A crime is a crime, and one should be punished the same way for the same crime, as everyone else.
Certainly, there can be special circumstances, but they shouldn't increase punishment; a maximum punishment should be set, and that's it. There should be discretion for judges to reduce sentences, but not to increase them. Three strikes laws, hate crime enhancements, all of them need to go.
The problem that three strikes laws are intended to solve (high recidivism rates), is more properly addressed by longer or more harsh initial sentences, combined with better rehabilitation and reintegration efforts, and a better running of our penal system.
In the second case, we again have an issue of inappropriate sentencing.
Genuine sexual predators (rapists, molestors etc..) need to be put away for life without parole, or they need to die (though I have grave reservations about the death penalty). Either way, they need to be permanently removed from society.
For some reason, we treat sex crimes as far less serious than major property crimes, or other violent crimes; as if rape were not every bit as serious as attempted murder (believe me, it is).
Some things require ultimate sanction, and serious sex crimes are among those things.
On the other hand though, we now classify the most piddling things as sex crimes. Right now, we have hundreds of 18 and 19 year old young men in prison around this country, for having consensual sex with their 17 year old girlfriends (somehow, we almost never imprison older young women for sex with teenage boys). We make people register as sex offenders for having consensual sex in the back of their cars in a parking lot...
Which just reinforces the point: We're broken both ways. We are far too harsh on one side, and far too lenient on the other; and just plain broken all the way around, because a sentence doesn't mean what it says it means.
The very idea that a state official can simply decide you are too dangerous to be let out of prison, EVEN THOUGH YOUR JUDICIAL SENTENCE IS OVER... It's disgusting. It's abhorrent to the very nature of our country, and our constitution.
Three strikes laws, sentence enhancements, sex crime laws... All are seriously broke; because they are attempting to deal with practical problems, in an impossible way. You can't achieve the goals they're trying to achieve, with the techniques and tools they are using.
We're broken. We need to fix it. We need to protect society from real criminals, real dangerous people, real evil people; and we need to provide a strong incentive for the "casual criminal" (and we are all "Casual Criminals" now). But we need to do it, without destroying what it means to be American.
In order to do this, we must first reduce our prison population, not by releasing the truly dangerous; but by DRAMATICALLY slashing the amount of people we imprison (both today, and in the future).
The first thing we need to acknowledge, is that the so called "war on drugs" has not only failed, but was wrongly conceived in the first place.
Imprisoning people for drug use simply does not achieve the goals it is intended to achieve. It doesn't reduce drug use at all. It doesn't reduce crime at all, in fact it increases it. It turns people who might otherwise be productive... or at least LESS of a drag on our society; into total dependents. It frequently makes them into "harder" criminals.
It just doesn't work.
Frankly, I think we should entirely decriminalize drug use and possession; even if we choose to maintain prohibition on importation, sales, and distribution.
Then there is the question of the proliferation of felonies... Damn near everything is a felony these days. Two students in Virgina were charged with felonies last year for THROWING SNOW BALLS. Schoolchildren have been charge with felonies for drawing pictures with guns in them...
Felonies are supposed to be reserved for "high crimes". Those things which must be punished by long term removal from society.
Does anyone really believe it is necessary to send someone to prison for two years, for serving hotdogs wrapped with bacon out of a cart (yes, that is a felony in several jurisdictions in this country).
The fact is, we classify far too many things as felonies, which simply should not be. We need to eliminate most of those felonies.
What it comes down to, is that we should reclassify most non-violent felonies as misdemeanors, and eliminate custodial sentences for them; substituting EXTREMELY HIGH fines, and supervised restricted release (ankle bracelets etc...).
Combined, that would reduce our prison population by more than three quarters immediately (the drug changes alone would cover 60%). This would allow us to deal with the remainder of that population more appropriately. More harshly for those who need it, and with a higher focus on rehabilitation for those who are willing to make the effort.
Importantly, it would allow us to eliminate early release for those who have not made serious and genuine rehabilitation efforts; allowing prison officials and judges to exercise discretion appropriately.
Perhaps when we no longer have to be so concerned about overcrowding, and inappropriate early releases, and imprisoning those who should not be; we can restore some sanity to the system as a whole.
But that's all related to the practical issue.. The pragamatic justice as it were..
The bigger issue here, is that under todays conception of jurisprudence, it is impossible to know or understand whether you are breaking the law or not. Whether your crime is a felony or not. Exactly what that crime might be, or what the punishment for it might be.
That isn't law, or justice; and it isn't what our country is supposed to be.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
So, why exactly are we supposed to feel sorry for this criminal idiot?
This sob story has been making the rounds the last few days, and I thought I would take a look at the math of it.
First, watch the video:
I'm sorry, but she DESERVES to lose her house. In fact, most of the people being foreclosed on deserved it. God know my mother deserved it.
But let's get back to this example in particular. Why on earth would a school bus driver (it never mentions what her husband does so maybe he has a better job) think that she could afford an $800,000 house?
I don't care if a lender "makes it too easy" for you, it's still your decision to accept responsibility, and you know what you are doing when you sign on an $800,000 house.
And don't try and tell me this woman was conned by predatory lenders. Commenters on other sites dug up the following public records:
She has owned a condo at 6001 Arlington #721, Falls Church, VA since 1999 (and still owns it).
She purchased 3438 Charles Street, Falls Church, VA on 1/05/05 for $510,000 and sold it on 6/10/08 for $429,000.
Her current home - 1920 N. Dinwiddie Street, Arlington, Va -was purchased with her husband (Luis Guillermo Flores) on 11/16/06 for $800,000.
What she is, is an unsuccessful flipper.
Again though, lets just assume she's a normal "homeowner", not a greedy and stupid flipper (nothing wrong with greed, but you'd better not be stupid at the same time), and go back to the numbers; because they just don't make sense.
This woman purchased a 5 bedroom 3.5 bath, 3500 sq foot house, on a 7500sq ft lot, in one of the most expensive suburbs of Washington (with some of the highest property taxes, at $0.89 per $100 assessed value).
Conventionally speaking, a person is usually considered to be able to afford a house between 3.5 and 5.5 times their gross income; depending on interest rates, creditworthiness, other assets etc...
In some markets, that would allow almost no-one to own a home (much of California for example), so standards have relaxed to as much as 7 times declared income.
In any case, your housing costs should be no more than 1/3 your net household income; and ideally no more than 1/4.
In order to afford an $800,000 market price home, under even the loosest standards, the household would need a declared income of about $117,000; or by more conventional standards between $145,000 and $235,000.
Ok, if she's a unionized bus driver, with government benefits, pension etc... and we assume her husband makes at least as much as she does... That could be within their range.
However, with a 30 year fixed mortgage at 5% that would require a payment of $4,300, not including PMI. No way did they put 20% down... I doubt they put anything down at all, so add another 1% annual PMI on, $8,000 a year or $667. At an assessed value of $800k at purchase, and a rate of $0.89 per $100, that's also an additional $7120 a year, or $593 a month in taxes.
$5560 a month...
Again under the best of circumstances, that would require a takehome of $16,680; or a gross income of around $24k a month (presuming a best case scenario of a 30% overall tax burden) or about $285k a year.
That seems somewhat out of reach of a school bus driver and her husband... unless her husband is a lobbyist, or a government "consultant" (it is Arlington after all).
As with the income multiplier, in some markets these cost percent standards would allow very few people to buy homes, so they've extended mortgage terms to 40 years, and are allowing up to 40% of monthly takehome to go to housing.
That same mortgage on a 40 year fixed at 5% (never happen, but lets play the game) is about $3900 plus PMI and taxes for about $5160 a month.
Oh and I know what you're going to say "Well, they didn't have a fixed rate, they chose an I/O option arm).
You're right, I bet they did. You know how much an I/O payment would be at 5.7% on an $800,000 house? $3900 before taxes and PMI. The exact same as the 40 year fixed.
Given a 40% housing cost percent allowance, that would require a monthly takehome of $12,900; or (again assuming just a 30% tax burden. highly unlikely) a gross income of $18,420 a month, or just about $220k a year.
Now, I'm not a bus driver. I'm a senior technical executive at one of the largest banks in the world. By senior executive, I mean there are 4 people between me and the CEO.
I don't make that much, or even close to it. In fact, I HAVE made that much, during the peak of the dot com boom when I was contracting at $240 an hour; but that wasn't "real" and everyone knew it. It was as much a bubble as the housing was (actually they're deeply related, and I'll talk about that in a later post).
Based on my actual income, and presuming a 95% loan (which you can't get anymore) and the same PMI and taxes, Bankrate says I could afford a house between $500,000 and $650,000 (I tried several permutations with slightly different results each time) and monthly payments of as high as $3500 a month.
I wouldn't consider those affordable personally, but that's what Bankrate says. By my own much more conservative standards, I'd say I could afford, at most, about $2200 a month. On a 30 year fixed at 5%, that would put me into about a $425,000 house without PMI or taxes.
My actual house is worth about $300k (or was when I moved in. Recently it was assessed at $225k) and my payment is about $1500.
Now even in the craziest days of the housing boom, you still had to at least pretend to meet that 40% monthly/7x multiplier requirement; and sign legal documents to that effect.
Which means in order to buy that $800,000 house, that "poor innocent victim" had to intentionally and knowingly commit massive fraud.
She may not think of it this way, in fact I'm sure she doesn't; but that woman is a nothing more than a fraudster. Not only should she be foreclosed on, she should be prosecuted; as should the broker who worked the deal.
First, watch the video:
I'm sorry, but she DESERVES to lose her house. In fact, most of the people being foreclosed on deserved it. God know my mother deserved it.
But let's get back to this example in particular. Why on earth would a school bus driver (it never mentions what her husband does so maybe he has a better job) think that she could afford an $800,000 house?
I don't care if a lender "makes it too easy" for you, it's still your decision to accept responsibility, and you know what you are doing when you sign on an $800,000 house.
And don't try and tell me this woman was conned by predatory lenders. Commenters on other sites dug up the following public records:
She has owned a condo at 6001 Arlington #721, Falls Church, VA since 1999 (and still owns it).
She purchased 3438 Charles Street, Falls Church, VA on 1/05/05 for $510,000 and sold it on 6/10/08 for $429,000.
Her current home - 1920 N. Dinwiddie Street, Arlington, Va -was purchased with her husband (Luis Guillermo Flores) on 11/16/06 for $800,000.
What she is, is an unsuccessful flipper.
Again though, lets just assume she's a normal "homeowner", not a greedy and stupid flipper (nothing wrong with greed, but you'd better not be stupid at the same time), and go back to the numbers; because they just don't make sense.
This woman purchased a 5 bedroom 3.5 bath, 3500 sq foot house, on a 7500sq ft lot, in one of the most expensive suburbs of Washington (with some of the highest property taxes, at $0.89 per $100 assessed value).
Conventionally speaking, a person is usually considered to be able to afford a house between 3.5 and 5.5 times their gross income; depending on interest rates, creditworthiness, other assets etc...
In some markets, that would allow almost no-one to own a home (much of California for example), so standards have relaxed to as much as 7 times declared income.
In any case, your housing costs should be no more than 1/3 your net household income; and ideally no more than 1/4.
In order to afford an $800,000 market price home, under even the loosest standards, the household would need a declared income of about $117,000; or by more conventional standards between $145,000 and $235,000.
Ok, if she's a unionized bus driver, with government benefits, pension etc... and we assume her husband makes at least as much as she does... That could be within their range.
However, with a 30 year fixed mortgage at 5% that would require a payment of $4,300, not including PMI. No way did they put 20% down... I doubt they put anything down at all, so add another 1% annual PMI on, $8,000 a year or $667. At an assessed value of $800k at purchase, and a rate of $0.89 per $100, that's also an additional $7120 a year, or $593 a month in taxes.
$5560 a month...
Again under the best of circumstances, that would require a takehome of $16,680; or a gross income of around $24k a month (presuming a best case scenario of a 30% overall tax burden) or about $285k a year.
That seems somewhat out of reach of a school bus driver and her husband... unless her husband is a lobbyist, or a government "consultant" (it is Arlington after all).
As with the income multiplier, in some markets these cost percent standards would allow very few people to buy homes, so they've extended mortgage terms to 40 years, and are allowing up to 40% of monthly takehome to go to housing.
That same mortgage on a 40 year fixed at 5% (never happen, but lets play the game) is about $3900 plus PMI and taxes for about $5160 a month.
Oh and I know what you're going to say "Well, they didn't have a fixed rate, they chose an I/O option arm).
You're right, I bet they did. You know how much an I/O payment would be at 5.7% on an $800,000 house? $3900 before taxes and PMI. The exact same as the 40 year fixed.
Given a 40% housing cost percent allowance, that would require a monthly takehome of $12,900; or (again assuming just a 30% tax burden. highly unlikely) a gross income of $18,420 a month, or just about $220k a year.
Now, I'm not a bus driver. I'm a senior technical executive at one of the largest banks in the world. By senior executive, I mean there are 4 people between me and the CEO.
I don't make that much, or even close to it. In fact, I HAVE made that much, during the peak of the dot com boom when I was contracting at $240 an hour; but that wasn't "real" and everyone knew it. It was as much a bubble as the housing was (actually they're deeply related, and I'll talk about that in a later post).
Based on my actual income, and presuming a 95% loan (which you can't get anymore) and the same PMI and taxes, Bankrate says I could afford a house between $500,000 and $650,000 (I tried several permutations with slightly different results each time) and monthly payments of as high as $3500 a month.
I wouldn't consider those affordable personally, but that's what Bankrate says. By my own much more conservative standards, I'd say I could afford, at most, about $2200 a month. On a 30 year fixed at 5%, that would put me into about a $425,000 house without PMI or taxes.
My actual house is worth about $300k (or was when I moved in. Recently it was assessed at $225k) and my payment is about $1500.
Now even in the craziest days of the housing boom, you still had to at least pretend to meet that 40% monthly/7x multiplier requirement; and sign legal documents to that effect.
Which means in order to buy that $800,000 house, that "poor innocent victim" had to intentionally and knowingly commit massive fraud.
She may not think of it this way, in fact I'm sure she doesn't; but that woman is a nothing more than a fraudster. Not only should she be foreclosed on, she should be prosecuted; as should the broker who worked the deal.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Precisely Wrong
Apologies, while they may hurt the pride (or the pocketbook) are easy.
A simple "I'm sorry. I screwed up. I'll fix it, and try not to do it again"... it isn't hard.
A sincere apology goes a long way.
Some people though, seem to be incapable of apologizing. Oh they may seem to say they're sorry, but... no that's not quite right is it...
"I'm sorry you were offended"... ummm, wait a sec... That's not actually saying you're sorry is it now... in fact that's rather saying "I'm sorry you were a whiny oversensitive idiot. It's not my fault, but I'm saying this to placate you"... or something like that anyway...
Last Monday, it came to the attention of the online gun community at large, that H-S Precision, a leading manufacturer of stocks for precision rifles, had sought out the endorsement of the former head of the FBI hostage rescue team sniper program.
This of course seems a natural thing, given that the FBI is a prestigious organization, HRT is an elite unite within the FBI, and that they use H-S precision stocks; this would be a great endorsement normally...
... but for one rather large thing; which has the online firearms community incensed, and calling for the boycott of H-S precision:
The former head of the sniper programs name, is Lon Horiuchi.
Why does this matter? What's in a name? Why are so many people so angry?
Lon Horiuchi is widely considered a murderer by American gun owners. He was in fact tried for manslaughter, but his bosses in the FBI and department of justice made charges go away by claiming a jurisdictional issue.
You see, Lon Horiuchi was the sniper who killed Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, while she was holding her infant in her arms.
Some background on the incident from an earlier post of mine, "Murder by Incompetence" from August 23rd 2007:
By the laws of most states, Horiuchis actions would be charged as manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, or second degree murder (again, depending on the state, and the exact totality of the circumstances).
The standard by which criminal negligence is decided in most states is thus (or similar): If the defendant knew or should have known, that their actions could result in a criminal act or criminal harm, then they are guilty of criminal negligence.
Further, some states have a concept of depraved indifference; where if one could reasonably foresee unjustified grave harm coming as a consequence of an act, and does it anyway, one is either criminally negligent, or worse. Some states elevate depraved indifference homicide to the same level as deliberate murder.
Lon Horiuchi knew, or should have known, that his rules of engagement were unlawful and unconstitutional. You cannot excuse "just following orders" when those orders are clearly unlawful. He acted on those orders, even though he could reasonably forsee unjustified grave harm coming to those subjects he was engaging.
He acted on those orders, and an unarmed woman with a baby in her arms died.
Based on this, Boundary county Idaho prosecuted him.
They indicted him, and brought him to trial; however the trial was ended and charges were ordered dismissed by a federal judge, who ruled that Boundary county couldn't try Horiuchi because he was a federal agent acting in the scope of his duties as an FBI agent; and that any prosecution would have to be at a federal level (the supremacy doctrine).
Idaho petitioned the US attorney and attorney general to prosecute Horiuchi, but they declined on the grounds of sovereign immunity (an agent of the state - specifically in this case a law enforcement officer - cannot be criminally prosecuted for acting within their duties, so long as they acted in good faith, and without negligence).
Idahos argument was that sovereign immunity did not apply, because the shots taken did not follow the FBIs shoot/no-shoot guidelines, or lethal force guidelines, and because the rules of engagement were clearly unlawful; however the FBI formally disagreed, stating that it was the onsite commanders call, and that Horiuchi behaved appropriately and in good faith.
As charging is at the discretion of the US attorney of the state, or of the attorney general (at that point Janet Reno); and feeling that the FBI had adequately dealt with the situation internally, they declined to prosecute.
Idaho then appealed the judges decision on the supremacy doctrine, and won; clearing the way to try Horiuchi again. However, by this time, several years had passed, a new county prosecutor was in place, the FBI was stonewalling, and the justice department was pressuring the state and county very hard to drop the case; so Boundary county declined to refile.
I realize this is a lot of background matieral; but you need to understand why it is that so many people are so upset about this.
Lon Horiuchi killed a woman with a baby in her arms, without justification, while acting as a sniper during an unlawful operation; and acting under unlawful and unconstitutional orders. He was charged, and tried, but got off on an administrative technicality and through political pressure...
... and a company making equipment for snipers, published a full page endorsement from him on the back of their catalog.
As has been said, that's a lot like having Bull Connor endorse your brand of firehoses.
At best this endorsement is a major gaffe, and a bit tone deaf. At worst, it's a deliberate thumb in the eye to the millions (and it probably is in the low millions. It's certainly at least hundreds of thousands) of Americans who consider Horiuchi a murderer (or something akin to it).
Those people, who just happen to be H-S precisions core customer base. Precision shooting enthusiasts, competitive shooters, the military, and law enforcement. I think if you were to poll all of the above, all of us (and I'm certainly in that group), even the majority of law enforcement snipers (and yes I'm sure every last one of them is familiar with the incident), would find this endorsement at the least stupid, and more likely offensive.
As it turns out however, the president of H-S precision, Tom Houghton Jr., is old friends with Horiuchi. In fact, it was in part that friendship which led to the FBI using H-S precision stocks on their sniper rifles.
You might say that Tom Houghton "owes one" to Horiuchi.
Clearly, the company knew about the incident, and knew about the opinion of the gun owning public; and did it anyway.
Now I'm speculating here, but based on the companies actions I think I'm justified in saying they did this because as far as president of H-S precision is concerned, his friend did nothing wrong.
Of course they did not state this publicly, as this would be suicide.
H-S precisions single largest customer is Remington Arms; who use H-S precision stocks on their factory custom rifles, their special police and marksman rifles, and their tactical rifles. All in all I believe Remington accounts for about 1/3 of H-S precisions business.
Last February, a gentleman by the name of Jim Zumbo; a 30 year veteran writer and hunting editor for outdoor life, and television host for the outdoor life channel, who had been sponsored by Remington for over 20 years; wrote a post for his Remington sponsored blog, in which he described the most popular centerfire semi-automatic rifle in the united states, the AR-15, as a "terrorist gun".
In this article Zumbo said that there was no legitimate use for an AR (or other "evil black rifles") and called for the AR to be banned from civilian hands; because the mere fact that they are available threatens his own preferred "hunting" guns.
Within hours of the post going up, outdoor life and Remington had received tens of thousands of emails and telephone calls. Over the next few days letters poured in.
Zumbo made one of those non-apology apologies, basically saying "hey sorry I upset you, but I didn't do anything wrong".
The very next day, outdoor life canceled his longstanding column, terminated him as hunting editor, and dropped him from their TV network. Remington canceled Zumbos sponsorship deals; and all his other sponsors followed suit.
Last week, the CEO of Remington Tommy Milner said the following:
They have unfortunately been oddly silent.
The morning after the story broke (I read it about 9pm the day of) I called H-S precision, but got voicemail. I left messages for both sales, and marketing; explaining that I was a customer of theirs, and also a writer and editor of several web sites, and I wanted to hear from them regarding the endorsement as soon as possible.
I called back this week, and again got nothing but voicemail. They have not been granting any requests for comment, or interviews for the now thousands of inquiries they have recieved; apparently including not responding to their major vendors and customers (according to people inside said vendors and customers; of course unofficially).
In fact, they have said exactly nothing for nearly two weeks since the story broke... until yesterday.
I've been waiting to write anything about this story until we'd heard from H-S officially.
Yesterday, H-S Precision released the following statement:
Clealry they are saying "well, we don't think we did anythign wrong, but we're sorry you were offended".
To add insult to injury, they did not send this to anyone directly, nor respond to any questions. They quietly put up a small "news" link in the upper right corner of their website, and released that statement without fanfare... perhaps hoping no-one would notice?
We noticed.
In the mere hours since this statement was released, even those who had previously been defending H-S precision have been calling for a boycott of their products... even going so far as to call for a boycott on anyone selling H-S Precision products, or otherwise doing business with them (such as Brownells and Midway USA).
On my part, I'll be canceling my order with them on Monday. I was waiting for the statement, now I have it, and I'm showing them exactly what I think about it.
I can only speculate about what the reaction of the rest of H-S's customers will be; but I predict this will be the end of the company.
This non-apology is in fact WORSE than Zumbos, because it is insincere and disingenuous; and because H-S precisions KNEW exactly what they were saying and doing than and now, and knew what our reaction (and yes I share it) as gun owners would be.
I expect we'll hear from Tommy Milner on Monday, announcing they have canceled their contracts with H-S. There may be legal wrangling involved, but Remington knows that they won't be selling another precision/tactical rifle with an H-S stock on it; or at least not to the non-leo/military market (government contracts are a lot harder to change).
I expect we'll also hear from Midway USA and Brownells (their two largest distributors) shortly thereafter, announcing they are dropping H-S.
Right now, there is exactly one thing H-S precision could do to save the company, if they're lucky: They could issue a statement condemning Lon Horiuchi, and his and the FBIs actions at Ruby Ridge; and profusely and sincerely apologizing to the Weaver family, and to the gun owning public for being so stupid and offensive.
Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen. I think Tom Houghton really believes that he did nothing wrong, and neither did his friend Lon Horiuchi.
This mans pride is going to kill his company.
Oh and Jim Zumbo? He's back at outdoor life (though he's no longer the hunting editor) and he's back on TV. He educated himself about the issue, and made a sincere apology, and to an extent, he has been forgiven (he will never be totally forgiven, nor totally trusted. That's just the way gunnies are).
A sincere apology sometimes goes a long way.
A simple "I'm sorry. I screwed up. I'll fix it, and try not to do it again"... it isn't hard.
A sincere apology goes a long way.
Some people though, seem to be incapable of apologizing. Oh they may seem to say they're sorry, but... no that's not quite right is it...
"I'm sorry you were offended"... ummm, wait a sec... That's not actually saying you're sorry is it now... in fact that's rather saying "I'm sorry you were a whiny oversensitive idiot. It's not my fault, but I'm saying this to placate you"... or something like that anyway...
Last Monday, it came to the attention of the online gun community at large, that H-S Precision, a leading manufacturer of stocks for precision rifles, had sought out the endorsement of the former head of the FBI hostage rescue team sniper program.
This of course seems a natural thing, given that the FBI is a prestigious organization, HRT is an elite unite within the FBI, and that they use H-S precision stocks; this would be a great endorsement normally...
... but for one rather large thing; which has the online firearms community incensed, and calling for the boycott of H-S precision:
The former head of the sniper programs name, is Lon Horiuchi.
Why does this matter? What's in a name? Why are so many people so angry?
Lon Horiuchi is widely considered a murderer by American gun owners. He was in fact tried for manslaughter, but his bosses in the FBI and department of justice made charges go away by claiming a jurisdictional issue.
You see, Lon Horiuchi was the sniper who killed Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, while she was holding her infant in her arms.
Some background on the incident from an earlier post of mine, "Murder by Incompetence" from August 23rd 2007:
As you can see, I don't personally consider Horiuchi a murderer; however it is abundantly clear, that he committed an unjustified homicide; which can be construed as several different crimes, depending on the totality of the circumstances, and the exact laws of the jurisdiction.
Yesterday was the 15th anniversary of the murder of Vicki Weaver by the FBI; and the day before, was the anniversary of her sons murder by US Marshals acting in concert with the ATF.
Yes, I said murdered by the government. Not just killed, but murdered. A crime was committed; and it has never been properly redressed.
Much of the attention and blame for this crime has fallen on Lon Horiuchi, the sniper who took the shot that Killed Vicki Weaver. I won't excuse what he did (he should have known better), but he was operating on very bad information, very bad orders, and under what I would consider clearly unlawful rules of engagement.
The greater culpability for this incident lies in the US marshals who were initially on scene; and from the FBI, HRT commander Richard Rogers, SAC Eugene Glenn, and deputy directory Larry Potts; who took over the scene after Kevin Harris killed deputy marshal William Degan in self defense.
On the morning of August 21st, during a botched surveillance operation; deputy US marshal Art Roderick fired at Sammy Weaver (Randy Weavers son) and Kevin Harris, or at their dog striker (this is unclear); killing the dog, and drawing return defensive fire from Weaver and Harris.
Deputy marshals Roderick, Degan, Frank Norris and Larry Cooper then opened fire on Weaver and Harris. Degan shot and wounded both Weaver and Harris, at which point Harris shot back directly at Degan, killing him. In retaliation, deputy marshal Cooper then shot Sammy Weaver; killing him.
At no time in this engagement, did the deputies serve a warrant, or identify themselves as marshals.
When the marshals called in the FBI, the situation they described to the SAC, was an outright lie. They informed the SAC and the HRT commander that the Weavers were radical religious fanatics, part of a white supremacist holy war cult; that all members of the family were armed and ready to fight at all times, and that they were going to kill their children and themselves rather than surrender.
The marshals also told the SAC that they had been pinned down for 12 hours by heavy small arms fire, and possibly automatic weapons; and that William Degan had been deliberately murdered.
Based on this outright lie, the FBI instituted rules of engagement to allow any adult with a weapon to be shot on sight. These ROE were clearly unlawful, and should have been rejected by the onsite agents (and a judge decided that as well later); instead HRT acted on them for a full day.
Within a few hours, the FBI chain of command knew that the marshals had lied; but they did not change the illegal rules of engagement until after Horiuchi had already fired several shots at Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris (wounding both). Horiuchis final shot at Harris missed him, and struck Vicki Weaver who was standing in the doorway that Harris was entering, holding her infant child.
I believe that Lon Horiuchi was negligent in his actions that day in firing through the doorway; and he was derelict in his duty to the constitution when he accepted the unlawful rules of engagement; but he did not commit deliberate murder.
It seems clear to me however that the marshals wanted revenge for the killing of William Degan, and to cover up their own unlawful acts and incompetence. In furtherance of this, they deliberately mislead the FBI in the hopes that the Weavers would be killed, and there would be no witnesses left alive to their crimes.
There is no doubt that Larry Cooper murdered Sammy Weaver, by shooting him (under whatever circumstances), while attempting to cover up the crimes and incompeteance of he and his colleagues. Further, there is no doubt that the US marshalls lied to the FBI in order to cover up their incompetence, and possibly their crimes.
At the very least, they should be tried for manslaughter, if not second degree murder; in the deaths of Sammy and Vicki Weaver.
Additionally, SAC Glenn, SAC Rogers and deputy director Potts knew that the rules of engagement instituted that day were illegal, unconstitutional, and unjustified. They should never have instituted those rules; but even in so doing, once they found they had been misled by the marshals they had an absolute duty to rescind them.
They did not do so, and their incompetence and misfeasance of duty directly caused the murder of Vicki Weaver.
Given these circumstances, Lon Horiuchi has been saddled, somewhat unfairly, with the majority of the burden of these crimes. I simply believe this is incorrect.
Horiuchi committed negligent homicide; but I believe his chain of command showed a depraved indifference to the lives of the Weavers, based on their political beliefs; and therefore committed second degree murder, or first degree manslaughter (depending on the laws of Idaho, which I am unfamiliar with).
By the laws of most states, Horiuchis actions would be charged as manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, or second degree murder (again, depending on the state, and the exact totality of the circumstances).
The standard by which criminal negligence is decided in most states is thus (or similar): If the defendant knew or should have known, that their actions could result in a criminal act or criminal harm, then they are guilty of criminal negligence.
Further, some states have a concept of depraved indifference; where if one could reasonably foresee unjustified grave harm coming as a consequence of an act, and does it anyway, one is either criminally negligent, or worse. Some states elevate depraved indifference homicide to the same level as deliberate murder.
Lon Horiuchi knew, or should have known, that his rules of engagement were unlawful and unconstitutional. You cannot excuse "just following orders" when those orders are clearly unlawful. He acted on those orders, even though he could reasonably forsee unjustified grave harm coming to those subjects he was engaging.
He acted on those orders, and an unarmed woman with a baby in her arms died.
Based on this, Boundary county Idaho prosecuted him.
They indicted him, and brought him to trial; however the trial was ended and charges were ordered dismissed by a federal judge, who ruled that Boundary county couldn't try Horiuchi because he was a federal agent acting in the scope of his duties as an FBI agent; and that any prosecution would have to be at a federal level (the supremacy doctrine).
Idaho petitioned the US attorney and attorney general to prosecute Horiuchi, but they declined on the grounds of sovereign immunity (an agent of the state - specifically in this case a law enforcement officer - cannot be criminally prosecuted for acting within their duties, so long as they acted in good faith, and without negligence).
Idahos argument was that sovereign immunity did not apply, because the shots taken did not follow the FBIs shoot/no-shoot guidelines, or lethal force guidelines, and because the rules of engagement were clearly unlawful; however the FBI formally disagreed, stating that it was the onsite commanders call, and that Horiuchi behaved appropriately and in good faith.
As charging is at the discretion of the US attorney of the state, or of the attorney general (at that point Janet Reno); and feeling that the FBI had adequately dealt with the situation internally, they declined to prosecute.
Idaho then appealed the judges decision on the supremacy doctrine, and won; clearing the way to try Horiuchi again. However, by this time, several years had passed, a new county prosecutor was in place, the FBI was stonewalling, and the justice department was pressuring the state and county very hard to drop the case; so Boundary county declined to refile.
I realize this is a lot of background matieral; but you need to understand why it is that so many people are so upset about this.
Lon Horiuchi killed a woman with a baby in her arms, without justification, while acting as a sniper during an unlawful operation; and acting under unlawful and unconstitutional orders. He was charged, and tried, but got off on an administrative technicality and through political pressure...
... and a company making equipment for snipers, published a full page endorsement from him on the back of their catalog.
As has been said, that's a lot like having Bull Connor endorse your brand of firehoses.
At best this endorsement is a major gaffe, and a bit tone deaf. At worst, it's a deliberate thumb in the eye to the millions (and it probably is in the low millions. It's certainly at least hundreds of thousands) of Americans who consider Horiuchi a murderer (or something akin to it).
Those people, who just happen to be H-S precisions core customer base. Precision shooting enthusiasts, competitive shooters, the military, and law enforcement. I think if you were to poll all of the above, all of us (and I'm certainly in that group), even the majority of law enforcement snipers (and yes I'm sure every last one of them is familiar with the incident), would find this endorsement at the least stupid, and more likely offensive.
As it turns out however, the president of H-S precision, Tom Houghton Jr., is old friends with Horiuchi. In fact, it was in part that friendship which led to the FBI using H-S precision stocks on their sniper rifles.
You might say that Tom Houghton "owes one" to Horiuchi.
Clearly, the company knew about the incident, and knew about the opinion of the gun owning public; and did it anyway.
Now I'm speculating here, but based on the companies actions I think I'm justified in saying they did this because as far as president of H-S precision is concerned, his friend did nothing wrong.
Of course they did not state this publicly, as this would be suicide.
H-S precisions single largest customer is Remington Arms; who use H-S precision stocks on their factory custom rifles, their special police and marksman rifles, and their tactical rifles. All in all I believe Remington accounts for about 1/3 of H-S precisions business.
Last February, a gentleman by the name of Jim Zumbo; a 30 year veteran writer and hunting editor for outdoor life, and television host for the outdoor life channel, who had been sponsored by Remington for over 20 years; wrote a post for his Remington sponsored blog, in which he described the most popular centerfire semi-automatic rifle in the united states, the AR-15, as a "terrorist gun".
In this article Zumbo said that there was no legitimate use for an AR (or other "evil black rifles") and called for the AR to be banned from civilian hands; because the mere fact that they are available threatens his own preferred "hunting" guns.
Within hours of the post going up, outdoor life and Remington had received tens of thousands of emails and telephone calls. Over the next few days letters poured in.
Zumbo made one of those non-apology apologies, basically saying "hey sorry I upset you, but I didn't do anything wrong".
The very next day, outdoor life canceled his longstanding column, terminated him as hunting editor, and dropped him from their TV network. Remington canceled Zumbos sponsorship deals; and all his other sponsors followed suit.
Last week, the CEO of Remington Tommy Milner said the following:
I happen to agree with Tommy Milner, H-S precision makes a good product. In fact, I had ordered a customized stock from them for my 1000 yard rifle project.
Because its thanksgiving and everyone is off, we have not made contact with HS. We have taken any reference to HS from our web site..
When you first emailed me I honestly did not recall horiuchi's name so you caught me unawares. I also do not read the blogs so the fact there was an issue came as a surpise.
In any event, HS makes a great product and we are a large customer of theirs. Why they would pick a super controversial spokesperson is beyond me. Doing this violates pure business common sense. Early next week we will use whatever persuasive powers at our disposal to get HS to do the right thing..
Do me a favor and tell those on the bolgs that Remington and I are now fully aware of the issue, in full agreement with the outrage, and will do what we can t exert pressure on HS to reverse course.
Thanks
Tommy
They have unfortunately been oddly silent.
The morning after the story broke (I read it about 9pm the day of) I called H-S precision, but got voicemail. I left messages for both sales, and marketing; explaining that I was a customer of theirs, and also a writer and editor of several web sites, and I wanted to hear from them regarding the endorsement as soon as possible.
I called back this week, and again got nothing but voicemail. They have not been granting any requests for comment, or interviews for the now thousands of inquiries they have recieved; apparently including not responding to their major vendors and customers (according to people inside said vendors and customers; of course unofficially).
In fact, they have said exactly nothing for nearly two weeks since the story broke... until yesterday.
I've been waiting to write anything about this story until we'd heard from H-S officially.
Yesterday, H-S Precision released the following statement:
Well, I can see a lot wrong with that statement... first, I think we should strike that "sincerely", because clearly there was nothing sincere about it.
To Our Valued Customers:
H-S Precision has received comments relating to individual testimonials in our 2008 catalog. All of the testimonials focused on the quality, accuracy and customer service provided by H-S Precision.
The management of H-S Precision did not intend to offend anyone or create any type of controversy. We are revising our 2009 catalog and removing all product testimonials.
Sincerely,
The Management of H-S Precision
Clealry they are saying "well, we don't think we did anythign wrong, but we're sorry you were offended".
To add insult to injury, they did not send this to anyone directly, nor respond to any questions. They quietly put up a small "news" link in the upper right corner of their website, and released that statement without fanfare... perhaps hoping no-one would notice?
We noticed.
In the mere hours since this statement was released, even those who had previously been defending H-S precision have been calling for a boycott of their products... even going so far as to call for a boycott on anyone selling H-S Precision products, or otherwise doing business with them (such as Brownells and Midway USA).
On my part, I'll be canceling my order with them on Monday. I was waiting for the statement, now I have it, and I'm showing them exactly what I think about it.
I can only speculate about what the reaction of the rest of H-S's customers will be; but I predict this will be the end of the company.
This non-apology is in fact WORSE than Zumbos, because it is insincere and disingenuous; and because H-S precisions KNEW exactly what they were saying and doing than and now, and knew what our reaction (and yes I share it) as gun owners would be.
I expect we'll hear from Tommy Milner on Monday, announcing they have canceled their contracts with H-S. There may be legal wrangling involved, but Remington knows that they won't be selling another precision/tactical rifle with an H-S stock on it; or at least not to the non-leo/military market (government contracts are a lot harder to change).
I expect we'll also hear from Midway USA and Brownells (their two largest distributors) shortly thereafter, announcing they are dropping H-S.
Right now, there is exactly one thing H-S precision could do to save the company, if they're lucky: They could issue a statement condemning Lon Horiuchi, and his and the FBIs actions at Ruby Ridge; and profusely and sincerely apologizing to the Weaver family, and to the gun owning public for being so stupid and offensive.
Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen. I think Tom Houghton really believes that he did nothing wrong, and neither did his friend Lon Horiuchi.
This mans pride is going to kill his company.
Oh and Jim Zumbo? He's back at outdoor life (though he's no longer the hunting editor) and he's back on TV. He educated himself about the issue, and made a sincere apology, and to an extent, he has been forgiven (he will never be totally forgiven, nor totally trusted. That's just the way gunnies are).
A sincere apology sometimes goes a long way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)