Tag: politics

The Evil Koch Brothers and Their Evil Compassion

This should blow a few Left Wing minds:

Koch Industries, in partnership with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, is financing a program to provide scholarships and training for public defenders. The grant will also pay for a review of indigent defense programs to see what works in providing legal representation to those who can’t afford it.

Charles G. Koch, the chairman of Koch Industries, said in a statement that the grant was a way “to make the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of an individual’s right to counsel a reality for all Americans, especially those who are the most disadvantaged in our society.”

The company’s interest grew out of its own experience during a criminal case in Texas and underscores a growing area of common ground between conservatives and progressives on criminal justice issues like sentencing reform.

The liberal echosphere has demonized the Koch’s for so long that I expect the response to this to be a) denial; b) animosity toward the NACDL. At least once a month I point out to some Koch-knocker that the Koch’s have long supported civil liberties, gay rights, the arts and sciences only to have proof demanded over and over and over again. The idea of the Koch brothers as Satan is so embedded with some political factions that they simply can’t process reality.

Eric Hoffer once said the following: “Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all the unifying agents. Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a god, but never without a belief in a devil.” Whether it’s the Koch Brothers, the NRA, the Tea Party or Big Oil, the Democratic Party can not survive without someone to demonize. Even if that someone is doing more to help poor people and right injustices than they are.

Massholes Prepares to Elect a Masshole; Texans Reject An Idiot; Reich Has No Shame

A few more notes on the upcoming election.

First, the Massachusetts gubernatorial race is a tight one between Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker. I’ve mentioned Coakley before. I don’t generally like the term fascist but … gee, what do you say about a person who persecutes innocent people based on discredited testimony and junk science but thinks cops who rape toddlers with curling irons should be let out on their own recognizance? What do you say about someone who embraces trafficking hysteria and makes such appalling arguments for the destruction of civil liberties that she is routinely laughed out of court by hard-bitten conservative justices? If Massachusetts elects a power-hungry power worshipper like Coakley, they deserve what they’re going to get.

I’m starting to believe that the Wendy Davis campaign is a false flag operation by pro-life activists. How else to explain how it has become such a hilarious implosion. Last week, she accused her disabled opponent of not caring about disabled people. When criticized, she had a “some of my best friends are in wheelchairs” press conference. This week, she’s decided she can win because of dildos and interracial marriage.

I guess it makes as much sense as thinking you’re going to ride pro-choice sentiment into Austin.

That post criticizes Greg Abbott for not saying whether he would support a ban on interracial marriage and for arguing in the courts in favor of Texas’ restrictive laws on sex toys. What the author doesn’t seem to realize is that Abbott is talking about his role as attorney general. As attorney general, he won’t deal with an interracial marriage case because the Courts have already struck down anti-miscegenation laws unanimously. I seriously doubt that Abbott, who is married to a woman of another race, would support restoring the interracial marriage ban.

As for the dildos case … again, Abbott was acting as attorney general. As attorney general, he has to represent the state and defend those laws, whatever he thinks of them. I have argued in this space before that I don’t think the executive should defend laws that are blatantly unconstitutional, such as a ban on free speech. But (1) that decision is left to the President (or the governor, in this case). The attorney general pushes the President’s position, no matter what he thinks of it or he resigns; (2) Texas’ dildo laws, while stupid, aren’t exactly the suspension of habeas corpus.

Wheelchairs, mixed races and dildos. The Davis campaign think they are onto a winner. I think their offices need to be checked for nitrous oxide leaks.

Finally, I won’t post the video, but I will link you to Hot Air’s post on a Move On video, featuring Robert Reich, the Littlest Communist in Washington. Reich argues that Republicans are going to use a little known procedure called reconciliation to advance … well, the usual Left Wing mythical playbook: tax cuts for the rich, the end of healthcare, fossil fuel interests, deregulation and OMG, it will be the END OF THE FUCKING WORLD!

Those of you with memories longer than an episode of The Big Bang Theory will recognize this “little-know procedure” as the way Obamacare was passed. The hypocrisy of Move On, their belief that voters are stupid, their condescension … well, it would be surprising if it were someone other than MoveOn.

Right now, the Republicans hold a lead in the polls and look likely to take the Senate. Democrats, who two years ago mocked Republicans for claiming the polls were skewed, are claiming the polls are skewed. Maybe they are, but there is one indicator that tells me that the Democrat are about to lose the Senate and possibly the White House in 2016.

Tone.

When I started blogging, way back in 2004, I noticed a pattern. If someone disagreed with me forcefully but respectfully, it was usually a conservative. If someone called me a fag, accused me wanting to suck George Bush’s dick, asked me how much money I was getting from the NRA and hoped I got beaten up in a dark alley, it was almost always a liberal (usually for something I’d written at Moorewatch).

That script flipped in 2006 and especially in 2008 after Obama’s election. Disagreements from liberals were … well, never respectful but better than they had been in 2004. It was disagreement from conservative that got nasty (although never as nasty as the liberals were in 2004). It was perfect illustration of Jane’s Law:

The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.

It’s changing again. It has been for the last year, maybe longer. If I have the temerity to dispute liberal talking points on a liberal board, I get pilloried, called names and sometimes banned. Liberal tweeters are on a hair-trigger for screaming and blocking those who disagree with them. Meanwhile, the commentary on conservative boards has been growing steadily more constructive and upbeat.

The liberals are scared. They think they are going to lose power and, even worse, those evil evil Republicans are going to get it. Actually, it might be even worse: a Republican party with libertarian tendencies, if you can imagine such a thing. Talking to liberals, you would be forgiven if you didn’t realize that Republicans — a few, at least — are the one driving the bus on criminal justice reform, police demilitarization, civil liberties and the end of crony capitalism. No, it’s all about teh gays (which no Republicans care about any more) and teh guns and teh abortions.

We have a few weeks before the election and politics can change very fast. But from where I’m standing, it looks like a good year for the GOP.

I just hope they don’t fuck it up again.

We Don’t Need a Czar and We Don’t Need a Murthy Either

Having seen their attempts to blame Ebola on Republican budget cuts go up in flames, the Democrats have stumbled upon a new meme: this outbreak is the fault of Republicans because they’ve blocked Obama’s nominee for Surgeon General.

CNN host Candy Crowley on Sunday challenged Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) while asking him how Republican decisions may have negatively impacted the United States’ ability to address Ebola.

Crowley asked how the sequester hurt funding for the Centers for Disease Control and how the National Rifle Association’s opposition to President Obama’s nominee for surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, also hurt the American response.

“We haven’t had a Surgeon General — who is the nation’s leading public health official, at least the voice of it — for a year. Some Democrats and some Republicans had opposed the particular surgeon general the president had nominated. Do you think it would have helped A. If NIH and CDC had had a little more money and B. Had there been a surgeon general to kind of calm what has been the fear of Ebola?” Crowley asked on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

(Note that Crowley repeats the BS meme that Republicans have gutted NIH/CDC funding.)

First of all, the claim that we do not have a Surgeon General is bullshit, no matter how often the left repeats it. Boris Lushniak has been acting Surgeon General for the last year. Lushniak spent 16 years at the CDC, including work with their anthrax team. He’s qualified to deal with the the current crisis. In fact, I think he’s more qualified to deal with the current crisis than Obama’s nominee, who was nominated mostly for founding the political advocacy group “Doctors for Obama” (now “Doctors for America”) and his support of advancing gun control as a healthcare issue.

(Of course, Murthy’s lack of qualifications is probably seen as a qualification. Obama named an Ebola czar this weekend: a career Democratic political operative. Vox immediately defended the choice, saying we need a manager, not a doctor. Because, you know, if you have a rare and dangerous tropical disease, what you really want is a manager. Personally, I don’t think we need another czar for anything, certainly not for Ebola. Handling this is the job of CDC. Or maybe we should put these guys in charge.)

Second, I’m not sure what the Surgeon General is supposed to do here. The main thing we need is for the public to be aware of the danger and what to do if they might have Ebola. And we need hospitals to have better isolation procedures. I guess the Surgeon General could help with a public information campaign. But I don’t see that this would desperately need the particular skills of Murthy.

That having been said, the Republicans should let the Murthy nomination move forward. I’m tired of this filibustering, especially for a fairly unimportant position. Murthy may or may not be an anti-gun nut, but he’s Obama’s anti-gun nut so let Obama own up to whatever foolishness he says or does.

Punting Power

This is pure BS:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) told This Week he’d “bring the Congress back” to vote on a new resolution authorizing military force against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but only if President Barack Obama requested one. Congress has received heaps of criticism for staying out of town during the airstrikes against ISIS, with some suggesting they’re happy to avoid a contentious vote on the issue.

Boehner reprised his line that typically the president initiated the resolution, a position of faux-politesse that the Daily Show already mocked last week. This led George Sephanopoulos [sic] to wonder if Boehner was avoiding the vote because it might split his party ahead of the midterms, something he said was whispered to ABC News political reporter Jeff Zeleny.

Boehner further opines that the existing AUMF is enough for Obama to act on.

One of the reasons Barack Obama has been allowed to usurp so much power is because Congress has allowed him to. Almost all legislative powers reside with Congress, yet they stand around while he rules by executive order, rewrites the laws to his purpose and starts wars on his own. The war-making power lies with Congress. Yet, for the second time, they are allowing the President to start bombing another country. Yes, the President is supposed to ask for their authorization. But they are supposed to assert their authority on this. They should be meeting right now either to give the President the authority to attack Syria or to refuse it. And if he won’t comply, they can exercise the power of the purse to cut the funding.

Stephanopoulos sideswipes the issue by noting this would potentially split the Republican Party. There is a significant fraction that would oppose this but they are still a small minority. The real issue is that the Republicans — like everyone else — have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, ISIS is horrific: a radical Islamist regime that is imposing severe sharia over the regions they control, murdering ethnic and religious minorities and spreading terror over the region. On the other hand, do we really need another boondoggle in the Middle East? Do we really want to spend the treasure and lives needed, even assuming we can destroy ISIS?

It’s a hard debate. I can see why Congress wants to avoid it. But having hard debates is part of their fucking job description. The Civil Rights debate was hard too. So was the Vietnam War. Balancing the budget in the 90’s was hard. But those Congresses argued, debated and eventually voted. They did their job. And they were held responsible for it, a nation that terrifies our current leaders.

This is pure cowardice. It’s the same cowardice the Congress showed in 2003 when, rather than declare war on Iraq, they punted that authority to the President. They didn’t want to oppose it. But they didn’t want to take responsibility if it went wrong. And sure enough, when it went wrong, the Democrats said, “Well, we didn’t declare war on Iraq; we left that decision to Bush!”

Make a decision, guys. Have the debate. We’re dropping bombs on two countries and have over four hundred boots on the ground. If this goes wrong, it’s still on you for failing to stop it. Get your lazy asses back to Washington and do your damned job.

Government Doesn’t Fix Inequality Because it Can’t

Vox has one of their usual questions today, asking why our government doesn’t “fix” inequality.

Now before I get into this, I should say that I’m not entirely convinced that inequality is a problem needing fixing. Piketty’s book has been found to have some dubious data and his conclusion — that capital always grows faster than the economy — seems incredibly shaky and simplistic. The contention that inequality is increasing is subject to three assumptions that are all dubious. First, that the cost-of-living is being accounted for correctly. If it has been over-estimated — and there are reasons to believe it has been — then the wages of the middle class have actually grown. Second, most of these calculations are based on pre-tax wages. But wages are only a part of the compensation people get for working nowadays (in my grants, about 20% of the cost of hiring someone is in benefits, not wages and many countries have socialized medicine and other socialized benefits). Moreover, our tax system has been specifically canted to reduce income inequality by paying negative taxes to the poor and charging heavy rates on the wealthy. And most other tax systems are steeply progressive. Finally, a lot of this is based on “per household” data but households have been shrinking (quite drastically in Western Europe).

But let’s say that rising inequality really exists and is a bad thing. Why doesn’t government do anything about it? Please tell us, oh wise Vox:

The decline of labor unions has decreased the political importance of poor voters, because unions were an important “get-out-the-vote” machine. A recent study by Jan Leighley and Jonathan Nagler finds that the decline in union strength has reduced low-income and middle-income turnout. But labor’s influence (or lack thereof) is also important when the voting is done. Research finds that policy outcomes in the United States are heavily mediated by lobbying between interest groups, so organization matters.

Martin Gilens writes, “Given the fact that most Americans have little independent influence on policy outcomes, interest groups like unions may be the only way to forward their economic interests and preference.” His research indicates that unions regularly lobby in favor of policies broadly supported by Americans across the income spectrum, in contrast to business groups, which lobby in favor of policies only supported by the wealthy.

So … special interests. In fact, all five of Vox’s explanation for why government hasn’t dealt with inequality boil down to what I talked about recently — the need of the Left to see their opponents as mentally ill or mislead in some way. So, according to Vox, we overestimate income mobility, inequality ruins the camaraderie of society, we’re not voting enough, special interests control our government and we’re afraid of black people (seriously). If only we were as wise and informed as Vox, we’d embrace a grand redistribution scheme.

It never occurs to them that the reason people don’t support redistribution schemes is because they know that the government would inevitably fuck it up. A couple of weeks ago, George Will issued this you-really-should-read-the-whole-thing cri de coeur:

Resistance to taxation, although normal and healthy, is today also related to the belief that government is thoroughly sunk in self-dealing, indiscriminate meddling and the lunatic spending that lards police forces with devices designed for conquering Fallujah. People know that no normal person can know one-tenth of 1 percent of what the government is doing.

Contempt for government cannot be hermetically sealed; it seeps into everything . Which is why cupcake regulations have foreign policy consequences. Americans, inundated with evidence that government is becoming dumber and more presumptuous, think it cannot be trusted to decipher foreign problems and apply force intelligently.

The collapse of confidence in government is not primarily because many conspicuous leaders are conspicuously dimwitted, although when Joe Biden refers to “the nation of Africa,” or Harry Reid disparages the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision as rendered by “five white men” (who included Clarence Thomas), Americans understand that their increasingly ludicrous government lacks adult supervision. What they might not understand is that Reids and Bidens come with government so bereft of restraint and so disoriented by delusions of grandeur that it gives fighting knives to police and grief to purveyors of noncompliant cupcakes.

Bingo. Every day, we get examples of how incompetent our government is. From funding companies that can’t make solar cells to bungling wars to a disastrous website launch. In a comment to the last post, Xetrov linked a story about how the government is going to have to un-deport some people because it screwed up their deportation. They can’t even kick illegals out of the country without creating a mess.

So why on Earth would the American people trust this bumbling leviathan to redistribute wealth? And, more to the point, why should they do so when there is every reason to believe that our government has made inequality far far worse.

One of Piketty’s claims is that occasional disasters like world wars and economic crises level the playing field, reducing income inequality. Well, we recently had a disaster that should have leveled the playing field — the mortgage bubble and subsequent financial crisis. And what did the government do? By bi-partisan consensus, it bailed out the wealthy bankers and left the rest of us holding the bag.

How does the government deal with global warming? By making our appliances more expensive and shelling out billions to fund companies run by wealthy friends of the President.

How does it stimulate the economy? By borrowing money and spending it on boondoggles run by the wealthy and powerful.

What about job training? Ed Morrissey recently ran a great post showing that only does federal job training fail to place people in jobs, it often leaves them with thousands of dollars of debt from paying for expensive classes that gave them training no one needed.

What about higher education? As I’ve documented on this blog, our government doles out predatory loans that can not be discharged in bankruptcy. These loans help fund seven-figure salaries for university Presidents. (Incidentally, one of the few people who’s doing something about the cost of college? Mitch Daniels, former Republican governor, now President of Purdue).

In the 1960’s, government gave us “urban renewal”, a process by which they bulldozed functional but poor neighborhoods and gave rich developers money to build slums. And as Ta-Nehisi Coates showed, they redlined black neighborhoods to keep federally-guaranteed loans away from working class black people.

This is the government you want to redistribute wealth?

Look at the story below on Chelsea Clinton’s ridiculous salary at NBC. One of my points was that this is not unusual. Our political elite make tons of money telling us how they are going to make society fairer. Sometimes literally. Paul Krugman is getting $250,000 to teach about income inequality at CUNY (in an industry that employs thousands upon thousands of adjunct professors who do most of the teaching and are paid a pittance for it). And the Left vigorously defended how “fair” it was!

In the end, redistribution usually ends up the same way — with a massive class of “equal” serfs and a small class of “more equal” rulers. If you don’t believe that … all you have to do is look at the current system. Vox, like most liberals, is just surprised that the American people are smart enough to realize this.

Clinton Life

I must admit, I always had a soft spot for Chelsea Clinton. Not that I liked her or anything but that I felt bad for someone thrust into the national spotlight during the most awkward years of her life (Rush Limbaugh, on his TV show, famously said the Clinton White House had finally gotten a dog and then showed an unflattering picture of the then 13-year-old Chelsea). There was a story that circulated toward the end of the Clinton years about her drinking in Colorado and being a bit wild. And my reaction was, “Well, good for her.”

However, my sympathy does not extend to what looks to me like blatant corruption:

Chelsea Clinton has left her job as a special correspondent for NBC News, a position that she has held since November 2011, the network has confirmed. In a statement on the departure, NBC News senior vice president Alex Wallace said, “We are thankful for all of Chelsea’s contributions to NBC News over the past 3 years. Chelsea’s storytelling inspired people across the country and showcased the real power we have as individuals to make a difference in our communities. While she will be missed, we look forward to working with her in the future.”

Like me, you’re probably thinking: “what contributions?” Clinton did some occasional reporting for NBC but it amounted to maybe an hour total over the last three years. For that contributions, she was paid a nominal salary of … holy shit.

Those stories were neither sufficiently frequent nor momentous to earn Clinton the respect of her colleagues and the NBC News brain trust. Her standing within the network appeared to suffer a hit when Politico revealed earlier this year that she had been earning annual pay in the range of $600,000 — or nearly $27,000 for each minute of airtime. That was far above the pay level of an average network correspondent, even one with years of experience; Clinton was a rookie in the craft at the time of her first piece for NBC News in 2011.

Clinton is not the only scion of a political dynasty getting such a gig, although I’m dubious that the others are as lucrative. Jenna Bush and Meghan McCain also got commentary bits. But then again, neither of their dads is likely to President in the near future; Chelsea’s mom at least has a shot at it. The only thing remotely comparable I can think of in recent years was Bristol Palin’s six-figure gig promoting abstinence. But even that was a third of what Chelsea was making.

Is this bribery? It looks like it …. but … it’s actually not that unusual. The media-politics gravy train is absolutely loaded with this kind of bullshit. Politicians, their aides, their lawyers, their kids and their allies walk right out of the halls of power into well-paying commentary gigs and jobs. And then frequently walk right back into power. Many of them get five- and six-figure speaking fees, including Hillary Clinton. Many get massive salaries on corporate boards or university faculty. And, as I’ve noted before, no matter how wrong they’ve been, no matter how much they’ve fucked up, no matter what disastrous policy they’ve led this country into, the train of speaking fees, commentary gigs, board appointments and academic appointments never stops. If you’ve wrecked the country, that’s just proof that you need to be a Professor at Harvard with a column in the Washington Post.

We really do have a ruling class in this country. And Chelsea is just the latest iteration. The absurd level of the bribery — a per minute salary 30 times greater than that of Alex Rodriguez — rubs our noses in it. But the unusual thing about this is that it’s not that unusual.

Home of the Whopper

So this is happening:

Burger King may be the home of the Whopper, but Canada may be the new home of Burger King.

The restaurant operator said on Sunday that it was in talks to buy Tim Hortons, the Canadian doughnut-and-coffee chain, in a potential deal that would create one of the world’s biggest fast-food businesses.

If completed, the deal would mean Burger King’s corporate headquarters would move to Canada, raising the specter of yet another American company switching its national citizenship to lower its tax bill.

As you can image, the Left Wing is going apeshit, accusing Burger King of being unpatriotic and putting shareholders in front of communities, people, employees, the environment, the cosmos, God, king and country.

But Burger King is hardly the only company contemplating this kind of tax inversion. Numerous companies have over $2 trillion overseas that they won’t repatriate because our government, rather uniquely, double taxes overseas earnings. We also have an unholy mess of a corporate tax system which has a nominally high rate but many loopholes. The system is so bad that Canada — with all its maple syrup, hockey and French — is now considered a tax haven.

(Also note that this move would just change Burger King’s tax burden. It won’t change anything else like how many people they employ or what they pay them. So the supposed “betrayal” is simply a lowering of their tax burden. To BK’s critics, a company’s primary patriotic duty is apparently to pay as much in taxes as possible.)

But it’s much more fun to gnash your teeth about the evil machinations of a big corporation that to, you know, work the problem that Republicans have been talking about for years.

The Diseased Opposition

I’m currently reading Anne Applebaum’s excellent Iron Curtain, a follow-on to her masterful Gulag. In this book, she details how the oppressive tyrannies of Eastern Europe were created by the Soviet Union and how they were run for forty years. I’ll likely post a full review when I’m finished.

I did want to single out one point, however.

One of the recurring themes in the early days of communism was the communists’ confusion as to why the couldn’t win the hearts and minds of the people. In the early days of the Cold War, they actually held elections, figuring that with control of the secret police, the media and social groups, they would win easily. They were crushed and those became the last free elections in Eastern Europe for two generations. This pattern would repeat itself later in the late 80’s when communist regimes had open elections and were stunned when they lost again. They kept returning to the theme of why the “masses” were voting against “their interests”.

That should sound familiar. There’s a whole book about it called “What’s the matter with Kansas”. We continually hear liberals lamenting that Americans vote against “their interests” by refusing to embrace wealth redistribution and other socialist schemes. Like their Communist forbears, it simply never occurs to them that most people don’t want to succeed in life by taking things away from someone else; that people regard “redistributed” wealth as stolen wealth.

But there’s another thing the modern Left shares with the Communists. When people opposed Communism, the Communists believed this was because of the evil influence of shadowy bourgeois interests or even because of mental illness. Entire societies were reshaped so that citizens only heard “correct” view from the day they were born and were continually re-educated into proper thinking.

But what does the modern Left do but say that people vote Republican because they are “full of hate” or “don’t care about people who aren’t like them” or “are influenced by special interests”? No one can oppose abortion because of a concern for the unborn; they have to hate women and want to control them. No one can oppose gay marriage because they are leery of changing a fundamental pillar of society; they have to be filled with hate. No one can oppose the welfare state because they think it’s a long walk off a short plank; they have to be incapable of caring for people. No on can think global warming is overblown because they don’t trust the science; they have to be under the influence of Big Oil (this post was stimulated by the creation of a website designed to smear climate “dirty denier$” by linking them to fossil fuel interests).

That’s not to say that there are aren’t Right-Wingers who think their opponents are mentally defective or that there aren’t Leftists who understand that there are genuine differences in philosophy. But the need to see the opposition as defective or under baleful influence is much stronger on the Left and particularly among the hard Lefties who think Obama is a centrist wuss. It informs things like campaign finance reform and political correctness. It manifests in the enthusiasm for public school systems and public pre-K, in particular, so that children can be influenced to “correct” views at earlier and earlier ages.

But reading Applebaum’s account of the machinations of the Communists reveals that this attitude is not new or terribly original or particularly insightful. The belief that government can transform human beings — make them work harder, be less racist or get along better — is an offshoot of behaviorism: the belief that human beings are empty vessels waiting to be shaped by outside influences. And if they don’t take the desired shape, it is either because the vessel was defective or there are other forces at work.

The idea of self-determination simply never occurs to them.

Want Help? Ask Conservatives

Everyone know that only Democrats care about minorities. Everyone knows that only Democrats care about the poor. Everyone know that only Democrats care about women. Republicans just like to cruise around in their limos laughing at the plight of those less fortunate than them. Meanwhile, Democrats can’t sleep at night because they are so worried about the oppressed masses. Right? Right?

Let me introduce you to Shaneen Allen:

Last October, Shaneen Allen, 27, was pulled over in Atlantic County, N.J. The officer who pulled her over says she made an unsafe lane change. During the stop, Allen informed the officer that she was a resident of Pennsylvania and had a conceal carry permit in her home state. She also had a handgun in her car. Had she been in Pennsylvania, having the gun in the car would have been perfectly legal. But Allen was pulled over in New Jersey, home to some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States.

Allen is a black single mother. She has two kids. She has no prior criminal record. Before her arrest, she worked as a phlebobotomist. After she was robbed two times in the span of about a year, she purchased the gun to protect herself and her family. There is zero evidence that Allen intended to use the gun for any other purpose. Yet Allen was arrested. She spent 40 days in jail before she was released on bail. She’s now facing a felony charge that, if convicted, would bring a three-year mandatory minimum prison term.

There is a wide prosecutorial discretion here (more on that in a moment) but it looks like the prosecutor is going to throw the book at her. Allen is the kind of person the Left is supposed to be in a tizzy over — a single working mom doing her best who is about to be crushed by the system. But the liberal Ecosphere has said little, if anything, about her. You know who is taking up her cause? If you said conservatives and libertarians, move to the front of the class. Here is National Review, for example, trying to make her case a national issue. True, this is because conservatives believe in gun rights and the second amendment. But they also believe in justice. And there is a growing awareness of the massive disparities in how gun laws are enforced.

As it turns out, Allen’s case isn’t unusual at all. Although white people occasionally do become the victims of overly broad gun laws (for example, see the outrageous prosecution of Brian Aitken, also in New Jersey), the typical person arrested for gun crimes is more likely to have the complexion of Shaneen Allen than, say, Sarah Palin. Last year, 47.3 percent of those convicted for federal gun crimes were black — a racial disparity larger than any other class of federal crimes, including drug crimes. In a 2011 report on mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that blacks were far more likely to be charged and convicted of federal gun crimes that carry mandatory minimum sentences. They were also more likely to be hit with “enhancement” penalties that added to their sentences. In fact, the racial discrepancy for mandatory minimums was even higher than the aforementioned disparity for federal gun crimes in general.

This isn’t just a matter of black people committing more crimes. In cases where the prosecution is discretionary — such as the enhancement penalties — this is far more likely to happen to black criminals than white ones. And conservatives like Rand Paul have been making this point more and more forcefully of late.

Oh, speaking of Rand Paul … Just last week, Jon Stewart discovered civil asset forfeiture, the process by which the government can seize your property or money by alleging it has committed a crime (that’s not a typo; they literally charge the property with a crime). It will surprise no one that while asset forfeiture casts a wide net, it also has a tendency to fall heaviest on minorities and on poor people who can’t fight back. Anyone want to guess the party affiliation of the man who has proposed to overhaul asset forfeiture law and give people greater civil service protections?

The FAIR Act would change federal law and protect the rights of property owners by requiring that the government prove its case with clear and convincing evidence before forfeiting seized property. State law enforcement agencies will have to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property. Finally, the legislation would remove the profit incentive for forfeiture by redirecting forfeitures assets from the Attorney General’s Asset Forfeiture Fund to the Treasury’s General Fund.

It’s not perfect. But it’s a huge improvement over the existing regime, where local law enforcement can bypass state regs by turning the seized money over to federal agents, who take a cut and give it directly back the law enforcement agencies.

But there’s still more. Let’s move away from crime and toward poverty itself. Last week, Paul Ryan suggested a new set of policies to try to reduce poverty. He would consolidate numerous programs into block grants to the states, expand the EITC, reduce regulations and push criminal sentencing reform. Even some liberals are admitting these are good ideas. They will reward work and expand opportunity — the two things the poor need a hell of a lot more than slightly larger piles of government cash.

There’s been some controversy over Ryan’s proposal to have chronically poor people meet with councilors who will help them improve their lives. But as Megan McArdle points out, while the chronically poor are a small part of the poor, they consume a huge chunk of the benefits. And it is chronic generational poverty that is the true suffering. Ryan’s plan sounds a bit too paternalistic to me. But it’s got to be better than the absent father method our current system upholds where we just throw money at poor people and hope it will magically make them unpoor.

So in just the last week, we’ve seen conservatives oppose arbitrary ruinous enforcement of gun laws, oppose asset forfeiture and propose a new version of welfare reform (after the last one lifted millions out of poverty). You add this to the ongoing push for school choice and you have a platform that would greatly enhance freedom and opportunity for millions of people, most of who are poorer and darker-skinned than your typical Republican.

And the Democratic Party? Well, their big issue right now is trying to save the corporate welfare that is the Ex-Im bank.

Look, I’m not going to pretend the Republican Party is perfect on these issues or any other issue. And there are plenty of Democrats who support the above policies. What I am going to suggest, however, is that the caricature of the GOP specifically and conservatives in general as uncaring racist sociopaths is absurd.

Update: This isn’t strictly related, but you know how Democrats have been whining about the cost of higher ed and the burden it is imposing on the middle class? Well evil conservative Republican Mitch Daniels is not whining, he’s doing something about it.

It’s Almost as If … Gun Freedom Works

We all know that guns are an evil talisman that makes people do bad things. Why crime-ridden cities would be completely safe if they just got rid of those darn guns. Take Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. If only the guns laws were stricter, Chicago would see a drop in crime as big as say … uh … wait … Detroit?

Fed up with crime, some armed Detroiters have developed itchy trigger-fingers — and Police Chief James Craig said lawbreakers are getting the message.

Detroit has experienced 37 percent fewer robberies in 2014 than during the same period last year, 22 percent fewer break-ins of businesses and homes, and 30 percent fewer carjackings. Craig attributed the drop to better police work and criminals being reluctant to prey on citizens who may be carrying guns.

“Criminals are getting the message that good Detroiters are armed and will use that weapon,” said Craig, who has repeatedly said he believes armed citizens deter crime. “I don’t want to take away from the good work our investigators are doing, but I think part of the drop in crime, and robberies in particular, is because criminals are thinking twice that citizens could be armed.

“I can’t say what specific percentage is caused by this, but there’s no question in my mind it has had an effect,” Craig said.

Craig has been making statements like this for a while and drawing erratic fire from the gun-grabber lobby, which has decided, in the face of numerous studies showing that gun ownership reduces crime, that damn the facts, guns cause violence.

“Our position is, more guns equals more crime,” [Coalition to Stop Gun Violence director] Horowitz said “These are complicated issues, but the empirical evidence shows the states with the lowest gun ownership and the tightest restrictions have the fewest instances of gun violence.

This is, strictly speaking, not true. If you look at the correlation between gun ownership and total violence, you’ll find it’s weak. There are huge outliers — much of the Midwest has high gun ownership and low levels of violence. And some of the most violent cities in America have tight gun control laws and low levels of gun ownership (Washington DC, Chicago). The worst you can say is that the literature is mixed on whether gun ownership prevents violence. The more accurate statement is that a significant amount of research shows that gun ownership does, in fact, prevent criminal violence. Just ask the people trying to restore some semblance of order to Detroit.

On Twitter, I’ve been referring to gun control as The Left’s Global Warming. This was in response to an article by Paul Krugman in which he said this:

Yes, liberals are sometimes subject to bouts of wishful thinking. But can anyone point to a liberal equivalent of conservative denial of climate change, or the “unskewing” mania late in the 2012 campaign, or the frantic efforts to deny that Obamacare is in fact covering a lot of previously uninsured Americans?

I listed a bunch of things liberals are in denial about but gun control is becoming more and more the issue where the dementia is most pronounced. I have written a series of articles on my own blog (here, here, here, here, here and here) illustrating the lengths the gun grabbers will go to make their point. It includes every trick in the denial book. They cherry-pick, they misquote, they obfuscate, they dismiss massive studies that dispute their points in favor of small ones that support them, they accuse researchers like John Lott of fraud while ignoring the proven documented fraud on their own side. They say things like “Australia banned guns and saw a sharp reduction in violence” while ignoring that the United States liberalized its gun laws and saw a sharper decline in violence. They excuse Chicago’s explosion of violence despite strict gun laws by saying guns are being brought in from other cities … as if the cities that have not seen an explosion of violence are situated on Mars with no neighboring cities of their own.

The fall in Detroit’s crime is not entirely due to civilian gun ownership. But if we believed the hysteria of the gun grabbers, all those guns in the hands of civilians should we making things worse, not better. It’s good to see one policeman who actually gets it and isn’t afraid to let people know.