No Justice, No Peace

Glenn Beck really got under my skin today, so it’s time to dismantle another arch-conservative argument. Up for debate this time: the Second Amendment.

Why conservatives hold this amendment sacred, and not the First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments, I will never understand. Conservatives are eager to suspend the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unlawful search and seizure under the guise of protecting the country from the specter of terrorism, but refuse to consider losing the Second Amendment in order to halt violent crime. Violent crime, by the way, kills a lot more Americans every year than terrorism has in its history.

Provoking this particular discussion is a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia, a city whose urban area has long been among America’s most violent.

Beck invited John Stoessel on the program to discuss whether college students should carry loaded weapons in an effort to stop school shootings. Their conclusion: arm everyone, and everyone will be safe.

We can look at a similar policy of lethal deterrents, and note that the death penalty has had no effect in reducing violent crime in this country, and that Canada, Japan, and all countries in Western Europe, where the death penalty has been abolished, all have much lower rates of violent crime. In most of those places, they don’t allow concealed weapons either.

So, we can consider Beck’s argument that, in his words, “It doesn’t reduce crime to take away guns,” to be entirely fallacious. From New York to Baltimore to Atlanta, the last of which can hardly be considered a liberal stronghold, mayors and police departments have been joining forces to get guns off the streets.

At both Northern Illinois and at Virginia Tech, the aggressors used weapons that they had purchased legally. They passed background checks, accepted the waiting periods, obtained their registered firearms, and committed their crimes. Do Beck and Stoessel honestly believe that these two young men would have killed 37 people between them if they were unable to purchase guns cheaply and easily?

On to the next horrifying assertion. Stoessel: “In most states it is legal to carry a gun, on your person. And those states have no more crime, because criminals know, if you rob somebody, you might be packin’.” This is the most ludicrous assertion I have ever heard. No more crime? Stoessel has claimed that there is no longer crime in the following states, where anyone who meets the legal criteria may carry a concealed weapon: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Somehow, that doesn’t seem correct.

Beck later says, “These gun-free zones, doesn’t it say, ‘Ok, nobody here to stop you.’” Stoessel agrees, so let’s break that one down next.

I highly doubt that criminals evaluate whether a homeowner has a gun before robbing them. I can only assume that Beck has a sticker on his front door, which reads, “If you come a’robbin’, I’ll come a’shootin’.” Otherwise, how are criminals to know he has an armory in his linen closet? Sean Taylor, the late Redskins safety, had a gun in his home. The men who robbed his house knew this. He was armed with a machete at the time of the assault. He was shot and killed regardless. They shot him through the bedroom door. He would never have had the opportunity to shoot them first.

It should never come down to a case of quick-draw. Basic probability states that you’d only win 50% of the time. The other 50%, you’d be dead, with your gun still in your back pocket. I can’t imagine finding many people willing to play those odds.

In suggesting that the general public begin carrying guns in order to reduce violent crime, Beck seems to advocate a system of vigilante justice -- one where anyone with a gripe dishes out his or her personal brand of justice. He prefers this to a system in which we resolve personal disputes without saber-rattling (literally) or lethal violence, and where we entrust our police officers with the public safety.

Dearest Glenn, do you truly believe that the police are incapable of preserving law and order? Is the national consortium of urban mayors and law enforcement professionals who have banded together to reduce gun-ownership wrong? Are we to believe you, Glenn, or the people we trust to serve and protect?

John Stoessel cites the Appalachian Law School (ALS) shooting, where armed students subdued a shooter in 2002, as an instance of more guns resulting in fewer deaths. It is the only example he cites of students ending a shooting with their own firearms.

Stoessel neglects three important points regarding the Appalachian Law incident:

First, the two students who subdued the shooter retrieved their firearms from their cars. They were not carrying weapons at the time of the shooting, thus this is not an example of the efficacy of a concealed carry law, as the weapons were not concealed on their bodies, and would not fall under the jurisdiction of a concealed carry law. In most states, a person does not need a concealed carry permit to keep a weapon “safely encased” in his or her car.

Second, the three people (two armed, one unarmed) who subdued the shooter at ALS fired a total of zero shots. The shooter dropped his gun as he was confronted, and was then tackled by a group of students who held him in place until local officers arrived. Thus, the fact that the confronting students’ weapons were loaded had little to do with the eventual resolution. Stoessel also ignores important counter-examples, such as the 1999 Heath High School shooting, where a group of unarmed students gang-tackled the shooter after he began firing.

The third point that Stoessel ignores is by far the most important. At ALS, the two men who subdued the shooter were off-duty police officers. One was an active member of the Grifton Police Department in North Carolina, the other was a sheriff’s deputy from Asheville. These were not just college students; they were police officers who had been trained and drilled in the proper use of a firearm, and who had passed through the rigors of law enforcement.

This was not an example of two ordinary students pulling weapons from their backpacks. These were trained officers who were fortunate enough to be at the right place at the right time, retrieved their personal weapons from a safe location, and calmly ended the confrontation. How can we believe that anyone else would exercise the same restraint and sober decision-making as these two police officers? Furthermore, how many times might we see someone become involved in a drunken confrontation at a frat party, and pull out a licensed and legally-possessed weapon in retaliation?

It is worth noting that the officers who prevailed at ALS did not feel it necessary to carry guns on their bodies. They’re police officers, and would have been within their rights by doing so. No one understands the dynamic of concealed weapons better than members of the law enforcement community, and these two chose to leave their weapons in a safer place.

Neither Stoessel nor Beck seems aware of the primary fallacy of their argument. Three students died at Appalachian Law before the shooter was subdued. Yes, the armed officers prevented the shooter from killing more people. However, simple mathematics argues that the shooter would have killed three fewer people if he had been unable to procure a gun in the first place.

How many more students will lose their lives at the hands of people who should, under no circumstances, be trusted with a firearm, but who we allow to possess one at all times? What would prevent a controversial debate, a professor-student confrontation, or a large gathering from turning into a shooting gallery? Dueling organizations might well turn a campus into the Wild West.

If aggressors could not obtain guns in the first place, what need would there be for anyone to use a gun in self-defense?

Glenn Beck is concerned about my right to own a gun, and cites John Adams’ statements about my inalienable rights. What about my right to live free of fear, and not be caught in the crossfire as I walk down Fraternity Row? Given the choice between the inalienable right of owning a gun, and that of pursuing happiness, I’d much rather have the latter.

Meaningful Topic, Meaningful Analysis

Since no one at MSNBC or CNN seems to be able to discuss last night’s debate in anything other than sports terminology (e.g. “low-scoring affair,” “tonight we saw hockey as opposed to basketball,” “a few field goals for Clinton, but no touchdowns”), I think it’s time to discuss some important items of my own.

The Suicide Squeeze Experience (the one true Fantasy Baseball League) is back online. The draft is four weeks away, so it’s time to start planning.

First things first. Last season was not kind to Total BeastandJack. Although my team finished in the top 5 in most of the major categories, we got unlucky on a lot of the match-ups and wound up finishing in the cellar. It didn’t help that I used the first overall pick in last year’s draft on Albert Pujols, who proceeded to have the worst season of his career.

There are reasons for optimism. I can keep five players from last season, and although my 25-man roster is pretty weak, my top five are as good as anyone’s. Let’s run down the list of potential holdovers.

Pujols is still all-world caliber at first, and a lock. That’s one.

At third base, I have Miguel Cabrera, now in Detroit, with better ballpark and a killer offense. Even with Dolphin Stadium and the woeful Marlins around him, he would have been a first rounder, so he stays. There’s two, and the infield corners are set.

Derek Jeter is top-notch at short, and supposedly he’s more agile coming into camp this year, so we might see a recovery in his base-stealing prowess -- always a big part of the Jeet-appeal. I could never drop The Captain (yes, capitalized) anyway.

Now, it gets a little trickier. Two keeper slots remain, and 3/4 of the infield is set. Let’s move on the outfield, as this was an area that killed me last year.

I had a disastrous outfield coming out of the draft. I took Tampa center-fielder Rocco Baldelli in the 6th round, believing that his colossal talents would finally come through in a healthy season. He’d been hurt each of the previous three years, but he has five tools, and I’d seen him do lots of terrific things in games he played against the Yankees. Center-field is a weak position anyway, which enhances the value of a guy who hits for power and average with speed to spare. He batted .204 in April, with 4 home runs and no steals, tweaked his hamstring in the first week of May, and never returned. Rocco had better hope he never meets me face to face.

That draft choice was a part of a mistaken philosophy that prioritized position value over total value. I chose a potential top-five center-fielder instead of a top-15 corner outfielder, because of the shallow talent pool in center. Of course, the scoring system doesn’t care where a player plays, just how frequently he hits the ball and how many bases he touches afterwards. I over-thought my draft philosophy. At the time that I drafted Baldelli, I could have taken Matt Holliday or Magglio Ordonez. I’m not making that mistake again.

Left field was also a debacle. I took Nick Swisher two rounds after I drafted Baldelli. I hate Nick Swisher. He hit 35 homers in 2006, his second year in the majors, with a nice on-base percentage and decent average. In the middle rounds, he was the best bet for outfield power. The guy hit about 15 dingers for me, several when he was supposedly too hurt to play on a given day, and spent about 3 weeks on the DL before I released him at the end of July. Even Swisher’s real team (Oakland) traded him in the off-season. White Sox, enjoy the most mediocre corner outfielder in the American League.

This brings us to the lone bright spot in the 2007 Total BeastandJack outfield: Alex Rios. He’s young, and was virtually unknown before last season. I inadvertently scouted Rios in 2006, by virtue of watching him consistently own the Yankees. I cursed his name then, but when I saw him available in the 8th round, I snapped him up. He did not disappoint. He played 161 games, notched 191 hits, 43 (!) doubles, 24 homers, and led the Blue Jays with 17 steals. He also has an outstanding arm and produces outfield assists like a champ. The guy is a stud. He plays for an AL East rival, but the crazy thing is how much I love that kid.

The caveat is that he’s not MVP material, and productive right fielders are a dime a dozen. So, on those grounds, he’s not worth keeping, because his production in right (though ridiculously consistent) is not superlative enough to rank him above the 50 other guys who can ably play that position.

But here’s where Total BeastandJack caught a lucky break. Vernon Wells spent most of September on the DL, and the Jays plugged Rios into Wells’ spot in center field. Rios is already above average in right. Considered as a center fielder, he’s behind only Curtis Granderson and Carlos Beltran in terms of all-around ability. He’ll move back to right this year, with Vernon (who is so bad, he even sucks in the video game) healthy again. But, because Rios played 20 games in center field last year, he’s eligible to play that position all year long for Total BeastandJack. Alex Rios, center-fielder, welcome back to the team. Please see the equipment manager for a jersey.

We’ll leave it there for now. Four spots are set. Pitchers, catchers, and second basemen remain, all vying for that final spot. It’s an open competition during Spring Training.

Oops

Back in the Fall, I had thought Chris Dodd would be on Hillary’s veep shortlist. He’s an experienced Senator, just to the left of moderate, well-spoken, a white male, friendly to her in the debates, etc. Well, he endorsed Barry Obam today, so I suppose that won’t happen. And while we’re at it, we can slot his name into the Obama shortlist.

Hillary has has probably sealed her fate over the past few days. She’ll be a Senator for as long as she wants, but nothing more. Her campaign has disintegrated into chaos.

Tonite’s debate should be very interesting. Only a week removed from, “I am honored to be here with Barack Obama,” she’s going to have a very hard time walking back from “Shame on you, Barack Obama.” Supposedly that was an unscripted moment. Her handlers would have done well to reign her in on that one.

The argument was over Obama campaign mailers regarding NAFTA, which are of course factual. She may oppose it now, but regardless of her vehemence, both she and her #1 campaign surrogate (whose name rhymes with “Hill Clinton”) fought hard for it in 1993. NAFTA was the signal achievement of Bill Clinton’s first term, while healthcare reform died on the table. I still remember learning about NAFTA in history class during 4th grade. NAFTA was, and remains, a very big deal. Hillary can’t expect anyone to consider only her recent history on that matter. This incident is indicative both of Hillary’s foolishness regarding the astuteness of the electorate, and of her laziness in working to convince them of her virtues.

Hillary has done something I have never seen before in a presidential race -- she has completely reversed my opinions of her, both personal and professional. Prior to the primary season, I liked most of her policy positions, thought she was a savvy politician, and gave her more credit for being honorable than did most people. Over the course of the last three months, however, she has shown herself to be unimaginative, brutal, and clueless.

She seized the anti-Bush, anti-war, pro-people mantle early in the campaign, and was right to do so. But, as the U.S. economy went from bad to worse, and foreign trouble spread beyond Iraq, she lost touch with popular sentiments. Voters are eager for solutions. Things are bad right now, and will likely remain bad for years. A few pragmatic, though major, policy shifts will not cure national pessimism. It will take a sea change to fix everything that’s gone wrong in the last decade.

The problems range beyond the institutional Washington quagmires. There’s more to the divide than a widespread hatred of George W. Bush. Conservatives and liberals across the country have been conditioned to despise each other, and that is a serious problem that will require reforming our attitudes toward the government and toward each other. People want to move forward and stop fighting with each other, but someone has to set the tone. Hillary never picked up on that sentiment. Obama did, and here we are today.

Hillary missed a big opportunity with this Drudge photo flap. It’s racist and wrong for all the obvious reasons -- namely perpetuating the fear-mongering and false belief that Obama is a Muslim. The Clinton campaign had an opportunity to denounce the photo, and they didn’t. They said it was a covert smear job by the Obama campaign. Drudge cited the photo to a Clinton staffer, though, so that holds no water.

Hillary had the chance to come out hard against the intentions behind the photograph. She could have said any of the following: this is unacceptable; we would never do this, and it’s beneath the dignity of the Democratic party; we don’t tolerate that behavior on my staff, and we’ll fire anyone we find to be responsible. She could have taken the high road and looked righteous, but instead she just took a swing. Wrong choice.

Hillary has recently come out against Obama’s idea of change by saying that we have seen some of the worst changes imaginable over the last seven years. This is true, but wouldn’t she like to take the fright that our government has become and change it into something far better -- something not limited by the major policy achievements of the years 1993-98?

This campaign has recently shifted from being one about a choice between three excellent candidates, into a battle of good and evil.

Hillary sarcastically mocked Obama’s rhetoric at a rally over the weekend, lampooning the idea that we can unify the country and achieve some positive, lasting impact in our lives.

Perhaps someone could make a “No, you can’t” video starring Hillary. Who told her that it’s a good idea to seem as mean as John McCain, and as crotchety as Fred Thompson? More importantly, who forgot to tell her that people never vote against hope?

Her recent tactics are cruel and unnecessary. She’s hurting everyone but McCain. What’s more, it’s too late. These attacks might have introduced some self-consciousness into Obama’s campaign last year, undercutting him before he could build national support, but now it looks cruel and desperate. It must never have occurred to Clinton that if you mock Obama’s idealism, you mock those who believe in Obama because his idealism resembles their own. It is a colossal, and hopefully final, mistake.

This sarcastic reviling of Obama demonstrates that Hillary has no interest in healing the divisions that have ruined the government and created discord across the country. Perhaps she doesn’t think it’s possible. Perhaps she doesn’t want to make nice with Republicans (understandable). Or, perhaps she appreciates the current political mechanism, and doesn’t mind the politics of fear. Maybe she’s arrogant enough to think we should beat the GOP at their own game. That seems to be the most likely mindset.

If that’s the case, then she misses the point yet again. If we could take away the GOP’s ability to play the terror card every time they need to pass a bill on corporate security, we might finally have a government that works for the benefit of its constituents and the world at large. Hillary seems all too willing to continue playing by the GOP’s rules. GOP rule #1: everyone loses.

Meanwhile, Texas is a statistical dead heat, and Ohio polls are wide in their variance -- some have her up by 11 percentage points, some by as few as 3. She’ll probably win Ohio (no one cares about Chris Dodd there), but that’s not enough. She has to run up the score.

Trailing in national polls, and by over 100 pledged delegates, she needs to flash some swing-state dominance. She won’t win Texas by the margin she needed to in order to close the delegate gap, so she needs to win Ohio by at least 10 points -- and in all likelihood more like 20. If she loses Texas, regardless of the margin, then it’s over for her. Dean and Superdelegates (great name for a band) will never allow this fight to go on to Pennsylvania -- a full 7 weeks away. The chances continue to dwindle, and she’s increasingly unlikely to make a successful case to secure the nomination.

The crazy thing is that I still wouldn’t weep if she were in the Oval Office, because she might get some good things done. But if Obama is not on the ticket, we’ll have lost a level of faith in candidates and the political process that we might never recover, at least not until the next generation of unspoiled voters comes of age.

The Sweet Taste Of Victory

The Teamsters endorsed Obama today, as did Ben and Jerry (yes, the ice cream guys). Teamsters + Ben and Jerry’s = extremely mixed results.

Bill Clinton had one of his less-savvy moments on the stump today:

42nd President: If she win in Texas and Ohio, I think she’ll be the nominee.

Crowd of Hillary Fans: Woooo! (enthusiastic)

42nd President: If you don’t deliver for her, I don’t think she can be. It’s all on you.

Crowd: wooo...wait, huh? (sadder, and much less enthusiastic)

Hm. Perhaps a little more direct that the Clinton campaign might have liked. At least he didn’t hit anyone this time.

Hillary lost again. She’s trailing by a considerable enough margin that she now needs not only to win both Texas and Ohio, but to run up big victories just in order to pull even in delegates. With Obama eating into Hillary’s base (ew) everywhere, and Texas in a statisical dead heat, that doesn’t appear likely. It seemed like she would give Obama a fight in WI, but she lost by 17 percentage points.

We’re getting closer and closer to an Obama mandate, while the chances of Hillary claiming that mantle are becoming almost nil.

In a show of uniformity, journalists everywhere are saying that she needs to refocus her narrative to position herself ahead of Obama. But this idea raises an interesting question: Did Hillary have a narrative in the first place?

Probably not. At this point, she seems guilty of the same miscue that neutered Rudy Giuliani’s bid, and which has continued to hurt John McCain -- she assumed too early that she would win her party’s nomination, and began establishing herself as a likable candidate for independents. She ran to the center before she had secured the support of her base.

The high number of people who rated her “unfavorable” was her biggest problem during the Summer and Fall. The perception of her as an overly ambitious robo-woman -- more than a little sexist, since few people would make such a statement if a male candidate was so authoritative and hard-bitten -- handcuffed her early on. It seems as though she sought to soothe these negative perceptions, and presented herself as nice, agreeable, and moderate. The last one is the sticking point.

Trying to hold a middle road, she couldn’t hit her opponents as hard as they hit her without confirming her unfavorable stereotype. Every Democrat attacked her, and, as the presumptive nominee, so did the top Republicans. She grinned and bore it. That’s all well and good if you’re in office, but she never carved out an image, never distinguished herself, and never honed a narrative. As a result, the most ready adjective now used to describe Hillary is “flawed.” “Flawed but Prepared” doesn’t make for a knockout campaign poster.

Wanting to de-polarize herself, she avoided taking clear positions on notable issues, and skipped tough Senate votes. She traded in a polarizing appearance for one of questionable authenticity. Obama has embraced who he is, while Hillary has run from her identity. If her own campaign can’t make her persona clear, how can she expect voters to assume they know her well enough to elect her.

There is one exception to her identity crisis, and it isn’t particularly positive: Hillary has presented herself, albeit only tacitly, as a political insider who can “get things done” once in office. As a sophomore Senator and former First Lady, she didn’t have a lot of choice there. Regardless, she embraced it, perhaps never having sensed how disastrous that image might be in an year when most of the electorate is furious with the establishment -- both Democratic and Republican.

Meanwhile, Barack was busy “changing the tone” of the campaign, coming down on the liberal side of every major issue, re-introducing optimism and positive thinking, and stoking the fervor of his supporters. He embraced change like no other candidate could, and let his natural gift for rhetoric take over.

The idea of “restoration” was the best response she had. We need to reclaim the White House from the Bush conservatives: Hillary consistently used variations on that phrase. Perhaps it never occurred to her campaign staff that voters might realize that electing any Democrat would accomplish that goal, and that the debate stage was teeming with more credible and charismatic candidates.

Hillary chose a strategy that would hold on to her most dedicated supporters, but which could never have built up such a sizable and enthusiastic base as Obama’s campaign has now built.

She has had to accept losses in every caucus state because her supporters simply don’t love her as much as Barack’s love him. Suffering 10 consecutive losses since Super Tuesday, and trailing by over one million votes since that date, she has looked less than gracious in defeat. Staff shake-ups and her husband’s apparent anger on the campaign trail has only fueled speculation that the Clinton campaign is stunned by the recent results, and is falling apart.

Recall Florida is Rudy Country. Giuliani spent millions on that idea, hoping to convince voters there to ignore the results from other states, so that he could end a four-week streak of losses. Now Hillary must follow suit. If her victories in Texas and Ohio are anything less than overwhelming, she might be out of contention. And even if they are overwhelming victories, it still doesn’t look good.

She was the presumptive nominee for over a year, and yet she may never have given herself a chance. As least, unlike Rudy, she managed better than a fourth-place finish.