. . . so I started a State Petition in Montana to challenge Citizens United. And I am supposed to publicise the link on all my portals, so here it is Challenge Citizen’s United Decision
Let’s see if anyone is listening in.
Archive for category Politics
So, I think I have the gun control issue partly solved in the USA, if anyone is still listening, but possibly not.
I actually asked my buddy Otto whether or not we need to just admit that these kids in Sandy Hook Elementary just don’t mean that much in the overall scheme of things. Isn’t that right, and shouldn’t we just admit that and move on, unless you are really interested in seeing that this sort of thing gets reduced in the USA? Perhaps the statistics above prove that to be true, but direct discussion with gun advocates suggests otherwise. You see, my buddy Otto is one serious constitution reading libertarian, and he is not interested in giving up any of his guns at all.
And I am with him, to a point. But I see guns in America as another set of dangerous goods that must be managed. We could also have some discussions around just what is required to maintain a “well regulated militia”, how large a magazine, how many of them, and what rate of fire is required, but even if we don’t go there, I have a set of reasonable suggestions that don’t significantly impact on anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights, while making sure that everyone’s rights under the 1st Amendment aren’t jeopardised inadvertently in the move toward an armed camp in the USA. Because I honestly see it that way. I believe that my freedom of movement, association and pursuit of happiness are significantly diminished by having to worry if I am going to get shot trying to enjoy dinner and a movie, go to work, or school.
Through a bit of reading, and further discussions with Otto, I think I have an answer that appeals to the right, left, up and down in politics with a significant enough plurality amongst all that it works: personal responsibility. It’s always a good time in America to have a chat about personal responsibility, as it seems to be the answer to a number of the ills there, and everyone initially says they are all for it. The religious love it, despite the fact that they go all moral on you. The left can come to support it, because it finally gives them a chance to hold someone in power to account. And the right love it, because it has an emotional appeal to their both authoritarian and libertarian sides. The only people who couldn’t support it are the mentally defective, who by definition can’t be held personally responsible, so who gives a shit what they think.
Here’s how gun control works based on personal responsibility. Guns are a dangerous good that (peculiarly) if used as intended or not can cause the death of people, animals and some potentially significant property damage. They are also required to be available in the population to allow for the forming of militias to overthrow a despotic government, should that come to pass. In order for the government to unsure the maintenance of this potential to removal of itself by force, we need to know what the numbers are, and ensure that there is sufficient distribution and numbers that they can be called to use (I assume by the States individually) to overthrow the federal government. So the States really need the information, but what we really want to focus on is personal responsibility, so we need not write much regulation, that way the law can be cost efficiently implemented, and also generate some friendly competition in service providers for the information.
The law will say this: If you want own a gun in the future, you will be required to register it’s storage location with your state police, and commit to storing and maintaining it in a safe and secure manner. You are personally responsible for the safety and security of your firearm to prevent its being used by anyone who cannot be held personally responsible for its use in the killing of any human inadvertently or with malevolent intent, or in the negligent or wilful killing or damage to any property, unless that killing or damage is found to be lawful through a jury trial. That’s it. It’s also pretty much already law in most jurisdictions in the USA, following the implementation of registration.
You are already responsible if your 7 year old child takes your car and runs down a grandmother during a joy ride, or uses your gun to shoot 10-15 sheep on your neighbour’s property for sport. The only reason I want to make sure you register your gun is so that I can hold you responsible in the event you don’t maintain your dangerous good in a fashion that is safe and secure, and you have tons of leeway in defining “safe and secure” in your particular situation, because there is going to be no “prior restraint” in the implementation of my law. No one is going to be around to check, and no standards are going to be published to define “safe and secure” for you. If you make your guns kept for home protection, hunting or whatever safe and secure such that they are never used in a killing by your children through education or sheer intimidation, great. If you use a trigger lock, safe or concealment to secure your guns, cool. Whatever you want to do, you decide. And if a person breaks into your house, steals your .45 from under your pillow and commits a murder later, we aren’t going to hold you civilly or criminally responsible for his criminal acts. But if you are going to raise a sociopath, psychopath or a person who cannot control their anger, and they get ahold of your gun and use it to kill a bunch of people, you will likely have to pay, and potentially be held criminally responsible for gross negligence. So, you might want to consider some disaster insurance if you want to own an assault rifle and a dozen clips of ammo, or even an automatic weapon, which by the way I am pretty much OK with under my new legal regime. Just be fucking responsible.
Unless they refuse to register their guns, the only time the average gun owner is going to have any brush up against the law is forensically in the investigation of homicide, just like they are now, and even identification of the recalcitrants will be through forensic investigation, as there is no need for proactive audit or inspections. 2nd Amendment supporters are often quick to site how rare the cases of a person who cannot be held responsible is responsible for significant killing, so there should be almost imperceptible impact to those people. If you fail to register your guns and they are identified forensically, but not in relation to a killing or significant damage incident, you will be required to register them at that time and face some administrative penalty. In the cases where an unregistered gun is identified in the course of a criminal investigation, it will be forfeited, registered by the police and recycled for some beneficial use or materials.
For those paranoid of registration, let this be some comfort. Any incremental damage done by this perceived encroachment on your 2nd Amendment Rights is far offset by the benefit of the elimination of incidents like Sandy Hook, Aurora, the temple, Virgina Tech and Columbine. Because those incidents all involve damage to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of all those involved as victims. And in my world 1 comes before 2, especially if I can prove no significant reduction in 2 through regulation of my well organised militia.
So, how’d we do in our predictions? And will I be foolish enough to publish a few more?
Well, as predictors go, I’m no Nate Silver. But that would require a devotion to pure math I just ain’t got.
On the other hand, I predict multiple things, so you know, its harder to hold up a record.
Anyway, on to the specifics:
• The carbon tax will end up being a non-issue, or even net positive to the Gillard government with the electorate when it comes into effect on 1 July.
Spot on.
• Kevin Rudd will not successfully challenge Julia Gillard to take over leadership of the Labor Party.
Spot on, and although only three weeks out, I wish I had tried to find a bet on it.
• Europe is already in a recession, and when they finally do the numbers after the fact, it will be a big one. My guess is a drop in GDP in the Euro zone of 3% and a duration of 2 years. Keynesian economic theory will win out in the argument over austerity or stimulus, but the Germans (and others) who want to paint the sovereign debt issues in Europe as a morality tale will realise this way to late, or refuse to admit it at least.
Still in the running, with all the timely stuff spot on, and the Germans are actually still taking that line.
• Greece will default on its sovereign debt after failing to come to an agreement with its lenders and failing to get assistance from the European Central Bank (due to the point above) and will therefore leave the euro and reintroduce its own currency so that it can devalue it in order to address its problem as an alternative to the austerity program being pushed on it (that cannot work in any case).
Nope. Maybe still this year, but it depends on what the Greek government is forced to propose next, and whether protest on the streets and escalation ensues.
• The USA will escape any serious damage from the european sovereign debt crisis and have surprisingly good growth in 2012 of about 2% of GDP.
Well, the final numbers for 2012 aren’t in, but when they are this is going to be spot on or near enough to.
• Barack Obama will be re-elected as President in the USA over Mitt Romney.
Oh, I rock, spot on. This one is particularly satisfying as I did manage to get a bet on this one, and I had the economy predicted right in the first place.
• Synaptor apps will be one of the biggest internet successes of the year in Australia
Dead wrong. Many problems with the market, the market fit, schedule, etc. Still technologically very good, and the next app is nearing release that should have more broad appeal.
OK, so let’s see if I have nay predictions for 2013. I really don’t have any big shocking ones, as it isn’t like 2012, when there seemed to be a lot of important things coming up that could change history.
Well, I shouldn’t say that, as we will likely have a Federal election in August, or soon after. This government will very much want to pick its time, and will need all the luck it can find to overcome the many stumbles and own-goals of 2012, which distracts from a pretty solid policy output. This government, on balance, deserves to be returned at this point, but only just on balance. If they fuck up even one seriously important thing from this point on, then its the Mad Monk for us for sure.
Economically, I think we have to bank on things getting better, albeit slowly. Australia should have at target, or just below GDP growth. Mining investment may be on the wane, but mining income from its investments will be ok to good, depending on how much growth we see in China on a recovering price. But the continuing recovery will not be wild, and I don’t think the Sydney market is going to go through the roof. Or Perth. Maybe New York, late in the year once any Sandy stimulus is finally passed and works its way into that market.
The US is going to go on at or just below target GDP growth, maybe 2-2.5% growth. It will be constrained by links to Europe, and its own dabbling with austerity when the fight over the debt ceiling raise occurs in 2 months. Keep some money in the bank to make some good buys in the market during that time of uncertainty, as there are likely to be anxious sellers of good value based on how bad the noise of that argument gets, despite the fact that we all know how it will come out. The debt ceiling will get raised to cover the money already committed by the US House in legislation and will not default in any actual way on its debt. Virtually nothing will happen to US interest rates even if any of the ratings agencies bother to lower their ratings during the manufactured crisis. I mean, do we take anything these venal idiots seriously anymore anyway? The US stock market will take a hit and be volatile then, but will recover and have a good to very good year. Who knows in the Australian market, and it’s pretty boring anyway.
The ECB will, as quietly as possible, start carrying out its actions in a manner that is consistent with a belief in keynesian economics, and also act as the lender of last resort as required, to keep the euro alive.
It’s going to be another very cool year in science, from NASA to to the Halron Collider, but I have no predictions there.
. . . with some politics on both sides of the pond.
So the US Senate passed a compromise and now the US House has to vote on it, and the fanatical Republicans (all the usual actors, Bachman, Goh, etc.) don’t like it and are having a spack.
Then fucking don’t vote for it and fer fucks sake get on with it. There isn’t a filibuster in the US House, so unless the speaker is too much of a girl to bring it to a vote, and then hopefully not get re-elected speaker on the 3rd, as could happen with the reduced numbers the Republicans got in the last election. Also remember that that election (for President) was also run on a tax hike for the rich, and a specific one that is a hell of a lot tougher on them than the one in the US Senate bill. The progressives get the tax hike and you get exactly nothing is my starting point. Take it or leave it and we slash defence by 20% and blame it on you for sure. Obama can figure out a way to take care of the poor within its programs, and take more of a fair amount from the rich, in the many welfare programs for companies and the middle class that end up benefitting the rich more anyway.
Now shall we talk about the debt ceiling. I am totally in to reducing the total amount owed by the US government, and also the current account deficit, where it suits given the macro economic conditions. However, if we really want to reduce overall debt, we have to start with defence and health care (not health insurance) and forget about trying to take it all out of the middle class and poor. Look at productivity gains and distribution of those gains over the last 30 years, and you should come to the conclusion that what is proposed is very fair on the rich, and that there is a lot more that we need to do to make sure that workers share from increased productivity they provide.
Here at home in Australia, we have what passes for a scandal these days, with Maclin reportedly saying she could live on the $35 a day new start allowance. Well I got some news for some whingers here too, harden the fuck up. I can and do live on less than $35 a day now, and although Jenni makes allegedly 25x what the new start allowance equates to in a salary, and I have no idea what I am on. But I live on that amount now, and I don’t think that new start is meant to be the full amount to maintain any “lifestyle” whatsoever. Its meant to be the money use use to get around and feed yourself while you look for work. The Labor party needs to look straight down the barrel of the camera on the next dozen occasions and talk about a few things that really matter, and not worry if someone tries to pick at them, from right or left over statements that don’t really mean anything in the overall scheme of things.
Otherwise, show me the data that Australia and the States are fucking over poor people on a regular basis, forcing them to live in inhumane conditions, or not providing them additional support if they have bigger problems like disability or drug dependency. $35 a day to look for a job sounds about right to me at present.
via Krugman
May 21
. . . well actually from Michael Tobis via Romm, via Krugman
A pretty accurate picture of something I have been talking about for a long time.
The small peak to the left is not, I suspect, even as large as actually represented, but if it is I am sure that has to do with the false equivalency presented by the mainstream media.
Nice to see the support of opinions I have held for a while being supported by those I admire in their area of expertise.
I understand that Dick Cheney’s operation has opened up the debate about whether he got special treatment or moved up the donors list.
I can tell you that while he may have used influence to get the kids heart (probably with lots of his blood while you are there), he certainly deserved it more than most on the list because he didn’t have one to begin with.
You ain’t no Darryl Kerrigan
Mar 15
I reckon Clive Palmer might have gone burko, and is having delusions about having gone to law school instead of into real estate as a young fellow. But whatever the cause, he has moved off free speech as his focus last week on the constitutionality of taxation this week. Busy guy. Perhaps he reckons he can do it all: run his magic dirt and mineral enterprise, fight the FFA/FIFA, fight the mining tax and fight the carbon tax all at once. Or perhaps he is a full of shit, bluffing windbag.
I’m not a constitutional lawyer, but here is why I will go with option 2:
1. The Federal government has the right to impose taxes and duties. This has been tested a number of times, but is pretty solid, based on the amount that my company and I pay every quarter. I don’t reckon Clive is on a winner, if he wants to take on the constitutionality of taxation in general.
2. The Federal government has the right to identify air pollutants of concern and regulate the collection of data on them and their emissions into the receiving environment. We have about 40 years of precedent in this area generally. With respect to CO2, the basis upon which the carbon tax will be collected is the data generated under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (NGER), and despite the huge shit fight over its introduction in industry, no industry lobbying group (and all the big ones were involved) ever suggested it was unconstitutional. It has also passed muster on the basis of sound scientific methodology, so there goes any arbitrary and capricious argument.
3. The Federal or State governments have the right to apply fees (or taxes) to companies that want to discharge pollutants to the common environment in their jurisdiction. Tipping fees, sewage charges and even air pollutant emissions are charged by State and Local governments now, and the extension of this to the Federal Government is not a huge reach in logic. He might be attempting the challenge in this area on the basis of an argument of Intergovernmental Immunity (thank you Wikipedia):
“… the Engineers’ Case held that there was no general immunity between State and Commonwealth governments from each other’s laws, the Commonwealth cannot enact taxation laws that discriminated between the States or parts of the States (Section 51(ii)), nor enact laws that discriminated against the States, or such as to prevent a State from continuing to exist and function as a state”
He may also want to make an argument based on an argument that the new law does not fall within a permissible head of power granted to the Commonwealth government by the Constitution.
While either of these is a possible route of attack, the case of the Carbon Tax being applied to the whole of the country is not likely to be found to be discriminatory against any state, and if this type of taxation of a pollutant is found to be a States’ right rather than the Commonwealth, there are one or more easy workarounds to deliver the intent.
4. But the most obvious reason this constitutional challenge isn’t going to hold water came from Clive himself. Clive was not willing to leak the details on the 730 Report of the precise basis of the means by which the carbon tax is unconstitutional. If he had anything, he’d come out with it. See, constitutional law isn’t like a regular tort. It isn’t like Clive would benefit by hiding his most excellent constitutional argument for a packed courtroom, spring it on the packed house and unsuspecting government barristers, get a judgement and penalty in his favour on the day and be carried off on the shoulders* of his supporters and then next day be much richer. If he had anything worth a damn, he would have won the argument last night with it.
Now, if there were some technicality that did allow the High Court to rule the carbon tax unconstitutional, the government would merely find another means by which to attach its revenue generating mechanism to existing sources to achieve the same effect**. For instance, it could use the NGER data collected to establish the amount owed by each business, then reduce the amount of GST or mining tax revenue returned to the individual states with the identification of the business that the reduction was due to, then suggest that the State recoup that revenue through rate-based licensing regulations that are already on the books by simply adding CO2-e to the pollutants of concern that they “tax” now.
But let’s hope Clive gets lots of lawyers in Sydney and Canberra involved, because that part of the country needs some stimulus. It would really nice if, like in a tort, the Federal government could recoup its costs from Clive when he is unsuccessful.
* if you could even picture that
** as it says right in the legislation, a similar case to many other precedents where a specific law was found unconstitutional, but that did not prevent the Commonwealth from delivering the intent of the law through other mechanisms.
Measures of devotion
Feb 22
An update on my post from Monday. Today we find out that Peter H. Gleick, founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security is the person that duped the Heartland Institute into releasing a number of its confidential documents regarding its funding and plans to attempt to refute the science of climate change and counter or attack those that believe in the scientific method and the weight of evidence in favour of the arguments regarding anthropogenic climate change.
The links to the above go to the Boards of the two organisations above so that readers can do their own research where it matters, at the top of the organisations. I encourage interested parties to also look further into the funding of both, as that information is as illuminating of the agendas of the two groups as anything published on their websites.
Based on his admission, Peter Gleick will now almost certainly face the full force of the best law money can buy from his adversaries, and the truth is that he should. He obtained the confidential information he released through deception, as he has admitted in his statement published by the Huffington Post. If that is a criminal act, or breaks a civil code, he should be tried, convicted and sentenced appropriately. However, that will not diminish the substance of what he collected, as was covered in my previous post.
In the progress of whatever trial ensues, we will find out for sure which of the documents are real and which are fake, as Heritage has claimed both. But you can’t have it both ways, either the documents are genuine and therefore the alleged theft substantive, or they are fake and there is essentially no case to answer.
Perhaps Peter Gleick wants it that way so that his legal journey is well publicised. If that is the case, it will be a demonstration of one of the only real ways to counter the climate deniers. Because the truth is that the climate deniers are funded by phenomenally rich arseholes and corporations they control, and the likes of the Pacific Institue and DeSmogBlog are funded on a pittance in comparison. The only thing the latter have to provide a balance to the war chest of the evil are the scientific facts being on their side and their devotion to the scientific method. I hope that the measure of devotion that Peter Gleick is demonstrating ends up being worth it to him, and worth all the money that Heritage can scrounge together to fund their side of the story to unfold.
Couldn’t give a rusty. . .
Feb 15
Honestly, do we have so little actually going on here in Australia that we need to dissect even more completely than was done 3 years ago how Julia Gillard took over the leadership of the Labor Party from Kevin Rudd?
I mean, sure, a sitting leader of a party currently holding government had never before been replaced. But beyond that technical first, do we really need this much examination of the event. Who gives a shit if she asked her staff to prepare an acceptance speech beforehand, or what sort of polling she used and who she presented it to? To me the whole thing smacks of a beat up by the ABC and others in the press who aren’t interested in doing more real investigative journalism on something like (say) why we would want to spend $300 MM on a fairy tale like carbon capture and storage.
The truth is, Kevin Rudd backed out of several key commitments that were part of the platform he ran on, wasting the highest approval ratings of a government in a long time, and was so tone deaf to his colleagues that he lost their support. This was obvious due to his patently obvious shock and tears at the press conference after his removal. He was replaced as party head (and therefore as Prime Minister) by another through the open and well tested practice of a spill in caucus. All the rest is fairly irrelevant at this point.
Now, if we want to talk about the failings of Julia Gillard and the current government, let’s do that. But let’s stop wasting a lot of time examining a four year old leadership spill.
A few predictions
Feb 7
Before it gets to late in the year, I want to write down a few predictions so that I can remind myself next year of what I thought. I remembered to do this today after reading a couple that I passed on verbally to friends a month ago, and are now being taken up by those such as the head of the IMF, and I want to see how I go against the experts.
• The carbon tax will end up being a non-issue, or even net positive to the Gillard government with the electorate when it comes into effect on 1 July. As my buddy JC said in October, as long as the difference to what the average taxpayer gets back in benefit is greater than their additional costs by the price of a a slab of VB or more, it will be seen as a net benefit.
• Kevin Rudd will not successfully challenge Julia Gillard to take over leadership of the Labor Party. In fact, he probably won’t even mount an actual challenge at all. Tony Abbott is as likely to face a challenge of leadership as Julia Gillard is as it comes closer to the next election and the Coalition discovers that “no” is not a policy position that excites the electorate.
• Europe is already in a recession, and when they finally do the numbers after the fact, it will be a big one. My guess is a drop in GDP in the Euro zone of 3% and a duration of 2 years. Keynesian economic theory will win out in the argument over austerity or stimulus, but the Germans (and others) who want to paint the sovereign debt issues in Europe as a morality tale will realise this way to late, or refuse to admit it at least.
• Greece will default on its sovereign debt after failing to come to an agreement with its lenders and failing to get assistance from the European Central Bank (due to the point above) and will therefore leave the euro and reintroduce its own currency so that it can devalue it in order to address its problem as an alternative to the austerity program being pushed on it (that cannot work in any case).
• The USA will escape any serious damage from the european sovereign debt crisis and have surprisingly good growth in 2012 of about 2% of GDP.
• Barack Obama will be re-elected as President in the USA over Mitt Romney. Unfortunately for Mittens, this is not going to be the year for someone in the 0.01% of the wealth category to win amongst the Occupiers or the Tea Party, and despite what they say in public, I don’t think most Americans (religious or not) are ready to elect a Mormon as president. In addition, the economy in the US is starting to get better for real people, and they will vote based on their current economic condition.
• Synaptor apps will be one of the biggest internet successes of the year in Australia