This Week in America

This Week in America (Vol. 3, Week 39, Abbreviated Edition)

We're pretty sure this is the first time in almost three years that we've missed two weeks in a row. This week it's crazy busy-ness, compounded by travel. With luck we'll be back to normal next week, because there's been much that we've wanted to talk about, like Carly Fiorina going to the mat in defense of a lie (that might have been a faulty memory to start with, but turned into a lie when she became ever more insistent that it was true). And Joe Biden surging in the polls, despite not (yet) being a candidate. And Donald whatsisname appearing on Colbert and coming across as almost resembling a human.

But we don't have the time or the intellectual bandwidth to get into those or anything else. So here's your reading assignment for the week. Read Pope Francis's address to a joint session of Congress.

It doesn't matter if you're Catholic, or a believer, or an atheist, or what. We're not believers, but we recognize wisdom when we hear or see it. And we recognize good political skills. Pope Francis is a better politician than anyone running for president in 2016. He has choreographed his visit to the US to get across his particular message, amplifying it by delivering it to different audiences (knowing that via those audiences, it will spread throughout the body politic). He spoke to Congress with respect, giving a thoroughly American speech despite the fact that English is something like his fifth language and he's never been here before. He knows what he's doing, and he's doing it with almost uncanny skill and precision.

In 21st-century America, calling someone a politician could be considered an insult. Not to him. He compared the members of Congress--this Congress, the one that careens from one self-made crisis to the next, seemingly accomplishing little more than (barely) keeping the lights on--to Moses.

"Yours is a work which makes me reflect in two ways on the figure of Moses. On the one hand, the patriarch and lawgiver of the people of Israel symbolizes the need of peoples to keep alive their sense of unity by means of just legislation. On the other, the figure of Moses leads us directly to God and thus to the transcendent dignity of the human being. Moses provides us with a good synthesis of your work: you are asked to protect, by means of the law, the image and likeness fashioned by God on every human face."

Specifically on the subject of politics, he said, "Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life. I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in this effort.Here too I think of the march which Martin Luther King led from Selma to Montgomery fifty years ago as part of the campaign to fulfill his 'dream' of full civil and political rights for African Americans. That dream continues to inspire us all. I am happy that America continues to be, for many, a land of 'dreams.' Dreams which lead to action, to participation, to commitment."

He went further in his praise of Congress, adding, "In Laudato Si’, I call for a courageous and responsible effort to 'redirect our steps' and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity. I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States – and this Congress – have an important role to play."

Many members of Congress might look askance at that--but then again, they were in the chamber today when this humble man, this man who views everything through the prism of service, of what each of us can do for one another, spoke those words. Maybe they were moved, inspired, to look beyond partisan politics and the demands of the base and the bankrollers, to put aside fears and doubts and to do what's right.

Coincidentally--or not, if you believe in the guiding hand of a higher power--China today announced that it's launching a cap-and-trade program to limit carbon pollution. Cap-and-trade is a concept devised by American economists, and favored by politicians on both sides of the aisle until the Republican base got too restive. Now China's going ahead with it, while virtually all of the Republicans running for president have said that America can't fix climate change on its own, so why bother trying? Now that we're not alone (we never were, really, but China is taking a truly ambitious step--not just for the sake of the world, but so they can breathe the air in Beijing), and now that the Holy Father has told them he's counting on them, maybe they'll stop pretending the scientists are all wrong, and do the right thing.

Near the speech's beginning, he told Congress what he expects--what we should all expect--of them. "Each son or daughter of a given country has a mission, a personal and social responsibility. Your own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity, to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you."

That's as good a summary of representative democracy as we've ever seen.

Pope Francis spoke about Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day, and Thomas Merton. He appealed, in Lincoln's words, to the "better angels of our nature."  We don't have to agree with everything he says, but it doesn't hurt to agree with the spirit in which he says it--a spirit of grace, and humility, and service to others.

If this non-standard TWiA isn't enough, go read about Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton, both radical Catholics. Pope Francis drew a line this week, identifying himself as a spiritual descendant of those radicals. He's started something with his papacy that we haven't seen in a very long time, and he's not finished yet. Not by a long shot.
(Thanks to TWiA special Vatican correspondent Marcy Rockwell.)

LATE UPDATE

House Speaker John Boehner (R/OH) announced on Friday morning that he will step down from his leadership position. Boehner was never a strong Speaker, which was not entirely his own fault. He moved into the job when the 2010 tea party wave made Republicans in the majority, and that  far-right caucus came to Washington to wreck, not to serve. Boehner loves the House, loves Congress, and appreciates the institution itself. But he had to try to steer a course between the compromise built into our system of government by the Founders, and the bomb-throwers who were elected in order to prevent compromise. The hard-line right never had enough members to get their own way, but they had enough to prevent the less hard-line from getting their way, either. Which effectively meant that nothing got down unless Boehner cooperated with House Democrats, which only infuriated his right flank even more.

By announcing his resignation now, he sealed a deal to pass a clean Continuing Resolution, keeping the government funded for at least another few months and averting a shutdown next week. This shutdown would have been another of the above-referenced series of self-made crises. Boehner has to be tired of that, weary of fighting with his own caucus. And he's just successfully pulled off a lifelong goal--getting a Pope to speak to Congress. A devout Catholic, Boehner has invited the last three Popes, but it never came together until this week. Capping his Speakership with that accomplishment is going out on a high note.

We don't know yet who will replace him. Whoever it is will have an unenviable job, because that far-right group--egged on by the likes of Sen. Ted Cruz and Rush Limbaugh--isn't going away. The new Speaker will have to learn Boehner's tightrope act, and accept that one of the most powerful jobs in government isn't all that powerful when the Speaker's own members refuse to accept that compromise is how things get done. Pope Francis reminded them, "A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you." We'll see if they understand those words.

This Week in Debates

There's unlikely to be a TWiA installment this week, because we've just been too busy day and night to read, report, process, and write about America's policy/political scene.

We will however, share a thought or two about the incredibly long debate we just watched (albeit while doing other things, so we might have missed a bon mot here and there).

The most notable fact was how much the Republican candidates have to deny reality to make their pitches. To talk about immigration, they have to pretend that the Mexican border is wide open. We know that the border is more secure than it's ever been, that the current administration has been beefing up the Border Patrol, closing the fences, deporting millions, and that undocumented immigrants are crossing at a lower rate than they have in decades.

To talk about the economy, they have to pretend that the current administration has been an economic disaster. The economic disaster happened during the previous president's administration, in part because of the policies that president championed. This president took solid, significant action that prevented a second Great Depression, even though in some ways the 2007-08 recession was more dangerous and could have been far worse. The president acted, he brought Congress along, and the unemployment stats turned around, setting a record stretch of job growth, saving the auto industry, funding clean energy initiatives, and more. No, the economy isn't perfect yet, but it's close to statistical full employment, and getting closer all the time. The deficit is shrinking, the GDP is growing.

To talk about climate change, they have to either pretend it doesn't exist, that it's a left-wing fantasy, or that there's not a global effort underway to try to address it. We can't do anything by ourselves, they say. The fact is that we're not by ourselves; we're working with the rest of the world--but we have to do our part. We're the undisputed world's superpower, so the other countries look to us for an example. If we ignore the problem--and it is a real problem; ask California before it dries out and blows away, or burns to a crisp--how can we fault them for ignoring it, too.

To talk about Hillary Clinton, they have to pretend that she's been lying about Benghazi, lying about emails, and--well, that's pretty much all they've got at the moment. They've tried to make a scandal out of the deaths of Americans in Libya, and they keep claiming that the FBI has initiated a criminal investigation of her, which is completely untrue. This week, the Justice Department said there was nothing wrong with what she did.

To talk about the Iranian nuclear deal, they have to pretend that it helps Iran get nuclear weapons instead of preventing them from having them. They pretend that we can pull out of it and keep the existing sanctions on Iran, or impose new, harsher ones, which we can't.

To talk about ISIS, they have to pretend that it started after Obama brought the troops home from Iraq (on Bush's prearranged timetable), instead of acknowledging that it grew out of Al-Qaeda in Iraq during the vacuum that existed after we destroyed Iraq's existing institutions.

There will be fact-checks galore over the next few days. We can't resist fact-checking one comment that Jeb Bush made. Challenged about his brother's record, Jeb said, "As it relates to my brother, I know one thing for sure: he kept us safe."

We've heard others make similar comments, and it always boggles the mind. Does he think we've forgotten that 9/11--the most deadly single attack on American soil in our history--happened on his brother's watch? Does he think we don't know that Hurricane Katrina, which became the deadliest natural disaster in our history largely because of the administration's feeble response, happened on his brother's watch? Does he think we've forgotten that Bush gave up the search for Bin Laden, and diverted his attention and resources to Iraq? What is it, exactly, that George W. kept us safe from, Jeb? Bigfoot?

If we had to pick a "winner," we'd say there was only one candidate who came across as presidential. Ohio governor John Kasich spoke like a general election candidate, like he wants the votes of all Americans, like he wants to work with both sides, to bring Americans together to seek real answers to hard problems. Kasich is very conservative, but he has a knack for coming across as reasonable, as a man who lives according to his faith but doesn't use faith as a cudgel. The rest were after one another, playing to their various bases, but not speaking to the wider audience of viewers and voters.

If we had to pick a loser, it would be a tie between Trump and Carson, neither of whom know the first thing about policy, about the world situation, about much of anything that matters. Republican primary voters will disagree, no doubt. For us, we'd want to vote for someone who knows something. Anything.

Edited to add: Votes on who drops out next? (Not counting Jim Gilmore, who so far has had less impact on the race than Deez Nuts.) Paul? Pataki? Rubio? Graham? We think Christie helped himself tonight, as did Fiorina, so they probably stay in the running for a while, but somebody's going soon.

Edited once more to add: The lamest line of the night had to be Marco Rubio's excuse for not taking action on gun violence: Criminals by definition don't obey the law, so all the gun laws won't have any impact on gun violence.

That might be true if gun violence was all, or mostly, due to the actions of criminals. It's not. It's kids getting their hands on Daddy's pistol. It's suicide. It's domestic abusers. It's people with mental health issues but no criminal records. It's accidents. Sometimes it's criminals. And yes, passing laws that require, for instance, universal background checks rather than leaving gaping loopholes, would help keep criminals from getting guns. Fewer guns circulating in the population keeps criminals from getting guns. Rubio's argument is flat-out nonsense, and he should be ashamed for uttering it.

This Week in America (Vol. 3, Week 37, 9/11 Edition)

 

 

This Week in Cheneyville

The debate over the Iran nuclear deal came to a head this week, and for reasons beyond understanding, not only did former Vice President Dick Cheney making the rounds to attack the deal, but some poor deluded souls took him seriously.

This is the vice president, remember, who was largely responsible for the worst foreign policy blunders in any of our lifetimes. Looking to him for wisdom on Iran is a little like asking Wrong-way Corrigan for directions, only far more dangerous.

We don't think Cheney is a fool. We think he's a rampant ideologue who, not incidentally, has friends who make a lot of money off war. He's not stupid, he's just hopelessly dishonest and utterly corrupt. This week, he was called out on--of all places--Fox "News." His interview with Chris Wallace included this exchange.

"The Fox News host flashed that data on screen so no one could miss it, and added: 'So in fairness, didn’t you leave – the Bush-Cheney administration – leave President Obama with a mess?'

"'Well, I don’t think of it that way,' Cheney countered.

[…] “'But the centrifuges went from zero to 5,000,' Wallace pressed.

“'Well, they may well have gone but that happened on Obama’s watch, not on our watch,' Cheney replied."

Actually, you could leave "rep" off that final word, unless you were using it as an abbreviation for "repeatedly lied." To his credit, Wallace didn't let him off the hook.

Here's what really happened, as described by Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine:

"What makes this so bizarre is that our putative commitment to preventing an Iranian nuclear program disintegrated under Cheney’s watch. It was not under the Obama presidency that Iran arrived on the doorstep of the nuclear club. It was during Cheney’s (vice-) presidency. It was, moreover, Cheney’s contributions to the Middle East landscape that enabled Iran’s general rise. Destroying Iran’s chief rival in the region, Saddam Hussein, without any plan to occupy or to replace that government, allowed Iran to fill the vacuum we created.

"Bush and Cheney may have rhetorically opposed the Iranian nuclear program. In reality, they allowed it to blossom. As Marc Champion explained several months ago, 'at the start of Bush's presidency, Iran had no operational centrifuge cascades and no stocks of enriched fuel, so it had no means of making a nuclear weapon.' Then things got bad:

"'By the time Bush left office in January 2009, Iran had just under 4,000 working centrifuges and an additional 1,600 installed. These had, to that point, produced 171 kilos of low-enriched uranium. Oh, and Iran had covertly built a new enrichment facility under a mountain at Qom.'"

In a speech on Tuesday, Cheney said this: "This agreement will give Iran the means to launch a nuclear attack on the U.S. homeland. I know of no nation in history that has agreed to guarantee that the means of its own destruction will be in the hands of another nation, particularly one that is hostile."

The facts on the ground are a little different, of course. Without this agreement, Iran could have a nuclear bomb in a few months at the outside. The deal absolutely prevents them from getting one within 15 years, and even after that, many of the deal's provisions, including inspections, remain in place. Cheney--who resorted to scare tactics and nonsense when selling the Iraq war (remember "I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators?")--is doing the same here.

At The Atlantic (reprinted here by Defense One), Peter Beinart looks at Cheney's serial mendacity on this topic, concluding with, "For all his dishonesty about the details of the agreement with Iran, there is an underlying honesty to Cheney’s broader perspective. Recognizing that Americans have no appetite for another Middle Eastern war, most deal opponents have spent the summer insisting that they really, really believe in diplomacy with Iran, just not Obama’s kind. Cheney doesn’t bother. The end of his AEI speech is a paean to the effectiveness of military force as a means of stopping nuclear proliferation. Only Dick Cheney could interpret the last decade or two of U.S. foreign policy as a testament to the efficacy and morality of war. But the former vice president has his own relationship with reality. When dissonant information intrudes, he simply mutters 'right,' and keeps on going."

In this reality, Bush and Cheney imposed weak sanctions on Iran, and they took Iraq--Iran's main stabilizing force--out of the picture. (This, of course, follows the Reagan-Bush administration providing arms to both Iran and Iraq, and the first Bush administration--during which Cheney served as Defense Secretary--going to war against Iraq and creating the conditions that led to Al Qaeda's ongoing resentment against the US. Then we act surprised when they turn their guns on us.) The Obama administration ramped up the sanctions considerably, to the point that they choked Iran's economy. At the same time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton negotiated with the world's major powers, including the Russians and the Chinese, persuading them to add their own sanctions, to hold Iran's metaphorical feet to the fire until they were forced to negotiate.

Surely Cheney knows these things. He knows that his administration's sanctions had little effect. He knows Iran's nuclear program grew tremendously during that administration. He knows the centrifuges multiplied dramatically before Obama ever took office.

But he's an extremist with a hunger for war (of course, he never fought in one, or served in the military, but he sure loves sending troops into harm's way), and he has no moral qualms against flat-out lying to the public he supposedly served. To be fair, he has no moral qualms about much of anything, including ensuring that we can never again say that the US doesn't start wars, ending the long-standing American prohibition of torture, or shooting an old man in the face. Stupidity or ignorance would be easier to forgive, but Cheney's known to be a pretty smart guy. Why on earth anyone, at this point, would believe a word he utters is a mystery that may never be solved.

Below the fold: Iran, Louie, liberty, cults, fire, and of course, bears.

This Week in America (Vol. 3, Week 36)

TWiA explores the intersection of policy and politics, and most importantly, how that intersection affects real people. It's dedicated to the proposition that good government is possible, it matters, and taxpayers deserve nothing less. Its starting point is that facts are facts, science is real, data are real, and we can and must learn from history. Below you'll find facts and opinions that derive from fact, informed by a close and careful study of these issues that began in 1968 and has never stopped. Note, when we discuss generic "Democrats" and "Republicans" or "conservatives" and "liberals," etc., we're generally talking about elected officials, unless otherwise noted. Also, bonus bear news and other awesomeness. We appreciate comments and arguments, so please chime in, and if you like it, spread the word. 

 

This Week in Judicial Activism on a Grand Scale

Establishment conservatives like Jeb Bush constantly rail against judicial activism. But to Bush's right, there's a network of Libertarians who are actively working to remake our entire judicial system, from law students to clerks to law professors to lawyers to judges to Supreme Court justices. If they have their way--especially if a couple of their people make it into SCOTUS--then America would see a sudden and dramatic rolling back of the clock.

These Libertarians would use judicial might to undo the programs of the New Deal, like Social Security. They would undo programs of the Civil Rights era, like the Voting Rights Act. They would undo food safety laws, minimum wage laws, worker safety laws, laws against child labor and laws against compelling employees to work 60 hours a week. In their eyes, the Constitution has two purposes: "to secure inalienable property and contract rights for individuals."

In other words, to let the rich have and do essentially whatever they can afford, at the expense of everyone else.

A company that wanted its employees to labor for 19 hours a day in an enclosed room with no climate control or ventilation systems, plucking chickens with their bare hands, could get away with it as long as it could find employees willing to work under those conditions. And since the job down the road might be just as bad or worse, and the employees would have no federal protections or right to organize, it probably could. The lessons taught in 1911 by the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire would be unlearned.

Social Security allows people to pay into a system that will pay them back in their later years, when most of them are no longer able to hold jobs. In many cases, it's the lifeline that lets seniors live with some measure of dignity, and not have to subsist on cat food in order to pay rent and buy medicine. Under these people, that would disappear, and seniors would have to try to find paying work, or starve.

Medicare allows those same seniors to get necessary health care, at the age when they need it most, without bankrupting themselves or being denied care because they can't afford the exorbitant rates the medical community demands (and it could demand more, because there would be no laws restricting it).

The Fair Housing Act forbids housing discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, and other protected statuses. Under these people, that would go away, and anyone could choose not to sell to blacks or Asians or any group they didn't like.

And so on. If you have the money, you can write your own rules. If you don't... well, tough luck, sucker. Shoulda thought of that before you chose to be poor.

What can we do about them? For starters, know they exist, because they've largely been flying under the radar of everyone except those on the far right. Keep electing Democratic presidents, and try to return the Senate to the Democrats, because a Republican president might nominate this group's chosen candidates to the Court, and a Republican Senate might confirm them.

If we like living in the 21st century more than we'd like living in the 19th, it's important to keep this in mind. Four Supreme Court justices will be 80 or older during the next president's term. Even two could reshape the Court--and America--for generations to come.

This Week in the Iran Deal

President Obama gets his deal, and the world gets a nuclear-free Iran. Democrats keep coming out in favor of the administration's deal with Iran, making it impossible for the Senate to override a presidential veto (even if the Republicans, who are lockstep in opposition to the deal for various ideological reasons, are able to reach the 60-vote threshold they've made the new Senate norm).

Robert Einhorn of Brookings points out what should be obvious to all: there is no "better deal" to be had. "Following a Congressional 'no' vote and a successful override of the president’s veto by a two-thirds majority in both houses, Obama would be barred from fulfilling the commitment under the deal to suspend U.S. sanctions, removing Iran’s main incentive to meet its commitment to reduce its nuclear capabilities and accept rigorous monitoring measures. No longer bound even by the constraints of the November 2013 interim deal, the Iranians would be free to ramp up their enrichment capacity and shrink the time it would take them to build a nuclear weapon."

Einhorn proposes that Congress work with the president, instead of against him, to create policies that will help meet the deal's goals on our own. They include working with our global partnersto ensure the deal's principles. He lays his ideas out here, and they're worth a look.

And Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter explains why the deal is better than a military option--and why if the military option does become necessary, it will be more effective because of the deal.

This Week in 2016

We reported last week that much of Donald Trump's support comes from people who could charitably be described as "low information voters." They don't think much about the issues, they don't study them, and they base their electoral choices more on emotion than fact. (There's a certain amount of crossover with Fox "News" viewers, because there are precious few facts to be found there.)

A new poll from Public Policy Polling (the pollster with the most accurate 2012 presidential results) reveals some interesting tidbits.

Only 29% of Republican voters think Barack Obama was born in the United States (44% say no, and 26% aren't sure). 40% of Republican voters think Ted Cruz was born in the United states (22% say no, 39% aren't sure).

For the record, Obama was born in Hawaii (after it had become a state). Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

Out of Trump supporters specifically, it's even worse. Fully 61% of Trump supporters think Obama was born outside the US, and only 21% accept the truth. 66% think Obama is a Muslim, vs. 12% who think he's a Christian (they were obviously not tuned in during the 2008 race, when Fox ran wall-to-wall coverage on the "radical" Christian church Obama had attended for the last couple of decades). Among Republicans overall, 54% think he's a Muslim.

63% of Trump supporters want to get rid of birthright citizenship, 51% of Republicans overall do.

It's not an impressive showing.

Then again, Trump is running as 2016's Sarah Palin--call him Donald TrumPalin--a low-information candidate. Asked some foreign affairs questions by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Trump was clueless, but he responded in typical Trump fashion. Either the questions were unfair (he relied heavily on Palin's favorite descriptor, "Gotcha questions"), or his answer was a vague statement that he'll handle the situation better than anybody else--a statement that doesn't require one to actually know anything about the situation. Using that technique, TWiA's staff could say, "Next time a giant asteroid is heading toward Earth, threatening to cause an extinction event, don't worry--we'll handle it like nobody's business!"

Trump's response to one of Hewitt's questions about Iran was a classic mix of both approaches. "I mean, you know, when you’re asking me about who’s running this, this this, that’s not, that is not, I will be so good at the military, your head will spin."

Okay, Donny TrumPalin, we're glad that's settled.

* * *

We don't believe it's usually appropriate to hold candidates responsible for the people who endorse them. Anybody can endorse anybody, and some unsavory types might endorse perfectly reasonable candidates because of their views on some obscure issue, and the candidate can't do anything about it.

In Donald Trump's case, though, the racists and white nationalists who are supporting him are doing so precisely because of the issue Trump has chosen to accentuate above all others. He wants to deport every undocumented immigrant--and their American citizen children, if necessary--and build a giant wall across the southern border. And these folks just love that idea. Trump might not have solicited their support, but he's proposing ideas that fall right in line with their ideology. That says a lot about his ideas.

* * *

Trump talks about the Bible, a lot. Has he ever read it? Scanned it? Heard it described? Doesn't sound like it. Turns out that asking him about the Bible is a lot like asking his pal Palin which newspapers she reads. Her response? "Um, all of them." Asked whether Trump prefers the Old Testament or the New Testament, his response was, "Uh, probably [long pause] equal. I think it's just an incredible, the whole Bible is an incredible, I joke, very much so, they always hold up The Art of the Deal, I say it's my second favorite book of all time. But, uh, I just think the Bible is just something very special."

And yet, he's leading among Evangelicals. Mind-boggling.

* * *

Scott Walker's been watching too much Game of Thrones.

This Week in Immigration

The Republican presidential candidates, with few exceptions, are fighting over who can be the most anti-immigrant candidate. To back up their positions, some are pointing to a new study claiming that the majority of immigrant families collect welfare, draining resources needed by native-born families. At the New Republic, Laura Reston shows why that's not true. Even conservative groups like the Chamber of Commerce and Libertarian ones like the Cato Institute dispute the study's methodology and conclusions. The truth is somewhat different--most immigrants working in this country receive paychecks from which Social Security and other taxes have already been deducted. Undocumented immigrants, though, will never be able to reap the benefits of the programs they're helping to fund. And undocumented immigrants, except in a handful of locations, are ineligible to receive welfare (though they might have spouses or children who can). They're paying in, therefore, considerably more than they're taking out. Not only would deporting them all (even if that were physically and financially feasible) raise prices in numerous areas where undocumented immigrants work--food prices, hotel prices, etc., but it would damage the Mexican economy (which would increase immigration back this way, wall or no wall) and it would damage the American economy.

This Week in Gun Safety

Between the start of Memorial Day Weekend and August 28, approximately 3,702 Americans were killed by gunfire. 8,513 more were wounded by guns. Here's the story of America's bloody summer--or, according to some people, our receipt for paying the acceptable price of being an American.

Side Note: The nine people murdered in Chicago on Wednesday are not part of the above count, but they're part of the continuing tragedy of gun violence in America.

* * *

Ten years ago this week, the residents of the Gulf Coast were still dealing with the disastrous effects of Hurricane Katrina, and in New Orleans, with the tragic failure of the levees. To look at the photographs now is still to be faced with an almost unimaginable scene--the kind of tableau we've seen over and over again in other, less developed countries, but unfolding right here in a major American city.

During the flood, the NRA sent in camera crews to "document" the large-scale confiscation of guns. Ever since, they've held up the Katrina example as proof that the federal government will use any disaster as an excuse to seize legally owned firearms. Some pro-gun death enthusiasts warn about disasters that are entirely created by the government for that purpose, like the ionospheric soundwave disruptor the feds used to create Hurricane Sandy.

Trouble is, none of that's true. Before Katrina, some New Orleans cops illegally confiscated weapons for their own personal use and enjoyment. It was never official policy, before, during, or after. The "evidence" the NRA relies on to support its claim is dramatically falsified to serve as propaganda. 

How can we be so sure? For one thing, look at the federal government's botched response to the storm. Could that government mastermind a widespread confiscation of guns that stayed under the radar to everyone except the NRA's clever camera crews? Could it have kept those thousands of guns hidden for so long? As Adam Weinstein writes at The Trace:

"None of this is to say another mass civil breakdown couldn’t expose a similar state of disorder, corruption, and incompetence as we saw in New Orleans a decade ago. But it’s highly unlikely — almost as unlikely as the possibility of a mass gun-grab. That’s because most of the scenarios dreamed up by confiscation-fearing gun advocates in the years since rely on a vision of supreme government power that’s completely contrary to what happened during Katrina. At critical points during the storm, there was no functioning state, no coordination of efforts — much less a grand plan. But the looming threat of bigger gun-grabs relies on the existence of supremely competent, and supremely malign, government forces working in perfect lockstep. They simply do not exist, and Katrina is the surest proof."

Weinstein concludes, " Never mind that New Orleans was a terrible one-off, a cautionary tale that led to reforms on every level. Never mind that even witnesses sympathetic to the NRA say gun confiscation in New Orleans was overblown. Never mind that time and again since Katrina, the NRA has been exposed as crying wolf. Digesting facts is less important to LaPierre than instilling fear — of the government, of lawlessness, of chaos and evil that are always out to get the defenseless gun owner. When it comes to bogeymen, the NRA conjures multitudes. Last week, it was the UN; this week, it is the weather. Again."

* * *

It's true that conspiracy theories abound about Hurricane Katrina, as they seem to in America about all kinds of events. Some people are spreading the story online that the live-TV murders in Virginia last week didn't really happen, but were staged by the federal government to create an excuse to confiscate guns. The Newtown mass murder of schoolchildren was a similar "black flag" effort, and the parents of the "dead" children were all in on it. At the Marshall Project, a history professor and author of a book on conspiracy theories discusses why these often absurd plotlines are believed by so many Americans. In what seems like an obvious contradiction, conspiracy theorists seem to think the federal government is incapable of governing effectively, but at the same time, capable of putting together huge conspiracies, sometimes involving dozens or hundreds of people, and keeping it all secret forever.

* * *

Here's a post about the need for sensible gun laws written by a gun-owner who also works as a forensic pathologist for the NYPD, so sees gun safety from multiple angles. He's also not particularly fond of the NRA: "But I don’t know that that can be implemented nationwide because of one thing: the gun lobby. It’s extraordinarily strong, and extraordinarily effective. And ruthless. Politicians have learned that the NRA will fuck you up, and no one seems willing to stand up against them. Gun violence is one of the saddest proofs that democracy in the US has now become completely cannibalized in the service of Capitalism."
(Thanks to TWiA Special Forensics Correspondent Marcy Rockwell for the tip.)

* * *

Here's a proposal that's unlikely to catch on, but that raises some valid points: "Let everyone in this country keep their guns, but force them to insure those guns. It seems so obvious when you think about it. We insure our cars, our houses, our boats and bodies, even our plane tickets and rental cars. And some of those policies are legally mandated. We should absolutely require gun owners to pay against the indemnity they might incur when their gun does what it is statistically most likely to do – kills or injures them, or someone else."

* * *

We know where the NRA stands, but how do Americans in general feel about stronger gun laws? It depends on how you ask the question. We tend to be against "gun control" as a nebulous concept, but in favor of the individual proposals under discussion. The Washington Post reports, "Take three specific proposals: Adding background checks to private gun sales, banning people with mental illnesses from buying guns and creating a federal database to track gun sales. Public support for these changes range from very strong to overwhelming, according to a Pew Research Center poll conducted in July."

If people would communicate to Congress how they really feel about these ideas, rather than letting the NRA have all the power, change might be allowed to happen. Not in this Congress, but maybe in the next, or the one after that.

* * *

We often point out how seldom guns are actually used for self-defense, but every now and then, one is. Such was the case in Phoenix, AZ this week.

This Week in the First Alaskans

President Obama spent a few days in Alaska this week, drawing attention to the ravages of climate change. One of his more controversial moves was to change the name of Mt. McKinley, restoring its original name of Denali. We didn't know, until this hit the news (even though we've been to Alaska) that President McKinley never visited Alaska, never saw the mountain named after him, and it was named for him before he was even president. A gold prospector who liked candidate McKinley--because McKinley supported the gold standard--named the mountain (or re-named the mountain), ignoring the name those who lived there had given it. Among the invaders, the name stuck. Going back to Denali seems like a good idea to us. Ohio Republicans disagree (McKinley was from Ohio), but Alaska has been trying to get the name changed since 1975, and both of its Republican senators support the change. Here's what Alaskans think about it (which, for states' rights conservatives, should be the final word on the matter).

* * *

Environmentalists are glad to see Obama promoting an agenda to limit greenhouse gases and to demonstrate for doubters the reality of climate change, but they're not happy that he's doing so in Alaska right after green-lighting oil exploration in the Arctic by Shell. The exploration was first agreed to by President Bush, but environmentalists believe Obama could have blocked it, and by letting it proceed, his Alaska trip sends a very mixed message.

* * *

Obama spoke at a conference on Arctic issues, and he didn't mince words. If we don't act now, and boldly, he said, we will "condemn our children to a world they will no longer have the capacity to repair." As if directing his comments toward the Republican presidential candidates, he added, "Any leader willing to take a gamble on a future like that, any leader who refuses to take this issue seriously or treats it like a joke, is not fit to lead."

He's right. The Republican candidates generally scoff at climate change. They're foolish to do so.

The White House is keeping a record of the president's trip in tweets, photos, notes, videos, and more. Check it out here.

This Week in Kentucky

We don't have much to say that hasn't already been said about Rowan, KY county clerk Kim Davis's stint in jail, except to observe that Judge Bunning, the George W. Bush appointee who put her there, was left without any other valid options. She doesn't want to issue marriage licenses in her county because she doesn't believe that God wants people of the same gender to marry each other. She believes that so steadfastly that she's willing to sit in jail for that belief. On the surface, that's fine--Dr. Martin Luther King was jailed for his beliefs in social and racial justice. Civil disobedience often results in jail time.

The difference here is that King was not elected by the people of his county to do a job, and was not paid for that job by the taxpayers. King was a private citizen. Davis isn't. Davis took a government job that requires her to abide by the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution tells us that the judicial branch of government interprets the law. The Supreme Court interpreted the law as saying that adults who love each other can marry, regardless of gender--in other words, that all people would be treated equally in that regard.

To us, the admittedly nonreligious global staff of TWiA, that interpretation--open, accepting, loving--seems more Christian than one that is bigoted, judgmental, and declares some Americans less deserving of their rights than others. Various alternate examples have been offered: What if she was a Muslim county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses in her county, because some of them would go to Christian couples, and she didn't believe Christians should be allowed to marry? What if she was a Quaker whose job was to issue gun licenses, and she refused because she didn't believe individuals should own weapons of death and destruction? Would far right presidential candidates like Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz be lining up to support her?

Huckabee tweeted, "Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country."

Cruz's statement was, in part, "Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America. I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court decision."

That's a deliberate misreading of the situation. She was not arrested for living according to her faith. Her Christianity hasn't been criminalized. she was arrested for violating a court order. The law is the law, and people don't get to simply ignore laws they don't like (although in recent years, more and more Christians--claiming a war against Christianity that exists only in their minds, have been claiming that they should. We suspect it goes along with the right-wing fantasy of nullification. Neither argument is Constitutionally valid).

Someone named Rachel Held Evans wrote a tweet of her own, which more than counters Huckabee's. "No one's being jailed for practicing her religion. Someone's being jailed for using the government to force others to practice her religion."

Davis is not the victim here--the ones wronged are the couples in love, straight and otherwise (Rowan County is issuing no marriage licenses, not just denying same-sex couples, because Davis thinks somehow that protects her from claims of unequal treatment), who can't get married because of her individual religious beliefs. We don't know if Davis swore an oath before God to uphold the Constitution, but that's not uncommon in elected offices. Even if not, taxpayers are paying her to uphold the Constitution. She not only won't issue licenses, but she refuses to allow other people in the office to do it--rejecting a legitimate accommodation to her extreme views. If she doesn't want to fulfill the responsibilities of the job to which she was elected and for which she's paid, her recourse is not to become a pretend martyr and sit in jail while right-wing organizations raise money for and off her. Her recourse is to quit her job and let someone have it who will perform the necessary duties. Until she's willing to do that, jail is as good a place for her as any.

This Week in How You Can Help

We'll let Wendsler Nosie Sr. of Apache Stronghold speak for himself:

"Oak Flat lies within the Tonto National Forest near the old mining town of Superior, Arizona. The area is part of the cultural heritage of the Apache people: it is a place for us to hold coming-of-age ceremonies, to collect food, and to pray.

"But an amendment to an unrelated defense bill traded the land away to a foreign mining company with close ties to Arizona's two U.S. senators.

"Oak Flat's spiritual and cultural significance is well established. Both the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations provided special protections for Oak Flat. With these safeguards in place, the area was off-limits to mining interests.¹

"But British-Australian mining consortium Rio Tinto has had its eye on the area for years. Legislation trading away Oak Flat has been introduced in every Congress since 2005.

"This past year, the mining interests finally succeeded.

"The transfer of land has not been finalized, but it could go through in a matter of months unless we stop it.

"Fortunately, a growing movement of Native Americans, conservationists, and social justice activists have turned up the pressure on Congress. In response, a bill reversing this giveaway has been introduced with bipartisan support."

You can send your own letter here (or, you know, directly to your own senators).

This Week in Bears

Here's a guy who didn't have to go far to see bears--they come to his kitchen window.

In case you've forgotten, bear cubs at play are adorable.