Why I Can No Longer Mark my Ballot for Trump

"Love trumps hate" and "Love Trump's hats" differ in only a few letters. Analogously, it might be said that there are only relatively minor differences between the two leading candidates. Not enough to allow their more extreme proponents to tear the US Apart.

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have favorability ratings below 50%. Therefore, most Americans will be voting against, rather than for our next President.

When I created the above animated image, I thought I was going to vote against Clinton by "holding my nose" and darkening the oval next to Trump's name on my Presidential ballot.

I can no longer mark my ballot for Trump or anyone else currently running for President.

MY THOUGHT PROCESS

Both Clinton and Trump are intelligent, well-educated, live in New York, and are patriots who truly believe their election would be best for our country:

• Donald was born in New York. Bachelor of Science from Wharton School of Finance and Commerce (University of Pennsylvania).
• Hillary was born in Illinois. Bachelor of Arts from Wellesley College and J.D. from Yale Law School. She lived in Arkansas from 1974-1992, in Washington, DC from 1993-2000, moved to New York in 1999, and was elected Senator from New York in 2000.

Both are rich, having benefited from the give and take of US politics

• Donald, mostly on the give, contributed to politicians of both parties in return for government permits, zoning, tax policies, and other assistance to the real estate projects, products, and services his corporations provide to consumers.
• Hillary, mostly on the take, accepted support for her Senatorial and Presidential campaigns, as well as high-priced speeches by her and husband Bill at private corporate meetings, and contributions to the Clinton Foundation. 
• Both Hillary and Donald "prove" the cynical point that, here in the USA, 

• We enjoy the very best government money can buy. ©

Both have misrepresented themselves to the extreme wings of their parties to win their Presidential primaries, and to activate their "base" to come out and vote in the general election:

• By most accounts, Hillary is far more centrist on social policy and more hawkish on military and foreign policies than President Obama or the Bernie Sanders Socialist, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter far-left wings of the Democratic Party. Quoting from How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk - The New York Times (2016/04/24/):

[Secretary Clinton] had backed Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, before endorsing a fallback proposal of 30,000. She supported the Pentagon’s plan to leave behind a residual force of 10,000 to 20,000 American troops in Iraq (Obama balked at this, largely because of his inability to win legal protections from the Iraqis, a failure that was to haunt him when the Islamic State overran much of the country). And she pressed for the United States to funnel arms to the rebels in Syria’s civil war (an idea Obama initially rebuffed before later, halfheartedly, coming around to it).

• Although less is known about Donald's views prior to becoming a politician, it appears he has been far more centrist on social policy and less hawkish than the Tea Party, Religious Right, and Conservative Establishment far-right wings of  the Republican Party. He registered for the Reform Party from 1999-2001, Democrat from 2001-2009, and Independent from 2011-2012. (He registered as a Republican from 1987-1999, 2009-2011, and 2012-present.)  Last year I wrote the following, quoting from my Blog (2015/04/10):

Donald Trump, [is] a Crony Capitalist Democrat pretending to be a Republican. As recently as 2004, he told CNN's Wolf Blitizer "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat" and in 2007, also with Blitzer, he praised Hillary Clinton's ability to negotiate with Iran. Trump gave more to Democrats than Republicans between 1989 and 2009 according to NPR. ... Until recently, his views on military action in the mid-east, abortion, drug legalization, and health care have been more in line with leftist Democrats than with independents and Republicans.

IS "HE SAID, BUT SHE DID" A VALID EXCUSE?

Donald has said some stupid things that got him into unnecessary battles. He refused to back off, which only increased the damage to his campaign

• Early in his Presidential Primary campaign, Donald said that Senator John McCain is "not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured." That dumb remark did not hurt McCain, because everyone knows he was a hero the moment he put on a US Naval Aviator uniform and flew dangerous missions over enemy territory. The fact he was shot down and served honorably as a POW is only icing on the cake of his heroic status.
• Trump also went way overboard criticizing undocumented Mexican immigrants. He even questioned the fairness of a judge of Mexican ancestry who was born in the US.
• Donald made an idiotic pledge to ban all Muslim immigration. Then he criticized Muslim Gold Star parents, a lawyer and his wife, who appeared at the Democratic convention to point out that a flat religious ban would be unconstitutional. Trump suggested the wife remained silent because Muslims do not value women.
• Trump, not a professional politician, has been making extreme, sexist, and otherwise intolerable "politically incorrect" comments all his life. Instead of admitting that fact, he continues to fight decades-old battles, such as the one about a Miss Universe who gained some weight after she won the competition.
• The most recent Access Hollywood video and tape is a particularly lewd example of Donald's taste for beautiful women. His comments are absolutely unforgivable.
• Summary: Donald Trump is an amazingly athletic speaker. He can verbally kick himself in the head and step on his own dong without missing a beat.

Hillary has done some stupid things, such as being "extremely careless" in handling US National Security Secrets, and lying to the public about it. She lied even when unnecessary (as when she had pneumonia), and thus damaged her campaign.

• The use of a private email server for both private and State Department emails while Hillary was Secretary of State, is not, per se, a legal violation. The problem that earned her a "PANTS ON FIRE" rating from Politifact was lying about the matter.
• She and her close staff placed highly classified information on that private server and on insecure cell phones and iPads, and transmitted US National Security Secret and Top Secret information over unsecured networks that were (all but) certainly hacked by hostile governments and terrorist organizations.
• FBI Director James Comey concluded that her private server and email system was less secure than Gmail:

• And I’m not looking to pick on Gmail. Their security is actually pretty good, the weakness is individual users. But, yes, Gmail has full-time security staff and thinks about patching, and logging, and protecting their systems in a way that was not the case [with Clinton's private server]. 

• More direct quotes from FBI Director Comey [emphasis mine]:

• From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained secret information at the time; and eight contained confidential information at the time.

• Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

• There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

• Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.

• During my employment as a System Engineer working on Department of Defense projects, I had access to classified information, mostly at the Confidential and Secret level, but including a bit of Top Secret material. Each project has Security Guidelines, so we all knew what types of material was classified and at what level. Each paragraph, table, figure and drawing was marked with a (U) for Unclassified, (C) for Confidential, (S) for Secret and (TS) for Top Secret, often with additional markings for NO FORN (no foreign access) and so on. If I had seen information that was not properly marked, I would have considered that a critical failure of security and would have reported it to be sure it was corrected. That she and her personal staff failed to so so rules her out as a person I would vote into the highest office in the land.
• As a government employee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a legal duty to turn over all work-related email to the State Department. As we all know, her staff destroyed around 33,000 emails on the basis that they were not work-related. (She claimed they were about such things as her daughter's wedding, family vacations, etc. That seems like quite a lot!). Well, using forensic technology and emails provided by government recipients, the FBI found that thousands of her work-related emails had been deleted. Of course, we don't know how many work-related emails were not recovered by these forensic techniques, and what juicy materials they might have contained. We do know they were deleted after a subpoena had been issued for them.
• Did even the most rabid Nixon supporter really believe that his secretary had "accidentally" erased 18 minutes of taped Oval Office conversations, or that those 18 minutes contained only innocent Nixon family matters or sports discussions? Of course not! Yet, some of you, reading this blog item, believe that Hillary's staff was justified in deleting work-related emails, or that former President Bill Clinton had an unplanned meeting on an airport tarmac with the Attorney General, shortly before she was to rule on whether Hillary's "extremely careless" handling of classified information should be prosecuted? Or that all they discussed was their grandchildren? 
• By the way, I support Comey's recommendation NOT to prosecute Hillary Clinton, on the basis that her "extremely careless" handling of classified information did not rise to the "gross negligence" level required by the applicable law. Apparently there is no clear precedent for prosecuting anyone on that part of the law.

SO, WHY CAN I NO LONGER  MARK MY BALLOT FOR TRUMP?

Up till about 24 hours ago, I thought I would "hold my nose" and vote against Hillary Clinton by darkening the oval next to Donald Trump's name.

What changed my intention?

• Well, it was Trump's appearance on the O'Reilly Factor,on October 11th. I record and watch Bill O'Reilly almost every evening. Trump trashed Senator John McCain and House Majority Leader Paul Ryan and said he would go it alone! That was what put me over the top!
• I've seen both McCain and Ryan in person when they came to The Villages (in Central Florida) for their 2008 and 2012 campaigns. In 2008, I stood for almost an hour, twenty feet from McCain as he (and Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman) spoke and answered questions. In 2012 I watched Ryan's VP campaign appearance at an outdoor rally, where he introduced his mother, who happened to be a Florida resident. They are politicians, but also honorable men (as is Mitt Romney, whose hand I shook when he came here during the Republican primary).
• So, for the first time in my life, in 2016 at the age of 77, I will not vote for the Republican nominee for President of the US. Of course, I will vote for down-ballot Republicans and hope we can retain control of the Congress. Perhaps I will write-in the name of Paul Ryan or some other Republican I admire. It is a long-shot, but, perhaps Donald Trump will withdraw his name and allow the Republican National Committee to substitute someone else, Who knows?

Ira Glickstein

PS: Earlier this year, during the Republican primary, I wrote some perhaps prophetic words on my Blog:

I am an old Goldwater/Reagan Republican, and a Proud Conservative in the modern sense (i.e., Classical Liberal). ...  

... Trump is a Crony Capitalist DEMOCRAT who is wrecking the Republican Party I know and love, with the inadvertent assistance of the ratings-hungry media, including Fox News, and the feckless response of the dozen other candidates competing in the Republican Presidential Primary, several of whom are excellent in my opinion. 

A Conservative View of US Political History

[from Bill Lifka] I’m re-reading the book: A Patriot’s History of the United States by Schweikart and Allen. The authors are professors of history at the University of Dayton and the University of Washington. Unusually for their field, the professors are Conservative in their political view.

According to Schweikart, the reason for their book was that Liberals have written the overwhelming majority of text books on American history. Not only do these tales tell the American story with a strong leftward slant but major events and characters are absent from the pages. Schweikart’s and Allen’s version received praise for accuracy and fairness from objective experts.

The truth is that America’s history of its famous and infamous characters is a mix of altruism and selfishness, honesty and corruption, courage and cowardice, wisdom and stupidity, prudence and rashness, unity and divisiveness. Natural cynicism makes me think the specific gravity leans to selfishness, corruption, cowardice, stupidity, rashness and divisiveness.

WHY HAS AMERICA SURVIVED SO FAR? HOW MUCH LONGER?

It raises questions why America has survived so far and how much longer a nation so confounded can survive. Survival to this point and beyond has nothing to do with American people standing head and shoulders above their counterparts in other countries. Americans are not exceptional as a group of individuals.

In my opinion, the reasons for success are a design of government structure that has withstood efforts of generations of Americans to destroy it and that the nation was placed under protection of an Almighty God from the very beginning, first by early European settlers and again by the Founders as they laid out the design of a governmental plan. Who knows how much further we can stretch the wisdom of the Founders and the patience of God?

HISTORY OF THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC PARTY (AND MARTIN VAN BUREN)

1821 - A good place to begin my argument is in the year 1821 which was when the modern Democratic Party was formed. (It wasn’t the party of Jefferson, as widely proclaimed. Jefferson and Madison had very different principles and goals but they, especially Madison, did start the party system.)

I summarize the story from the history book as follows. Martin Van Buren was the son of a tavern owner in Kinderhook, New York. He resented the autocratic landowning families in this area and found enough like-minded politicians to control the New York State Constitutional Convention in 1821 enacting universal manhood suffrage.

He learned to employ newspapers as no other political figure had, linking journalists’ success to the Party’s fortunes. He perceived the necessity of discipline and organization to control the masses he sought to organize. He sought to create a political party dedicated to no other principle than holding power.

The problem with the political climate developing in the young nation was the disagreement over slavery which was dividing the states between the North and the South. Van Buren (and many others) viewed the logical result of this would be civil war, which he hoped to avoid. The best way to do that, he reasoned, was to remove slavery (and any other issues) as a party consideration.

He joined southern planters with northern non-elites to form a national organization dedicated to attaining and retaining political power. An important factor in attaining success was in taking advantage of the growing size of government which provided an ever-larger pool of government jobs with which to reward supporters: to the victors belong the spoils. Van Buren tied his star to a practice that, at its roots, viewed men as base and without principle. If they could be silenced on the issue of slavery with the promise of a job, what of their integrity? Yet, that was the strategy for the noble purpose of saving the nation from civil war.

1824 - Andrew Jackson was chosen as the standard bearer for Van Buren’s party in 1824. The Electoral College vote was: Jackson 99, (John Quincy) Adams 84 and Clay 41. There being no majority, the decision fell to the US House of Representatives. Clay was Speaker of the House and he detested Jackson so Adams received his votes. The one-term Adams’ administration was plagued with “pay back” acrimony for the “stolen election”.

1828 - In 1828, Jackson and his VP, John Calhoun, coasted into office. When he left office, Jackson had more totally consolidated power in the executive branch than any previous president, ensuring what Van Buren had dreaded: a powerful presidency subject to sectional pressures. His adept use of the spoils system created a large-scale government bureaucracy that further diminished states’ rights. This planted the seeds for the “New Deal” and the “Great Society” and (I would add) Obama’s eight year reign.

1836 - Van Buren followed Jackson into the presidency in 1836 to reap the blame for all that turned out badly from Jackson’s initiatives. After one term he was defeated by Whig candidates, William Henry Harrison (Tippecanoe) and John Tyler.

Harrison died after one month in office and Tyler succeeded him. The interesting thing about the succession is that the US Constitution’s language on presidential succession is not precisely clear that the Vice President automatically becomes the fully empowered president when his predecessor dies in office. Some doubts were raised. Tyler just assumed direct succession was the intention and took control. In this little-noted act he cemented the foundation of the Republic in future times of chaos and instability. This small snippet of history typifies the generally untidy political proceedings that have been part of our nation’s Presidential campaigns and the use of presidential power, once elected.

The formation of the modern Democratic Party isn’t a particularly heart-warming story especially the part about founding principles. However, there have been moments in later history where that party has provided great leadership for the country.

PARTY POLITICS NOW (AND DONALD TRUMP)

At this moment, the Democratic Party is at a low point in its history, despite having one of its members in the White House. At least, that’s my opinion. In many ways, it espouses the principles and methodologies Van Buren invented but has added cultural dogma and governing philosophy that moves the nation far from the direction the Founders intended and defined.

The Democratic Party is not alone in American political history in experiencing recurring shifts in goals, initiatives and methodologies. All have been the same in that regard. But now is a very bad time for one of the two major political parties to be focused on matters of lesser importance.

Of course, Donald Trump is doing his best to coax Republicans into the same mindset. The Democratic Debates have been particularly useless in addressing key national issues. The Republican debates have been notably better except for time spent in personal attacks. The debate this Thursday should provide good reminders of issues which should be the basis of your vote in November. Trump’s likely absence should raise the quality of debate immensely.

Bill Lifka

Gun Rights and Wrongs (Main Menu)

 Some ideas on how new technology,

particularly "UltraSmart" guns that will fire only for authorized individuals, 

plus some common-sense reforms in liability for gun owners, 

might help reduce unnecessary gun violence, 

while being compatible with our Constitutionally guaranteed 

Second Amendment "Right to Bear Arms".

Part 1 - The Problem.  Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too many gun HOMICIDES?

Part 2 - New Technology. Might "UltraSmart" gun technology, that allows only Authorized Users to fire the gun, help address part of the problem?

Part 3 - Absolute Liability. Within the context of the Constitutional Second Amendment "right to bear arms", could gun owners, over time, voluntarily adopt "UltraSmart" guns, to mitigate the financial liability risks of owning conventional guns?

Part 4 - Aggressive Police Tactics. "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" has a disproportionate effect on Blacks, but it has been shown to save proportionately more Black than White lives.

CLICK TO Download my PowerPoint file

Advanced "UltraSmart" Gun Concepts 

1) Front-Facing Camera and Laser Spot to ID Target and Aid Shooter Aim, Safety and Reliability.

2) Rear-Facing Camera and Iris Scan to ID Shooter and Assure He or She is Not Drunk nor on Drugs.

3) Sensors in Hand Grip to further Positively ID Shooter. NOTE: Not all sensors need to be on all guns, just enough (perhaps six) to assure Authorized Person will be Reliably Recognized and Unauthorized persons will be Rejected

Ira Glickstein

Gun Rights and Wrongs (Part 1)

1988 Democratic Presidential Candidate Governor Mike Dukakis (Massachusetts),

"commands" the 50 caliber machine gun on an M1 Abrams Tank

GUN RIGHTS AND WRONGS

Some ideas on how new technology, 

particularly "UltraSmart" guns that will fire only for authorized individuals, 

plus some common-sense reforms in liability for gun owners, 

might help reduce unnecessary gun violence, 

while being compatible with our Constitutionally guaranteed 

Second Amendment  "Right to Bear Arms".

Part 1 - The Problem. Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too many gun HOMICIDES?

Part 2 - New Technology. Might "UltraSmart" gun technology, that allows only Authorized Users to fire the gun, help address part of the problem?

Part 3 - Absolute Liability. Within the context of the Constitutional Second Amendment "right to bear arms", could gun owners, over time, voluntarily adopt "UltraSmart" guns, to mitigate the financial liability risks of owning conventional guns?

Part 4 - Aggressive Police Tactics. "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" has a disproportionate effect on Blacks, but it has been shown to save proportionately more Black than White lives.

Part 1 - The Problem
Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too  many gun HOMICIDES?

Is there any way to resolve the diversity of opinion regarding gun control in the US? Will the "pro-gun" NRA ever agree to any new laws intended to reduce gun violence? Will the "anti-gun" forces ever give up their goal to banish private ownership of guns entirely?

Probably not!

However, for what it is worth, here are some ideas that may appeal to those of us in the middle. [This material is based on a talk I gave to an overflow audience of about 120 people at the Philosophy Club of The Villages, FL, on 8 January 2016. As you might imagine, the question, answer, and discussion period following my talk was quite animated!   CLICK TO Download My PowerPoint file

US CONSTITUTION, SECOND AMENDMENT (1791)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

 the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This amendment, passed in 1791, consists of the above compound sentence, in plain English. However, the first phrase seems to be in conflict with the last two,

Is the "right to bear arms" only in the context of a "well-regulated militia"? Is this "militia" to be "regulated" by the government, and, if so, how can government regulation be crafted such that the "right of the people" is not "infringed"?

Well, as recently as 2008, the US Supreme Court, in District of Columbia vs Heller, ruled (5 to 4) that the right to bear arms belongs to individual people. However, like most "rights" it is not unlimited, and firearms may be regulated. For example, convicted felons, mentally defective persons, and others may be prohibited from purchasing and possessing guns. 

Furthermore, some types of firearms are off-limits even to upstanding mentally competent citizens. In other words, no one, not even 1988 Presidential Candidate Governor Mike Dukakis may privately own and operate the 50 caliber machine gun on an M1 Abrams Tank!

LEGAL PRECEDENT IN BRITISH COMMON LAW

Sir William Blackstone, the authority on British Common Law, wrote [1765] 

THE auxiliary right of the subject ... is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. ... and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

Thus, the tension between the individual right of armed self-defense, and reasonable limits of law, has a very long history.

CURRENT SWISS LAW AND PRACTICE

Male citizens of Switzerland keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up. There is a very high personal gun ownership rate. Overall, the crime rate is low, but the gun suicide rate is the highest in Europe. The rate of homicide is considerably lower than the European average.


1996 AUSTRALIAN GUN BUYBACK 

After a 1996 massacre, the Australian government implemented a confiscatory gun buyback program that removed some 20% to 30% of personally owned guns from private possession. The 1996 Australian buyback is often hailed as a great success by US gun control advocates. What are the facts? 

The vertical blue line and bar indicates 1996, the year Australia instituted a major gun buyback program.
TOP (Gray background): Australian gun suicide and gun homicide statistics prior to and after the 1996 buyback program.
Middle (Gray background): Australian non-gun suicide and gun suicide statistics for the same period.
BOTTOM (White background): US gun suicide and gun homicide statistics for the same period.  

Australians and Americans speak English and share a British colonial background. Both countries have about the same area (3 vs 3.9 million square miles). However, gun ownership is vastly different (4 million vs nearly 300 million), Australia does not have constitutional protection of the "right to bear arms" nor does it have a strong gun lobby.

With those differences in mind, let us take a closer look at the data. 

[TOP section] Gun control advocates point out that, after the 1996 buyback, gun suicides declined from around 2 to 0.7 per hundred thousand, and that gun homicides declined from about 0.5 to 0.15 per hundred thousand, which is quite impressive. However, please note that, for several years prior to the 1996 buyback, gun suicides had been declining at a pretty rapid rate. So, how much did the buyback program accelerate the decline?

[MIDDLE section] Note that, in the two years after the gun buyback program, non-gun suicides increased from about 11 to 13 per hundred thousand, more than making up for the decline in gun suicides during that period! The message here is that when ready access to guns is denied, people intent upon suicide will use poison or asphyxiation or other non-gun means to accomplish their intent.  

[BOTTOM section] Despite the fact the US did not have a gun buyback program, our gun suicides and gun homicides declined significantly during the same period! 

When you see the Australian gun buyback statistics used by gun control advocates, you will most often notice that gun suicide and gun homicide data are combined, which has the effect of exaggerating the decline. Furthermore, they usually fail to note that gun suicide rates in Australia were on the decline even before the 1996 gun buyback, nor do they point out that US gun suicide and homicide rates declined during the same period, despite the fact we did not have gun buyback!

My conclusion is that, while the Australian experience is interesting, it has little or nothing to do with the gun control situation in the US.

US GUN DEATH STATISTICS 

About 2.5 million people die in the US each year, About 92% from natural causes, and only 8% are not natural, being due to accidents, malpractice, homicide, suicide, or legal intervention.

Gun-related deaths constitute only 1.3 percent of all US deaths. If Gun Suicides are excluded, the total of Gun Homicides, Accidents, Legal, and Other constitutes less than 0.5 % of all US deaths, as indicated in the graphic below. Most gun homicides are gang and/or drug related, i.e., criminals shooting each other. I've read that 80% of all gun homicides are gang and/or drug related but I could not find any clear statistical documentation for this claim. I'd appreciate comments from readers that confirm or dis-confirm this claim. 

US Non-Natural deaths in 2013 (from CDC http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf, Table 10.)

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF GUN CONTROL 

The following list of pithy bullets represents my attempt to summarize the general positions espoused by some participants in the gun control debate. Please recognize that this is a "shorthand" description of what are often highly nuanced and complex positions. I do not pretend that all Libertarians subscribe exactly to the first set of bullets nor that all Liberals or Conservatives subscribe exactly to the latter two sets. 

Currently, the two leading candidates in the Democratic Presidential Primaries, Secretary Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders have diverse opinions on gun laws. Sanders, who hails from a "pro-gun" state, takes positions that are, in many cases, closer to Republican views. Furthermore, among the many candidates in the Republican Presidential Primaries, some may say they lean more to the Libertarian view rather than what I have characterized as the Republican view. Also, not all members of the NRA fully subscribe to the official NRA position.

• NRA (and Libertarians) generally favor almost no control.

– The fewer new gun laws the better. 

Police should enforce current laws. Courts should impose severe sentences on gun-toting criminals.

• Democrats (and Liberals) generally favor strict control.

– The fewer guns the better. 

Easy access to too many guns is to blame when disturbed people or politically or religiously motivated terrorists cause mass shootings. Police brutalize and too often shoot unarmed Blacks.

• Republicans (and Conservatives) generally favor moderate regulation.

– The fewer unjust gun homicides the better. 

Aggressive police tactics in high crime areas are often necessary, even if they have uneven racial impacts. “Stop, Question (Optionally Frisk)” policies actually save proportionately more Black than White lives.

Discussion of the above bullet points:

NRA (and Libertarians) - I am not now and never have been a member of the NRA. However, while living in a rural upstate area of New York State for over three decades I did own and use a 12 gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle (both bolt-action). While I have never considered myself a Libertarian, I do like a lot of what John Stossel, the resident Libertarian at Fox News says.

In general, I would like to see current gun laws enforced, particularly as they relate to stiff jail time for anyone who uses a gun in commission of a crime. On the other hand, while I am skeptical about the ability of "the government" to do anything particularly well, I think there are some common sense changes to US gun laws that could help reduce unnecessary gun violence, as I will outline later in this series of postings.

So, while sympathetic, I cannot subscribe to the idea that the fewer gun laws the better.

Democrats (and Liberals) - A photo of Democratic icon and four-times elected President Franklin Delano Roosevelt hung on the wall of the Brighton Beach bungalow in Brooklyn, NY, where my brother and I lived with our parents and grandparents. My whole family voted Democrat up until my father scandalized us in the neighborhood by voting for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President.

It was as an engineering student at the uber-leftist City College of New York where I discovered that the honorable appellation "Liberal" had been hijacked by Socialists and Democrats and turned upside-down and inside-out. I still consider myself a "Liberal" in the classical sense, as "the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade." But, I digress.

At first glance, the idea that, since all gun violence involves a gun, it would be better if there were fewer guns, makes sense.

However, that does not follow logically. For example, all medical malpractice involves doctors and medical personnel, so (following parallel reasoning) it would be better if there were fewer doctors and medical personnel. Of course, that is ridiculous! Only a small percentage of doctors and medical personnel are bad, so what we need to reduce medical malpractice is fewer bad ones and more good ones!

The same is true of guns. Only a tiny percentage of guns are involved in unnecessary gun violence. Most of those (perhaps as many as 80%) are possessed by criminals, particularly gang members and drug dealers. So, rather than fewer guns overall, what we need to do is reduce bad gun possession by criminals, gang members and drug dealers. A very small percentage of guns are used by mentally-disturbed people and politically or religiously motivated terrorists, so we need to reduce their access to guns. Finally some guns deaths are accidental, including poorly secured guns inadvertently found by children, and guns used by people who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Therefore, it would be good if we could use new technology to allow guns to be fired only by competent adults.

As we all know, technological advances have made high resolution surveillance cameras very inexpensive. I think it is, on balance, good that these cameras are ubiquitous both outside and inside most businesses and many public areas, that police cars have dashboard cameras, that individual policemen have body cameras, and that virtually everyone now carries a cell phone camera.

As a result, damning images have been captured of policemen unnecessarily and brutally shooting unarmed people, including a disproportionate number of Black men. These videos have been broadcast for all to see and prove, even to "pro-police" people like me, that some policemen are trigger happy, and some are also racist.

Despite these videos, I do not think many Democrats/Liberals would seriously consider disarming law enforcement. I join all right-thinking Americans in condemning the policemen involved. I think it would be good if we could use new technology to reduce official misconduct by providing police with what I call "UltraSmart" guns that are designed to be safer and that automatically capture images of each shot, along with time and location data.

So, I cannot subscribe to the idea that the fewer guns the better.

Republicans (and Conservatives) - OK, I must confess here that I am an old Goldwater/Reagan Republican, and a Proud Conservative in the modern sense (i.e., Classical Liberal).

{Trump tangent, skip over if you wish} 

As postings to this Blog (one, two, and three) and my Facebook page demonstrate, I think Donald Trump has tapped into the deep frustration we feel after seven years of President Obama's brand of "change" and the GOP leadership's failure to effectively reign him in. Trump is shouting what we want to hear (yes, even what I want to hear), but his bluster does not stand close examination. His rhetoric is mostly generalities, and in the few instances when he gets specific, he gets his facts wrong. 

Donald Trump is a Crony Capitalist Democrat pretending to be a Republican. As recently as 2004, Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitizer "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat" and in 2007, also with Blitzer, he praised Hillary Clinton's ability to negotiate with Iran. Trump gave more of his ample money to Democrats than Republicans between 1989 and 2009 according to NPR. At the first GOP debate this year, he bragged: “I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said, ‘Be at my wedding,’ and she came to my [third] wedding. ... You know why? She had no choice, because I gave.” Until recently, Trump's views on military action in the mid-east, abortion, drug legalization, and health care have been more in line with leftist Democrats than with independents and Republicans. 

To repeat, Trump is a Crony Capitalist DEMOCRAT who is wrecking the Republican Party I know and love, with the inadvertent assistance of the ratings-hungry media, including Fox News, and the feckless response of the dozen other candidates competing in the Republican Presidential Primary, several of whom are excellent in my opinion. 

{end of Trump tangent} 

To gain traction in the primary process, Republican candidates must take anti-gun control positions close to that of the NRA because a substantial portion of Republican Primary voters demand it. I know many of these people personally as hard-working, upstanding, good family men and women who (like me) do not trust the government to do anything except take the money we earn and use it to buy the votes they need by promising and delivering unearned assistance to people who, in many cases, cannot or will not work consistently or hard. Unfortunately, many of these fellow Republicans will reject, out of hand, my ideas for common sense changes in gun regulations and the introduction of "UltraSmart" gun technology. Please note that the NRA does not, out of hand, reject the introduction of "Smart" guns, so long as they are reliable and safe and voluntarily adopted in a free marketplace.*

So, here is where I think most Republicans and Conservatives agree with me. That the problem is not too many guns, but, rather too many unjust gun homicides. The fewer unjust gun homicides the better. Aggressive police tactics in high crime areas are often necessary, even if they have uneven racial impacts. As I will show in Part 4 of this "Gun Rights and Wrongs" topic, "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" policies actually save proportionately more Black than White lives. 

So, I DO subscribe to the idea that The fewer unjust gun homicides the better

I hope my fellow Republicans and Conservatives will read and give fair consideration to my "UltraSmart" gun technology* concepts in the Part 2 of this "Gun Rights and Wrongs" topic.

* According to the NRA, they have "never opposed smart guns, believing the marketplace should decide their future. Rather, NRA opposes government mandates of expensive, unproven technology, and smart guns are a prime example of that."

Ira Glickstein

Back to MAIN MENU                     CONTINUE TO - Part 2 - New Technology. 

Part 1 - The Problem. Is it too many restrictive gun LAWS, too many GUNS, or too many gun HOMICIDES?

Part 2 - New Technology. Might "UltraSmart" gun technology, that allows only Authorized Users to fire the gun, help address part of the problem?

Part 3 - Absolute Liability. Within the context of the Constitutional Second Amendment "right to bear arms", could gun owners, over time, voluntarily adopt "UltraSmart" guns, to mitigate the financial liability risks of owning conventional guns?

Part 4 - Aggressive Police Tactics. "Stop, Question (and Optionally Frisk)" has a disproportionate effect on Blacks, but it has been shown to save proportionately more Black than White lives.

Do Republicans Hate Immigrants, Women, Blacks ... and Democrats?

Republicans are supposed to be anti-Immigrant, anti-Woman, anti-Black, and unwilling to cross the aisle to work with Democrats.

Yet, according to today's Real Clear Politics average of all GOP polls as of Oct 4, 2015, the four leading contenders are:

4) Marco Rubio, the Latino Son of Immigrants,

3) Carly Fiorina, a Female Business Executive,

2) Ben Carson, a Black Brain Surgeon, and

1) Donald Trump, a Crony Capitalist Democrat pretending to be a Republican. As recently as 2004, he told CNN's Wolf Blitizer "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat" and in 2007, also with Blitzer, he praised Hillary Clinton's ability to negotiate with Iran. Trump gave more to Democrats than Republicans between 1989 and 2009 according to NPR. At the first GOP debate this year, he bragged: “I’ll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said, ‘Be at my wedding,’ and she came to my [third] wedding. ... You know why? She had no choice, because I gave.” Until recently, his views on military action in the mid-east, abortion, drug legalization, and health care have been more in line with leftist Democrats than with independents and Republicans.

The above facts are, IMHO, pretty good proof that Republicans are quite willing to choose the very best candidate of any ethnicity, woman or man, black or white. Also, that some Republicans can be bamboozled by a blowhard showman into thinking he is one of our own. He is not.

Ira Glickstein

In case you are wondering who I am and where I'm coming from:

I'm an old Goldwater Republican and a techie engineer. In 1964 when my wife and I were married, there was a sign with the chemical formula for "Gold Water" (AuH₂O) in the rear window of my car! Despite political differences, I'm still married to my super-smart and highly accomplished first wife. We have three highly-intelligent daughters (also still married to their very smart first husbands) and five wonderful grandchildren. We were both born in Brooklyn, lived most our working lives in Tioga County in upstate New York, and now reside in The Villages, FL, "America's Happiest and Healthiest Home Town".

I earned a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering, and a Masters and PhD in System Science and am proud of my long, successful career as a System Engineer at IBM and Lockheed-Martin, with my name on five US Patents. As an adjunct professor, I taught undergrad and graduate courses in System Engineering at Binghamton University and the University of Maryland University College.

As a Guest Contributor to the world's most popular Climate website, my postings on the reality of the "Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect" and how human activities that have boosted CO2 levels and reduced the Earth's albedo are therefore responsible for some fraction of recent warming, have attracted hundreds of thousands of page views and thousands of comments. Although I favor moderate worldwide action to save energy, encourage alternatives to the unprecedented burning of fossil-fuels (including a flat carbon-tax -- but not cap and trade), I am convinced that politically-motivated hysteria over possible human-caused catastrophic climate change is overblown. My wife and I have tried to do our part by recycling, super-insulating our house, and, for the past 11 years, we have shared an energy-efficient Prius hybrid.

MY BLOGS AND OTHER RESOURCES

• The Virtual Philosophy Club - Courteous Discussion of Serious Topics
• Visual Ira - Visualize Science and Technology With Ira
• "2052 - The Hawking Plan" (Free online Novel) Amore, amorality and Stephanie Goldenrod's mission to save civilization for an infinite future.
• Life, Liberty, and Technology - My predictions for the next several decades (companion site to my novel)
• Curb Your Enthusiasm - Fantasy Episode
• MyYouTube Videos
• My "What is Time?" Video

"Smoke-Filled" Rooms - If Political Bosses Picked Presidential Candidates

[From Bill Lifka, graphics by Ira]

It’s 14 months before the 2016 election and a majority of citizens are weary of the campaign or are just ignoring it. I wonder if it would be all bad if we went back to the days of yore when more than a few party slates were chosen by party bosses in “smoke filled rooms” behind popular saloons. Imagine what might emerge from that process in 2016.

The Republican bosses would consider the voting trends, current attitudes in the swing states and likely opponents to be chosen by their Democratic opposites.

Choices for top of the ticket would be John Kasich and Carly Fiorina. Kasich would appeal to voters in his swing state of Ohio and he no longer sounds like he comes from Washington DC having served two terms in State government and a stint in the private sector. Fiorina’s never held political office and, despite Trump’s dumb comment on appearance, is clearly a woman. That she’s very smart isn’t necessary but it’s good she’s not stupid.

In a break from tradition, the bosses would have Kasich announce his choices for cabinet positions early in the campaign to pacify their backers and secure their support for the chosen ticket. Any who’d refuse the honor of a cabinet seat needn’t consider a future run for elective office. Most of the cabinet picks are obvious, at least to me.

• Secretary of State would be Marco Rubio who looks good, thinks good and talks good, the latter in Spanish as well as English. It’s about time we paid more attention to the Latin Americans as long as European and Middle Eastern countries are going down the drain. Let Russia have them and their mounting debt and turmoil.
• Secretary of Treasury would be Jeb Bush. He was a businessman before moving into his family’s business (politics) and has worked on Wall Street after his stint as Florida’s governor. FL is another background element he shares with Rubio along with fluent Spanish. Let’s ice that swing state.
• Secretary of Defense would be James Webb in a bid to lure male Democrats. (Carly would take care of the females.) When it comes to the military, Webb is no typical Democrat having spent an exciting period of his life dodging bullets, a few of which managed to elude his dodge. As soon as ISIS and Iran hear of Webb’s choice it’s likely they’ll seek negotiating talks. 
• Obviously, the Attorney General slot would go to Chris Christie. A big man is required in that position and few are bigger than Chris in mind, body and mouth. That he was a successful States Attorney is another qualification. 
• In a flight of fancy, Scott Walker would get the Secretary of Labor slot. Few have his experience in dealing with unions and he needs a job not requiring a college degree.
• Ben Carson is a nobrainer for Health and Human Services. His limited experience managing large bureaucracies is no problem since he deals regularly with folks having only half a brain. 
• Coming from a State in the southwest, Susana Martinez is a good choice for Interior and being the granddaughter of illegal aliens will help with the Latin vote. 
• Bobby Jindal would add to the ethnic variety as Secretary of Education. He’s well educated and can sell his viewpoints well. 
• Lindsay Graham will do as Secretary of Veteran Affairs. 
• Ron Paul would be a surprise pick for Housing and Urban Development. As a medical doctor he should know how far we can cut back on subsidized housing without killing anyone.
• Ted Cruz will be a popular choice for Ambassador to the United Nations. He’ll insult all fellow delegates, hog the microphone and avoid doing any useful UN work. In other words, he can just keep doing what he does in the Senate, except it’s appropriate in the UN. 
• Rick Perry will become Administrator of the EPA. He looks very intelligent in his new glasses and most Republicans feel that Texas has the right idea of how to protect the environment: conceal and carry. 
• In one more outreach to Democrats, Joe Manchin would be Energy Secretary. Upon the announcement, Joe would say, “Rick at EPA and me at Energy will make a great team. We’re past governors, him from an oil state and me from a coal state.” 
• Reaching into academia, Mitch Daniels would return to one of his former posts: Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Adding some senior talent, 
• Thomas Sowell would become Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. At 85, Sowell is a bit old for the job but senior citizens are known for their high voter turnout. Besides, 85 is the prime of life, according to me. 
• Mitt Romney will accept the call to return to government service as the Secretary of Commerce folding in the Small Business Administration which, after all, is where all the action is. 
• Rudy Giuliani, another returnee, is in an obvious role as Secretary of Homeland Security. 
• Another surprise would be Adam Putnam as Secretary of Agriculture coming from a similar position for the State of Florida. He’s a young man but young adults also vote and Adam is popular in FL: let’s be sure of that Florida vote. 

The Republican Bosses had some difficulty in placing Donald Trump.

He was an obvious choice for Trade Representative: the U.S. would have China, Mexico, et al eating out of it’s hands.

However, a final choice was to have The Donald do one deal: convince a capable developer to turn the District of Columbia into a Theme Park on Government. The carrot for Mr. Trump was his fee of 10% of all revenue from park operations, tax free. 

[See Bill Lifka's Trump Golf and Tower - Washington, DC ...

... and his original 2010 idea American Government Theme Park on this Blog] 

As Trump said, “This was the job I was angling for all along. Obviously, I won again.”

The Democratic bosses weren’t idle. Their smoke filled room was an upscale boutique in San Francisco and the smoke didn’t come from tobacco. Nonetheless, their choices were equally hard-headed and chosen to please the voters of the Progressive persuasion.

The Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren team is about as Progressive as it gets.

Forced out of the top two slots, Hillary Clinton would return to her old job as Secretary of State. While reluctant, it was about the only way she could continue the flow of foreign donations into the Clinton slush fund, excuse me, the Clinton Foundation.

John Kerry would be happy to switch to Secretary of Defense to use all his experience skippering a swift boat.

Treasury would go to Al Franken on the basis that counting money is about the same as counting votes.

Nancy Pelosi would step up from her minority leader position to take on Health and Human Services. Having now read the entire Affordable Care Act she knows what’s in it.

Richard Trumpka would be Secretary of Labor having assured the bosses he could be fair and even-handed.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz Attorney General. As for her capability, the bosses thought she’d be about as fair as Trumpka.

The remainder of the ticket will be left to your imagination. It would only be more of the same.

Clearly, I was in a whimsical mood when writing this opinion piece. However, a goodly portion of it would be the same if I were dead serious. You might conclude the smoke filled room process yields better results than the long drawn out primary process. If so, you should write to the respective Party Chairs, Reince Priebus and Debbie Wasserman Shultz. Don’t mention I sent you.

Bill Lifka

Trump Golf & Tower - Washington DC

[from Bill Lifka, Graphics by Ira]
Upon reflection, I may have been too hard on Donald Trump. Without question, he’s brought attention to the irritation of many conservatives with the excesses of the Obama regime and the inability of republican legislators to counter their impact. 

Thinking positively, I imagined how The Donald could win my support for the U.S. presidency. If Mr. Trump promised, as his first initiative, to remodel Washington D.C. as a theme park and resort, I’d switch my allegiance to him in a heartbeat and forget that, originally, it was my idea. 

[Read Bill Lifka's original 2010 idea American Government Theme Park on this Blog] 

Graphic by Ira - click it for larger version.

TRUMP TOWER II AND GOLF COURSE

I’d even support his intent to rename the Washington monument Trump Tower II and turning the mall into a golf course. His expertise in real estate development and doing deals is ideal for pulling off this long-needed conversion of what once was swamp land into a solid money maker. 

I’m confident he could complete the transition in his first term. No doubt, he’d want a personal piece of the deal but aligning national interests with Trump’s business interests would ensure the success of the endeavor. This plan could be announced as the centerpiece of his platform late in the campaign when he feels pressure to add some substance to his message. 

CHRIS CHRISTIE'S ENCOUNTER WITH A TRUMP SUPPORTER

Stephen F. Hayes wrote about NJ Governor Chris Christie’s encounter with an 83 year old female Trump backer at a NH town hall meeting. She took on the NJ Governor for thinking he could do better than Trump who has been successful and understands what capitalism is about and has done extremely well. 

“And,” she said, “don’t tell me it’s because you have political experience; I don’t really want to hear that.” 

Christie responded: “I love the fact that you asked the question and tell me what I have to answer.” 

“I’m like that,” she responded, “That’s the way I am.” 

He answered: “Now I understand exactly why you like Donald but it’s not possible to shout, ‘You’re fired!’ at a congressional leader who tells you he doesn’t have the votes. You can do that on a TV show but you cannot fire the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader because you don’t get what you want.” 

That seems like a perfect summary of objective objections to Trump’s objective if his real goal is to attain the presidency. Is being a successful business person a qualification or an obstacle? Does one need to have demonstrated political skills? The answer to the first question depends on the kind of business and how the business person went about becoming successful. The answer to the second question is that political skills are necessary to win a party’s primary, to win the general election and, like it or not, to succeed in the presidency. 

Donald Trump has spent his life buying and selling real estate and resorts, various entertainment businesses and, mostly, in promoting himself and his name to iconic status. The last of these endeavors may well be his most valuable asset, which he’s now risking. Great risk is routine in big time real estate dealing but not so good for rational national governance. 

Big time real estate dealing invariably

 requires paying off public officials. 

The same thing might be required to make 

political deals but is more likely to backfire. 

More to the point, The Donald runs a one man company which hardly requires him to negotiate with employees or a board. 

Governor Christie has a point. To qualify as a viable candidate, Mr. Trump must explain his governing principles (like Carly Fiorina suggested) and his plan to achieve goals like erecting a border fence paid for by Mexico.

A DEBATE BETWEEN CARLY FIORINA AND HILLARY CLINTON?

Every day my Email delivers several dozens of requests for campaign contributions. If one was to promote a debate between Hillary and Carly, I’d contribute hugely even though I know such a monumental confrontation could never occur unless both were either presidential candidates for their respective Parties or both were vice presidential candidates. 

The first possibility is out of the question because I don’t think Carly has a shot at the top slot. The second possibility is not beyond belief because Clinton’s popularity is sagging from the weight of all her baggage; would she accept second seat to placate women? If she did, Carly would be a fine choice for Republican VP candidate and she would rip Hillary to shreds; in a feminine way, of course. 

CARLY FIORINA

Carly isn’t a politician; she’s spent her entire career in business, ending as CEO of a corporation ranked # 20 on the Fortune 500 listing. A long list of knocks about her performance in that last job were assembled by Democrats in her run for the U.S. Senate seat against long time Senator, Barbara Boxer. Another thing is the belief she was soundly beaten by Boxer based on the 10 percentage point margin of victory. Since CA is overwhelmingly Democratic (mostly of the far left variety) and Boxer had 28 years of granting U.S. government favors for California voters, losing by 10 points is almost a victory for a Conservative. In the prior defense of her Senate seat, Boxer won by 20 points. 

The attacks on Carly’s HP experience include: she was fired, managers hated her, she fired thousands of employees, HP lost tons of money under her leadership and the list goes on. She has good answers in one liner responses and longer, reasoned arguments but a constant drumbeat takes a toll. Here are my short answers. Many good executives have been fired including Steve Jobs and me, Bill Lifka.

Carly argued with her board constantly: a group of prima donnas which demonstrated its incompetence before and after Carly as well as during her CEO stint. Carly had to orchestrate spinning off the original HP businesses and it’s acquisitions into Agilent, a newly formed company and merging HP computer businesses with Compaq and its many acquisitions. At one point, the directors wanted to organize in 34 distinct businesses despite their focus on similar technology, similar products and similar markets; Carly argued for 4. The so-called HP way went with the spin-off. Carly wanted a management culture that matched the realities of the new computer market; old managers resisted. 

Carly’s term of office coincided with a collapse of the entire computer market; HP’s firings were in line with other companies in the industry. In the end, HP emerged bigger, stronger, more profitable and more competent technologically; at least that’s Carly’s argument. She may be right. 

If one wished to check Carly’s credentials, her history at AT&T might be of greater value. There she rose from management trainee to SVP and was, seemingly, the principal executive who orchestrated the spin-off of Bell Labs and Western Electric into Lucent. 

The question is whether she had any successful line experience in hands-on operations. Her record with Lucent and HP suggests relevant experience in moving strategic chess pieces on a huge game board but that’s not the same as experience in the trenches. 

Nevertheless, managing high tech manufacturing companies in truly public corporations is more relevant to governing a democratic nation than managing a real estate business in a dictatorial organizational structure.

Bill Lifka