No more drinking at work!

Liquor firms to challenge work drink ban Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:28pm EST BEIJING (Reuters) - Liquor makers in central China's Henan province are planning a legal challenge to fight a ban on Communist Party officials and civil servants drinking alcohol at lunch during work days, state media said on Wednesday. (Reuters)

Now what good is it being a Communist if you cannot drink at lunch? I tell you, if they keep this up, they will be no better than the politicians in the United States!

On the Second Amendment

As a Canadian, by birth and culture, I do not understand the American fascination with guns. Nor, quite frankly, do I understand the power of the Second Amendment. Two stories broke this week that makes me question it even more.

First, for those that don't have a copy of the Constitution lying around, the Second Amendment is:

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. (Wikipedia)

If it is not the shortest of the amendments, I certainly cannot think of one shorter. Further, it is pretty direct and, depending on your read, unambiguous. I will come back to that in a moment.

Two stories. First, the very public shooting overnight in Missouri:

6 Die in Shooting at Mo. Council Meeting February 8, 2008 - 6:55am By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD Associated Press Writer KIRKWOOD, Mo. (AP) - Ten days after losing a federal lawsuit against this St. Louis suburb he insisted harassed him, a gunman stormed a council meeting and opened fire, killing two police officers and three city officials. (WTOP)

Second, a not so public story about a shooting of a local teen following a fight at a weekend party. The teen has since died of his wounds. I know about it, because the teen was the son of a friend of mine.

There are those who will argue that the six people killed in Missouri were killed because state law prevented them from defending themselves. Others will argue the truism that people kill, not guns (they are just the tools). Still others will argue that 40 odd people will die today because of drunk driving and we do not ban/restrict alcohol. And I know that my friend will argue until Hell freezes over, the support of the Second Amendment, despite the loss.

On the other side of the coin, there are a number of people, some victims, some relatives of victims that wonder why something is not done to prevent this. Why the United States continues to allow such easy access to firearms. This is a question that is asked after every mass killing, whether it is in the council chambers, on University campuses or in private homes. It is asked when the killer is angry at the system, mentally unstable, a member or a gang, or a child that finds a toy and goes bang.

Yes, the Second Amendment is the law of the land, and like the parts of the Fourteenth Amendment, (that, ironically many who support the 2nd, seem to dispute in the 14...) it is pretty hard to come up with alternative interpretations, but I do not see how a nation that continues to watch its citizens kill each other cannot reevaluate it.

A well regulated [M/m]ilitia, being necessary to the security of a free State... What is a well regulated militia? Is it taking a gun safety course (which, by the way, is not a requirement). Is it showing up and proving proficiency with the weapon and qualifying to use it (also not required)? Or is it having the financial ability to go to a gun show and just pick one up? If I buy a bottle of alcohol and sell it to a friend (or stranger for that matter), it is illegal and I can wind up in some very serious hot water. If I buy a gun, and turn around and sell it, it is an unregulated transaction. That is what a gun show is. No checks, no proof of ID, no waiting period, none of the things that are required by law of commercial gun shops.

Similarly, as we have seen, the legal strictures on commercial gun shops are not exactly the tightest. For $400 I can apply to become a licensed gun shop. I do not even have to have a retail establishment. All I have to do is file the paperwork. And we are worried about terrorists? Why is it that my government can listen to my phone conversations with out a please and thank you but they cannot restrict gun sales? Ah, because the telephone (unlike the mail) was not around when the Constitution was drafted. Further, while I theoretically support the idea of an armed militia, the founding fathers did not have multi-shot, Teflon coated, high velocity firearms and rounds. And therein lies the crux of a very dicey argument.

So, back to the question of a well regulated militia, which to me is what the amendment hinges on. The argument for a "standing civilian army", which is what? Our friends at Wikipedia say this:

The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency; without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. (Wikipedia)

Traditionally, armies were conscripted from the able-bodied, usually male, population by the land owner or feudal lord. This is true even today in some parts of the world. Most, when they think of a militia think of the European model of mandatory service that every (male) citizen has to put in, (usually two years) before they are 30. Think of it like the National Guard, only involuntary. The Swiss went one step further and all males have to serve for life (or until retirement at age 65 I believe). It is quite disconcerting to see a 50 year-old man carrying a machine gun on the train from Bal to Zurich the first couple of times you see it. The key here is that the militia is well regulated. They are required to prove competency with a weapon, have specific instruction into maintenance and use and are drilled with a certain set of rights and responsibilities. One also assumes a certain level of routine health and welfare checks.

In the United States, all you need is the money and a driver's license.

One argument that was raised by an individual commenting on the Missouri tragedy was this:

So, just like at Virginia Tech, this idiot went into another "disarmed victim zone". He took out the two visible defenders, killed and injured at will until finally taken down by another officer. Once again, citizens and even lawmakers obeyed the laws and were sitting ducks for a whacko.

While there might be some argument made that, in the case of Virginia Tech, the shooter's kill total might have been reduced if someone had shot him sooner, I cannot quite support this argument. Yes, in this specific case, if there had been another armed person in the room, there would possibly be two dead instead of six with one critical, but I am not so sure. The second shooter would have to be highly trained (firing in a high adrenaline situation is, as many professionals will tell you, not easy), quick, and have a clean shot. Because the shooter first shot the police officer, and them moved across the council chamber, I am guessing that any self-defense shot could have endangered at least one or two other people even if the shooter was taken out with the first bullet. I have my doubts. Frankly, I do not think that the argument, while hard to dismiss from a purely theoretical perspective, would stand up to a practical examination. Further, it is a hypothetical that we will never know the outcome of because, other than statistical modeling, it is not something we can put to the test. So those in favor of carrying a weapon for protection cannot be convinced otherwise with proof because there is no way to provide that proof.

I want to close this with one more observation. The gang member who allegedly (after all, he has not been convicted yet) shot my friend's son is most likely an illegal immigrant. The trifecta if you will of messy situation. This is where all the marbles will come to rest. I am interested to see the outcome of the trial. My initial thoughts are this however. 1) A man is dead, and as far as I know, for no other reason that being in the wrong place at the wrong time. 2) A gun was used. 3) Because of his status, the shooter is more likely to be deported that incarcerated. End result? A slap on the wrist and another victim of gun violence.

Laissez les bons temps rouler!

Loosely translated, it means let the good times roll, and as this is Fat Tuesday (Mardi Gras) and the day before Lent starts (on the Christian calendar), I thought I would take a moment to look at the "good times" and make sure we are in the right frame of mind for Lent this year.

The "good times" have been limited to a very few things. Give me a minute and I will come up with something. In the meantime, let us revisit what has already been a turbulent 2008.

1) $3 Trillion Federal Budget. Well, this horse will beaten dead in the next few days but Congress is already saying it is DOA and they are already working up their version.

2) $150 Billion Stimulus package. By the time it gets finished, it will probably be close to $200 Billion. And the jury is still out on the actual effect it will have on the economy going forward. Even if the Congress passes it today, it will still be May before the $300 hits your mailbox and by May there will be other things to contend with (I am thinking that $3/gallon gas will be normal and we could be looking at $3.50 as the average). Further, if the Government gives back $150 Billion, that is $150 billion they don't have to spend on other programs that could do more to benefit the economy than returning money to individual people.

3) Credit Crunch. I am sure we are all feeling it, whether in mortgage prices or our own personal credit lines. America has been living on credit for so long, we have forgotten why it is bad to live that way. While one comedian has a great line about it "I have no children, no family, so basically, if I die in debt, I win!" most of us are not that lucky and between credit card interest rates that are close to usury and the continued depression in real wages when compared against inflation, the United States is in a bad way. Add too that the problems of an increasing federal deficit (at the rate of $1 Million/day) and you have a monetary problem looming on the horizon that even hording gold might not off-set.

4) The Ongoing Wars. The United States still has far too many soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan doing who knows what. The mission, which is costing somewhere in the vicinity of $275 Million per day and costing lives. Although the actual number killed in action is low (around 4,000, or about the same as a single month of fatal accidents, the long term costs are going to be in the medical and mental services required by the thousands of soldiers who will come back from these war zones and will have to reintegrate into society. Some will have no problem. Many will have (and are already having) problems. Of course, the costs of the war do not take into account small businesses that have failed because their sole proprietor or large parts of their staffs have been called up to serve, or families that have been ripped apart as one or both parents have had to go or return to the region. What is truly sad is that the dunderhead-in-chief of this mess still has not clearly defined the mission. They are not fighting for our rights. They are not fighting terrorism. In the first case, we have fewer rights here in the United States today than we did before September 11, 2001 and what is worse, we have given most of them up willingly and without any sort of a fight. In the latter case, you cannot kill an -ism and, in the case of terrorism, it is a guerrilla war which you would think by now the United States would have learned you cannot win with a conventional ground force.

5) Homeland (In)security. The travel industry is suffering. Between high fuel costs, increased delays and draconian yet ineffective security, air travel is suffering. Sure, people are traveling, but the discretionary money that might actually lead to profits are not there. Add to that the pressures of issuing a national ID card (RealID is nothing less), the costs that states will have to bear and the increased times for processing passports just so you can travel domestically and you will see a large number of people find some other mode or stay home all together.

6) Its the Economy Stupid. It does not take a rocket scientist to see the problems in the economy. Travel is one of them. Along with hotels, attractions are all reporting decreases in bodies through the turnstiles and as a result are cutting back on staffing or closing rides. As the price of gas increases, families that might have bought family passes to local amusement parks will rethink the trips to those parks and you will see a larger downturn. That is the tip of the iceberg and when that downturn comes, start looking at other leisure activities and leisure company performance. They are the true bellwether of the health of the economy. When people do not have disposable income, they do not take recreational trips. This is basic economics. Track the health of companies like REI, Coleman, Schwin, Rawlings, and other sports retailers and see what happens. They are the first ones to dip.

So, on the eve of Lent, I hope I have put you in a proper frame of mind. With the Dow closing down more than it closes up lately, the best advice is to pay down your debt, save your money and pitch a tent in the back yard. Oh, and you have less than 45 days before tax time.

Au chante!

Milk, bread and TP won't cut it.

Region Lacks Unified Evacuation Plan February 4, 2008 - 9:00am WASHINGTON - In the event of a catastrophe, officials have prepared evacuation plans for the Washington metro area. In fact, they've prepared lots of them. (WTOP)

Sadly, this only tells us what many in the region already knew. Sadly, none of us is truly ready for an emergency and the chaos that was Katrina will pale to insignificance should the National Capital Region ever have to deal with a real emergency.

$3.1 Trillion. Will that be cash or credit?

Bush Unveils $3.1 Trillion Spending Plan February 4, 2008 - 11:50am WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush unveiled a $3.1 trillion budget on Monday that supports sizable increases in military spending to fight the war on terrorism and protects his signature tax cuts. Bush says the plan will keep the U.S. economy growing and protect the U.S. militarily. (WTOP)

For those who have not been paying attention lately (either because they have been partying all week or because they are elected officials), today is budget Monday. And the dunderhead-in-chief has added another nail to his legacy coffin, which regrettably we will continue shoveling dirt onto long after he has been kicked out of the White House (someone is counting the silver right?).

$3.1 trillion dollars. The deficit is already growing at $1 million a day and the United States is pouring so much bad money after good into the rat holes that are Iraq and Afghanistan that one has to start wondering where President Bush is going to come up with another cent much less $3 trillion of my money (yours too, and your children's and your children's children's).

If you are wondering why the economy is in the toilet, let me spell it out using small words. It has nothing (and never has) to do with illegal immigrants. That is now and has been for a long time, a red herring. It has everything to do with the housing market, from top to bottom. It has nothing to do with our carbon footprint, but everything to do with the cost of that oil and other chemicals that are increasing it and our failure to create a new source of energy that does not cost as much. And sadly, it has a lot to do with some of the so-called alternatives (after all, the cost of corn has gone up so much because we are putting it in our tanks, that we cannot afford to feed it to the livestock that provides us with the various dairy and meat products we consume, so as a result the cost of food is increasing because of a double-whammie of factors).

It has a lot to do with the poor regulations we have put on financial institutions, urban planning decision, and an economy so driving by quarterly earnings that no company looks more than 90 days ahead anymore and plans for the future. The employees have become little more than cogs in the machine and as a result, most will find themselves working long past retirement age (what does that mean anymore?) because they cannot afford to retire, much less get sick or drive (commute) to work.

We are in a recession. 60% of Americans recognize the signs (none of them of course are in elected government, at least at the federal level) and they also recognize that giving money back is not the solution to the problem. Regrettably, the solution is going to be painful for many people. Jobs will go away and people will loose their houses and large chucks of their financial security because we have, for too long, relied on fictitious models of economic viability and the IOUs that have been issued by our elected leaders are coming due in the worst way.

The current budget is at the Office of Management and Budget, and when you finish reading that, here is a little gem from cartoonist Ed Stein that really will scare you. And if it does not do that, check back in a few days, I am going to pull out America the Broke and give you an idea of how bad it is. Oh, the book was published in 2004 when everything looked a lot brighter and cheerier.