Originally Posted by Alioth68

...I see Playwrite presenting some reasonable argument against Frank's assessment (or rather, an interpretation thereof--the quote given is simply a statement of regret about backing Fannie and Freddie, not an actual statement blaming them exclusively or even mostly for the whole shebang)...

-Actually, Frank does, because you can't do one without the other.

Originally Posted by Alioth68

Question: does being of a general political persuasion obligate one to agree with, believe, or go along with the assessments of, everyone (or even persons in leadership positions) of that same general political persuasion?

-Of course not. But PW only ever had a problem with Barney Frank when Frank committed thought crime.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Actually, Frank does, because you can't do one without the other.



-Of course not. But PW only ever had a problem with Barney Frank when Frank committed thought crime.

You still just can't get it.

No one is saying that people not being able to afford their mortgages wasn't part of the problem.

That is not getting at the real underlying reason of why they couldn't afford those mortgages (i.e., lack of wage growth), who hoisted those mortgages on them (i.e. it wasn't Freddie/Fannie after 2003) or how that turned into a global financial meltdown (i.e. MBS and CDS craziness brought to us by Wall Street).

The way you pin your entire worldview on an off-the-cuff remarks by Barney does make one wonder.
Maybe give him a call. You two could get a room, and during timeouts discuss the issue at length.

In a recent book economist Harry Dent predicted that whoever wins the Presidency in 2012 has the potential to be this era's equivalent of what Abe Lincoln and F D Roosevelt were to theirs. Do you really believe that Obama can still pull this one off, and do you feel he has the mettle to do it?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

In a recent book economist Harry Dent predicted that whoever wins the Presidency in 2012 has the potential to be this era's equivalent of what Abe Lincoln and F D Roosevelt were to theirs. Do you really believe that Obama can still pull this one off, and do you feel he has the mettle to do it?

No, because he won't be president when the major events and decisions at the climax of the 4T happen in the mid-2020s.

If Hillary had been elected in 2008 instead of him, he might have played that role. I don't know if he has the mettle or not. Maybe; he is smart and has some backbone when he decides to use it, but he may be too cautious in his timing, as he is right now in responding to the Syria mess.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

In a recent book economist Harry Dent predicted that whoever wins the Presidency in 2012 has the potential to be this era's equivalent of what Abe Lincoln and F D Roosevelt were to theirs. Do you really believe that Obama can still pull this one off, and do you feel he has the mettle to do it?

At most he would be the equivalent of the first two terms of FDR.

As it is he is above average as a President on the usual objective measures of political success -- economic stewardship, major reforms, avoiding military and diplomatic debacles, avoiding scandals, and of course getting re-elected. (Dubya failed at all of those except at getting re-elected). Any comparison of him to Lincoln or FDR remains blasphemy.

Lincoln and FDR both had cataclysmic wars not of their making (American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are not cataclysmic for America), wars that ended in the utter defeat of the Enemy. At that President Obama is more like Eisenhower than like either Lincoln or FDR as President, which may reflect that he is a Reactive and not an Idealist. The underworld-style hit on Osama bin Laden (not that I can see another way to dispose of him) is strictly Reactive.

It may be that President Obama is setting America up well for meeting the apocalyptic stage of the Crisis of 2020. He is not going to get a third term, which he would need for being in office at the equivalent stage of history of either the American Civil War or American involvement in World War II. That is not to say that he would not be influential as the most-frequently-invited guest of the 45th President, a sort of Minister Without Portfolio. Ex-Presidents in recent times have considerable influence upon public policy and diplomacy if their health doesn't fail and they don't become recluses.

I can't imagine President Obama being disgraced; barring some failure of health I can't imagine him as a recluse. The pattern is already set: he is cautious, and he respects legal precedent and diplomatic niceties. That's one way to avoid getting into trouble, and that may be one of the most important of traits for a leader in or going into a Crisis.

Unless the Crisis of 2020 suddenly appears in the next three years and is over quickly, President Obama is not going to be the next Lincoln or FDR as President. But I can see him being very useful to any President not tied to the Tea Party. That said, if President Obama can force a non-violent resolution of the economic and political distress of a Crisis Era then that will be satisfying.

Inspiring speech by a renewed president. May we each renew our dedication to our ideals in these challenging times.

http://youtu.be/zncqb-n3zMo



Read the transcript here

President Obama's Second Inaugural Address

Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional - what makes us American - is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

For more than two hundred years, we have.

Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life's worst hazards and misfortune.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society's ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today's world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we'll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. America's possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it - so long as we seize it together.

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America's prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other - through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security - these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries - we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure - our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That's what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully - not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice - not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths - that all of us are created equal - is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

It is now our generation's task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law - for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.

That is our generation's task - to make these words, these rights, these values - of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time - but it does require us to act in our time.

For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today's victories will be only partial, and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years, and forty years, and four hundred years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.

My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction - and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty, or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.

They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope.

You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country's course.

You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time - not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.

Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

Thank you, God Bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America.

Sounded like a call for regeneracy to me.

Still dubious about whether he will get it. The old values and 3T spirit of division and quagmire still have a firm grip on Washington DC at least. There seem to be some cracks on the wall, but I don't see that the wall is about to get swept down by a rolling tide.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Sounded like a call for regeneracy to me.

Still dubious about whether he will get it. The old values and 3T spirit of division and quagmire still have a firm grip on Washington DC at least. There seem to be some cracks on the wall, but I don't see that the wall is about to get swept down by a rolling tide.

Very much a call for a Regeneracy. Can he get it? I don't know. There's huge money behind people who want an extension of the Degeneracy. It's hard to believe that political and economic rot has a constituency but it has a well-heeled one, and it has FoX Propaganda Channel as a sounding board.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Sounded like a call for regeneracy to me.

Still dubious about whether he will get it. The old values and 3T spirit of division and quagmire still have a firm grip on Washington DC at least. There seem to be some cracks on the wall, but I don't see that the wall is about to get swept down by a rolling tide.

While his first inaugural also seemed like a call to regeneracy, it was by very different means - a sort of "can't we all just get along" call. This time, it's we move into the regeneracy by winning the Progressive agenda - very different (we just need to remember, however, that it is only a speech.)

Krugman caught it -

The truth is that I hated Obama’s first inaugural speech. To borrow a phrase from Barney Frank, it gave me a case of post-partisan depression. The new president was still thinking of himself as the man who could somehow end the political divide; and on policy substance, it was a VSP speech full of talk about hard choices and remarkably off-base at a time when highly expansionary fiscal and monetary policy were called for.

The second inaugural was much better. Maybe a bit lacking in poetry — but it was a clear acknowledgment that he faces an implacable, irrational opposition, together with a forceful defense of progressive values. In fact, Obama has never been this clear before about what he stands for.

Given how I believe Reagan/Thatcher ushered in the 3T (and its inevitable leading to our 4T), I like this quote the best -

Charles Krauthammer, conservative columnist:

“I think very important historically because this this was really Obama unbound,” he said on Fox News. “And I think what’s most interesting is that Obama basically is declaring the end of Reaganism in this speech.”

The internet is going bonkers over this -



Most are thinking Boehner said something to the Prez that didn't sit well with Michele.

Myself, I think Michele caught Mrs. Boehner putting some WH silverware into her purse. Check it out on the lower right corner.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The internet is going bonkers over this -

Most are thinking Boehner said something to the Prez that didn't sit well with Michele.

Myself, I think Michele caught Mrs. Boehner putting some WH silverware into her purse. Check it out on the lower right corner.

That did not look like an honest hand movement.

Originally Posted by Charles Krauthammer

“I think very important historically because this this was really Obama unbound,” he said on Fox News. “And I think what’s most interesting is that Obama basically is declaring the end of Reaganism in this speech.”

CNN also noted the 'end of Reaganism' theme.

CNN also observed that Bob Schieffer must be straight. Schieffer commented that there were no memorable lines in the speech, while reporter LZ Granderson noted among other things the mentioning together of Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall. These three places were landmarks in the woman's rights, civil rights and gay rights movements.

Rhetoric don't imply movement, but Obama is at least pushing the rhetoric a bit.

Originally Posted by B Butler

the mentioning together of Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall. These three places were landmarks in the woman's rights, civil rights and gay rights movements.

And, I note in passing

Landmark events that all occurred when Uranus was in conjunction to Pluto (new moon in the revolution cycle). 1848/1965-69. Conjunctions between these planets indicate the start of activist and revolutionary movements.

(technical note: 1850-51 and 1965-66 were the exact years of conjunction; they were within orb, 7 degrees apart, in April 1848 and June 1969)

Nowadays Uranus and Pluto are forming the square/first quarter phase in the cycle, forming exact angles at certain times from 2012 to 2015, and close within orb at certain other times from about 2008-2018. The full moon/opposition is due in 2046-48. It WILL inaugurate the next Awakening, and it WILL indicate more "landmark" events fulfilling the movements begun in the sixties. The next conjunction is due in about 2103. But it's clear that the planets indicate that Obama's election under the current Uranus-Pluto square is one thing that fulfills the movements that began under the earlier conjunctions between these planets.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The internet is going bonkers over this -



Most are thinking Boehner said something to the Prez that didn't sit well with Michele.

Most likely. I roll my eyes at everything that comes out of Mr. Boehner's mouth.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Sounded like a call for regeneracy to me.

Still dubious about whether he will get it. The old values and 3T spirit of division and quagmire still have a firm grip on Washington DC at least. There seem to be some cracks on the wall, but I don't see that the wall is about to get swept down by a rolling tide.

Yet ironically, sweeping Democratic gains in Congress in 2014 would exacerbate that spirit of division, since the Hurricane Sandy votes provided a preview of how it would come about: Incumbent Republicans, mostly in the Northeast, getting primaried, and defeated, by Tea Party extremists, who then proceed to lose to Democrats in November. That will be the same thing that happened to relatively moderate Democrats in the South in 1994 (and there will be more of that in 2014 thanks to the Dems' all-out assault on the Second Amendment), which will only serve to harden the sectional fronts even more and turn the second half of the 2010s into a facsimile of the second half of the 1850s.

We might even get a caning out of it a la Preston Brooks vs. Charles Sumner.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

thanks to the Dems' all-out assault on the Second Amendment,

The second amendment is not up for repeal, so there is no "assault" on it. It is our children that are being assaulted by assault weapons.

which will only serve to harden the sectional fronts even more and turn the second half of the 2010s into a facsimile of the second half of the 1850s.

We might even get a caning out of it a la Preston Brooks vs. Charles Sumner.

Might happen indeed.

But the more resistance there is to the progressive program on all fronts, the worse the divisions will be. The less resistance, the less divisions. Some moderate agreements are possible, since the left is able to negotiate, but only after the right-wing extremists are defeated. Today we have one moderate party and one extreme right-wing party. The right things need to be done for what is best for the country and the world. The right things are generally the progressive things, but sometimes conservatives have good points too. But today's Republican extremists have no good points. And that includes their obsessive defense of the gun culture.

Eric, I assume that we both agree in the principle of "shared sacrifice" when it comes to the economy; that we both vehemently opposed Mitt Romney's tax plan because it would have hit the poor and middle class with a tax increase (by eliminating various deductions and exemptions, including the personal exemption), while giving the rich a massive tax cut, and that would have been unfair.

Well where's the "shared sacrifice" on gun control? All the burden falls on law-abiding citizens - while the criminals outrightly benefit from the proposed legislation because it would place would-be victims at a tremendous firepower disadvantage. Come on, that's hardly fair.

I'd like to see someone add a provision to any gun-control package that comes before Congress that would establish a federal "10-20-Life" law patterned on the highly successful model in Florida: Bring a gun to a crime scene = mandatory minimum 10 years in prison. Fire that gun at said crime scene = 20-year minimum. And shoot someone at said crime scene, whether they get killed or not = life in prison (with no parole possible for at least 25 years).

Yet you know and I know what would happen in that case: After (most plausible scenario) a Senate Republican introduced this add-on, the far-left criminal-coddlers would introduce a motion to table (kill) it, which would pass.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

....I'd like to see someone add a provision to any gun-control package that comes before Congress that would establish a federal "10-20-Life" law patterned on the highly successful model in Florida: Bring a gun to a crime scene = mandatory minimum 10 years in prison. Fire that gun at said crime scene = 20-year minimum. And shoot someone at said crime scene, whether they get killed or not = life in prison (with no parole possible for at least 25 years)....

Yea, that would do it.

Too bad Adam Lanza killed himself; otherwise, we could have dropped the big 10/20/Life down on that sucker! I'm sure the families of the 20 dead 1st graders would have felt so much better.

Keep up that brilliant 'thinkin' there, '58!

Remember the saecular timing. The 2008 election wasn't like 1932. It was only a Crisis election by the skin of its teeth, later in the saeculum than the 1928 election (won by Herbert Hoover) by less than a year. Obama's first term isn't to be compared to FDR's first term but to Hoover's term. The equivalent to Roosevelt's first term is Obama's second -- right now.

So this should come as no surprise.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

Eric, I assume that we both agree in the principle of "shared sacrifice" when it comes to the economy; that we both vehemently opposed Mitt Romney's tax plan because it would have hit the poor and middle class with a tax increase (by eliminating various deductions and exemptions, including the personal exemption), while giving the rich a massive tax cut, and that would have been unfair.

Yes, we do. You seem to have compassion for economic suffering, but not for the victims of violence and war.

Well where's the "shared sacrifice" on gun control? All the burden falls on law-abiding citizens - while the criminals outrightly benefit from the proposed legislation because it would place would-be victims at a tremendous firepower disadvantage. Come on, that's hardly fair.

What is not fair is to allow many more guns and military weapons in our society so that more innocent people are killed, because we don't do gun control, which decreases their number in the hands of criminals as well as "law-abiding citizens"-- who themselves often become criminals just because they have the easier means to become criminals. And victims would not be at a "disadvantage," because guns are not a good defense (especially against other guns) and are much more likely to be used by the victims themselves or their children for crime, suicide, accidents, or theft by criminals.

A total ban on guns is not workable as long as the gun culture persists. A gun ban cannot be enforced with guns, without adding to the violence. So that is not what is being proposed. What is being proposed is universal background checks so that criminals and mental cases can't buy them or import them, and bans on military weapons which citizens don't need and are useless to them for any purpose other than mass shootings. What is "not fair" is your opposition to these proposals.

I'd like to see someone add a provision to any gun-control package that comes before Congress that would establish a federal "10-20-Life" law patterned on the highly successful model in Florida: Bring a gun to a crime scene = mandatory minimum 10 years in prison. Fire that gun at said crime scene = 20-year minimum. And shoot someone at said crime scene, whether they get killed or not = life in prison (with no parole possible for at least 25 years).

what playwrite said.

Another significant gun grab will be in this commonplace occurrence: people adjudicated as dangerous to their spouses due to abuse could receive court orders to divest themselves of firearms that pose an obvious danger to an abused spouse.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

I'd like to see someone add a provision to any gun-control package that comes before Congress that would establish a federal "10-20-Life" law patterned on the highly successful model in Florida: Bring a gun to a crime scene = mandatory minimum 10 years in prison. Fire that gun at said crime scene = 20-year minimum. And shoot someone at said crime scene, whether they get killed or not = life in prison (with no parole possible for at least 25 years).

"Bring a gun to a crime scene" is pretty broad--what happens if you're carrying a gun (legally) and happen to walk into a place where a crime is occurring? What happens if you fire that gun to defend people there?

Call me a "crime-coddler" (ha!), but I do have trouble with "mandatory minimums" or various absolutist "zero tolerance" policies, because they hamstring judges who hear details and nuances of the case which may suggest lesser degrees of criminality, or even non-criminality, of the activities of a defendant. We employ judges * to judge the facts of the case and the defendant, not rubber-stamp sentences dictated by legislators (one aspect of keeping different government powers separate).

And as far as spree shootings go (as mentioned above), what complicates these as far as deterrence goes is that the shooters often don't expect to, or want to, live--trying to deter them is like trying to deter a suicide bomber. For better or worse, the only measures that can make a dent in this special class of crime where the criminal isn't afraid to die (and often plans on it), is proactively making it harder for them to commit such a crime--the kinds of measures we're discussing here, some of which we must weigh against established freedoms. No easy solutions there, and I certainly don't pretend to have any answers either--just listening to the debate and trying to judge what courses of action may make the most sense, same as a lot of other Americans I suspect.

* Edited to clarify: while it is juries, and not judges, that actually decide verdicts in most criminal cases, in most states (I think) it is the judge who decides the sentence, unless there is a "mandatory minimum" law deciding it for them. But even in states where juries also decide sentences (I think this happens in a few states, or at least when the Death Penalty is being considered), the key is that those who hear the facts of the individual case do, or should, decide the sentence based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Blanket "zero tolerance" and "mandatory minimum" policies are enacted by people who don't hear these, and can lead to an 18-year-old high-schooler being jailed, and branded as a felonious "sex offender" for having sex with his 17-year-old high-school girlfriend (as happened in Georgia), or other absurdities. Generally these laws are passed by people who have hammers and see everything as a nail....

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, that would do it.

Too bad Adam Lanza killed himself; otherwise, we could have dropped the big 10/20/Life down on that sucker! I'm sure the families of the 20 dead 1st graders would have felt so much better.

Keep up that brilliant 'thinkin' there, '58!

But why take guns away from mentally-healthy, law-abiding citizens who do not, and never will, do what Adam Lanza etc. did?

And a scared woman home alone with her kids is going to fend off four home invaders armed with AR-15s with her .32-caliber revolver.

But "10-20-Life" might very well make the quartet think twice about invading the home in the first place, no?

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

we ... agree in the principle of "shared sacrifice" when it comes to the economy; that we both vehemently opposed Mitt Romney's tax plan because it would have hit the poor and middle class with a tax increase (by eliminating various deductions and exemptions, including the personal exemption), while giving the rich a massive tax cut, and that would have been unfair.

Indeed I am not sure of what sort of 'tax policy' Mitt Romney really stood for. It was "trust me and you will get a miracle". Economic elites consistently tell us to make sacrifices on their behalf and hold them unaccountable for the results so that they can do wonders for us. Basically that is the bear offering a cold person a warm fur coat over him in return for food -- the bear eats the man and of course the fur coat remains on the bear.

Romney was extremely secretive about his plan for a vibrant economy. In view of what GOP front groups offered, enough people distrusted him that he proved unelectable.

Well where's the "shared sacrifice" on gun control? All the burden falls on law-abiding citizens - while the criminals outrightly benefit from the proposed legislation because it would place would-be victims at a tremendous firepower disadvantage. Come on, that's hardly fair.

The criminal as a rule has the immediate advantage of violating the rules that most of us take for granted. The criminal has his gun pointed at your head before you can grab yours. He has knocked you down, perhaps breaking some of your bones or rendering you unconscious, so that he can grab your wallet before you can do anything. He has put you in a place where your screams during a rape cannot be heard or has you in a position in which you dare not call attention to yourself. Maybe because he believes that 72 virgins await him for doing so he detonates a car bomb with himself in it in front of a hotel that houses American businesspeople. The trick is either in getting away as a fugitive or in not caring about the consequences in the event of failure.

The rest of us think five years ahead before we dare tell off the boss who assigns us some humiliating task. The street criminal who uses brute force thinks at most a few hours ahead -- perhaps of the cheap bacchanal of a drunken binge with the proceeds of a Social Security check (that is, when Social Security was not direct-deposited) or his next drug fix. Death penalty? It might be a deterrent if it were barbarous (crushing, burning, feeding to predatory animals, slow strangulation on piano wire), but we already have more than enough barbarism in our culture as it is.

I'd like to see someone add a provision to any gun-control package that comes before Congress that would establish a federal "10-20-Life" law patterned on the highly successful model in Florida: Bring a gun to a crime scene = mandatory minimum 10 years in prison. Fire that gun at said crime scene = 20-year minimum. And shoot someone at said crime scene, whether they get killed or not = life in prison (with no parole possible for at least 25 years).

Michigan has a mandatory 25-to-life term for armed robbery, basically the same sentence as for attempted murder. Parole is not available for 25 years.

Yet you know and I know what would happen in that case: After (most plausible scenario) a Senate Republican introduced this add-on, the far-left criminal-coddlers would introduce a motion to table (kill) it, which would pass.

Liberals have learned that crime is more a moral failure of the criminal than a rational calculus of the consequences of poverty. I figure that plenty of liberal 'community organizers' have learned to distinguish between the good guys and bad guys.