Fear.

In light of the shootings in Arizona, perhaps we should re-read this T&G article on Police Chief Gemme's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the lawsuit he faces from Hector Pineiro.  Mr. Pineiro's family has been the victim of a home invasion, and Mr. Pineiro fears for his safety outside of his Main South office.  His solution is a concealed weapon, which is an invitation to more violence.

"Many things have convinced him of the need for a license to carry a concealed weapon. When leaving his office at night, he said he encounters people involved in criminal activities and is asked for money by others."

Some people would say he hasn't been attacked at his office, and doesn't need a gun.  Others would say he hasn't been attacked....yet.  Either way, making decisions based on perceived threats and fear isn't the best way to live: remember, Mr. Pineiro can't point out a single instance where he was been threatened with violence at his workplace.  Sometimes the bogey man isn't what we imagine him to be.  Either way, everyone needs to remember the whole text of the 2nd Ammendment:

"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."

It would be unconstitutional for Mr. Pineiro to bear arms without any government limits, and unconstitutional for the government to deny him his right to bear arms.  That sound exactly like Police Chief Gemme's solution to Mr. Pineiro's request.

-----

A few more thoughts about fear:

-Here's a great chart about things that our news media wants us to be scared of.  Be sure to toggle between total deaths vs. fear (bottom right corner).

-Glenn Greenwald has an interesting piece on governmental policies, WikiLeaks, personal freedom, and fear.

Interesting questions...

The beauty of our democracy is out ability to question it.  I recommend Glenn Greenwald's latest piece about the recent Christmas terror plot. 

Too Much Information

The Washington Post's Dana Priest and William Arkin wrote an excellent expose on data mining and our intelligence community's inability to deal with the sheer volume of gathered intelligence.  Glenn Greenwald also touches on the subject, and the sheer volume of links in his piece provide a deeper picture of the intelligence abyss. 

PBS had an excellent Frontline piece called The Man Who Knew that pointed out the flaws in our intelligence community pre-9/11.  PBS argued that the problem wasn't a lack of intelligence, rather it was the inability of the intelligence community to listen and cooperate with each other.  We still haven't heeded that warning, proving politicians prefer immediate resolutions rather than true problem solving.

Here we are almost nine years later, and the sheer amount of information we have collected at the expense of our Constitutional rights isn't helping.  It's time to rethink how we keep our nation safe.

"I think few people would say that what we really need in America is more corporate interference in the political process." -Alan Grayson

I railed against Citizens United vs. FEC last week, and so has most of the liberal side of American politics.  The only exception is Glenn Greenwald, a writer I respect.  (Part 1, Part 2, Questions 1, Questions 2).

I don't agree with his assessment especially in his Questions section, largely because I think a contribution from Wal-Mart or Planned Parenthood is far different than an individual contribution.  Both organizations aren't full of employees who agree on every issue or candidate.  A contribution from an organization will reflect the views of its leadership, and leadership already enjoys a significant voice in American politics.  Why should it increase? 

What happens when a foreign or multi-national organization enters the fray?

I doubt that any of these bills will make it out of committee, but Alan Grayson (D- Fla) certainly has a good sense of humor balanced with a sense of justice.

Why is everyone surprised that Brown won?

Here's a few good pieces on Martha Coakley's loss yesterday.  I hesitate to read too much into her loss as a national bellweather, but I suspect that the hacks and talking heads will play this up because it is easy and can fit into 30 second 'debates.'

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100201/greider

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/01/19/lessons_of_massachusetts

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/20/left

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/20/exit-poll-of-mass/

Here's why I think Coakley lost:
1.  She was a bland and uninspiring candidate.
2.  She was way too quiet in December, when she could have set the tone of the election.
3.  Scott Brown had a lot of help in the last two weeks, and came off very well AFTER the debates had aired.  Most independent/undecided voters don't watch debates.  They are more easily influenced by ads and word of mouth, and tend to focus on a few small issues.

4.  Voters in Massachusetts have elected 3 Republican governors since 1989.  Is it that hard to believe that they wouldn't vote for a moderate like Brown?  (Ignoring the fact that he will now have to march lockstep with a Republican minority in the Senate that is much more conservative than the voters in Massachusetts envisioned when they voted for him.)

My favorite analysis came from my cousin:

"A year ago everyone and his sister was telling me to vote for obama, i didnt, now a year later those same people are telling me to vote for scott brown, i didnt, for gods sake you elected obama for change, he is one vote away from giving that to you and your trying to stop it...its not Washington that's f'd..its you!"

"I refuse to live in a country like this. And I'm not leaving." - Michael Moore

Here's a fantastic piece from Glenn Greenwald regarding the nation's attitude towards the financial bailout.  Beyond the ramblings of the Tea Party and the movies of Michael Moore (talk about two divergent paths!), there hasn't been much in the way of organized protest directed at Wall Street.

Has the toxic debate over health care and the war in Afghanistan blunted that anger?  Or are we really willing to be accomplices?