Jay Carney got some flak after the Newtown massacre by saying "Today is not the day to talk about gun control." Detractors almost universally said "if not now, when." They were right. We can say what we want, when we want. But pushing for gun control immediately after the incident, before the facts come in, increases the chances that we'll just say or do something useless.
Many of the loudest gun control advocates are pushing for assault weapons bans, because a semi-automatic assault rifle was used to kill the children in Newtown. Many gun advocates, including many pundits and politicians who have previously opposed these bans, are saying that nobody needs weapons like this. I'm generally inclined to agree with this, but any time the government tells me what I do or don't need, the Libertarian part of my psyche cringes. One thing they say that makes sense is that certain weapons only belong on the battlefield. The trick is identifying what that means.
The definition of assault weapons is a bit vague. Automatic weapons are always considered assault weapons. Not all semi-automatic weapons are considered assault weapons, only ones with certain characteristics are. The assault weapons ban defined an assault weapon as a weapon with detachable magazines and at least two other characteristics that were considered typical of assault weapons. The problem is, a few of the things that potentially define something as an assault weapon seem mostly or entirely harmless.
Two examples are pistol grips and collapsible stocks. A collapsible stock is a stock that can be shortened in order to be customized to the size of the user. I don't see how this makes a gun noticeably more dangerous. A pistol grip allows the user to control the recoil more easily. One could argue that it makes a shooter more able to shoot people more quickly. But it also makes them more able to shoot static targets more quickly or deer more quickly or whatever. Typically, how quickly someone can kill targets has more to do with the skill of the shooter than the type of stock or grip that a gun has. This ban seems to be designed to ban guns that look dangerous. They may like they belong on a battlefield, but many of them are no more or less dangerous than more ordinary looking weapons.
Another problem with fixating on assault weapons is the fact that they are not used in most murders. Most murders are committed with pistols, which is probably why the last assault weapons ban had no noticeable effect on homicide rates. The President echoed this in the presidential debates, noting that most murders involve "cheap handguns". Even some mass killings are done with pistols. The Virginia Tech massacre, the worst school shooting ever, was done with two handguns. By focusing entirely on the specific circumstances of the shootings in Newtown, we risk ignoring most of the violence in this country.
Another thing that has come to the forefront is a focus on mental health and identifying people with problems and treating them. Many, if not all, of the mass murderers in recent years have had some kind of mental health problem. Disturbing behavior by the Tucson killer was reported by many classmates at a local community college he attended and nothing was done. The Aurora killer's classmates also reported strange behavior and nothing was done. On the other hand, The Virginia Tech killer and one of the Columbine killers had been diagnosed with mental health problems prior to the attacks and had received treatment. The Newtown killer was known to have some mental problems and some reports suggest his mother was about to have him committed. These instances all suggest that more intervention is necessary and when it happens it needs to be more effective. But what's also true is that most murderers are not crazy. Most murderers kill for a relatively mundane reason: an argument, jealousy, revenge. Angry results in more murders than crazy. Focusing only on the mentally unstable ignores most of the problem. It's always a good idea to improve mental health care (or any other health care), but this won't fix most of the problem.
As with every other mass shooting, the debate over the "culture of violence" has reemerged. We are told that America has a history of violence and our culture glorifies violence and contributed to this. But this actually doesn't make any sense. The same violent movies and video games that are common in a America are equally common in other nations where murder is extremely rare. American movies are commonly watched in Canada, the UK, France, Germany, and Australia. They buy the video games too. France, the UK, and Germany have far more violent histories than America. Yet murder rates are low in all of these countries. Not only would attempting to silence or deter these forms of entertainment be a violation of the First Amendment, it would be a complete waste of time. Other countries are able to avoid real violence, despite the fact that they are exposed to the same amount of fake violence as we are and despite the fact that they have histories as violent, if not more so, than ours.
While I'm on the subject of foreign countries, it has to be mentioned that other industrialized nations have stricter gun control laws. In some, like Japan and England, this results in low rates of gun ownership and low murder rates. Others, like Canada or France, have relatively high numbers of gun owners (though not as many as us) but still have low murder rates. And some others, like Brazil and Russia, have low rates of gun ownership but much higher murder rates. What this means is the presence or lack of guns and gun control laws doesn't appear to predict a country's murder rate. The source of the problem is something else.
This doesn't mean gun control is useless. I think some gun control measures makes sense. Smaller magazine size is fine. I truly don't need a 30 round clip to defend myself. If I need to defend myself from an attack and need more than six or seven bullets to do it, this is the sort of attack I should be running away from. And limiting magazine size won't prevent me from buying more than one gun. This won't stop people from producing homemade high capacity magazines, but I still think it will reduce the chances of mass shootings occurring. Background checks should be required for all gun purchases. Instant background checks should be available everywhere. There must be a way to make background checks possible at gun shows. This won't stop strawbuyers, but it will still prevent many felons and crazy people from getting guns. Lastly, one thing that often goes unmentioned is that many criminals acquire guns from licensed dealers who make illicit sales under the table. So another thing that must happen is additional enforcement.
But as for the rest of the debate, it's a hasty reaction which will have little or no effect. We won't fix the problem by renewing an assault weapons ban that didn't accomplish anything significant the first time, other than boosting assault weapon sales before its passage. And hand wringing over movies and video games is a waste of time. This is a multi-faceted problem that will probably take decades or generations to fix. We won't be able to control it if we only respond to the headlines. We will not fix anything if we attempt to resurrect legislation that already failed once. We must be willing to commit to rigorous analysis of all aspects of the problem and explore all possible solutions, while being mindful of the Constitution and its guarantees. We must accept that this requires a prolonged effort at the grassroots level by all citizens who want the violence to stop. If we want to prevent future violence and respect the memory of the victims of violence, we must attempt to find solutions that actually work and shake off the tired old rhetoric that solves nothing.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
The Gun Made Me Do It
Bob Costas has been echoing the same tired old talking point that gun control advocates have been spewing for years. On the O'Reilly Factor, Bob Costas said (paraphrasing) that if more people possess guns that it is more likely that a dispute would escalate because someone has a gun. What he actually said is here, on the second clip at about the 1:30 mark. This assumes that the possession of the gun is more likely to cause one person to want to kill another in a dispute. This is false. It's true that a person with a gun is more likely to succeed in killing someone else, but the gun does not magically cause someone to be more aggressive.
The problem is not the presence of guns. The problem is that people in the United States are more likely to want to kill someone than they would be in many other countries. Many of the highly publicized murders we've seen were preventable without taking away guns. Kansas City Chiefs Guy had a history of problems in his personal life. Crazy Guy in Arizona had been reported acting loony at his community college. Nobody did anything. If we had been more proactive about identifying and dealing with these problems, they never would have escalated into violence.
More recently, Michael Dunn killed Jordan Davis in Jacksonville, Florida. This was an escalation of a simple argument. A motive for murder that is all too common. This is the real problem. People in the United States are willing to kill for stupid reasons. Apparently, Jordan Davis and his pals were just playing their music too loud. That's not a sufficient reason to kill. We should be focusing our efforts on figuring out why people are willing to do things this senseless.
Instead, Costas and others simply fixate on the guns. If two guys want to kill each other and we take away their guns, it doesn't suddenly make them not want to kill each other. Disarming us isn't the answer.
Gun control advocates like to point to other industrialized nations which have strict gun control laws and lower crime. But they always forget to mention Russia and Brazil. Russia has extremely strict gun control laws, but twice the murder rate of the US. Brazil is the most violent industrialized nation in the world, despite its gun laws. Here in the US, gun ownership has been on the rise, despite the fact that violent crimes have been declining for years. The presence or lack of guns or gun control laws isn't the problem or the solution.
The problem of violence is extremely complex and nuanced. Simply demanding gun control every time a tragedy happens is a simple-minded solution. Simple-minded solutions do not fix complex problems. We need to make an effort to identify why we can't identify dangerous people in time and why ordinary people are so willing to kill for ridiculous reasons. Until we accept that deeper analysis is necessary, this problem won't go away.
The problem is not the presence of guns. The problem is that people in the United States are more likely to want to kill someone than they would be in many other countries. Many of the highly publicized murders we've seen were preventable without taking away guns. Kansas City Chiefs Guy had a history of problems in his personal life. Crazy Guy in Arizona had been reported acting loony at his community college. Nobody did anything. If we had been more proactive about identifying and dealing with these problems, they never would have escalated into violence.
More recently, Michael Dunn killed Jordan Davis in Jacksonville, Florida. This was an escalation of a simple argument. A motive for murder that is all too common. This is the real problem. People in the United States are willing to kill for stupid reasons. Apparently, Jordan Davis and his pals were just playing their music too loud. That's not a sufficient reason to kill. We should be focusing our efforts on figuring out why people are willing to do things this senseless.
Instead, Costas and others simply fixate on the guns. If two guys want to kill each other and we take away their guns, it doesn't suddenly make them not want to kill each other. Disarming us isn't the answer.
Gun control advocates like to point to other industrialized nations which have strict gun control laws and lower crime. But they always forget to mention Russia and Brazil. Russia has extremely strict gun control laws, but twice the murder rate of the US. Brazil is the most violent industrialized nation in the world, despite its gun laws. Here in the US, gun ownership has been on the rise, despite the fact that violent crimes have been declining for years. The presence or lack of guns or gun control laws isn't the problem or the solution.
The problem of violence is extremely complex and nuanced. Simply demanding gun control every time a tragedy happens is a simple-minded solution. Simple-minded solutions do not fix complex problems. We need to make an effort to identify why we can't identify dangerous people in time and why ordinary people are so willing to kill for ridiculous reasons. Until we accept that deeper analysis is necessary, this problem won't go away.
Monday, December 3, 2012
To Prevent the Country From Committing Fiscal Suicide, Congress Must Commit Political Suicide
Several of my bosses, past and present, have recently channeled Warren Buffett and told me they want the government to raise taxes on them. This stunned me a bit. Like many business owners they are all conservative. Or at least conservative-ish. Meaning they all fall somewhere between Dick Cheney and Ron Paul on the political spectrum. These are generally anti-tax people. They believe taxes should be kept as low as possible for the simple reason that they believe people should keep as much of their own property and income as possible.
So how do these guys finally arrive at a tax raise? As conservative-ish people, they also believe in personal responsibility. Therefore, these are not the type of people who are inclined to leave a mess behind. Failure to handle the budget now just means they're dumping it on their kids, and their kids will have it even worse. We've arrived at a point where it may actually make sense under the rules of conservatism (or at least conservative-ish-ness) to increase taxes. Because somebody has to pay the debt, and true conservatives are not the type of people who pass on their problems to someone else.
The counterargument to raising taxes is that it removes cash from businesses that they could use to invest or hire more people. This is not false, but not necessarily true either. Most of the bosses and ex-bosses I talked to could hire more people, but they don't have enough work to give to new people. Nobody hires people to do nothing. Unless there's some wacky union contract involved. They could invest in new business, but the market is uncertain. They, like many people, are being cautious. New investments are always risky, and when there are plenty of analysts foretelling of a double-dip recession, new investments are very risky.
Getting the debt under control would eliminate some of this uncertainty. America's credit rating (recently downgraded) is one of the foundations of the global economy. Until recently, treasury securities were considered the closest thing there is to a risk-free investment, and investors and analysts used it as a benchmark by which the attractiveness of other investments could be measured. The downgrading of our credit increased the uncertainty, which is why investors are cautious. That's partly responsible for the slow recovery.
Of course, Republicans always bring up cutting spending and possibly closing loopholes rather than raising rates. And they're right. But in order to cut spending in a way that actually brings the debt under control, significant cuts must be made in defense, Medicare, and Social Security. In order to significantly raise revenue by closing loopholes, some of the more popular loopholes, like mortgage interest deductions, would have to go.
This is the problem. Nobody wants to lose the things that they like. Raising rates is more popular than removing the mortgage interest deduction, because raising the rates in the top tax bracket would only affect a few people and removing the mortgage interest deduction would affect many more people. Cutting defense is more popular than cutting Medicare and Social Security, because most people currently or eventually will benefit from Medicare and Social Security. Strictly speaking, everyone benefits from defense, but it's impact on our lives is not as tangible as entitlement programs are. Because of this, defense cuts are more popular than entitlement cuts.
The problem with cutting popular programs is that politicians see value (Read: re-election) in defending them. Anytime someone talks about Medicare or Social Security reform, politicians with no interest in reform and a great deal of interest in re-election dust off the same old tired talking points. Gems like "Medicare is the most popular government program" or "Social Security is the most successful social program in the history of the world," are bandied about in order to prevent government from taking real action. I think these statements are generally true (although talking points, by their nature, are always at least one part falsehood), but they are only true for the time being. Once Medicare and Social Security become fiscal train wrecks (an eventuality we've seen coming for decades), they won't be considered popular or successful anymore. We have to fix them now.
The solution is that everyone needs to give up something. Something we like. We can't expect someone else to take care of this for us. We all have to be willing to give something. If this means the rich pay more taxes, let's consider that. If this means the payroll tax ceiling is raised or removed, let's consider that. If this means benefits are reduced or retirement ages are increased (the latter is likely necessary, since we all live longer these days), let's consider that. If this means cutting defense or removing mortgage interest deductions, let's consider that. I know some rich guys who are willing to put up some money, the rest of us should think about ponying something up as well.
We should pass a bill that increases taxes and/or removes loopholes. And the new revenue must be committed primarily to controlling debt. No earmarks or pet projects. These revenue increases must be married to spending cuts, including defense, Medicare, and Social Security cuts. And there must be triggers in this bill that require that all of these things be done within one year of passing the bill, or else everything in the bill goes back to the way it was prior to the bill's passage. This last part is critical. Reagan raised some taxes in return for a promise to cut spending in the eighties. The Democrats reneged. This time, it can't be a bait-and-switch.
In order to accomplish this, everyone in congress will have to sign off on a bill that includes at least one thing that upsets their supporters. This is the type of compromise we need. Traditionally, politicians are only interested supporting bills that have negative effects on someone else's constituents. This can't continue. The members of congress may have to commit political suicide to pass a bill like this. But it's better than the entire country committing fiscal suicide.
So how do these guys finally arrive at a tax raise? As conservative-ish people, they also believe in personal responsibility. Therefore, these are not the type of people who are inclined to leave a mess behind. Failure to handle the budget now just means they're dumping it on their kids, and their kids will have it even worse. We've arrived at a point where it may actually make sense under the rules of conservatism (or at least conservative-ish-ness) to increase taxes. Because somebody has to pay the debt, and true conservatives are not the type of people who pass on their problems to someone else.
The counterargument to raising taxes is that it removes cash from businesses that they could use to invest or hire more people. This is not false, but not necessarily true either. Most of the bosses and ex-bosses I talked to could hire more people, but they don't have enough work to give to new people. Nobody hires people to do nothing. Unless there's some wacky union contract involved. They could invest in new business, but the market is uncertain. They, like many people, are being cautious. New investments are always risky, and when there are plenty of analysts foretelling of a double-dip recession, new investments are very risky.
Getting the debt under control would eliminate some of this uncertainty. America's credit rating (recently downgraded) is one of the foundations of the global economy. Until recently, treasury securities were considered the closest thing there is to a risk-free investment, and investors and analysts used it as a benchmark by which the attractiveness of other investments could be measured. The downgrading of our credit increased the uncertainty, which is why investors are cautious. That's partly responsible for the slow recovery.
Of course, Republicans always bring up cutting spending and possibly closing loopholes rather than raising rates. And they're right. But in order to cut spending in a way that actually brings the debt under control, significant cuts must be made in defense, Medicare, and Social Security. In order to significantly raise revenue by closing loopholes, some of the more popular loopholes, like mortgage interest deductions, would have to go.
This is the problem. Nobody wants to lose the things that they like. Raising rates is more popular than removing the mortgage interest deduction, because raising the rates in the top tax bracket would only affect a few people and removing the mortgage interest deduction would affect many more people. Cutting defense is more popular than cutting Medicare and Social Security, because most people currently or eventually will benefit from Medicare and Social Security. Strictly speaking, everyone benefits from defense, but it's impact on our lives is not as tangible as entitlement programs are. Because of this, defense cuts are more popular than entitlement cuts.
The problem with cutting popular programs is that politicians see value (Read: re-election) in defending them. Anytime someone talks about Medicare or Social Security reform, politicians with no interest in reform and a great deal of interest in re-election dust off the same old tired talking points. Gems like "Medicare is the most popular government program" or "Social Security is the most successful social program in the history of the world," are bandied about in order to prevent government from taking real action. I think these statements are generally true (although talking points, by their nature, are always at least one part falsehood), but they are only true for the time being. Once Medicare and Social Security become fiscal train wrecks (an eventuality we've seen coming for decades), they won't be considered popular or successful anymore. We have to fix them now.
The solution is that everyone needs to give up something. Something we like. We can't expect someone else to take care of this for us. We all have to be willing to give something. If this means the rich pay more taxes, let's consider that. If this means the payroll tax ceiling is raised or removed, let's consider that. If this means benefits are reduced or retirement ages are increased (the latter is likely necessary, since we all live longer these days), let's consider that. If this means cutting defense or removing mortgage interest deductions, let's consider that. I know some rich guys who are willing to put up some money, the rest of us should think about ponying something up as well.
We should pass a bill that increases taxes and/or removes loopholes. And the new revenue must be committed primarily to controlling debt. No earmarks or pet projects. These revenue increases must be married to spending cuts, including defense, Medicare, and Social Security cuts. And there must be triggers in this bill that require that all of these things be done within one year of passing the bill, or else everything in the bill goes back to the way it was prior to the bill's passage. This last part is critical. Reagan raised some taxes in return for a promise to cut spending in the eighties. The Democrats reneged. This time, it can't be a bait-and-switch.
In order to accomplish this, everyone in congress will have to sign off on a bill that includes at least one thing that upsets their supporters. This is the type of compromise we need. Traditionally, politicians are only interested supporting bills that have negative effects on someone else's constituents. This can't continue. The members of congress may have to commit political suicide to pass a bill like this. But it's better than the entire country committing fiscal suicide.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Egypt: Yet Another Revolutionary Screw-up
Grand High Douchebag Morsi of Egypt has declared himself Grand High Pharoah Douchebag of Egypt. Apparently, negotiating a truce with Israel gains you the right to be God-King. Because, nobody has ever done that before. Except several ex-presidents. And Anwar Sadat, who they killed for it. Now Egyptians are rioting in the streets. Again. While watching this, it occurred to me that too many revolutions go sideways like this.
Americans are fortunate that our revolution didn't go bad. But ours was a little different from many others. Our revolution was a colony demanding independence from an empire that treated us like second class citizens. We were already independent in many ways, having our own governments at the city and colonial levels. It was not difficult to translate that into a cohesive government once the British had been sent on their way.
Most other revolutions that happened in that time, like the French revolution, were popular revolutions where peasants who'd been forced to live in wretched poverty overthrew their elites. They tore apart the fabric of their society in the process of revolting, resulting in chaos. The French revolution went like this: Kill the king. Then go crazy with the guillotine. Then go crazy with the Napolean. Then, after a making a mess of everything, bring back the royal family. Which is right where they were when it started.
Marxist revolutions frequently followed a similar pattern: Bloodbaths and dictators. Stalin killed something like 20 million. Mao killed anywhere from 30-90 million. Pol Pot killed almost 2 million. The list goes on. The pattern is clear, though: Overthrow the government. Have some nut job take over. Kill everyone associated with the old government. Then kill everyone opposed to the new government. Then kill everyone who might be opposed to the new government.
This has me wondering if it's inevitable that these sorts of developments happen after popular revolutions. They start out with good intentions, but end up getting hijacked by crazy people. The Muslim Brotherhood hijacked the Egyptian revolution in the same way Maximilien Robespierre hijacked the French revolution. And maybe they haven't started a full fledged Reign of Terror (yet), but there have been increasing attacks on Coptic Christians, amongst other atrocities.
Now Ramses the Umpteenth is declaring himself dictator of Egypt. Seems like it happens every time. I'm somewhat heartened to see that the reaction of the people was immediate. Maybe the young kids who started this revolution will correct it's course and have real, modern democracy, not the quasi-theocracies the Middle East is known for. But maybe we'll have another nutjob dictator birthed from a popular revolution that makes a mess of everything.
Americans are fortunate that our revolution didn't go bad. But ours was a little different from many others. Our revolution was a colony demanding independence from an empire that treated us like second class citizens. We were already independent in many ways, having our own governments at the city and colonial levels. It was not difficult to translate that into a cohesive government once the British had been sent on their way.
Most other revolutions that happened in that time, like the French revolution, were popular revolutions where peasants who'd been forced to live in wretched poverty overthrew their elites. They tore apart the fabric of their society in the process of revolting, resulting in chaos. The French revolution went like this: Kill the king. Then go crazy with the guillotine. Then go crazy with the Napolean. Then, after a making a mess of everything, bring back the royal family. Which is right where they were when it started.
Marxist revolutions frequently followed a similar pattern: Bloodbaths and dictators. Stalin killed something like 20 million. Mao killed anywhere from 30-90 million. Pol Pot killed almost 2 million. The list goes on. The pattern is clear, though: Overthrow the government. Have some nut job take over. Kill everyone associated with the old government. Then kill everyone opposed to the new government. Then kill everyone who might be opposed to the new government.
This has me wondering if it's inevitable that these sorts of developments happen after popular revolutions. They start out with good intentions, but end up getting hijacked by crazy people. The Muslim Brotherhood hijacked the Egyptian revolution in the same way Maximilien Robespierre hijacked the French revolution. And maybe they haven't started a full fledged Reign of Terror (yet), but there have been increasing attacks on Coptic Christians, amongst other atrocities.
Now Ramses the Umpteenth is declaring himself dictator of Egypt. Seems like it happens every time. I'm somewhat heartened to see that the reaction of the people was immediate. Maybe the young kids who started this revolution will correct it's course and have real, modern democracy, not the quasi-theocracies the Middle East is known for. But maybe we'll have another nutjob dictator birthed from a popular revolution that makes a mess of everything.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Where Unions Go Wrong
I was absolutely amazed the when the baker's union refused to make a deal with Hostess, even after it was abundantly clear that everyone would lose their jobs if nothing was done. I've been laid off twice before, so I tend to take stuff like this personally. The baker's union appeared to have an all or nothing, "give us what we want or we're taking you with us," attitude. Even the teamster's union was asking them to think it over. When another union thinks your union is going too far, it's time to rethink your position.
Alas, the baker's union stood strong, and screwed 18,500 people. I know that despite the sensational headlines that Great American Brands Are Dead, Twinkies and Wonderbread will probably survive. They'll be sold to some other company in the liquidation. The downside of this is that some of the potential buyers are not American companies, like Grupo Bimbo (I hope that means something less racy in Spanish) of Mexico. So the brands may saved, but the American jobs may not be.
The dispute was in part about pensions and wages, but there were also unusual rules in the union contracts that forced the company to be inefficient. The most often mentioned in the media is that Twinkies and Wonderbread can't be transported in the same truck. This means that if you have a half of a truckload of Twinkies and a half of a truckload of Wonderbread, there must be two trucks, and therefore two drivers, two teams loading the trucks, etc. And the loaders who load Twinkies cannot also load Wonderbread. Any idiot can see that this is wildly inefficient. Only one truck and one group of loaders is necessary.
So why would anyone do this? It's quite simple. Twice the number of union workers = twice the number of union dues. This is where the goals of union management diverge from the needs of union workers. The union bosses want to increase dues collections, so they need to increase the rolls of the union. In slightly more than half of the states, even a non-union worker can be forced to pay a fee if they choose not to join a union. They can also be fired if they don't join. So any additional jobs automatically increases union revenue, even if those jobs are unnecessary.
What a worker wants is to make a living and to have job security. Forcing inefficiencies on a company hurts job security, as we've just seen with Hostess. The right way to produce jobs is for a company to be as profitable as possible and expand, hiring new workers for the expansion. Jobs at a profitable company are far more secure than jobs at an unprofitable one. I feel stupid for stating the obvious like that, but apparently some people still don't get it.
Now unlike many of my more conservative buddies, I don't think unions are inherently evil. It is possible for them to benefit workers without burdening employers unnecessarily. The problem is that the system is broken by giving the unions special treatment. There is a reason to have a union putting upward pressure on worker pay. It's because labor is sort of illiquid.
Take, for example, the words of Matt Patterson from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, as seen on Special Report with Bret Baier:
I should note that he's not necessarily wrong, but he's not quite right either. Going out and getting another job requires that one is available, which is not always the case. Starting a company requires seed capital, which not everyone has or can borrow. But most importantly, what we're worth and what our employers thinks we're worth aren't always the same thing. Our employers will eventually realize what we're worth, but only every six months to a year when he hands out raises. This is what I mean by illiquid. Even then, they may lowball us on the raise. And getting a new job, even if available, isn't always the preferred move.
Prices on an exchange update almost immediately and reflect the true value of what's being traded because there is constant trading. In other words, these things are liquid. But if a laborer constantly trades (read: gets a new job) as suggested by Patterson, he'll become known as a "job-hopper" and be considered unreliable. This actually reduces a laborer's value. A union can renegotiate pay more frequently, bringing the worker's wage in line with his actual value more frequently. This introduces a form of competition, which is not an anti-capitalist idea.
The problem is unions are considered indispensable by some (which is an anti-capitalist idea), so they are given special treatment. Regulations that permit unions to compel dues and membership stack the deck in favor of unions. The truth is that unions, like any organization, don't have a right to exist. We should make them constantly justify their existence. That's what the free market is really about. The answer to this problem is Right-to-Work.
Right-to-Work doesn't destroy unions. Many of the greatest advances in worker rights happened long before there were any compulsory dues or membership. There was a time where every state was effectively a Right-to-Work state. Unions did fine without compulsory laws. Right-to-Work does keep unions honest. If there were no compulsory union dues, the absurdly inefficient clauses in union contracts would be unnecessary. The extra jobs produced by separating Twinkies from Wonderbread would not necessarily result in new union dues. So the unions would have no reason to weigh down contracts with these kinds of clauses, because it would produce no value for them.
Let unions operate in every state, let workers join any union they want, but also make every state a right to work state. This will result in union negotiations where the unions negotiate for the benefit of their workers, not just to increase their union rolls. Unions will have to constantly justify that they deserve to exist, and will start to realize that they, like the workers they represent, cannot survive without employers. Maybe they'll start to see that forcing an employer to be inefficient is a self-destructive act.
Alas, the baker's union stood strong, and screwed 18,500 people. I know that despite the sensational headlines that Great American Brands Are Dead, Twinkies and Wonderbread will probably survive. They'll be sold to some other company in the liquidation. The downside of this is that some of the potential buyers are not American companies, like Grupo Bimbo (I hope that means something less racy in Spanish) of Mexico. So the brands may saved, but the American jobs may not be.
The dispute was in part about pensions and wages, but there were also unusual rules in the union contracts that forced the company to be inefficient. The most often mentioned in the media is that Twinkies and Wonderbread can't be transported in the same truck. This means that if you have a half of a truckload of Twinkies and a half of a truckload of Wonderbread, there must be two trucks, and therefore two drivers, two teams loading the trucks, etc. And the loaders who load Twinkies cannot also load Wonderbread. Any idiot can see that this is wildly inefficient. Only one truck and one group of loaders is necessary.
So why would anyone do this? It's quite simple. Twice the number of union workers = twice the number of union dues. This is where the goals of union management diverge from the needs of union workers. The union bosses want to increase dues collections, so they need to increase the rolls of the union. In slightly more than half of the states, even a non-union worker can be forced to pay a fee if they choose not to join a union. They can also be fired if they don't join. So any additional jobs automatically increases union revenue, even if those jobs are unnecessary.
What a worker wants is to make a living and to have job security. Forcing inefficiencies on a company hurts job security, as we've just seen with Hostess. The right way to produce jobs is for a company to be as profitable as possible and expand, hiring new workers for the expansion. Jobs at a profitable company are far more secure than jobs at an unprofitable one. I feel stupid for stating the obvious like that, but apparently some people still don't get it.
Now unlike many of my more conservative buddies, I don't think unions are inherently evil. It is possible for them to benefit workers without burdening employers unnecessarily. The problem is that the system is broken by giving the unions special treatment. There is a reason to have a union putting upward pressure on worker pay. It's because labor is sort of illiquid.
Take, for example, the words of Matt Patterson from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, as seen on Special Report with Bret Baier:
What your labor is worth is what you receive, and if your employer feels that you are worth more you'll get more, and for a lot of people who are complaining about their working conditions, they're perfectly free to go out and get another job or start a company of their own, and that's how the free market works, and should work.
I should note that he's not necessarily wrong, but he's not quite right either. Going out and getting another job requires that one is available, which is not always the case. Starting a company requires seed capital, which not everyone has or can borrow. But most importantly, what we're worth and what our employers thinks we're worth aren't always the same thing. Our employers will eventually realize what we're worth, but only every six months to a year when he hands out raises. This is what I mean by illiquid. Even then, they may lowball us on the raise. And getting a new job, even if available, isn't always the preferred move.
Prices on an exchange update almost immediately and reflect the true value of what's being traded because there is constant trading. In other words, these things are liquid. But if a laborer constantly trades (read: gets a new job) as suggested by Patterson, he'll become known as a "job-hopper" and be considered unreliable. This actually reduces a laborer's value. A union can renegotiate pay more frequently, bringing the worker's wage in line with his actual value more frequently. This introduces a form of competition, which is not an anti-capitalist idea.
The problem is unions are considered indispensable by some (which is an anti-capitalist idea), so they are given special treatment. Regulations that permit unions to compel dues and membership stack the deck in favor of unions. The truth is that unions, like any organization, don't have a right to exist. We should make them constantly justify their existence. That's what the free market is really about. The answer to this problem is Right-to-Work.
Right-to-Work doesn't destroy unions. Many of the greatest advances in worker rights happened long before there were any compulsory dues or membership. There was a time where every state was effectively a Right-to-Work state. Unions did fine without compulsory laws. Right-to-Work does keep unions honest. If there were no compulsory union dues, the absurdly inefficient clauses in union contracts would be unnecessary. The extra jobs produced by separating Twinkies from Wonderbread would not necessarily result in new union dues. So the unions would have no reason to weigh down contracts with these kinds of clauses, because it would produce no value for them.
Let unions operate in every state, let workers join any union they want, but also make every state a right to work state. This will result in union negotiations where the unions negotiate for the benefit of their workers, not just to increase their union rolls. Unions will have to constantly justify that they deserve to exist, and will start to realize that they, like the workers they represent, cannot survive without employers. Maybe they'll start to see that forcing an employer to be inefficient is a self-destructive act.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Oliver Stone's Revision of US History - Should I bother?
I'm toying with the idea of buying "The Untold History of the United States" by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. Not because I think I'll learn anything from it, but because I occasionally like to remind myself that there are crazier people in the world than me. Granted, it seems premature to pass judgment on a book I've not read. On the other hand, anyone who knows me can attest to the fact that I'm a terrible skinflint. If I'm going to blow $15-$20 on a book, I better know it's going to be worth it.
What I have to go on so far is the talking points coming from Stone and Kuznick, through interviews and snippets of the Showtime documentary which follows the book. Presumably these are summations of his main points designed to induce me into buying. Therefore, purchasing the book would expose me to more of the same. I will assume that these interviews and clips are mere previews for what is contained in the book, because that's how books and other media are sold. So what are some of these talking points?
I. The United States Didn't Win World War II, the Soviet Union Did
Stone contests that the USSR lost more people at Stalingrad and Kiev than the US did in the entire war. Which is true, although losing more people doesn't necessarily equate to accomplishing more. The USSR pushed the Nazis out of Eastern Europe and ultimately took Berlin at great cost. These were important accomplishments, but are only part of the story.
First of all, the Soviets had no involvement in pushing the Germans out of North Africa or the Mediterranean. But more importantly, they did next to nothing against the Japanese. They declared war on Japan on August 8th, 1945. Which also happens to be the day before the Nagasaki bombing. They were barely involved in the Pacific theater.
In Europe, they played a major and important role, perhaps even the key one. Holding the line at Stalingrad (actually, Russians prefer Volgograd these days because Stalin was a douche, but I guess I shouldn't nitpick too much) prevented Germans from having access to Russian oilfields. German Tiger tanks were notorious gas guzzlers, even compared to other tanks. And that's saying something. If the Soviets hadn't held there, it's very possible that the Battle of the Bulge (where the Germans literally ran out of gas), would have ended differently. And any idiot can see the value of taking Berlin.
But to ignore Japan is to ignore, let's say, 47% of the war. In the Pacific, the USSR was Ivan come lately. The Soviets invaded Manchuria after the US had pushed the Japanese all the way back across the Pacific. Strangely, Stone tries to contend that the Japanese were ready to surrender before Hiroshima, but the thing that convinced them to surrender was the Russian invasion on the day of the second bombing. So we didn't have to bomb them because they were ready to surrender but they weren't really ready to surrender until the Soviets attacked after we bombed them. I'm getting a bit cross-eyed.
Stone tried to qualify his remarks in an interview with CBS, and stated that Russia won the war on land. Nah. North Africa is land. France and Italy are land. And strictly speaking, the Solomon Islands and the Phillipines and Iwo Jima and Okinawa count as land. And stop acting like the naval contributions don't count. Taking back the Pacific is a big deal, and the Soviets had nothing to do with it.
II. American Exceptionalism is a False Idea
In the same interview where he qualified his claims that the Soviets won World War II by saying they won on land, Stone claimed that American Exceptionalism (viewing ourselves as an indispensable nation), makes us incapable of being a "global partner.". Other statements he made were to claim that no other country considers themselves indispensable and dictates to others and China has no history of aggression.
Wow. Where to begin. I'm pretty sure Nikita Khrushchev saying "We will bury you!" and "Communism is the wave of the future!" was at least implying that he thought the Soviet Union was indispensable. Also, controlling Eastern Europe for decades sounds kind of like dictating to others. So the guys who he just got done praising for winning World War II are suddenly ignored after World War II. Maybe he doesn't ignore them in the book. But he's not exactly selling me on the book with this. I could get a twelve pack of beer for the same amount, and I'm not sure that the book's worth as much yet.
As for the Chinese, they did a fair amount of dictating as well. For example, they did some dictating to Tibet. After they took it over circa 1950. So unless Stone considers 1950 to be pre-history, China does have some aggression in its history. But I guess that would make World War II pre-history too. I'm getting more confused here.
But I need not restrict myself to what happened decades ago. The Chinese spend plenty of time bullying nations in Southeast Asia, mostly in disputes over the South China Sea. I'm pretty sure bullying counts as aggression. The Chinese government also does all sorts of aggressive things against its own people, like running them over with tanks for protesting. Or throwing them in jail for writing books. Or putting their wives under house arrest when they win a Nobel Prize for said book.
The Russians have done plenty of dictating to neighboring nations, sometimes using alternative means of persuasion, like poisoning candidates for president of Ukraine. Also, I think the assorted Syrian shenanigans being perpetrated by Putin count as dictating to others. With bombs and stuff. I guess the only time things like this are worth considering are when America does them.
They miss the obvious. America is the most powerful nation in the free world, and we are not partners with everyone. There is no moral equivalency between us and the repressive government in a place like Russia, and certainly not the extraordinarily repressive government in China. We may not be enemies, but we should compete with them. We need to be a message to the world that freedom works better than repression, and we're the only ones capable of standing up to the world's biggest repressors. That's what makes us indispensable.
We haven't always been perfect and admit that, something the Russian and Chinese governments, past and present, avoid doing. We designed a system that is based on ideas, not ethnicities, races, or nationalities. And it's also a self-improving system. So we may underperform at moments in time (slavery, racism, sexism, the list goes on), but our system is designed to overcome these failings. We gradually (sometimes too gradually) learn from our own mistakes and continually get better and more free, while the Russian and Chinese governments continue to silence dissent and suppress freedoms. That's what makes us exceptional.
III. American Imperialism
The co-author Peter Kuznick, claimed in an overly sympathetic interview with Tavis Smiley that this history is from the viewpoint of the victims. Right, America victimizes the world. Yawn. He goes on to explain the birth of American imperialism. America is the evil empire. Double yawn. America seeks global domination. Please. There were some times in early history where we had some expansionist adventures, but in the twentieth century that's not quite true.
We didn't willingly enter World War I or World War II. We resisted getting involved in the first until an American cruise liner was attacked. We were dragged into the second when Hawaii was attacked. Prior to these attacks, we were inclined to keep to ourselves. After the war, we were the only free country not in shambles, facing Soviet aggression. We took on the role of the superpower of the free world, because no one else could. If we are an empire, we are the first one ever that didn't become an empire willingly. We did so to combat a larger, stronger empire bent on repression and global domination. We were the only ones who could. It's probably more accurate to call us a counter-empire. We don't want to rule the world; we want to make sure no one does.
In the Smiley interview, he said he was proud of Showtime, because the documentary wasn't the sort of thing that would be shown on normal TV. There's a reason why these things aren't shown on normal TV. These three ideas are classic canards of extreme lefties. They go out of their way to diminish American achievements, then claim that America is a regressive force in the world while ignoring actual regressives in the world.
Well, I've made up my mind. The assorted lunacies I've heard so far have only served to reinforce my belief in America and Americanism. The authors' addiction to obsolete ideologies has increased my allegience to the ideology that rendered them obsolete. Reading the entire book can only make me more patriotic. Also, I'm a sucker for good comedy. If the whole book is this crazy, it should produce a few thousand laughs for me. That's always worth $15-$20.
What I have to go on so far is the talking points coming from Stone and Kuznick, through interviews and snippets of the Showtime documentary which follows the book. Presumably these are summations of his main points designed to induce me into buying. Therefore, purchasing the book would expose me to more of the same. I will assume that these interviews and clips are mere previews for what is contained in the book, because that's how books and other media are sold. So what are some of these talking points?
I. The United States Didn't Win World War II, the Soviet Union Did
Stone contests that the USSR lost more people at Stalingrad and Kiev than the US did in the entire war. Which is true, although losing more people doesn't necessarily equate to accomplishing more. The USSR pushed the Nazis out of Eastern Europe and ultimately took Berlin at great cost. These were important accomplishments, but are only part of the story.
First of all, the Soviets had no involvement in pushing the Germans out of North Africa or the Mediterranean. But more importantly, they did next to nothing against the Japanese. They declared war on Japan on August 8th, 1945. Which also happens to be the day before the Nagasaki bombing. They were barely involved in the Pacific theater.
In Europe, they played a major and important role, perhaps even the key one. Holding the line at Stalingrad (actually, Russians prefer Volgograd these days because Stalin was a douche, but I guess I shouldn't nitpick too much) prevented Germans from having access to Russian oilfields. German Tiger tanks were notorious gas guzzlers, even compared to other tanks. And that's saying something. If the Soviets hadn't held there, it's very possible that the Battle of the Bulge (where the Germans literally ran out of gas), would have ended differently. And any idiot can see the value of taking Berlin.
But to ignore Japan is to ignore, let's say, 47% of the war. In the Pacific, the USSR was Ivan come lately. The Soviets invaded Manchuria after the US had pushed the Japanese all the way back across the Pacific. Strangely, Stone tries to contend that the Japanese were ready to surrender before Hiroshima, but the thing that convinced them to surrender was the Russian invasion on the day of the second bombing. So we didn't have to bomb them because they were ready to surrender but they weren't really ready to surrender until the Soviets attacked after we bombed them. I'm getting a bit cross-eyed.
Stone tried to qualify his remarks in an interview with CBS, and stated that Russia won the war on land. Nah. North Africa is land. France and Italy are land. And strictly speaking, the Solomon Islands and the Phillipines and Iwo Jima and Okinawa count as land. And stop acting like the naval contributions don't count. Taking back the Pacific is a big deal, and the Soviets had nothing to do with it.
II. American Exceptionalism is a False Idea
In the same interview where he qualified his claims that the Soviets won World War II by saying they won on land, Stone claimed that American Exceptionalism (viewing ourselves as an indispensable nation), makes us incapable of being a "global partner.". Other statements he made were to claim that no other country considers themselves indispensable and dictates to others and China has no history of aggression.
Wow. Where to begin. I'm pretty sure Nikita Khrushchev saying "We will bury you!" and "Communism is the wave of the future!" was at least implying that he thought the Soviet Union was indispensable. Also, controlling Eastern Europe for decades sounds kind of like dictating to others. So the guys who he just got done praising for winning World War II are suddenly ignored after World War II. Maybe he doesn't ignore them in the book. But he's not exactly selling me on the book with this. I could get a twelve pack of beer for the same amount, and I'm not sure that the book's worth as much yet.
As for the Chinese, they did a fair amount of dictating as well. For example, they did some dictating to Tibet. After they took it over circa 1950. So unless Stone considers 1950 to be pre-history, China does have some aggression in its history. But I guess that would make World War II pre-history too. I'm getting more confused here.
But I need not restrict myself to what happened decades ago. The Chinese spend plenty of time bullying nations in Southeast Asia, mostly in disputes over the South China Sea. I'm pretty sure bullying counts as aggression. The Chinese government also does all sorts of aggressive things against its own people, like running them over with tanks for protesting. Or throwing them in jail for writing books. Or putting their wives under house arrest when they win a Nobel Prize for said book.
The Russians have done plenty of dictating to neighboring nations, sometimes using alternative means of persuasion, like poisoning candidates for president of Ukraine. Also, I think the assorted Syrian shenanigans being perpetrated by Putin count as dictating to others. With bombs and stuff. I guess the only time things like this are worth considering are when America does them.
They miss the obvious. America is the most powerful nation in the free world, and we are not partners with everyone. There is no moral equivalency between us and the repressive government in a place like Russia, and certainly not the extraordinarily repressive government in China. We may not be enemies, but we should compete with them. We need to be a message to the world that freedom works better than repression, and we're the only ones capable of standing up to the world's biggest repressors. That's what makes us indispensable.
We haven't always been perfect and admit that, something the Russian and Chinese governments, past and present, avoid doing. We designed a system that is based on ideas, not ethnicities, races, or nationalities. And it's also a self-improving system. So we may underperform at moments in time (slavery, racism, sexism, the list goes on), but our system is designed to overcome these failings. We gradually (sometimes too gradually) learn from our own mistakes and continually get better and more free, while the Russian and Chinese governments continue to silence dissent and suppress freedoms. That's what makes us exceptional.
III. American Imperialism
The co-author Peter Kuznick, claimed in an overly sympathetic interview with Tavis Smiley that this history is from the viewpoint of the victims. Right, America victimizes the world. Yawn. He goes on to explain the birth of American imperialism. America is the evil empire. Double yawn. America seeks global domination. Please. There were some times in early history where we had some expansionist adventures, but in the twentieth century that's not quite true.
We didn't willingly enter World War I or World War II. We resisted getting involved in the first until an American cruise liner was attacked. We were dragged into the second when Hawaii was attacked. Prior to these attacks, we were inclined to keep to ourselves. After the war, we were the only free country not in shambles, facing Soviet aggression. We took on the role of the superpower of the free world, because no one else could. If we are an empire, we are the first one ever that didn't become an empire willingly. We did so to combat a larger, stronger empire bent on repression and global domination. We were the only ones who could. It's probably more accurate to call us a counter-empire. We don't want to rule the world; we want to make sure no one does.
In the Smiley interview, he said he was proud of Showtime, because the documentary wasn't the sort of thing that would be shown on normal TV. There's a reason why these things aren't shown on normal TV. These three ideas are classic canards of extreme lefties. They go out of their way to diminish American achievements, then claim that America is a regressive force in the world while ignoring actual regressives in the world.
Well, I've made up my mind. The assorted lunacies I've heard so far have only served to reinforce my belief in America and Americanism. The authors' addiction to obsolete ideologies has increased my allegience to the ideology that rendered them obsolete. Reading the entire book can only make me more patriotic. Also, I'm a sucker for good comedy. If the whole book is this crazy, it should produce a few thousand laughs for me. That's always worth $15-$20.
Stop Dying Democracy, You're Annoying Me
Now that the election's finally over, we can all breath a sigh of belief. Nah, screw that. Let's bellyache/gloat about the outcome. Democrats can stand around and rub everything in the Republicans' faces. Okay, it's a dick move, but Republicans would've done the same thing. As for Republicans, they can participate in the time honored tradition of grousing about election shenanigans and dirty campaigning. I'm okay with all of that, because some of it might be true. Except one thing. I'm a little sick of people claiming that Democracy is dead. Get real.
This is something that's happening every time there's a contentious election. Several months ago, when Scott Walker fought off a recall vote in Wisconsin, an inconsolable union activist claimed on TV that "Democracy died tonight.". Democracy dying as the result of a vote (the most fundamental act of democracy there is) struck me as supremely ironic. Also, technically it would be democracy committing suicide.
Some Republicans recently opined (Read: tweeted) that democracy committed suicide on Tuesday. So at least they understood that democracy-death by voting is suicide, not homicide. But nailing the manner of death isn't a big improvement. Nothing died. There was no death. Knock that off, it's aggravating as hell. Besides, aren't the Republicans the ones whose destiny isn't reliant on who's in office? Why does one election mean that we are doomed for all time?
Recent history should prove that democracy didn't receive a death blow on Tuesday. I know a lot of people tried to compare this election to 1980, but it's more like 2004. A one-term president struggling with job approval runs for re-election. The opposing party settles on a somewhat square, super rich, unexciting guy from Massachusetts, who also has a reputation for flip-flopping. The party's support for him is actually somewhat lukewarm; they're more passionate about removing the president than voting for their guy. Massachusetts guy loses. Kerry 2004, Romney 2012. Same story.
Back then, it was the Democrats who claimed that the country was lost. From their perspective, I'm sure it was. Republicans owned all three branches. When Howard Dean was made DNC chairman and the torch was passed from Whoever-The-Guy-Who-He-Replaced-Was, John Stewart jokingly praised the peaceful transfer of no power. Two years later the Democrats had the Congress, two years after that they had the White House. I guess it wasn't quite the doomsday scenario they imagined.
All they had to do was stop whining and get their act together. Republicans need to do the same thing. Now I'm not really a Republican or Democrat. My ISideWith.com score told me I was a Libertarian, which is right-ish, but not exactly. But I see value in having two strong parties. I think political competition, when done right, can have a positive results that are comparable to the benefits of free market competition. Granted, neither me nor anyone else has figured out what "when done right" means. But we won't ever figure that out if there aren't at least two vibrant parties.
These constant diatribes about democracy fatalities are just petulance. Republicans believe their ideas are better, but not enough people were convinced. Instead of complaining, they need to regroup, rethink, rebrand, and restrategize. The message they had was not quite enough; not enough people bought it. So now they have to think about what they need to do differently.
There is one way to kill democracy. Just give up. If you don't want democracy to die, get back to work. When you lose, assume it's something you did wrong and fix the problem. Not sure what the new Republican message will be. Don't know yet if I'll like it. But if they can put up a good fight in future elections, democracy won't ever die.
This is something that's happening every time there's a contentious election. Several months ago, when Scott Walker fought off a recall vote in Wisconsin, an inconsolable union activist claimed on TV that "Democracy died tonight.". Democracy dying as the result of a vote (the most fundamental act of democracy there is) struck me as supremely ironic. Also, technically it would be democracy committing suicide.
Some Republicans recently opined (Read: tweeted) that democracy committed suicide on Tuesday. So at least they understood that democracy-death by voting is suicide, not homicide. But nailing the manner of death isn't a big improvement. Nothing died. There was no death. Knock that off, it's aggravating as hell. Besides, aren't the Republicans the ones whose destiny isn't reliant on who's in office? Why does one election mean that we are doomed for all time?
Recent history should prove that democracy didn't receive a death blow on Tuesday. I know a lot of people tried to compare this election to 1980, but it's more like 2004. A one-term president struggling with job approval runs for re-election. The opposing party settles on a somewhat square, super rich, unexciting guy from Massachusetts, who also has a reputation for flip-flopping. The party's support for him is actually somewhat lukewarm; they're more passionate about removing the president than voting for their guy. Massachusetts guy loses. Kerry 2004, Romney 2012. Same story.
Back then, it was the Democrats who claimed that the country was lost. From their perspective, I'm sure it was. Republicans owned all three branches. When Howard Dean was made DNC chairman and the torch was passed from Whoever-The-Guy-Who-He-Replaced-Was, John Stewart jokingly praised the peaceful transfer of no power. Two years later the Democrats had the Congress, two years after that they had the White House. I guess it wasn't quite the doomsday scenario they imagined.
All they had to do was stop whining and get their act together. Republicans need to do the same thing. Now I'm not really a Republican or Democrat. My ISideWith.com score told me I was a Libertarian, which is right-ish, but not exactly. But I see value in having two strong parties. I think political competition, when done right, can have a positive results that are comparable to the benefits of free market competition. Granted, neither me nor anyone else has figured out what "when done right" means. But we won't ever figure that out if there aren't at least two vibrant parties.
These constant diatribes about democracy fatalities are just petulance. Republicans believe their ideas are better, but not enough people were convinced. Instead of complaining, they need to regroup, rethink, rebrand, and restrategize. The message they had was not quite enough; not enough people bought it. So now they have to think about what they need to do differently.
There is one way to kill democracy. Just give up. If you don't want democracy to die, get back to work. When you lose, assume it's something you did wrong and fix the problem. Not sure what the new Republican message will be. Don't know yet if I'll like it. But if they can put up a good fight in future elections, democracy won't ever die.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)