“Lives In The Balance”: Smoking Guns, The Deafening Silence Of The Assault Weapons Makers
When I hear about another military-style assault-weapon tragedy, I can’t help thinking about cigarettes.
It’s faded a bit into history now, but it was roughly 20 years ago that the heads of seven major tobacco companies were called before Congress to testify in hearings about regulating their products.
History was made when, one by one, they testified under oath that they, personally, did not believe nicotine is addictive – even though their scientists had generated box cars of data showing that creating addiction was precisely the point. One by one, the CEOs willfully deceived Congress in a roll call of commercial infamy: Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, U.S. Tobacco, Lorillard, Liggett, Brown and Williamson, American Tobacco.
By the time the hearings were over, the CEOs were being called “The Seven Dwarfs.”
So, from cigarettes to guns: Where is that public debate with the makers of hollow point bullets, high capacity magazines, and weapons designed to harm and kill human beings as quickly as possible?
(By the way, if you want to wade into these waters, keep your facts straight. A fully automatic weapon fires bullets as long as you hold down the trigger. They’re not illegal, but they are highly regulated. A semiautomatic weapon fires as fast as you can pull the trigger. You can get one at Walmart. There is no technical definition of assault weapon, but it generally refers to both automatic and semiautomatic rifles. In fact, the very complexity of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban riddled it with so many exceptions that it proved largely ineffective.)
I’ve posed that question of the cigarette maker-gun maker connection in various forums, and I get some interesting, angry, and often logic- twisting responses.
Among my favorites:
– You can’t compare cigarettes and assault weapons. Cigarettes harm and kill a lot more people. Accountability for these two product-related deaths tolls, then, is a matter of degree.
– Why not regulate blunt instruments? More people are killed by hammers each year than by guns – including assault weapons. The fact is: if you torture the data long enough you can make it confess to anything. And there is no doubt that there is a cottage industry on both sides in making statistics fit arguments.
But missing in those arguments: of all the implements used to kill people — knives, fists or a handy vase – only guns are created to do exactly that, and only assault weapons are manufactured expressly to do that as quickly as possible. Seriously – could Adam Lanza have dispatched 26 innocent souls in Newtown in five minutes with anything but an assault weapon?
And of course, there is the second amendment. I won’t try to imagine what was in the minds of the Founding Fathers. But I’m going to guess their thinking did not include high-capacity magazines (the ones Lanza carried held 30 bullets each) that serve up a new bullet as soon as the previous one is fired, and bullets designed to explode inside your body.
Still, as we debate statistics and parse definitions, the public is largely unaware of the companies that are making the weapons that are the subject of the debate. And that is exactly as intended.
Who can come up with the names of the top makers of semi-automatic weapons: like Bushmaster, Sig Sauer, Colt, Smith & Wesson, ArmaLite, DPMS and others?
The reason most people can’t name these companies is because of a very slick sleight of hand – executed flawlessly by NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, the gleefully belligerent face of the NRA who expertly draws attention away from the industry he represents.
LaPierre is very good at a job he is paid a lot of money to do. As long as we’re talking about his outrageous bluster, we’re not talking about the people who make a lot of money from the products he wants to keep on shelves of the local sporting goods store and laid out at gun shows.
His ability to do that is increasingly important to the industry. As hunting declines, so do rifle sales – even with periodic spikes driven by fears of gun restrictions. Long term, how do you replace that? A report from the Violence Policy Center argues that selling military-style assault rifles – re-branded as “modern sporting rifles” – to civilians has been a key part of the industry’s marketing strategy since the 1980s. Women, say gun control advocates and the industry alike, are a high marketing priority. The gun makers insist it’s for their protection. The lethal AR-15 (used in both the Aurora and Newtown killings) comes in pink. (Available now at Gun Goddess.com)
As the debate over assault weapons rages on, the deafening silence of the gun makers reminds me of a lyric in the Jackson Brown song – “Lives in the Balance.” “I want to know who the men in the shadows are. I want to hear somebody asking them why.”
Those who have been killed and injured by weapons made expressly for that purpose deserve no less.
By: Peggy Drexler, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Weill Medical College, Cornell University; Time Magazine, January 17, 2014
“Boy, How Things Have Changed”: We Will All Be Represented By Lobbyists Someday
Today, former Bush operative and tobacco lobbyist extraordinaire Ed Gillespie confirmed he is going to challenge Virginia Senator Mark Warner. This comes on the heels of news Monday that David Jolly, another lobbyist, had won the GOP primary in a special congressional election in Florida. And let’s not forget the victory of Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic lobbyist and second-worst candidate in the Virginia gubernatorial race.
Three examples makes it a trend. But what, if anything, does it herald for the future of American politics? Will Congress eventually be dominated by empty-eyed, gladhanding walking grins whose only skills are flattering the rich and powerful, and raising obscene amounts of money?
The short answer: Yes, so we might as well get used to it.
Congress was never a place where high idealism triumphed. On the contrary, for most of American history it has been dysfunctional, foolish, racist, in thrall to special interests, awash in money, and often stunningly corrupt. But, at the risk of romanticizing the past, it used to be a place that basically functioned, if you define “functioning” as “passing enough legislation to keep the country tottering along, usually after every other possibility was exhausted, and maybe even making things a little better for people every once in awhile.” It was exciting, for boring people at least, a place where ambitious strivers came for a career in political adventure and accomplishment.
But things have changed. Increasingly Congress has stopped doing anything at all, let alone anything positive, and became a place where not blowing up the world financial system for no reason is a success, and passing a budget like responsible countries do on a routine basis counts as a major accomplishment. And even then, everyone hates you for it anyway. Congress has rarely been well-liked, but it keeps setting new records in unpopularity—in November its approval rating was a record-low nine percent. Which only prompted one question: Who are these nine percent of people?
What’s more, the stupendous sums needed for a modern campaign, driven by Citizens United and the unintended consequences of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, have turned our representatives’ daily lives into one of endless begging for money. After the election, Ryan Grim and Sabrina Siddiqui wrote about the grim experience awaiting newly elected congressmen:
The daily schedule prescribed by the Democratic leadership contemplates a nine or 10-hour day while in Washington. Of that, four hours are to be spent in “call time” and another hour is blocked off for “strategic outreach,” which includes fundraisers and press work. An hour is walled off to “recharge,” and three to four hours are designated for the actual work of being a member of Congress — hearings, votes, and meetings with constituents. If the constituents are donors, all the better…It is considered poor form in Congress — borderline self-indulgent — for a freshman to sit at length in congressional hearings when the time could instead be spent raising money…
“What’s my experience with it? You might as well be putting bamboo shoots under my fingernails,” said Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), a high-ranking Democrat.
Terry McAuliffe might not be terribly principled. But one thing he can do better than all but a handful of living humans is raise money—thanks to his utter shamelessness. Consider the time he, by his own admission, left his wife and literally newborn son in the car to raise money for the Democrats:
We got to the dinner and by then Dorothy was in tears, and I left her with Justin and went inside. Little Peter was sleeping peacefully and Dorothy just sat there and poor Justin didn’t say a word. He was mortified. I was inside maybe fifteen minutes, said a few nice things about Marty, and hurried back out to the car. I felt bad for Dorothy, but it was a million bucks for the Democratic Party and by the time we got home and the kids had their new little brother in their arms, Dorothy was all smiles and we were one big happy family again. Nobody ever said life with me was easy.
If the lobbyist-turned-politician trend continues, how much will it actually change on the Hill? After all, parties are getting better and better at enforcing ideological discipline. Devoid of any principle except their own advancement, lobbyists will serve as little more than a precisely calibrated measurement of the political influence of various interest groups and pressure groups. So to the extent that the country is well-served by actual ideological competition, lobbyist-politicians will be a reasonable proxy.
That’s the sunniest interpretation imaginable, anyway. Realistically, more lobbyist-politicians means more looted taxpayer cash stuffing plutocrats’ pockets. These brave new politicians won’t, by themselves, destroy the republic, but a Congress dominated by these money vacuums will probably be hell for the American people. Just wait until a grinning President McAuliffe signs the Chinese Lead-Based Toy Deregulation Act of 2024.
By: Ryan Cooper, The New Republic, January 16, 2014
“There’s Always Bitcoin”: Your Credit Card Has A Dangerous Flaw That The Banks Refuse To Fix
Hackers stole payment records on as many as 110 million customer accounts from Target over the holiday shopping season, in one of the largest data security breaches in history. The company has struggled to regain customers’ trust, with noticeable drop-offs in sales since they disclosed the breach on December 19. And Target is not alone in what looks like an identity theft epidemic. Neiman Marcus announced a similar hack of payment records, and at least three more major retailers could come forward in the next several weeks. As more and more customers have reported fraudulent charges, Congress has begun to ask questions about why this happened.
Here’s an answer: The United States has one of the worst payment systems in the entire world, inviting fraud and increasing hassles for anyone who wants to exchange money. In this case, a simple credit protection available on virtually all payment cards outside the U.S. could have dramatically narrowed the scope of the Target breach. It hasn’t happened here, mainly because banks don’t want to spend the money to upgrade the system, writing off the hassle and expense of your identity fraud as a cost of doing business.
Almost alone among developed nations, U.S. credit and debit cards have a magnetic stripe that contains all the financial information necessary to make a purchase. Once information gets stolen from a merchant, it can be encoded into a magnetic stripe and used with a new card. Smart cards in Europe and elsewhere encrypt that data and store it on a microchip, which is much tougher to replicate. More important, the cards also require a personal identification number (PIN) to work. This “chip-and-PIN” system introduces a second authentication, forcing thieves to have both pieces of information to successfully use the card. It’s a combination of advanced technology and simple common sense.
Chip-and-PIN would not have prevented hackers from stealing payment information from Target’s databases, but would have made it more difficult to use the records. Because of this, says Georgetown law professor Adam Levitin, would-be identity thieves would have a lower incentive to steal the data in the first place. “Like Willie Sutton says, bank robbers go where the money is,” he said. “Fraud will always find the weakest link. Now that the rest of world has gone to chip-and-PIN, we’re the weakest link.” Nearly half of all card losses in 2012 occurred in the U.S., according to the trade journal the Nilson Report.
Though 130 countries around the world have phased out their magnetic stripe cards (which you may have noticed if you’ve tried to use a credit card overseas), the U.S. has lagged behind, with both merchants and banks assigning the blame to each other. Retailers need new card readers to handle chip-and-PIN cards, and they can be costly; it’s why only 10 percent of U.S. merchants have upgraded. The merchants don’t want to spend the money until they know banks will issue chip-and-PIN cards. And the banks don’t want to spend money on the more expensive cards until merchants install the card readers. So both sides are effectively telling the other to go first. With no regulatory mandates for anyone, this standoff could continue for years, with consumers paying the price.
“This is different than it has worked everywhere in the world,” said Adam Levitin. “Elsewhere, issuers and merchants have moved in lockstep.”
Some analysts place the blame squarely on banks, arguing that merchants eat the majority of the fraud costs, giving banks no incentive to upgrade. In addition, blogger and author Yves Smith notes that the banks sell the card reader equipment to the merchants, and they have inflated the price. “The impediment is almost assuredly the price point the banks have set,” Smith writes.
Credit card networks like Visa and MasterCard introduced the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Security Standards, which are supposed to provide more anti-fraud controls. But that effectively tries to band-aid an inherently insecure magnetic stripe system. More recently, the card networks proposed a shift in liability rules that they hope will nudge banks and merchants toward upgrading. By October 2015, if the merchant has a chip reader and the card has a traditional magnetic stripe, the bank will be liable for any fraud. Likewise, if a chip-and-PIN card is presented to a merchant with no chip reader, the merchant will be liable. In other words, both sides will be penalized for not upgrading to the chip-and-PIN system.
But again, this is voluntary. And in the meantime, both merchants and issuers manage to absorb the costs of fraudulent purchases (which total around five cents per $100 charged, according to the industry). They consider this cheaper than the costs of upgrading. In fact, one facet of the current system is a profit center for the banks. When a fraud transaction goes through, merchants reverse it through something called a charge-back. Merchants must pay the same fee to reverse a charge that they do to swipe one through, along with additional fees. “The retailers say, ‘we’re having to pay to not be paid,’” Adam Levitin said.
This reluctance to upgrade in the U.S. has led to a general creakiness in the payment system. Most U.S. retailers don’t even have real-time authorization capabilities, making it more difficult to detect fraud at the point of sale. The Automated Clearing House (ACH) system can take days to process transactions, wasting time and increasing costs for customers. Banks have outdated processing systems and have been similarly reluctant to upgrade them. Says Levitin, “We’re still using horse and buggies.”
Meanwhile, other countries have leapt past the U.S. In Kenya, the M-Pesa system allows consumers to pay for virtually anything by mobile phone. It has become widely adopted by merchants, making the African nation a world leader in mobile money. Mobile transactions over M-Pesa hit $19.6 billion in 2013. (Attempts to create mobile payment systems in the U.S. are in the startup phase, with entrepreneurs literally going from one business to the next to find retailers willing to use it.)
Levitin argues that America’s previous position as a payments system leader led to its slow pace in keeping up with new technologies. “The reason we’ve lagged behind is because we were ahead,” he said. “Everyone else had to upgrade, while our card system networks were making money. Kenya just didn’t have a regular banking infrastructure. The alternative to M-Pesa is paying in cattle.” Similarly, Europe upgraded to chip-and-PIN because credit card authorization was typically done through phone lines, and 10 years ago, European telecom costs were fairly expensive. “Our technology was not bad enough to upgrade,” Levitin says.
Congress is highly unlikely to get involved in an argument between banking lobbyists and retailer lobbyists. They learned their lesson when trying to legislate “swipe fees,” what banks charge retailers to process credit and debit card transactions. The result was a knock-down, drag-out affair that took months to negotiate.
But the Target breach, and the reputational risk to the big box store, has both merchants and banks rethinking the consequences of maintaining a substandard old system. Mallory Duncan, general counsel for the National Retail Federation, said this week at the trade group’s annual convention that they now encourage members to upgrade to chip-and-PIN card readers, saying “The technology that exists in cards out there is 20th-century technology and we’ve got 21st-century hackers.” And banks have responded to complaints by gradually distributing dual-use cards with magnetic strips and chip-and-PIN technology, mostly to frequent foreign travelers. U.S. Bank expects all its customers to have the cards by next year.
So there’s a chance that the U.S., like a lumbering giant, will finally make the move to more secure payment systems. Failing that, there’s always Bitcoin.
By: David Dayen, The New Republic, January 16, 2016
“Drifting Towards Another Middle East War?”: Remember What Happened When Democrats Supported An Avoidable War With Iraq
As the White House sharpens its criticism of congressional efforts to short-circuit negotiations with Iran via a new sanctions regime, progressives are slowly waking up and smelling the campfire coffee of another Middle East “war of choice.”
In part because active resistance has been limited, there are an awful lot of Democratic fingerprints on the sanctions legislation, and even more de facto defiance of Obama from Democrats who have fallen silent. Here’s how Greg Sargent sums up the current situation:
The basic storyline in recent days has been that the pro-sanctions-bill side is gaining in numbers, while the anti-sanctions-bill side hasn’t — even though the White House has been lobbying Dems very aggressively to back off on this bill, on the grounds that it could imperil the chances for a historic long-term breakthrough with Iran. As Josh Rogin puts it, “the White House’s warnings have had little effect.”
We’re very close now to the 60 votes it needs to pass. The Dem leadership has no plans to bring it to the floor, but there are other procedural ways proponents could try to force a vote. And if the numbers in favor of the bill continue to mount, it could increase pressure on Harry Reid to move it forward. Yes, the president could veto it if it did pass. But we’re actually not all that far away from a veto-proof majority. And in any case, having such a bill pass and get vetoed by the president is presumably not what most Democrats want to see happen.
At TNR, our own Ryan Cooper looks at Cory Booker’s decision to support sanctions, and concludes he’s just not afraid of the heat he will eventually receive from an awakened Democratic Left.
You will hear some Democrats and even a few Republicans claim they are trying to strengthen the adminstration’s hand in their negotiations, but that’s a shuck. The whole idea is to torpedo the talks because Bibi Netanyahu believes they are aimed at the wrong goal: keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to Bibi’s demand that Iran lose its capability of developing nuclear weapons. If that means war, so be it.
This time around, of course, those in the Democratic Party opposing a drift into war have the White House on their side, and the precedent of what happened when a lot of Democrats supported a similarly avoidable war with Iraq. But if antiwar Democrats don’t start making some real noise, the configuration of forces in Congress will continue to deteriorate, and we could be looking at a war foisted on an unwilling commander-in-chief.
By: Ed Kilgore, Contributing Writer, Washington Monthly Political Animal, January 14, 2014
“How Radical Becomes Normal”: The Fight Over Unemployment Benefits Underscores The Right’s Extremism
So this is showdown week in Congress for extension of unemployment benefits. Frankly, it looks bleak. No, it’s not that the public is against it. In fact far from it—58 percent support the extension in a new poll. But as I’ve written a kajillion times these last few years, it unfortunately doesn’t much matter what the people think. Republicans in Congress care only about the views of the more radical half of their party. And in that same poll, Republicans opposed the extension 54-42.
As long as that remains the case (and there’s no reason it’s likely to change), “UI,” as they call it on the Hill, seems a heavy lift. Republicans are insisting on cuts from elsewhere in the federal budget to pay for the benefits’ $6.4 billion cost. And Democrats are talking with them. But there’s no progress yet. In fact, it seems today that even the six Republicans who voted in the Senate last week to allow debate to proceed would not vote to extend the benefits just yet.
But let’s take a step back here, because introducing a little bit of historical context shows just how extreme the Republicans’ position is, and it shows us how, over time, what used to be crazy-radical becomes normal with the people.
When George W. Bush was president, noted Labor Secretary Thomas Perez on Jim Lehrer’s PBS show last week, unemployment benefits were extended five times, “no strings attached any of those times.” So as long as it was a Republican president under whom their constituents were out of work, they were happy to vote to extend the benefits. The last extension under Bush, in late 2008, passed 368-28 in the House of Representatives. Remember, this was with no “pay-fors,” in the argot. This vote took place a month before Election Day, which may have partly motivated 142 Republicans to vote for it with only the real hard-shellers going against it.
Now let’s move forward to 2010. We have a new president from a different party. The economy is struggling. The Republicans of course haven’t exactly been supportive of Barack Obama’s agenda, but on this one, they’re ready to agree. All but one. Jim Bunning, then a GOP senator from Kentucky, insisted that he wasn’t against extending such benefits, but he was against increasing the deficit by a few billion bucks.
But even then, the Senate GOP leadership wasn’t with Bunning. I remember that time well. Bunning had a few defenders among his colleagues, but basically, his position was seen as extreme by Democrats and even many or possibly most Republicans. Bunning finally got the message after a couple of weeks of antics—which included him whining that his noble filibuster against helping the nation’s jobless was preventing him from watching an important Kentucky Wildcats basketball game—and relented.
But what was considered extreme and nutty then is standard operating procedure today. A key development here was Rand Paul saying a couple of weeks ago that benefits beyond 26 weeks just make people lazy. That unleashed the right-wing id. In addition to that, of course, there’s the standing GOP House opposition to anything with Obama’s name on it. And this is how radical becomes normal.
Friday, I was at a meeting with a group of House Democratic lawmakers. They offered a few ideas about how they might get Republicans to agree. John Garamendi of California talked about a few billion being spent on a program in Afghanistan that he thought the GOP might play ball on. There were a few other notions, but none of them, I noticed, bruited with much confidence that they’d actually get anywhere.
Several echoed Connecticut’s Rosa DeLauro in saying that they just have to win the battle in the court of public opinion. “These are Americans’ stories,” DeLauro said. “When people hear them, they’re moved.” There’s no doubt that that’s true. But it was true of gun safety, and it was true of immigration reform, and numerous other things.
I don’t know if the Democrats can win this on the floor. Maybe the horrible jobs report from December helps a little, maybe not. But since public opinion is already on their side, they can at least take this issue and make it hurt Republicans in states with high unemployment or Republicans who are singing a different tune than they did in 2010, a list that starts with Mitch McConnell, who agreed to the 2010 extension and is now going around saying that if Democrats want UI benefits extended, they’d have to agree to a one-year delay in the individual mandate under Obamacare.
And if Democrats win, great. But it looks like they’ll only win by agreeing to the pay-for demand, which means that there’ll be new demands next time. There’s no end to how far right these people will go.
By: Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast, January 13, 2014
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 