This road leads to madness.

April 13, 2022

[Audio version here]

          A day after President Biden signed an order regulating the production of unregistered “ghost guns,” a gunman shot and wounded dozens of commuters on a New York City subway. The shooter used a Glock handgun with “extended” ammunition clips. Although police have not confirmed the shooter’s identity, it appears that he carried a concealed weapon and illegal ammunition clips in violation of New York law. As New York reels from the mass shooting, the reactionary majority on the Supreme Court is preparing to strike down New York’s law that imposes strict limits on the ability to carry concealed handguns. See New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett.  

          Hostile questioning directed at New York’s attorney during oral argument strongly suggests that the reactionary majority will invalidate New York’s effort to limit concealed carry permits to persons who can demonstrate a “heightened need to carry a handgun.”  If that happens, similar laws across the United States will also fall. As Ian Millhiser wrote in Vox, “the Supreme Court could make the NRA’s dreams come true” by ruling against New York.

          Depending on how far the reactionary majority goes, everyone in the U.S. could have the right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit by June of 2022. Such a holding would be consistent with the wave of laws being enacted in GOP-controlled states that permit “constitutional carry” of a concealed weapon—a doctrine that effectively prohibits any regulation of the right to bear arms. Indeed, on the day of the New York subway shooting, Governor Brian Kemp signed a “permitless” handgun carry law in Georgia. The Hill, Georgia governor signs permitless handgun carry bill into law.

          This road leads to madness. If we live in a world where we must assume that criminals, terrorists, and unstable individuals carry concealed weapons in public places, the pressure on everyone else to arm themselves will be high. I have a vivid recollection of attempting to visit the Texas State Capitol in Austin. There was a line at the entryway where an angry young man was shouting at state troopers, exclaiming, “If it’s legal for me to carry one handgun into the Capitol, I don’t see why I can’t carry two handguns.” We turned around and left, deciding not to visit a building where the operating assumption was that everyone in the building was armed with handguns except my family.

          What can we do? First, don’t despair and don’t give up. Most Americans support additional measures to regulate firearms. See PBS NewsHour, Most Americans support these 4 types of gun legislation, poll says. Second, recognize that gun safety is like climate change in one respect—we pay attention after mass shootings and heatwaves in December but soon go back to our daily lives. We do so knowing that activists will do the heavy lifting in our absence.

I am not saying that is a good situation, but I believe it accurately describes what is happening. If it is true, let’s at least support the organizations fighting for us every day. Groups like Everytown, Brady, Giffords, and Sandy Hook Promise are leading the effort to prevent gun violence. Help them out, even on days when there is not a mass shooting leading the news cycle.

Putin’s war against the Ukrainian people.

          There were three major developments regarding Ukraine and a coda:

`          First, President Biden called Russia’s atrocities against the Ukrainian people “genocide.” President Zelenskyy responded by saying, “True words of a true leader. Calling things by their names is essential to stand up to evil.”

          Second, Putin said that peace talks are “at a dead end,” but added that Russia’s “operational goals” centered on “helping” the people of the Donbas region. Per the NYTimes, Putin’s statement

was the first time that Mr. Putin himself had effectively defined a more limited aim for the war, focusing on control of the Donbas — and not all of Ukraine, which Mr. Putin and his subordinates have said should not even be an independent country.

          Putin chooses his words carefully, so the fact that he is publicly limiting the strategic goals of the invasion seems like a big deal. But the comment is not receiving a lot of attention in the press. So I am uncertain whether I am overinterpreting the statement or if the rest of the media believes Putin was speaking in generalities not meant to limit Russia’s plans for Ukraine.

          Third, the U.S. completed weapons deliveries authorized on March 17th (wow!)—and plans to expand future deliveries to include howitzer cannons and coastal defense drones.

          Finally, Russia arrested a contributor to the Washington Post who criticized Putin for invading Ukraine. Members of the right-wing in America are absolutists for free speech, crying crocodile tears when private companies regulate their offensive and dangerous speech. But they continue to idolize Putin even after he uses the power of the state to harass and imprison journalists for speaking the truth.

Inflation—and what Democrats should say about it.

          Inflation rose to 8.5% in March—the highest rate since 1981. Republicans will use that fact to beat up Democrats in 2022. But Robert Reich has published an essay that lays the blame where it belongs—on corporations that are exacerbating inflation by using it as an excuse to engineer record profits. See Robert Reich, Inflation is out of control! Urgent memo to Biden and the Democrats! I recommend that you read Reich’s essay in full, but among his many excellent points are the following:

1. Corporate profits are at a 70-year high. Yet corporations are raising their prices.

2. They are not raising prices because of the increasing costs of supplies and components and of labor . . . . Corporations enjoying record profits in a healthy competitive economy would absorb these costs.

3. Instead, they’re passing these costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices. In many cases they’re raising prices higher than those cost increases, using the cover of inflation to increase their profit margins even more.

          In truth, government spending has almost no effect on inflation, but that is a complicated and contentious economic argument that isn’t worth the fight. Reich’s narrative highlights a truth that can resonate with voters—if Democrats can summon the messaging discipline to make it.

          Another argument against the Republican claim that “government spending” causes inflation was made by Senator Debbie Stabenow, who said,

There was $7 trillion in new debt and 2.6 million jobs lost during Trump. But when McConnell comes to this podium, all he does is complain that we’re not cleaning up their mess fast enough.

          As I wrote yesterday, it’s time for Democrats to go on the offensive, including about inflation. If deficit spending is a cause of inflation, Trump was the king of deficit spending. But the real culprits are corporations using pandemic-caused conditions to profiteer.

Podcast on Wednesday, April 13th with Airlift Fund.

          I will be interviewing Ruth Jaeger of AirLift on Wednesday, April 13th at 7:00 PM Eastern / 4:00 PM Pacific. Join us live to ask questions. Download the Callin | Social Podcasting.

Concluding Thoughts.

          The media is trying to mess with our minds. I received a “breaking news” alert with a headline from The Hill that made my stomach turn: The Memo: Democrats face nightmare scenario, ‘biblical disaster’. Since I expected to receive emailed copies of the article from panicked readers, I read it to see what new information suggested a disaster of “biblical proportions” is awaiting Democrats. So, I read the article, and—spoiler alert—the article does not contain an iota of new information.

          Instead, the author of the article spoke to one political consultant who “did not want to be identified” but who was happy to say that Democrats face a “biblical disaster.” (The consultant presumably did not want to be identified because he wants money from Democrats for his consulting services but is afraid to say what he thinks.) Granted, the consultant’s soundbite makes for a clickbaity headline, but the headline is misleading. Why? Because a few sentences after the consultant’s glib statement, the author of the article accurately notes,

          An increasingly gerrymandered Congress makes that kind of wipeout hard to see this year.

          The author then goes on to write that

          Some Democrats believe a turnaround is still possible, or at least that losses can be kept modest.

          So, a more accurate headline would have been, “I talked to one guy who won’t go on the record who thinks the midterms will be a biblical disaster, but other Democrats I spoke to believe they can win in 2022.” But that headline wouldn’t have been as clickbaity.  

          I was sufficiently incensed at the deceptive headline that I went to the comments section to tell the author that it was beneath him to resort to such cheap tactics. But alas! I was met with this statement:

          The Hill has removed its comment section, as there are many other forums for readers to participate in the conversation.

          Cowards! If you engage in sensational journalism, at least have the decency to listen to people’s views about your practices.

          Here’s my point: Don’t believe everything you read on the internet—especially headlines. They are designed to mess with your mind and monetize your efforts to stay informed. The media is committed to a news formula that tries to incite panic and instill fear because they know it increases reader interest at the cost of accuracy. So, the next time you read a headline predicting catastrophe, approach with caution. Items in the mirror are not as sensational as they appear!

          Talk to you tomorrow!