August 2006 Archives

Bill Clinton* was right, you know. Few issues have the ability to sway voters as effectively and in many cases I think that is a good thing. For me, it’s the biggest reason I cannot be a Democrat; the party just doesn’t get this stuff at all, and it’s funny and shocking.

By all accounts the poor Dems have lost their way (so have the Republicans, honestly) since 2000. They have stumbled from one issue to the next, lacking any cohesive ideal for America. In fits and starts since the 2004 election they seem to have found at least part of one though, and it is too bad. I am going to call it economic populism, even though I don’t really know if that is technically correct. But you know what I mean, don’t you? Issues like:

*the dangerous threat of outsourcing (actually good thing) *raising the minimum wage (also a good thing) *bashing Wal-Mart

Yes, that’s right: if you are a Democrat you now hate Wal-Mart. According a New York Times article at least six Democratic presidential hopefuls attended rallies specifically targeting Wal-Mart’s low wages and lack of benefits for workers.

Supposedly this is part of a larger populist economic message, but like any recent Democratic messge, it’s a bit muddled. For example, the Dems want to raise the minimum wage to over $7. An excellent idea. But Joe Biden recently complained at an anti-Wal-Mart rally that “they talk about paying them $10 an hour. That’s true. How can you live a middle-class life on that?” Well, obviously you cannot. So what? Not every job in America is a career and not every job should be required to put you straight into the middle class. People take low-wage jobs for many reasons, and these jobs ensure that at least parts of the American economy stay competative.

What I find more telling about Biden’s comment, however, is that he seems to demand wages higher than $10 and hour, but his party does not propose raising the minimum wage higher than $7.50. Who can live a middle class life on that?

So, while they are busy bashing the largest private employee in the country for supposed sins, thousands of other companies are commiting the same sins without any outcry. But Wal-Mart is easy to hate and it is well-known. But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and say they want all workers to earn more than $10 (I do too, I just don’t think it is realistic). That would seriously destabalize the economics this country relies on, I think. Which would force most jobs overseas, except that won’t be allowed because outsourcing is bad.

I just don’t get the Democrat economic message. Can someone please explain it to me?

You have the right to defend yourself if attacked, including license to use deadly force in defense of your life. Much precedent and common sense unpins the notion of self-defence. Fifteen states have now enacted legislation that expands this idea, giving people the prerogative to shoot first, essentially. And not just to protect your self or your family from impending harm — now you can shoot to protect your property as well.

In Florida you are now within the law if you shoot an intruder who has entered your home or car by force, even before determining danger or trying to retreat. The notion that one should attempt to retreat before exercising deadly force is long established, although recently this has become a disused prerequisite in courts.

My concern is that a change in the law will lead to deaths that could be avoided if people tried first to get away from danger before acting with deadly force. No doubt supports of the change will make many arguments, including that people may not have time to fully determine the danger or that I am soft of crime and don’t want support crime victims. Both are specious arguments because a judge and jury should be sufficient to determine the motive of a crime victim’s self defense. Furthermore, just because I do not support the immediate execution of car jackers and thieves does not translate to being soft on crime or insensitive to its victims.

Let’s look at a few examples:

1. A cab from Florida shot and killed a man after driving him to his destination. The fare was “reluctant” to get out of the cab so the driver used a stun gun on him. The fare got out and started to “come at” the driver (who was still in his car), at which point he fired warning shots at the man’s feet and them at his body, killing him.

   Why did he just drive away? The fare had no weapon, although the driver claimed he had a knife.

2. A second incident involved an argument between neighbors over the number of garbage bags left at the curb for collection. This ended up with one man shooting the other in the chest. He was not charged because of the new statute on self defense.

   The shooting victim had no weapon, and the other man had to enter his house and fetch the weapon in before coming back out to shoot his neighbor.

   Over trash bags? Really?

The NRA is, shockingly, supporting the law wherever possible on the argument that it “empowers good people to make good decisions,” which is clearly demonstrated by the above examples. I would argue that it empowers no one, and allows good people that make bad decisions to get away with crimes. This doesn’t reduce crime, it multiplies it by turning victims into criminals.