Myth of the Hero Gunslinger

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/myth-of-the-hero-gunslinger/?ref=opinion&nl=opinion&emc=tya1


JANUARY 20, 2011, 9:00 PM
Myth of the Hero Gunslinger

By TIMOTHY EGAN
Timothy Egan on American politics and life, as seen from the West.

Tags:

Gun Control, Tucson shooting

PHOENIX — To many gun owners, the question of whether to arm even more people in a country that already has upwards of 300 million guns is as calcified as a Sonoran Desert petroglyph. It’s written in stone, among the fiercest of firearms advocates, that more guns equals fewer deaths.

But before the Tucson tragedy fades into tired talking points, it’s worth dissecting the crime scene once more to see how this idea fared in actual battle.

First, one bit of throat-clearing: I’m a third-generation Westerner, and grew up around guns, hunters of all possible fauna, and Second Amendment enthusiasts who wore camouflage nine months out of the year. Generally, I don’t have a problem with any of that.

Back to Tucson. On the day of the shooting, a young man named Joseph Zamudio was leaving a drugstore when he saw the chaos at the Safeway parking lot. Zamudio was armed, carrying his 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol. Heroically, he rushed to the scene, fingering his weapon, ready to fire.
Suppose, in the few seconds of confusion during the shootings, an armed bystander had fired at the wrong man.
Now, in the view of the more-guns proponents, Zamudio might have been able to prevent any carnage, or maybe even gotten off a shot before someone was killed.

“When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim,” said Arizona state representative Jack Harper, after a gunman had claimed 19 victims.

“I wish there had been one more gun in Tucson,” said an Arizona Congressman, Rep. Trent Franks, implying like Harper that if only someone had been armed at the scene, Jared Lee Loughner would not have been able to unload his rapid-fire Glock on innocent people.

In fact, several people were armed. So, what actually happened? As Zamudio said in numerous interviews, he never got a shot off at the gunman, but he nearly harmed the wrong person — one of those trying to control Loughner.

He saw people wrestling, including one man with the gun. “I kind of assumed he was the shooter,” said Zamudio in an interview with MSNBC. Then, “everyone said, ‘no, no — it’s this guy,’” said Zamudio.

To his credit, he ultimately helped subdue Loughner. But suppose, in those few seconds of confusion, he had fired at the wrong man and killed a hero? “I was very lucky,” Zamudio said.

It defies logic, as this case shows once again, that an average citizen with a gun is going to disarm a crazed killer. For one thing, these kinds of shootings happen far too suddenly for even the quickest marksman to get a draw. For another, your typical gun hobbyist lacks training in how to react in a violent scrum.

I don’t think these are reasons to disarm the citizenry. That’s never going to happen, nor should it. But the Tucson shootings should discredit the canard that we need more guns at school, in the workplace, even in Congress. Yes, Congress. The Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert has proposed a bill to allow fellow members to carry firearms into the Capitol Building.

Gohmert has enough trouble carrying a coherent thought onto the House floor. God forbid he would try to bring a Glock to work. By his reasoning, the Middle East would be better off if every nation in the region had nuclear weapons.

At least two recent studies show that more guns equals more carnage to innocents. One survey by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that guns did not protect those who had them from being shot in an assault — just the opposite. Epidemiologists at Penn looked at hundreds of muggings and assaults. What they found was that those with guns were four times more likely to be shot when confronted by an armed assailant than those without guns. The unarmed person, in other words, is safer.

Other studies have found that states with the highest rates of gun ownership have much greater gun death rates than those where only a small percentage of the population is armed. So, Hawaii, where only 9.7 percent of residents own guns, has the lowest gun death rate in the country, while Louisiana, where 45 percent of the public is armed, has the highest.

Arizona, where people can carry guns into bars and almost anyone can get a concealed weapons permit, is one of the top 10 states for gun ownership and death rates by firearms. And in the wake of the shootings, some lawmakers want to flood public areas with even more lethal weapons.

Tuesday of this week was the first day of classes at Arizona State University, and William Jenkins, who teaches photography at the school, did not bring his weapon to campus. For the moment, it’s still illegal for professors to pack heat while they talk Dante and quantum physics.

But that may soon change. Arizona legislators have been pushing a plan to allow college faculty and students to carry concealed weapons at school.

“That’s insane,” Jenkins told me. “On Mondays I give a lecture to 120 people. I can’t imagine students coming into class with firearms. If something happened, it would be mayhem.”

He’s right. Jenkins is a lifelong gun owner and he carries a concealed weapon, by permit. He also carries a modicum of common sense. The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Crosshairs

From: Rep. Alan Grayson
To: rlgreenfield1@verizon.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:51 AM
Subject: Gabby Was Right, Palin Is Wrong

Dear Rl,

When I opened my web browser yesterday, at yahoo.com, there was Sarah Palin,
smiling at me.
"Oh, God," I said to myself, "what has she done now?"

The headline was "Palin Defends 'Blood Libel'". That's interesting, I
thought. What else might Palin be defending? Cannibalism, maybe?

Well, it turned out to be a report on Palin's disjointed remarks on Sean
Hannity's show, regarding the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. I then
watched the report. Let me summarize it for you:

Palin: I am so misunderstood.
Hannity: I am so misunderstood.
Palin: I am so misunderstood.

But there was one person who seemed to understand Sarah Palin quite well.
Gabby Giffords, herself, during the health care debate. Discussing threats
against Democratic Members of Congress. After the door to her office was
shattered. This is what Gabby said:
"You know, for example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing
is the way that she has depicted it is the crosshairs of a gun-sight over
our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are
consequences to that action."

And here is Palin's blithe response, on Hannity's show: "That map wasn't an
original graphic."

What is that remark supposed to be, Sarah? An exculpanation?

Even before I heard earlier Palin's whining about "misguided
finger-pointing" and "irresponsible statements from people who are
apportioning blame," I thought about this:
Palin came to my district, and told her people to "take me out."
Palin told people again and again, "don't retreat, reload."

The day before the health care vote, one of my five-year-old twins received
a telephone death threat intended for me.

A right-wing commentator offered anyone $100 to punch me in the nose.
We received so many threats of violence from teabaggers that we started a
file.

And the day before Gabby was shot, I received a postcard saying "you better
get some personal protection. You could very well be getting your ass kicked
soon."

Cause and effect. As Gabby put it, "there are consequences."
Of course, I wasn't the only target of these threats.

Gabby's tea party opponent held fundraisers in which he invited contributors
to fire an automatic weapon.

Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's opponent conducted target practice on
her initials.

Democrat Ron Klein's opponent told his supporters to make sure that Klein
was "afraid to leave his house."

Democrat Frank Kratovil was hung in effigy.

Democrat Tom Perriello was burned in effigy. And the gas line to his brother's
house was cut.

Democrat Emanuel Cleaver - a minister - was spat on.

Democrat Russ Carnahan had a coffin left at his home.

I could go on, but you get the point. Cause and effect. "There are
consequences."

And the Republicans? The shot supposedly fired at Republican Eric Cantor's
office was quickly exposed as a hoax.

As I observed on MSNBC last week, there has been a stream of violence and
threats of violence by the right wing against Democrats. Gabby warned
against it, and then became a terrible victim of it. Palin has instigated
it, and then tried to pretend that it doesn't exist.

What do I think? I think that Gabby said it best: "We can't stand for this."
We have to stand against it.

Courage,
Alan Grayson

More Examples of Republicans Encouraging Bodily Harm to Democrats

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-the-crying-shame-of-john-boehner-20110105?page=4

Another Ohio Democrat, Steve Driehaus, clashed repeatedly with Boehner before losing his seat in the midterm elections. After Boehner suggested that by voting for Obamacare, Driehaus "may be a dead man" and "can't go home to the west side of Cincinnati" because "the Catholics will run him out of town," Driehaus began receiving death threats, and a right-wing website published directions to his house. Driehaus says he approached Boehner on the floor and confronted him.

"I didn't think it was funny at all," Driehaus says. "I've got three little kids and a wife. I said to him, 'John, this is bullshit, and way out of bounds. For you to say something like that is wildly irresponsible.'"

Driehaus is quick to point out that he doesn't think Boehner meant to urge anyone to violence. "But it's not about what he intended — it's about how the least rational person in my district takes it. We run into some crazy people in this line of work."

Driehaus says Boehner was "taken aback" when confronted on the floor, but never actually said he was sorry: "He said something along the lines of, 'You know that's not what I meant.' But he didn't apologize."

Friends With Benefits: Goldman Sachs private deal with Facebook

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/friends-with-benefits/

Deborah Lagutaris

Some say that this deal will allow Facebook to avoid government regulation. In fact, there is little government regulation to worry about nowadays. Thirty years of constant and deliberate weakening of regulatory agencies, including the all-important Securities and Exchange Commission, has taken care of that.

So, how can anyone claim with a straight face that Goldman's unfair advantage represents anything like a free market operated by the Invisible Hand?


"To understand why, we have to go to the heart of the many problems in the way the Wall Street cartel does business, despite the promised reforms of the Dodd-Frank law. With Goldman’s investment in Facebook, we have a front-row seat to the process by which Wall Street creates and inflates financial bubbles.

"This bout of hysteria involves not only Facebook but other Internet companies including Twitter, the gaming site Zynga, the social buying site Groupon and LinkedIn, another social networking site. The valuation of these companies has soared in the past two years, leading some to worry that the American people bailed out Wall Street so that we could relive the Internet Bubble of 1999.

"Despite the high price of its investment, Goldman sees in Facebook a business bonanza, a nearly perfect nugget of investment-banking opportunities. First, Goldman’s cost of capital is close to zero — as a bank holding company, it can borrow from the Federal Reserve at negligible interest rates — so any capital gain it makes on its venture in Facebook will be sheer profit. Second, Goldman has almost certainly locked up the role of lead manager of the inevitable Facebook initial public offering."

The entire article follows:

ANUARY 4, 2011, 9:00 PM
Goldman’s Mutual Friend

By WILLIAM D. COHAN
William D. Cohan on Wall Street and Main Street.

Tags:

facebook, goldman sachs

Can Goldman Sachs, the profit-seeking missile of high finance, really make money by investing $450 million in Facebook, at a vertigo-inducing price that values the social-networking company at $50 billion?

On first blush, the answer would appear to be no. After all, in May 2009, the company was valued at $10 billion. Last August, Facebook was valued at $27 billion and now it’s $50 billion — for a company with a reported $2 billion in revenue and negligible profits. If General Electric, with 2010 revenue of around $150 billion, traded at a similar multiple of revenue, it would be worth $3.75 trillion instead of $200 billion. Facebook is now considered to be worth more than Time Warner, DuPont and Goldman’s rival Morgan Stanley.

Just last week, Facebook’s shares were said to be trading on a private-market exchange at a valuation of $42.4 billion. Thanks to Goldman’s imprimatur, Facebook’s value increased 20 percent virtually overnight. Can Goldman really expect to squeeze more water from this stone?

Sadly, yes.

To understand why, we have to go to the heart of the many problems in the way the Wall Street cartel does business, despite the promised reforms of the Dodd-Frank law. With Goldman’s investment in Facebook, we have a front-row seat to the process by which Wall Street creates and inflates financial bubbles.

This bout of hysteria involves not only Facebook but other Internet companies including Twitter, the gaming site Zynga, the social buying site Groupon and LinkedIn, another social networking site. The valuation of these companies has soared in the past two years, leading some to worry that the American people bailed out Wall Street so that we could relive the Internet Bubble of 1999.

Despite the high price of its investment, Goldman sees in Facebook a business bonanza, a nearly perfect nugget of investment-banking opportunities. First, Goldman’s cost of capital is close to zero — as a bank holding company, it can borrow from the Federal Reserve at negligible interest rates — so any capital gain it makes on its venture in Facebook will be sheer profit. Second, Goldman has almost certainly locked up the role of lead manager of the inevitable Facebook initial public offering.

Fees for underwriting public offerings are generally about 7 percent of the value of the stock sold. Facebook could easily sell $2 billion of stock or more, generating fees to Goldman and the other underwriters of at least $140 million. The other benefit for Goldman in leading the public offering — aside from major bragging rights — is that it can use its marketing, sales and distribution muscle to make sure the value of Facebook at the time of the offering exceeds the $50 billion valuation at which Goldman invested.

Goldman has also won from Facebook the right to offer an additional $1.5 billion of the company’s stock to its private-wealth clients. According to The Times, Goldman will be creating a “special purpose vehicle” to sell the stock to its wealthy clients and then will charge them a 4 percent initial fee plus 5 percent of any profits. While on paper it seems that these high rollers would be foolish to invest in Facebook at such a lofty valuation, they will still most certainly feel increased loyalty to Goldman for making such an exclusive opportunity available to them. On top of it all, there is the increased likelihood that Goldman will get to manage a good portion of the $12 billion fortune belonging to
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, for yet more fees.

If Goldman does take all these roles at once — investor, salesman, money manager, I.P.O. underwriter — it would certainly raise the ugly specter of conflicts of interest. But probably not to Goldman executives, who have always prided themselves on being able to “manage” through such situations. (In fairness, there’s likely no investment-banking firm on the planet that would not eagerly take Goldman’s place in this scheme, if offered the chance.)

Even though Facebook is reported to have little need for Goldman’s money, having Goldman validate Facebook’s exponential increase in value gives Mr. Zuckerberg the ultimate Silicon Valley street cred, far more than he got from having Hollywood make a movie about him or from becoming the youngest billionaire on the planet.

With all these winners, who will the losers be? The average investor, of course, who will get left holding the bag when, someday, Wall Street realizes the firm’s financial performance doesn’t live up to its hyped valuation.

This Op-Ed column appeared in print on January 5, 2011.

Strained States Turning to Laws to Curb Labor Unions

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/business/04labor.html

by Deborah Lagutaris

This frightening article appeared in the New York Times on January 4, 2011. Somehow, public servants have become the scapegoat for the destruction wrought on the funding mechanism for Federal, State, County and City governments. Who wrought this destruction? Why, the very people who are now blaming public workers' pay, benefits and pensions for the budget crisis that ails my country: Republicans and other know-nothings who do not care whether they hurt other citizen's livelihoods and liberties.

It's the perfect storm. The right has been undermining rational methods of funding vital public services since the early 1970s. (Save space here for my rant about the devastation wrought on my home states' education system since I first began school in 1956. California ranked #1 in all measures of education excellence in my childhood and teens. Now, it ranks down in the lowest 5 states.

That is not enough for them. They are now gunning for what's left of the public sector unions. Public sector unions protect workers who do not have effective unions by establishing a benchmark of standards and quality for their employees. There is good reason for this: public employees work long, hard hours at salaries far less then their skills would command in the private sphere. Their reward lies in a job well down for a person who needs their help.

Once these unions are dismantled, there will be no standards for worker pay and worker protections. The elimination of public sector unions is the final goal of dictators when they take over a country. In this way, authoritarians regime can impose rules that harm workers and their families with impunity. As an example, one might remember the last bastion of democracy in El Salvador before its downfall: the public sector unions. Powerful energy was infused into these unions as a last-ditch effort to protect the common hard-working family's fortunes, to. no avail

I know that some unions are run by people who are power-hungry or corrupt. Every human endeavor is subject to corruption. It is often the case, however, that the scoundrels are voted out of power by the union members. People keep trying to make things as fair as possible.

Corporations mean none of us well. Their legal immunities and the generous legal rights endowed upon them by our legislatures and courts mean that they can steal and plunder with so little culpability that most legal actions amount to no more than a bee-sting on the corporate monster's hide.

Teachers, firefighters, public medical service personnel, and most any state worker can tell you about the fear that haunts their days: will I have funding enough to serve my constituents tomorrow? Will the hatchet job ever end? And if it doesn't, how will my city, county and state survive without great suffering?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

See the article below:

New York Times
Strained States Turning to Laws to Curb Labor Unions

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

Faced with growing budget deficits and restive taxpayers, elected officials from Maine to Alabama, Ohio to Arizona, are pushing new legislation to limit the power of labor unions, particularly those representing government workers, in collective bargaining and politics.

State officials from both parties are wrestling with ways to curb the salaries and pensions of government employees, which typically make up a significant percentage of state budgets. On Wednesday, for example, New York’s new Democratic governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, is expected to call for a one-year salary freeze for state workers, a move that would save $200 million to $400 million and challenge labor’s traditional clout in Albany.

But in some cases — mostly in states with Republican governors and Republican statehouse majorities — officials are seeking more far-reaching, structural changes that would weaken the bargaining power and political influence of unions, including private sector ones.

For example, Republican lawmakers in Indiana, Maine, Missouri and seven other states plan to introduce legislation that would bar private sector unions from forcing workers they represent to pay dues or fees, reducing the flow of funds into union treasuries. In Ohio, the new Republican governor, following the precedent of many other states, wants to ban strikes by public school teachers.

Some new governors, most notably Scott Walker of Wisconsin, are even threatening to take away government workers’ right to form unions and bargain contracts.

“We can no longer live in a society where the public employees are the haves and taxpayers who foot the bills are the have-nots,” Mr. Walker, a Republican, said in a speech. “The bottom line is that we are going to look at every legal means we have to try to put that balance more on the side of taxpayers.”

Many of the proposals may never become law. But those that do are likely to reduce union influence in election campaigns, with reverberations for both parties.

In the 2010 elections, Republicans emerged with seven more governor’s mansions and won control of the legislature in 26 states, up from 14. That swing has put unions more on the defensive than they have been in decades.

But it is not only Republicans who are seeking to rein in unions. In addition to Mr. Cuomo, California’s new Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, is promising to review the benefits received by government workers in his state, which faces a more than $20 billion budget shortfall over the next 18 months.

“We will also have to look at our system of pensions and how to ensure that they are transparent and actuarially sound and fair — fair to the workers and fair to the taxpayers,” Mr. Brown said in his inaugural speech on Monday.

Many of the state officials pushing for union-related changes say they want to restore some balance, arguing that unions have become too powerful, skewing political campaigns with their large war chests and throwing state budgets off kilter with their expensive pension plans.

But labor leaders view these efforts as political retaliation by Republicans upset that unions recently spent more than $200 million to defeat Republican candidates.

“I see this as payback for the role we played in the 2010 elections,” said Gerald W. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the main union of state employees. Mr. McEntee said in October that his union was spending more than $90 million on the campaign, largely to help Democrats.

“Now there’s a bull’s-eye on our back, and they’re out to inflict pain,” he said.

In an internal memorandum, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. warned that in 16 states, Republican lawmakers would seek to starve public sector unions of money by requiring each government worker to “opt in” before that person’s dues money could be used for political activities.

“In the long run, if these measures deprive unions of resources, it will cut them off at their knees. They’ll melt away,” said Charles E. Wilson, a law professor at Ohio State University.

Of all the new governors, John Kasich, Republican of Ohio, appears to be planning the most comprehensive assault against unions. He is proposing to take away the right of 14,000 state-financed child care and home care workers to unionize. He also wants to ban strikes by teachers, much the way some states bar strikes by the police and firefighters.

“If they want to strike, they should be fired,” Mr. Kasich said in a speech. “They’ve got good jobs, they’ve got high pay, they get good benefits, a great retirement. What are they striking for?”

Mr. Kasich also wants to eliminate a requirement that the state pay union-scale wages to construction workers on public contracts, even if the contractors are nonunion. In addition, he would like to ban the use of binding arbitration to settle disputes between the state and unions representing government employees.

Labor leaders, who argue that government employees are not overpaid, worry that many of these measures have a much better chance of enactment than in previous years because of Republican electoral gains and recession-ravaged taxpayers’ reduced sympathy toward government workers.

The A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s internal memo warned labor leaders, “With the enormous losses in state legislatures around the country, we will face not only more attacks on working families and their unions — we will face more serious attacks, particularly in the formerly blue or purple states that are now controlled by a Republican trifecta.”

It pointed in particular to six states, including several former union strongholds, where Republicans control the governor’s mansion and both houses of the legislature: Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Naomi Walker, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s director of state government relations, said many voters would oppose the antiunion efforts. “I think folks in these states are going to ask whether this is the right time to weaken unions when corporations are amassing more power than ever,” she said. “We’ve been fighting against privatizing Social Security and sending jobs offshore and to get the best deal for the unemployed. It would be a lot easier for Republicans if unions weren’t there to throw up these roadblocks.”

Union leaders particularly dread the spread of right-to-work laws, which prevail in 22 states, almost all in the South or West. Under such laws, unions and employers cannot require workers to join a union or pay any dues or fees to unions to represent them.

Unions complain that such laws allow workers in unionized workplaces to reap the benefits of collective bargaining without paying for it. Pointing to lower wages in right-to-work states, unions say the laws lead to worse wages and benefits by weakening unions.

But lawmakers who are pushing right-to-work laws argue that they help attract investment. “The folks who work day-to-day in economic development tell us that the No. 1 thing we can do to make Indiana more attractive to business is to make Indiana a right-to-work state,” said Jerry Torr, an Indiana state representative who backs such legislation.

Some union leaders say that proposals like right-to-work laws, which have little effect on state budgets, show that Republicans are using budget woes as a pretext to undercut unions.

“They’re throwing the kitchen sink at us,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. “We’re seeing people use the budget crisis to make every attempt to roll back workers’ voices and any ability of workers to join collectively in any way whatsoever.”

A group composed of Republican state lawmakers and corporate executives, the American Legislative Exchange Council, is quietly spreading these proposals from state to state, sending e-mails about the latest efforts as well as suggested legislative language.

Michael Hough, director of the council’s commerce task force, said the aim of these measures was not political, but to reduce labor’s swollen power. “Government budgets have grown and grown because of the cost of employees’ pensions and salaries,” he said. “Now we have to deal with that.”