« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »

Wal-Mart is Hiring! (No Fat Chicks)

Do you shop at Wal-Mart? I do, occasionally. Every time I do, I always feel like my karma is being tarnished in some small way. I'm not sure why, exactly. For me, I guess it's kind of like that feeling if you have to park in a handicapped spot for a couple of minutes to run in and retrieve dry-cleaning or something. I've worked retail in a former life (Virgin Records alumni represent) but working Wal-Mart retail has always seemed a little worse than regular retail to me. Maybe it's that damn blue vest with 'How Can I Help You?' emblazoned on it. If you're like me, helping those whiny bastard customers is the last thing on your mind - especially as a Wal-Mart employee. At least we got to wear black t-shirts at Virgin.

I guess I'm not all that servile to begin with. I'll help someone, certainly; but I have difficulty putting myself into an obsequious our-customers-are-everything sort of mindset. Let's face it, folks; nobody is in retail because they have some glowing shining light that says this is their calling. That's for astronauts or actors or brain surgeons or something. If you're working retail, it's because it's a job that pays the rent. I respect that, too. It's a lot harder to get up and go to work at something that -isn't- your life's joy, just to make the rent and make sure the kids have food. So any time I'm in Wal-Mart - or any retail establishment - I do my best to be decent to the people working there, and I hope you do too.

I say all of this, because it's pretty clear that Wal-Mart themselves don't give a flying fuck about their employees. I know, right? This is news? Well actually this week it was news as Wal-Mart Corporation released a detailed memo entitled 'Reviewing and Revising Wal-Mart's Benefits Strategy'. Now, as one who has some experience with corporation doublespeak, when you see a headline like that, you'd better curl up into the fetal position ahead of time, because the chances of them actually announcing free punch and pie for all along with company-paid healthcare and an extra week's vacation for everyone.. Well, you get the picture.

The memo - which the New York Times was kind enough to post in its entirety here - makes for a good read. Some of the more telling statistics quoted within are Wal-Mart specific, but some actually raise some questions about the private sector as a whole. To focus on Wal-Mart though, the memo gives some thought provoking facts. For example, 46 percent of Wal-Mart Associates' children are either on Medicaid or have no insurance at all, and last year, 38 percent of Wal-Mart Associates spent more than 16 percent of their income on healthcare related costs (to put this in some sort of perspective, the average Associate is making $17,000 a year - before tax. 16 percent of that, monthly, is roughly $225. This is a real bite out of your budget at that level).

The document goes on to bemoan the fact that on average, Wal-Mart Associates are less healthy than the population at large (given that on average, Wal-Mart workers tend to have lower household incomes, I would suggest this is only to be expected, since it's already been noted in several studies that health problems disproportionately affect those at the lower end of the economic scale). It suggests mandatory physical activity as part of an Associate’s duties in order to make the job ‘less attractive’ to a certain demographic. It also contains the stunning revelation that an Associate with seven years of experience makes more money and costs more money but is not more productive than an Associate with one year's experience!

This 'revelation' irritates me greatly, perhaps moreso than anything else in the memo. See, if you think about what a typical retail person does, they really have very little control over their daily routine. You work your shift, you assist the customers who come to your queue, you stack things, you gossip about that slut over in women's fashions, and so on. But as someone manning a cash register, do I have a magical ability to move more product per second over the beeper and handle a credit card transaction faster than the person next to me? Not really, no. After initial training, these tasks become very generic, with little variation between employee (unless one is really really hungover and forgets how to operate the damned machine, which never happened to me, and I deny all). Seven years experience of manning a cash register does not confer super powers of keypunching. But the way they phrase it seems to expect otherwise. I have to wonder if any of these corporate monkeys have ever spent time in the trenches, in between getting their community college MBAs.

Let's also quantify the numbers, because Wal-Mart was kind enough to do this within the memo with handy impressive charts and graphs. You know it's good scientific data, because it has charts and graphs. They lose points for it not being in color, though. So, what is this princely sum the seven year veteran is earning, that is pinching poor Wal-Mart's purse-strings? $14.03, with $5.49 of taxes and benefits. To put this in some kind of perspective, the Associate with one year’s experience is, by this chart, earning $9.06. So basically, it takes them six years to get that extra five bucks. Wal-Mart refers to this as ‘pricing an Associate out of the labor market’ and thus making it more likely they’ll -stay with- Wal-Mart - the last thing they want, if you’re one of these unhealthy types who actually uses his or her medical insurance.

Broadly, this memo is a revealing look at how the private sector is dealing with the question of benefits and employee satisfaction. I don’t personally believe Wal-Mart is more evil than any other company*; I will just refer to my commentary on companies in a prior article on disaster relief. Companies want to MAKE MONEY. They do not want to pay you more than they have to. They want to MAKE MONEY. They do not want to give you more benefits than the market - or the government - requires. They want to MAKE MONEY. They do not want to give you paid time off. They want to… are you getting the picture, here?

This memo is going to have greater relevance as the year progresses. The steps taken by Wal-Mart - individual health accounts, higher costs for spousal coverage, and manipulation of employee duties to exclude the less healthy - will be scrutinized by competitors. As the 900 pound gorilla in the market, what Wal-Mart does will have a cascading effect throughout the industry. Most tellingly, the memo recommends that Wal-Mart become engaged in - and reframe- the national debate on healthcare, in terms that are more advantageous to the company.

Will these terms be more or less advantageous to the guy or girl wearing the blue vest behind the counter?

I’ll give you three guesses.

* Okay, okay. I do believe they’re more evil. But only because they’re bigger. I don’t for a second think that K-Mart or Sears, in their position would be any less evil.

Posted by union_jack at 10:36 PM | Comments (1)

Money, it's a Gas

Strange as it may seem, when discussing politics and its ilk, I'm far happier when I'm wrong in my suspicions about the evil motives of various political parties and people. This is because usually I'm the one fortelling doom, gloom, and other things ending in 'oom'. When I'm wrong, this usually means one of them has surprised us with noble deeds that lift up all humankind in an example of what we can aspire to. Sadly, this week didn't have many of those stories. What it did have though, was a few news articles doing a wonderful job of displaying the current priorities of the Republican party. Let's take a look...

First on the list is predictable, but interesting nonetheless. The Washington Post went into some more details of the planned spending cuts in the wake of the hurricanes, in order to pay for disaster relief. Spending cuts have become a prominent refrain of a wing of the GOP of late. The current presidential urge to tax-cut-and-spend is clearing weighing on the rank and file membership. I don't think anyone would dispute the basic notion that the Government should try not to spend more than it is taking in tax revenues, in any given year (I say try, because years, and needs, are fickle. When the average person is carrying several thousand dollars worth of credit card debt because of unforseen expenses, I find it difficult to hold government to a higher standard of clairvoyance). Say what you like about 'tax-and-spend' liberalism though; at least it recognizes that things must be paid for.

There is a curious disconnect in some people's minds on the question of taxation as it pertains to provision of services. It doesn't matter to the GOP if taxes provide services to the poor; the point is taxes are -bad- (the more income you make and the better able you are to pay them, the worse they are). Taxes do no good and should be avoided wherever possible. Perhaps it's because an average Republican could never see themselves on Medicaid or Medicare; after all, such services are for the losers in society who don't work hard enough, right? All they need is a work ethic, like decent upstanding people!

Taxes, taxes, taxes. Surely the one thing the Republican party -would- be in favor of is at least getting the most bang for the tax laws on the books? Closing down loopholes, going after tax cheats, and enforcing law? After all, they are the traditional party of law and order, are they not? And since tax-dodgers end up increasing everyone else's tax burden by their non-payment, shouldn't they be the first in the firing line?

You might think so, but you'd be wrong, if you were in California, where Arnold has been vetoing bills put forward by the state Representatives that give more power to state tax investigators. These investigators had been working overtime to chase down businesses that were not collecting sales tax, or not paying income tax, to the tune of recovering over four billion dollars in the last fiscal year. This money went straight back into state coffers, helping to avoid cuts in some heath and social services programs. I don't know about you, but this sounds like a perfect exercise. Enforce the existing laws, so there's no tax increase; and yet, tax revenues go up! Win win, right? Wrong. The State GOP and Arnold contend that these measures are anti-business. I suppose they are anti-business, if your business is tax avoidance. But from the point of view of a taxpayer, they sound just dandy to me.

Perhaps it is logic like this that has lead to yet another great law coming out of Florida (I swear, I have less reason to go back to that State by the day. Hurricanes, old people, alligators, and now this). Florida, like most states, is struggling under rising healthcare costs. Healthcare has gone up by double-digit margins over the past ten years, almost every year; far outpacing the rate of inflation - or tax revenues. Clearly this widening gulf is a critical problem for states that have a legal duty to provide Medicaid coverage. The approach Florida is taking? Hand the entire operation over to private insurance companies. I don't know if I'm the only person in this country that regards medical insurance companies as the most raw example of brutality masquerading as capitalism, but let's let that pass for a moment.

This law not only has the state giving money into private insurance plans; it's allowing those insurance companies to dictate what is and is not covered under those plans, rather than the state being the judge. This is a fundamental retreat from the concept of medicaid. Look ahead five years, and you'll see drastically cut medicaid entitlement and services, all for the same price taxpayers are paying now, with no accountability. Where will the surplus go? Profits! But look on the bright side. No more than five percent of medicaid recipients are estimated to be at risk of exhausting their state-paid coverage, per year. Or to put it another way, the most chronically ill five percent of medicaid recipients in the state will also be handed bills demanding payment for treatment the state is not covering. The first instinct of the GOP is not to raise taxes, or enact market-controlling legislation to cap prices, or (heaven forbid!) to assemble a plan for a universal coverage system; the first step is to abdicate governmental role altogether and provide already price-gouging private industry with a new cash cow.

When I relate stories like these, sometimes friends point out that this is why it's not worth caring; the game is rigged, and businesses fund the lobbyists who fund the backroom deals that make Washington go around. All this is true. Yes, business knows who its friend in government is. But there is one thing to remember - even the CEO of a multinational company only gets one vote. Same as you. The power is always there to change things.

Posted by union_jack at 11:28 PM | Comments (2)

Left, Right, Left, Right...

The Katrina rebuilding process is raising some fundamental questions about the country's spending priorities, taxation and the role of government when it comes to disaster relief and response. It's still shaking out, and I don't think anyone yet knows what the final consensus will be - if there will be a consensus at all. The commentary seems to span the spectrum from 'Washington should take the lead' to 'Why should people in Arkansas pay for Louisiana's problem?' (The latter being an actual quote from a resident of that fine State).

As interesting as all this is, I think the most surprising outcome of the disasters in the Gulf coast is the emergence of clear differences between the Republican and Democratic approaches to the problem. I know, right? DIFFERENCES between them? Like, wow. I always knew, deep down, the differences were there; but it's knowledge in the same way that I knew that Jessica Alba would look great in a cowboy stripper outfit. It's one thing to know it, but it's another to see it right in front of you (if you haven't seen Sin City, I recommend it).

Getting back to the question of government role, it is interesting to me to see both sides of the divide arguing fervently for what they perceive is the best approach. Given the same facts at hand, they are coming to radically different conclusions about what should be done. This, I think, drives to the heart of what is different about the two parties; in fact, what is different between the right and the left in general (whether it be in America, or the Conservative and Labour parties back in the UK, for example).

It's not social issues like the abortion argument, the gay right argument, evolution, public prayer in schools, stem cell research, and things of that ilk, even though they're hot button issues that drive a wedge between people. They're called wedge issues for a reason! A perfect example of using such issues as a wedge was reported at One World today. You can see the full article here, but I feel urged to quote one passage directly.

David Kuo, former Deputy Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, testified before the House government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources last June, stating: "[M]any members of the president's own party expressed equal parts apathy and antipathy towards this agenda. Money for the poor? Why, it will just get wasted, they said. We just need to cut the funds and let the private sector take over. We don't need more funds, all we really need to do is make sure that we have a huge political fight over religious charities' right to hire and fire based on their own faith. That way, as I have heard time and time again, Republicans will be seen as fighting for religions and Democrats will be seen as fighting against it."

Divide and conquer; a time honored tactic (used by we British to great effect in Colonial times) repackaged for the modern world. Don’t be fooled. These issues are not defining of party affiliation or fundamental philosophy - you can see proponents and detractors of each issue in both parties. For example, there are pro-life Democrats, just as there are pro-choice Republicans.

So if it’s not wedge issues that define the right and left, what does? Ultimately, the difference seems to come down to how you view the concept of wealth; its acquisition, its distribution, and its taxation. These concepts are pretty deep, and I don't intend to get too sidetracked or we'll be here all day. To summarize as it relates to dealing with Katrina, I describe the differences as follows.

If you are on the right of the political spectrum, you are most likely to view wealth as the personal province of the person who aquired it; taxation is a burden and a pressure on free enterprise. Those with wealth either earned it, or benefit from it by the hard work of their parents or forebears. As such, it represents the fruits of labor that can now be justly enjoyed. With such a view, it becomes evident that the recovery efforts from the hurricanes should be spurred by lowered taxation and regulation to allow businesses to recover and restart the engines of growth.

On the left, you may view wealth as being achieved with the aid of government, its provision of vital services and protections which provide the environment in which personal wealth creation can prosper. As a result, taxation is a responsibility citizens have to provide government with the funding it requires to continue these programs. Since taxation funds vital social services and aid programs, taxation should be maintained or increased to fund recovery efforts and provide guarantees and stability to help businesses and individuals return.

With these contrasts in mind it becomes easier to see why the Republican party is now proposing cuts in Medicaid and other entitlement programs, along with reduced wage regulation in the gulf coast area, in order to - as they see it- speed the recovery (as opposed to, say, milking every possible dollar from the taxpayer). The true historic Republican is a fiscal conservative, first and foremost, and it is this wing of the Republican party which is rising up to protest Bush’s tax-cut-and-spend strategy. The Democratic party - along with some more moderate Republicans - is protesting the moves to cut programs, and recommending the repeal of current tax cuts in order to boost government coffers to pay for reconstruction.

Personally I think the concept of private enterprise 'driving recovery' is missing a few fundamentals of human nature. Even before the first rain fell in New Orleans, people were lining up to scam relief efforts. Companies and private individuals, wanting to make money fast and quick, avoid as many regulations as possible to lock in favorable contracts with government agencies to provide rebuilding services at a healthy mark up, and drive wages as low as humanly possible to maximize profit. This is not to say all companies are bad. Private enterprise can indeed have altruistic noble goals. It's just not very common. Businesses are in business to make money. Even a good honorable ethical business is in business to make money. This is what they do! There's nothing wrong with this goal, but it is important to understand that when you start confusing businesses with humanitarian organizations that things go downhill. Job #1 of a business is not 'do no harm' or 'protect the wild african tree stoat' or 'serve our customers' or 'value our employees'. Job #1 is MAKE MONEY. Just keep that in mind when people start yammering about private enterprise being better suited to provide aid and reconstruction.

I do not understand the notion that continuing the tax breaks for the highest earners in this country spurs recovery, and yet restricting entitlement to tax dollars for affected families by slashing Medicaid and not providing extended unemployment insurance will not hinder recovery. Much talk is made of ‘shared burdens’ and ‘shared responsibility’, and yet, the more money you have, it seems the less of the burden you are expected to share. This is the ultimate goal of the fiscal conservative.

In closing, if you're thinking 'Why should my taxes go up to pay for Katrina?' - you're on the right wing. If you're thinking 'we should all come together and share the load to get the Gulf Coast back on its feet' - you may be more left wing than you realise.

In the end, it's just about where the money goes.

Posted by union_jack at 09:26 PM | Comments (1)

Dude, where's my Bork?

So, Harriet Miers is George's next pick. Harriet who? If you're like me, you never heard of her before the announcement was made. The White House counsel is an important figure in any Administration, but not really the most publicly known, unless the President is being impeached or looking for torture justifications (or maybe just needs a DUI or coke charge to go away). So who is Harriet, anyway?

The far right wing - that is to say, the staunchly conservative liberals-are-the-devil wing - seems to dislike Harriet a great deal. This is puzzling at first glance. She has been the President's personal counsel for close to ten years. She's renowned for her loyalty. George says he trusts her heart! Her heart, man! Surely this should be enough? Perhaps it would have been, four years ago - but now, with that new President smell thoroughly gone, they seem to be losing a little patience. On the face of it they don't have a lot to worry about; they control the House, the Senate and have unparalleled lobbyist access to the levers of power. So why is this such a big deal to them?

It’s the little matter of balance on the Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor, the outgoing Justice, is a pretty moderate Republican. By the standards of today's conservative movement that puts her slightly above pond slime. John Roberts as a replacement for William Rehnquist was like for like - Center-right conservative for Center-right conservative. Sandra's vacancy on the other hand, is their golden opportunity to firmly shift the court to a point that might overturn a number of laws - the big one, Roe vs. Wade, among them - and control the philosophy of interpreting the Constitution for the next two decades. Miers is just not a sure enough thing for this chance. Not to them. That's kind of scary when you think about it; a conservative church-going so-far-up-Bush's-bum-she-could-floss-him Texas all-American lawyer gal -just isn't conservative enough-. See, they wanted a fight. A knock down, drag out, winner-take-all fight. They didn’t get Bork, and they’re still pissed about it.

We now get to see the Republican luminaries demanding a thorough investigation of Miers' credentials. Far from wanting a brief 'consultation' and then an 'up or down vote' as they requested for the likes of Bork, Thomas and Brown, suddenly, now they want to question, delay, and perhaps even block their President's nominee! Why now? Well, the schisms in the Republican Party have been a few years coming and are finally boiling over. At bottom, Bush is not a conservative in the mold of the Religious Right; though he owes his election to getting out the vote among this demographic, and he's born again, he's not as fundamentalist as some. Bush has always been his own man, which is something the Democrats took far too long to understand. Bush will gladly do what he thinks is right, despite polls and opinions (and good sense and logic and reason). He's made recess appointments for Ambassadors and Judges, infuriating Democrats and delighting Republicans - who are now on the receiving end of the President's self assured 'I knows best' attitude. Kind of funny.

To read some of the analysis, Democrats are whispering among themselves that Bush finally blinked. Battered by Katrina and Iraq, with mid-term elections next year, they say he was in no mood to face a potentially bruising confirmation fight. The Democrats - who engaged in brinkmanship earlier in the year with the Republican majority to avert the 'nuclear option' of removing filibustering - could have blocked a Supreme Court nominee for months, leaving Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench perhaps through next year. And every day a confirmation fight goes on is a day the White House can't concentrate on other things, like coming up with a new reason for a 'temporary upsurge' of violence in Iraq, or keeping Karl Rove out of Federal Prosecutor's crosshairs.

These are all reasonable and logical sounding reasons, but I think they're complete bullshit. Firstly, Bush can't run again. So next year's mid-terms, while high on the agenda for the House and Senate, don't really factor for a man worried about his long term legacy. As for blinking away from a fight, Bush hasn't started listening to the Democrats - far from it. Whatever the reasons for appointing Miers, it's certainly not to appease Ted Kennedy. So if it's not to shy away from the Big Bad Liberals, then why? Some clues are finally emerging in the form of letters, thank-you notes, and other on the record dialog between dear Harriet and her beloved Georgie. 'You’re cool!' 'Best governor ever!' 'You’re brilliant!' Consider these words, then Bush's assurances that he knows what's in her heart, and that she won't change. Oh, good! Wait, what?

Anyone who considers Bush 'brilliant' is drinking just a leeeetle too much of 'I heart my leader' flavor kool-aid (without even getting into the concept of finding Bush brilliant at all). Blind unquestioning lovable loyalty to your boss is a good trait, I guess (if you're the kind of boss who doesn't like having to justify decisions, being questioned, or, you know, see signs of independent thought in your minions). But Harriet's not applying to be personal secretary. This is a Supreme Court Justice position. If she's going to show blind unthinking devotion to anything, shouldn't it be, like, the Constitution instead of another branch of the Government? What's going to happen if the Supreme Court deals with some legislation or actions taken by the Bush White house - say, Guantanamo torture allegations, something juicy like that - and we have Harriet sitting in justice on actions taken by her Beloved Fearless Leader (with her having advised him of the legalities at the time of the decision). Can we trust her to be objective?

Can pigs fly biplanes? *

Bush has essentially appointed a personal ally (of the most obsequious type) to the Supreme Court. This is not without precedent, but it –is- interesting given the current controversies over crony appointments made without regard for an individual’s qualifications. Bush rates unquestioning personal loyalty far over actual ability and this nomination proves it. I have to say though, conservative pundits complaining about -cronyism- in the Bush White House is about the funniest thing I’ve seen this month.

So what should the Democrats do here? So far they seem to be supporting Miers. This can’t be because they think she’s qualified or suitable – can it? I hope not. Perhaps with a Machiavellian touch, they are subtly endorsing her with the aim of infuriating the Right and stoking this burning resentment into something that can do real damage. Possibly. I wish I could give them that much credit. It’s my suspicion they don’t want to risk the likes of a Janice Brown being appointed instead. While they could filibuster, the Republicans would surely push through the laws overturning this option for any future appointments. So what we might end up with is Democrats supporting her for the wrong reasons and Republicans opposing her for the wrong reasons, too. Surreal.

Regardless, I think Bush has misstepped. He’s infuriated his most fervent base, and cannot now easily appease them without withdrawing the nomination. This may well lead to fissures the Democrats can attempt to exploit next year (or would, if the Democrats had a party political machine of more capability than a retarded armadillo). Unfortunately for him, withdrawing the nomination would admit error, and Bush is more likely to admit to a hot three-way with Michael Moore and Ann Coulter than willingly admit he screwed up. Alternatively, Miers might go into confirmation and lose; a slap in the face for Bush who will then have to find someone more palatable to the conservative ranks, which may, in turn, spark the apocalyptic filibuster-inducing fight we nearly had earlier in the year.

It would be a lot funnier if the stakes weren’t so high, really.

* The answer is of course, no. With the exception of The Red Porker, famous World War One flying ace.

Posted by union_jack at 06:36 PM | Comments (0)

What? No ribs!? I -like- ribs..

Almost buried among George's Evil Empire speech (is it me or is the rhetoric level reaching danger levels? What next, Darth Osama?), the Supreme Court discussing assisted suicide and Lindsay Lohan's latest car crash (Lindsay, just hire a driver already, darlin') a little nugget leapt out at me from the pages of the Times. While the fact isn't news to me, it's the source of the news that is in fact newsworthy news of newsishness. The Holy Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document that says, not to put too fine a point on it, that, some parts of the Bible, might, in fact, be slightly... not true.

Hold the phone.

If you think about it, this is on a par with Pat Robertson saying that 'gays ain't all bad, y'all' *. It's obvious and true, but the fact it's coming from that source is groundbreaking. This is particularly interesting to me since the Evolution vs. Creationism fight is working its way up to another court squabble in Pennsylvania. In the fullness of time I expect to see this fight hit the Supreme Court once more. I bet they can't wait. Just think. Maybe THIS time they'll decide the First Amendment was only kidding.

Naturally, one of the fundamentals of the Creationism viewpoint is that the Bible isn't wrong when it comes to matters of.. well, creation. I don't intend to get into a scholarly debate on why the Bible may or may not be divinely inspired. I will say in my opinion, to believe a document has passed through forty generations of human fallibility with its meanings unscarred and unchanged is a bigger act of faith than to believe in a Creator. I can believe in a Supreme Entity. Believing in mankind's ability to not be prejudiced, biased, unthinking - or just plain wrong - is a little harder for me.

The New York Times ran an interesting piece on groups of tourists in the Grand Canyon that viewed it with Creation goggles or Evolution goggles on. It makes good reading for the quotes of some of the people involved. It's a shame to me that there isn't common ground on this issue, as I've said previously. Unfortunately, I think it's because Evolutionary Theory is one of those scientific theories that comes right out and says a piece of the Bible is flat out wrong. Round earth, we can handle (Well, now. Back in the day, Galileo had a bit of trouble). Quantum theory? Noone understands that, so sure, whatever, wormholes. Knock yourselves out. Cracking the atom? No commandment against that, go right on. But Evolutionary theory comes right out there and says 'Yeah, Genesis? The rib thing? Six days? It's all bullshit, dude. Sorry. Hate to be the one to break it to ya. Come on, who can make a UNIVERSE in six days? That's not even enough time for Fox to cancel The War At Home. So, who wants to see a platypus?'

Just kidding. But seriously, that show sucks.

Anyway. The release of this teaching document (which you could order here if you're inclined) doesn't seem to have made much of a ripple in the British Press. I'm wondering if it will have a bigger impact on these shores, since a fundamentalist approach to Biblical interpretation is more common here - and much more vigorously defended. Since the document is coming from British Catholics and not straight from the Vatican, perhaps that will blunt the response. More likely it will go largely unnoticed, but I admit to some hope that it will arouse fierce debate among the various strands of Christianity in this country. I kind of feel safer when they're arguing among themselves for some reason.

* He hasn't said that yet, that I know of. Maybe he has. Either way, it wouldn't hurt if he said it more.

Posted by union_jack at 09:46 PM | Comments (1)

I'm Going To Disneyland! (Armed).

I knew guns would be a topic I'd return to every so often. My very first post here was on guns, as a matter of fact. In that post, I spoke about the NRA's objection to business owners prohibiting guns at the workplace. Florida is now taking up that issue. I wouldn't think this worthy of comment (The NRA pushing for easier gun access in more States? What next, Christian Conservatives being against gay marriage? Who'da thunk?), except that Florida has already gone one better with the new 'Stand Your Ground' law that came into force this past weekend.

I took the time to actually dig up the text of this new law (the internet is a handy thing). You can read it for yourself here in its entirety. When I first heard about the law - at least, the breathless summary in news articles - I wasn't sure if it was good or bad. On the bad side, it sounds like you can shoot to kill with minimum provocation. But then, on the good side, it sounds like you can shoot to kill with minimum provocation. This is one of those laws that is great when applied to -me- - because I'm not insane - but I wouldn't trust many people I meet to tie their shoelaces, much less apply deadly force judiciously.

But let's review the law on its merits. The premise of it seems to be neatly summed up almost at the outset with the preamble to the actual law text. The key phrasing is 'Whereas, no person or victim of crime should be required to surrender his or her personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person or victim be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack'. I don't really have a problem with the first part - although I don't think it ever was a law in Florida or anywhere that you were 'required' to surrender anything to a punk - it's the second half that's the good bit. The 'retreat clause' is one fairly common in most State lawbooks. In essence, it requires the person being attacked to make every possible effort to disengage from the situation, using the minimum force needed.

Clearly, this has rankled some in the Florida legislature, with suitable prodding from the NRA, of course. I think it strikes to the heart of the law. Damnit, why should I have to run like some sort of weasel Frenchie? If someone steps up to me, I'm going to step back and cock my glock! Noone pushes ME around! Very emotive, very macho, and also pretty full of bullshit. When was the last time you heard about a homeowner prosecuted for shooting a home invader? For that matter, do you really think if a woman being carjacked unloaded a clip into the prospective hijacker, the local police department would do much beyond give her a hearty handshake? The retreat clause isn't there to make you turn your back and run in the face of imminent threat to life. It's there to give you the requirement to de-escalate a situation wherever possible. I guess that's just too pussy.

Now, into the meat of the law and we get to the sections that really do concern me. I hope burglars aren't reading it, because the first clause steps right off the deep end. Essentially, it presupposes 'fear of imminent peril or death' if deadly force is used against someone entering a residence or vehicle. Emotively I agree with the sentiment. Logically though, what it's saying is if you're going after that VCR, understand that the homeowner now has carte blanche to open fire on you. You don't have to be carrying a weapon, moving toward them, or even in the same room. You just have to be one step in their property, and that constitutes 'fear of imminent peril or death'. Now, this might deter people from burglarizing houses. Or it might ensure that they go armed and ready to commit murder rather than lift a TV.

This presupposition isn't just window dressing. It's a real fundamental change in how the 'castle doctrine' is applied (the 'castle doctrine' is that whole 'A man's home is his castle and he has the right to defend himself within his home' thing). This law grants immunity from civil and criminal prosecutions in such cases, and assumes on behalf of the home defender. The burden of proof is on the (presumably dead) burglar. Good riddance, you might say, but consider this; if you're going through a breakup with your boyfriend, better not go to his apartment alone. He could gun you down, fake the forced entry, and get off scot free. How about an argument at a party? Hey, shoot the other guy dead. You had the right to be at the party, and he refused to leave. That put you in fear. No need to establish imminent threat - the fact they were physically there constitutes imminent threat. Handy!

The real irony in this entire law is it's purported to remove the requirement to 'flee in the face of danger'. Eh? Come again? People were not required to retreat if they were already in their home or car! However, they did have to be able to prove they were in fear of their lives; frankly not that hard a sell to a jury. What the law has done is give the homeowner a cast iron ability to shoot first, immune from prosecution. That's the bit that concerns me. Presupposing threat based on the physical location of individuals flies in the face of evidence gathering, investigation and the notion of a fair trial. Is it right to be able to shoot someone who has an arm full of your CDs? I guess maybe if it's a signed Led Zepplin box set, but still. Overkill, anyone?

Moving to the streets, the 'stand your ground' clause becomes even more of a no sale to me. I don't really want to see two drunk guys outside a bar arguing, drawing guns, and firing upon each other, because each believed the other was an 'imminent threat'. Sure, that may have happened already, but with all the hoopla around this law, I think it's more likely to happen and not less; people listen to the soundbites, they don't go and read the law text (unless they're a freak like me). All the average guy is going to hear is 'I don't gotta back down for noone now, haw' and you can watch the bullets fly.

Naturally there's a lot of pro and anti feeling on the law already - I was amused to see one Fox News show list '98 percent of responders support the law' - but there's also some more thoughtful commentary on it. Law Professor Anthony Sebok wrote a pretty good piece on the law from a sober legal perspective and highlighted some of the problems with the law in his eyes. In my opinion, the only thing this law does is act as a nice vehicle for politicians to say they're 'tough on crime' - with the usual threat of being labelled a pro-rapist pro-murdering anti-american scumbag by the NRA for any legislator foolish enough to vote against it.

I'm not a proponent of the death penalty to begin with, so this law doesn't sit well with me. The right to defend yourself is a natural one. The permission to take a life with no repercussion is a whole new level. If you're going to Florida over the winter break, remember, kids. Keep your hands where they can see 'em, and be very very polite to the asshole who cuts you off on the Orlando turnpike.

Posted by union_jack at 10:11 PM | Comments (2)