Rick Perry vetoes a bill that passed 145-0

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

Imagine this. In today’s political world, where people side with issues because they happen to conform with political affiliation, we can actually still achieve a rare bipartisan agreement on an issue… even Texas!

At the very end of May, the Texas Senate and House passed a bill called, “Buy American.” Paraphrasing, this bill stated that should a foreign good and an American good be of equal quality and of equal cost, preferential treatment would be given to the American good. It is an expansion of a law that already is in place, but in this instance, focuses on manufactured goods.

The reason? Because many Texas factories have been closing as of late due to outsourced manufacturing goods, effectively saving the state and its citizens some money but also increasing unemployment. The bill would keep money in Texas while simultaneously creating jobs.

Rick Perry, the Republican presidential candidate, happened to be one of the most boisterous when it came to the creating jobs speech. He also happens to be the governor of Texas.

This bill was passed in the Texas Senate with a vote of 23-7 and in the House with a vote of 145-0, a 97 percent legislature approval.

Gov. Rick Perry vetoed it.

You can defend Rick Perry and his intentions all you want, but it is hard to argue against a bill vetoed with 97 percent approval. This wasn’t even remotely what I consider partisan.

Can you imagine if this man was elected president? We both know he wasn’t the chosen republican candidate to run against President Obama. How has he even maintained 12 years in the Governor’s office? Gov. Rick Perry set a record number of 82 vetoes in a single session, nine fewer than President Bush did in three sessions.

Normally, you might think the end of the Buy American bill hasn’t quite happened. There is an opportunity for the House and Senate of Texas to override the veto. The veto override vote will likely take place sometime around the time of this publication and requires a two-thirds majority from both chambers. While two-thirds should easily be reached, historically only about 10 percent of vetoes get overridden due to both scheduling and a short amount of time allotted for override.

Except, contrary to what you might have heard on national networks, this won’t be possible. Texas and Montana are the only two states that only meet in the few months after an election and then never reconvene during the two year term. The Buy American bill was introduced to the governor weeks before May 27th, the day of the end of the regular session, but sat on the bill until May 25th (Memorial Day weekend). So if vetoed, the chambers could not override the veto.

How’s that for a system of checks-and-balances?

Snell: Waking the dragon — How Feinstein fiddled while America burned

Friend of mine, Barry Snell, wrote this final column for the Iowa State Daily. It has so far reached national attention, and is worth a read. 

By Barry Snell, barry.snell@iowastatedaily.com

Along with bombs and bombers, guns seem to be all the media wants to talk about these days. Death is sexy to our miscreant media, especially when people are killed on purpose. And when that happens, it’s all the newspapers and news stations will print and broadcast, in turn making these events appear worse than they are in reality.

To understand this, one need only look at the difference in coverage between the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, which killed at least 14 confirmed people and injured 200 more at the time of writing this, versus the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, which only killed three and injured a hundred others. Texas was on TV for a day, tops, while we’re still hearing about Boston and will for many weeks to come.

Where the media really didn’t care too much about the Texas incident, once a kid was killed at a race, the Boston bombing is now a foil for everything from gun control to immigration in the wake of Sandy Hook, with both sides of the political spectrum using it against the other. What about Texas, you ask? Nothing but crickets chirping from the mainstream media at the moment. Recent studies have shown that people who consume large amounts of mass media often feel more insecure, are less informed, or can’t distinguish between news and what passes as news, what with all the opinion you’ll find in news today.

But when it comes to something as deadly serious as guns and crime, Americans can’t afford the media hyperbole, misinformation and disinformation.

We have a lot of liberal columnists working for the Daily. As a conservative, I’m fine with that; they’re the ones who apply for the job, and conservatives usually don’t. Free market, baby, deal with it. But many of our liberal columnists are my friends, with whom I have spent time outside of work, too. And they, along with everyone else it seems, have an opinion about guns, as you can see by glancing through the last few weeks of the Daily’s Opinion section.

It’s been an eye-opening experience for me. As assistant opinion editor and friend, my columnists are important to me both professionally and personally. It’s all the more clear to me now after doing this job that people often opine a whole lot about stuff they don’t have any personal experience with or expertise on. Like guns.

Every time a gun issue comes up in conversation around Daily people or during a Daily editorial board meeting, opinion editor Michael Belding almost always tells me, “you should write a column about that!” I hesitate in doing so and have so far resisted the urge mostly; I wrote three gun-related columns back in 2011 and early 2012, and that was enough to brand me the “gun guy” by some folks who use such terms as epithets.

The desire of others for me to write gun columns is reasonable, though, and I understand it. I’m as much of a “gun expert” as you’re likely to find around here, so having me write about guns in the paper is perfectly rational. I won’t bore you with my “gun resume,” but suffice it to say that prior to coming to Iowa State in 2011, I made a living with firearms in one way or another for several years of my life, and have a few pieces of paper laying around that say I know a bit about them, too.

Today, however, I’m going to break my silence on the gun issue and speak out once more — and for the last time. This is my final column for the Iowa State Daily.

No experience necessary

In the gun debate, I’ve discovered that one cannot be expert enough about guns. Indeed, when it comes to the gun issue, opinion rules. There doesn’t seem to be any opportunity for any genuine, honest debate on guns, and even liberals would agree with that. I’ve often wondered about this over the years. Is it because my side of the debate is actually loony? I don’t think so; at least, I think I’m pretty normal. Sure, we’ve got some oddballs we all wish would go away, just like any group does.

But all the pro-gun people I know are normal people too — people so normal that nobody knows they’re gun people until they’re told. In fact, there are so many gun owners that if we are all crazy like some suggest, the daily crime rate in America would look more like our crime rate for the entire decade combined, and CNN would actually have something to report on other than the latest gossip.

That is to say, there’s a hundred million of us, owning a few hundred million guns combined, and we contribute to society peacefully every day. Many of us even literally protect society for a living, or used to.

I’ve come to realize after the Sandy Hook shooting that the reason we can’t have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we’re the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can’t get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being.

You might think that’s hyperbole too, but I’ve experienced it personally from people I considered friends until recently. And every day I see it on TV or in the newspapers, from Piers Morgan to the Des Moines Register’s own Donald Kaul, who among others have actually said people like me are stupid, crazy or should be killed ourselves. YouTube is full of examples, and any Google search will result in example after example of gun-owning Americans being lampoonedridiculed anddemonized by the media and citizens somewhere.

Hell, it’s even gotten so bad that a little kid was expelled from school recently for biting a Pop Tart into the vague shape of a handgun during lunch break (it looked more like Idaho to me).

Liberals always make the common plea, “We need to get some experts to solve this problem!” for any public policy issue that comes along, which is a good thing. But when it comes to the gun issue, gun expertise is completely irrelevant to the anti-gunner — people who probably have never fired a gun or even touched one in real life, and whose only experience with guns is what they’ve seen in movies or read about in bastions of (un)balanced, hyper-liberal journalism, like Mother Jones. That a pro-gun person might actually know a lot about their hobby or profession doesn’t stand up against the histrionic cries of the anti-gunner.

How can we “gun people” honestly be expected to come to the table with anti-gunners when anti-gunners are willfully stupid about guns, and openly hate, despise and ridicule those of us who own them? There must first be respect and trust — even just a little — before there can be even the beginnings of legitimate discussion of the issue.

Death by a thousand cuts

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners always talk about 90 percent of Americans supporting this gun control measure, or 65 percent supporting that one, as if a majority opinion is what truly matters in America. We don’t trust anti-gun people because you think America is a democracy, when it’s actually a constitutional federal republic. In the American system, the rights of a single individual are what matters and are what our system is designed to protect. The emotional mob does not rule in America.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they keep saying they “respect the Second Amendment” and go on about how they respect the hunting traditions of America. We don’t trust you because you have to be a complete idiot to think the Second Amendment is about hunting. I wish people weren’t so stupid that I have to say this: The Second Amendment is about checking government tyranny. Period. End of story. The founders probably couldn’t have cared less about hunting since, you know, they just got done with that little tiff with England called the Revolutionary War right before they wrote that “little book” called the Constitution.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they lie to us. President Obama directly says he won’t tamper with guns or the Second Amendment, then turns around and pushes Congress to do just that. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they appoint one of the most lying and rabidly (and moronically) anti-gun people in America, Vice President Biden, to head up a “task force” to “solve” the so-called “gun problem,” who in turn talks with anti-gun special interest groups instead of us to complete his task.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they tell us they don’t want to ban guns, only enact what they call “common sense gun laws.” But like a magician using misdirection, they tell everyone else they want to ban every gun everywhere. While some are busy trying to placate us with lies, another anti-gunner somewhere submits a gun ban proposal — proposals that often would automatically make us felons for possession. Felons, for no good reason. And you anti-gunners can roll up your grandfather clauses and stuff them where the sun don’t shine. If it ain’t good enough for our grandchildren in 60 years, it ain’t good enough for us right now.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they make horrifying predictions about how there will be blood in the streets, gunfights on every street corner and America will become the Wild West again if citizens are allowed to carry concealed firearms. We don’t trust anti-gun people because we know that despite the millions of Americans who have carry permits, those who carry guns commit crimes at a much lower rate than people who don’t. We know because we know ourselves and we’re not criminals. We know because concealed carry is now legal nearly everywhere, and guess what? Violent crime continues to go down. What a shocker.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they say gun control is about crime control. Anti-gunners claim that ending crime and “saving children” is why they want to ban so-called “assault weapons.” Yet our very own government says that assault weapons are used in less than two percent of all gun crimes and Department of Justice studies say the last assault weapons ban had little or no effect on crime. Other studies suggest gun control may even make crime worse (one need only look to high crime rates in places where there’s a lot of gun control to see the possible connection).

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when it comes to their “We need gun control to save the children” argument, many of us can’t understand how an anti-gun liberal can simultaneously be in favor of abortion. Because you know, a ban on abortion would save a child every single time. I’m personally not rabidly against abortion, but the discongruence makes less sense still when the reason abortions are legal is to protect a woman’s individual rights. That’s great, but does the individual rights argument sound familiar? Anti-gunners think that for some bizarre reason, the founding fathers happened to stick a collective right smack dab at the top of a list of individual rights, though. Yeah, because that makes sense.

Truth, treason and the empire of lies

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they are purposely misleading to rile the emotions of the ignorant. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they say more than 30,000 people are killed each year by guns — a fact that is technically true, but the key piece of information withheld is that only a minor fraction of that number is murder; the majority is suicides and accidents. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know accidents and suicides don’t count in the crime rate, but they’re held against us as if they do.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because suicide is the only human-inflicted leading cause of death in America, and that violent crime has been on the decline for decades. We also know that 10 people die daily in drownings87 people die daily by poisoning, more than 20,000 adults die from falls each year, someone dies in a fire every 169 minutes, nearly 31,000 people are killed in car accidents annually and almost 2,000 are stabbed to death. People even kill each other with hammers. Yet fewer than 14,000 people are killed by guns of any kind each year.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because not only is the violent crime rate approaching historic lows, but mass shootings are on the decline too.  We don’t trust anti-gun people because they fail to recognize that mass shootings happen where guns are already banned — ridiculous “gun-free zones” which attract homicidal maniacs to perpetrate their mass shootings.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because school shootings have been happening forever, but despite them being on the decline, the media inflates the issue until the perception is that they’re a bigger problem than they really are. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they’re busy riling up the emotions of the ignorant, who in turn direct their ire upon us, demonizing us because we object to the overreaction and focus on the wrong things, like the mentally ill people committing the crimes.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they look down on us for defending the Second Amendment as vigorously as they defend the First Amendment — a fight we too would stand side-by-side with them on otherwise. We don’t trust anti-gunners because someone defending the First Amendment is considered a hero, but a someone defending the Second Amendment is figured down with murderers and other lowlifes. Where the First Amendment has its very own day andweek, both near-holy national celebrations beyond reproach, anti-gunners would use the First Amendment to ridicule any equivalent event for the Second Amendment, like they did for a recent local attempt at the University of Iowa.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gun people put us down with dismissals like “just another dumb redneck with a gun.” We are told all over the Internet that we deserve to be in prison for being awful, heartless people; baby-killers and supporters of domestic terrorism, even. We don’t trust anti-gun people because even our own president says people like me are “bitter” and “cling to our guns and religion.” One need only go to any online comments section of any recent gun article in any of the major newspapers to see all this for themselves.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they seek to punish us for crimes we didn’t commit. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know that the 100 million of us are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who love this country and our society as much as the next liberal. Yet when one previously convicted felon murders someone with a stolen gun five days after his release from prison, or things like the Newtown shooting happen, guns are blamed — and therefore lawful gun owners too, as there is guilt by association, apparently.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal — just like killing people with guns is illegal too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they’re fine with guns protecting the money in our banks, our politicians and our celebrities, but they’re against us using guns to protect ourselves, our families, or even our children in schools. Legislative trolls like Dianne Feinstein cry havoc about me protecting my life, while standing comfortably behind armed guards —and the .38 Special revolver she got a California carry permit for. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they tell us our lives aren’t important, or at least are less important than the life of some celebrity like Snooki, who can have all the armed guards her bank account can afford.

A dangerous servant and fearful master

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they completely ignore the fact that true conservatism is about, in part, the preservation of traditions and long-standing principles. We don’t trust anti-gunners because the American Revolution was kicked off by an attempt at gun control when the British marched to Concord to seize the colonists’ muskets and powder. Since the shot heard ‘round the world was fired on Lexington Green, the possession of a firearm has been the mark and symbol of a citizen, distinguishing them from a subject of a monarchy or tyrannical government. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they prefer the post-modern world where anything means anything, and they therefore don’t understand the power of or need for the preservation of traditions — or at least, ones of which they don’t personally approve.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because in a single breath they tell us that the Second Amendment is irrelevant today and should be repealed because semi-automatic weapons didn’t exist when the Bill of Rights was written, then turn around and say the First Amendment protectsradio, television, movies, video games, the Internetdomain namesFacebook and Twitter. Carrying liberal logic on the Second Amendment through to the First Amendment, it would only cover the town crier, and hand-operated printing presses producing only books and newspapers, and nothing else.  Even anything written with a No. 2 pencil or ballpoint pen would not be included. And those of you belonging to religions that formed after the 1790s? You’re screwed under liberal logic, too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because, while liberals seek to expand government regulation and services — things that may not be bad or ill-intended on their own — they simultaneously try to curtail the Second Amendment. We don’t trust anti-gun people for this reason because history shows us that every genocide and democide is preceded by expansion of government power and gun control. We don’t trust anti-gunners because here in America, gun control is rooted in slavery and racism, with some of America’s modern anti-gun laws being direct copies of former Nazi laws that banned gun possession for Jews, blacks, gays and other “undesirables.”

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners tell us that the police and military are the only people who should have guns (which is a joke in itself), and that we need to give up our own guns and trust the government. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know that hundreds of millions of people have been killed by their own governments in the last century, and not a single law seeking to ban the government from possessing guns has ever been submitted. Yet when but a few thousand people are killed by civilian criminals, tens of millions of American citizens like myself who did not commit any crimes at all are subjected to gun restrictions and personal persecution at the hands of emotional anti-gun bigots.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners insult us for our opposition to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka the “ATF”). We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know the ATF is hardly a law enforcement agency but is really a glorified tax collection agency that has abused, ruined the lives of, or murdered dozens of innocent gun owners through overzealous enforcement of gun-related tax and paperwork regulations. Just ask Louis Katona,Patty and Paul MuellerJohn Lawmaster, Tuscon Police Lt. Mike Lara or any of the dozens of other victims of criminal ATF agents. Where was the ACLU for all that? And it doesn’t help that President Obama tried to appoint known anti-gunner Andrew Traver to be the ATF director. Check out the ATF’s “Good Ol’ Boys Roundup,” “Project Gunrunner” scandal and their loss of department guns for a little F-Troop entertainment sometime, too.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they always bemoan the NRA, claiming the NRA is the source of all their anti-gun legislation problems. We don’t trust anti-gunners because it never occurs to them that perhaps it’s not the NRA per se that has the power, but the millions of members that belong to it, and the millions more Americans who otherwise support it and its mission. The NRA is probably the largest private organization in America; maybe that has something to do with its influence…? We also don’t trust anti-gunners because they’re too ignorant to understand that the NRA only represents a minority of us anyway.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because while they were crying about the victims of 9/11 or Aurora or Sandy Hook, and thanking God they weren’t there, I and many other gun people like me were crying because we weren’t there, and asked God why we couldn’t have been. Many of us wish we were on one of the 9/11 airplanes, and not because we have a death wish but because we have a life wish. Because when we sit in silence and the world’s distractions fall away, the thought creeps in: Could I have made a difference?

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because I and many of us are what they call “sheepdogs” and we’re proud of that. Yet anti-gunners make fun of us, calling us “cowboys” and “wannabes” for it. Wanting to save lives and being willing to sacrifice one’s own to do it used to be considered a virtue in this country. Anti-gunners think they have the moral outrage, but the moral outrage is ours. I have never expressed any of these feelings openly to anyone because they are private and deeply personal. Screw you for demeaning us and motivating me to speak them.

Do unto others

No, anti-gunners, we don’t trust you. And you’ve given us no reason to, either. We gun owners obey the law each and every day, same as you. We defend your nation, protect your communities, teach your children, take care of you when you’re sick, defend you when you go to court or prosecute those who do you wrong. We cook and serve your food, haul and deliver your goods, construct your homes, unclog your sewers, make your electricity, and build or fix your cars.

We are everywhere and all around you, and we exist with you peacefully. You are our friends, neighbors and countrymen, and we are these things proudly. We mourn with you when radicals crash airplanes into our buildings, when hurricanes destroy the lives of our people, or when the criminal and mentally ill kill dozens of our school children. We cheer with you when USA wins the gold medal, when terrorists like Bin Laden are brought to justice, or when we land a machine built by American hands on Mars.

So what more can we do to earn your trust, your love and your acceptance other than surrender our rights, bow down to you and take your non-stop attacks?

Anti-gunners label people like me “gun nuts” even though we’re anything but nutty. Our enjoyment of firearms doesn’t define us; it is but a single value and right we enjoy and cherish, among many other rights and values we enjoy and cherish — including the very same ones anti-gunners do too — like the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

No, anti-gunners are absolutely right: There can be no rational debate on this issue anymore. Anti-gunners don’t understand guns, they don’t understand crime, they don’t understand American history and traditions, they don’t understand gun owners and don’t care to understand us, and they reduce people like me to a debasing label or a number they’ve got no clue about.

Anti-gunners reject our passions, our traditions, our knowledge, our experiences, our beliefs, our wisdom, our rights. Anti-gunners reject our very individuality by reducing us to labels, stereotypes and false or distorted statistics. Screw you for destroying that individuality and denying our humanity.

I am proudly one of many: a caring, friendly, loyal and loving human being.  I am an educated and intelligent person, and while I may not be the best-looking guy, friends tell me I have a great personality (yay?). Perhaps more importantly though, I am a proud citizen of this country, and I’d perform any sacrifice for others so that they may not themselves have to sacrifice.

And unlike most anti-gunners, it seems, I have served my community and nation in various roles throughout the years — roles that, ironically, often entailed guns. Where I was once given a uniform and a gun, and trusted with it to ensure the safety and security of others, I am now a pariah among many of the very people I sacrificed for. I am sadly one of many here, too. What a terrible, hurtful insult and betrayal!

An anti-gunner reads a book though, or sees a documentary on TV — or perhaps worst of all, gets a degree — and suddenly they have the almighty authority and expertise to tell us how we ought to live our lives, replying to our objections to their onslaught by throwing pictures of dead kids in our faces and commanding us to shut up, because we’re just a bunch of stupid radicals and liberals alone know what’s best for America.

You anti-gunners out there will lead us down a path you do not want to go down. Your lack of care and understanding of those who abide by America’s oldest and deepest-rooted tradition will cause a social rift in this country of the likes we have never seen in America’s young history. Your lack of understanding chances causing a civil war — a civil war that will be far worse, more acrimonious, more prolonged and more deadly than the last one.

Anti-gunners may think the military could prevent such a thing — an argument often used against us pro-gunners — but with only a few million people in the military, and with the United States containing 300 million citizens spread across nearly four million square miles, many of whom are themselves veterans, well, military occupation of this country is impossible. It doesn’t help that most street cops (opposed to their politician bosses) are pro-gun, too. And what happens when the civilian industries that support the military stop producing the supplies our military needs?

The rift is already beginning. We must mend fences…Now.

Sleeping dragons and terrible resolve

I do not want to live through a war in my own backyard. I do not want our children to grow up in such an America, either. So anti-gunners: Please stop, I beg you. See the writing on the wall before it’s too late.

Yes, there is a terrible crime problem, and yes, that problem sometimes involves guns — but it is the perpetrator that is the problem, not the instrument. Yes, there is a great divide between liberals and conservatives on the issue of guns. And while I will be the very first person to criticize the Republican Party on its many and frequent mistakes, and even stand with my democratic friends in my disfavor of those things, on the gun issue it is not the conservatives who are mostly in the wrong this time.

We want the crime and killings to stop as much as you do, so to my fellow citizens who are anti-gun I say: So long as you deny our humanity, so long as you malign our dignity, intelligence and wisdom, so long as you seek to shade us under a cloud of evil that we do not partake in or support, so long as you tell us that because we own guns we are terrible people, you will prove yourselves absolutely right in that we won’t come to the table to talk with you.

And there will be no hope for resolution but through victory by force initiated by one side or the other, God help us, for we will not plow for those who didn’t beat their swords into plowshares.


http://barrysnell.com/

Marginalized Massacres: The story the media won’t sensationalize.

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

Sandy Hook, 20 children and seven adults murdered, plus injured. Virginia Tech, 32 students and faculty murdered and 23 injured. Aurora theater, 12 movie patrons murdered and 58 injured. Town Center Mall, two shoppers murdered, plus injured. Binghamton School, 14 murdered, plus injured. Fort Hood, 13 murdered and 30 injured. Boston bombing, four murdered and 298 injured. Between all of the aforementioned violent crimes, over 105 others were killed and over 64 injured due to other random killing sprees.

Jeff Bauman, who lost both his legs in the Boston bombing, being helped by both officials and bystanders.

Undoubtedly, violent crime is on the rise given this death spree toll is only five years running. And with everyone today holding a third eye in their pocket, streaming video, picture, and text at the speed of light, everyone in the world can be a witness and sit shoulder to shoulder with every news anchor in the world.

Au contraire, you might find it interesting that we are at an all time low in violent crime in over 40 years and a massive drop since the mid-1990s according to the FBI’s data collection.

In 1992, the United States incurred over 750 violent crimes per one hundred thousand people with a murder rate of 9.3 per one hundred thousand people. At the end of 2012, our nation had a violent crime rate of 377 per one hundred thousand people. In the last two decades, the rate has only increased between two consecutive years, 2005 and 2006. The murder rate of 2012 is down to 4.6, half that of two decades ago.

Wall Street Journal crime drop chart projected from 2009-2011, just two years.

Included with the decline of violent crime and murder, we have seen a decline in nearly every other category: rape, robbery, aggravated assault, property crime, burglary, larceny, and motor theft. These drops weren’t marginal either. The drop ranges from 30 percent in the case of burglary, to nearly 65 percent in the case of motor theft in the last two decades.

Impossible for me to marginalize crime statistics as significant as these, it may appear like I am attempting to marginalize the massacres we have experienced recently. In a certain light, I am.

While it would probably be a bad idea to leave me alone in a room with the Boston bombers or the Newtown shooter (if all were still alive), objectively, we need to realize that while things appear to be getting worse, they are actually getting better.

Even if you draw the timeline back a few centuries, on average, crime rates have always been on the decline and societies have continually improved.

Renowned Harvard psychologist, Steven Pinker, said in a Ted Talk you can find online, “In fact, our ancestors were far more violent than we are. Violence has been in decline for long stretches of time, and that today, we are probably living in the most peaceful time in our species history.”

With the advent of modern communication, dramatized reporting, and easy access to traumatizing and gory digital media from around the world, it’s easy to see how the nasty gets emblazoned into the brains of the common and are therefore none the wiser to the increase number of people dying of old age and happiness.

Dramatization of media has even worked its way into the political realm, not so shockingly. It has facilitated the cry of the people to be loud enough that, now, of all times, our government needs to introduce laws of weapon control.

This isn’t an argument about whether weapon laws will be good, bad, or moot; This is an argument about how easy it is for the advent of easy access, instant communication and media drama can suade the people (and thus the government) regardless of the actual statistics and state of society as a whole… but you already knew that didn’t you?

Of course so long as there is murder, violent crime, and the like, we should make every effort as a society to prevent it… even if it’s at an all time low. That’s different than allowing the media and the public lead you to believe your safety is in jeopardy. Only a few minutes after the Boston bombings, the Sandy Hook shooting, and every other massacre, news networks scrolled fear mongering lines such as, “How safe are your children?” and, “Are terrorists taking over America?”.

The answer to these questions are, “As safe as they have ever been”, and, “I’m more afraid of spiders”.

 

Your tax dollars in military and education… where are they going? (Petition)

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

In 1947 our national defense budget was below $100 billion. In 1952 it was nearly $500 billion, and ever since 1955, it has been on the incline from $225 billion. Excluding the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, since 2001 our defense budget has gone up from $287 billion to $530 billion. These numbers have indeed been adjusted for inflation.


According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2012 the United States spent $711 billion in military. This accounts for 41 percent of the world’s military spending and is equivalent to five China defense budgets — the world’s second in military spending.

The only thing I will say about tax and budget cuts is that, regardless of administration, most of them are likened to cutting a lawn of grass at a slower rate than it grows back. Or maybe the more satisfying, trimming the foam off the beer.

Without contempt, I will be the first to opinionate that whomever the world superpower is, has a responsibility to act (at some regard) as a global justifier. A global hierarchy needs to exist in order to bay any international injustices. This does not mean, however, we need to micromanage all of Earth.

Since 1977, the defense budget has accounted for 41-65 percent of the total national budget, while the education budget has accounted for 3-6 percent — with the exception of the 2009 stimulus that briefly placed the number at 10 percent.

Obviously, the costs are not comparable. An Air Force B2 stealth bomber costs about one billion dollars, we own 21. That alone accounts for a third of the entire Department of Education budget in 2012. I can’t simply say we need to take money out of defense and put it in education, here’s why.

Data shows that the amount of money in a nation’s education budget does not correlate with the quality of education received. The United States is tied with Switzerland for having the highest annual spending per student, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Among the 31 industrialized nations, we place 15th in literacy, 23rd in math, and 17th in science. Where Switzerland is 17th, 7th, and 18th, respectively. The top nations in each category have a relatively low education expenditure. Finland, Japan, and Korea are on top of the respective literacy, math, and science charts.

These three nations are not far from the top in the other two categories, with Finland considered to be the global example in education, where teachers are high-status and require masters degrees. University is also free in Finland.

What needs to happen is a large percentage of our money needs to be put towards education reform. It’s shown that once the proper education plan is in place, top dollar is no longer required to operate at an effective rate.

A small percentage of the defense budget put towards education reform would not be difficult, our government just needs a plan and have the guts to do it. Here’s my proposition:

Grades K-12 need to be more difficult to pass by not “teaching to the test”. Private, religious, and boarding schools must maintain the minimum requirements of the public schools. Teachers need to be paid more and on performance — as well as easily fireable. Tenure needs to be more difficult to achieve, or flat-out removed. Curriculum needs to be more flexible and/or reevaluated. Education should be free until the age of 18. School years should be longer. More money should be awarded to schools with lower graduation rates. Classes need to be smaller and we should never have a more-supervisors-to-teachers ratio that currently exists.

Why revamp education?

Outside of maintaining the status quo of the success of humanity, improved education could fix many other areas of problem in our nation’s society — as speculated:

Crime rates would drop, prison costs would go down. Health would improve, cost of care would go down. Unplanned pregnancy would go down, children would be raised in more privileged homes. Economy would improve through better business and innovation.

We need to start placing money where it matters: Less in military; Less in prisons (where it costs more to bed an inmate than it does to send a student off to university); Less in foreign aid that includes nations, religious organizations, and major corporations. And into: Education reform, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation — all of which contribute towards the advancement of education among other, smaller, organizations.

To do anything less would be subverting the human species one profound thought at a time. Here is a petition I wrote that calls the White House to make education reform a top-3 priority, please sign and share this as much as you care: 
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-education-reform-top-3-priority/j2g0NSG2 


 

Is the world ready to cure cancer given our population and resource consumption?

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

In 2008, there was a calculated estimate of 12.7 million new cancer cases along with 7.6 million cancer related deaths. The previous year, cancer accounted for about 13 percent of all global deaths with nearly 64 percent of all these deaths occurring in developed nations. With upwards of 70 conventionally named organs in the human body, there are over 200 different types of known cancer – all of which are only treatable, not curable.

The United Nations and US Census reports the global population in 2050 could be between 7.5-10.5 billion people and that our resource consumption could triple. The Worldwatch Institute said, “This surge in human numbers threatens to offset any savings in resource use from improved efficiency, as well as any gains in reducing per-capita consumption. Even if the average American eats 20 percent less meat in 2050 than in 2000, total U.S. meat consumption will be 5 million tons greater in 2050 due to population growth.”

United States projected population growth. (courtesy of United Nations)

To add, “Every day in 2003, some 11,000 more cars merged onto Chinese roads – 4 million new private cars during the year. Auto sales increased by 60 percent in 2002 and by more than 80 percent in the first half of 2003. If growth continues apace, 150 million cars could jam China’s streets by 2015 – 18 million more than were driven on U.S. streets and highways in 1999.”

Just touching the surface of our population growth and resource consumption, can we really afford to cure cancer with the current state of our global consumption?

United States projected female life expectancy (without a cancer cure).

Within the last year alone, researchers have made considerable steps towards finding a cure for cancer. As I see it, we are on the cusp of a legitimate cure for the second largest cause of death, just behind heart disease.

Abbreviated, these “considerable steps” include:

German Cancer Research Center and Heidelberg University Hospital find a weak point in cancerous cells that effectively kills the cells when the HDAC11 enzyme molecule is turned off.

Researchers at McMaster University have discovered a drug, thioridazine, that kills cancer stem cells without major side-effects.

Australian researchers have discovered the mechanism in which breast cancer cells avoid the immune system and develop within the body.

South Korean scientists in-lab tests were able to cause cancer cells to “self destruct” after being induced to specific magnetic fields.

Published in Nature Journal, researchers have engineered a safe virus that, when injected intravenously, will target only cancerous cells.

UCLA has shown cancerous cells can be fought by stimulating the immune system with a protein that targets tumors.

The list continues.

I don’t mean to suggest that we shouldn’t attempt to find a cure (personally, I’ve had family members affected by cancerous conditions, among other things). In fact, I suggest the opposite. But when the United States accounts for less than five percent of the global population and consume over one quarter of the world’s fuels, what sort of impact would the world see should nearly 13 percent of all global deaths become abated?

A one-stop cancer cure wouldn’t fix all cancerous-related problems overnight, but it would spread faster around the world than cancer spreads through the human body, which is immeasurably faster than the rate of global economic, social, and resource consumption changes.

Solving any of the world’s leading causes of death would induce a massive influx of global change. Cures for heart disease, HIV, respiratory, alzheimers, diabetes, nephrosis, or cancer are all contenders to change the world not just in a positive way, but in a very damaging way should we not be prepared for the change.

Our global society, specifically, the developed nations, should take resource consumption seriously even just on this basis let alone other reasons such as standard population growth, environmental impact, and cost.

In the documentary, Surviving Progress, one of the most inquisitive lines I have ever heard stated was, “If humans go extinct on this planet our epitaph on our gravestone is going to be ‘why.’”

I think Harvard social psychologist, Dan Gilbert, sums it up pretty well in his Ted Talk, “Our brains were evolved for a very different world than the one in which we are living. They were evolved for a world in which people lived in very small groups, rarely met anybody that was terribly different from themselves, had rather short lives, of which there were very few choices and the highest priority was to eat and mate today. We are the only species on this planet that has ever held its own fate in its hands. We have no significant predators, we are masters of our physical environment, things that normally cause other species to become extinct are no longer any threat to us. The only thing that can destroy us and doom us, are our own decisions. If we’re not here in 10,000 years, it’s going to be because we underestimated the odds of our future pains and overestimated the value of our present pleasures.”

Boy Scouts to rethink LGBT policy thanks to grassroots movement

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which is the single largest contributor to the Boy Scouts of America, stated that if the Boy Scouts allowed homosexual members then the church would withdraw all financial support from the organization. Accordingly, making a business decision after receiving such pressure from a religious organization, the BSA complied.

This was a paragraph in a column I wrote last July after the Boy Scouts made a public reaffirmation of its anti-homosexual policy after a two year long internal debate. Two years of internal debate must show that they were conflicted to begin with.

Bill DeVos, an Eagle Scout and a Scoutmaster in upstate New York, shows his Eagle awards and a letter that he mailed to the Boy Scouts on Tuesday in protest over the organization’s policy banning gay Scouts and leaders. (Courtesy of Bill DeVos via NBCNews)

Earlier this week the Boy Scout organization has eaten the words it once so firmly stood by last July, saying they plan on revisiting the decision to not allow homosexuals in the organization, and instead leave it up to individual troops to decide.

Already pressure was mounting for the organization to rewrite its policy, at the same time held at gunpoint by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints over potential funding leading to the Boy Scout’s July decision.

Outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and other religious funding, there are many corporations that support the Boy Scouts. In the last several months, after the Boy Scout’s reaffirmation of its anti-gay policy, these corporations have also put some heat on the Boy Scouts claiming it violates their nondiscrimination policy.

With the Boy Scouts already on a membership decline over the last several years (20 percent over the last decade), a loss of support from its many corporate sponsors would be crippling, regardless if its top two contributors are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and United Methodist church.

Last July I also wrote, “No law needs to change; the BSA is still completely protected by the Constitution, and that is the beauty of a free society. The change of becoming a less discriminating organization needs to happen internally; and this ruling, though pathetic, might just finally teeter the Boy Scouts towards a truly moralistic organization.”

In 2000, the Boy Scouts went all the way to the Supreme Court on the matter of discriminating against gays and the court ruled a split 5-4 in favor of the Boy Scouts of America. So long as the group is a not-for-profit, private organization, they can discriminate against whomever they choose.

Just this last May, Eagle Scout Zach Wahls of Iowa City, Iowa, turned in a petition containing over a quarter million signatures that called for the lifting of the gay ban. Since Wahls petition and the Boy Scouts’ failure to act upon it, many other online petitions began sprouting up, amounting to signatures in the millions.

Many major corporations have pulled their funding from the organization due to their continued, active discrimination. A few of these CEOs are taking an active effort in actually lifting the ban, including members on the actual BSA Board. The National Council Board includes CEOs of major international businesses. Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, supports lifting the ban, and he is next in line to take control of the board.

At the same time, the ultimate reason why the Boy Scouts organization is so readily thinking about reversing its July reaffirmation soon, is thanks to the grassroots movement it forged itself, essentially digging their own grave.

Troops, leaders, parents, boys, civil rights advocates and Eagle Scouts such as myself caused an uproar. Be it total troop defiance of the policy or Eagle Scouts immolating their own rank in front of the council, all over America (and the world), the Boy Scouts of America National Council was marked as one of the greatest bigoted organizations of our time.

Though not a final decision, both President Barack Obama and his former competitor Mitt Romney stated the association should be all inclusive, mounting even more weight on the board’s shoulders. The board is said to meet and discuss next week.

Just as I concluded my July column, I will conclude this column with the posting of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council mailing address. As stressed before, please voice your opinion to them, personally. A discriminant society is a primitive and amoral society.

Boy Scouts of America, National Council

1325 West Walnut Hill Lane

Irving, Texas 75015-2079

Will the United States divide by secession?

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

As some of you may have heard, eleven of the United States have presented enough signatures to The White House for the President to make an official declaration on the petition for secession. The White House allows anyone to submit a petition, but will only make an official response if the petition accrues greater than 25,000 signees. So far, the states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas have crossed the given petition threshold — more are nearing.

Is it not obvious that with the exception of Ohio and Florida (barely), these are all red states, the color of the non-winner? After every presidential election there is always a backlash of resentment where secession petitions begin to appear — but this is the first time it has happened with such great magnitude as to require The White House to make an official statement on the matter.

As of November 26, over 918,000 total signatures have been included from all fifty states. Realistically, this isn’t a lot when you compare it to the 300 million populace, though, it is still more citizens than the residence of six individual states.

To be honest I find the signees of these petitions to be both lazy and quite frankly unappreciative. We live in a nation that has arguably the most beautifully written constitution and bill of rights — a near work of art. If secession signers want to leave so bad they have every right to move away, although, they already know this is a bad idea.

Why? Because they already know there isn’t another nation in the world that would both fit their needs as (in this case) a conservative and simultaneously give them opportunity to voice their secession opinion in a non-incriminating manner.

Firstly, nowhere in the constitution does it allow for a state to secede if they so choose. A new amendment would have to be made for a peaceful secession to take place. This requires a two-thirds vote by the House and Senate, followed by 38 of 50 state’s vote of approval.

Unlikely, I know.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia even wrote, “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.” We’re technically a union, not a confederacy.

However, I still believe the right should be granted to a state. If this amendment existed, I would think at least a two-thirds state vote for secession would be adequate in determining state decision.

No state has come remotely close to even a one in ten margin. Texas has the greatest signee turnout and still only accounts for 0.45 percent of its population. Alaska hasn’t reached the 25,000 vote mark but sustains the highest percentage of signees at 1.7 percent. This is hardly a majority, let alone two-thirds.

If I were to continue down this long road of unlikelihood and entertain the thought of a state leaving the Union, there would be an unbelievable amount of obstacles to overcome in order to become an officially separate, yet functional nation.

Any federal jurisdiction, including military, would have to be absolved and/or relocated. A new constitution must be written. Police, fire, military, utilities, currency, tariffs and tax collectors, road crews, and legislators would have to be created and conformed to the new law of the land. To put it loosely, it would be chaos.

Still, if the citizens of a state understand this and wish to secede, more power to them I guess. If our nation went as far as to amend the constitution to allow for secession, and a state (or multiple) enacted that right, it might actually be mutually beneficially. They would be happy in getting what they wanted, and I would be happy to have let go a state that doesn’t wish to be a part of the United States. Trade will probably continue as normal.

This is of course if the citizens within the state don’t go into civil war over the vote for secession.

Every four years when a new president is elected we see a turnout of secession petitions. By in large I find this petition to be an accurate representation to the number of uninformed sore losers that exist within our country. Even though it is nonsensical and would require a massive amount of legislation, I still believe states should be given the right to secede, given overwhelming majority vote.

Let me know your thoughts on the matter and hit share if you like what you see.

We are not alone in the universe

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

The anatomical Homo sapiens has been walking Earth for nearly a quarter of a million years. On a 24-hour clock we came about roughly at 23:58:43 in comparison to the age of Earth. Not until 500 B.C. did Pythagoras claim that Earth was not flat and nearly 1,000 years later, 450 years ago, the telescope was invented. I was alive when America’s first optical telescope, Hubble, was sent into space. To say we know much about what lies within the confines of our universe is to be dense.

I have always found it intriguing that humans have maintained a highly egocentric view of ourselves. Always convinced that the greatest city lay at the “center of Earth.” Always convinced that the sun and planets revolved around us. Always convinced that we were at the center of all stars in the galaxy. Always convinced that we had someone watching over our particular planet, our particular species, and that we were the only living organisms, let alone “intellectuals,” in the universe.

How humbling it is to lay on a grassy hilltop staring into a deep, dark sky, knowing that we are one of a handful of minor planets revolving around an average star, one of the over quarter trillion (with a “T”) estimated stars in the Milky Way with likely more than that in planets.

While knowing that there are roughly the same number of galaxies in the universe as there are stars in the Milky Way, how can one remotely claim to believe that Earth is the only harbinger of life? I haven’t even begun to talk about the age of the universe.

It is because of the Hubble Space Telescope that we know the universe to be 13.72 billion years old, humans existing with telescopes for 3.28 millionths of a percent of that existence. Countless stars and planets have been born and died off before Earth was even formed, all with the potential chance to hold the conditions for life to arise.

The odds are ever stacked in favor for life to exist elsewhere in the universe. With a symbolically infinite number of places for life to arise and do so in less than a billion years (in Earth’s example) — there can only be one answer as far as I am concerned.

We are not alone.

Chemically, there really isn’t anything special about us. We are made of water and carbon mostly. Hydrogen, oxygen and carbon are among the most abundant elements in the universe — carbon having more combinations than any other element combined. Ranking order of abundance of elements in the universe to that of humans, you find they match up perfectly, all elements having been forged in the creation and destruction of stars.

“We are star stuff,” as the late and great Carl Sagan put it.

If you are not familiar with the Hubble photo called “Ultra Deep Field,” I highly recommend you look it up. This was a photo taken by Hubble after we pointed it in a very dark area of the sky for a long time. The result was nearly 10,000 individual galaxies and only a handful of lone stars in the foreground. If you were to hold the hole of a threading needle up into the night sky, everything that falls within “Ultra Deep Field” fits inside that eye of the needle.

Here’s the catch. We know that it takes time for light to travel a distance, and we know how far away those galaxies are (13 billion light years), which means we are essentially looking back in time to galaxies and stars that don’t exist anymore. At any point in time, one of the solar systems within one of those galaxies could have held the right conditions for life to rise. These systems, having long been destroyed, could have been replaced with new systems with completely new conditions to bear chance for life to grab hold.

Extraterrestrial life in the universe is inevitable with these sorts of odds.

Do I believe we have been visited by aliens? No. In a follow-up column I will talk about what I believe to be the implications of such an encounter.

 

Red Bull Stratos Not Science

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

Standing on a floating ledge with a 128,000-foot view of the world, blue below and black above, I am sure Felix Baumgartner felt nothing less than complete and total nirvana. What goes up, must come down.

He jumped.

Plummeting at 834 mph, 162 mph faster than the speed of sound at that altitude, Baumgartner officially became the first human to break the sound barrier unaided nor protected by a vehicle.

Red Bull Stratos – Felix Baumgartner at 128,000

This is not science, as many of the 8 million live YouTube followers might have lead you to swallow.

In the sense of research and discovery, this jump had nothing to do with modern science. Baumgartner and his Red Bull Team Stratos utilized what was already known in science to make a safe and successful landing for the daredevil stunt.

From the capsule, to the pressure suit, to the helium-filled balloon, to the parachute, this skydive from the stratosphere was a harmonious symphony of applied science — but certainly no “giant leap for mankind”.

Sure, we now know definitively that humans can make a safe reentry from the middle of the stratosphere, though this isn’t even close to what we consider “space”. Touted as “#SpaceJump” on Twitter, the jump has over 100,000 feet to go before you leave the stratosphere and enter the mesosphere. “Space” is considered to be 62 miles high; Baumgartner was at 24 miles. The International Space Station orbits at 200 miles; it was hardly a test of emergency human reentry that the project website claims it was.

We also know officially that a human can break the sound barrier unaided, but everything we already knew about science told us that this would be possible and safe.

Not to detract from Baumgartner’s accomplishment, I was glued to the live YouTube video for its entirety, over two hours. How vapid of me.

Baumgartner’s jump was astonishing, a true spectacle and completely bad-ass; simultaneously, it would have been laughable if this were a NASA, U.S. Air Force or SpaceX mission.

Baumgartner is an amateur in the world of high-altitude feats and technology. I will equate it to that of hobby rocketry. An amateur rocket enthusiast (such as myself) has yet to place a hobby rocket into orbit (they have placed one into “space”); the day they do put a hobby rocket into orbit will be an amazing feat of accomplishment, not of science.

Memes appeared the day of Baumgartner’s great accomplishment, hopefully tongue-in-cheek, representing Red Bull taking over America’s space program. Some of them were quite humorous — replacing the NASA logo with the Red Bull logo on the Space Shuttle. I sure as hell hope not.

A friend of mine also in aerospace engineering made an observant note, rightly so, that in the days following Red Bull Stratos, no professor in the department mentioned the jump.

I can say the same thing, but my professors did in fact discuss Mars Curiosity and Falcon9. At the risk of sounding redundant, Red Bull Stratos was an extreme stunt, not science.

To give credit where credit is due, Baumgartner’s stunt was, in fact, an inspiration for the younger generation. This is something we greatly need in the world, especially America.

Education, specifically in the math and sciences, is not just in the decline but far below most other major nations in the world. As of 2009, 15-year-olds in the United States ranked 25th among peers from 34 countries in math and science.

Hopefully his jump solicited enough awe in the youth to incline them to pursue technology and science related fields. Unlike fifty years ago, it is unfortunate that actual science no longer works as well as stunts in regards to inspiring the public.

It would have been nice if Red Bull included more scientific educational material during the live broadcast and treated it more as an educational opportunity than as a (literal) publicity stunt.

Baumgartner attained what he wanted, a world record, and Red Bull got what they wanted, an audience of 8 million and growing. And Joe Kittinger, Baumgartner being his legacy, may have first-handedly witnessed what it takes nowadays to get people interested in science: an extreme stunt sponsored by an energy drink.

Green Party presidential candidates arrested; Debate to be held

*Iowa State Daily column by Ian Timberlake*

Presidential candidate Jill Stein and vice presidential candidate Cheri Honkala of the Green Party were arrested on the 16th of October, the evening of the second presidential debate. Complying peacefully, they were charged with disorderly conduct after being refused entry into Hofstra University where the debate was being held.

Stein and Honkala are the predominate Green Party candidates that show up on 85 percent of the nation’s ballots, including Iowa. After the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) disallowed them from participating in the events, Stein and Honkala protested by sitting outside the debate hall with an American flag and were surrounded by police officers preventing them from entering the facility.

Larry King 3rd party debate

Jailed for more than eight hours, the candidate’s campaign manager Ben Manski stated, “The arrest was outrageous and shouldn’t be tolerated in a country that is a leading proponent of democracy…. They knew that there was the possibility that they would be arrested. Their intention was to enter the premises and bear witness to the mockery of democracy that is tonight’s debate.”

Many might argue that her behavior, especially as a presidential candidate, was of slightly too high intensity. Fair enough. That same kind of pacifistic mentality strips everything it means to be a democracy. I would like to note that when Stein debated Romney in Mass. in 2002, the Boston Globe claimed “ [Stein] was the only adult in the room”.

Larry King decided to be the moderator for a live online debate held in Chicago for minor-party presidential candidates Tuesday, October 23 at 7pm on Ora.tv/ora2012/thirdparty. The debate includes: Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson; Green Party, Jill Stein; Constitution Party, Virgil Goode; Justice Party, Rocky Anderson.

Larry King made it clear none of them will win, going on to say, “They have a story to tell. It’s a valid story. It’s a two-party system, but not a two-party system by law.” The debate is organized by the Free and Equal Elections Foundation.

To go back to Manski’s remark about “mockery of democracy”, there seems to be a very legal but very shady way our debates are held. Here’s a not so well known secret:

The Commission on Presidential Debates is actually a private corporation.

You heard that right. All the presidential elections you’ve seen televised since 1987 are formed and run by the Democrat Party and Republican Party. The commission is technically “non-profit”, but the money comes from contributions of various foundations and corporations. And when a corporation has money flow and is under the control of the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Democratic National Committee (DNC), it becomes quite apparent that nobody is going to devote attention or resources to a third party of any kind.

In 2000, Ralph Nader filed a lawsuit against the CPD which cited a monetary favor to the RNC and DNC and stated that was against the Federal Election Campaign Act. He lost that lawsuit on the basis he failed to provide enough evidence that the CPD was favoring or denying any party.

The CPD has drawn much outlash over the years that has lead to protests at their headquarters and the demand of contact information being posted on their website. The list of allegations is endless.

In 2004, Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik were arrested for civil disobedience after ignoring the police request to not enter the presidential debate.

In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity found that 93 percent of CPD’s money came from just six donors, all of which were kept secret.

Just a month ago, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson filed a lawsuit against the CPD for denying competition by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which is a century old act that denies business from restraining competition in the market. Johnson had asked the court to put a hold on all presidential debates until the lawsuit was completed or until all presidential candidates were allowed debate time by the CPD and had the feasible 270 electoral votes to win an election. That request was obviously denied.

Do you notice a trend here?

Two active presidential candidates and three former presidential candidates in recent times have all protested both formally and informally for the right to a fair election process, and all have lost and/or been arrested; All of which standing up for something.

Regardless of what the court finds in Johnson’s lawsuit and regardless of the likelihood of a third party getting elected, all parties that have a spot on an American presidential ballot should have the right to an equal and fair election process — what is this, a democracy?