A Partial Defense of Lance Armstrong

I am a cyclist - a "roadie" in cycling terms. I began to ride a bike in 2001 shortly after 9-11 as I neared my sixtieth birthday. It was hard at first and still is. As Greg Lemond, the first American to win the Tour de France, is reported to have said: "it never got any easier, I just went faster."

In 2004, I went off to France to ride my bike and watch several stages of the Tour, including the finale in Paris where I took the photo of the victorious USPS Cycling Team to the right. Prior to getting on the plane for France, I put on a yellow Livestrong wristband which has been on my wrist ever since. Lance Armstrong won his sixth Tour that year then went on to win a seventh in 2005.

For a long time, I have been a supported and defender of Lance Armstrong. In the "spin" classes I teach, I would quote him and urge the class to push themselves as hard as he would push himself. I recall numerous conversations over Armstrong's alleged doping, including one with a taxi driver in France who insisted he was a doper. In my terrible French I arrogantly countered that there was no proof and, besides, he and his countrymen were just jealous that no French rider had won the Tour in years.

Armstrong lied. He was a cheat, a bully and worse. I have met some people who know him well; while they have lots to say about Armstrong, some of it quite funny, they would go silent when the subject of doping came up. They didn't want risk becoming the target of this cheat and bully.

I've watched the two part interview of Armstrong with Oprah Winfrey. His comments for the most part struck me as sincere, especially when he described his conversation about his doping with his son, Luke. He may be hiding or shading some parts of the truth but my gut tells me that there's not much more; that the truth and the humiliation he feels are complete.

But I am surprised by many of the critics who expected more from him - to see him, what, cry, grovel, sob? They describe him in the interviews as cold, distant, arrogant, manipulative and cunning. What these critics don't get is this man - regardless of his doping and lying and bullying - is one strong, self-contained individual. He is in control of himself. He accepts his fate and apologized several times for what he did and the pain he caused to others. But he is not a man to grovel or breakdown.

Whatever his sins - and they are many - Lance Armstrong remained in control in his defeat. We should despise him for the harm he has done to his fans, supporters, family and the sport of cycling. But I also see a man with some qualities to admire, however grudgingly: reserve, strength and composure as his world and life collapse around him. No wailing. No sobbing. A straight back and face turned directly into the storm.

Obama & King Louis XIV: Separated at Birth?

President Obama's press conference Monday was an Imperial Presidency writ large. Apart from the issue of gun control about which I posted yesterday, two subjects dominated: the debt ceiling and spending.

"I won re-election. I have a mandate. Get over it."

Obama's chutzpah on these matters boggles the mind (pass the duct tape, please!). He is adamant that he will not negotiate with Republicans on the debt ceiling - that is, tying any curbs on spending to a rise in the ceiling. In fact, he would prefer not to have Congress involved with having to approve an increase in America's debt at, ceding to him the unilateral right to rise it whenever and however much he wants.

On the second subject, spending, the President was petulant; he has no intention to cut spending whatsoever. Or, let me restate that: he won't cut a dime of spending without Republican agreement to raising taxes first - and then only maybe. (In his Orwellian-speak, Pres Obama refers to taxes as "investment" - a laughable and patently false cover for more spending.)  As The Wall Street Journal points out in an editorial today:

The big fiscal news here is that Mr. Obama and the Democrats are all but conceding that the recent tax hike is little more than a token reduction in the deficit. The tax hike, while the biggest in 20 years, will raise only $620 billion at most over 10 years, and probably less. Yet Mr. Obama conceded in passing Monday that the debt ceiling will have to rise by something like $1.25 trillion to accommodate this year's deficit alone.

If you happen notice that your take-home pay was a bit less in your first 2013 paycheck, get ready for more. Tax and spend Democrats are lining up to grab more of your wallet:

Irrepressible Nancy Pelosi declared on January 6 on CBS's "Face the Nation" that the fiscal-cliff deal was "not enough." While declaring herself "fairly agnostic" on where the money will come from, she suggested closing tax loopholes and raising $38 billion by ending "special subsidies for big oil" that are merely the same as all manufacturing companies receive.

Michigan's Sandy Levin, the ranking House Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, recently reassured his liberal colleagues that "additional revenues" are sure to come in future budget deals and that "this [tax hike] sets that important precedent."

Richard Durbin of Illinois, the number two Senate Democrat, was asked on January 6 on CNN whether there should be more taxes on the wealthy; he responded: "Absolutely." He explained that tax loopholes should be closed because "We forgo about $1.2 trillion a year in the tax code, money that otherwise would go to the government," as if it all belongs to Uncle Sam in the first place.

Now remember, even if Obama taxed 100% of every dollar earned by every American who earned more than $500,000 in 2010, the feds would take in $1.29 trillion - not much more than the 2012 deficit. You've got to go where the money is, and that is the middle class. (Of course, we're talking about income and capital gains taxes; layer on increased taxes from Obamacare and other direct and indirect taxes and we're talking about a major fleecing of Americans.)

In the President's mind l'etat, cest moi! This was the motto attributed to King Louis XIV who established an  absolute monarchy in France.

Could Obama Side-Step the 2nd Amendment & Still Limit Guns?

The task force on gun violence headed by Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled to release its recommendations to President Obama and the public this week. My gut tells me that whatever the findings and proposals come forward, the President may well do something completely unexpected and, so far as I can tell, Constitutional to achieve his progressive goal of  limiting gun ownership. 

So, I am going out on a limb to make a prediction how that goal might be reached. First however, some context.

Missteps by Gun Rights Advocates

The National Rifle Association and other gun groups have been awkward in their defense of the Second Amendment. The shouting matches with Piers Morgan on CNN and the clumsy press conference by the NRA Chairman, Wayne LaPierre, have made many gun supporters cringe. Clearly, the country was traumatized by Sandy Hook (not to mention Aurora, Colorado, and similar recent tragedies). And, the country - including many gun owners - feel that guns should be kept out of the hands of criminals (which they won;'t be) and the unstable (which they won't be). Constitutional rights become, to many Americans, abstractions when faced with the images twenty dead children. Put another way, sentimentality trumps reason.

Gun advocates have also bungled their case by focusing on gun deaths rather than making clear what a ban on the ownership of guns will to to the overall crime rate. With the all but total bans on guns (including pistols), the UK and Australia have seen violent crime - including rape, burglary and non-gun homicides soar. (It is also revealing that in the last six months, President Obama's hometown of Chicago had 292 murders versus 221 killed in Iraq. Chicago, of course, has one of the strictest gun laws in the entire US.)

Political Constraints on Obama

The reality confronting President Obama, Vice President Biden and the anti-gun forces is that two-thirds of Americans are opposed to any restrictions on the rights of private, non-law enforcement citizens to own pistols. Since the Sandy Hook shootings, gun sales, applications for concealed carry permits and membership in the National Rifle Association have all sky rocketed. Congressional Democrats - as well as the President - are aware of these facts - and that these numbers translate into votes, especially in states with significant rural populations.



In other words, Democrats cannot risk appearing to be heavy handed in opposing what their constituents see as their Constitutional right to own guns. And the administration is also aware that the US Supreme Court in Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 and more recently in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 a citizen's right to possess firearms. Obama may feel that with those rulings, legislative restrictions might not survive a Court challenge (though it is likely that such a challenge would take years (McDonald took two years to make it to the Supreme Court, Heller, five).

My Prediction

Instead of confronting the Second Amendment, President Obama will seek to levy Federal taxes on firearms and ammunition. The taxes will be steep and punitive, thereby raising the cost of gun ownership for all current and future gun owners. While there may be other parts to an Obama gun policy, including mandatory background checks (which are already in place), and a restriction on magazine capacities, increased taxation fits the character of this President and side steps the Constitutional issues. The more powerful the firearm, the higher the tax rate is likely to be.

There are two approaches the Obama administration could take to raise taxes: Congressional action or, quite possibly, an Executive order. While tax legislation has a slightly better chance of making it through Congress than sweeping restrictions, my bet is not only will President Obama levy taxes, he will do so by issuing an Executive Order under the pretense of helping the Executive Branch carry out its Constitutional duties of ensuring the "general welfare " This action in itself may provoke Congressional (and certainly) citizen reaction. Nevertheless, President Obama hasn't been shy about metaphorically saying "go ahead, sue me" on a variety of issues.

Lost from view, no doubt, will be the unintended consequence of black markets developing for both guns and the ammo for them. We'll see what happens as the week progresses.

"And all the children are above average"

The title is drawn from Garrison Keillor's closing line of his Lake Woebegon monologue on his radio shoe, A Prairie Home Companion. It is apt. . .

A day or two ago, I wrote about Theodore Dalrymple, a physician and prolific author. In that blog, I mentioned three books that I intended to read, one of which was Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality. Indeed, I started my Dalrymple reading with that book which I am now about one-third through.

As if on cue, I then found an article in the UK's Daily Mail reporting on research conducted in the USA (I find it surprising how often the UK press will publish articles on stories largely ignored by the mainstream media here).  The Daily Mail article is entitled How college students think they are more special than EVER: Study reveals rocketing sense of entitlement on U.S. campuses. It encompasses a survey conducted by Jean Twenge, a survey which has been asking US college students to rate themselves since 1996.

And what did Twenge find?  In a word, narcissism. US students are more full of themselves than any time in history. They feel that they are entitled to both opportunity and riches, despite having accomplished absolutely nothing.

Dalrymple would agree, albeit from an English perspective. Sentimentality and a politically correct notion not to criticize anyone - least of all a child - for failing to live up to expectations or meet the grade at school has created a nation of whining, sniveling "I deserve it" monsters.

You can read the Daily Mail article here. Then tell you kid, "no hugs until you get your homework done - and I will check it first for correctness." They don't deserve anything yet except love and discipline. They rest, they earn.

Oh, us mean-spirited Conservatives. . .

As insensitive as we Conservatives are reported to be, can anything be more mean-spirited than a Liberal talking to a crowd of Liberals?

Such was the case of Karen Lewis speaking to the Illinois Labor History Society’s “Salute to Labor’s Historic Heroes from the History Makers of Today” (a mouthful by itself).  In her monologue, which you can watch below, she said to laughter and applause:

Do not think for a minute that the wealthy are ever going to allow you to legislate their riches away from them. Please understand that. However, we are in a moment where the wealth disparity in this country is very reminiscent of the robber baron ages. The labor leaders of that time, though, were ready to kill. They were. They were just – off with their heads. They were seriously talking about that.

She went on to add that she didn't think that we were yet "at that point."  Dang!  Does that mean that we are approaching that point?  She went on to say:

Do not think for a minute that the wealthy are ever going to allow you to legislate their riches away from them.

Huh? Legislate away their riches? Money? Property? As though the government should do just that in order to achieve some vague notion of "fairness" or "equality."

But of course none of this was regarded as "mean-spirited" by the mainstream media. Liberals don't regard attacks on wealthy or Conservatives as ever being mean-spirited.  They think we deserve it.

Government as a Salmon Trap

Living here in the great Pacific Northwest (aka the PNW), salmon is part of our daily vocabulary. Usually the word arises as in "I'll have the King Salmon, please."  However, we PNWers have a more complex relationship with salmon ranging from the fishing rights of Native Americans to the destruction of damns along the Columbia and other rivers.

Little by little, the traps ensnare and trap salmon - and us.

What the salmon think about all this - from being served with rice pilaf to the aesthetics of fish ladders - is not known (though I have a hunch that the ladders trump the pans). I also suspect that they harbor no longings for the "salmon traps" of yore.  These were net traps which, like funnels, move the fish deeper through a series of one-way catchments. Of course, the salmon have no idea of what's going on - other than there seems to be a lot more friends in less and less space.  But, hey, water is water and swimming doesn't take much thought.

The folks over at The Independent Institute see the real meaning of these things and, in a recent article suggested that the salmon trap is a fitting analogy for the slow encroachment of government on freedom and liberty. From the article:

Like the narrowing opening through which the salmon enter the “hearts” of the traps, the ways out of people’s helplessness and dependence on the state are narrow and hard to locate. Moreover, going out as they came in flies in the face of their natural proclivity to live at others’ expense and care. As the salmon’s “mind” tells him not to turn back, so the human mind, especially when it has been bewitched by government propaganda and statist ideology, tells people not to turn back. Having lost the capacity for assuming individual responsibility, people are fearful of taking on such responsibility as their forebears did routinely. [Emphasis added]

 This is very apt. It is why Conservatives (and Libertarians, for that matter) become so alarmed at policies which extend entitlements, so-called government "protections," and a self-perpetuating bureaucracy at the incremental cost of individual choice and responsibility.  Like the salmon, we become entrapped by the State and are afraid to go back - to assume responsibility again.  Unless we find our courage again, we will, like the salmon, end up served with rice pilaf. 

A Little Dalrymple

I will admit it: I am addicted.  The mysteries of why, and how of life - of philosophy, politics  society and history - are constantly on my mind. In my view, conversation on these matters trump nearly all others. They are the meat of life, the subjects of my idle-time musings as well as more structured reading and reflecting.

The Manhattan Institute's web site has introduced me to a writer not well known in the USA, Theodore Dalrymple. Dalrymple is a British psychiatrist who, among other things, treats treats inmates in England.  He is also a prolific writer.  While his language and perspective are distinctly British, his themes apply well to the US, especially as we contest the future direction of our country. So, definite Dalrymple candidates for my Kindle are:

Life at the Bottom Written in 2001, Life at the Bottom is a study of life in the underclass and why it persists as it does. According to one reviewer, "Dalrymple’s key insight in Life at the Bottom is that long-term poverty is caused not by economics but by a dysfunctional set of values, one that is continually reinforced by an elite culture searching for victims. This culture persuades those at the bottom that they have no responsibility for their actions and are not the molders of their own lives."

Not With A Bang But a Whimper: The Politics of Culture and Decline The title is drawn from TS Elliot's poem "The Hollow Men," the final stanza of which reads:

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

Quoting from Amazon's summary: "[Dalrymple] takes the measure of our cultural decline, with special attention to Britain - its bureaucratic muddle, oppressive welfare mentality, and aimless young - all pursued in the name of democracy and freedom." 

Last but not least on my reading list from this prolific author is Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality.  Again quoting from the Amazon summary: "[Dalrymple] grinds his axe at our sentimentality-centric culture where feelings have become the yardstick of everything we do: safe driving, education, taking of responsibility (none), sentimentality (everywhere). In this forensic polemic of maudlin popular culture from X-factor to Super Nannies, Dalrymple wields his scalpel at all our modern sacred cows. Children will be speechless, for once, parents will hang their heads in shame!"

Ah, yes, sentimentality and feelings trumping common sense and reason. These are quixotic, hard to pin down yet, unfortunately, underscore (undermine is closer) our national discourse and policy formulations.  

I commend you to investigate Dalrymple - and The Manhattan Institute, as well.

A New Report from Cato: Low Taxes, Reduced Spending

A new report from the Cato Institute gives lie to the administration's current path.  Quoting the introduction:

The United States faces two economic challenges: slow growth and an ever-increasing ratio of debt to GDP. Many policymakers believe they face a dilemma because the policy solutions to the two problems are opposite. To address the slow recovery, standard—Keynesian—economics suggests further fiscal stimulus in the form of lower taxes or higher spending. But that recommendation runs head-first into the economy’s second crucial challenge, the long-run fiscal imbalance.

Yet policymakers are wrong to see this as a dilemma. The Keynesian model does not evaluate government expenditure using the standard microeconomic concepts of economic efficiency (cost-benefit analysis); rather, it assumes that all expenditure is beneficial. Some government purchases, however, are not a productive use of resources, and transfer payments distort economic incentives and thus can reduce economic output. In contrast, broad-based tax cuts, especially those that lower marginal tax rates, enhance economic growth.

The implication is that tax cuts are the most appealing kind of fiscal stimulus because they are beneficial on both Keynesian and efficiency grounds. Higher transfers and government purchases—increased expenditures—are questionable because any Keynesian benefits must be balanced against potentially large efficiency costs.

Thus the United States should cut unproductive expenditures while keeping tax rates low. A high deductible for Medicare would save money and improve the efficiency of the health care market. With rising life expectancies, Social Security is more generous than necessary to accomplish any reasonable goal of the program. Much military spending goes to programs not related to the defense of the United States. Business subsidies, drug prohibition, and pork-barrel spending should be cut.

The United States therefore has a simple path to a brighter economic future: slash expenditures and keep tax rates low. Reducing expenditures will improve the debt outlook and make the economy more productive, implying higher levels of output and further debt reductions for any given tax rates. Keeping tax rates low will improve the incentives for labor effort, savings, and entrepreneurship, which promotes a more productive economy.

The report titled "Should U.S. Fiscal Policy Address Slow Growth or the Debt? A Nondilemma" can be found at cato.org.

Conservatives: Insensitive and Mean-Spirited

Donald Kaul is a retired columnist with a career spanning fifty years until he suffered a heart attack last summer. Up to that point, he wrote regularly for OtherWords.org  - a liberal/progressive web site.  Kaul was no dabbler; at one point during his long career he was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. 

Following the shootings at Sandy Hook, Kaul took pen back in hand to write a piece for the Des Moines Register. In part:

“Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:

• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.”

Now, many of my liberal friends chide me for speaking out against what I regard as liberal/progressive idiocy.  Sometimes I am accused, like many conservatives, of being "insensitive" or "mean-spirited" - the two forms of opinion that seem to trouble liberals/progressives the most. 

We conservatives can be critical so long as we use nice, politically correct language.  Liberals/progressives - and especially the liberal press (read: mainstream media) - hasten to sound the klaxons whenever a conservative sounds too - well - "uppity."  However, when a liberal/progressive like Kaul make "insensitive" or "mean-spirited" remarks, a stillness comes over liberal land.  In that silence, or so I imagine, liberals/progressives are quietly nodding with their internal voices saying, "well, maybe I don't agree entirely but, hey, he's one of us and disagreeing would be insensitive to his righteously held mean-spiritedness."

When caught out, Kaul quickly claimed (in, where else, Otherwords.org) that it was all satire.  Defending his original column, he rescinded his call to hitch McConnell and Boehner to a Silverado.  About repealing the 2nd Amendment, his mea culpa was a less clear saying at one point that he didn't really want to repeal it but that his column was "thoughtful and well-reasoned."  He stood by his words regarding the NRA, however.  Mean-spirited though they may be.

Well, for Mr Kaul and those who sympathize with his point of view, allow me to offer this insensitive and mean-spirited public service announcement. 

The Violence of Gun Control

As the debate over control (if not out ran ban) of guns heats up, emotions are taking over reason.  Those who support increased control of guns raise the inherent danger of firearms as well as pointing to the absence of gun violence in the United Kingdom and other countries.  Guns, it is said, add to and are part of an American culture of violence.  Ban them and violence will go away - or at least recede.  The "debate" over guns between CNN's Piers Morgan and Larry Pratt following the tragedy in Newtown, CT, is perhaps the best (or is it the worst?) example of gun control advocacy.  Piers Morgan is a Englishman; he should know better as we will see below.

Leaving aside Second Amendment issues for the time being, the central question is will increased control of firearms achieve the goal of reducing violence in the United States?  Let's start by taking a close look at the US violent crime rate.  The table here is from the FBI's report "Crime in The United States - 2011".  

As you can see clearly from the table at the left, in 1992 the violent crime rate in the US was 757.7 per 100,000 of population.  Of this, murder and non-negligent manslaughter (i.e., not by accident) was 9.3 per 100,000 of population.

Leap forward about ten years to 2011.  Violent crime went down to 386.3 per 100,000 and murder / manslaughter down to 4.7 per 100,000.  

These statistics hardly indicate an increasingly violent society or a gun-happy culture.  So, why do gun-ban enthusiasts like Piers Morgan try to create a climate of fear?  Why are they not highlighting the nearly 50% reduction in violent crime?  Could it be that the statistics above do not fit their ideological agenda?

Now what about that paragon of a gun-less nation, Great Britain?  Let's take a look at the crime rate in England and Wales.  A report on violent crime rates in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin for 2011/2012 contains the chart presented here.  With a combined population of 56 million, in 2011 England and Wales had a violent crime rate of 1,361 per 100,000 population.  That is 3.5 the US rate in 2011 and almost double what the US rate was in 1992! 

  

England and Wales do have a lower murder rate than the United States about 1.3 per 100,000. However, what is left unsaid is what instruments are used to commit murders or violent crimes. The disarmed public has a higher rate of violent crime than the mass-armed citizenry of the United States. This is important, because from those of us who advocate that people be allowed to defend themselves, a firearm is the very best means of doing that.  And what many Americans don't realize is that British "bobbies" now routinely carry guns.  Over 300,000 firearms illegally change hands every year in the UK - the nation with what Americans call "model" gun control.

And what of those UK citizens who defend themselves?   Take the case of Tony Martin who suffered repeated burglaries of his rural home.  In 1999, two robbers invaded his home.  Martin yelled at them to leave. They responded by bursting into his bedroom to attack him (and his wife) with a metal pipe.  Instead, he shot with his legally owned shotgun, killing one wounding the second.  The survivor was sentence to three years (this despite a long record) and paroled in eighteen months.  As for Martin, he was given a life sentence for murder. After massive public protests, the sentence was reduced to manslaughter and his sentence cut to five years. 

We haven't even discussed the freedoms under Second Amendment - which the US Supreme Court has upheld repeatedly.  But, just on the statistics here, what society do you prefer:  One in which the probability of becoming a victim of violent crime is 3.5 higher than the US but without guns; or one in which violent crime continues to decline despite an increase in gun ownership?  And, what kind of justice do you prefer: one that recognizes the right to self-defense or one that criminalizes you for protecting your home and loved ones?

In 2008, a massive protest took place in London by citizens opposed to the UK ban on guns. Seems like banning guns just disarms law-abiding citizens leaving them prey to criminals and more violence.