The Scoper

And the Hits Keep Coming

As reported in today’s Chicago Tribune, former Arkansas governor Huckabee and one time GOP presidential contender said that rapes, though, “horrible tragedies,” had produced admirable human beings.

“Ethel Water, for example, was the result of a forcible rape,” Huckabee said. He added “I used to work for James Robison back in the 1970’s – he leads a large Christian organization. He, himself, was the result of a forcible rape. And so, I know it happens, and yet even from those horrible, horrible tragedies of rape, which are inexcusable and indefensible, life has come and sometimes, you know, those people do extraordinary things.”

I believe the next step for the Republican Party will be to add a position to legalize rape to their platform for the upcoming convention. This will allow more “extraordinary things” to happen without the negative social stigma of rape all the while making every act legitimate.

Let's Assume Maybe That Didn't Work or Something

Todd Akin is a six-term Republican congressman from Missouri currently running for the Senate. He was being interviewed by KTVI when they asked a question if abortion should be legal in the case of rape. It was a question that could easily be predicted because Congressman Akin has always touted his social conservative philosophies. His response:

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," Akin said of rape-induced pregnancy.

“If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin continued.

"But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."

Oh my.

Can It Get Any Lower – Obama Super Pac Accuses Romney of Killing Man’s Wife

Priorities USA Action, which is led by former Obama aid Bill Burton, has been running an ad that has an ex-steel worker, Joe Soptic, claiming that Bain Capital closed the factory where he worked which caused him to lose his health insurance. This was done, according to Joe, so that the Bain partners could pocket billions of dollars.

He then goes on to say that because he had lost his insurance, his wife delayed seeking treatment for what turned out to be cancer. He said, “And a short time after that my wife became ill. I don’t know how long she was sick. And I think maybe she didn’t say anything because she knew we couldn’t afford the insurance.”

His wife died. And while tragic, her death had nothing to do with the plant closing. Joe should be ashamed of himself for using his wife’s death to falsely promote a cause. Worse than that is the fact that the Obama camp did not issue a public statement about the ad saying it was patently false and should be immediately removed from the airwaves.

Here are the facts about Joe, his wife’s insurance and death, and Romney’s/Bain’s involvement.

1. Bain bought GS Steel in 1993 for $75 million.

2. There were plans made to merge it with another steel company and take the company public, but market forces started throwing them curves.

3. In 1997 the company had its first labor strike in 40 years. It lasted 10 weeks and was pretty divisive.

4. Electricity and natural gas prices, both used in the production of steel, skyrocketed.

5. A flood of cheap imports drive prices down in the later 1990’s.

6. GS filed for bankruptcy in 2001. The KC plant where Joe worked was shut down and 750 people lost their jobs.

7. And yes, it was reported that Bain more than doubled their money on the deal by then.

8. Joe’s wife had health insurance for a year or two after that through her own employer.

9. She had no insurance later because a shoulder injury caused her to leave that job that provided coverage. That was the immediate reason for her being uninsured, not the plant closure.

10. Soptic said, "A short time after that (the closing of the plant), my wife became ill. The illness took place in 2006; some five years after Soptic lost his job.

11. And at the time of the plant closing, Romney was very involved in running the Olympics and probably had no direct involvement in this situation.

12. Jen Psaki, an Obama staff spokeswoman, said the Obama team had "no involvement with any ads that are done by Priorities USA. We don’t have any knowledge of the story of the family." This is interesting in light of the fact that the Obama campaign had featured Soptic in a previous ad and campaign officials had participated in a briefing with reporters where Soptic had talked about his wife.

It may surprise you that I do not blame Obama for this lack of moral compass in regards to the ads he uses. I blame us. We allow it. In fact, we revel in it. We do not want to listen to what is important to us and our collective future. That is hard, complex, and would make us uncomfortable. We would rather stand by like a group of children watching two kids fighting on the playground cheering and taunting them on. And so again we will have a choice this November between Lousy Option A and Lousy Option B.

I guess that is really what we all want.

(To see the ad, go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj70XqOxptU&feature=player_embedded)

Great Oratory is Inspirational

Barack Obama derided Republican rival Mitt Romney's tax plan on Monday as Robin Hood in reverse - "Romney Hood " - saying it essentially would rob ordinary Americans to help the rich.

"We have been watching the president say a lot of things about me and my policies -- and they're just not right," Romney said. "And if I were to coin a term, it would be 'Obamaloney.’”

I so love a wise and insightful debate.

To Carry Concealed or Not is Not the Only Question

We have had the shooting of Travon Martin, the Aurora Colorado rampage and now, today, a gunman at a Sikh temple killed 6 and left three critically injured before he was killed.

This has resulted in a huge amount of public debate over the issue of allowing citizens to carry a gun concealed. And like so much of our dialog, people are taking simple and rigid positions behind prominent ideologues. You either believe that guns should be outlawed and no one needs to even consider carrying one in public or you believe that the right to carry concealed is similar to the right to breath air.

I think the discussion is more complex than presented. To qualify my comments, I want to state that I am an active gun owner and have taken many classes in tactical gun training. I do not conceal carry because I live in Illinois.

I consider the concept of conceal carry as a public safety issue in two very different ways. First, the most obvious reason to carry a concealed weapon is to provide a person with the opportunity to defend themself and others against physical harm by another person. Conversely, the legally armed citizen that has all the best intentions but is ill trained or simply incapable of properly using the weapon can fail to defend themselves and actually hurt other innocent people. That ability to hurt other innocent people is why this issue is complex. If the result of incompetence with your firearm was restricted to you, the entire concept becomes very simple and I would be an unqualified supporter that everyone should be allowed to conceal carry. Unfortunately, the incompetent can be as deadly as the person against which they are trying to defend themselves. They can do this by hitting innocent bystanders or by using inappropriate ammunition or both.

I make the comparison to flying an airplane because there are many similarities and I am a pilot as well. Flying a plane is really very simple and easy just like shooting a gun at a range. The bulk of our flight training is to prepare us for the most unlikely of events. The preparation is so important because it gets your muscle memory and mental memory ready for a task during an event that by definition is highly stress filled. Shooting an approach to land in bad weather is challenging. Doing so and losing an engine definitely adds to the event. If you have repeatedly practiced single engine approaches “under the hood;” your muscle memory and mental preparedness could turn the event into a smooth landing versus a spiral stall into the field next to the airport.

And just like an errant bullet, an out of control aircraft could land in a field or a highly populated area. In other words, my incompetence as a pilot could kill uninvolved people.

Likewise, handling a gun during a real event requires practice, situational awareness, calm and focus. Tough stuff under the circumstances. No disrespect to our police but there are many reports of shootings involving police where there were many, many more misses then hits. Regardless of whether you think our average policeman has adequate training, I fully believe that they are much better trained then the average citizen that participates in concealed carry. Despite that fact take a look at some statistics.

“The mean score for NYPD police officers (1990-2000) for all shootings is fifteen hits per 100 shots fired, which is almost the identical hit ratio seen among Miami officers who in the years 1990-2001 fired some 1300 rounds at suspects while recording fewer than 200 hits. Almost unbelievably, some NYPD figures show 62% of shots fired at a distance of less than six feet were complete misses.” (http://www.pointshooting.com/1acamp.htm).

This statistic amplifies the point I am trying to make. These are trained professionals who in theory, are ready and alert for a situation. An untrained citizen in a surprise emergency situation cannot be expected, on average, to do any better and I believe would do much worse. Does this mean that they should never be allowed to conceal carry? No. It just greatly concerns me that in many states you can get a carry permit with nothing more than a background check, one day class and license fee. I believe this is inadequate for a license to carry in the general public. Defending your home is very different, although not absolutely. Your skill or lack thereof will likely only impact you, assuming you are using appropriate rounds. Use a full metal jacketed high power round and your neighbors could become a part of the situation. But assuming you’re using the right bullets, your training as it applies to the use of the gun in your house should be a personal choice.

There are even more complexities to this situation than I have written about here. For example, the deterrent factor of a criminal in a situation where he knows there are armed citizens could be significant. Another complexity is that by adding requirements to the license generally adds costs, which would restrict lower income people the right to defend themselves.

I believe that there should be more required training and education to carry a gun in public. I do not see that as a restriction in my freedom or an offense to the Second Amendment. I acknowledge that it is not a perfect solution, there rarely are those. Lower income people may be shut out of the right and even trained, certified citizens can be incredible boneheads. But I do believe it will actually increase the effectiveness of those who carry a weapon into the public and will reduce the risk to innocent bystanders.