Month: September 2014

It is clear to many people—even
many Congressmen—that President Obama’s decision not to seek
Congressional authorization for his plan to fight ISIS is blatantly
unconstitutional. So why is no one pressing the president about
that? Don’t national lawmakers possess, at the very least, some
basic desire to hold onto their legitimate powers?

It appears that they don’t—or rather, political considerations
trump all else.
According to BuzzFeed’s John Stanton, most legislators were
perfectly happy not voting on ISIS matters, for fear that a vote
could come back to haunt them in future election cycles:

“There are a lot of members who’d just rather just not vote on
this and let the president to shoulder the [political] weight of
taking us to war,” Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said Tuesday. Schiff
is one of a handful of lawmakers who has pushed for a vote this
month on a new Authorized Use of Military Force legislation to
cover the administration’s campaign against ISIS. …

The perils of a vote for lawmakers are clear: Giving Obama
authority could be a major liability in future elections; Hilary
Clinton famously took major heat during the 2008 presidential
campaign for her support of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. If
Congress failed to pass authorization and a major attack were to
happen in the homeland, lawmakers could see an even more severe
backlash.

So even though legislators of both political parties remain
deeply skeptical that Obama’s policy of launching continuous
airstrikes against ISIS and arming the Syrian rebels will
accomplish any long-term goal, the president will basically always
get his way on contentious foreign policy matters, since voting
carries political risks.

(Keep in mind that the CIA has been
discreetly arming the Syrian rebels all along, even though the
vote to do that specific thing only took place yesterday. The CIA
now believes such a strategy is “doomed to failure.”)

Democracy: Good for a laugh, if nothing else.

It is clear to many people—even
many Congressmen—that President Obama’s decision not to seek
Congressional authorization for his plan to fight ISIS is blatantly
unconstitutional. So why is no one pressing the president about
that? Don’t national lawmakers possess, at the very least, some
basic desire to hold onto their legitimate powers?

It appears that they don’t—or rather, political considerations
trump all else.
According to BuzzFeed’s John Stanton, most legislators were
perfectly happy not voting on ISIS matters, for fear that a vote
could come back to haunt them in future election cycles:

“There are a lot of members who’d just rather just not vote on
this and let the president to shoulder the [political] weight of
taking us to war,” Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said Tuesday. Schiff
is one of a handful of lawmakers who has pushed for a vote this
month on a new Authorized Use of Military Force legislation to
cover the administration’s campaign against ISIS. …

The perils of a vote for lawmakers are clear: Giving Obama
authority could be a major liability in future elections; Hilary
Clinton famously took major heat during the 2008 presidential
campaign for her support of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. If
Congress failed to pass authorization and a major attack were to
happen in the homeland, lawmakers could see an even more severe
backlash.

So even though legislators of both political parties remain
deeply skeptical that Obama’s policy of launching continuous
airstrikes against ISIS and arming the Syrian rebels will
accomplish any long-term goal, the president will basically always
get his way on contentious foreign policy matters, since voting
carries political risks.

(Keep in mind that the CIA has been
discreetly arming the Syrian rebels all along, even though the
vote to do that specific thing only took place yesterday. The CIA
now believes such a strategy is “doomed to failure.”)

Democracy: Good for a laugh, if nothing else.

Here’s an interesting result of America’s
economic sanctions on Russia: The demand for Kalashnikov rifles (of
AK-47 fame) has skyrocketed and average price for one has more than
doubled since an import ban on one major producer took effect
earlier this year.

The Moscow Times
reported earlier this week:

Kalashnikov Concern, the company that produces
the most popular line of civilian-use Kalashnikov rifles,
the Saiga, was blacklisted by the U.S. in July.
By September, U.S. distributors reported that their stocks
of genuine Russian-made Kalashnikovs had been cleared.

“As a result, an active resale market
for Kalashnikovs has arisen,” Russia’s new trade
representative to the U.S., Alexander Stadnik, said in an
interview published Tuesday by news agency TASS, Though there
are several non-Russian Kalashnikovs still available in the
U.S., American gun owners want the real thing, he added.

Stadnik said the average price of a Kalashnikov rifle
in the U.S. on the resale market has already hit $1,500,
compared to its previous off-the-shelf price of $600.

Even before the U.S. imposed sanctions against
the Kalashnikov Concern, the largest Russian manufacturer
of the iconic weapons, consumer demand in the U.S.
for Kalashnikov rifles exceeded supply by almost 200
percent.

Sales of civilian Kalashnikov rifles made up about 50
percent of Kalashnikov Concern’s sales before sanctions.

The ban, which took effect July 17, is part President Barack
Obama’s Executive
Order 13662, which was issued in response to Russia’s invasion
of Ukraine. Later in July, the U.S. and E.U.
shifted its policy from narrow, targeted sanctions against
Vladimir Putin’s cronies to broader, industry-wide ones after the
shooting down a passenger plane carrying nearly 300 civilians, a
crime Russian-backed forces are
believed to be responsible for. Obama continues to pile more
sanctions on Russia, and recently lauded his actions as the

“only reason” there’s a ceasefire in Ukraine.  

But, what are you to do if you want an authentic Russian weapon
these days? The Times notes that another Kalashnikov
manufacturer, Molot, has not been hit by sanctions, so their guns
are still available. And, the Kalashnikov Concern weapons already
in the U.S. before the ban are safe. Alternatively,
courtesy of none other than Mother Jones, you can
learn how to build your own legal, untraceable AK-47. 

PreferredOne
was the least expensive insurer in the Minnesota’s state-run
Obamacare exchange last year. It was also the most successful at
signing up customers, capturing 59 percent of the state’s market
for private plans,
according to CBS Minnesota. 

And now it’s leaving the exchange, and the 30,000 people who had
enrolled in its coverage. 

As Jed Graham from Investor’s Business Daily
explains, this was due to an unusual feature of Obamacare in
Minnesota—the existence of a “basic health program” option for
lower-income households. 

In 2015, well more than half of MNsure exchange subsidies won’t
go to insurers on the exchange, but to a public program serving
households that fall between the cut-off for Medicaid and 200% of
the poverty level.

To date, this MinnesotaCare
program for households above 138% of the poverty level has
signed up 72,000 people vs. just 55,000 for the subsidized
exchange.

The state was the first to embrace the Affordable Care Act’s
little-known basic health program option, allowing for subsidies to
be used in this way. New York state’s 2015 budget authorized the
creation of a basic health program, so it may be the second to take
the plunge.

Given PreferredOne’s dominant position on Minnesota’s exchange,
it stands to reason that the insurer sees no great opportunity to
be had.

The state’s embrace of the basic health program has not only
narrowed the potential exchange pool to households above 200% of
the poverty level, but it seems it may have skewed the demographics
somewhat older.

A statement from the company indicated that support costs for
the exchange plan were too high. “Continuing on MNsure [the state
exchange] was not sustainable,” the statement said. 

The basic health plans were supposed
to mitigate “churn” in the health insurance market, where income
changes throughout the year often mean that low-income individuals
end up switching back and forth between various forms of insurance
as their incomes move up and down across eligibility borders. But
they may end up turning off insurers from participating by limiting
the number of people who end up looking to buy private
insurance. 

PreferredOne
was the least expensive insurer in the Minnesota’s state-run
Obamacare exchange last year. It was also the most successful at
signing up customers, capturing 59 percent of the state’s market
for private plans,
according to CBS Minnesota. 

And now it’s leaving the exchange, and the 30,000 people who had
enrolled in its coverage. 

As Jed Graham from Investor’s Business Daily
explains, this was due to an unusual feature of Obamacare in
Minnesota—the existence of a “basic health program” option for
lower-income households. 

In 2015, well more than half of MNsure exchange subsidies won’t
go to insurers on the exchange, but to a public program serving
households that fall between the cut-off for Medicaid and 200% of
the poverty level.

To date, this MinnesotaCare
program for households above 138% of the poverty level has
signed up 72,000 people vs. just 55,000 for the subsidized
exchange.

The state was the first to embrace the Affordable Care Act’s
little-known basic health program option, allowing for subsidies to
be used in this way. New York state’s 2015 budget authorized the
creation of a basic health program, so it may be the second to take
the plunge.

Given PreferredOne’s dominant position on Minnesota’s exchange,
it stands to reason that the insurer sees no great opportunity to
be had.

The state’s embrace of the basic health program has not only
narrowed the potential exchange pool to households above 200% of
the poverty level, but it seems it may have skewed the demographics
somewhat older.

A statement from the company indicated that support costs for
the exchange plan were too high. “Continuing on MNsure [the state
exchange] was not sustainable,” the statement said. 

The basic health plans were supposed
to mitigate “churn” in the health insurance market, where income
changes throughout the year often mean that low-income individuals
end up switching back and forth between various forms of insurance
as their incomes move up and down across eligibility borders. But
they may end up turning off insurers from participating by limiting
the number of people who end up looking to buy private
insurance. 

With speech codes
chilling free expression on college campuses and Twitter
warriors presiding haughtily over online speech, it seems a bit
gloomy out there for fans of the First Amendment. But a new survey
from
the Knight Foundation finds teen support for free speech
is high. For the first time in a decade, U.S. high-school
students are more into the First Amendment than adults, and their
appreciation for it goes up with their level of online media
consumption. 

The national survey of 10,463 high-school students found 90
percent think “people should be able to express unpopular opinions”
and only 24 percent think “the First Amendment goes too far” in
guaranteeing free speech, free assembly, and freedom of religion.
Asked the same question in a recent Newseum Institute study, 38
percent of American adults wanted less free expression.

“This marks a shift: 10 years ago students (35 percent) were
more likely than adults (30 percent) to say that the First
Amendment goes too far,” the Knight Foundation notes. And in 2006,
45 percent of teens and only 23 percent of adults thought
so. 

Millennial teens are now more likely than their teachers to
support free expression also, particularly when it comes to school
matters. Of the 588 teachers simultaneously surveyed by the Knight
Foundation, the majority disagreed that First Amendment rights
should apply to school activities. Fifty-seven percent of the
teachers said student newspapers shouldn’t report on controversial
subject. And a whopping 67 percent said students shouldn’t be
allowed to express anti-teacher or school administrator sentiment
on Facebook without penalty. 

Despite teachers’ anti-free speech feelings, students who had a
class explaining the First Amendment were more likely to support it
than those who had not. Free speech support also grew with a
student’s digital media consumption. “The most supportive students
of all are heavy digital media users who also have had a class
explaining the First Amendment,” said Eric Newton, senior adviser
to the Knight Foundation’s president. 

Digital media consumption is, unsurprisingly, huge among
high-school students, with the number who read news online daily
jumping from 31 percent in 2006 to 71 percent now. The proportion
of students who consume digital content daily through a mobile
device jumped from 8 percent to 62 percent. Other survey
highlights: 

• Less than one-third are “very concerned” about the privacy of
  information they post on the Internet (compared to 48 percent of
  adults), while 42 percent are “somewhat concerned” and 21 percent
  are “not too concerned”. 
• 83 percent of high-school students sgree that “people should be
  able to send online messages and make phone calls without
  government surveillance” 
• 60 percent don’t think the government should be allowed to spy
  on digital messages or phone calls even in the process of
  “identifying possible terrorists”

Ken Paulson, president of the Newseum Institute’s First
Amendment Center and dean of Middle Tennessee State University’s
communication school, said the study “reminds us of the need to
pro-actively teach what young people engaged in social media know
intuitively: First Amendment freedoms are at the heart of the
American experience.” 

In
her latest
column conservative provocatuese Ann Coulter is demanding that
all conservatives and libertarians vote Republican this November.
In her latest column, Coulter delcares:

For the next six weeks, nothing matters more to the country than
Republicans taking a majority in the Senate. When it comes to
politics, conservatives need to learn one thing from liberals: All
that matters is winning.

As if conservatives in Congress have done anything to rein in
overweening government, reduce the budget, cut programs, or protect
civil liberties.

More amusingly, she writes:

“If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in
any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can
track you down and drown you.”

In Virginia, I am voting for the Libertarian candidate for U.S.
Senate Robert Sarvis
this November.

So O.K. Ms. Coulter, come give drowning me a try. My home
address in Charlottesville is marked on the map. Google Map
directions to my house from your digs in Palm Beach are below. See
you soon.

In
her latest
column conservative provocatuese Ann Coulter is demanding that
all conservatives and libertarians vote Republican this November.
In her latest column, Coulter delcares:

For the next six weeks, nothing matters more to the country than
Republicans taking a majority in the Senate. When it comes to
politics, conservatives need to learn one thing from liberals: All
that matters is winning.

As if conservatives in Congress have done anything to rein in
overweening government, reduce the budget, cut programs, or protect
civil liberties.

More amusingly, she writes:

“If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in
any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can
track you down and drown you.”

In Virginia, I am voting for the Libertarian candidate for U.S.
Senate Robert Sarvis
this November.

So O.K. Ms. Coulter, come give drowning me a try. My home
address in Charlottesville is marked on the map. Google Map
directions to my house from your digs in Palm Beach are below. See
you soon.

One week ago, courtesy of
MuckRock’s
enormous database, I highlighted the fact that the Los Angeles
Unified School District Police Department acquired
three grenade launchers along with other military gear, and
questioned how well this squares with the department’s mission to
“provide a safe and tranquil
environment in which the educational process can take
place.” 

This week, due to mounting pressure, the cops who serve the
nation’s second-largest school district are giving up some
equipment. The Los Angeles Times has
details:

In a letter to the Department of Defense’s logistics agency, a
coalition of education and civil rights groups said the presence of
weapons on campuses will only intensify existing tensions at
schools and exacerbate punitive atmospheres that criminalize and
stigmatize students of color.

Deborah Fowler, deputy director of Texas Appleseed, a social
justice nonprofit, said in a statement that other more common
weapons used by officers and security guards, such as Tasers and
pepper spray, have been misused in schools. Much of this excessive
force is targeted at students of color and those with disabilities,
she said.

So, the department said uncle and has agreed return the
grenade launchers. The cops are not budging on the other stuff they
got, though. They insist that the mine-resistant ambush-protected
vehicle and 61 M-16 rifles they’ve got in the playground arsenal
are “essential life-saving items,” so those are here to stay.

One L.A. school officer who declined to be named
assured Reuters that the MRAP, a vehicle that weighs upward of
14 tons and was designed to fight
asymmetrical warfare against Iraqi insurgents, would be used
only in “very specific circumstances.” He wouldn’t elaborate.

Schools and small towns acquire all these sorts of war toys
through the Defense Department’s 1033 Program, which since 2006 has
for the cost of shipping given domestic law enforcement
some 80,000
rifles, 12,000 bayonets, $3.6 million worth of camouflage, and
much more. In total, the program has transferred over $5
billion worth of surplus military equipment.

Reuters notes that “President Barack Obama ordered a review of
the program out of concern at how such equipment had been used
during racial unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting
death of a black teen by a white policeman last month.” Likewise,
from the
Associated Press, Congress is “considering doing more to
monitor and hold accountable police departments across the United
States that obtain sophisticated military equipment from the
federal government.”