21st Century Barbarians

Not enough is known about the downing of Flight 17 over rebel-held Ukraine. The largest unknown so far is the primordial one: why? Who gains from such a barbaric act? What mind could think that shooting a missile into a civilian airliner would gather any type of sympathy for any type of cause? To consider civilian targets justifiable clearly brands the culprits as terrorists, no question. There is no honest mistake owned up to or collateral damage claimed in this action as far as news reports have uncovered. It appears to have been intentional and, if the shoot down itself was not, the cover up, misdirection and disavowing are indicators of a moral turpitude of the highest magnitude.  

Photographic evidence and intercepted communications by surveillance services indict as culprits the separatist rebels of eastern Ukraine. Separatists incited, trained and armed by Russia under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, who seeks to assert that historically ethnic Russians living in foreign lands are entitled to territorial claims and subservience to their ancestral home country. This doctrine is destabilizing and dangerous and to leave it unchallenged will lead to greater conflict, not only in Russia’s sphere of influence, but in China’s and others, as well as the Middle East region.

The United States cannot turn a blind eye to this barbaric act and its recognizable origin in Russia’s ethnic based expansionist doctrine. But it cannot escalate out of proportion to the act itself. There are actions that can be taken to provide the adequate response.

1. The shooting of the airliner with a missile is in and of itself a clear terrorist act, prosecutable and punishable by international law. Anyone aiding these terrorists is complicit and should be treated as such—and hunted down. 
2. A massive diplomatic black balling should be coordinated: The Russian government representatives in each of the countries with victims should be admonished and given clear instructions from these countries. The ambassadors to Russia from each of these countries should be recalled for consultation.
3. Despite the Security Council veto power from Russia, resolutions should be put forward condemning in the strongest language the rebels’ actions and calling for their disarmament.
4. NATO should mobilize and, with assistance from the US and cooperation from the Ukraine government, deploy armed drones to destroy all rebel SAM bases and equipment in eastern Ukraine. By attacking an international vessel, the rebels have called for such an international response.
5. Navy ships should be deployed within cruise and perhaps even interceptor missile range of rebel bases and troops in eastern Ukraine.

While these are escalating actions and susceptible to fog of war, they are acceptable and proportional responses that still leave room for diplomatic solutions. I just hope that someone out there has a better idea. What is not a good idea is to not react to 21^st Century barbarians.

Carlos J. Rangel

Venezuela: A Call for Democracy

 

A repeated misinformation screed by Venezuelan government officials is that opposition plotters want to overthrow the government, trash the constitution and return to the failed policies of the pre-Chávez past. This refrain is used in public appearances and pronouncements under the Goebbels theory that if repeated enough, enough people will believe it to be the truth. Facts, however, belie these statements. Despite blatant electoral distortions, the opposition has repeatedly participated in elections. Opposition leaders have recognized the failings of the political model that led to the unrest of the 90’s, and in most instances defend the social net created under Chávez. Some, like the imprisoned Leopoldo López, have done community organizing to improve conditions in poor neighborhoods, using the Chávez model. That is the positive Chávez legacy: recognition of the need to redress social and economic disparities.

Negative aspects of that legacy include the virulent sectarian discourse used to belittle and prevaricate about the opposition and any perceived enemies. Chávez’s famous smelling of the sulfur in the UN, referring to President GW Bush, is pittance compared to the epithets and lies used against domestic opponents. A new low is the constant homo-hateful innuendos used by Maduro during the presidential campaign and to this day against his rival Henrique Capriles, as well as blatant dismissive sexism against opposition assemblywoman Maria Corina Machado.

Mud slinging could be comically entertaining if the stakes were not so high, as pervasive sectarian speech is a threat to any democracy. Belittling the opposition, characterizing opponents as enemies, and the call to “Socialist Homeland or Death!” used to end public appearances has created a fractured society—and is probably behind the disregard for life reflected in the 70 murders a day in 2013. Hate speech comes in many forms but is always a creeping social cancer.

Polls reflect a majority of Venezuelans consider their nation to be in crisis. In a recent Op-ed in the NYT Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, sought to defend his government and policies with facts supporting his position (Venezuela: A Call for Peace). But many of those facts are either outright misrepresentations or panglossian distortions. His sound-bite essay needs a reply with long facts.

Per Capita National Income and the GINI Coefficient, Revisited.

Economic and social numbers are sometimes difficult to read and with propaganda masters behind them can be obfuscating. Despite information limitations,however, inferences can be made that contradict Maduro’s assertions of increased social welfare under chavismo.

On its face, Gross National Income per Capita (GNI/pC) in Venezuela has increased from a little over $4,000 in 2004 up to almost $12,500 in 2012. During this period, it should be noted, the price of oil increased nearly 90%. The Gross National Income, as calculated by the World Bank, quantifies the GDP in local currency converted to US$ and adjusted for inflation. Unfortunately, the official GNI/pC may not reflect realities on the Venezuelan kitchen table.

It is illegal since 2010 to inform or publicize or use any ForEx number that is not the official rate of exchange, i.e. 6.30 bolivars per dollar. Brokers went to jail for posting “parallel market” exchange rates, and at least eight websites doing the same have local access blocked while their authors remain anonymous to avoid prosecution.  Any official number, such as the GNI/pC can legally only be calculated using that official exchange rate. 

In 2010 the parallel (black) market rate—the rate at which many businesses were forced to operate due to the Byzantine and corrupt bureaucratic entanglement that the dollar allocation system has engendered—went from 6.30 to 9.14 bolivars per dollar at year’s end. That, on its face, would imply a devaluation of close to 45%. It is estimated that the government itself has been deficit financing by intervening in black market transactions, supplying about 20% of commercially needed dollars. To be fair, not all transactions are in black market dollars, but if only 30% (including government participation) of them are, as companies and individuals are forced to this market for their needs, the estimated devaluation for 2010 would have been around 14%.

		estimated supply
Value (rate) in 2004 (Bs per US$)	Bs 1.92
Official Rate 2010	Bs 6.30	70% of demand
“Black” Rate end of 2010	Bs 9.14	30% of demand
Weighted Value 2010	Bs 7.15
“Black” Devaluation Jan-Dec 2010	45%
“Black” Devaluation 2004 to 2010	376%
Weighted Devaluation Jan-Dec 2010	14%
Official Rate 2012	Bs 6.30	70% of demand
“Black” Rate end of 2012	Bs 17.33	30% of demand
Weighted Value 2012	Bs 9.61
Weighted Devaluation 2010 to 2012	53%
Official Rate 2013	Bs 6.30	65% of demand
“Black” Rate end of 2013	Bs 63.70	15% of demand
SICAD I (Preferential allocation rate)	Bs 10.00	25% of demand
Weighted Value 2013	Bs 20.19
Weighted Devaluation 2012-2013	110%

The same calculation implies a devaluation of over 52% by 2012, as the black market rate shot up to Bs 17.33 per dollar. What this means is a brutal recessive adjustment in the real GNI/pC from US$10,140 in 2009 to $5,916 in 2012, a 52% decrease in the official numbers. The seeds of chavista economic disaster were already bearing fruit during this period, under Chávez.

Lack of transparency and arcane multi-tier rates make it difficult to estimate accurate numbers but certainly a decrease in national income per capita has occurred. Even being generous, the Gross National Income per Capita was reduced at least by a third over 2010-2012.  In 2013, with a black market rate of 63.70 Bs per dollar, the estimated devaluation over 2012, notwithstanding the new preferential allocation rate tier, was around 120%. Maduro claims solutions are in the works to diminish the pressure on the currency, including a market-based auction rate, which at its launch placed free market dollars over 50 Bs per dollar, and a tourist/visitor rate, which in effect will extract hard currency from anyone visiting Venezuela (current black market rates - note: distribution of this information is illegal in Venezuela).

The pressure on the currency has a twofold origin. First, the productive sector collapsed; after a frenzy of repeated expropriations and takeovers, many industries and farm production shut down. This led to increased imports of even basic staples—flour, cooking oil, sanitary napkins... Second, the greatest generator of foreign currency, the oil company PDVSA, sells its products to the government which in turn barters oil for services or sells it below market prices in petro-diplomacy efforts. The government has not paid PDVSA and has a gigantic debt with the company: $23bn as per PDVSA’s 2012 financial statements.


This is not sound economic policy. The economic consequences threaten hyperinflation. The immediate result is negative wealth distribution and this is what the Coefficient of Equality of Income Distribution (GINI) reflects. Equal distribution of increasingly scant resources is not progress. The GINI coefficient for Venezuela (39 in 2011) indeed points to a greater equality in distribution of wealth than in the past, it is the same as countries like Mauritania and Malawi, more equal distribution than in the US and a little less than in Bhutan, India or Uzbekistan. But to use the GINI the way Mr. Maduro used it in his commentary (“Venezuela has consistently reduced inequality”) is to misrepresent it as an indicator of social progress. Unless the economy as a whole creates wealth (measured by proxy with GNI/pC), this coefficient is meaningless.

Claims of poverty reduction solely by chavista policies are also dubious at best.  Poverty and indigence have decreased in Venezuela, but ceteres paribus, likely it would have been the case regardless. Chile and Colombia, countries with similar societies, reduced poverty in the same magnitude if not greater than that of Venezuela, while not using anything close to the Chávez model. According to the World Bank between 2005 and 2011 poverty declined in Venezuela by 22.16%, while in Colombia and Chile it declined by 31.14% and 20.88% respectively. 

Indicators such as literacy and infant mortality (according to UNESCO) have had positive trends over more than forty years and, during chavismo, these trends continued. Education from elementary to graduate has always been free, as a constitutional right throughout the 20^th century and before that by presidential decree promulgated by president Antonio Guzmán Blanco on June 27, 1870. Health care as a universal right has always existed in Venezuela and all governments have attempted to provide it in the past. These are not chavista achievements or ideals, as Maduro claims.

Reasserting policies to entrench chavismo, the Minister for Education, Héctor Rodríguez, recently said “it’s not as if we’re here to raise people out of poverty and have them become middle class squalids.” Squalid is the routine derisory term used by the government to describe the opposition. This statement was made while announcing mandatory rules for teaching Chávez-socialism, starting from Pre-K, in all schools, public, private or parochial. A continuous history rewrite.


Legitimacy of the Government and the Protests


“Since 1998, the movement founded by Hugo Chávez has won more than a dozen presidential, parliamentary and local elections through an electoral process that former American President Jimmy Carter has called ‘the best in the world.’ Recently, the United Socialist Party (USP) received an overwhelming mandate in mayoral elections in December 2013, winning 255 out of 337 municipalities.”  Thus spake Maduro in the New York Times.

This statement has several problems. The USP in fact won 240 municipalities. The other 15 Maduro claims are from splinters from that unity, including so called “true chavistas” that reject him. Overall in those elections, the USP lost 23 municipalities to the non-leftist opposition. This opposition now holds 75 municipalities, including all major cities in the country. The Maduro regime has responded by curtailing access to federal services and depriving legally entitled funds to opposition municipalities; in the same way it has done to states held by opposition governors.

But the use of former President Carter to defend elections held in Venezuela is most egregious and upsetting. Maduro refers to a Carter speech from September 2012, yet fails to mention that it was regarding the technology of the balloting system. The article he links to is about the fully automated touch-screen voting system, developed in Venezuela, which uses thumbprint recognition technology and prints receipts to confirm voters’ choices.

Maduro fails to mention the Carter Center for Democracy findings on the 2012 and 2013 presidential elections summarized as: “There is not agreement, however, about the quality of the voting conditions and whether every registered voter is able to vote one time, and only one time. In addition, the report finds a series of inequities in campaign conditions in terms of both access to financial resources and access to the media, which diminish the competitiveness of elections, particularly in a legal framework that permits indefinite reelection of public officials.”

It is noteworthy that in 2003 a drive to recall then president Chávez was sponsored by the opposition. Over three million signatures were gathered. Hugo Chávez announced in February 2004 that the list of names had been seized by the government. The list was published on-line and, in effect, became an enemies list with many signatories fired from their jobs, expelled from their schools and generally persecuted in an electoral intimidation tactic by the regime to fight the recall referendum later that year.  To this day, intimidation continues.

In April of 2013 the special election called on account of Chávez’s death resulted in the election of Nicolas Maduro, his hand picked successor. The official results were 50.61% to 49.12%, a difference of close to 230,000 votes over opposition leader Henrique Capriles. Despite calls by the opposition for a full recount and requests by UNASUR and the OAS for the same, the National Electoral Council, stacked by government loyalists, did a selective sampling audit and certified the results. The opposition has never conceded the legitimacy of this election, only acknowledged the de facto regime. In light of the Carter Center report regarding the abusive use of incumbency and media by the government and the continued intimidation of the electorate, these results at the very least are suspect, reflect a souring of chavismo among the population, and indicate massive opposition to the regime.

The legitimacy of the incumbent Maduro’s ascension—notwithstanding birther claims by the opposition—is constitutionally questionable.  Article 229 prohibits the vice president or any governor from being elected president.  Henrique Capriles resigned as Governor of Miranda state on June 6, 2012 to run against Chávez to whom he lost in October. Capriles was reelected governor in December 2012 and subsequently ran against Vice President Maduro upon Chávez’s death. No record of Capriles’ resignation for this election is available but that does not give Maduro a free pass. Any waiver to either candidate would contravene the constitution.

On the other hand the protests on the streets are constitutionally protected not only by guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly. Article 350 recognizes the right of “the people of Venezuela… to disavow any regime, law or authority that goes against democratic values, principles and guarantees, or that infringes human rights.”

Besides the undermining of democratic values and principles described above, over the last two months there have been arrests of opposition leaders, divestiture of elected officials and at least 81 documented human rights violations. There is continued harassment to opposition newspapers through millionaire lawsuits and withholding of foreign currency to buy paper, and intimidation and outright closures of media in general, including CNN and the regional news channel NTN24.


An Illusion of Democracy

What began as a student protest against crime in the streets has become a festering unrest.  It is hard to gauge the scale of the protest because the government suppresses information, while the opposition magnifies and publicizes any incident. But by calling the recent round of exploratory meetings to create “dialogue” roundtables the government tacitly acknowledges there is a political crisis.

This call for dialogue is a savvy political move by Maduro to splinter the opposition, trick an international audience into believing in a mirage of conciliatory moves, and attempt to create a puppet opposition for an illusion of democracy. In 2002, after the failed coup against Chávez, similar talks were held and promises of tolerance made. Those promises were all broken by the regime. Signatories of that accord include the current president. The record is not good, but internationally talk of sanctions has been suspended while the “dialogue” unfolds. Dialogue talks--live on TV-- that began with Maduro asserting: “I am not here to negotiate or make any deals”.

Just because a regime holds elections it does not mean it is a functioning democracy. Otherwise places such as North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Saddam’s Iraq and Mubarak’s Egypt would be considered showcases of democracy with reportedly massive happy voter turnout. As of Jan. 2014 Venezuela was ranked 133^rd out of 150 countries in the World Democracy Profile by Worldaudit.org., labeled a “hybrid regime” (ranks below “flawed democracy”) by the Economist Intelligence Unit, and ranked 121 out of 128 in the BTI (Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index) measure of democracy and freedom.



National Assembly Member Maria Corina Machado
leaves a rally attacked by tear gas.

Symptoms of lack of democracy include:jailing opponents, suppressing protests, repressive militias, media control,and a rigged electoral process. In a cynical turn of events on the same day President Maduro’s essay “Venezuela: A Call for Peace” was published,opposition leader Maria Corina Machado was being tear gassed in a public rally and divested of her congressional seat. Venezuela is not a “participatory” democracy. At best it can be called a Totalitarian Democracy.

The situation in Venezuela has parallels to Iran 2009. At that time, after a contested election, images of popular protests and counter repression by government militias and hit squads filled TV screens and news outlets.Social media was awash with feeds of the protest. The death of Neda Agha-Soltan seared many an eye and there was a belief that change would come out of the sacrifice and pain of so many youths.
To this day Iran, a staunch Venezuela ally, remains under a totalitarian regime that keeps the peace with an iron fist.

----------------------------------------------------------
Background and references:

Leopoldo López: WikiLeaks – LL goes to the Barrios to Gather Political Support: http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09CARACAS1330&q=leopoldo-lopez
LL in Popular Barrio Forum: http://globovision.com/articulo/redes-populares-de-unt-debatieron-la-reforma-en-el-cementerio-2

Henrique Capriles
HC has Sex with Gorillas: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/venezuela-president-pushes-back-using-bellicose-words-and-brute-force/2014/03/18/55357a74-aecf-11e3-b8b3-44b1d1cd4c1f_story.html
HC Leads a Homosexual Prostitution Ring: http://www.europapress.es/internacional/noticia-maduro-acusa-capriles-ser-complice-red-prostitucion-homosexual-20130815094350.html

Maria Corina Machado
MCM is an Empty Doll:  http://www.lapatilla.com/site/2013/09/06/en-la-pagina-de-an-llaman-a-maria-corina-machado-la-muneca-hueca-de-la-burguesia-imagen/
MCM Needs to Keep Her Place: http://caracaschronicles.com/2014/04/01/political-rape/
MCM is not Smart, Needs Help: http://www.aporrealos.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=799773&sid=8f2b3eab6c3f893f033f99c5aa718be9
MCM is Pitiful: http://www.aporrea.org/oposicion/a186460.html

Illegal Dollars
New Law makes it Illegal to Buy/Sell Dollars as Commodities: http://www.correodelorinoco.gob.ve/tema-dia/ley-contra-ilicitos-cambiarios-evitara-que-se-trate-al-dolar-como-mercancia/
History of Foreign CurrencyExchange Regulations: http://www.monografias.com/trabajos13/monodef/monodef.shtml
Failed Attempts to Curtail Black Market Dollars: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/02/27/how-a-sensible-economic-policy-might-have-sparked-venezuelas-protests/
Arbitrage and the Bolivar: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-sitme-and-venezuelas-currency-market/
Currency Inflation: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-25/venezuela-s-credit-rating-cut-by-fitch-on-inflation-currency.html
History of Bolivar devaluations: http://www.monedasdevenezuela.net/articulos/cronologia-de-la-devaluacion-del-bolivar-venezolano/
Historic Value/Black Market Rates of the Bolivar: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Cotizaci%C3%B3n_hist%C3%B3rica_del_bol%C3%ADvar_venezolano
Economic Snapshot Venezuela 2013: http://www.slideshare.net/miguelangelsantos/perspectivas-econmicas-de-venezuela-2013

Income and Income Distribution (GINI)
World Bank Data, Venezuela: http://data.worldbank.org/country/venezuela-rb
World Bank Data, Chile: http://data.worldbank.org/country/chile
World Bank Data, Colombia: http://data.worldbank.org/country/colombia
GINI Index, World: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html
Our Goal is not to Make Squalids out of the Poor: http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/140225/rodriguez-no-vamos-a-sacarlos-de-la-pobreza-para-que-se-vuelvan-escual

Oil/Oil Prices
PDVSA Financial Statements: http://www.pdvsa.com/index.php?tpl=interface.sp/design/biblioteca/readdoc.tpl.html&newsid_obj_id=10919&newsid_temas=111
Historical Price of Oil, in Constant Dollars: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_table.asp

Industrial and Farming Collapse
Despite Official Numbers, Shortages Increase: http://www.eluniversal.com/economia/140101/shortage-prevailed-despite-increased-agriculture-production-in-venezue
Venezuela Economy in Numbers:http://www.indexmundi.com/venezuela/economy_profile.html
Structural Productivity Problems: http://transitions.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/20/venezuelas_productivity_problem

Elections
Electoral results, Municipal Elections 2013: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elecciones_municipales_de_Venezuela_de_2013
Official electoral results, Municipal and Presidential Elections 2013: http://www.eleccionesvenezuela.com/resultados-elecciones-venezuela.php
http://www.cne.gob.ve/resultado_presidencial_2013/r/1/reg_000000.html
Concentration and influence - undermining opposition districts; http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDMQFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scielo.cl%2Fpdf%2Frevcipol%2Fv30n1%2Fart03.pdf&ei=eqBQU4XXHuH50gGStYGgBg&usg=AFQjCNFDBQAufFbiw933bnpgH6Nx8Aq_WQ
Municipal results 2013: http://www.infobae.com/2013/12/08/1529456-elecciones-venezuela-maduro-festeja-el-interior-pero-pierde-las-capitales
Carter Center for Democracy Report on Venezuela: https://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/venezuela-070313.html
Carter speech in Atlanta: http://www.globalresearch.ca/former-us-president-carter-venezuelan-electoral-system-best-in-the-world/5305779
Human Rights Watch report on Chávez: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/venezuela0908/index.htm
Electoral enemies list by the Venezuela government (Human Rights Watch report) http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/venezuela0908/2.htm#_Toc207173131

No Negotiation or Deals
The Implosion in the US’ Backyard: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-venezuela-the-uprising-no-one-is-noticing/2014/03/03/19ab5828-9fc7-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html
The Revolution is Non-Negotiable: http://www.latercera.com/noticia/mundo/2014/04/678-573208-9-maduro-asegura-que-no-habra-negociacion-o-pactos-en-dialogo-con-oposicion.shtml
http://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2014/04/10/dialogovenezuela/comment-page-1/

Shutting Down the Opposition
Close the Radios: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/01/venezuela-media-idUSN0146551720090801
Control Print Media: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2013/09/12/Venezuelas-press-faces-closures-as-newsprint-runs-out/UPI-96431379024223/
Not a Democracy: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2013/venezuela#.U1CrF6JYOSo

Carlos J. Rangel
The Failures of Chavismo: https://www.facebook.com/notes/carlos-j-rangel/with-a-heavy-heart-facing-the-failures-of-chavismo/10153925730160417
The Social Explosion In Venezuela: https://www.facebook.com/notes/carlos-j-rangel/the-social-explosion-in-venezuela/10153826072310417
Blogspot – On Iran 2009: http://carlosjrangel.blogspot.com/2009/09/selected-essays-on-iran-election.html
Campaign Journal 2008: http://books.google.com/books?id=MokNZ2AiVO0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=campaign+journal+2008&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

ACCESS AND CONTROL

There is no argument to be made based on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution or otherwise that can forbid anyone from keeping a tiger as a pet in their home.  Besides common sense reasons, regulatory agencies, from federal to local, affect an individual's ability to establish at his home in any community such a potentially dangerous situation.  However, if that individual complies with all regulations, then he can keep a tiger as a pet in his backyard.  Perhaps he is your neighbor.  That compliance still defies common sense.

Memorial by art teacher Eric Mueller.

The allegorical tiger at home is brought to mind by the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut.  The gun laws in Connecticut are strict.  The weapons were legal in a state and community that makes sure those kind of things are well regulated.  Twenty children, ages 5 to 7, were shot three to seven times each by perfectly legal guns and perfectly legal bullets.  Over one hundred rounds.  It defies common sense in a civilized society.

What are the alternative interpretations of the Second Amendment that can help us all to combat this increasingly maddening problem of mass shootings?  How to reconcile tradition, interests and legal rights of gun ownership with the potential unleashing of these weapons of mass murder upon the innocent?

The Second Amendment reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed." 

Twenty seven words of contention over the years, written in the late eighteenth century, at a time when "reload" was quite a task. And, significantly, when there was no such thing as a standing army and the defense of the state was relied upon by a "well regulated militia."

The parsing of those twenty seven words by scholars and lawyers is what has brought upon us the situation that we have today of free roaming bullets looking for targets and publicity. Some of these agents of obfuscation argue that the first part of the clause (before the second comma) is what they call "prefatory", in essence a generic and meaningless introduction to the second part (the so called operative clause) which, they argue, gives free reign to the possession of any type of weapons. Justice Scalia includes Rocket Propelled Grenades among the weapons that should be available to the general public under the right to "bear arms" because "they can be hand held." He does put a limit on cannons ("probably not" allowed are his actual words on cannons).

Just how nonsensical is this line of thinking? Perhaps those who actually wrote the Constitution should have a say on this. Alexander Hamilton did in fact think that the prefatory clause was relevant and writes in The Federalist 29:

"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority... (and) reserving to the states... the authority of training the militia."

Sounds like he was talking about the National Guard, not individualistic gun collectors. In fact, Justice Stevens in his dissent to the majority opinion that struck down an ill framed gun restriction law in Washington, DC (Heller vs. District of Columbia) makes a point on individual gun ownership and the Constitutional framers' intention:

"The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the 'right to bear arms' protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase 'bear arms' to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as 'the defense of themselves'."

Such interpretation is logical and includes in its reasoning both the so called prefatory and operative clauses of the amendment. The dissent containing this reasoning was joined by three other Justices.

So, what to do?

There is a time for grieving and there is a time for action. We pray for the victims and sympathize with the survivors. It is what makes us human. But the best way to give meaning to the senseless tragedies of Newton, Aurora, Portland, Tucson, Virginia Tech, Columbine and so many others is not to forget and do something about it. I am contacting my congressman as should all civilized citizens that wish to live in a society in which mass gun violence decreases every year, not increases.

What options exist?  The first is obvious: ban private possession of weapons specifically designed for maximum firepower in combat.  Make it illegal to own such weapons, not even grandfathered in.  Other options are more complicated but doable.  How about limiting the number of weapons in a single dwelling?  New businesses could crop out of that one: Gun storage, probably at shooting ranges, or at hunting or gun collector clubs.  Just don't keep more than one weapon at a time in a home.  And what about bullets?  How many bullets should be kept at home at any one time?  How about no more than ten, or six?  Let me put it this way--you have to sign away every time you buy Sudafed or Claritin so the authorities are sure you do not have a meth lab at home.  Why can't the number of bullets in a home be regulated?

The legal pretense of the "operative" clause of the second amendment, as lobbied to death by an industry that just wants to expand its markets limitlessly, must be debunked.  There will always be criminals.  There will always be deranged individuals craving attention.  We just do not have to make it so easy for these anti-socials to legally access weapons of mass murder.  

Carlos J. Rangel, December 2012

FOR OTHER WRITINGS ON GUN CONTROL BY CJ RANGEL GO TO: BESEIGED BY GUN VIOLENCE

Representation – A Story not Told Enough

In Arizona voters chose to vote for Republican congressmen over Democratic congressmen by over 200,000 votes.  Yet in Arizona the election results are 5 Democratic congressmen and 4 Republican congressmen.  In California, nearly 60% of votes for congressional representative went to Democratic candidates; the congressional delegation for California is 12% points higher than those results at 72%.  Connecticut’s delegation is 100% Democrats, even though they garnered as a whole 65% of the vote in that state. 

That is not the intention as laid down in the Constitution.  The idea behind the House of Representatives is that they should represent proportionally the people of their state, make each representative respond approximately to the same amount of people nationwide[1], and to be frequently held accountable by its diverse constituency, in order to listen to them better.  The Framers did not take into account the practice of gerrymandering. 

With a wink and a nod, both parties have allowed this practice that serves their self interest, disenfranchising voters right and left by making “secure” districts for either side.  It is also a practice that distorts the message that voters give with their ballot.  In another one of his great misleading whoppers, Paul Ryan stated that the results for the house of representatives validates the republican’s message, that in fact it gives the House Republicans a mandate to implement the so called “Ryan Budget,” and that president Obama has no mandate:

Asked whether President Obama has a mandate on taxes, Ryan told ABC News' senior political correspondent Jonathan Karl that the House Republican majority is proof that the president does not.

"I don't think so, because they also reelected the House Republicans.”[2]

Ryan, the wonk, does not really expect anyone to look at numbers beyond the results.  His statement is equivalent to saying that in Arizona the democratic house delegation has a mandate to implement Obamacare.

Nationally, the total vote for congressional candidates was nearly 166.6 million.  Of this total the breakdown was 48.86% Democrats and 48.58% Republicans (the rest is third parties).  So in absolute numbers Democrats won the vote for congressional representation.  In an ideal representative world, the nationwide breakdown for the 113^th Congress would be 218 Democrat, 217 Republican; definitely not a major win for either side.  But because of gerrymandering, the actual election results makes the 113^th Congress be 54% Republican and 46% Democrat (234 R, 201 D), a difference of 33 delegates, and numbers which qualify as a mandate under any analysis.  This gerrymandered distortion is wrong, and that wink and a nod gives a black eye to democracy.  A perversion of the intention of the Framers of the constitution, perpetrated in the name of creating mutually acceptable “safe districts” for each party.

The effect of gerrymandering state by state:

	Proportioned		Elected		Difference		G-Index
	Rep	Dem	Rep	Dem	Rep	Dem
Hawaii	1	1	0	2	-1	+1	50.00%
Idaho	1	1	2	0	+1	-1	50.00%
Maine	1	1	0	2	-1	+1	50.00%
New Hampshire	1	1	0	2	-1	+1	50.00%
Rhode Island	1	1	0	2	-1	+1	50.00%
Connecticut	2	3	0	5	-2	+2	40.00%
Oklahoma	3	2	5	0	+2	-2	40.00%
Nebraska	2	1	3	0	+1	-1	33.33%
South Carolina	4	3	6	1	+2	-2	28.57%
Arkansas	3	1	4	0	+1	-1	25.00%
Kansas	3	1	4	0	+1	-1	25.00%
Maryland	3	5	1	7	-2	+2	25.00%
Ohio	8	8	12	4	+4	-4	25.00%
North Carolina	6	7	9	4	+3	-3	23.08%
Indiana	5	4	7	2	+2	-2	22.22%
Massachusetts	2	7	0	9	-2	+2	22.22%
Pennsylvania	9	9	13	5	+4	-4	22.22%
Oregon	2	3	1	4	-1	+1	20.00%
Virginia	6	5	8	3	+2	-2	18.18%
Kentucky	4	2	5	1	+1	-1	16.67%
Alabama	5	2	6	1	+1	-1	14.29%
Michigan	7	7	9	5	+2	-2	14.29%
New York	10	17	6	21	-4	+4	13.10%
Minnesota	4	4	3	5	-1	+1	12.50%
Missouri	5	3	6	2	+1	-1	12.50%
Wisconsin	4	4	5	3	+1	-1	12.50%
Arizona	5	4	4	5	-1	+1	11.49%
California	21	32	15	38	-6	+6	11.32%
Florida	14	13	17	10	+3	-3	11.11%
Illinois	8	10	6	12	-2	+2	11.11%
Tennessee	6	3	7	2	+1	-1	11.11%
Washington	5	5	4	6	-1	+1	10.00%
New Jersey	5	7	6	6	+1	-1	8.33%
Georgia	8	6	9	5	+1	-1	7.14%
Texas	22	14	24	12	+2	-2	5.56%
Alaska	1	0	1	0	0	0	0.00%
Colorado	4	3	4	3	0	0	0.00%
Delaware	0	1	0	1	0	0	0.00%
Iowa	2	2	2	2	0	0	0.00%
Louisiana	5	1	5	1	0	0	0.00%
Mississippi	3	1	3	1	0	0	0.00%
Montana	1	0	1	0	0	0	0.00%
Nevada	2	2	2	2	0	0	0.00%
New Mexico	1	2	1	2	0	0	0.00%
North Dakota	1	0	1	0	0	0	0.00%
South Dakota	1	0	1	0	0	0	0.00%
Utah	3	1	3	1	0	0	0.00%
Vermont	0	1	0	1	0	0	0.00%
West Virginia	2	1	2	1	0	0	0.00%
Wyoming	1	0	1	0	0	0	0.00%

Gerrymandering allows for a gain of 14 representatives for the Republican party and a corresponding loss of 14 to the Democrats, a gap of 28.  The actual difference in the 113th Congress is 33, the other five won fair and square by quirks in districting and state allocation, not gerrymandering.

Taking away those quirks, if proportional representation is applied state by state as opposed to nationwide, congress would have 220 Republican congressmen and 216 Democratic congressmen, a total difference of 4.  Still not the nationally calculated breakdown indicated above (218D/217R), but closer to representation than what we have now in Congress, and quite definetely not a mandate.

The highest index level (>25%)[3] of gerrymandering for democratic districts occur in the states of Hawaii (which may be an outlier on account of geography), Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Maryland, favoring the democrats by 6 representatives.  As for the republicans, with the same factor of 25% or more, the most gerrymandered states were Idaho, Oklahoma, Nebraska, South Carolina, Arkansas, Kansas and Ohio, awarding republicans 12 more congressmen than they would have in better proportioned districts.  Of the 50 states, only 15 have delegations that reflect the proportional vote of their electorate.[4]

Those Framers had an idea of what they were doing.  The idea that your congressman is your closest representative in the federal government is a good one.  The amount of representatives in Congress is almost unwieldy, but still manageable –despite the seeming aimlessness of the last few years; and the apportionment after the last census was fair.  It is the redistricting that distorts the system. 

Other countries use total votes for each party and assign congressional seats according to a party roster, ensuring that the percentage of votes received by each party is reflected in the make up of the representative body.  Representatives-at-large, based upon one per average size of district, ensure that minority parties get a voice in the assembly.  If that were the case in the US, the Libertarian party and the Green party would have at least one representative in the House.  But such a system beholds the representative to the party bosses that made the list instead of to the voters who actually vote for them. 

As it has been said, our democracy may not be perfect, but it is better than many.  It is the gerrymandering perpetrated by both parties that corrupts the constitutional ideal.  It may be up to that third branch, the Judicial, to look into the abuse by the Legislative.  Because of the national scope of the issue, it would be the Federal Executive, through the Justice department and applying voter laws such as the Civil Rights act, that takes the case to the courts.  Wishful thinking, but what American ideals are all about.  Complacency on this matter will only make Congress and its dysfunctional nature worse, by creating more secure seats that silence and disenfranchise voters.  The clock is ticking.  On 2020 new apportionments and redistricting will redraw the map.  It should be a better map.

---

[1] That current number is approximately 650,000 inhabitants and 280,000 voters per congressional district.

[2] Paul Ryan: Obama Has No Tax Mandate – ABC NEWS

[3] Calculated as a percentage of the favored difference of the respective party over the total number of congressional districts in the state.  For example, if a party should have received 5 representatives in proportional allocation and it received 7 it has a favored difference of 2.  If the total number of districts is 10, then the gerrymandered index level is 20%.

[4] The numbers do not consider turnout for effects of representation.  California, for example, has an extremely low turnout.  Its average total vote per congressional district was 181,957, almost two standard deviations below the national average of 267,793.  In addition to turnout there is the down the ballot vote.  The vote for president was 121.8M, while the vote for representatives was 116.5M, more than 4.3% less.  But representatives are beholden to those who vote, so turnout is a factor that should be discounted for this analysis.  Every vote does count.