... fiscal conservative

A trendy description for folks who are heartless, but don't want to seem like a complete jerk, is to say, "I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative." I'm here to say that in terms of economic policy, there is no difference between 'liberal' and 'conservative' except who will suckle at the government teat.

In the first place, terms like 'conservative' and 'liberal' are classically political, referring to the divide between those who support the despot and those who wanted to engage in self-rule. That isn't to say that the terms cannot apply to fiscal ideology, but the practical application of these terms points to a false divide. It is also to say that as an economic policy, the classical definition of 'liberal' IS conservative by nature. It is concerned with free markets that are tolerant of regulation and private property in the means of production.

What has become interchangeable with 'liberal' is more akin to socialism. But no honest, so-called conservative truly believes his ideological foe to be a socialist. That is because mostly we, the ideological foes of the so-called conservative, are not socialists. The ideological contrast is far more subtle than that, as we shall soon see. Further, there is far more agreement between conservatives and liberals than one might think.

A major plank of the conservative platform is a balanced budget. But this is voiced in terms that imply that liberals are unconcerned with balancing the budget. But consider that the last 'liberal' administration actually balanced the budget, and more, created a budget surplus which would have considerably reduced the national debt, another conservative plank. Contrast these actions with the mythological Perseus of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, who not only ballooned the deficit/debt, but also grew the size of government exponentially.

We could go point by point debunking false distinctions between apparently opposing ideologies, but that would take some time. Let's then look at the one area that defines what is meant when we label ourselves (or each other) 'liberal' or 'conservative.' The question is simple: When the government writes its checks, who is the payee?

A conservative would have you believe that it's the poor. They are lazy and good for nothing and suck resources dry. We need to chuck out the illegals, drug test welfare recipients and for God's sake stop these public employees from receiving their gold-plated Mercedes that good-for-nothing unions negotiated for all those years ago. That is the path to fiscal health.

But they never say anything about closing revenue gaps, like by tax increases. They never say anything about reducing labor arbitrage, like by denying tax incentives to companies that send jobs overseas. They do, however tout tax cuts that clearly benefit the wealthy and say they don't need to be paid for. they will support deregulation of industries that will boost profits, while eviscerating vital protections of resources, human, natural and otherwise. All of this is free money, taxpayer money, that is vacuumed from the pockets of the common folk and put into a trough for the likes of Kochs and Goldman Sachs executives. When bailout money (read tax money) was being shoveled into the pockets of the men who were directly responsible for the Great Recession conservatives shook their fists and stamped their feet over efforts to recoup that money on behalf of the taxpayers. Now those same conservatives are shaking their fists and stamping their feet over taxpayer money being used... wait for it... to pay teachers and correctional officers!

To be fair, anyone protesting in Wisconsin right now will tell you that their fight isn't over money. It's about the right to bargain collectively with the state. The same right, the same fight, in the same state where the 40 hour work week and the concept of overtime were practically born. But I digress.

The point is that the only true ideological difference between the conservative so-called, and the liberal so-called, is who is the beneficiary of taxpayer funding. For my part I would rather my tax dollars go to people who actually need it, AND in whose hands the economy has a chance to actually grow. Would I prefer a better way of weeding out the freeloaders that any subsistence program would entail? Sure. But freeloaders are a far cry from my tax dollars going to benefit millionaires who will employ me only so long as they can't get a better return from someone else, some where else.

of Defending the Indefensible

Jack Shafer doesn't get it.

Not surprising from someone who is as hardnosed a Libertarian as he claims to be, but still upsetting that he would turn such a tragedy into an opportunity to show off just how much he loves his freedom.

Shafer starts by declaring any call for civility an attempt at censorship. By his own broad standards, Shafer's criticism of Sheriff Dupnik is itself censorship. Can't a sheriff who actually sees the violence have an opinion, Mr. Shafer? He then goes on to say that vitriolic speech doesn't cause violence. Cause? perhaps not, but certainly gives comfort to to unbalanced and provides a reason, something that they can say made them do it.

He also seems to assume that being angry at the government entails hate speech and violent rhetoric. This is odd, as between the years 2000 and 2008, I can recall only ever being angry at the government and never drawing a target on a map, saying, "don't retreat, reload," or encouraging, "second amendment solutions." Anger and rage do not go hand in hand, but anger can certainly feed rage and the angry words we use can provide the fuel an enraged person needs to act in ways he only dreams about.

Mr. Shafer says he'd, "wager that in the last 30 years there have been more acts physical violence in the stands at Philadelphia Eagles home games than in American politics." For a moment let's ignore his glib comparison of a drunken fight to murder and highlight that his time frame is bookended by assassination attempts on politicians and at least one bombing of a federal building. He says that targets have been political graphics his whole life, but doesn't offer much in the way of example. I, for one, don't recall this level of vitriol in national politics in my generation. The previous generation, however, did have some terrible examples of inflamed political rhetoric. It also had the assassinations of a Civil Rights leader, a senator and a president.

In my experience, vitriol flows from vessels that have nothing more than that in their reserves. Anger is one thing, but violence is what fills the void between anger and solutions. To defend the violent speech and vitriolic rhetoric as Mr. Shafer does is a commitment to ignorance and violent action. To be clear, NO ONE is calling for inflamed rhetoric to be censored. That would be un-American. However to ask people with no real solutions to tone down their noise is at its worst aesthetically appropriate. Further, it gives the unbalanced people no excuse for their actions.

of Crime and Punishment

"Do you think the sentence is fair?"

"Are you satisfied with the outcome?"

"Do you feel justice has been served?"

These are the genius questions local media, in their penetrating thoroughness, have asked me since the sentencing of  Pop's killers. The questions are senseless. They have no meaning. A frustrating example of how little the media attempts to understand the victims and are looking for their sound bites. They wanted me to say how angry I was or how the DA chickened out. But the truth is, anger has no utility and the assistant DA worked his ass off. He thought he still had a case even to the day the deal was made. His boss, however, saw differently and I happened to agree.

Fairness is not a concept that can be applied in this matter. There is nothing our family can receive that would compensate our loss. What then is fair for the defendants? They killed someone, so should they lose their lives? I hardly think they would find that fair. Neither would it comfort us. So fairness is off the table.

Of satisfaction there can be none. The perpetrators were as young as fifteen at the time of the crime. To put a child in prison for life is not satisfaction. The charges against the accused are brought by the people, not the victims, so the law isn't designed to satisfy the victim of a violent crime.

That leaves us with justice. What justice is now comes down to a number, the years spent in prison. For losing Pop, there is no appreciable number. No number can satisfy the pain with which my family still struggles. The number, as it turns out is 11, each. Eleven years, mandatory serving a minimum of 85% of that time with good behavior. To view that number as a function of the value of my dad's life is to approach the sentence wrongly. First, it is the maximum that can be given for the charge of voluntary manslaughter. The media says the defendants, "avoided murder charges," but in actuality they admitted to acting stupidly and viciously and quite unintentionally took a man's life. That appears to have been the case. And in that sense they have gotten what they deserved.

I am not satisfied with the sentences nor do I think them fair, but only for the reasons I've so far discussed. I have called the sentence a gift. Eleven years may not seem like a long time in prison for having killed someone, but it is plenty of time to turn around their lives. The tragedy, the true injustice, would be for them to leave prison older, yet no wiser. To go home and continue their aimless lives, without goals or rules. To drink themselves out of sense and good judgment and one day act stupidly again, destroying another family. Eleven years gives them the time to get an education, find God, write a novel....

One reporter remarked at how I could be so generous. It isn't generosity so much as hope that wishes this ordeal to be a life changing experience for them. The cynical me is aware that the odds say they won't come out any different. But why should I be led by the cynical me? I do not forgive them, but I can't remain angry and vindictive. It is exhausting to wish ill on someone and a bad example to set for one's own children.

My goal throughout this whole ordeal has been to represent my family with grace and understanding. To be grateful for the hard work of the detectives and attorneys who worked to resolve this matter. I am grateful for it. I have been more than impressed with the professionalism and tact that most of them have displayed. At the sentencing, however, two attorneys attempted a maneuver that I found tactless. They asked the judge to amend the ruling in a way that minimizes their clients' participation. It was a maneuver so devoid of empathy that another attorney later contacted me to say that he too was disappointed in their behavior.

The outcry of righteous anger is appreciated. It is, however, the natural result of two deficiencies: information about the particulars of this case and an understanding of terms like 'malice' and 'malice aforethought,' which taken at face value can seem straightforward, but are malleable enough in the hands of a jury. The case was filed under penal code 187, but would never have gone to trial as such. Being present at the preliminary hearings showed me just how difficult the witnesses, what few they were and what little they saw (or said they saw) was going to be. It was enough to convince me that a jury could monumentally undo the ADA's hard work. Instead of five people sitting in prison, some of them may have gone home to their normal lives before summer. That would have been unacceptable.