It's time to think the unthinkable: The leader of the Democratic Party is about to submit a budget which cuts Social Security benefits. Party officials are reportedly promoting candidates with no track record on key issues and no apparent interest in politics. And Republicans are planning another double-cross, an undertaking for which they have demonstrated both talent and enthusiasm. Meanwhile, a petition with more than two million signatures will be presented to the White House tomorrow at a rally in Lafayette Square. And yet, despite this massive outpouring of public sentiment, and despite widespread public support for Social Security, the Democrats may be setting themselves up for a 2014 Congressional race in which they're portrayed as the "anti-Social Security party." Impossible? No. Remember when Republicans re-took the House in 2010 after their losses in 2006 and 2008? Now that was impossible. Off-Label Democrats have long considered Social Security their signature program. They've repeatedly defended it from Republican attempts to gut or privatize it. Democratic activists have told me privately that, no matter what happens this year, it 'wouldn't be fair' to characterize Democrats as Social Security cutters or the relentlessly hostile Republicans as its defenders. Fair? Excuse me, I thought we were talking about politics. And if we're being completely fair, it's not altogether unreasonable to think of someone who voted to cut Social Security benefits as ... well, as someone who voted to cut Social Security benefits. There's been extensive coverage of the President's planned chained-CPI cuts. Now comes this story in the Washington Post, about the party's plan to brand its candidates as blank slates: "The best way to defeat the conservative, ideologically driven GOP, Democrats say, is to field non-ideological 'problem solvers' who can profit from the fed-up-with-partisanship mood of some suburban areas. These districts will offer some of the few competitive House campaigns in the country." We're told that party leaders want to play into what they see as the "fed-up-with-partisanship mood of some suburban areas." Total Recall The Post article features Kevin Strouse, hand-picked by party leaders to contest a Congressional seat in Pennsylvania. We're told that party officials think Strouse is "exactly the kind of candidate who can help them retake the House next year." "He's a smart, young former Army Ranger," writes the Post, "good qualities for any aspiring politician. But what party leaders really like is that Strouse doesn't have particularly strong views on the country's hottest issues." Strouse told the Post that Democratic officials asked him very little about politics or policy and said they focused on his background instead. "They've just liked the bio," said Strouse.  Politics may be the only profession in the world where a lack of experience, coupled with what seems to be complete disinterest in the job, is considered an asset. The Job As a former Army and CIA officer, we're told, Strouse likes to describe himself as someone who can "solve problems" and who "got the job done." But which job, exactly? Polls do show that voters are frustrated with Washington's ability to "get things done." But which "things"? The polling's equally unequivocal on that score: Voters want government to create jobs. They want government to fix the economy. And, by overwhelming majorities, they don't want government to enact the chained CPI benefit cut to Social Security. The President understood that. His re-election campaign focused heavily on populist themes - themes he articulated brilliantly, regardless of his intentions. Will we see the same level of talent and expertise from the party's new neophyte politicians? "Certainly I have a lot of research to do," said Strouse. This Space Available The Post profiled other blank-slate candidates, including Gwen Graham, daughter of veteran Democratic politician Bob Graham. Her only government experience seems to have been providing legal advice to the local school district. We're told that Graham's campaign presents her as a "consensus builder" with the "skills to solve complicated problems." That's campaign-speak for "lacks qualifications." Follow the Money Then there's this: "Without a presidential contest to compete with," writes the Post, "Democrats also believe liberal mega-donors will open their wallets more generously (a PAC) supporting House Democrats." Not if Democrats have just voted cut Social Security, they won't. Turning Down the Base While Republicans mobilize their base with "conservative, ideologically driven" candidates, Democrats think they can retake the House in an off-year election by fielding colorless, ideology-free candidates. If nothing else, that would certainly amplify the disillusionment of young people, minorities, and other core Democratic voters in a post-chained-CPI world. Seniors would already be long gone, if the polls are any indication. Who thought of this strategy again? Filling in the Blanks Some Democratic leaders apparently believe that their ideal candidate is a vacuum, a cipher, a human "to let" sign who can become the repository for a voter's - or a contributor's - technocratic daydreams.  The architect of this strategy appears to be Rep. Steve Israel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. There's a problem with Israel's strategy: The President of the United States, the head of the Democratic Party, is about to formally propose cuts to Social Security - cuts which are opposed by 69 percent of senior voters, who vote disproportionately in off-year elections - and are also opposed by majorities or pluralities of voters across the political spectrum. If Democrats in Congress back their President's measure in significant numbers, it will make their re-election fights much tougher. It will also allow Republicans to fill in the human blank spaces Israel and the DCCC are putting up for office. How would they go about doing that? Memories Are Made of This We already know. In 2010 they capitalized on Obama's budgetary wafflings over Medicare and Social Security by creating a "Seniors' Bill of Rights" and running to Democrats' left on these issues.  Only five years after the GOP's wildly unpopular attempt to privatize the program, Obama was less trusted that George W. Bush on Social Security - and Democrats had squandered their 25-point lead on the issue. Rep. Israel and his fellow party officials seem to think that they can win by presenting candidates like Strouse, Eldridge, and Graham as if they were protagonists in a political version of Total Recall, rocketed onto a political planet without known biographies or histories. The problem is that the Republicans will write their histories for them. Party leaders won't "like the bios" coming out of GOP Headquarters and Fox News (if those two names aren't a redundancy). Candidates with no records, and no political convictions, will have them provided to them. "Want to know what Strouse stands for?" they'll ask. "Look at his party's record on Social Security." "Gwen Graham can solve 'complicated problems'," the campaign ads will say, "like cutting your benefits." We're told that Israel is modeling his approach on that of Rahm Emanuel. The Post repeats the common error of crediting Emanuel with the Democrats' 2006 victory, which many non-partisan observers attribute instead to Howard Dean's shrewd "50-state strategy." But Emanuel had more powerful friends and better friends, and he emerged the victor after a bitter internecine battle with Dean. We all know history is written by the victors. One for the Books Social Security can only be cut if Republicans agree to it, and they've wanted these cuts for years. They'd have to agree to a deal, then turn around and campaign against it. They wouldn't be that underhanded, would they? That was a rhetorical question. The betrayal's already started, before the deal's even done. Last month Republican Senator Lamar Alexander was quoted as saying "If the history books were written today, we would remember President Obama for the sequester" - that brutal set of pre-packaged austerity cuts that were jointly agreed upon both parties. It's grossly unfair to blame one side for an austerity package they both accepted. It's also smart politics. Winning Ugly Alexander also fulminated about "this president's unwillingness to confront what most people believe is the single biggest issue facing our country," which he described as "the out-of-control costs of mandatory entitlement spending in the federal budget, led by Medicare." Now the President's offering Republicans what Alexander and the others exactly what they want: cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Are they actually treacherous enough to use that against him and his party? That was another rhetorical question. The President and his party don't need to worry about Alexander's threat.  They won't be remembered for the sequester. But if the chained CPI becomes law, they may well be remembered for cutting Social Security. If so, they'll pay for it where it hurts most: at the polls - not to mention their consciences.  

Theodore Roosevelt was appalled by the lack of firearms training within the constabulary when he was appointed president of the New York City Police Department Board of Supervisors, a rank now known as police commissioner.

Here's how a former half-term governor described Margaret Thatcher in National Review today. Sound familiar?

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, one of the nation's most committed and deep-pocketed gun-control proponents, is ratcheting up pressure on lawmakers by launching a new system to grade them based on their votes and statements on gun issues.

Uninsured people and those with low incomes are the most likely to go with prescription drugs they need because of cost -- and it could be harming their health, according to survey results published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tuesday. The CDC found that one-fifth of American adults overall asked their doctors to prescribe a medicine cheaper than their first choice. Thirteen precent of adults 18-64 didn't take a prescribed drug because of cost compared to 6 percent of those over 65. Rising health care prices are a big reason why more Americans aren't getting treatments they need. But the 45 million or more without health insurance are most vulnerable to the high cost of prescription drugs in the United States. Nearly a quarter of people without health insurance said they didn't take a medicine their physicians prescribed, according to the survey. A slightly larger percentage asked for a lower-priced substitute. The poor and near-poor were much more apt than people with higher incomes to simply go without the prescription drug they needed because of the cost. This isn't merely an academic exercise, the CDC emphasizes in its report: Some cost-reduction strategies used by adults have been associated with negative health outcomes. For example, adults who do not take prescription medication as prescribed have been shown to have poorer health status and increased emergency room use, hospitalizations, and cardiovascular events. Read the CDC report below:

Gov. Christie has proposed a $1.6 million budget for New Jersey's three-year-old medical marijuana program - more than twice the current spending plan - in anticipation that more dispensaries will open this year.

Paul Johnson, Wall St. JournalMargaret Thatcher had more impact on the world than any woman ruler since Catherine the Great of Russia. Not only did she turn around—decisively—the British economy in the 1980s, she also saw her methods copied in more than 50 countries. "Thatcherism" was the most popular and successful way of running a country in the last quarter of the 20th century and into the 21st.

James Mulvaney, Los Angeles Times

Eugene Robinson, Washington PostWASHINGTON -- When I met Margaret Thatcher she was out of office, watching with more than a touch of amusement as her successor, John Major, meandered from crisis to disappointment to sticky wicket. Major seemed in thrall to events, not in command of them. Thatcher, who had been ousted by her own Conservative Party, was feeling vindicated.She leaned close to deliver a final verdict on Major: "If only he were a man."Thatcher, who died Monday at 87, was a towering but polarizing figure. Many aspects of her legacy -- the transformation of Britain into a postindustrial society -- will...

Scott Conroy, RealClearPoliticsA few days after Barack Obama finally emerged as the Democratic nominee in his epic 2008 showdown against Hillary Clinton, Katie Couric delivered a rare editorial commentary in an online video. The then-"CBS Evening News" anchor captured the emerging sentiment among much of the media establishment, which suddenly found itself with time for reflection."Sen. Clinton has received her fair share of the blame, and so has her political team, but like her or not, one of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life,...

The 2012 election happened over five months ago, at the beginning of November. One notable result of this election was that two states -- Washington and Colorado -- voted to legalize marijuana for adult recreational use. This was a direct challenge to federal drug policy. We are all still waiting for the Obama administration's response. I don't know about you, but I, for one, am getting a little sick and tired of the wait. I cannot name another contentious issue that President Obama has stonewalled in such a fashion during the same time period. We've had policy announcements, speeches, or other White House activity on such hot-button issues as: gay marriage, gun control, contraception, Social Security, Medicare, taxes, the federal budget, drones, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, immigration reform, women's rights, climate change, and probably a number of others that don't immediately spring to mind. The public knows where Obama stands on these issues, or at the very least knows the general direction of his policy. But not on marijuana. On that particular issue, we are left to guess. There is simply no excuse for this. Allow me to point out, once again: it has been over five months since the election. During this entire time, we have heard not a peep from Barack Obama, nary a word from Eric Holder. Nothing. The stonewalling is complete. Obama, for most of his first term, liked to treat the entire issue as a big joke. He was forced to do so because of the overwhelming online interest he got whenever he did a "virtual town hall" or any other such social networking foray (turns out a lot of pot smokers know how to use computers -- who knew?). People demanded answers to serious and specific questions about what the Obama marijuana policy would be, and what they got instead was a punchline from the president. But the time for laughing the issue off as being irrelevant is long past. People aren't laughing any more. The states are moving forward, one by one, instituting much more sane and reasonable laws dealing with marijuana. Medical marijuana is now legal in twice the number of states which have legalized gay marriage, for instance -- roughly 40 percent of them, in fact. Maryland just passed such a law. The voters in Washington and Colorado approved adult recreational usage of marijuana in defiance of federal law. Five months ago, in fact. The American public is, to borrow a phrase, "evolving" on the issue. National polls now show over half the country supports full legalization. Much like gay marriage, the younger voters are even more liberal on the issue than their elders. Meaning it isn't too hard to see which way the "arc of history" is bending. Everyone now under the retirement age either was born or came of age from the 1960s onwards -- and, as a result, has a different attitude on marijuana usage than previous generations. People now in their 60s were teens in the 1960s, to put this another way. They have personal experience dealing with government propaganda (which is a polite way of saying "outright lies") about marijuana -- they used to go see midnight showings of the old propaganda film Reefer Madness, in theaters echoing with laughter and filled with billowing clouds of smoke. In perhaps the best example of how things have changed, the last three presidents have admitted to smoking pot -- something that once would have automatically disqualified any candidate for the office. Politicians of a certain age are now allowed to have had "youthful indiscretions" with marijuana -- while nobody ever asks them the fundamental question: "Would your life have changed for the better in any way by getting caught and being changed with the crime of smoking pot?" The hypocrisy of supporting criminal charges for others for what they once did is stunning, but (again) nobody ever seems to ask this question of such politicians in the first place. Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder continue to fight the War On Weed as if Nancy Reagan were in charge. Or Harry Anslinger, for that matter. This fight has been very quiet, for the most part -- Obama has given no major speeches touting his crackdown on marijuana -- but it has been a fierce one nonetheless. When Obama was first elected president, he promised his administration would set "science-based" policies and allow states with medical marijuana laws to experiment without federal interference. He has broken both those promises, to be blunt (no pun intended). The Department of Justice has taken a very hard line indeed, even in states with legalized medical marijuana. Which is why marijuana advocates are so worried about how Obama and Holder are going to react to Colorado and Washington legalizing marijuana. Nobody really knows what Obama and Holder are going to do. And (not to be annoyingly repetitive) after five whole months we're all still waiting to find out. There are any number of options for Obama and Holder to choose. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities, from a serious federal enforcement crackdown to a court challenge to the laissez-faire "let's see what happens" approach. But the citizens of Colorado and Washington are tired of waiting to see what the Obama/Holder approach is going to be. How long does it take to formulate a policy, for Pete's sake? Both states are in the process of setting up rules and regulations for how their legalized recreational marijuana marketplace is going to operate. Both states have reportedly been in contact with the Justice Department in an effort to lay their cards on the table, in the hopes of getting the feds on board with whatever systems they come up with. Holder, however, has been holding his cards very tightly to his vest. He refuses to say what he's going to do. He is "studying" the issue, or "formulating a policy," or perhaps just "stalling, in the hopes the issue will disappear, somehow." This is no longer acceptable. The voters of Colorado and Washington deserve an answer, and they deserve one now. If Barack Obama and Eric Holder want to stage a major federal enforcement effort in Colorado and Washington in an effort to turn back the tide, well then, they should get out there in public and defend such an action. If they truly believe that a crackdown is the proper response to the two states' legalization voter initiatives, then they need to explain why and attempt to get the public behind their effort. If, on the other hand, they think allowing Colorado and Washington adults to freely smoke pot is the way to go, this also would be a policy that would require some public education as to their reasons why. Either of these positions (or even any sort of "down the middle" approach) is going to be cheered by some and excoriated by others. Not everybody is going to be happy, no matter what policy Obama and Holder decide to set, in other words. Such is the nature of politics, and the nature of leadership. Even those who disagree with whatever the stated Obama policy turns out to be could at least respect it as a stated policy. That way, they would be free to respond: "OK, fine, that's your position? Well then, we're going to fight you on it." Not having a position, however, is becoming more and more unacceptable with each passing day... and week... and month. Mister President, Mister Attorney General, with all due respect, we are tired of waiting. You've had five months. You've had enough time to make up your minds. State rules and regulations are being drafted right now. We require a serious federal response, whatever it turns out to be. Not deciding is just not acceptable any longer.   Chris Weigant blogs at: Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigantBecome a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post  

Larry Kudlow, National ReviewMany profound and detailed admiration pieces will be written about the late Margaret Thatcher, and they'll be much deeper than this one. But I want to get on record with my own esteem for Mrs. Thatcher, whose character, philosophy, and achievements made her one of Britain's greatest prime ministers.Way back in the early 1990s, at a National Review conference on the eastern shore of Maryland, I had the great honor to serve on an economics panel that Mrs. Thatcher moderated. (Craig Roberts was also on that panel, although I can't remember the name of the third panelist.) The...

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Reserve's annual "stress tests" of major U.S. banks have become better able to detect risks, Chairman Ben Bernanke said Monday night. He said the tests show that the banking industry has grown much healthier since the financial crisis. Speaking in Atlanta, Bernanke noted that this year's tests showed that 18 of the biggest banks had collectively doubled the cushions they hold against losses since the first tests were run in 2009. He says the tests are providing vital information to regulators. The latest test results were released last month. They showed that all but one of the 18 banks were better prepared to withstand a severe U.S. recession and an upheaval in financial markets. The tests are used to determine whether the banks can increase dividends or repurchase shares. Bernanke's comments came in a speech to a financial markets conference sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. He said he viewed the first stress test conducted in 2009, months after the financial crisis struck, as "one of the critical turning points in the crisis." "It provided anxious investors with something they craved: credible information about prospective losses at banks," he said. Bernanke said that in the ensuing years, the Fed has worked to improve the stress tests so they could serve as a resource for banking regulators to monitor and detect threats to the financial system. The stress tests have been criticized by some banks because the central bank has kept secret the full details of the computer models it is using to evaluate each bank. The Fed has defended this practice. It has argued that it is similar to teachers not giving students specific questions that will appear on a test to guard against students memorizing the answers. "We hear criticism from bankers that our models are a `black box' which frustrates their efforts to anticipate our supervisory findings," Bernanke said. He said that over time, the banks should better understand the standards the tests are measuring. In this year's test, the Fed approved dividend payment plans and stock repurchase plans for 14 of the 18 banks outright. Two of the banks, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, were told by the Fed that they could proceed with their plans but would need to submit new capital plans. Two other banks, Ally Financial and BB&T, were forbidden by the Fed to go through with their dividend increases and share buybacks. Ally Financial, the former financing arm of General Motors, fared the worst on the stress test. The Fed's data showed that Ally's projected capital level was below the minimum the Fed thinks a bank would need to survive a severe recession. Ally officials said they believed the Fed's testing models were unreasonable. BB&T, based in Winston-Salem, N.C., said it would resubmit its capital plan and that it believes that it will be able to address the factors which had led to the Fed's objections.

There’s a lot of interest in this question in ed-reform circles today; Alexander Russo sketches the line of thinking here. It’s understandable, considering how successful proponents of gay marriage* have been in changing public opinion, state statutes, and, perhaps soon, constitutional law on the issue. If only education reformers could be so lucky! Some of the lessons being bandied about include the following: Picking one issue and rallying the whole movement behind it (gay marriage instead of gays in the military, for example) Reframing the debate (in this case, from “gay rights” to embracing the “responsibilities” that marriage brings) Making sure that movement leaders keep a low profile So can we make a plausible education analogy? I think it’s a stretch, and not just because ed reformers love to appear on magazine covers. Gay marriage is fundamentally a moral issue. Legalizing it doesn’t cost taxpayers any serious money; it won’t balloon the deficit; there are no “vested interests” in terms of employee unions protecting their pensions or rapacious corporations seeking to make a fast buck. It’s simply a matter of inclusion and freedom on one side, tradition and gut feelings on the other. It’s a classic social issue. Not so with education reform. Though all sides of its debates try to claim the moral high ground and use moralistic rhetoric, making schools work better is largely a management/service/governance challenge. Take the question of “picking one issue” to rally around. Which would it be? Teacher evaluations? Tenure? Common Core? School choice? Funding? While any of these can be framed as an issue of right or wrong, once you get serious about specifics, a world of complexity unveils itself. Sure, bad teachers should be fired. But who decides if they are bad? Using what metric? What safeguards do you put in place? Yes, children should have a right to go to the school of their choice. But what if the schools don’t want them? What if their parents don’t pay property taxes where the school is located? What if parents choose poorly? In fact, education reform is more akin to health care reform. In both cases, we’re talking about big chunks of the economy, much of it paid for with tax dollars; wrestling with issues of quality and equity; and trying to ascertain the appropriate role of government versus the private sector. Even in the aftermath of the Affordable Healthcare Act, you don’t hear people asking what ed reformers might learn from health-care reform. But we should. And the answer? It’s complicated. *Which, yes, I support. Originally published on the Fordham Institute's Flypaper blog.

Kim Hjelmgaard, USA Today

Anne Perkins, The Guardian

Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Reynolds (R-Oklahoma City) told fellow lawmakers last week that they have no responsibility to ensure students have access to a college education. The state's legislature has been debating a bill that would expand Oklahoma's Promise, a program that provides post-secondary education scholarships to qualified low-income students. State Rep. James Lockhart (D-Heavener) emailed colleagues to highlight a student named Austin, who, Lockhart was told, earned a 4.39 GPA and a 32 on the ACT, but doesn't qualify for Pell grants and has only received a few scholarships, which won't cover his tuition bill. In an email exchange posted on the state Democratic Party's website, Lockhart wrote: How do we guarantee that students like Austin, who is clearly very much a top student, get an education? These are the ones that will cure cancer, create the next big invention or possibly become a great leader. How do we help these students? It's OUR JOB to see this kid get an education. We want our best and brightest to receive an education that lets them reach their full potential. We are failing him. Reynolds responded: It is not our job to see that anyone gets an education. It is not the responsibility of me, you, or any constituent in my district to pay for his or any other persons [sic] education. Their GPA, ACT, AS[V]AB, determination have nothing to do with who is responsible. Their potential to benefit society is irrelevant. He clarified in an email to The Huffington Post that he supports free public K-12 education, but not beyond that. "I support the Oklahoma Constitution with regard to funding common education and find nothing in the Oklahoma Constitution with regard to free Higher Education," Reynolds said. Reynolds' comment runs counter to the broad sentiments of his party's early leaders. The Morrill Act of 1862, which was named for a GOP founder, Sen. Justin Morrill of Vermont, and signed into law by the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, essentially gave birth to public higher education. Morrill said the purpose of his namesake legislation was to create a "college in every State upon a sure and perpetual foundation, accessible to all, but especially to the sons of toil." More recently, a study from the State Chamber of Oklahoma, a business lobbying group, found that the state receives $4.72 in return for every dollar invested in public higher education and that public higher education was responsible for 85,000 Oklahoma jobs in 2011. But Reynolds is noted for his willingness to disagree with Democrats and fellow Republicans. Last year, Tulsa World described him as the state "legislature's top naysayer" because he's voted no more than any other lawmaker. He sponsored legislation in January 2012 to reinstate "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for the Oklahoma National Guard. And earlier this year, he sponsored a personhood bill essentially the same as a measure that failed in a divisive battle last year.

My last gun control blog stirred up quite a kerfuffle on my Facebook wall and in the comments section on The Huffington Post. It came to a head when I chose to share my opinion that gun owners "share a portion of responsibility for all gun crime." I said, "You cannot have gun violence without guns." Believe it or not, it is possible to acknowledge that these are factually true statements while at the same time acknowledging that it is beyond one's personal power to change the world. Yes, guns and gun violence will still be there if you choose not to buy a gun, but it is also true to say we wouldn't be in this situation if everyone rejected violence and guns. No, I'm not speaking about a "stupid liberal utopia." These are reasonable philosophical arguments that aren't intended to judge or demean. After all, we all buy cars and we all share responsibility for the condition of the ozone layer. Can we still sleep at night? Sure. As grownups, we concede that we're not going to wean ourselves off fossil fuels overnight. Neither will world peace come just because a few of us don't buy weapons. When it comes to guns, many gun owners become frighteningly hostile when a single word is brought against their ideas about the Second Amendment. Even when it comes from the likes of me. And why? I'm not in charge of public policy. I'm a complete nobody who happens to have an opinion, researched the topic and presented relevant data with links for people to explore and form their own ideas. Commenters on The Huffington Post have called me a coward, among other insults, and though, to date, I've not yet been overtly threatened, I can see how quickly it could come to that. I've read many blogs from public officials who are threatened, bullied and intimidated -- now I have some firsthand experience also. But what other topic could I write about to elicit such a response? I'm not perfect. I lost my temper with perfectly reasonable people; I knew it would be like this to write a blog on gun control. I care deeply, you care deeply. What some don't seem to grasp though is, when you're armed, and arguing with heated rhetoric, it's easy to misinterpret a threatening posture. And this, in a nutshell is the problem with the gun advocates I read about in the news and those sorry folks like Wayne LaPierre and others speaking on behalf of the NRA. They fail to recognize the dignity of the Second Amendment, and how every gun owner is, in a very real way, an ambassador for the right to bear arms. "I'm polishing my gun," was a joke a former beloved professor left on my wall. I didn't think it was funny. In fact, my first reaction was that perhaps he was mentally imbalanced. The remark can literally be construed as a threat. He explained it was a joke, and I accepted that, but it underscores a large problem in how the shared responsibility of the Second Amendment is thought of in our country. The Second Amendment asks everyone who lives here to trust those who are armed to be lawful with their weapons. Some would argue it promotes mistrust and we're all preparing for trench warfare, but I rather like to think of it in the positive abstract: Every gun owner is an ambassador for gun rights. Nice, but that's a lot to ask. A single trip to YouTube will uncover just how irresponsible many folks who no doubt consider themselves "good guys with guns" are. (Try searching "rednecks with guns.") One intelligent Facebook friend told me quite earnestly that he never understood why folks like me were mistrusting of law abiding citizens with guns. As if Adam Lanza's mother wasn't at one time also responsible. But, fair enough. Let me explain my thought process on the challenges of trusting the law abiding folks. How well do I know you? Maybe not at all. Let's say I kind of know you. Let's say I kind of know you, and you're armed. Let's say you're armed and you're mad. And now you're armed, mad, and you're up in my face yelling about your rights. And now you're armed, mad, up in my face and yelling about your rights, and demanding I trust you with a machine gun because you might need it to fight looters after a hurricane, or you're a single mother who wants to use it to defend against home invasion. Because, as you say, you're "responsible." No doubt you still think you're responsible and reasonable and all that even after that display of hysteria. Maybe this doesn't describe you at all, but these are the voices of many who defend the Second Amendment. So, while you think I should casually trust you, and perhaps privately believe so many liberals are dense for "not getting it," all I see on the news are examples that somewhere, some "responsible" gun owner did something wrong. A gun slipped out of the "responsible" loop and into the irresponsible loop. Somewhere, someone "responsible" did something decidedly not responsible. The Second Amendment's implicit request for societal trust is a really tall order -- even if your spokespeople weren't displaying such a conscience-shocking lack of sensitivity to what a delicate, precious gift we've been given: The right to bear arms. The right to defend ourselves. In fact, many "gun ambassadors" trot around like angry assholes with complete disregard for the dignity of the Second Amendment. They say things like, "Better not fuck with me or I'm going to start killing people if gun legislation goes one inch further!" Face it: it's obnoxious. And what do the grownups do with obnoxious children who can't manage their privileges? Most will take them away. But, you know what? That's not what your concerned American brothers and sisters are asking to be done. They're calling for reasonable limits. Think of it like two hours of TV a day instead of four. Of course, the pessimist in me expects gun control advocates will fail, and that's why I'm writing. The gun lobby is so powerful and its specious arguments are fooling too many. "New laws won't change a damn thing" can just as easily be transferred to Wayne LaPierre's ideas on fixing the mental health system: "inadequate and won't fix a damn thing." That's not really an argument. There's one more thing I need to speak my mind about. There's a prevailing sense from many that the "weak" and "cowardly" members of society who choose to reject gun ownership as a means of self-defense should be grateful to concealed weapons carriers. (Again, to be clear: I'm very grateful for the gun on a law enforcement officer's hip. I don't like vigilantes.) The idea that I'm supposed to be grateful to the roosters strutting around like secret super heroes in our midst is offensive. Why? Because that person is a potential menace, whose expression of his/her rights is rubbing up against mine -- and it burns. Many of these folks will end up killing someone in the event they're ever given the chance to use their weapon in self-defense. Some will shoot themselves by accident. Others will shoot someone they love -- even though they're trying to help. Good intentions won't bring them back to life. Some are delusional and fancy themselves as ninjas, and then the heart rate elevates, the hands start shaking and maybe they shoot their wife by accident. Or a child, because, after all, he's in a damned school with a gun because a bunch of people thought that sounded smart. Can a cop shoot and miss? Sure. Happens every day. Are cops incorruptible? Of course not -- but they're the cops. They're the law. That's how civilization works. This ain't the wild west folks. Yes, you have the right to defend yourself and your family. But we have laws in civilized societies. We expect our police to uphold them as the ones who are legally accountable in a way private citizens aren't trained for. Ask George Zimmerman about how well the Stand your Ground Law works. Ask him about accountability for the private citizen who thinks he's doing the right thing. I'm not here to argue the merit of his actions, only point out how wishing for a utopia where citizens can gun down other citizens and not have their lives ruined is as unrealistic as wishing for a utopia without guns. I make no secret of disliking guns. But your gun is your gun. Period. I'm not trying to take it away from you. I'm not trying to tear down the Second Amendment. Period. I'm not expressing my ingratitude to law enforcement officials and our armed service men and women who use weapons on my behalf, die on my behalf, or any of the other specious, slanderous things that have been thrown at me for having the audacity to speak my conscience and sign my name to it in what one person calls "cowardice." Mark my words: A society who passes the buck on so grave a responsibility as the Second Amendment is one that is in a race for the bottom of the bloodbath. We can make reasonable legislation. We can also look at improving mental health in this country. We can do a lot of things if we can just stop yelling at each other and put our minds to it.

The challenge for our country is to formulate a policy for maintaining U.S. political and economic leadership by attracting and retaining skilled immigrants and a program of legalization and steps for securing the country's borders in an effective and humane way. Fortunately a momentum for immigration reform among political leaders appears to be on the horizon. My career has been diversified with research leadership stints at universities, national laboratories, a blue chip corporate research center and six technology companies. University engineers, medical doctors and scientists were recruited from the global market place because of the fact that our leadership understood that success hinged on employment of leading global talents to lead research and product development research laboratories and manage far reaching global collaborations. Considerable time, energy and monetary resources were invested in building research teams that spanned international borders, languages and cultures in search of leading talent. This was followed by additional investment for legal assistance for allowing recruited international employees to acquire the required immigration documentation for employment and/or short term visitation. During these years, I have watched immigrants succeed in front of my eyes- I've personally worked with three company CEOs, one university dean, two departmental chairs and seven research directors all of whom were first generation immigrants where I had leadership roles. And of course, the immigration process is not limited to professional talents but to support personnel. Many support personnel positions are not attractive to U.S. citizens but the positions are sought by immigrants. A textbook example is my former tech company which was located in San Carlos, California, where Mexican farm workers provided support for the Company's plant breeding program. The workers arrived punctually at 6:00 A.M. each morning and conducted their responsibilities at the highest performance level. This challenging environment for securing talent in the global workplace continues. In fact, it is perhaps, even more difficult today. For instance, Facebook's new temporary development office in Vancouver underscores how broken the US immigration policy remains. According to the Vancouver Sun, Facebook will hire 150 freshly graduate engineers to help expand and support their products. The idea is to create a holding facility for new highly skilled employees undergoing the one year process to obtain a permit to work in the United States. The question is should Facebook need to invest resources to build an office off-country simply to spend the time and money to bring its new employees to the United States? Silicon Valley executives are currently pressing D.C. on immigration law fixes according to CNET News. In an unusual show of support that underscores how important the topic has become, executives from Facebook, Google, eBay and other major companies sent a letter to President Obama which states that the current immigration system is broken, they say blaming visa shortages, long waits for obtaining Green Cards, and difficulties bringing spouses and children to the United States. The letter was also signed by CEO's and top executives from 100 companies including AT&T, Cisco, Eventbrite, Fry's Electronics, HP, Intel, Intellectual Ventures, Microsoft, Oracle, Qualcomm, Technet, Yahoo and Zygna. It is important to note that immigrants founded eBay, Google, Intel, PayPal, and Yahoo and according to Google, 40 % of technology companies that have been founded in the United States, were financed by venture capital, went public, and founded by immigrants. According to the Population Reference Bureau article published on March 25, 2013. It should be noted that 76% of patents from America's top ten patent-generating universities in 2011 had a foreign-born inventor. Innovation has affected our culture so deeply that it has spurned its own sort of political and social party, known as the Innovation Movement. The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) led by CEO Gary Shapiro and author of Ninja Innovations, founded the Innovation Movement in 2009 because of a survey showing that just 13% of Americans believed that the United States would remain the world's innovation leader in ten years and many thought that the United States would soon take a backseat to China. The goal of the Innovation Movement, consisting of one-hundred thousand members, is to reverse the failed approach to economic revitalization of America by dealing with issues such as international trade, immigration policy, deficit reduction, broadband development and various other issues that affect the ability of Americans to innovate. Citizens are recognizing that if we discourage the worlds best and brightest from joining our ranks, they will find somewhere else to innovate. Countless number of undergraduate, graduate and professional school graduates earning degrees from U.S. institutions of higher learning and unable to obtain permits to work in the United States and face deportation. Approximately 50,000 highly educated foreign university graduates in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics are pushed out annually according to Forbes 07/30/2012. The immigration of skilled workers must be followed by a pathway for adjustment of family members which is in fact an economic bulwark. Families incubate job-creating businesses, provide a safety net for their members and hasten assimilation according to the Editorial Board of the New York Times which summarized the immigration process as follows: Immigration is more than a business relationship America has with selected foreigners. It's a process that renews the country; it means going all-in on America, through binding ties of love and blood. Recruited workers enrich the country. Reunited families do, too. The challenge confronting Washington D. C. is to formulate a policy for maintaining U.S. political and economic leadership by attracting and retaining skilled immigrants and a program of legalization and steps for securing the country's borders in an effective and humane way. This requires providing work permits and/or a pathway to legalization for the eleven million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States which would potentially provide a windfall for the economy. The fact is that the majority of the undocumented residents are gainfully employed in the construction or service industry. Half of the undocumented residents entered the United States legally but now have expired visas. Can one imagine the Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami or New York workplace in the absence of undocumented residents? The Country requires workers at all levels of the economy. As Representative Gutierrez of Illinois recently put it, "Silicon Valley engineers and entrepreneurs would not be very productive if they did not have food to eat, or people to care for their children or parents, or a clean office and clean clothes or a made bed in their hotel room on a business trip. All jobs which few U.S. Citizens apply. Allowing our undocumented residents a penalty waiver for filing late and pay up to ten years of back taxes could possibly be significant in lowering the national debt and maybe eliminate the debt completely. Let's alleviate the internal dysfunctional political stalemate and legislate appropriate immigration laws to harmonize the undocumented resident issue. Through the stroke of a pen our politicians can bring a boom to the economy. During the past few weeks significant progress appears to be happening according to an article published in the New York Times dated April 4, 2013. This week the Senate is expected to introduce a broad bill, including proposals to allow immigrants here illegally to gain legal status and eventually become citizens. A bipartisan group in the House is also in the final stages of preparing a comprehensive bill. The politicians have at last grasped the importance of joining the citizen movement for providing a roadmap for citizenship to the eleven million undocumented residents in the United States or run the risk of losing control of their political positions during the 2014 and 2016 election.

Benenson & Connolly, New York TimesIN polls, a slight majority of Americans consistently say that we need better enforcement of our gun laws. But there’s a problem with that: many don’t really know what our gun laws are.

George Condon, National Journal

Joseph Gregory, New York Times

The Truth-o-Meter says: False | Ted Cruz says expanding Medicaid will "worsen health care options for the most vulnerable" Editor's note: After we published this report, the staff at Cruz's office gave us more information to consider. We considered that evidence in a separate report, but it did not change our initial findings or our ruling. Our original report remains below. Sen. Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican who is gaining a reputation for bold statements, is backing Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s decision to reject a major expansion of Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. Under the new health care law, states can get federal dollars to enroll their uninsured residents in Medicaid. ... >> More

Roger Ebert's Chicago funeral will reportedly be picketed by members of the Westboro Baptist Church. According to The Hollywood Reporter, members of Westboro slammed the late movie critic as "a fag enabler," noting that his tweets "mock[ed] the faithful servants of God" that make up the congregation of the Kansas-based church, which is known for its extremely anti-gay views, in a news release. The news release continues: "Now the famed critic is in a new jurisdiction, where he can see the blessings poured out on God's humble servants in heaven, from his seat of eternal torment & sorrow in Hell! It's too late for the fool Roger Ebert! WBC will continue to bind those who still live in Doomed america to God's eternal laws & Word, so you, like Roger, are without excuse!" You can read the full news release here. The Pulitzer Prize-winning Ebert died April 4 at the age of 70. He was first diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2002, and cancerous growths were found on his salivary glands a year later, forcing him to undergo surgeries that left him without the ability to speak. Ebert's funeral is set to take place April 8 at the Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago. Westboro members previously protested at the funerals of Steve Jobs, Michael Jackson and Matthew Shepard. Plans to picket the New Jersey funeral of Whitney Houston were announced, but no one from the church ever showed up.