ThinkProgress Logo

NEWS FLASH

America Is More Heavily Armed Than Yemen | The US is the most heavily armed nation in the world, possessing about 270 million guns. As CNN notes, “Yemen, a tribal nation with no history of strong central government or the rule of law, comes in a distant second.” The US is also far and above the most violent developed country in the world. According to an analysis by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, more guns lead to more murders, regardless of state or country.

Politics

Gun Lobbyist: Americans Should Be ‘Prepared’ To Take On Elected Officials With Guns

By Igor Volsky on Dec 17, 2012 at 6:38 pm

While the National Rife Association has remained silent about Friday’s tragic shooting in Newtown, CT, Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, is arguing that Americans should bear arms to protect themselves against an ever-expanding government and elected officials.

Appearing on on MSNBC’s Hardball on Monday, Pratt — who immediately after the massacre accused gun safety advocates of having blood on their hands — claimed that had teachers at Sandy Hook elementary school had firearms, the shooting could have been prevented. He added that all Americans should have guns “in order to control the government”:

CHRIS MATTHEWS (HOST): So you’re like Sharron Angle, out in Nevada, who said we need our Second Amendment rights to control when our politicians get out of hand.

PRATT: That’s our Second Amendment rights, she’s not making that up.

MATTHEWS: So how would you use your Second Amendment rights if you didn’t like the way your congressman or senator is representing you? [...]

PRATT: By being prepared. [...]

MATTHEWS: So Larry, it’s not just the right to use guns to protect your homes, it’s the right to take on your government?

PRATT: The government has been overboard.

Watch it:

Pratt suggested that gun owners should use their weapons when the government steals elections or “after a long trail of abuses.” He also threw his support behind fundamentalist groups Branch Davidian.

Justice

Study: Allowing The Assault Rifle Ban To Expire Led To Hundreds Of Mexican Deaths As Well

By Annie-Rose Strasser on Dec 17, 2012 at 6:10 pm

When people in the United States discuss gun regulation, the conversation tends to center around the policy implications within our borders — how guns are used to protect life and property, and how they are a guaranteed freedom. But the implications matter across the border, too, in neighboring Mexico.

A study, published this morning on the political science blog The Monkey Cage, shows that violent crime in Mexico has risen when it’s easier to access firearms in neighboring US states. In particular, this study looked at the assault weapons ban, and how its expiration effected the homicide rate across the border from California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. It attributes 16.4 percent of the increase in Mexican homicides to the expiration of the assault weapons ban:

The expiration relaxed the permissiveness of gun sales in border states such as Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, but not California, which retained a pre-existing state-level ban. Using mortality statistics over 2002-2006, we show that homicides, gun-related homicides and crime gun seizures increased differentially in Mexican municipios located closer to entry ports in these other border states, relative to entry ports in California. Our estimates suggest that the U.S. policy change caused at least 239 additional deaths annually in municipios near the border during post-2004 period. …Our findings suggest that U.S. gun laws have exerted an unanticipated spillover on gun supply in Mexico, and this increase in arms has fueled rising violence south of the border.

Since California’s ban on assault weapons remained in place when the federal ban expired, the effects were drastically different:

For Republicans who oppose stricter gun laws, this study may pose some cognitive dissonance. The manufactured scandal over government program “Fast and Furious” — a misguided program started under Bush that allowed Mexican criminals to walk away with guns for the purpose of tracking their movements — has been a mainstay of Republican attacks on Obama in the last year. Republicans have insisted that Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder put border patrol agents’ lives at risk by allowing the guns to walk.

But this study points to the expiration of the assault weapons ban as a way to curb violence at the border, and that’s something that’s desperately needed, not just for the security of US border patrol agents, but for both countries on the whole. Mexican violence, particularly at the border has been horrific over the last few years. That violence spills over the border into the US. If this study is right, a renewal of the assault weapons ban, which has been proposed in the wake of the shooting in Newtown, CT, might help staunch the flow of violence, at home and abroad.

Economy

Walmart Tells Workers Who Ask About Unions That Benefits And Vacation ‘Might Go Away’

By Travis Waldron on Dec 17, 2012 at 6:05 pm

Walmart staves off unionization attempts in its stores by telling workers who ask about forming a union that they may lose benefits and vacation time, a potential violation of American labor law that could further inflame relations between the company and workers who picketed its stores on Black Friday and have been attempting to organize.

Walmart workers and labor advocates held protests outside the chain’s stores throughout Thanksgiving weekend, protesting the low wages it pays its workers. The company, which paid its chief executive $18.1 million and made $15 billion in profits last year, has fought off union attempts before, and now it tells its workers that unionization could lead to the loss of bonuses and vacation time, a spokesperson told Bloomberg Businessweek:

Walmart has been opposed to unions since Sam Walton opened his first store in Rogers, Ark., in 1962. These days, “we have human resources teams all over the country who are available to talk to associates, and we will get questions about joining a union,” says David Tovar, a spokesman for the company. “We would say: ‘Let us remind you of all that Walmart offers, and of what might go away. Quarterly bonuses might go away, vacation time might go away.’ ”

Such tactics may not be illegal by themselves because they can be seen as predicting outcomes rather than threatening them, The Nation’s Josh Eidelson reported today. But the implication of such a “prediction” — that joining a union could be followed by actions resembling retaliation — is quite clear. Walmart’s anti-labor practices aren’t new: in 2008, the store’s workers spoke out about anti-union meetings they were forced to attend.

Though Walmart has long fought organization efforts in the United States, it sometimes lets workers in other countries unionize — particularly when unionization is contingent on Walmart getting to enter a new country. In the U.S. though, it has responded to unionization efforts by shutting down departments, fighting legislative improvements to labor law, and now, telling workers that joining a union may cost them their bonus.

Media

Sweet Victory: Sexism-Free Easy Bake Oven On The Way

By Annie-Rose Strasser on Dec 17, 2012 at 6:00 pm

Over the past few weeks, tens of thousands of people — including big-name chefs — called on Hasboro, producer of the Easy Bake Oven, to advertise to end their sexist advertising and market to both boys and girls equally.

Today, the advocates, and the little girl who launched the big petition, got their answer: Hasboro will launch a new line of gender-neutral ovens, and feature more boys in their advertisments:

Hasbro says it will soon reveal a gender-neutral Easy-Bake Oven after meeting with a New Jersey girl who started a campaign calling on the toy maker to make one that appeals to all kids.[...]

It was there that they showed off a prototype of their newest Easy-Bake. It’s black, silver and blue, rather than purple and pink.

McKenna says the company is doing everything she asked, including putting boys in the ads.

Hasbro says it’s been working on the new color scheme for about 18 months. It says it could be on store shelves next summer.

Hasboro’s decision shows good political will toward consumers, and it makes sense, with the growing media around the campaign. But there’s still a long way to go before advertisers and companies taking gendered marketing out of their repertoire.

Related Posts

Health

Even With Medicaid Coverage, Some Poor Americans Still Can’t Get The Health Care They Need

By Sy Mukherjee on Dec 17, 2012 at 6:00 pm

California’s state Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, has struggled to remain fully funded as its budget — and particularly the reimbursements that go toward the doctors who accept poorer patients under the program — perennially falls under the knife. And the low-income Americans who need specialist care are particularly susceptible to the shortcomings of the strained social safety net.

The Los Angeles Times reports that poor Americans seeking access to specialist services — such as complex surgeries and neurological treatment — are faced with a dearth of specialists willing to service Medi-Cal, mostly due to its historically low reimbursement rates. And on top of that, the United States continues to face a growing doctor shortage that is leading to long waiting periods for Americans:

By the end of the decade, the nation will be short more than 46,000 surgeons and specialists, a nearly tenfold increase from 2010, according to the Assn. of American Medical Colleges. Healthcare reform is expected to worsen the problem as more patients — many with complex and deferred health needs — become insured and seek specialized treatment.

Many of the newly insured will receive Medi-Cal, the government plan for the needy as administered through the state of California. Clinics already struggle to get private specialists to see Medicaid patients because of the low payments to doctors. Last week, an appellate court decision that authorized the state to move forward with 10% cuts in Medi-Cal reimbursement, which could make finding doctors for those patients even more difficult.

“Specialists are paid so poorly that they don’t want to take Medi-Cal patients,” said Mark Dressner, a Long Beach clinic doctor and president-elect of the California Academy of Family Physicians. “We’re really disappointed and concerned what it’s going to do for patient access.”

This shortage disproportionately affects Americans on Medicaid because the program’s lackluster funding makes it difficult to attract specialists who — after expensive and time-consuming stints in medical school — are willing to take on poor patients for lower reimbursements. Unfortunately, saddled with long waiting periods for specialist treatment, some Americans resort to inefficient and expensive emergency room care, raising health care spending nationally.

Obamacare seeks to quell this problem by vastly expanding funding for states that open up their Medicaid pools to more Americans and providing medical schools incentives for producing more general practitioners and family doctors. But as the LA Times notes, the medical school incentives do not also extend to specialists, and all the extra Medicaid funding in the world will mean little if states do not offer doctors reimbursements high enough to attract their services.

Since the downward trend in Americans becoming doctors has long been in the pipeline, the health reform law is not the root cause of this shortage. But since Obamacare expands the Medicaid program to extend coverage to millions of previously uninsured Americans, it does highlight just how deep the existing shortage is.

Justice

Six Extreme Policies That Prove The NRA Is Out Of Step With America

By Zack Beauchamp on Dec 17, 2012 at 5:10 pm

The massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary has galvanized the American public to start taking the 48,000 deaths from gun violence per year seriously. Fifty four percent of Americans, according to a new ABC/Washington Post poll, favor tighter gun control — a five year high. A Huffington/YouGov poll came to similar conclusions.

Yet the National Rifle Association (NRA) will likely stand in the way, given its long history of blocking even the most minimal restrictions on gun owners. Here are six times when the NRA has been on the wrong side of what should be uncontroversial gun rules:

1. Wanted people on the terrorist watch list to be legally able to acquire guns. Inasmuch as it makes sense to have a secret “terrorism watch list,” one would think a primary reason would be to prevent people who might commit terrorism from accessing the weapons that one uses to do so. Yet people on the watch list are still allowed to by guns: in 2010 alone, at least 247 people suspected of involvement with terrorism bought guns legally. While 71 percent of NRA membesr support closing the so-called “terror gap,” the NRA claims efforts to close the loophole are plots by “politicians who hate the Second Amendment.”

2. Opposed required background checks on every gun sale. Forty percent of all gun sales legally take place without background checks on the purchaser, because federal law doesn’t require them for so-called “private” gun sales at places like gun shows. Eighty percent of gun crimes involve guns purchased in this fashion. NRA members recognize how dangerous this law is; 69 percent of them support a “proposal requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns.” Yet the NRA opposes any effort to close this loophole, calling it “a stepping stone for gun control advocates seeking to ban all private sales, even among family and friends.”

3. Lobbied to allow warlords to get arms on the international market. The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is a small step towards the regulation of the massive international weapons trade, aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of murderous insurgents and terrorists. It contains zero restrictions on domestic gun markets. Yet the NRA has vigorously opposed the ATT, calling it an “attack on our Second Amendment freedoms” by “global gun grabbers.”

4. Wanted to prevent the public from accessing information about where guns come from. Though there’s a federal database that traces sales of guns used in crimes, you’ll never know what’s in there. That’s because NRA has helped muscle through the so-called “Tiahrt Amendments” (named after sponsor, former Rep. Todd Tiahrt [R-KS]) to the federal gun code, which prevent the public, journalists, academic researchers, some police officers, and people suing the gun industry from accessing crucially valuable data. The Tiahrt Amendments were passed over the objection of federal and local law enforcement.

5. Pushed to keep guns in bars. Guns and drunk people don’t mix well. Yet when the Tennessee legislature was considering banning guns in establishments that make most of their money from booze, an NRA lobbyist was given a rare opportunity to address the state GOP caucus opposing the bill. It died.

6) Supported forcing all business owners to allow guns on their property. Many business owners are understandably nervous about permitting people to bring loaded guns to work. Yet the NRA has pushed legislation in a number of states that would force businesses to allow employees to bring guns to work provided they leave them in their cars.

Interestingly, there’s not much for politicians to gain from pandering to the NRA’s gun maximalism: Despite consistent political rhetoric to the contrary, the lobby isn’t nearly as powerful as one might think.

Climate Progress

Still Hurting In The Heartland: The Historic Drought Continues

By Climate Guest Blogger on Dec 17, 2012 at 5:00 pm

by Bill Becker

Superstorm Sandy may be remembered years from now as the pivot point in the United States’ response to global climate change.  Politically speaking, Sandy’s true power was not its wind and water; it was the fact that it hit the principal center of America’s population, finance institutions and media.

It was another wake-up call, but with more people in high places hearing the alarm. Network news anchors are now acknowledging that climate change may be the common denominator in all the weird and destructive weather we’ve seen in recent years. Mitt Romney’s view that we don’t need FEMA is now unthinkable, and Congress should be getting the message that climate change is a budget buster – that investments in mitigation are far cheaper than paying for damages.

The Paul Reveres of climate change may find New Yorkers and New Jersyans joining their ranks. This is a case where “fugetaboutit” should become “do something about it”.

While the spotlight is on Sandy, however, let’s not forget the weather victims who’ve become yesterday’s news.  The people who lost their homes in Colorado’s super-fires are still hurting. Wildfires burned a record 8 million acres in the United States last year and more than 6 million acres through August of this year. NASA scientists say wild fires will get worse in the years ahead.

The historic drought is still underway. In the mountains of Colorado where I have a home, wells are running dry. The drought is affecting 80% of the country’s farmland, bankrupting farmers, ranchers and small businesses, destroying crops, and killing livestock. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says families everywhere will start to feel the ripple effect next year with higher prices for beef, pork, poultry and dairy products. Meanwhile, water levels are still dropping on the Mississippi River, impacting billions of dollars freight normally shipped by barge.

In parts of New Orleans, the damage remains depressing seven years after Hurricane Katrina. In the Lower Ninth Ward, citizen groups are working to restore their neighborhood, but there are still more boarded houses and empty lots than new homes. Last August, Hurricane Isaac flooded communities along the Gulf Coast in Louisiana and Mississippi.  Communities in the Midwest and Southeast are still putting themselves back together after the outbreak of monster tornadoes last spring – the year’s first billion-dollar disasters.  Joplin, Mo., still hasn’t recovered from the tornado that tore it apart back in May 2011.

In his first post-election news conference last month, President Obama said he plans to begin “working through an education process…the conversation across the country about what realistically we can do long-term to make sure (the impact of climate change) is not something we’re passing on to future generations…”

That conversation should start now on the heels of Sandy. The President should take a national climate change tour, visiting with the folks that Grist’s David Roberts respectfully calls the “mushy middle” – American citizens in teachable moments created by this year’s weather disasters.

A climate tour would give President Obama a chance to check on the well being of this year’s disaster victims and to hear their insights on how the federal government can combat climate change while helping communities better prepare for its impacts.

He should visit the mushy middle in red states as well as blue, including states whose congressional representatives remain among the most stubborn opponents of climate action.  For example, more than 90% of Oklahoma is suffering from extreme drought conditions right now. Yet one of its U.S. Senators, Jim Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate environment committee, still insists that climate change is a hoax and fights every attempt to address the issue.

The entire congressional delegation from Kansas cosponsored legislation last year to forbid the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and to limit the power of states to do so. Today, severe drought is underway in 100% of Kansas; in 78% of the state, the drought is ranked “extreme.”

Read more

NEWS FLASH

Southern Baptist Minister Encourages Uganda’s ‘Kill The Gays’ Bill | Though the Ugandan Parliament has adjourned until February, discussion continues about the infamous “Kill The Gays” Anti-Homosexuality bill. Its latest endorsers is Pastor David Dykes of the Green Acres Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas, who traveled to Uganda to express his dismay that the U.S. State Department is pressuring Uganda to “recognize homosexual behavior.” Jeff Sharlett notes that Dykes has prayed before Congress before, as Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has held leadership positions in Green Acres. Watch Dykes’ proud endorsement of the “Kill The Gays” bill (via Box Turtle Bulletin):

Update

Dykes now claims he hasn’t even read the bill and doesn’t know what it says. He just opposes the government putting “pressure on any government about their moral decisions.”

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up