Friday September 13, 2019
418 Days until the 2020 election and 500 days until the Inauguration
With the third Democratic debate under our belts it’s time for real change. My alter ego Bryce Holliwell is once again running for President. I had the honor and privilege of interviewing him this morning. We talked not only about his candidacy but also last night’s debate, the state of the world, the economy, and what he would do as President to fix it.
RK – Thank-you so much for being here.
BH – It’s hard not to.
RK – Let’s get right to it. What did you think of last night’s debate and who in that crowd do you think can beat Donald Trump?
BH – The debate was terrific, mainly because of the format or procedure or process, I don’t know that they, the moderators did differently, but it was much more civil and to the point. The candidates weren’t all jumping one on top of the other to get their say and each one got time to say something meaningful.
RK – Who can beat Trump?
BH – In that crowd? Any of them. Listen if Trump can’t be beaten after what we’ve all seen he’s done in office than, well, it’s time to cash in.
RK – What did you think about the health care debate and what would you do as President?
BH – When you get right down to it, all the candidates were saying about the same thing with small differences. People should be able to get health care and not go broke. How you accomplish that varies from candidate to candidate. I think eventually a system overseen by the government will be the cheapest and best way to do this. Whether it’s Medicare for all or a government regulated system of private insurance companies like Canada has or a completely run government system like Sweden has doesn’t matter. People want health care and they are tired of the excuses and the costs and the BS.
RK – What would you do?
BH – People don’t like change because they don’t know what will happen to themselves. Whatever you do, it’s got to be gradual and it’s got to let people be comfortable with whatever you are doing. I like the idea of expanding the ACA, and including public options. One of those options should be you can keep your existing insurance plan. Another should be Medicare for All. One of the problems we have now is that every state has slightly different medical plans. Insurance companies have to keep huge staffs just to try and comply with the various regulations in each state. Yes, you could say, “let them compete across state lines” but look what happened when they let the credit card companies do that. Immediately, all the credit card companies moved to North Dakota or Delaware because they had the most lack – I mean business friendly – rules and regulations. They then turned around and offered their plans in other states and the states had no way to stop them. What I think has to happen is that the Federal Government needs to say that insurance companies need to offer standard plans across the country, like a gold, silver, bronze and copper plan. Then you would know no matter where you are the plan was the same. Also there should be standardization in how the plan is presented. And insurance companies would not be allowed to change the rules after you sign up.
RK – What do you mean by change the rules?
BH – Do you know now you can sign up for a plan based on the medicine that is covered in the plan and the insurance company can send you a letter half way through the plan year and say, “Guess what? We’re not covering that medicine anymore.” What can you do? Nothing. You can’t go to another plan. You are stuck. That’s not right. If there were standard plans then you would know what you are getting.
RK – Will that work?
BH – Of course it would work, but it’s only a temporary solution because the reality will probably be that folks will find the public option to be better, cheaper, and faster than the private insurance plans. Either the insurance companies will get competitive or they will go away.
RK – Can we talk about guns? What did you think of last night’s discussion?
BH – I liked it. I think there were two really good points made. One is there’s a violence environment (condition?) in this country. We need to figure out how to reduce the need some have to resort to violence. Be that the use of guns or fists and clubs. That’s one, the other is what Beto said, which was basically “Am I coming for you guns? If it’s an AR-15 or AK-47 and it’s only use is to kill people than you’re damn right I’m coming for them.” I like that attitude. I’m tired of being bullied and cowed by the gun nuts. Listen, I’d pass legislation that I’d call “The pry from your cold dead hands” legislation. You can have an assault weapon if you want it, but you’d have to register it and sign a legal document that says if that weapon is used in the commission of a crime, even if you didn’t do it, you are just as responsible for the crime as the person who committed it. In other words if you lent your gun to a friend and they shot and killed someone you would be sitting right next to them at the defendant’s table. If they got life in prison so would you. On the other hand, if you don’t want the responsibility you can hand the gun into the government.
RK – Is that all?
BH – Oh no, I’d make it a mandatory sentencing thing. The document would also say that if that gun was used in the commission of a crime that you would only be eligible for the maximum sentence. No time off for good behavior, no “you’re a nice fellow and this is your first offense so let’s be lenient” crap. If your gun committed the crime – you do the time. No exceptions, no excuses.
RK – But …
BH – No buts. You say you’re a responsible gun owner than stand your ground. If you aren’t and I say the use of your gun in a crime is your responsibility, if you shirk your responsibility you have to be willing to pay the price, and the price would be steep.
RK – That’s kind of harsh.
BH – Tell that to the family of the love one who had a person’s guts ripped out by your carelessness.
RK – Anything else on that issue?
BH – Yeah, if you love your gun so much and you want to keep it and it’s been involved in a crime and your convicted then I think you should have the option to keep it. I think there should be a special prison where you could go where everyone there has been convicted of a gun related crime. They all get to keep their weapon. You can live with your own kind.
RK – Sounds like “Hunger Games.”
BH – Only if people get violent. We could install cameras and have a weekly show of what happened this week at the compound. Kind of like Survivor or The Bachelorette.
RK – What would stop some one from say…
BH – Nothing. No rules, just guns.
RK – Sounds like “Return to Forbidden Planet.”
BH – Could be. It would kind of be like a giant psychological experiment, the kind they’ve done around cheating and the common good versus the self.
RK – Explain.
BH – Psychologists have done these experiments. The one I’m most familiar with is a card game scenario. The game is pretty simple. If everyone throws in a regular card then everyone gets rewarded. If someone throws in a trump card they get rewarded and their reward is more than if they had thrown in a regular card.
RK – What happens to the folks who throw in a regular card in a round where a trump card is thrown in?
BH – They get nothing. So let’s say everyone gets one chip if they all throw in a regular card, but if you throw in a trump card you get three and everyone else gets nothing.
RK – What if two people throw in a trump card?
BH – I’m not sure, I think they’ve tried different rules. Let’s say that a trump card is worth ten but that ten is split between all the people throwing in trump cards. If two people throw trump, they each get five.
RK – but that’s still better than one.
BH – Yes, but is it best for the community? For all the players?
RK – No.
BH – Exactly. If there were twenty players and no one threw trump then everyone would get one chip for a total of twenty, which is a lot better that one or two people getting a pot of ten. So what happens in this game?
RK – Oh please tell me.
BH – Okay, I will. If the number of players is small, under seven, then typically no one throws trump. Once there are a larger number of players almost every time someone throws trump.
RK – So, what’s that telling us?
BH – It tells us once we don’t know who are neighbors are we say, “Screw it. I’m in it for myself.”
RK – So what’s that got to so with guns?
BH – Look, if you want to keep your gun. Fine. But you have to live in a compound with others who all have guns. Don’t come out of the compound with your gun.
RK – If they do?
BH – They are arrested. Their gun is taken away and they are sent back to the compound and not allowed to leave.
RK – Wait a minute. Didn’t you say this was for people convicted if crimes?
BH – Yes, they wouldn’t be allowed to leave under any circumstances, but they could have their families with them if they so chose. I mean that’s why they said they wanted their guns, to protect their family. Fine, let them do it, but don’t let them out on the regular streets.
RK – What happens is someone get shot within the compound.?
BH – No rules, just right.
RK – You mean you’d be allowed to shoot someone?
BH – Sure. Stand your ground and all that.
RK – Sounds harsh.
BH – Tell that to a parent whose kid had their guts ripped out by a bullet from your AK-47.
RK – What do you say to the folks who say, “That would never work.”
BH – Well two things. One, they’re right. It would never work I suspect in one way, but in another it would. I think pretty soon there would be one person left alive in the compound. The minute a second person was put into the compound it would be Rambo time, and pretty soon their would be one person left.
RK – Is there a lesser measure?
BH – Oh yeah. Take away assault weapons, restrict the kind of ammo you can buy, and the size of magazines, background checks, … yeah, there are plenty of things that can be done.
RK – What about the argument that you can’t take away all the assault weapons because there are too many out there now?
BH – Let me ask you a question, “How many people were killed last year by a Thompson submachine gun?”
RK – None, as far as I know. What’s your point?
BH – That was the weapon of choice in the 1920s. The argument was the same: there were too many of them. There’s nothing you can do. What happened? Why aren’t people being killed with Thomson submachine guns now?
RK – They took them away didn’t they?
BH – Yes. After the gangsters in Chicago lined up their opponents and shot them while standing against a brick wall on Valentines Day. But bear in mind you can still own a submachine gun.
RK – You can?
BH – Yes, absolutely. There’s one difference now.
RK – And that is?
BH – We have laws that say if you want a submachine gun you’re going to have to prove that you can be responsible.
RK – What else impressed you about the last night’s debate?
BH – I thought there were some really good points made by a number of the candidates, and some truly unique solutions. I’d go a little further in the unique solutions department.
RK – There’s a lot to unpack there. Let’s start with the good points, give me some examples.
BH – Sure. Amy Klobuchar’s point about the police being at a mass shooting within a minute and yet a bunch of people died. Look, if someone has a gun that can shoot a hundred bullets in a minute and they have a huge supply of bullets ready to go, there is no amount of “good guys with a gun” or police or anyone or anything else that can stop innocent people from being killed.
RK – Is that it?
BH – No, Beto’s point about the woman who watched their child bleed to death because there weren’t enough ambulances and EMTs to handle the situation.
RK – Do you have a solution?
BH – Of course, but I thought some of Yang’s ideas were really interesting too. I’d go a little further.
RK – Do tell.
BH – Okay. Look Klobuchar and O’Rourke made the points that you can’t stop a mass shooter in a timely fashion and you can’t save those shot because you won’t have enough resources in place. That means you’ve got to restrict who has these weapons if you want to stop mass shooting. Maybe you don’t. That would be “the price of freedom” argument.
RK – You said Yang made some interesting points, what were they?
BH – He had some “different” ideas about poverty and that sort of thing. Many may say this is crazy or even unAmerican but his solution to solving poverty was to give people money.
RK – Sounds un-American.
BH – Yeah. FDR was worried that his programs would be seen as putting people on the dole. Economists will tell you that if you want to rev up the economy, the quickest way is welfare because those people are desperate and they will spend the money immediately. This as opposed to a tax cut for the rich, who don’t need the money and won’t spend it right away. Other than on stock buy backs. Therefore, giving poor people money solves their immediate need. Will there be abuses? Yeah. But what system doesn’t have abuses? The trick is to limit the abuse and get as much of the money to where it needs to go.
RK – What else?
BH – Something that wasn’t discussed much but I think is important is creating an environment that reduces violence, be that here in the U.S. or abroad.
RK – How would you do that?
BH – Abroad we need to pick up on Kissinger’s Latin American plan, which essentially said we need to help out countries in Latin and Central America or their people will come here. Hey, guess what? We didn’t help and they came here. We need a Marshall Plan for those areas. It’s cheaper and easier than any other solution. We also need to do it for the Bahamas or China or Russia will do it and we don’t want that.
RK – What about in this country?
BH – The situation here is different. Most of the terrorism here is done by disaffected males.
RK – What should we do?
BH – Two things – 1) build or rebuild what I call “senses of community” and 2) Adopt the Ted Turner plan for war.
RK – I’m afraid to ask, but I will, what’s the Ted Turner plan?
BH – Get them laid.
RK – Sex?
BH – Yup. As Turner pointed out, “you ever tried to fight after you’ve been laid?”
RK – No.
BH – I mean, ‘who wants to?’
RK – So you’re saying if these disaffected males got laid there would be no mass shootings?
BH – Yup. Easy choice. Go shoot up the mall or give up your gun and get your rocks off. Which do you think they’d pick?
RK – What about your idea of a sense of community?
BH – Remember the example of the card game? What that’s really about is getting to know your neighbors. You won’t be as likely to screw over someone you know. We have gotten too isolated. We all sit in our living rooms screaming at the TV. I’m suggesting we need a better sense of community and that has to be done on a local level. Look at these games where people are banding together to play a game. We need that kind of thing but at a real face to face community level.
RK – How do you do that?
BH – Lots of little things. Don’t let developments be built that don’t have community facilities.
RK – Like a club house?
BH – Yeah. Maybe it’s a community pool with club house you can rent out for parties and talks. But you need a place where people can gather. You also need to mix the generations.
RK – How do you do that?
BH – An excellent way is to have pre-k and kindergartens near senior centers. The seniors can watch the kids play. The kids can come over and the seniors can help them with reading and homework. Have a place for community plays and concerts that involve the whole community, an intergenerational thing.
RK – Thank you for your time. I’ve got to get some work done.
BH – You’re welcome and don’t forget to vote.
418 Days until the 2020 election and 500 days until the Inauguration
PS My sari nephew
Leave a Reply