Rolling Thunder: Talking Politics With A Motorcycle Guy

In an editorial published Sunday afternoon, Jeffrey Nugent, brother of National Rifle Association chairman Ted Nugent, explained that he and his brother have dramatically differing views on gun control and warned that the nation is moving toward regulating firearms with or without the NRA. Specifically, the Detroit-born rocker’s brother came out hard for expanding criminal background checks to all gun buyers. He added that, much like vehicles, the U.S. should regulate guns to require a license and insurance at time of purchase, without exception. “Car companies know it is good for the auto industry to make cars safer and get dangerous drivers off the road,” he wrote. “Why can’t gun manufacturers and the NRA realize this as well?” Nugent concludes: Ted and I have talked about these matters over the years, but more often lately. I concede that he is right on some points: In some instances, cities and states with less-strict gun laws have less violent crime. But that does not argue for arming America. Ted is someone who speaks in extremes to make his points. It reflects who he is, and it works for him and his audience. I have a 9-year-old son and two 6-year-old grandsons. Any of them could have been the victims of our recent gun tragedies — and still could become victims if we don’t do something. Virtually every day we see the tragic stories of kids shooting other kids, of children being killed in crossfire. We must act, not tomorrow, not the next day. End gun violence now, and start with limiting the purchase of firearms to those who really deserve the right. Let’s see if the NRA and its new leaders step up and do what is right. If not, it will get done without them. We all have a role here, especially to protect our children. Who is going to be the voice for them? Responding to his brother, Ted Nugent took to his usual perch at conservative opinion website Newsmax to let all his fans know that he thinks his brother “is dead wrong.” Throughout my travels I’ve literally spoken with many hundreds of beat cops, homicide investigators, undercover cops, police chiefs, sheriffs, and federal agents about crime, and not one — not a single one — has ever said that closing the so-called gun show loophole or universal background checks would reduce crime. What these brave law enforcement officers have told me over and over again is that America does have a loophole that, if closed, would significantly make America safer. That loophole is the revolving door of our criminal justice system. Nugent advocated a return to public lynching in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and has long said he favors rapid executions over the practice of jurisprudence and fair sentencing. Despite his continued insistence that police do not support mandatory background checks for firearms, Nugent’s theory was contradicted rather abruptly during a February Senate hearing that featured Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suddenly at a loss for words when he was corrected by a career police officer. “When almost 80,000 people fail a background check and 44 people are prosecuted, what kind of deterrent is that?” Graham asked. “I mean, the law obviously is not seeing that as important, if it’s such an important issue, why aren’t we prosecuting people who fail a background check?” “I want to stop 76,000 people from buying guns illegally,” Milwaukee police chief Edward A. Flynn replied. “That’s what a background check does. If you think we’re going to do paperwork prosecutions, you’re wrong.”

Whatever keeps the checks coming, I guess I continue to be impressed at just how devoid of sentient thought you can be and still land a gig at a "think tank." In this case, the Koch-founded, hypothetically libertarian Cato Institute: The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) has recently reached a “milestone” of 400 parts per million (ppm). In some circles, this announcement has been met with consternation and gnashing of teeth. The proper reaction is celebration. Hooray! The announcement that our planet's atmosphere has now been bent to something not previously seen in all of human existence should be heralded, you see, because it means we're getting really, really awesome at using fossil fuels. It's like when your house catches on fire and you beam in pride at all the smoke because hey—that just means you had a lot of expensive crap in there. Celebrate your success, fella. Soak it in. It's not just the planet is getting warmer and that that's an awesome thing because woo, free heat; the even more awesomer thing is that fossil fuel pollution HAS GOT WHAT PLANTS CRAVE! There are two primary externalities that result from our emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere—1) an enhancement of the greenhouse effect, which results in an alteration of the energy flow in the earth’s climate and a general tendency to warm the global average surface temperature, and 2) an enhancement of the rate of photosynthesis in plants and a general tendency to result in more efficient growth and an overall healthier condition of vegetation (including crops).  There’s incontrovertible evidence that the planet is both warmer and greener than it was 100 years ago. Point (1) is a rather sterilized way of saying that millions upon millions of people are about to see their homes go away, but point (2) is super-better. Dumping all those greenhouse gases into the air is practically like turning the whole planet into, well, a greenhouse—just think of how great all our crops are going to grow now! I mean sure, maybe they won't grow anywhere we're currently planting them, but where they do grow, look out. We're talking serious, serious photosynthesis, baby. Shale oil HAS GOT WHAT PLANTS CRAVE! The Koch brothers, who help produce the stuff and who coincidentally are the driving force behind the Cato Institute, are practically gods among men for their work in making our future planet so lush and green! This is so awesome, in fact, that we can barely stand it. Did you know that hitting the 400ppm threshold, a milestone marking the beginnings of serious climate change that could "result in an alternation of the energy flow in the goddamn earth's climate itself," changing weather patterns in unpredictable and possibly nation-shattering ways, means that we are no longer so beholden to that stupid weather? Of course you don't—but that's because you don't realize changing the atmosphere of the planet HAS GOT WHAT PLANTS CRAVE! 400ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should remind us of our continuing success at expanding the global supply of energy to meet a growing demand. That  success which ultimately leads to an improvement of the global standard of living and a reduction in vulnerability to the vagaries of weather and climate. 400pm is cause for celebration. “A world lit only by fire” is not. Wooo! Now that we have accepted climate change is happening, we also realize that it is awesome! We have the ability to affect the atmosphere of the entire planet, and that means we have been doing awesome! Party time! All you people in coastal cities, the Koch brothers are gonna spring for free inner tubes for the lot of you (not really) so you can enjoy your new backyard pools, complements of Mother Nature and our Most Awesome and Well-Heeled Energy overlords! Release the nukes, the radiation will make our newly awesome super-green mega-crops f--king glow! BIGGER BOOM GOT WHAT PLANTS CRAVE! Cough—excuse me. Anyway, the very serious Cato Institute, often hailed as the very pinnacle (snicker) of libertarian/conservative "thinking" (snicker), was recently the subject of an intense power struggle between the staunchly Republican Koch brothers and the more traditionally libertarian members of Cato's board. The essential battle was over Cato's continued independence or whether they would evolve, as the Koch faction desired, into a more reliably conservative, Republican, corporatist and nakedly partisan outfit. There was a lawsuit and everything. I'd tell you which side won, but really, does it matter?

In early 2010, an Internal Revenue Service team in Cincinnati began noticing a stream of applications from groups with ­political-sounding names, setting in motion a dragnet aimed at separating legitimate tax-exempt groups from those working to get candidates elected. Read full article >>    

After Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said, “The case is submitted,” on March 27, the justices of the Supreme Court presumably took a private vote and now are at work writing the opinions that will decide the fate of same-sex marriage in the United States. Read full article >>