Amy Davidson, The New Yorker online, yesterday (excerpt is last 2 paragraphs)
We have heard a good deal from the N.R.A. in the last couple of months about how a gun defends a home. Wayne LaPierre, the group’s executive vice-president and increasingly unhinged public face, has been out talking about how everyone needs a gun to be prepared for a coming time of financial crisis and natural disaster. South Africa and the United States are distinct countries with different gun cultures, but people are not so different. The array of objects within arm’s reach can turn a moment of rage to something worse in any country. A gun in the house makes it more likely that domestic violence will lead to murder. (The Times has a story this morning about how living with guns has also been connected to dying by suicide.) Oscar Pistorius’s gun did not keep Reeva Steenkamp safe. Living in a house with many guns did not keep Kasandra Perkins safe when Jovan Belcher, the father of her child, shot her and then himself.
There is much to admire in the confidence that made Pistorius believe that he could challenge world running federations, and make them let him run. There was a clarity there, and inspiration, and the right kind of pride. (This morning, someone reportedly took a Nike ad with the line “I am the bullet in the chamber” off of his Web site.) There will be plenty of talk, too, about what brings athletes to both the highest levels of sports and to a place of domestic tragedy—publicity, pressure, even the unsettling question of performance-enhancing drugs and their psychological effects. That discussion is worth having. But what matters even more is what can happen in any home, in any room, with a man and a woman and a gun.
Roberts court had decided to take the case about who should be counted in a district for size. It has never been ruled upon whether a district should just count eligible voters equally among districts or should all be counted including immigrants and prisoners. If all is counted then that will move the power to the rural areas that are mostly older and conservative according to the author.
I am sure they will rule what ever keeps the GOP in power at the state and House levels. It is something to watch for.
Until recently, most presidential candidates have pretended that they aren’t beholden to the donors who finance their campaigns. For the 2016 race, however, the GOP’s candidates aren’t even hiding the fact that they want to be sold to the highest bidder. Their primary really is dominated by a handful of billionaires, with the candidates hoping to win all-important “auditions” with big-money funders like the Kochs and the Adelsons, who will collectively spend over $1 billion on the campaign.
Over the last half-century, affluent Americans have turned out to vote at significantly higher rates than lower-income Americans. Yet, the expert consensus on this issue has been that income-related voting gaps are not consequential. new evidence casts significant doubt on the idea that class bias in our electorate isn’t important. Most important, non-voters tend to be much more liberal in their economic policy views compared to voters.
Besides their own, they of course can handle any other electric cars that appear on the market. Amazon first-mover advantage... And as mass transit makes more sense in Europe vs. the US, electric cars also fit the high fuel cost/shorter distance/more densely populated landscape.