Beacon of Freedom

While I was driving today, I was scanning the horizon up ahead of me. I noticed the Wasatch Mountains were a beautiful, cold gray on a February afternoon. The beautiful blue and gray colors of the majestic mountains were contrasted in one small spot by an American flag. A single beam of sun split the clouds and rested directly on the flag. It appeared to be ablaze as it was illuminated by the sun.

I rushed to stop and grab a picture of that flag in its full blazing glory, but the shaft of sunlight that illuminated it slipped beyond the flag just as I stopped my car.

I found that imagery, however fleeting, to be quite symbolic. The hope and promise that is the American dream should burn bright. The background that is the rest of the world’s nations is not necessarily dismal, but the hue that is the rest of the world - our neighbors, allies, and friends throughout the world - like the majestic Wasatch Mountains, is actually quite beautiful and magnificent in its own regard. But the standard of liberty that the United States has the honor of carrying should stand bright to all who can see it shine.

I also found significant symbolism in how rapidly that bright blaze faded away. We must always stand vigilant, safeguarding liberty and freedom. The guiding light that the American ideal provides has the potential to slip away more rapidly than we may realize.

I choose not to telegraph my own political viewpoints with this post as they would potentially diminish the meaning of the underlying message. What I truly wish to convey and wish all Americans would recognize is that we Americans have an individual responsibility to do what we can to protect and uphold those fragile ideals that enable the American dream for our own sake and for the sake of those around us. The significant responsibility of supporting and standing up for what it means to be an American rests squarely upon our shoulders.

Just as that flag burned bright before the mountains behind it, we as individuals and as a nation must stand bright as a beacon to the rest of the world of the opportunities and possibilities are available to those who embrace liberty, freedom, and place the magnificent rights that are bestowed upon us by our creator above all else. 

F*** You, I like Guns - A Response

There's an article circulating entitled, "F** you, I like guns"

Written by a self-identified "big liberal, kind of a socialist, really," it's no surprise that it's anti-gun. It's relatively well-written, but is filled with logical fallacies and advocates a so-called solution that will solve nothing. Rather than just post a response, I felt it more appropriate to put responses in-line. 

So here goes:

----------

America, can we talk? Let’s just cut the shit for once and actually talk about what’s going on without blustering and pretending we’re actually doing a good job at adulting as a country right now. We’re not. We’re really screwing this whole society thing up, and we have to do better. (amen, sister!) We don’t have a choice. People are dying. At this rate, it’s not if your kids, or mine, are involved in a school shooting, it’s when. One of these happens every 60 hours on average in the US. (Wait, what? A school shooting in less than every three days? For real? You can't possibly be talking about that discredited “Everytown” claim that there have been 18 school shootings in 2018, could you? Digging through the numbers reveals that there were actually 5 incidents in 2018 that occurred during school hours and 4 that one would consider a “school shooting.” Four horrible, inexcusable monstrosities in which an individual brutally cut short the lives of their peers. Whether there are eighteen shootings or just one does not change the serious nature of this topic, nor the need to discuss appropriate action. But if we're going to discuss the issues, let's discuss the actual issue, not conflate them with fear-mongering and dishonest tactics.) If you think it can’t affect you, you’re wrong. Dead wrong. So let’s talk.

I’ll start. I’m an Army veteran. (Ditto, but that makes you an authority on what?) I like M-4’s, which are, for all practical purposes, an AR-15, just with a few extra features that people almost never use anyway. (Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop the bus! Did you just try to gloss over the fact that an M4 has either a three-round burst or full-auto function (depending upon the specific model) and an AR-15 doesn't? Are you trying to capitalize on your audience's potential ignorance of the mechanics of firearms and try to get them to equate the two? Did you perhaps hope that your audience wouldn't realize that an AR-15 is actually the “demilitarized” variant of an M-4, rendering it no different than any semi-automatic firearm with extended magazine capability? I mean, seriously, didn't we just talk about dishonest tactics?) I’d say at least 70% of my formal weapons training is on that exact rifle, with the other 30% being split between various and sundry (redundant much?) machineguns and grenade launchers. (Grenade launchers were my fav. Love the M19) My experience is pretty representative of soldiers of my era. Most of us are really good with an M-4 (to be honest, I beg to differ, I'd say that most soldiers are actually pretty poor marksmen, but that doesn't really change the issue, so whatever), and most of us like it at least reasonably well, because it is an objectively good rifle. I was good with an M-4, really good. (good on you) I earned the Expert badge every time I went to the range, starting in Basic Training. This isn’t uncommon. (again, disagree, but whatever) I can name dozens of other soldiers/veterans I know personally who can say the exact same thing. This rifle is surprisingly easy to use, completely idiot-proof really, has next to no recoil, comes apart and cleans up like a dream, and is light to carry around (agreed). I’m probably more accurate with it than I would be with pretty much any other weapon in existence. I like this rifle a lot. I like marksmanship as a sport. (Me too. Preach!) When I was in the military, I enjoyed combining these two things as often as they’d let me. (Which is WAY less often than most civilians realize)

With all that said, enough is enough. My knee jerk reaction is to consider weapons like the AR-15 no big deal because it is my default setting. It’s where my training lies. It is my normal, because I learned how to fire a rifle IN THE ARMY. You know, while I may only have shot plastic targets on the ranges of Texas, Georgia, and Missouri, that’s not what those weapons were designed for, and those targets weren’t shaped like deer. They were shaped like people. (Wait, so certain shapes of target are only made for certain guns? I've been shooting steel circles with my LR-308 for years. I'VE BEEN DOING IT ALL WRONG!) Sometimes we even put little hats on them. You learn to take a gut shot, “center mass”, because it’s a bigger target than the head, (true) and also because if you maim the enemy soldier rather than killing him cleanly, more of his buddies will come out and get him, and you can shoot them, too. He’ll die of those injuries, but it’ll take him a while, giving you the chance to pick off as many of his compadres as you can. That’s how my Drill Sergeant explained it anyway. I’m sure there are many schools of thought on it. The fact is, though, when I went through my marksmanship training in the US Army, I was not learning how to be a competition shooter in the Olympics, or a good hunter. I was being taught how to kill people as efficiently as possible, and that was never a secret. (Well, yeah. If you're a soldier, one of your most basic skillsets must be to kill the enemy.)

As an avowed pacifist now, it turns my stomach to even type the above words, but can you refute them? I can’t. Every weapon that a US Army soldier uses has the express purpose of killing human beings. (The purpose of any weapon, whether in the hands of the US soldier or Mother Teresa, is to injure, defeat or destroy. That's what categorizes them as weapons. Our troops aren't over there on a field trip. They're sent there to kill the enemy) That is what they are made for. The choice rifle for years has been some variant of what civilians are sold as an AR-15. Whether it was an M-4 or an M-16 matters little. The function is the same, and so is the purpose. These are not deer rifles. They are not target rifles. They are people killing rifles. (Don't confuse the intent with the instrument. A rifle in the hand of a hunter is a hunting rifle; in the hands of a professional marksman, it's a glorified paper punch; in the hand of a soldier, then for his or her sake it had damn well better be a killing machine. Hell, a fork in the hand of a US soldier in combat ought be turned into a people-killing fork) Let’s stop pretending they’re not.

With this in mind, is anybody surprised that nearly every mass shooter in recent US history has used an AR-15 to commit their crime? (Finally, we get to the point) And why wouldn’t they? High capacity magazine (available for numerous weapons), ease of loading and unloading (same), almost no recoil (the 223 in general has low-recoil, but the buffer-spring does take away what little punch it had left, though a good muzzle brake can do the same for most any firearm), really accurate even without a scope (we can argue minutia of what makes a rifle accurate and which model is more accurate than which, but in reality a well-built AR-15 is not more accurate than most any other well-built rifle, and truly, is less accurate than many other firearms just as readily-available), but numerous scopes available for high precision (you can slap a scope on most any gun, sister.), great from a distance or up close, easy to carry (No easier than any other rifle and WAY harder to carry than a good pistol. I don't see anybody declaring their Bushmaster a “carry-piece.”), and readily available. (again, not any more “available” than most any other kind of legal firearm) You can buy one at Wal-Mart, or just about any sports store, and since they’re long guns, I don’t believe you have to be any more than 18 years old with a valid ID. (and pass a background check, of course. Don't gloss over those pesky facts again!) This rifle was made for the modern mass shooter, especially the young one. (Wow, way to jump to a conclusion) If he could custom design a weapon to suit his sinister purposes, he couldn’t do a better job than Armalite did with this one already. (Again, the AR-15 is functionally no different than any other modern semi-automatic rifle.)

This rifle is so deadly and so easy to use that no civilian should be able to get their hands on one. (Again, there is nothing inherent to the AR-15 that makes this rifle fundamentally more deadly than others. It is simply the most popular sporting rifle around currently. If an SKS, M1A1, or M14 were more popular today, then they'd be the topic of our discussion, not the AR-15.) We simply don’t need these things in society at large. (We need the AR-15 no more or less than we need any other firearm.) I always find it interesting that when I was in the Army, and part of my job was to be incredibly proficient with this exact weapon, I never carried one at any point in garrison other than at the range. Our rifles lived in the arms room, cleaned and oiled, ready for the next range day or deployment. We didn’t carry them around just because we liked them. (Besides a handful of activists who inconvenience themselves by lugging their AR-15's to assert their 2^nd amendment rights, nobody “carries around” their AR just 'cause. It's not exactly a fashion accessory.) We didn’t bluster on about barracks defense and our second amendment rights. (You must have simply hung out with a different crowd than what you label the “gun-nuts”. Military servicemen and women are simply a segment of the general population. There are both 2^nd amendment advocates and people who advocate for its alteration or even absolution in the military, just like in the society from which these servicemembers originate) We tucked our rifles away in the arms room until the next time we needed them, just as it had been done since the Army’s inception. (Soldiers have no choice but to “tuck away” their issued firearms at the armory. Regardless of this misdirect, that's precisely what a responsible firearm owner does anyway. He or she puts his or her firearm in its safe until he/she next needs it. Again, I fail to see you're point here) The military police protected us from threats in garrison. They had 9 mm Berettas to carry. They were the only soldiers who carry weapons in garrison. We trusted them to protect us, and they delivered. With notably rare exceptions, this system has worked well. (Except for those rare exceptions that eventually led to the DoD quietly allowing soldiers to carry their concealed firearms for personal protection in late 2016. Probably because they realized that having armed personnel who can respond to an incident can end a shooting spree much more quickly than an unarmed populace that has to wait for an MP to show up) There are fewer shootings on Army posts than in society in general, probably because soldiers are actively discouraged from walking around with rifles, despite being impeccably well trained with them. (First, there's a culture of camaraderie among soldiers that doesn't exist in larger society. There's a common purpose, a brotherhood, if you will. Doing harm to your brother is even more unthinkable than doing harm to a stranger. Second, the second amendment doesn't apply the to soldiers the way that it does to the general populace. Soldiers are required to register every firearms with garrison and are required to keep them in the armory if living in the barracks and in a locked safe if living elsewhere, with the exception of the concealed carry exception previously mentioned. They are subject to inspections at any time. Third, non-military are absolutely forbidden from entering post with a firearm, and all vehicles and personnel are subject to search at entry control points.) Perchance, we could have the largely untrained civilian population take a page from that book? (I pity the individual who would choose a world where police search your vehicle every time you enter town, require you to declare your possessions, and will come into your home at any time to ensure your compliance. But then again, you are a self-described socialist)

I understand that people want to be able to own guns. That’s ok. We just need to really think about how we’re managing this. Yes, we have to manage it, just as we manage car ownership. (We do manage gun ownership) People have to get a license to operate a car, and if you operate a car without a license, you’re going to get in trouble for that. (Cars have not been asserted as protected by the constitution by the supreme court) We manage all things in society that can pose a danger to other people by their misuse. (And that works so well) In addition to cars, we manage drugs (horribly), alcohol, exotic animals (there are certain zip codes where you can’t own Serval cats, for example) (Aside from the fact that exotic animals have an instinctual drive to escape captivity and, if predatory, to hunt and kill (last time I checked, my firearms aren't beating down my safe walls and striving to hunt prey while I'm away), exotic animal ownership is not a constitutional right), and fireworks, among other things. We restrict what types of businesses can operate in which zones of the city or county. We have a whole system of permitting for just about any activity a person wants to conduct (so lack of freedom in one area of life justifies it in another? Seems a bit Orwellian) since those activities could affect others, and we realize, as a society, that we need to try to minimize the risk to other people that comes from the chosen activities of those around them in which they have no say. Gun ownership is the one thing our country collectively refuses to manage, and the result is a lot of dead people. (Gun ownership IS managed, or at least management is attempted. Felons, abusers, mentally ill, and others are prohibited from firearm ownership. Persons must pass a background check to purchase a firearm legally. The Sutherland Springs shooter should NOT have passed his background check, but due to DoD not reporting his domestic abuse, did anyway. Before we decide on new gun restrictions, let's focus on more competently enforcing the laws that we already have.)

I can’t drive a Formula One car to work. (If you modify it to be street-legal you absolutely could. Lola did it with the T97. It's kind of like demilitarizing an M-4 into an AR-15) It would be really cool to be able to do that, and I could probably cut my commute time by a lot. Hey, I’m a good driver, a responsible Formula One owner. You shouldn’t be scared to be on the freeway next to me as I zip around you at 140 MPH, leaving your Mazda in a cloud of dust! (Did you really just compare someone's responsible use of an AR-15 to your irresponsible use of an automobile? Driving your car like a madman is not a realistic comparison to a sportsman taking his rifle to the range) Why are you scared? Cars don’t kill people. People kill people. (Exactly, like idiots who drive 140 on the freeway.) Doesn’t this sound like bullshit? It is bullshit, and everybody knows. Not one person I know would argue non-ironically that Formula One cars on the freeway are a good idea. (I actually think legal formula one cars on the freeway would be awesome to see; however, Formula One racing on an active freeway is reckless. Get the difference?) Yet, these same people will say it’s totally ok to own the firearm equivalent because, in the words of comedian Jim Jeffries, “fuck you, I like guns”. (Thanks for deciding what I would say. I don't generally curse, by the way. And who's Jim Jeffries anyway?)

Yes, yes, I hear you now. We have a second amendment to the constitution, which must be held sacrosanct over all other amendments. (It's not sacrosanct over all others, though it's fair to say it helps to serve as an insurance policy that protects the others. Your right to free speech, like this drivel, is just as important as my right to a firearm.) Dude. No. The constitution was made to be a malleable document. (Only to be changed through constitutional amendment, not the whims of opinion. Your interpretation, thankfully, does not decide its meaning. Only the supreme court is granted that power, and they've spoken on this topic.) It’s intentionally vague. We can enact gun control without infringing on the right to bear arms. (I beg to differ. Any restriction on a right is an infringement by its very nature. ) You can have your deer rifle. You can have your shotgun that you love to shoot clay pigeons with. You can have your target pistol. Get a license. Get a training course. Recertify at a predetermined interval. (And by that line of logic, we should be required take civics tests before being allowed to vote. After all, an uninformed voting base is way more dangerous to America's welfare than a guy with a gun. But we wouldn't do that because such a restriction is also an infringement on the right to vote) You do not need a military grade rifle. You don’t. There’s no excuse. (Again with the equivocating the AR-15 to the M-4. They're almost the same, except for that pesky rapid fire part you so conveniently omitted)

“But we’re supposed to protect against tyranny! I need the same weapons the military would come at me with!” Dude. You know where I can get an Apache helicopter and a Paladin?! Hook a girl up! Seriously, though, do you really think you’d be able to hold off the government with an individual level weapon? Because you wouldn’t. One grenade, and you’re toast. Don’t have these illusions of standing up to the government, and needing military style rifles for that purpose. You’re not going to stand up to the government with this thing. They’d take you out in about half a second. (For all of our military might, the Vietcong, Somali warlords, and the Taliban have put up quite the fight. While your correct that a direct face-off between dudes with AR-15s and a bunch of tanks and fighter jets would be suicidal, that's not the point. The point is that military suppression of the citizens of an armed populace would require immensely more bloodshed than an unarmed one. It's certainly a deterrent.)

Let’s be honest. You just want a cool toy, and for the vast majority of people, that’s all an AR-15 is. (Right, and right) It’s something fun to take to the range and put some really wicked holes in a piece of paper. Good for you. I know how enjoyable that is. I’m sure for a certain percentage of people, they might not kill anyone driving a Formula One car down the freeway, or owning a Cheetah as a pet, or setting off professional grade fireworks without a permit. Some people are good with this stuff, and some people are lucky, but those cases don’t negate the overall rule. Military style rifles have been the choice du jour in the incidents that have made our country the mass shootings capitol of the world. Formula One cars aren’t good for commuting. Cheetahs are bitey. Professional grade fireworks will probably take your hand off. All but one of these are common sense to the average American. Let’s fix that. Be honest, you don’t need that AR-15. (Not the point; it's my right to own one) Nobody does. Society needs them gone, no matter how good you may be with yours. Kids are dying, and it’s time to stop fucking around.

-------

Your initial prognosis is correct: society is broken.

It's almost cliché, but even I, a guy in his mid 30's, can remember a day when guns were in racks in the back of trucks in the school parking lot. I kept a rifle in my truck so I could go shoot with buddies after school or maybe catch a few jackrabbits on my way home. Yet neither I nor my friends would ever have dreamed of harming another person with the gun in the back of the truck. Now, there are fewer than ever firearms on school property, but mass shootings are on the rise.

The gun is not the problem. We all know it, but we seem to refuse to admit it. Somehow, we've lost respect for one another. Somehow, value for human life has become less than it ought to be. For some reason, we now glorify killing in our media, but are conveniently insulated from the actual realities of death.

We need to try to fix our society, not run around banning the implements borne by the manifestations of society's ills. Yes, the AR-15's popularity has made it the implement of a mass shooter today, but banning it won't stop evil men from committing evil acts. The next most popular firearm will take its place, then the next, and so on. If firearms are banned, then pressure-cooker bombs, vehicle attacks, and knife attacks will persist or increase.

Society seems determined to refuse to believe that evil exists within it. Instead, we delude ourselves into believing that it's not our fault, but that of an inanimate object.

Vets Before Refugees - Not for This Vet

It's been nearly 5 years since I posted anything. I honestly would have thought that Trump was the topic that would have brought my opinions to the page, but it turns out there's something else that pushed past (though I'm pretty confident something on The Donald will end up making its way to a post).Over the past few weeks, I've noticed a trend that is increasingly gaining traction: the "Vets before refugees" movement. And as a veteran, as a conservative, and, frankly, as an American, it pisses me off. 

As a veteran I get that a portion of us have seen, experienced, or done some legitimately damaging shit. Some of us have sacrificed life, others have sacrificed limb, and a still others have sacrificed conscience in their countries service, leaving scars both visible and invisible. I'm not stranger to the frustration that comes from having an anxiety attack over events that occurred in years past or fearing that you might hurt yourself or someone you love because of some mental or emotional scars that you're struggling to come to terms with. And these veterans have every claim to our nation's compassion and assistance while they heal.
But I didn't enlist to fight for a country that has lost its humanity!

I am in no way calling for America to open its borders and allow all who call themselves refugees to enter. First, the need to properly vet refugees for immigration is real. America's vetting process (even before the advent of Trump's so-called "extreme vetting") is pretty thorough, and there are absolutely times when the priority of our nation's security may prohibit it from allowing the immigration of persons who fails the process or simply cannot be properly vetted. Second, America's capacity to house these individuals and to facilitate their integration into society must also be brought to consideration.

Immigration aside, there are ways to provide aid to those who need it. The US both privately and publicly provides valuable humanitarian assistance and aid to refugee camps across the world. And yes, of course such assistance comes at a cost that must be assessed and budgeted appropriately. And if the need outweighs the financial ability of our nations government and people to assist (and it will), at least we as citizens and a nation can say that we tried. But the notion that America has a binary choice between helping its veterans in need and lending assistance to refugees, our world's most desperate segment of population, is an outright lie.

I'd wager that the a large portion of those who keep posting and sharing the Vets Before Refugees nonsense have done little to nothing to actually, tangibly assist either party. To you, I say, "Stop using me as a scapegoat for your lack of charity." Quit using your bumper-sticker patriotism as a pathetic alibi. On what planet does someone claiming to be an American or even a human being for that matter, feel that the plight of a refugee is one to ignore?

And to my brothers and sisters in arms, on what planet does a veteran feel this way? Veterans, the segment of our population that are frequently put on a pedestal for an inclination to Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, and Honor (among other things), are absolutely the last people who should pound their chest and shout, "Me first!" They should be doing the exact opposite, shouting "Help him" instead. I for one, enlisted not only with the patriotic intention to serve my country, but with the desire to serve those who needed our help most.

Well here they are! Let's not ignore them.

Happy Memorial Day

Happy Memorial Day. 

Please take some time to do something in remembrance of our Nation's fallen.

Closet Anti-Capitalists

Is it just me, or have some of our GOP candidates let their closet anti-capitalist out? Specifically, I'm referring to attacks on Mitt Romney in regards to recent statements, claims that a CEO or manager would be a poor president, and his record as a venture capitalist at Bain Capital.

Romney the Terminator

Some of the candidates have taken some of Mitt's comments out of context when speaking about health care companies. This seems like a lame attack done in poor taste.

What Romney actually said was:

“I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”

What the other candidates claimed Romney said was: “I like being able to fire people.”

When I first heard the comment, I was reminded of a chick flick that I watched once that starred a guy who's job was to fire people. He was a real-life terminator. Rick Perry's witty, albeit petty attempt to create a ringtone out of the phrase deserves points for merit, but Huntsman telling people that the guy who headed a firm that owns a huge chunk of his daddy's company is unelectable for the comments falls short. Incidentally, could the reason that Huntsman Sr hasn't written kiddo's campaign a giant check be the fact that he's a business partner with a firm closely associated with an opponent?

As you can see, they took less than a sentence out of an entire paragraph spoken specifically about a relationship with an unsatisfactory service provider out of context and applied it in general principle to paint the man as the evil job-cutting equivalent of It's a Wonderful Life's Mr. Potter.

Obviously, the other candidates were hoping to take the image of Romney as a Wall Street fat cat that OWS has painted for him and run with it. If they can make him seem out of touch or ruthless, then they feel they might be able to detract some votes from him.

Unfortunately, I feel that this particular attack is petty and poorly formulated. I'm not surprised that Romney's words were taken out of context. These are politicians that we're working with. They all do it, all the time. Romney did it, too in an attack ad on President Obama. The issue that I take with the comments is not so much that they're out of context, but that they're fruitless. They don't do any real damage. In fact, they might help Romney.

First, a guy who “likes to fire people” in the private sector really isn't a threat to me in public office. The president doesn't own my company. It's not like he'll call on America's job creators and tell them to stop. At worst, he'll fire his own staff repeatedly, which will in the grand scheme of things have little effect on someone detached from the President's Palace.

Second, even if we take the “like to fire people” comments and run with them further, I think that many people would celebrate the possibility that Romney would fire regulators at the EPA or stay-at-home IRS code-writers.

Additionally, someone could take him saying, “I like to be able to fire people” as a union busting comment. After all, it's harder to fire a union worker than a non-union one. I don't think many conservatives would balk at that.

At the weakest, this argument implies that Romney would be a cost-cutter. He'd trim the fat. Doesn't break my heart.

A Manager Doesn't Belong in the White House

At last Saturday night's GOP primary debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum defended remarks he made, claiming that a “manager” would make a poor president. He claims that what America needs is a leader, not a manager. A weak argument, if you ask me. In most cases, the words leader and manager can be used interchangeably. Isn't a good leader a good manager? Isn't a good manager a good leader?

At the debate, Romney seized on the weakness of the argument and promptly threw the comments back in Santorum's face by saying he's out of touch with the leadership qualities that a guy who “managed” the 2002 Olympics back to success must possess and painted Santorum as a government guy who has no idea what the private sector really needs.

Mitt the Job-Cutter

I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around a group of supposed "free-market conservatives" who attack a venture-capital firm. After all, isn't venture-capitalism the charged, bold, high-risk / high-reward essence of the American capitalist idea?

Of course a company that focuses on leveraged buyouts, takeovers, and start-ups will see bankruptcies, restructurings and downsizing over the course of their operations. They invest in at-risk companies - the companies that typical banks and financiers won't touch. Of course guy who ran a company that has invested in over 250 businesses, many of which were considered risky or failing, will have to fire people. Of course some businesses will file for bankruptcy, and of course some pay-cuts will probably occur.

I had a close experience with a buy-out recently. I sell building products. Two of my closest competitors recently received investments from venture-capital firms. One company ended up filing for bankruptcy, but after some restructuring, they came out solvent after shedding losing divisions of their company. The other business eventually failed entirely.

Without the assistance of their financiers, neither company would have had a shot at regaining success. Unfortunately, one company failed outright. That doesn't mean that the idea of venture-capitalism is a failure, but that its risky. It is possible, albeit difficult to turn a troubled asset around.

Romney should get ahead of this topic and tout it as a claim to fame. He helped found the company that directed startup, purchase, restructuring, and profitability of companies like Staples, Dominos, Burger King, Huntsman Corporation, Toys'R'us, and more. He should use this record to help his campaign image as a reformer, organizer, the savior of distressed organizations. The guy who has what it takes to fix Washington's financial problems.

The Real Issues

Romney's record as a venture-capitalist is not his issue. His inconsistent political record is. He's a flip-flopper, he's shaky on abortion, he's shaky on gay marriage, he instituted what was used as a basis for Obama-care. He's got as much baggage as any of the candidates, but his opponents seem to focus on his free-market loving, venture-capitalist record, which makes them seem anti-capitalist. And last time I checked, republicans, especially conservative republicans aren't anti-capitalist.