On gun reform

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It has been clear to me since I first read these words in elementary school that the people who wrote this intended to offer a free people physical protection from being over-run by a tyrannical government via simple intimidation with firearms.  This language did not anticipate cruise missiles, tanks, armoured HumVees, helicopters, cluster bombs or A-10's.

In short, the protection this amendment was intended to provide no longer exists.  It has been rendered meaningless by the technology of war.  The people who wrote the constitution had no way to foresee this development.  The US military can easily seize control of a populace armed only with AR-15's.  They drill on this.  Routinely.  Most large civilian police forces and National Guard units could subjugate a populace armed only with small arms also.  It would be bloody, but it would be decisive.

The people of the United States have a much more powerful and decisive protection from tyranny: ourselves.  Who are they going to find to fight in a US military that turns against the US people?  Which sworn police officers are going to kill civilians to impose a tyrant's rule inside the US?  

We don't need guns to protect ourselves from tyranny, we have each other.

Sport, sustenance, trophy and target hunting exist in every part of the world without protections like the second amendment.  Foreign governments craft laws that create conditions under which law-abiding citizens can own and maintain hunting and sporting firearms.  The obstacles vary, of course, but essentially none are absolute.  

Even North Korea has a target shooting Olympic team.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia opines in DC v Heller that the second amendment specifically does not protect AR-15's.  Here, when defining the word "arms," he's fairly clear

"The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. "

An AR-15 is a military weapon.  It does not belong in the hands of civilians. It enjoys zero constitutional protection according to perhaps the Supreme Court Justice most given to granting protections to firearms otherwise.

High-capacity magazines are designed for military use.  Hunters scare off their prey with their first shot, they don't need 29 more rounds after that first one.

The US government should ban these weapons, high-capacity magazines, and every other accessory designed for military use from ownership by private citizens.  All existing AR-15's should be bought back by the military.  Simple possession by a private citizen should be a felony, aggravated conviction being met with 10 years imprisonment or more.

This can all be done without modification to the second amendment.

Three fairy tales

I had an insight today. Much of the pain in life can be traced to my belief in one or more of three fairy tales.

1. Most people eat what they want, as much as they want, as often as they want, and they suffer no adverse consequences for this behavior, I.e., they are at the weight they want, have the body contours they want, and rarely deny themselves a food/eating experience they want.

2. Most people have romantic relationships that develop effortlessly with each participant confident in their position in the relationship, comfortable with the pace of the relationship, always sure of, and comfortable with, the next step in the relationship.

3. Most people are rewarded professionally according to their abilities and the degree to which they contribute positively to the organization. Success is the inevitable consequence of the diligent and faithful application of hard work, skill and integrity.

Stopped laughing yet?

Of course, I "know" these are fairy tales. The extent to which I believe that these fallacies do not operate in my consciousness is exactly the extent to which they exercise an unseen influence on my conclusions concerning how well things are going. That is, the more I believe that I don't really buy into these notions the more I kick myself for not living a life which lives up to them.

It's like advertising. Advertisers know well that advertising messages exert the greatest influence over people who have convinced themselves that advertising has no effect on them. Advertising has little effect on people who are aware of the fact that they can be influenced by advertising. These people factor in that fact into their buying decision. They know their opinions about what to buy are skewed by advertising and that very awareness mitigates the effect. I thought about this just today when buying batteries at Radio Shack. I almost paid more for the brand name batteries until I reflected on the fact that I have no experience that they are any better or last any longer than the cheaper house brand batteries. So, I bought the house brand.

When I realize that my dissatisfaction with my life mostly derives from the fact that I buy into one of these three fairy tales it dissipates as rapidly as my preference for the brown batteries over the black ones. What are your fairy tales?

My choice for the Democratic Presidential Nominee

Punditry: Hillary [hearts] LBJ

Unlike most of you, I was alive when they passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. I was young, but I was not asleep. I mainly experienced all of that on the receiving end of the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite.

Let's get some things right. HIllary is correct. LBJ spent a great deal of the political capital he had amassed over his career as a Southern political leader getting the Civil RIghts bill passed. He strong-armed people, made threats, made promises, and gave concessions he did not want to make in order to get it passed. He did so in part because he believed it was the right thing to do. He also did it in part because the movement that MLK was leading was putting real pressure on him.

The news media has set this up as some sort of zero sum game. Don't believe it. What HIllary said is true. LBJ was a necessary part of that process in order to get The Civil RIghts Act of 1964 done the way it got done. So, was MLK. It wouldn't have happened if southerners weren't watching their police sadistically abusing people on TV. They were both necessary.

The reaction to her statement is what is racist here, not what she said.

I live in Harlem, it is the most viciously racist community in which I have ever lived. I have not personally witnessed the kind of outright hatred spewed at me because I am white ever visited on black people in other communities in which I have lived. I've seen credible documentary evidence of it--video, film, interviews, etc., but I have never seen white teenagers spit at black people as they walk by, for example.

That happened to me about 20 minutes ago on 116th street.

So, the media and the public discourse all have it wrong. Some black people are so angry that they cannot concede LBJ's good will even 44 years later. That's what this is about. They want to believe that LBJ was dragged kicking and screaming to the table over civil rights by these all powerful black revolutionaries.

LBJ was a kind man who was born to unspeakable poverty. He understood oppression, he understood what happens to a governed people when their government forsakes them. He was no visionary when it came to racial justice, but once he saw what was happening, once he saw dogs, fire-hoses and clubs being used on people peaceably demonstrating, he didn't need to be pushed to do the right thing. He was being pushed, and perhaps he would have followed a different schedule if he wasn't being pushed, but he was not dragged kicking and screaming by some mandate out of his control. He made it happen. He spent his most precious resource, his political capital, to do it.

One must also appreciate that in it's hey-day the Civil Rights movement was populated by a tiny minority of the black people in this country. It was not as it is portrayed today: a huge, pure, singular voice speaking black truth to white power. There were large numbers of black people who thought it was wrong, dangerous, mis-directed, weak and too conciliatory. MLK did not enjoy the position of sainthood he does today. He was roundly criticized by most of the black population at the time.

His message was basically this--we all have to learn to live together as brothers and sisters or we all are going to perish together as fools. He was not a black nationalist, he was an American, he deeply, profoundly, sincerely believed in the ideals of this country, he believed that racism against white people was just as deluded and evil as that against blacks. His hero was Gandhi, not Marcus Garvey.

So, those who don't heed that view of the world, those who believe in reparations and black nationalism, those who promote the notion that Obama is not "black enough," are going to come out of the woodwork as Obama exposes their excuse for being miserable failures, i.e.;, that the white man somehow keeps them down, as so much self-hatred, denial and self-delusion.

I've lived in places in Texas where black people endeavored not to remain after dark as recently as 20 years ago. I now live in a place that many of the white people reading these words might fear to remain after dark, particularly if you've never been here.

I've never had to put my hand in front of my face in either place to know my skin color.

That's what MLK was against, that's why he's a hero of mine, and you'll never find me apologizing to anyone, no matter what their skin color, for claiming him as my people.

If MLK were alive today he would reminding everyone that the people who deserve credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were the ones who marched over the bridge, who boycotted the buses, and went out and accepted violence in the name of ending it. Everyone else was no more than an obedient clerk, filing papers on their behalf.

Clerks deserve credit, too.

Punditry: The Audacity of Genuine Communication

This was a powerful episode for Hillary. She had a huge turnout in NH of Democratic women of a certain age right after she masterfully managed a moment of genuine emotion in public. She did this while certainly physically exhausted and emotionally demoralized. Her campaign thought they were 10 points down.

What's been missed in this deplorable freak show of criticism around this moment of hers is that she is a human being. A regular person. The now famous photographer (in so many words) asked her how she was doing. It seemed to me that it may have been a long time since someone genuinely asked her that question--someone who was really interested in the answer.

She met that genuineness with her own genuineness. Weak people suppress tears. People who are so unfamiliar with their own emotional territory that they don't trust themselves to have the strength to maintain their composure while traversing it are the weak ones.

What Hillary did was manage a bit of genuine communication about her frustration and fatigue. Her eyes teared up. She did not cry. She did not deflect the pain with humor or stoic denial, she lived it, and she lived it with dignity and grace.

That is strength. That is what you want in a leader. They need 100% of themselves to be available for making judgments. They can't afford to corner off their sadness or doubt, they need the information it contains. Why? Because people are counting on them.

This is not an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, but it is a defense of her. Cut her, she bleeds.

To those for whom *seeing video* of someone they don't like who is genuinely communicating human frustration is so unnerving that it sends them into fits of sadistic ridicule and/or compels solemn declarations of disbelief, may you be well, may you be free from suffering, may you at peace.

To Hillary, I am proud to have voted for you to be my Senator.

Meet Rev. Jeremiah Wright

This will likely be Obama's swift-boating.

The political noise-machine of hatred will soon be descending upon Barak Obama. They've been laying off him because of "the enemies of our enemies are our friends" notion of solidarity as Obama has been "hurting" HIllary Clinton, one of their long-standing favorite targets. Now they may decide it is in their interests to divide the Democratic majority by applying the pressure of lies, smears, and character assassination to both candidates

They've already started with his Muslim connections via his father. There's no actual facts there, Obama is Presbyterian, so that's going to dry up pretty soon. I predict they will soon take aim at Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a very prominent head of a megachurch in Chicago called Trinity United Church of Christ.

The church's website is already slashdotted (though I doubt it is slashdot that is the cause), even the google cache is slow to load.

Rev. Wright's motto is "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian." He is known for strongly africa-centric rhetoric and writings, the kind of stuff that scares white people. The title of Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, is taken from Rev. Wright's teachings.

The Wikipedia entry is still relatively okay as of this writing (here's the cache,) but I expect it to be hacked soon.

Oh boy, here we go again. Obama will have this opportunity to demonstrate whether or not he has the character to serve in a country where a large portion of what passes for the news media is actually an organ of polemic delusion and xenophobic ill-will much of the time.

Note to Hillary: Get a grip.

"At some point the free ride ends." This is Hillary Clinton's recent sound-bite pointed at Obama and Edwards.

Hillary, you're counting 8 years as First Lady as experience in government. If you push this line of argument it will not turn out well for you. Go back to your strength, which is specific strategic policy plans. Chill. You can still do well on Feb 5 even if you don't win anyting until then if you just stay on this message--you have plans, you're ready.

Punditry: The 01/05/08 NH Debates.

I was with Obama, I watched football during the Republican half. You tell me how it turned out.

For the Republicans, that is. I know how the Redskins did.

HIll got shrill, but she also got piled on. Obama didn't do well, but he didn't stumble. Edwards make a nice showing but his combat and fight metaphors are tiresome. Richardson got to make his case, but he seemed to protest too much, and he really bordered on condescencion with the pedantic peacemaking.

The next impact will be after the Sunday morning news shows and the AM Op-eds.

The problem with Hillary.

I have been very happy with Hillary Clinton as my Senator. When she originally ran, I preferred her over her opponent, but I wasn't thrilled to vote for her. I didn't know her well, I was as put off by her manner as anyone else. I knew the suspicions about her true motives and her ruthless pursuit of partisan values.

That has changed. She has shown up for the job. Everything I've seen that has been her initiative has been wise public policy, efficiently executed and well communicated. I highly recommend her as a public servant and I think she would probably make an excellent President.

But I don't think we should nominate her.

Why? Because we'd be doing the same thing to the Republicans in this country that they did to us with George W. Bush, i.e, forcing a person we intensely dislike down our throats by virtue of persuasion of a few apathetic "independent" voters who get all of their political education in 30-second TV commercials. We need a President who connects to people on both sides of the aisle. If the Democrats win next November, the Republicans deserve a President who doesn't inspire intense feelings of dislike and disgust.

So, when my turn comes, I am going to cast my vote for someone else because I don't want Republicans in this country to be as alienated from the executive branch as I have been for the last 8 years.

I just hope the person who wins a plurality takes office.