H372 - SMETFO

Here’s a new acronym for you from the Minor Heretic: SMETFO. It stands for “Spare Me The False Outrage.”

A friend just sent me a link to a Fox News piece about a bill called H372, an amendment to an existing law, Title 18 USC § 1752. The bill was just passed into law and signed by President Obama. Fox had one Judge Napolitano in the guest pundit’s chair, speaking ominously about the end of free speech and protest as we know it. I looked it up online and the interwebs are clogged with wails of anguish about it from all over the political spectrum. Mostly conservative, though, with an epicenter of outrage at Fox.

Thing is, the body of the bill is 150 years old. In summary, it makes it a felony for people to break into a Secret Service designated security area with a deadly weapon or to significantly injure someone in that area. Jump the White House fence with a gun in your hand and you could face up to ten years in prison. Try to whack Mitt Romney at a press conference, likewise. If you crash the security party unarmed and stay peaceful it’s a misdemeanor.

H347 leaves the offenses and the penalties the same. It cleans up some of the language, mentioning the White House grounds and the Vice President’s residence. It also adds the words “without lawful authority.” The original bill had sloppy wording that, if taken literally, would prohibit anyone, including Michelle Obama, from being inside the Secret Service cordon. Oops.

However, from reviewing the chatter from Right Blogostan (and even Daily Kos) you’d think that some shiny new intrusion on our 1^st Amendment rights was in the offing. There are enough real violations of the Constitution going around right now without manufacturing bogus ones. See the text of the original bill and the amendment, below.

And SMETFO.

Title 18 USC § 1752 - Restricted building or grounds

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons—

(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;

(2) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;

(3) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

(4) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2); or

(5) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2).

(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be punishable by—

(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if—

(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section (2118)(e)(3); and

(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.

(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.

(e) As used in this section, the term “other person protected by the Secret Service” means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title when such person has not declined such protection.

The amendment, H372:

 SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.

Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

‘(a) Whoever--

‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

‘(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or

‘(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

‘(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--

‘(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--

‘(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

‘(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

‘(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

‘(c) In this section--

‘(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--

‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;

‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

‘(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

‘(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.’.

Hume on Zimmerman

"Reason is, and ought to be, only the slave of the passions,"

David Hume, Treatise of Human Nature

The more I read about George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin, the more it looks like a national Rorschach test. The usual factions sprang to sanctify or demonize the persons and actions of the individuals involved. This before any semblance of an investigation was complete.

What really interests me about this incident is public reaction to it. The right hand section of the media has started to demonize Trayvon Martin and justify Zimmerman’s actions. Zimmerman’s self-interested claim of assault and self-defense has become fact for one part of the population. There is a mirror image effort underway in other circles. I’m not claiming moral equivalency. It appears (and I’ll wait for a more thorough investigation to come to a firm conclusion) that Zimmerman either mistakenly or intentionally took advantage of a permissive law to shoot a representative of his personal paranoia.

Given the darkness at the time of the shooting and the death of one of the two direct witnesses, those few moments on the street will remain mostly a mystery. As such, I imagine that we will never reach a national consensus about it. There are a lot of issues like this.

I was just reading about a study on motivated reasoning. Some researchers presented information about climate change to two groups of people, both in what the researchers classified as the libertarian hierarchical part of the political spectrum. We might say conservative, but these particular researchers consider that two dimensional spectrum inadequate. One group was presented with the information and told that the problem required government intervention. The other group was told that the problem required more private investment in nuclear power. The nuclear group was more inclined to accept the information as valid.

This study is not unique. Drew Weston, in his excellent book “The Political Brain,” describes an experiment where he told people disturbing things about their favorite political candidates. He put his test subjects in a functional magnetic resonance imager, or fMRI, so he could see which parts of their brains were active. He told each subject about the candidate of choice being caught in an act of self-contradiction and then provided an excuse for that apparent contradiction. Michael Shermer provides a coherent summary in his Scientific American article:

The neuroimaging results, however, revealed that the part of the brain most associated with reasoning--the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex--was quiescent. Most active were the orbital frontal cortex, which is involved in the processing of emotions; the anterior cingulate, which is associated with conflict resolution; the posterior cingulate, which is concerned with making judgments about moral accountability; and--once subjects had arrived at a conclusion that made them emotionally comfortable--the ventral striatum, which is related to reward and pleasure.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," Westen is quoted as saying in an Emory University press release. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Interestingly, neural circuits engaged in rewarding selective behaviors were activated. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones," Westen said.  

A professor at Yale presented self-identified college age Republicans and Democrats with two welfare reform plans, one generous and one stringent. As one might imagine, the Dems preferred the generous one and the Repubs the stringent. However, when another two groups of partisans were presented with the same plans they were told that that 95% of Democrats supported the stringent plan and 95% of Republicans supported the generous one. The opinions of these two groups were reversed, with the Republicans supporting the generous plan and the Democrats the stringent one. Tribalism trumped prior opinion.

Do you want to change somebody’s mind? Apparently facts don’t work. Studies show that the more facts you present the more your erstwhile student will entrench in an existing position.

The science is stacking up. Politics is not a sphere of reason. It is a contest of tribes and emotionally satisfying doctrines. I used to say that people’s opinions on abortion and gun control were built into their DNA. A better description would be that people’s political opinions are the result of a lifetime of emotionally charged experiences, accreted like rust and barnacles on a ship’s hull. After a while the removal of the accumulated debris becomes a threat to the original structure and won’t be tolerated.

The exception to this is my set of political beliefs, of course. They were arrived at by the pure, cool reasoning of the calculating engine between my ears.

It brings me back to the quotation from Hume at the beginning of this essay. It also reminds me of the saying of a college friend: You are who you laugh at.

The Library Value Proposition

When I read about the way in which library funds are being cut and cut, I can only think that American society has found one more way to destroy itself.

-- Isaac Asimov

It’s town meeting time in Vermont, and that means that we all get the town Annual Report in the mailbox. In amongst the repairing of the town road grader and the elementary school budget there are short reports from all the local organizations that want a fragment of our property tax money this year. One is from our local library, the Kellogg Hubbard.

KHL was founded in 1896 when Martin and Fanny (Hubbard) Kellogg left a bequest in their will to build a public library in Montpelier. Their nephew John Hubbard contested the will, but later funded the library and endowed it with a significant trust fund. That fund has been well tended for over a century, but since the economic troubles of 2001 and then 2007 the library has had to ask for more assistance from the local towns. Meanwhile, the library belt, never less than snug, has been tightened.

Reading the report, I was struck by the level of activity. KHL is the second busiest library in Vermont, and the busiest on a per capita basis. We are readers here in central Vermont. To quote the report: “This year patrons checked out 288,876 items, staff answered 39,437 reference questions, and nearly 41,000 computer sessions took place.”

Wait a sec. KHL is open six days a week, minus a handful of holidays. Call it 300 days in round numbers. I looked at their hours of operation and did a little rough calculating and that’s about 2750 hours. Run the numbers and that’s 105 items going across the desk every hour and a reference question every four minutes besides. That doesn’t include all the books and magazines that people read while there, the non-reference questions, and the 800 special events attended by 23,000 people. It’s a wonder the place doesn’t overheat from the mass synaptic activity.

The cost for all this, plus outreach programs, children’s programs, interlibrary loan, and heating, lighting, and maintaining a century old building, runs around $950,000 a year.

This is the estimated cost of maintaining one soldier in Afghanistan for a year, or one three-hundred-forty-fifth of an F-22 Raptor stealth fighter. I’ll leave the depressing military comparisons at that.

I was remarking on the relative cheapness of the place to The Librarian, and she noted that many people, when paying their late fees, remark, “Well, it’s cheaper than buying books.” How much cheaper? Consider that these days a hardcover averages $26, and a paperback $16. The library circulates audio books all the time, and those can cost more than hard bound books. Textbooks and reference books tend to push up towards $100. Using $20 as a conservative per-book average, those 288, 876 items kaching out to just under $5.8 million, about 6 times the actual cost of having the KHL. One would have to take up a life of crime to get that kind of return on investment anywhere else. Of course, that 6 to 1 return doesn’t take into account all the internet time, the reading room, the meeting rooms, the reference help, or the special events. – readings, discussions, movies – that are there for free.

I am being financially reductionist here, and that’s an injustice to the library. The value of the accumulated and available knowledge, the arena for discussion, the safe place for kids, the locus of an intellectual community, is beyond numbers.

So stand up for your library in town meeting. Stand up for it in any political venue you have. Write a check directly if you can handle it – many drops make a bucket.

The library connects us with the insight and knowledge, painfully extracted from Nature, of the greatest minds that ever were, with the best teachers, drawn from the entire planet and from all our history, to instruct us without tiring, and to inspire us to make our own contribution to the collective knowledge of the human species.  I think the health of our civilization, the depth of our awareness about the underpinnings of our culture and our concern for the future can all be tested by how well we support our libraries.  ~Carl Sagan, Cosmos

Iran’s Bomb and Fuel Cell Cars – Almost

Your Minor Heretic used to be in the electric car business, in a minor way. I tracked all the developments in batteries, controllers, and other relevant hardware. That included hydrogen fuel cells, the darlings of the engineering geeks. Thing was, practical fuel cells for cars were always ten years away. They still are. And Iran's bomb?

One of my favorite bloggers, The Rude Pundit, just posted a piece about Iran’s supposed quest for nuclear weapons. According to the pundits and military experts, Iran has been two, or three or six years away from having an Islamobomb since around 1984. What an appropriate date. The year of mullahgeddon keeps getting pushed back because, in fact, they have never developed the capability. The general consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies is that they gave up on any effort towards nuclear weaponry as far back as 2003.

A theory that makes sense to me is that Iran doesn’t want an actual atomic bomb. It wants the potential for a bomb. Always the potential. One or two actual bombs wouldn’t really do it much good, strategically speaking. Israel has over 200, with thousands more sitting around in the U.S., France, and the U.K. An actual atomic bomb would just be a shit magnet.

However, uncertainty about Iran’s intentions and development of a bomb is better, albeit a tricky balancing act. Iran is suffering from some imbalance right now, what with sanctions and saber rattling. With Russia and China on its side Iran can expect to survive this wobble. Where Iran would like to be is the center of attention, with the major powers split. It can then use its nonexistent nuclear weapons non-program as a bargaining chip for whatever its priorities are at the time. Nothing like trading something you don’t have for something you actually want. The uncertainty has done wonderful things, by Iranian standards, for the price of oil. The nuclear non-program also plays well internally. A sense of being embattled helps the mullahs keep people’s minds off other issues. (Sound familiar?) If they can finesse the situation, keeping the western powers’ meter on “nervous” but short of “aggressive,” they win.

It works on our side as well. Getting back to fuel cells, a lot of companies sucked up a lot of money almost perfecting them. People wanted to believe, and both investors and taxpayers ponied up billions for that “almost”. The military and security industries must love Iran. If I were the CEO of a major military contractor I’d be sending thank-you cards to Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"Mahmoud: Love what you do. Insult Israel again, ok? And do a photo op next to a centrifuge. Our 3^rd quarter earnings need a boost.”

Now that Iraq is winding down and we’re looking at an end date for Afghanistan, our war life needs a little spicing up. Iran looks to be the next excuse for bankrupting ourselves and enriching the likes of General Dynamics. It will work out beautifully for Mahmoud, the mullahs, and the millionaires if we can keep things at “almost.”

If They Were Really Persons

A friend of mine and I were discussing the concept of corporate personhood. Yeah, that’s what we talk about here in Central Vermont when we are tapped out on deer hunting, snowmobiles, and how bad mud season was last year.

Review: The Supreme Court decided in Citizens United that corporations are persons and therefore have free speech rights, which means money donating rights, which translates into tanker-loads of cash flooding our already corrupt political system.

I mentioned the sign at Occupy Wall Street that said, “I’ll believe that corporations are persons when Texas executes one.”

My friend raised the concept of corporations as persons having the right to marry. We mused on this for a moment.

I brought up the issue of same-business mergers. Would Americans support an oil company marrying another oil company?

My friend admitted that Exxon/Mobil made him uncomfortable. I had to agree. Many would say that this oil company on oil company stuff threatens and dishonors traditional mergers. I mean, Exxon/Ben & Jerry’s is normal, but Morgan Stanley/Smith Barney just creeps me out. It’s not just same-business, it is polygamy. More alarming, these same-business mergers actually hire professional firms for “recruitment.” They advertise themselves for sale in public offerings. Won’t someone think of the children?

I forget which one of us brought up jury duty. How would we handle that with, let’s say, Lockheed Martin? It employs 126,000 people in the U.S. alone. Do they all have to show up? Jury selection would be restricted to the largest sports stadiums. Can an attorney reject Lockheed Martin as a juror based on the bias of one employee, or would it have to be a majority? The interviews would take months. Does the company get shut down for the duration and get $10 a day for lunch? Or could it be just the board of directors? What if they, as one person, deliver a split decision? Or would it be the stockholders who would have to show up? This corporate personhood thing is more complex than it seems at first glance.

Under the new Defense Authorization Act, persons deemed enemy combatants, or supporters of Al Qaeda, or the brother-in-law of the best friend of the nephew of someone who once talked politics with a guy who shared an apartment with someone who donated money to an Islamic charity can be detained indefinitely without trial or appeal or habeas corpus or even being told why they are being detained.

I think that the thirteen largest banks in the U.S. have supported Al Qaeda. Maybe. Which is good enough, apparently, to have missiles shot at them from drone aircraft without a trial. Can we start with Bank of America? Detain some, blow up some others, see if I care which, as long as we cancel the mortgages and credit card debts.

There are all sorts of slings and arrows we persons have to face, a thousand ills that the flesh is heir to. It’s only fair that corporate persons should have to endure the same. Right now I’m trying to figure out how to make a legal fiction get an annual colonoscopy.