Ducks in a Row

Ordinarily, gun control is a subject I won't touch. Arguments about gun control tend to quickly degenerate into spittle-flecked rants or did-didn't-did-didn't exchanges about statistics and causality. I get the feeling that anybody with a strong opinion on the subject, pro or con, has that opinion defined in their DNA, and no amount of argument would dislodge it. And yet, here we are with another spate of mass shootings and the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments about firearm restrictions in Washington D.C. I guess it's time for me to disdain the blindfold, flick away my cigarette, and face my fate.

First, here are the 27 words: 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.

Every word in that sentence, other than the conjunctions, has had its meaning debated. The meaning of phrases has been debated. The connection between the two clauses has been debated. The implications of the punctuation have been debated. Everything short of the typeface has been debated. It's as if the framers of the Constitution were guaranteeing job security for lawyers and law professors for all eternity. The crux of the arguments is this: Does this sentence guarantee the rights of states to organize and arm militias, or does it guarantee every individual the right to possess a firearm. Does “the people” mean groups of people (in militias) or individual persons?

What makes this particular case (District of Columbia v Heller) special is that it is arguably the most substantive 2nd Amendment case before the Supreme Court since United States v Miller in 1939. There aren't a huge number of 2nd Amendment cases on the Supreme Court books. The three influential ones are United States v Cruikshank (1875), Presser v Illinois (1886), and the aforementioned Miller. Cruikshank established that the 2nd Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..." thus freeing the states to make laws regulating firearms. Presser reaffirmed Cruikshank. Miller concerned a law regulating sawed off shotguns, and ruled that such an instrument had no relation to a well regulated militia, thereby enshrining the collective rights position. And yet, individual rights proponents have cited parts of these cases as supporting their position.

The District of Columbia (which is under federal administration, and therefore subject to the 2nd Amendment under Cruikshank) has an outright ban on the private ownership of handguns. A man named Dick Heller challenged this law on the grounds that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed him the individual right to possess a firearm such as a handgun. The case bounced around in the federal courts, ending with a ruling for Heller, striking down the law. The District appealed to the Supreme Court. And off to the races we go.

I consulted with one of my go-to people on matters of constitutional law and she opined that the Supreme Court would split the difference and make a move towards the individual rights argument while retaining for the states the right to intervene in cases of clear public interest. In other words, a slight shuffle towards the NRA and then a little hop back towards Miller.

I went straight to the transcript of the oral arguments made before the Supreme Court on March 18th.

I recommend that anyone with a little time on their hands take a scan through the 110 pages of transcript. The Supreme Court makes decisions concerning the boundaries on our lives every working day. It is worth it to get a feel of the thought processes of these nine people. The representative for the District is Walter Dellinger. The representative for Mr. Heller is Alan Gura. Justices Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens give the impression of favoring the collective interpretation, while Scalia, Alito, and Roberts seem to tip towards the individual interpretation. Breyer and Kennedy are difficult to peg, and Thomas, per usual, is silent. They explore everything from contemporary murder statistics to bear hunting to Blackstone's 17th century commentaries on English common law. There is, on page 76, an interesting exchange between Stevens, Gura, and Scalia that gives me the impression that my Con-law source may be right. Remember, Gura is arguing for an individual rights interpretation. I quote:

JUSTICE STEVENS: May I ask this question? Are you, in effect, reading the amendment to say that the right shall not be unreasonably infringed instead of shall not be infringed?

MR. GURA: There is that inherent aspect to every right in the Constitution.

JUSTICE STEVENS: So we can -- consistent with your view, we can simply read this: "It shall not be unreasonably infringed"?

MR. GURA: Well, yes, Your Honor, to some extent, except the word "unreasonable" is the one that troubles us because we don't know what this unreasonable standard looks like.

JUSTICE SCALIA: You wouldn't put it that way. You would just say it is not being infringed if reasonable limitations are placed upon it.

MR. GURA: That's another way to look at it, Your Honor. Certainly -

Here is an opening for a debate on reasonable versus unreasonable restrictions on firearms ownership. The use of the word “reasonable” in law is another one of those job security guarantees for lawyers and law professors. And we are off to the races again.

I have my own interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but it is unimportant. It's the opinion of the nine black robed people that matters to society at large. I'd like to address some other matters pertaining to firearms ownership and violence.

Human society is, of course, imperfect. People get drunk, get angry, get abused, get addicted, and go temporarily or permanently insane. People lash out, and they lash out with whatever comes to hand. Some people go into a state of merciless cold anger and plan their killings. When they do so, they choose the most effective weapon they can obtain.

Whatever your interpretation of the second amendment to the constitution, you have to admit that our country is awash in firearms. One way or another, they are remarkably easy to obtain, especially for those of us with no felony convictions. There are over 200 million firearms in the United States, and firearms of even moderate quality tend to last decades, so at least this supply will be around for generations. Half the households in our country contain firearms. You may applaud or deplore this ease of access, but accept this consequence:

Mass shootings on campuses will keep happening. Mass shootings at workplaces will keep happening. Shootings of all kinds will keep happening.

They will keep happening even if you lock doors, hire armed guards, stick a pistol in every pocket, run stricter background checks for mental instability, or whatever policy you can dream up. A certain small percentage of the population will choose to injure their fellow human beings, and they will use the tools at hand. They will use their human ingenuity, their obsessive persistence, and the freedoms of an open society to gain access to firearms and access to their intended victims. We are up to our knees in blued steel. We have created a shooting gallery and we are the little cartoonish duck targets going back and forth. We are going back and forth to work, to classes, to restaurants, stores, and friend's houses, a little bullseye painted on each of us.

We can do some things to stanch the flow of blood.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 1% of the firearms dealers in the U.S. account for 57% of the sales of firearms that end up being used in crimes. To put it another way, 86% of firearms dealers have never sold a firearm that has ended up being used in a crime. 14% have, and of that 14%, 1.2% have sold 10 or more firearms that have been used in crimes. Of that 1.2%, 0.2% have sold more than 50 guns that have been used in crimes, and some of them have sold hundreds. This is either criminal intent or criminal negligence. A lot could be accomplished by cracking down on that wicked 0.2% percent. No new laws would be required. Unfortunately, the National Rifle Association has successfully lobbied Congress to hamstring the ATF in its attempts to crack down on this. It would seem to be a no-brainer, even to the staunchest rank-and-file members of the NRA, that allowing one out of every five hundred firearms dealers to run amok does not contribute to their cause.

Something else to consider is that 70-75% of crimes committed with firearms are committed by people with prior criminal convictions. This is not surprising, but the other side of the coin is more important: 25-30% of gun crimes are committed by previously law-abiding citizens. You know, those citizens into whose hands firearms are supposed to freely flow, according to opponents of stricter control. Longer prison sentences and stricter background checks don't help with this.

According to a study by the Department of Justice, 40% of violent crime involves alcohol. Two thirds of domestic violence involves alcohol. The average blood alcohol concentration of those convicted of serious violent offenses was estimated by DOJ researchers at between 0.20 and 0.28. (I've seen a guy get breathalyzed at 0.17, and he was reeling.) A study in Ontario found that increased membership in Alcoholics Anonymous decreased the murder rate in that province. It makes sense. Universally available, free, repeatable, and well publicized addiction treatment would be a good violence prevention tool. I'd bet the rent that it would pay for itself in avoided costs.

There is one new legislative initiative that I think is absolutely necessary to reduce the criminal use of firearms, and that is the coordination of gun laws between states. Right now there is a phenomenon called “The Iron Pipeline.” This generally refers to Interstate 95, which follows the Atlantic Coast all the way from Florida to Maine. According to a study by Columbia University Professor Dr. Howard Andrews, 90% of the firearms recovered from crime scenes in New York between 1996 and 2000 were originally purchased out of state. Most were bought in Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia, all states with lax gun laws. There is a deadly industry consisting of gun runners traveling to these states and others like them, hiring locals to act as straw man purchasers, and returning home with a carload of guns destined for crime. The strict laws in some states are essentially made useless by the lax laws in more rural states. It will be an extremely tough sell, but those of us in rural states need to start looking at ourselves as part of the larger situation. People in other states are dying for our convenience. Perhaps the National Governors Association is the right forum for this discussion. There is a case to be made for a national minimum standard to be adopted by all states, regardless of population or crime rate, in order to stop the interstate flow of illegal firearms.

Part of the solution is to peel our government out of the grip of the firearms industries. The firearms and ammunition trade is a two billion dollar a year industry, and about a quarter of all firearms end up being used in crime within a few years of manufacture. The firearms manufacturers make a profit on sales to both sides of the legal divide, and they'd hate to lose the Iron Pipeline portion of their income.

The problem of firearms and violent crime in America will always be with us. It is a case of an inherent human failing and a ubiquitous, convenient, durable, and particularly deadly instrument with which to indulge that failing. The men of a rural, agrarian, frontier society two centuries past left us with a seemingly ambiguous 27 word sentence that defines something to do with keeping and bearing arms, militias, “the people”, and the security of free states. Today, partisans with clenched jaws and calcified opinions stare each other down across the collective right vs. individual right divide. My hope is that even if District of Columbia v Heller doesn't resolve anything, it creates some movement in this paralyzed situation.

(Given the generally inflammatory nature of this subject, I ask you to read my Rules For Posting Comments and review your comment a couple of times before posting it.)

It's the emotions, stupid

When Bill Clinton was campaigning for president for the first time, he had a note stuck to the wall above his desk that said “It's the economy, stupid.” It was just a reminder to focus on George Bush Senior's weak point. I just read a new book by Drew Westen called The Political Brain (Subtitled “The role of emotion in deciding the fate of the nation”), which shifts that focus to the realm of emotion.

It follows in the wake of books such as “What's Wrong With Kansas?”, which explores the strange disconnect of blue collar conservatives voting against their own economic interests. Westen goes beyond the usual politics into the function of the brain itself. He explores how our brains process political decisions.

Dr. Drew Westen, PhD is a clinical psychologist and professor at Emory University. He has spent years studying the way people actually make political decisions, as opposed to the way people assume that they make political decisions. He has drawn on studies using high tech brain scanning devices and clever word association tests to parse out our decision making processes. The results are not particularly complimentary to the human species.

We like to think of ourselves as rational. How do we pick a candidate? Well, we find out about his or her positions on the issues of the day, look at the candidate's past for signs of character or lack thereof, and.....well, no we don't. What Dr. Westen has found is that people choose candidates according to a combination of tribal loyalty and a web of emotional associations. By tribal I mean, generally, Republican and Democrat. The web of emotional associations is a complex assortment of images, words, and concepts that have been placed in proximity to the candidate's image, name, family, philosophy, associates, and party. If a candidate is smart and/or lucky, those emotional associations were promoted by the candidate's own campaign. If not, the opposition candidate and party will generously supply the emotional baggage.

Polling has shown that ardent supporters of Ronald Reagan tended to disagree with him, point by point, on fundamental political and social issues. A more recent study showed that over half of the people who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 thought that he held many political positions that were the opposite of his actual positions. Westen points out that over the past few decades the Republicans have been quite adept at crafting appealing, forceful, coherent emotional campaigns on behalf of their candidates. These campaigns have generally been less coherent logically, but the GOP has realized the key truth that this is not important. Westen also points out that the Democrats, believing in reason, have lost and lost again as they win rational arguments while neglecting the emotional ones.

Westen provides a prescription for the Democratic party: Get the emotions right. He doesn't tell them to stop being rational, but to enclose their rational arguments in a carefully crafted and tested emotional framework. This failing of the Democratic party is a failing of the progressive movement in general.

Anthropologists call it the error of charity. In anthropology this means that the researcher assumes that the people being studied have the same thought processes and values as the researcher. Progressives tend to make two false assumptions. One is, of course, that evidence and logic on their own will carry the day in a political battle. The other is confusing activities that are emotionally satisfying for the actors with actions that are persuasive for the intended audience. I know I am stepping on a lot of toes here, but I'd propose that the vast majority of vigils and public demonstrations (by anybody) have done exponentially more for the emotional states of the participants than the political beliefs of any spectators. This error of charity also manifests itself in the tone and emphasis of materials published for progressive causes.

Dr. Westen's book is a necessary reference for anybody who either works for a political campaign or is facing a run for elected office. It will also interest anyone who has wondered how these people actually can get elected. It's the emotions.

Doris Conard, 1924-2008

“Forsan et Hæc Olim Meminisse Iuvabit” Virgil

Perhaps even this will one day be pleasant to look back on

For my senior year of high school, I went to a small, unique private school in Vershire Vermont, The Mountain School. It was founded in 1962 by Mac and Doris Conard, two practical visionaries who wanted to combine academics with a sense of community and an attachment to the land. They ran the school for two decades, giving hundreds of students the opportunity to study, work, and live together on a beautiful farm in the hills of eastern Vermont. The Mountain School was sold to Milton Academy, and is now a single semester program for high school juniors.

I attended a memorial service for Doris last Saturday, held in the main hall of the school. There were hymns, time for silent thought or prayer, and remarks, both formal and informal, by her three sons, the present director, former and present students, friends, and school employees. I think that a stranger present at the service would have gotten a good impression of Doris Conard. I can only give a limited idea here of what was expressed.

Many people commented on her intelligence, her sense of humor, and her regard for the needs of others. There were also many who referred to her industrious nature. A student from the early days said of her, “When she walked she always looked as if she knew exactly where she was going, and that something was going to happen when she got there.” It is this aspect of Doris that I remember most clearly – a good-natured perseverance, a persistence without grimness.

The quote at the top of this piece is the core of a representative story about Doris, told by her eldest son. The Conard family was sitting around the dinner table and one of the boys was complaining about something. Doris said, in her cheerful, off-handed way, “Forsan et Hæc...” She met the blank looks around her with a full quote and translation. She was not whine-tolerant. Her middle son also noted that she did not ascribe to the “self-esteem for no reason” philosophy of education.

There are two other aspects of persistence that relate to Doris.

She died of dementia, a slow loss of outward abilities and inward self. Nevertheless, the core of who she was persisted to her last day. Her eldest son related that the two things that stayed with her to the end were her love of her family and her hatred of George Bush. He said that he used this as a test of her cognitive state. He'd say to her. “Dad's coming to visit.” Big smile. “George Bush is still president.” A look as if she had a mouthful of sour milk.

There is also the persistence of her vision of education, a vision she shared with Mac. It persists in The Mountain School as it now operates, a thriving place that has been a pivotal experience for thousands of young people. It persists in all Mountain School alumni, who have seen what education and community can be like when people care about humanity and the natural environment rather than financial return or the status quo.

Drop a pebble in a pond and the ripples spread but eventually die out. The ripples that started spreading from The Mountain School in 1962 have never died out. They continue to multiply, bouncing off the landscape and each other, creating new patterns and touching more lives. Thus, Doris remains with us.

(An obituary)

Why I would now put money on Obama

A friend and former coworker of mine told me a story about political correctness (or lack thereof) and cognitive dissonance. My friend (I'll call him T) is a talented mechanical engineer who has worked for a number of companies. T was sent down as a consultant to a large chemical plant in Texas. Now, T's last name is uncommon, and one that you couldn't peg as to origin without a web search. When he introduced himself to the plant manager, the manager asked about his name. T told him that his ancestors were Polish Jews, getting a noncommittal “Oh” in reply. Later, T was in a meeting with the manager and a maintenance foreman. T started listing all the ripping a tearing that needed to be done and the foreman said “No way!” The manager got mad. “Goddammit, Cleetus! I'm payin' top dollar for this New York City Jew boy (no offense, son), and you're gonna do every damn thing he says!” And Cleetus did.

I heard an interview on All Things Considered the other day that reminded me of T's story. An ATC reporter was doing the classic set of small town diner interviews in Bloomer, Wisconsin, just before the primary. One of the people she interviewed was a retired trucker who was a life long Republican. He had decided to vote Democratic this year, for the first time ever. The reporter asked him which of the Democrats was he considering, Clinton or Obama? “I'm leaning towards the black boy now. Just a little bit...Seemed like he's got it up here...Somebody who could straighten it out, the mess we're in.”

Here you have a dedicated blue collar Republican. From his reference to Obama as the “black boy” you can tell that he wouldn't recognize political correctness if it landed on his front lawn in a space ship and shut down the planet for half an hour. And yet he acknowledges Obama's brains and infers that he has the ability to solve the nation's problems. If Barack Obama can win the vote of this guy, he can win the vote of anybody this side of David Duke. The GOP should be worried.

We're seeing a combination of factors here. One is the long overdue realization among many blue collar Republicans that their party has completely blown it, fiscally, morally, and politically. Another is the white hot, deep, abiding, misogynistic hatred of Hillary Clinton. Love or hate her politics, but Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, well educated, successful, opinionated woman, and that frightens and angers many Americans. We can't discount the creeping progress we have made towards the acceptance of African Americans in prominent roles in government. Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell have made it commonplace. Obama himself deserves much credit. It isn't so much his policy positions as his vital understanding that campaigning is an emotional process, not an intellectual one. In his speeches he hits the hortatory notes as if he is playing a set of bells, every one tuned and true.

As it turned out, Obama won Wisconsin with 58% of the vote. He's ahead in the delegate count at the moment, and seems to be encroaching on Clinton's key demographic groups. The all-but-anointed GOP contender, John McCain, is vulnerable. Obama could start off by quoting him on the subject of keeping troops in Iraq for a hundred years. When it comes down to issues, Obama can take a walk on the wonk side, just for a moment, and let McCain do his Miss Teen South Carolina imitation. The Republican strategy for campaigning against Obama was openly laid out by Karl Rove himself. It almost seems unfair. But then, as a military savant once wrote, “If you find yourself in a fair fight it means that you didn't prepare your mission well enough.” Obama seems prepared.

Be all that you can be, really

Ever since the invasion of Afghanistan by U.S. forces I have seen articles about the volunteer military and people's motivations for joining. This editorial piece on Alternet by William J. Astore, a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force is representative. He writes about the desire of young people to test themselves, prove themselves, live up to their own sense of patriotism, and make their own way in the world. People are looking for something to belong to, and something to do that they can be proud of. For some, admittedly, the military is an economic default, especially in areas with severe unemployment. This is all common sense, but Astore writes what to me is a very inspiring paragraph.

The challenge for progressives is to recognize this and then to work to create viable alternatives to military service in which masculinity and patriotism can be demonstrated in non-lethal settings. An example is my father's service as a forest laborer and firefighter in the Civilian Conservation Corps in Oregon from 1935 to 1937. There could be many opportunities for our young men to assert their masculinity in non-military and nonviolent settings -- fixing our nation's roads and bridges, rebuilding our inner cities, rescuing places torn apart by disaster, natural or otherwise, like New Orleans; and from these, too, funded educational openings and future career possibilities could arise.

This makes eminent sense to me, not just as an opportunity for young people (not just men) to find themselves, but as a tool of enlightened foreign policy. It brings to mind an idea I have had rolling around in the back of my head for a while. I think this alternative to military service should be formalized and funded as a branch of the federal government.

My working title for it is the United States Humanitarian Relief Service. It would be a hybrid of the Peace Corps, elite military forces such as the Navy Seals, and the Red Cross. It would be an unarmed group of rigorously trained recruits, organized on military principles, and provided with the same kind of logistical capabilities as the U.S. military. The mission and training, however, would be entirely focused on providing humanitarian relief services to people all over the world.

There always seems to be a sudden humanitarian crisis happening somewhere in the world. There are floods, fires, mudslides, hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes. What if we had a well equipped, mobile force ready, not to attack, but to rescue? What if we could place search and rescue teams, portable hospitals, food supplies, temporary shelters, water purification units, and a corps of disaster relief specialists anywhere on the planet within 48 hours? It would be a huge step in alleviating human suffering and would have the side effect of improving our national standing in the world. It would give our young (and maybe not as young) people the opportunity to learn useful skills, learn about themselves, and serve their country by serving others.

It would not be for everybody. When I say elite, I mean elite. These people would be thrust into the most chaotic and dangerous situations, and would need to be in top physical and mental shape. They would need to be trained in core survival skills, foreign languages and operational specialties. They would have to work as disciplined teams, supported buy the same kind of logistics and coordinated by the same kind of command structures that we now apply to invading Middle Eastern countries. Say what you like about the U.S. military in terms of mission, but they tend to get that mission done. Turn that mission into saving lives and we could accomplish wonders.

Another thing to consider is the opportunity for developing bilateral relationships with otherwise suspicious or hostile countries. In the event of a natural disaster we couldn't waste time negotiating the terms of the H.R.S. response with the country in question. We would have to set up individual disaster response plans with each country beforehand so that the mission could be launched the instant the request came in. That would automatically put us in an friendly mode on at least one front with every participating country. We would be viewed as a potential rescuer instead of a potential attacker.

Of course, the H.R.S. would have domestic applications as well, as a sort of souped up National Guard. The National Guard itself, given its normal pre-Iraq role as the local disaster relief force, could coordinate with the H.R.S., calling upon it when needed. There could be much useful cooperation in terms of training, information gathering, and personnel exchange.

As our atmosphere heats up, both climatically and politically, storms of all sorts will be breaking out with greater frequency. The desire among young people for challenge, camaraderie, and adventure will always be there. The Humanitarian Relief Service would be a smart response to all these needs. We should redirect some of the money we now spend on having the world's largest military to having the world's largest rescue team.