Morning Fog

Guns And Vets

How much can/should military veterans affect a state's legislation on gun control?  Should they have any special influence?  Do they have any special expertise?  Maryland is currently in the process of considering some strong gun control measures, and I found especially intriguing the Washington Post's report that veterans in particular have influenced the process. 

The crux of the argument some veterans (such as ex-Marine corporal A.J.Wynne, featured in this article) make is that the assault weapons they may have used in Iraq or Afghanistan (the same weapons the Maryland legislators are talking about restricting) "are instruments of catharsis more than violence, a postwar release, therapy through the crosshairs."  Veterans (some of them) say they relieve their stress, anxiety, and PTSD by firing these weapons they grew so familiar with, either at a range or (citing Wynne again) on a farm in Maryland.  And legislators (some of them), are considering leaving certain popular types of assault weapons out of the ban, so ex-combat warriors can satisfy their craving.

I am among those who - as this article puts it - "would argue that [such people are] perhaps the last ... who should be given unfettered access to high-powered, semiautomatic rifles ...."  Of course they could be a danger to others but equally on point, I think, is that we know that the military is experiencing extraordinarily high rates of suicide among current and former troops. 

So, our veterans could easily be a danger to themselves and to others -- a greater danger than the average gun owner.   Let's assume returning vets should have the same Second Amendment rights as anyone else (they do!) -- but should we be making special exemptions for them?   They may prescribe intensive weapons-firing as the best therapy for themselves, but that isn't (or shouldn't be) convincing, for two reasons:

• Nowhere else do we believe it's a good idea for the patient to self-prescribe.  We recommend against people who want to be their own lawyers, we don't let inmates run the asylum or the prison, and we don't usually let a kid decide his own diet based just on what he likes.  It's the same deal here.
• I feel pretty certain the way to get over a gun fetish is to get away from them.  Sort of like drugs.  That's the way we've done it in previous wars.  After WWI, when it was "over over there," I'm pretty sure they didn't bring back early machine guns or mustard gas to try out on the farm.  My father was a career military officer through WWII, Korea, and the cold war, and he had a gun in the house only rarely, only his personal sidearm, and only when duty required it; and never after his retirement.   I mustered out of Vietnam without bringing back an M-16 or an Army pistol. 

Long story short:  The fighters of past wars matter-of-factly came back, turned in their lethal arms, and went on about their business.  If they had guns later, they were simple hunting or target weapons, not the massive firepower they had during the war.  What's the matter with the current generation, please, that they can't do the same? 

NRA's Cameo Role As A Pot

The latest news from the NRA really speaks for itself, but I couldn't resist highlighting it here.  The organization's big gun Wayne LaPierre complains that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is trying to "impose his will on the American public,"  but asserts that he "can't buy America!"

Ancient wisdom provides the key for our consideration of this very contemporary argument:  The pot calling the kettle black.  Mr. LaPierre judiciously didn't explain why Bloomberg can't buy America.  It's because the NRA considers America already bought, and they don't want any competition.  But maybe it's time they had some. 

In fact, this may prove to be a very interesting arms race.  The U.S. was able to beat the Soviet Union by outspending them and driving them into fiscal failure.  Is it possible Bloomberg can do the same with the NRA?

All that being said, I also recommend commentator Chris Cilizza's take on this little flap, pointing out that LaPierre nor Bloomberg are not the right guys to be leading the charge on this issue.

 

 

More On Immigration Reform

Much as I approve of the possibility that immigration reform might move us away from "the family plan" where visas are concerned, there are a number of other provisions under discussion that reflect an old-think mentality that might leave us dealing with just as many problems as we have now.

One is the apparent agreement that the path to citizenship, for those already illegally here, would run 13 years.  That's for people who may have been here for decades, who probably have grown kids, who in all likelihood have paid lots of taxes.  It doesn't really seem fair. 

To those who would say "they broke the law," I'd counter with, "we ignored the law."  It's not clear that any amount of money or resolve could have completely stanched the flow of illegal immigration.  We'll never know, because the issue was not even a concern until fairly recently, and we did almost nothing.  Instead, businesses that depended heavily on cheap labor actively discouraged active enforcement.  They argued, against common sense, that it was just too much trouble for the poor beleaguered businessman to have to check IDs or demand to see proof of citizenship.   The Party of Business actively supported that lackadaisical attitude.  We can't blame them for that, but we can blame them for now seeking to deny their own complicity in creating the problem, and for insisting that a 13-year path to citizenship is the reasonable "compromise" solution.  

Second:  Whatever new legislation may be introduced this year, it's hard to see how we can improve things, or avoid finding ourselves in the same mess in twenty years, without some reliable national identification system.  This, too, is something the Republican Party especially has resisted.  Will they now be prepared to acquiesce to it?  A "national" system that is effectively an amalgam of state systems (like driver's licenses) might be sufficient, but without that, and without a national network over which the data is shared, how can any new measures be effective?

The pending compromise proposal is far from perfect.  It may be the best we can do, and it may be that at least opening a clear door to citizenship, albeit leading to a very long corridor, is better than nothing.

But I've heard of no discussion amongst the eight Senators reportedly beavering away on this subject, regarding either identification or employer enforcement.  Without those elements, we'll get nowhere, and the new law, if passed, will be little more than Shakespearean "sound and fury."

The Sorry State Of Judicial Appointments

President Obama has withdrawn the nomination of Caitlin Halligan to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia circuit -- at her request, after a long wait of two years, and two Republican filibusters.    It seems simple enough.

But the simple part is the Republican opposition.  Simple-minded, that is, because it rests purely on charges of "judicial activism," a sin that lies strictly in the eye of the beholder, and is mostly meaningless, since it can only truly be defined as "judicial decisions the beholder doesn't like." 

It has no doubt occurred to these GOP stalwarts who have delayed and thwarted any number of judicial and governmental appointments far past the time for reasonable debate, that they thus make it more difficult for the President to enact any policy agenda.   They're gleeful on that score. 

They can't be unaware, either, that their action in sabotaging these appointments prevents courts and agencies from getting the people's business done.  But they're uncaring on that point.  Numerous examples, from unemployment insurance through stimulus and health care, gives us little reason to expect they would give a fig about that!

What may have occurred to them, too, deep in their subconsciouses, is that their unprincipled obstruction will inevitably be reciprocated when the shoe is on the other foot and a Republican President seeks to make similar appointments.  This will continue a vicious cycle of ever-lengthening delays.  No doubt these Republicans will, when the time comes, argue otherwise, for their nominees are n-e-v-e-r guilty of judicial activism. 

It's a cycle that ultimately is destructive of trust in government -- not only because of delays and inefficiencies, but in a more subtle way.  Let's look at Ms. Halligan's particular offense against judicial lethargy:  She pursued a suit against gun manufacturers as a part of her work as solicitor general of New York, and/or as a member of the Manhattan district attorney's office.  

It's common, but erroneous, for members of Congress to associate the policy with the individual in government who was assigned to execute it.  In my own experience, this mistaken approach is also common in diplomacy, where the Senate has a similar role in consenting to Ambassadorial appointments, and often blocks some excellent appointees only because 15 years previously it fell to them to implement a policy some Senatorial "beholder" didn't care for.

A key principle of modern government is that most officials/managers remain above the political fray -- they perform their functions regardless of shifts of the political wind, even when that may mean supporting initiatives they don't personally support.  But it's not about personal views.  Absent that principle, we ultimately end up with a spoils system.  That's a flaw we resolved back in the late 19th century, under President Chester Arthur, I believe.  Let's not undo that progress. 

Finally A Focus On Family Visas

Despite the apparent laser-like focus on extreme conservative dogma at the recent CPAC session, it's interesting that some signs of bipartisan compromise are in the air.  For example, there may be some attempt this week to keep the government running, and another area in which some progress seems possible is immigration law.

In the latter area, I like the idea now being floated by some Republicans who suggest cutting the number of family visas.   There is a longstanding bias in our immigration law toward provision of visas for family members, to the extent that currently only 14% of immigrant visas issued are going to original breadwinning immigrants, and 65% to members of their extended families.  Of course we assume that any migrant would want to, and be able to, bring along immediate family - which I would define as the principal, his/her spouse, and their children of minor age. 

However, the granting of citizenship to an immigrant opens the door to an endless stream of second-tier relations - aging parents and the adult children of the principal, even those who are already married and have families of their own.  I have to say this sounds entirely unnecessary to me. 

Do we do so for humanitarian reasons?  I have tried to put the shoe on the other foot, imagining myself deciding to emigrate to one of the countries I've lived in over the years (France might be nice!), and petitioning to have my parents (if they were living), grown married kids, or siblings join me.  I can't imagine it (even if the immigration laws of my chosen country would permit it, which I suspect they wouldn't).

As long as we intend to set  some upper limit on the number of immigrants who may enter the country in a given year -- and I haven't seen any suggestion that we just throw open the doors to all comers, without some overall quotas -- we have no reason to allow earlier immigrants to clog the pipeline with their relatives, giving them preference and making it difficult for others to follow.  Yes, let's cut some of the more remote categories of "family members" from the list of admissible categories.

 

Portman OK With Gay Marriage

Senator Rob Portman of Ohio has announced that he favors same-sex marriage.  He didn't always have that view, in fact until recently he was firmly on the opposite side of the fence.  So this is one of those moments ... there's a fancy but overused term for it these days ... is it exegesis?  amanuensis?  amaryllis?  Nope .... EPIPHANY, that's the one!

So here's the good Senator, having this epiphanic moment, and it's a big splash in the media because he's a Republican.  I guess this is progress.  Better he should arrive at that view late than never, and his change of mind will help accelerate change.  And yet...

Portman's about-face results from his discovery that his own son is gay.  Wouldn't it be a great quality in a U.S. Senator if he could have embraced the right conclusion as a matter of principle and fairness, before he was personally touched by the issue?  Good government requires empathy. Progress on gay marriage shouldn't need to wait until 40 or 50 more Republican Senators turn up with LGTB sons or daughters.  Will progress on our immigration mess be stalled until the point where a whole bunch of Senators find their offspring wedded to illegal immigrants? 

 

Trends In Modern Conservatism - A Party And A Church

The "Conservative Political Action Conference," which begins today in the DC area, has for several years now drawn the interest of political observers - more than in years previous, I think - as the forum in which the extremists would come out to cavort.

It's early yet, and I haven't absorbed all the speeches and such that were given today, but if the list of speakers is any indication, we shouldn't hold our breath for the Republican Party to get real.  When Virginia's extremist right-wing attorney general is chosen to open the conference, while Virginia's Republican Governor, who committed the sin of pragmatic political compromise, is left out of the line-up, it's not hard to tell who's in control at CPAC, and in the party.

This doesn't bode well for bipartisanship, nor for the nascent hopes of some kind of "grand bargain" that would resolve the sequestration dilemma.  Nor, frankly, on the other side, does the also-unrealistic posturing of Democrats concerning the national budget.  However, as I've pointed out, GOP extremism has only served to encourage Democrats to do likewise - why should they indicate still more "flexibility" that the right would consider as concession?)

Elsewhere in the world today, the Roman Catholic Church acquired a new Pope.  By all accounts, it is expected (or is it just hoped?) that the new pontiff will lead the church in a somewhat more flexible, "modern" direction.  No one to my knowledge has accused the Church of being liberal; no one I suspect truly expects miracles of that sort now; yet it would be interesting indeed if the Catholics were headed toward a more pragmatic worldview even as American Republicans are swathing themselves in still more layers of orthodoxy. 

Another Ryan Budget Harks Back To Yesteryear

Congressman Paul Ryan apparently didn't learn much from his failed campaign for Vice President last year.  I say that because he has now formulated another budget proposal based on ideas of social contract that are peculiarly outside the American mainstream.  (Wisconsin politicians are rather famous for this, actually.) 

I must agree with columnist Ezra Klein's assessment of Ryan's new budget - it's an effort to radically alter the American people's relationship to their national government, cloaked in the hot-button language of contemporary budgetary concerns like reducing the deficit and cutting entitlements.  

Ryan is already known (from his last budget effort) for his naive faith in small communities of a kind that haven't existed since the 19th century.  Like many Republicans he also has an unlimited optimism about the benefits of private enterprise -- if only we could prevent the federal government from "interfering" in the idyllic operations of small communities and businesses, we'd be living in paradise.

Free enterprise is indeed an engine of growth and the foundation of our economy, no argument there.  But its proponents tend to forget, in singing hosannahs to its merits, the ugly side, namely its tendency, toward monopoly, oligarchy, and economic self-protection when left to its own devices.  Whether it's the meatpacking industry of the late 19th century, or the banking/finance sector of the early 21st, there are far too many instances of business running amok to be ignored.   It's all very well for large U.S. corporations to be repatriating jobs to the U.S. right now, but as one exec said, that makes a lot of economic sense "at this time" - meaning that there will be no hesitation about offshoring jobs again when times change.  That's where government comes in:  Not to "take over," as Ryan seems to believe, but to set ground rules that aim to protect the individual from being taken to the cleaners socially, financially, ethically, or otherwise.

A similar negative tendency is endemic to the sort of small communities Ryan swoons over.  Small communities historically have tended to gravitate toward control by a small majority, sometimes even by a minority, which can lead to egregious violations of the rights and privileges of "the others."  Racial segregation is one example from history; abuse and discrimination against immigrants is a more contemporary one.  Again, here's where government comes in:  the individual rights defined in the Constitution are national; it should be self-evident that they must be defined and applied nationally, rather than differently by hundreds or thousands of Janesvilles. 

Naturally, in a democracy, our budget principles and priorities are, and should be, determined by the way we choose to define government's appropriate role.  Ryan's approach is idyllic, but in the end, impractical and antidemocratic. 

Sequestering Time

Ah, the joys of Daylight Saving Time are once again upon us.  I hope everyone out there remembered to "spring forward" last night.  But if not, I guess the worst that can happen is that you'd be late to church or brunch this morning.   Or maybe you'll be lucky enough to experience a heart attack, which is one of the few clearly demonstrable effects of DST.

Regarding the effects usually cited by DST proponents - "more daylight" and energy saving, any honest analysis will demonstrate that they are pure hoax.  Common sense tells us we do NOT get "more daylight" (we do, at this time of year, but it has nothing to do with changing clocks).  And even the Department of Energy, in its best attempts to craft a study justifying Congress's imposition of this twice-per-year ritual, was unable to prove that there is any energy saving from DST. Specifically, after stacking all its assumptions in favor of DST, the DoE was able to come up with an inconclusive claim that DST saves one half of one percent in energy usage. 

Factually, daylight saving time is an early version of the same political process that is currently affecting the U.S. government budget.  Years ago, our lawmakers found it just too hard to reach agreement on the kinds of steps that would really help cut down our energy usage (e.g. alternate fuels, or more efficient heating and cooling) so instead they ginned up the charade of DST; and whenever a tough vote seemed called for to impose politically difficult changes (e.g. a pitiful 2 or 3 extra miles per gallon in vehicle mileage standards), they took the easy way out and extended DST a few more weeks.

Tired of the foolishness?  Fed up with being lied to?  Feeling your ticker throbbing a little too strongly right now?  Contact those who are primarily responsible for continuing this hoax upon us:

The Honorable Edward Markey
U.S. House of Representatives
2108 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-2836
(or e-mail here)

The Honorable Fred Upton
U.S. House of Representatives
2183 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
T: (202) 225-3761
(or e-mail here)

 

 

Related articles

Down With Harmful Daylight Saving Time

The Heartbreak Of M.R.S.

In recent decades, it's become stylish to refer to diseases, illnesses, and even perfectly normal personality differences, as a confusing alphabet soup of "syndromes" and "disorders" - ADD, OCD, LS/MFT - you name it.  Maybe we need some catchy terms like that for political disorders too.

I nominate MRS:  Mitt Romney Syndrome.  That would be the dangerous willingness of some Republicans to recklessly seek effective political solutions through reason and compromise, even at the cost of dogmatic purity.  Often it leads, tragically, to self-destruction, as it did in the case of the eponymous Mr. Romney.

Could Romney have won?  I think he might have.  In fact, he had many factors in his favor:  A terrible economy, and an incumbent President whose color was, shall we say, "noticeable" - like waving a red flag - to a large slice of Republican voters.   But Romney's candidacy fell apart almost before he started, when he tried to tout his experience in Massachusetts working with the other party and coming up with bipartisan solutions - like that state's health care plan.   

Whether those claims were true or not (they were, in my view, partially true, partially not), they were WRONG!  The GOP's very-rank and file (and many of their professional pols as well) were dead set against any of that bipartisan stuff.   Then Romney had to keep switching positions to correct for his natural tendency to seek workable policy positions with broad appeal, which just gave him an aura of desperate wishy-washiness.  Sometimes MRS seems to come with a learning disability; for example, in recent interviews Romney himself seems not to have learned the lesson of what it means to have a sizeable destructive, radical, and non-mainstream minority in one's party.

Of course it wasn't just Romney; dozens of "moderate" Republicans (those few who remained in the party as of November 1, 2012) also suffered from MRS.  But that's ancient  history now, in political terms.  Why consider it now?

Because this terrible illness hasn't run its course and is still claiming victims, latest among them Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, who shows of early-onset symptoms.  The Washington Post's recent portrait of him insightfully portrays the tension between McDonnell's deeds in getting a workable transportation bill passed in Richmond (for which he had to compromise), and his aspirations to national office.  Sadly, another case in which MRS may be politically fatal.

When will it end?  Not until the tea-party parasite that causes MRS, having devoured its host, turns on itself and self-destructs; or perhaps when a few candidates turn out to be immune to it.  So, possibly there's hope of a cure in the 2014 elections?  Perhaps.