Category Archives: Political Commentary

Political Commentary

The Civil Disobedience

6 Comments

…begins.

I explained to Chief McCann my history as a freedom activist. Notably, my role in helping defeat the Communication Decency Act back in 1996.

I told him that I had been intending to speak with him for several weeks, to inform him that I intend to begin exercising my right to open carry of a firearm (quite legal in Pennsylvania and in most other states as well). I explained that I thought it best he and the local police knew of this in advance in order to avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings. See opencarry.org for background on this fast-growing form of civil-rights activism.

I also told him that, in the wake of the Heller ruling, I intend at some future point to deliberately violate the Pennsylvania state law forbidding concealed carry without a state-issued permit. The Heller ruling does not enumerate those among permissible restrictions, and I would be happy to be PA’s test case on this point. As a citizen of the United States (I explained) I believe I have not only the right but the affirmative duty to challenge unjust and unconstitutional laws; and that since the founders of the U.S. pledged their lives and fortunes and sacred honor to sign the Declaration of Independence, merely risking imprisonment to challenge this law seems to me no more than my duty.

And by a tested and true freedom fighter.

Political Commentary, Satire

Comparing People To Hitler

3 Comments

It’s just one of those things that white people like to do. This part is a little off, though:

It’s also critical that you avoid the fatal mistake of getting creative and comparing people you don’t like to other evil dictators, such as Joseph Stalin or Fidel Castro. With few exceptions, white people are actually fond of almost any dictator not named Hitler, and your remark that “this is just like something Mao Zedong would do” will be met with blank stares and possible social alienation. This is because, with the exception of Hitler, oppressive dictators share a passion for many of the things white people love- such as universal health care, conspiracy theories, caring about poor people while being filthy rich, and cool hats. Stick to the script and compare things you don’t like to Hitler, and Hitler alone.

While it’s good advice, actually, being the National Socialist Party, the Nazis did in fact have universal health care. Well, for the people they didn’t exterminate, anyway. But that was true for Stalin, Castro and Mao as well. I think that the problem here is that the white people who like to do this don’t really understand how much else Hitler had in common with their other socialist dictator heroes.

Political Commentary

A Wider Majority Than Reported?

4 Comments

I haven’t read the dissents on this morning’s ruling (and don’t know if or when I will, given time constraints), but is it possible that the majority isn’t as narrow as it looks? Four justices ruled that the DC ban was Constitutional, but they didn’t necessarily do so on the basis that the right to keep and bear isn’t individual. For instance, as Ed Whelan notes:

Stevens doesn’t dispute that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but he finds the scope of that right limited to using weapons for certain military purposes. He argues that the text of the Second Amendment (5-17), its drafting history (17-27), and the Court’s precedents–especially its 1939 ruling in United States v. Miller (42-45)–support his reading.

Breyer argues that even if the Second Amendment does protect a right of personal self-defense, D.C.’s law is constitutional because the burdens it imposes are not disproportionate in light of the law’s legitimate objectives. (That sure sounds like a meaningful test, doesn’t it?)

So now we have at least six justices who agree that it is an individual right (Whelan doesn’t say what Breyer’s opinion on that score is, since Breyer doesn’t accept that the ban would be Constitutional under that interpretation). And since Ginsburg and Souter joined the Stevens dissent, and didn’t write one of their own disputing the individual right interpretation, doesn’t it really make it at least eight to one?

I think that it’s going to be pretty untenable at this point to argue that the right is a collective one in light of both the ruling and the dissents.

[Evening update]

Dale Carpenter agrees with me, and confirms that the acknowledgment of it as an individual right was in fact unanimous:

Chief Justice Roberts came in with the hope of producing more unanimous decisions from the Court. While today’s decision was 5-4, it was actually unanimous on one point: there is an individual right protected by the Second Amendment. The split came over the important question of the scope of the right and whether the D.C. law itself was constitutional, but the underlying individual-right theory prevailed over a collective- or states-right interpretation that would give no single person the ability to challenge any type of arms regulation. Thus, an idea that not so long ago seemed radical and even frivolous to many academics and judges now has the assent of all of the Justices, representing a wide range of views about constitutional law and theory.

Emphasis mine. It was a huge victory when Bellesilles’ propaganda was shown to be fraudulent. I think that it was the beginning of the end for the nonsensical notion that the right only applied to members of the National Guard, partly because the proponents had so overreached with his nonsense about few people having or using guns in colonial times. He has a lot of other good comments about the ruling as well.

Political Commentary, Space

Senators Lecture George Bush

16 Comments

…about space policy

The three say they don’t know for certain why the White House has failed to provide the appropriate guidance and funding needed to implement the Vision, “though we suspect it can be explained by Bush not knowing all the facts about what the real impact of NASA’s annual budgets has been since the loss of the Columbia in 2003.”

I think the problem is less in the funding, and more in the lack of guidance. Once Griffin was hired, the White House apparently decided that it was mission accomplished, and refocused to much more pressing issues, despite the fact that NASA’s implementation seems to fly in the face of the original vision and the recommendations of the Aldridge Commission.

And Clark Lindsey gives them a lecture of their own:

These Senators don’t seem to know that NASA could have chosen to pursue an innovative low cost approach to space development and lunar exploration rather than choosing a very long and very expensive path to two new vehicles, both of which will be very costly to operate. These Senators apparently don’t even know about COTS, the one modest effort taken by the agency towards lower costs for space hardware development and operations.

Well, what most Senators don’t know, particularly about space, could fill a small library. Maybe even a large one.

Philosophy, Political Commentary

Gun Ban Down

14 Comments

I’m disappointed that it was such a narrow majority:

District of Columbia v. Heller (Second Amendment challenge to D.C. handgun ban): Scalia majority opinion striking down ban. 5-4 ruling. Breyer dissent, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg. (No concurring opinions.)

If Obama does somehow get into the Oval Office, I’m glad that this case was handled this year. Almost certainly whoever his choice of nominees would be would have gone the other way. Of course, for the Dems, it will only be maintaining status quo, since it’s the “liberal” justices that are most likely to step down soonest, I think.

Souter in particular was a disastrous pick for a supposedly Republican president.

Anyway, now on to the next case, depending on who brings it (I’m guessing someone in Chicago), which will bring in the Fourteenth Amendment and incorporation. But at least the court is now on record as having declared the right an individual one (again, I’m saddened, but no longer shocked, that four justices bizarrely think otherwise).

[Update a few minutes later]

I’ll add that, based on what I’ve seen so far, it looks like the majority got it right. It’s an individual right having nothing to do with state militias, but not an unlimited one. A gun ban in shopping malls or campuses is stupid, but not unconstitutional.

[Update a little after 11 AM EDT]

Eugene Volokh already has some initial thoughts, with more surely to come later, after the opinion is read. This is an interesting political point:

This split should be useful to either of the Presidential candidates who wants to make either gun control or gun rights into an election issue — my guess is that this is more likely to be McCain. Expect McCain ads in states where there are likely many pro-gun swing voters stressing, “your constitutional right to keep and bear arms hangs by one vote.” Also expect fundraising letters to likely pro-gun contributors stressing this at length.

Also expect questions of Obama whether he continues to support the gun ban in Chicago. And whether he still thinks that gun sales should be banned within five miles of a school (i.e., almost everywhere).

[Afternoon update]

I haven’t read the dissents (and don’t know if or when I will, given time constraints), but is it possible that the majority isn’t as narrow as it looks? Four justices ruled that the DC ban was Constitutional, but they didn’t necessarily do so on the basis that the right to keep and bear isn’t individual. For instance, as Ed Whelan notes:

Stevens doesn’t dispute that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but he finds the scope of that right limited to using weapons for certain military purposes. He argues that the text of the Second Amendment (5-17), its drafting history (17-27), and the Court’s precedents–especially its 1939 ruling in United States v. Miller (42-45)–support his reading.

Breyer argues that even if the Second Amendment does protect a right of personal self-defense, D.C.’s law is constitutional because the burdens it imposes are not disproportionate in light of the law’s legitimate objectives. (That sure sounds like a meaningful test, doesn’t it?)

So now we have at least six justices who agree that it is an individual right (Whelan doesn’t say what Breyer’s opinion on that score is, since Breyer doesn’t accept that the ban would be Constitutional under that interpretation). And since Ginsburg and Souter joined Stephens dissent, and didn’t write one of their own, doesn’t it really make it at least eight to one?

Political Commentary, Popular Culture, Technology and Society

Is Big Government A Mac?

2 Comments

Or a PC?

[Update in the afternoon]

Why we should want big government to be a PC:

You know I love the products, but Apple is a fascist company. I should know — I worked there. Even got personally cussed out by Steve Jobs (may his name be praised forever).

Apple products are based on centralized command-and-control. Apple makes the hardware, software, and — increasingly — many key applications (“everything inside the state, nothing outside the state”). The Apple faithful believe that the computing world dominated by Microsoft is bad (if not outright evil) and must be redeemed. If only everyone changed to their way of computing, we would reach computing nirvana. And society would be changed for the better, too. If only.

The analogy may be getting a little strained.

Business, General, Political Commentary, Technology and Society

An Engineering Manpower Crisis

7 Comments

There’s an interesting article over at the NYT about the Pentagon’s difficulty in getting good engineers, particularly systems engineers.

In short, the pay is too low, it’s not seen as exciting as a lot of the other opportunities for new grads (e.g., Google, or other fields such as finance), programs take too long and are technologically obsolescent, and there’s too much bureaucracy. Sounds kind of like the reasons I left fifteen years ago.

This was amazing to me, but I guess that after almost three decades in the business, it shouldn’t be:

Their report scolded the Air Force as haphazardly handling, or simply ignoring, several basic systems-engineering steps: considering alternative concepts before plunging ahead with a program, setting clear performance goals for a new system and analyzing interactions between technologies. The task force identified several programs that, hobbled by poor engineering management, had run up billions of dollars in overruns while falling behind schedule.

I’ve seen this happen at NASA many times over the years, but that doesn’t surprise me because space isn’t important. National defense is, or at least should be. One wonders how to change the incentives in the system to get better performance. Part of the problem is that the services themselves, particularly the Air Force (with which I have the most experience) don’t value procurement highly enough as a career path. It’s a lot easier to become a general via the cockpit than it is through logistics or development. The other problem is that you often having young lieutenants and captains given responsibility for programs of a size far beyond what they’d be managing at a similar experience level in private industry. This is good from the standpoint of encouraging recruitment, but it often means that they lack the experience to handle the job, and even (or especially) when they’re good, they may be promoted up and out of the program. That’s one of the Aerospace Corporation’s primary functions–to provide program support to the blue suits, and maintain an institutional memory to make up for the fluidity of personnel changes of the AF staff.

In theory, it’s a big opportunity for people like me (I actually have a masters degree in aerospace program management), but it’s hard to get consulting work as an individual due to arcane procurement rules. Also (though the article didn’t mention it) it’s a hassle to deal with a clearance, and I’m not in any rush to renew mine, though I’m starting to consider it, because I really do need the income. Blogging just isn’t paying the bills.

Oh, one other thing. The description of the problems above bears a strong resemblance to a certain controversial large NASA project, where maintenance of the job base and pinching pennies seems to take precedence over actually accomplishing the goal. Or “closing the gap.”

[Via Chicago Boyz]

Economics, Political Commentary

When The Power Went Out

…at Lileks’ place:

It happened when it usually happens, too – every gets home, flips on the air conditioner and turns on the TV, and the brittle infrastructure, held together at the moment with masking tape and some alligator clips, spazzes out completely. This will continue – there’s a controversy going on here about some new power lines and generating plants. A judge blocked the latter, because the utility hadn’t invested enough in wind power, as per the law. That’s the sort of sentence that makes your heart very heavy: a judge ruled that they can’t build the power plant. I’m all for trying everything – wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, switchgrass, algae, hydrogen, steroidally enhanced gerbils running in cages attached to generators, steam, hydro, shale, and installing small pedals in movie theaters people can push to power the projector, but DO SOMETHING. NOW.

The world has gone nuts. People complain about high energy costs, and the Democrats’ response is to fight every sensible attempt to increase supply, and tell us that the price isn’t high enough. And so far, they seem to be paying no penalty at the polls for it. It would help, at least a little, if we didn’t have a faux Democrat (at least when it comes to economics) at the top of the Republican ticket.