Limiting Supreme Court Justices Terms

For at least 6 years law professors at Duke, Cornell and George Washington University Law School have tried to interest the public in the problem of our Supreme Court, its dysfunction, its arrogance borne of immunity and its radicalization.

Various proposals have been advanced, most of which do not require amending the Constitution, but "simply" require an act of Congress, which means, of course the Senate and the House.

One idea which appeals to Mad Dog is simply allowing each President two Supreme Court justice appointments per term, allowing 4 for a two term President. The 9 most recently appointed justices can vote on cases. Any can write an opinion.

The disadvantages of this approach have been well recited:  1. "Whipsawing" the court, bringing it from conservative to liberal to conservative, as the cycles in Presidential elections occurs.  2. "Politicizing" a Court which is supposed to be above politics, deciding cases on the basis of where the law leads them rather than what they think the law ought to be.

As for "politicizing" the court, this could hardly be a more naive argument: The Court has demonstrated since its inception, through Dred Scott (slaves are property, not people) and Brown vs Board of Education (segregated schools are inherently unequal) to  Citizens United (corporations enjoy rights to finance elections)  to District of Columbia vs Heller (2nd amendment guarantees individuals the right to own guns) to Florence (strip searches of any citizen arrested, before arraignment or trial, to protect the jailers are legal) to even Bong Hits for Jesus (principals, as authority figures, can exert their authority to enforce their own political views on students) to the decision to end the vote counting in Florida and give the Presidency to George W. Bush, the court has demonstrated consistently the sort of decisions they make are made in territory where the law ends and personal philosophy and political belief rules--a court of authoritarians will predictably always find for those in power and against those underdogs, whom the founding fathers meant to protect.

As for "whipsawing" the court, i.e. creating change in the court too quickly for the good of country, is this better than the current system which allowed Richard Nixon 4 appointees and Jimmy Carter none? Is the current system, which has implanted four radical conservatives on the bench who are likely to serve 20 more years, on average, better than a system which would predictably replace justices every 2 years?

And, if the President had this power, would it not be more apparent and visible to the voters the importance of the President as a man who appoints Supreme Court justices?

The business of the Senate comes to a halt every time a Supreme Court justice comes up for appointment, because the Senators know this appointee, unlike any elected official may serve, immune to all law and review, for two or three decades, influencing the direction of the country far more than any bill they may vote on over the course of their own personal lives in the Senate. With two new justices every 4 years, there would be time for a natural correction and turn toward another path.

What is needed, if we can agree on the value of this approach is a media and marketing campaign in the media to force Congressional action. I have been in email connection with these professors of law, all of whom have said the virtues of the new system are obvious, the dysfunction of the current systems is obvious--all that is needed is a concerted effort on the part of citizens. 

Christmas2012

As we celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace,  we can think about messages and their impact.

Mad Dog's religious education has been, by design, non traditional, and his touchstones have been "Jesus Christ Superstar,"  "Why I am Not A Christian" (Bertrand Russell), a variety of TV specials starring Charlton Heston (a lifetime member of the NRA), Michael York and others,  and various excerpts from the New and Old Testaments, assigned in school.

All of this has left Mad Dog mightily confused, but Mad Dog has always liked the idea of trying to solve problems among men without resort to clubs or guns.  This approach depends, of course, on two sides of a disagreement which are influenced by a population of relatively dispassionate citizens.  Howling mobs tend to facilitate the more violently inclined leaders, whether they are Roman functionaries, like Pontius Pilate or elected thugs, (Hitler, Stalin, you provide the name.) 

As has been often observed, Gandhi, had he been protesting against Hitler and the Third Reich, would have quickly become a nameless number, just another statistic.  And Gandhi might have gone that same way, had it not been for the existence of newspapers and mass communication in the 20th century.  For Jesus of Nazareth, the closest thing to mass communication was a mount from which to preach a sermon to those within earshot. His message would have been lost,  were it not for the willingness and determination of disciples or at least reporters to spread the word.

So, in that mode, I would think our 21st century version of the Gospels may be the blogosphere.  Getting the thought out to the world, seeing if it resonates, all a part of the message.

We've opened the gifts, stuffed the wrapping paper into the recycle bin and tomorrow, I expect tomorrow, the world will be pretty much the same, although for one day at least we've talked about the narcotic of hope, the power of hype and the possibility of change.

Christmas Present from the Supreme Court: NRA Rules

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment

Jeffrey Toobin, in the New Yorker blog, recounts the history of the Supreme Court in its opinions regarding the 2nd Amendment, with no less a conservative than Warren Burger saying the whole idea of a individual American citizen's right to bear arms is an absurdity, explicitly contradicted by the "because" clause which begins the amendment.

The link to his very concise article is above.

Our country of 300 million, stretching across an entire continent, comprised of people from thousands of different cultures, who speak hundreds of languages as their native tongue, who worship in different institutions, or not at all, has always been seen as a chimera which is in imminent danger of blowing apart. 

Closely linked to this fear is the fear of change: We have held together, just barely, for so long, and the visible symbol for our divisions can be seen in the red and blue states displayed on the maps on election night.  

So, we do not change easily or quickly. We fear and we quake at the idea of tampering with our institutions and we only do change when the pressure to change builds to the exploding point, and even then we fear to change.

So, Martin Luther King was correct to say we have to change now, when he was advised the people were not ready for a multi racial society. Lincoln was correct when he pushed through the 13th amendment before the new Congress could convene.  The Supreme Court was right when it forbade school segregation and affirmed one man one vote.  

Almost every time there has been the call for substantial change, the reply is, not now, too soon, too dangerous. 

And now we face the need to change the Supreme Court. Not just because of Antonin Scalia or even because of Antonin Scalia and Alito and Thomas. These are individual problems, unique personalities, why change an institution because a few flawed people have poisoned it?  

The answer has to be, the problem is not Mr. Scalia but the fact there can be an Antonin Scalia. We need to recognize there will always be Scalias who can slip onto the bench and and we need a way to check their power and balance their unbalanced minds.  To institute a new system for the Court, a system which would bring change to the court as we bring change to the executive branch and to the legislative branch would ensure a sort of cleansing, or if that sounds too much like "ethnic cleansing" then a renewal, a refreshing, a healthful cycle. 

Jefferson wrote about the importance of our government undergoing "a little revolution now and then."  We need to remember that.

Clearly the number of Americans with psychopathology has been underestimated--you can see it in the blogs and letters to the editor predicting revolution and blood in the streets if we ever try to take their guns away.  But this is an argument for change, not against it. 

Opinions about the need for mental health care in addition to gun control only serve the interests of those who opposed gun control--these mental health murmurers simply deflect attention from the practical solutions. And, of course, there is the problem of motivation--so many who argue for mental health efforts would stand to gain financially from federal dollars flowing in that direction. And, truth be told, there are no mental health solutions for the shooters. They are too good at hiding their disorders, and even those who are well known are uncontrollable, unless you propose locking them up in some deep and maximally secure hole.  No medication, no psychotherapy works for these deeply damaged psychopaths. Whenever you see a Congressman saying, "Let's let the experts handle this," know that Congressman has not clue about how ineffectual any of those experts are.

No, we need to change the institutions which underlie the pathology in our national organism. We need to change the Supreme Court.

Merry Christmas, one and all.

The Case For Packing the Court

Mad Dog is not a scholar of the Supreme Court, nor is he a historian of 18th century America, but he does live in the state that gave us Noah Webster, and he is a citizen, so he feels qualified to comment.

When the founding fathers were dreaming up this thing called a Republic, based on the idea of democracy, there was, no doubt, a great deal of worry the whole thing was folly and would not work. While there was an intellectual, economic elite who wore silk stockings,ruled over plantations and quietly fathered mixed race children, who could be trusted to govern, there must have been plenty of illiterate rabble who populated the streets of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, whose very presence worried the landed, moneyed gentlemen.  So the founding fathers hedged their bets: They set up an electoral college to stand between the will of the hoi polloi and the Presidency; they set up a Senate, elected not directly by the people,  but by their representatives; and they set up a Supreme Court, who would serve as long as they exhibited "good conduct," which is widely taken to mean, for life.

These Supreme Court justices did not originally have as much power as they do now--the idea of a court over ruling the laws of the Congress evolved, but it was all very comforting to think there would be a check on the passions of the mob, some cool headed, rational men who would say, "NO, this is something you cannot vote on."

And there is at least one occasion when the court actually led the nation to a better place: Brown vs The Board of Education, where the court said "separate but equal schools" are inherently unequal. The court saw the truth on the ground and called a spade a spade. These segregated schools are the foundation for a segregated society, and all that had to end.

But, except for that, the Court has, over history, at least the history which is big enough and important enough that even an unschooled, unsophisticated citizen like Mad Dog can know about it, over history, the Court has actually played a damaging role in our nation's history.

The first and most notorious case, of course, was Dred Scott, where the Court said Dred Scott, a slave, had no standing before the Court because he was not a man, a human being, but property who or which belonged to another man. You cannot vote on that, the Court said. So be it.

Then, when the nation teetered on the brink of financial ruin and economic collapse, the Court said "No" to the New Deal. Franklin Roosevelt threatened to "pack" the court with justices who could see the danger, but he was rebuffed--he could not find enough support in the legislature. His threats did seem to chasten the court, which became a little less obstructive.

Now, in the space of 5 years, the Court has handed down Citizens United, and District of Columbia vs Heller, Florence vs Board of Freeholders, not to mention Bong Hits for Jesus, in which it has ruled:  1. Corporations, or rather their CEO's and board of directors are entitled to spend all the money they wish to buy elections 2. The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own any firearm to any individual, whether or not he is a member of a well regulated militia 3. Any citizen may be strip searched by his government whenever he or she is arrested, before any charges are brought or a judge has been informed 4. Freedom of speech may be abridged in the case of students who are within sight of a school principal, whether or not the student is in schoo,l and whether or not the student is speaking out against an act which has been imposed upon the student as a political expression of the principal.

In each of these cases, the harm done the nation has been either profound or only narrowly averted by the vigorous exertions of its citizens.

Reading the Constitution, Mad Dog is stunned by how little is said about the nature and composition of the Court.  No specific number of justices has ever been mentioned and, in fact, the number has varied through our history. The nine justices we have had since the early 20th century is simply tradition, not Constitutional law.

It would not require an amendment to the Constitution for the Congress to pass a law which would allow the President to appoint a new justice for each 4 year term of his Presidency. (Or, if you really wanted to be radical, he could appoint one a year for each year of his Presidency.)  But in any case, as has been suggested by others, this would mean the court would not be locked in until justices like Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas die. 

Some have proposed only the most recently appointed nine justices could vote on cases.

The argument against this is it would make the Supreme Court "political." But one can hardly argue the Court is not political now. When you can predict with near perfect accuracy how four of the justices will vote on any case, given only a paragraph's description of the case, in any case with any significant social/political impact, then you have an extremely political body.

And it is a perversion of politics and democracy to have in place the legacy of vile reactionary thought,  from discredited Presidents,  whom the country has disavowed by voting,  and who continue to poison the wellsprings of democracy with residual lifelong appointments. It is as if the fields have been sown with salt, so they may never yield life sustaining crops again.

The argument has been advanced that we would be opening ourselves to a payback, when, as we always see, the cycle returns to a more conservative President who would appoint conservative justices,  and then we would never have a Brown vs. Board of Education. But this court, like many before it, will be conservative through many Presidential cycles and with the current lifetime death grip it has, the country will be unable to move forward. This is not stability; this is stagnation verging on ossification.

Yes, the court would cycle from liberal to conservative as Presidents come and go, but it would at least cycle.

And, we would, most importantly, be admitting the obvious fact that the Supreme Court is, like the other two branches, political.  And all political bodies are expected to be responsive to the world around them, and to be aware of the needs and competing demands of the people. We have only to look at the smug countenance of Antonin Scalia, to see the outcome of our current system: Here is a man who knows nobody can wrest his power from him. He can continue to sit back and watch as the people elect a new President, as the voters elect new representatives, and whatever the President and the Congress may say or do, it is only Mr. Scalia's opinion which matters in the end. He is the umpire and despite all the replays and all the evidence he has got it wrong, it is still in power. What he rules is final.

We have more than one broken branch. We have two broken branches. It is time to set the fracture in the one branch which most people can see needs fixing.

Facing 2013: Hope and Cringe

One of the few nice things about getting older is you see things come round again, and this time you know what they are.

So when I was thirteen, and Mr. James McFall, who taught "Star Science"--which was a special science course for "star students" at my junior high school--when he expressed horror at the idea that a black boy might dance with a white girl at one of our school dances--even if there was no touching involved, I thought him peculiar, but I had no category in which to place him. 
Why is he so upset about that? 
And when Mr. McFall shook his head and laughed in dismay at the bonehead bureaucrats up there in Rockville: The people who chose names for high schools decided to name the new high school in Bethesda, Walt Whitman, I just blinked at him, uncomprehending. 
"You know," he confided, looking around to be sure our conversation would not be overheard. "You know what he was, don't you?"  
"A poet?" I said.
"A queer," he said. "Queer as a three dollar bill."
"Oh," I said, uncomprehending.  I did not see Mr. McFall's point. 
Whitman was not a poet I liked very much. I would have preferred Emily Dickinson. But I couldn't see being queer had much to do with anything.

Now, we have people who say we should respond to the killings of six year olds at Newtown by arming teachers.  And, as Gail Collins has noted, what next? We just had a shooting at a church--should we arm the ministers next?  And how about when the shopping mall massacre occurs--arm shoppers? 

Has an armed citizen ever shot a shooter who has planned in advance, who takes everyone by surprise, is clad in armor and loaded for the kill? 

But that doesn't stop the head of the NRA from laying out a plan which has never worked in the past.

And we hear, every day, from Jim Demint or some other demented Tea Party Congressman or Senator that all we need to do to right our financial ship and sail right is to "cut spending."   What exactly does that mean?  Just scrap Medicare? Forget Social Security?  

These are the hollow me. Seen them before, still seeing them.  That's their story and they are sticking to it.

Lucky for U.S., they are not the only Americans.

 Among the 300 million of us, there are Gail Collins, Charles M. Blow, Barack Obama, Maud, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Paul Krugman, Barney Frank, Hendrick Hertzberg, The New York Times (most of the time), the New Yorker (almost always), Jill Lepore, Elizabeth Warren, the voters of Hampton, Rye and Portsmouth,  New Hampshire,  who gave Mr. Obama majorities in their towns.

So Merry Christmas, and bless us, the above named, but not the others.

Tea Party Rules

Scrolling through Wikipedia's list of Tea Party Republicans in Congress, Mad Dog was surprised to see names from 37 states--it's not just Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and South Carolina--there are names from Michigan, Maryland and lots of blue states. New Hampshire has a Congressman named Bass who is a Tea Party man, and a senator, Kelly Ayotte.   From the little pustules of Connecticut, West Virginia, California, Tea Party Republicans have been sent to Congress.

Clearly, these are representatives of  some of the  people who believe any taxation is an anathema, which is to say, any government is an anathema.  Of course, many of these same people are ardent warriors and they love defense spending. If conversations with local New Hampshire tea party enthusiasts are any indication, many of them live on Social Security, Medicare and military pensions, with Veterans Administration health care, and they see no contradiction in their loathing of all things government and their own feeding at government teats. 

And there are, apparently, enough of them in the current Congress to block any action on a budget compromise--so they can get what they want: No government. Tea Party loyalists can paralyze the government as they please. They have been elected and they can do what they please.

Here is the speech I'd like to see Mr. Obama give:

Last November, over half of the nation voted for me and my promise to move this country forward with vigorous government, with taxes on the wealthiest Americans, and with appropriate cuts in government spending. But pockets of the country sent representatives to government as part of a newly radicalized Republican Party. That new incarnation of the party of Lincoln would hardly be recognizable to Lincoln today.
It is a party which is dedicated to the proposition that no government is better than even moderate government. It is a party which believes taxing even the richest 1% of Americans is government tyranny and unacceptable.  They have enough numbers in the House of Representatives to paralyze the government and they are doing just that. There is really nothing my administration or my government can do without a willing partner on the other side. That is the nature of the checks and balances written into the Constitution. The underlying assumption of the Constitution is that the people's representatives will provide a government which does more good than harm. They Republican Party is currently dedicated to doing the opposite.  It is dedicated to the destruction of the government and of all the things it does to provide health care, security and economic stability for the people.
So, I will take a vacation, enforced upon me by the intransigence of the Republican Party. When I return, I will  keep the executive branch functioning. When, and if ,the legislative branch can come to its senses, the members of Congress know where I live. I'm right down Pennsylvania Avenue, ready to work, whenever they are.  God help the United States of America.

Guns and The Constitution: An Honest Solution

Okay, here is a modest proposal to end the debate about the 2nd amendment and to allow for different laws for gun control and gun liberty throughout this vast nation:

1. Let us recognize the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution does not give the right to the nation's people to own hand guns, hunting rifles or any sort of arm except for members of each state national guard (militia) and these people may possess and use military weapons in and from their own homes. (More on this later.)

2. Given this absence of a universal, national right to keep and fire weapons, the states are free to pass whatever laws they may desire. Texas can require elementary school principals to keep and bear arms to protect their students. South Carolina may permit legislators to pack heat in the state house and Arizona may arm private citizens who are members of vigilante posses run by Sheriff Arpaio.  But New York might ban all weapons within a fifty mile radius of the Empire State Building and Maryland might outlaw guns in Baltimore,  while permitting them in Frederick and Chincoteague;  and Washington, DC might ban guns altogether.

This would be the honest approach to the problem, so there's not a snowball's chance it will ever see the light of day. 

It would require the justices of the Supreme Court to actually read the 2nd amendment, which would be something akin to the second coming of the savior--much hoped for, not expected in our lifetime.

"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 abridged."

Which, put into 21st century English is: 1. We are going to explain here, as we do nowhere else in the Constitution, the reason we are granting this special right having to do with weapons.  2. The reason we are allowing certain people to keep arms is because they are part of a well regulated militia--not just any Syrian hothead group, mind you, but a militia regulated by, who else?, the government, the only thing which can regulate anything.  3. And this militia is necessary to preserve the state, the free state. 4. So, of course, we are talking about military weapons only here, for this one purpose.

Given that plain English, you got the right for some people to keep AR-15's in their homes, so they can grab these and run down to the town square and fire at the Redcoats or the Commies or whoever else is threatening the free state.

But you beer swilling, inbred killers, who want your hunting rifles to hunt, or your hand guns to shoot anyone who crosses your threshold without your expressed permission, (and maybe even if they have your permission, you might plug them,) well those hunting guns, those hand guns, those target practice guns, none of those is guaranteed you by the national Constitution, so go besiege your state legislatures and get those politicians to vote you your rights--they will only apply as long as you remain in your own snakepit of a state.

There now, isn't that better? We are now: 1. Honest about the Constitution 2. We can allow local cities and states do what they want to do. 

And we can choose where we want to go, knowing the local laws and customs.

 Is there any doubt what sort of laws Texas and Arizona will pass?  And they are welcomed to those guns down there. 

And the rest of us will have fair warning, if we want to plan our conventions or trade shows or vacations in those exotic,  God fearing,  gun toting places.

Grover Norquist: The Chauncey Gardiner of Our Time

President "Bobby": Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?
[Long pause]
Chance the Gardener: As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
President "Bobby": In the garden.
Chance the Gardener: Yes. In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.
President "Bobby": Spring and summer.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
President "Bobby": Then fall and winter.
Chance the Gardener: Yes.
Benjamin Rand: I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we're upset by the seasons of our economy.
Chance the Gardener: Yes! There will be growth in the spring!
Benjamin Rand: Hmm!
Chance the Gardener: Hmm!
President "Bobby": Hm. Well, Mr. Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I've heard in a very, very long time.
[Benjamin Rand applauds]
President "Bobby": I admire your good, solid sense. That's precisely what we lack on Capitol Hill.

--"Being There"  (The Movie)

Listening to the pundits on TV this morning, I was struck by a memory of a women I interviewed years ago. She had been a highly visible ambassador and a cabinet secretary and she was a constant presence on talk shows. It became clear to me, after a few minutes, she was deep into Alzheimer's. She was careful to keep all her answers in generalities, and could not answer questions which required any detail, like, "What did you have for breakfast this morning."  You'd get, "Oh, the offerings of the kitchen are altogether pleasant."

Two weeks later I saw her interviewed on a Sunday morning talk show, and she answered in the same lovely, general phrases, and nobody seemed to suspect she had no clue where she was or who was in the studio with her.

And now, I see pundits, Congressmen and Senators interviewed who say we have to cut "entitlements" by cutting expenditures on Medicare and when asked how to do this we hear vague generalities about, "improving competition,"  and "streamlining" and gaining "efficiencies" and eliminating "fraud and abuse," and I know I am looking at people who do not have a clue. They are, like Grover Norquist, great on images and phrases. They want to drown government and its inefficiencies in a bathtub, but they have no clue what that actually would mean.

These are the empty men and women, with brains of mush, who appear on our TV screens and get paid big bucks for looking and sounding presentable. We make them into what we need and we follow them over the brink.

Where Is Mr. Obama's Thaddeus Stevens?

As Mr. Obama dickers with Mr. Boehner, he may well imagine himself in the position Abraham Lincoln found himself, trying to horse trade and wheel and deal to get the 13th Amendment passed into law,  but, of course, nothing Mr. Obama is looking at approaches the historic importance of the 13th amendment.  They are just talking about money, and who should pay what, not about the idea of whether or not our nation believes one man can regard another as property, not a human being, whether or not our government can regard human beings as property.

So the stakes are not as high in Mr. Obama's current dealings with Mr. Boehner.

But that should mean, Mr. Obama cannot be forgiven for giving up important principles, sacrificing less important principles for an over riding principle when the only principles here are: Can we get the Republicans to disavow their pledge to Mr. Grover Norquist and actually agree to govern?

Giving in on lowering the threshold to $250,000 for the 39.5% tax rate is caving in. Giving on on cost of living raises on Social Security is caving.
Who is playing the Thaddeus Stevens role of sitting in the kitchen with the President, looking across the table and saying, "We need a real leader. Someone who will lead. That means saying, 'No,' when you have to"--who is saying this to Mr. Obama?

Now, if you can just get Mr. Obama on the phone, Mad Dog will be happy to say it.
Maud, might say it. She's a fan of Thaddeus Stevens.
Will Joe Biden say it? Will Harry Reid? (And could you hear him if he did?) Will Tom Harkin? Will Nancy Pelosi?  Is there a Democrat, male or female on Capitol Hill or in the White House with any balls?

Second Amendment Protects Only Assault Rifles

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.
--Second Amendment, United States Constitution

With Antonin Scalia and his fellow "strict constructionist" justices, the Constitution has been elevated to the status of a holy book, and all the answers are found in the writings of antiquity. So it is strange that, looking at the actual sacred text, there is little ambiguity: The only weapons our 18th century founders guaranteed to the people are military weapons, i.e., weapons needed by militiamen.

It is really remarkable how much meaning is packed into a single sentence. The purpose of guaranteeing the right of American people to keep and bear arms is clearly stated: To provide security for the state, for a free state. Not to provide security for the individual. The individual is nowhere mentioned. The right is extended to a group, "the people." And not just any people, but the people who are members of a militia, and not just any old militia, but a "well regulated militia." So the powdered whig founders precluded guns for Syrian wild type militias. You had to be a militia which is out there to protect the state, the free state. 

Do you really need 3 years of law school to read this sentence and interpret its meaning?  Do you need a black robe or a spot on the supreme court to understand this sentence? 

Once you read the various Supreme Court opinions which get you from this sentence to the idea that what this sentence means is every single individual in this nation is entitled to buy, stockpile and carry ("bear") attack rifles, grenade launchers and Sig Sauers, you have got to understand how determined the Scalia gang has been to arrive at a place which was never even dreamed in the minds of the authors of the holy scripture Justice Scalia claims as his sacred text.

So, it is clear  the concealed handgun is not protected, because you cannot use a Sig Sauer to defend a state--for that you need a rifle, or an AR-15. Cannot imagine a company of militia charging across a field firing Glock 9's at the Redcoats or the Hessians.

The AR-15 can be fitted with a grenade launcher easily, and would be a very effective part of a militia's mission.

This morning, on The Squawk Box, a Congresswoman from Connecticut debated a conservative commentator. The conservative commentator noted that with the last assault rifle ban, which lasted 10 years, the Department of Justice studied the "effectiveness" of the ban in reducing deaths  by assault rifles and found no efficacy. The law had no buy back provision--simply outlawed new sales. He suggested the solution is to allow psychologists to report potential crazy mass murderers to the police. The Congresswoman said the solution to the problem was to ban assault weapons without abridging second amendment rights, and also to place a trained expert psychologist in every school to identify potential mass murderers. 

The psychologists have been all over the idea that more money ought to be sent the way of psychologists:  Pay for a psychologist in every school  in the country.

Politicians are falling all over themselves, looking for experts who have answers, or at least places to spend money with great alacrity so they can hold up something, anything, to the TV cameras to show  how "proactive"  they can be. They are proposing spending more money to prevent the next mass murder event. Plans for this money vary.

Mad Dog is still out here listening to his neighbors, some of whom are gun enthusiasts. The gun enthusiasts say things like,  "You'll have to pry my dead cold fingers off my gun,"  and they like shooting things, making big bangs, feeling big, and their guns are a big part of their self esteem. They also like playing video shoot 'em up games and posing for photographs with their guns.

Mad Dog says:  1. The Constitution is a "living document," which means we can decide the 2nd amendment means whatever we want it to mean in the 21st century--which is exactly what the four thugs in black robes on  our Supreme Court have done.  2. We can ban all weapons, if we want to.  3. We can hire psychologists and make them report whatever they learn about potential mass murderers to the police, to the school board, to the media, to whomever we want,  if we want to. 

Mad Dog is not sure if any of this will help, but at least it may make us all a little less pickled in horse manure.

Love Your Gun More Than The Children

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.
--Second Amendment, United States Constitution

One of my neighbors asked me to go out on a walk through the salt marshes on the border between Hampton and Hampton Falls, where the Seabrook Nuclear plant sits. He had planned an early morning excursion, just after sunrise, and he planned to bring his dog and his rifle. 

"You can shoot a gun there?" I asked amazed. "There're houses along the salt marshes and there's a road.
"Yeah, it's fine," he told me. "It's legal."
I declined the offer.

Now an article in today's New York Times comes the report that the Newtown police commission tried to get an ordinance passed to limit shooting of guns to 500 feet from occupied buildings. It was defeated. People in Newtown had disturbed their neighbors by firing weapons which sounded like machine guns from morning into the night. There was no ordinance to prevent it.  Mary Ann Jacob, the librarian at Sand Hook Elementary who saved many lives, had been part of the petition to enhance the ordinance. "Right now," she had testified, "If you're standing on your property and my house is 20 feet away, you can shoot." 
One of the incidents which prompted calls for the ordinance was gun fire in a wooded area on Cold Spring Road, right across from an elementary school,  A police commission member testified, "I've hunted for many years, but the police were getting complaints of shooting in the morning, in the evening and of people shooting at propane gas tanks just to see them explode."

The meetings to consider the new ordinances occurred last August and the representative of the National Shooting Sports Federation said there was greater danger of swimming accidents than shooting accidents. "This is a freedom that should never be taken away. Teach kids to hunt, you will never have to hunt your kids."

Say what? Hunt your kids? Catchy, though.

Another Newtown resident, owner of a shooting range, Scott Ostrosky, said, "Guns are why we're free in this country." 

Funny, I would have thought the Constitution is why we are free, but then again the Constitution as interpreted by Justice Antonin Scalia and his fellow "orginalists"  the "strict constructionists" may give me pause.

I have read the arguments about the history of the 2nd amendment, from its creation in the 18th century, and the origins of the concerns which led to its inclusion in the Bill of Rights. Academics  date the idea of a free society requiring an armed citizenry back to the 1600's in England, when a Catholic king tried to disarm Protestants, but all that sounds like academic masturbation to me. 

The fact is, as I read the Constitution, correct me if I'm wrong, but the 2nd amendment is the only place in the entire document where the founding fathers actually tell you the reason they grant a right--the right to keep and bear arms is there because we want to be sure militias function to preserve a free state.  They did not have a standing army, just militias and there was no defense budget then, so if you wanted a militia you had to have private citizens buy their own guns for that purpose. 

But as Antonin Scalia has it: 
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

Well, that's very nifty, Mr. Scalia, but completely irrelevant and immaterial. We are talking about a unique set of sentences, one in which the authors tell you why they are providing a right and saying, quite clearly, it's for one purpose and one purpose only, and they define the right as belonging to a specific category of person--that person who would be part of a militia to protect a free state, not to protect himself personally.

Next to "obfuscation" in the dictionary, place a photograph of Mr. Scalia. Either the man is being willfully blind, or he simply has not read the relevant amendment, or if he has read it, he has not understood plain speech.

What you really have to wonder about is how many of our neighbors and citizens so adore blowing up propane tanks and firing weapons they are willing to endure a quarterly blood letting of six year olds so they can thrill to the excitement of shooting their guns.

They are correct, that simply passing a law against AR-15 guns, the attack rifle favorite of both mass killers and gun enthusiasts who simply love blowing things away, will not prevent the next maniac from getting his hands on one, on his mother's or his brother's or his friend's gun.  To clamp down on this exceptional sort of disease event you'd need to do more than just make an antibiotic available; you'd need public health measures to identify the likely perpetrators, institutions to confine them,  security cameras to watch for them approaching schools and day care centers. And even then, there will be "events." 

I do not believe, at least not yet, that passing a single law would prevent rampages by maniacs. But just looking at who is on the gun side of this debate, I'm prepared to vote with Maud--screw the bastards. Make 'em all illegal.

Meaningful Action

The news from Newtown, Connecticut is one of eleven reports of over 11 murders in  a single event by gun fire since 1984, one of 19 over the past 5 years of multiple deaths in a single shooting incident.
President Obama's statement was masterful, but, through no fault of his, incapable of ameliorating this sort of disaster; having said that, I cannot think of another President or leader who has ever done better--even Reagan addressing the Challenger explosion, was still just an actor playing the part. Mr. Obama was through and through, authentic, not milking this for anything, simply expressing what every parent is thinking.
The news media, you would think, would have figured out by now  what to cover and what not to say, but, as usual, the reporters, columnists, TV news show producers have been insufferable. (NPR's Scott Simon being my personal migraine--he seems to just love wallowing in these moments with that syrupy, unctuous voice he does, to tell you just how deeply he feels for your loss, as if nobody in the country could possibly feel as badly as Scott does about this.) Interviews with distraught witnesses, people hugging, interviews with clergymen, interviews with "trauma psychologists" and with social workers, saying things like, "This is a tragedy,"  clips from the governor and police chiefs.
As if any sort of authority figure has a clue about what to do about all this.
And then there are the men and women who are paid to swing into high gear because they work for the National Rifle Association, the Republican Party or for some gun control group.
All of the "experts" sound like imbeciles. The office holders are simply unable to say anything of value. The world will little note nor long remember what they say. 
The prize imbeciles are the NRA faithful who say we ought to arm more people, so Next Time, someone in the crowd will pull a gun and shoot the shooter, just like in old Westerns. 
Right here in New Hampshire the legislature debated and may, for all I know, have passed a law to be sure legislators could carry their guns into the statehouse.
Has there ever been a case when an armed citizen truncated a murderous spree by shooting the shooter? 
It reminds me of the days when AIDS was arising, before anyone knew much about the virus, and before there were any drugs to treat it.  It was already out there, having infected hundreds of thousands, and we heard interviews about how this was all the government's fault for not spending enough money on the problem.

 People from the National Institutes of Health were saying, "It's not money we need: It's ideas."

But AIDS turned out to be a single--albeit ever mutating--virus. While it has not been successfully eradicated, on the scale of polio, it has been managed.

We are not managing gun violence of the Newtown type.

If we stopped the manufacture and sale of another gun of any sort tomorrow, we would still be pickled in guns--over 300 million by some estimates, extant in this nation as we speak.
How do you control access to guns by deranged people, when there are more guns than McDonald's restaurants, when guns are like automobiles--ubiquitous, and the only reason there are not even more deaths is the self interest and will of the operators in possession of these instruments of destruction?
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, ever the fresh minded thinker, suggested we give up on restricting access to guns, but attempt to restrict access to bullets. Even Chris Rock picked up on that idea as a way to restrict gun violence in the ghetto, saying, "Can you imagine if a bullet cost $5000? Ain't no way no brother going to shoot more than one round, and only at close range. Then he'd go dig it out." 
Somehow, though, I cannot imagine the well planned shootings at schools would be much deterred by expensive bullets.  And you can steal bullets as easily as stealing guns. 
I need ideas. I agree with the President, we ought to take meaningful action, if only I had a clue what form that might take.

What's Eating Labor Unions?

Howard Zinn, One of Mad Dog's Heroes

I should begin by telling you where I am going with this:  I think labor unions are essential, healthy, a very positive social force. Without them or with their power substantially diminished all but the upper 1% are less free.

But...
Like liberals and Democrats, labor unions have been negligent about marketing their message. Labor leaders have been guilty of a certain arrogance in believing their arguments are self evident, that they do not have to convince anybody their cause is just.

Consider some examples from Mad Dog's own family album--and this is a family, which whether or not  its members know it , owes a great deal to labor unions.  Let us consider some items...

1. Mad Dog has a son who worked as a medical student at two hospitals:  One had a union, which negotiated for an hour for its workers to clean up operating rooms between cases; the other hospital's maintenance crews were not unionized,  and cleaned up between cases in 30 minutes. The non unionized hospital could schedule 8 cases per OR per day; the unionized hospital could only do half as many. That, multiplied by twenty OR's, 5 days a week,  meant the difference in millions of dollars a year, the difference between a robust hospital balance sheet and red ink. And beyond that, the sight of cleaning crews standing around after 20 minutes, doing nothing,  made Mad Dog's son's blood boil and destroyed, in this gestating surgeon, all  sympathy. And Mad Dog, would have to echo his father: "I'm all for the workers--but these are not workers."

2.  In a movie about Marilyn Monroe, she is shown on set, and she moves a chair from one place to another, only to incur the wrath of the stage workers' union chief, who places the chair back in it's original spot, until a union stage hand can pick it up and carry it five feet to where Marilyn had placed it.  This may be fiction, but it is a scene which resonated with most Brits.
4.  State police officers in Massachusetts have filed grievances to be sure a unionized state trooper is paid to park his car at road construction sites to observe traffic go by, at union wages, when an entry level lower paid worker, non unionized or unionized, could stand out with his or her fluorescent yellow jacket and flag to wave at approaching cars.
5.  National Football League football players make millions of dollars a year and they are represented by a union. Are these millionaires really "workers?"  Or are we watching, now and then, millionaires argue with billionaires--in which case, who cares?
Most of  these instances are examples of  enforced inefficiency, stupidity and pissing contests, and they alienate the American public from labor unions. 
But then there is another type of problem, one of middle class people thinking they have been denied what they want because union workers have got cushy deals for their own workers. Middle class workers may feel offended to learn a teacher who has been identified/accused of being incompetent can be sent to a lounge and get paid for not teaching classes for a year.
A great town for a national nurses' convention is Chicago, but owing to union wages, prices for hotel rooms, convention space makes  Chicago unaffordable for nurses's conventions; these nurses are middle class workers who resent not being able to get what they want because a union got for other workers what those hotel workers wanted.

In these instances, the man in the street, who is not directly involved,  sees a union fighting with bosses and managers as an inconvenience to himself, rather than as a group of underdogs standing up for themselves, demanding their contribution to a productive nation be recognized and fairly compensated.

Arrayed against the unions is a powerful set of controlling forces, including the Koch brothers who congenitally loath anyone who is not rich, the Republican party, which is compromised of elected officials who are bought and paid for by those who hate unions--the bosses, the owners and the corporate CEO's,  who act as if paying fair wages is a threat to their stockholders rather than a benefit. And union wages should be seen as a benefit to all--a way of keeping an well trained work force happy and well fed.

What Mad Dog would argue:  Organized labor, believe me, we love you. But you are not making it easy to defend you. 
Go find yourself some phrase makers, some office on K street with an auditorium and an oval desk at the front.  
Do us all a favor:  Zip up your fly and shave, stop dragging your knuckles on the floor, and spend some time thinking about how you look and sound.

Jill Lepore Taxes Patriotism Fairness Courage

Jill Lepore, is a professor of history at Harvard, but Mad Dog does not hold that against her, considering the edifying article she has written in The New Yorker about our nation's attitudes about taxes. Below is a link to this article, which given Mad Dog's record, affords no better than an even chance of working:

http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=2012-11-26#folio=024


As New Yorker articles are wont to do, this one does go on for some pages (5) and as professors are wont to do, Professor Lepore strays into some pretty distant and currently less than relevant epochs of Amercian history, but what she does manage to do is to place our own confused, frothy and irrational attitudes toward taxes in perspective.

Her main messages, as far as Mad Dog is concerned, can be broken down as such:
1. Those who rail against taxes see only the tax and not the benefit. As Oscar Wilde once observed: The cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Or, to put it another way, the tax hater is a government services taker who is not willing to become a giver.  The most ardent New Hampshire anti tax man is very willing to accept his Medicare, his Social Security check, his free currency system courtesy of the federal government, the roads he drives on, the bridges he crosses, the internet he uses, the clean air he breathes, the fluoridated water he drinks, the vaccines he receives, the public health he enjoys, the university he went to on a GI bill and the mortgage assistance for his first home, all while complaining bitterly that the income tax is a socialist plot to confiscate his property and to redistribute his wealth.

2. Liberals have failed to vigorously defend taxation, particularly the income tax for not just decades, but for generations.

3.  Conservatives, whose patron saint is Ronald Reagan, howl about the dreaded deficit and national debt, conveniently forgetting that when Mr. Reagan lowered income tax rates for the upper 1%, the national debt rose from $930 billion to$ 2,600 billion. 

Those of you who are particularly masochistic, can browse through past blogs from Mad Dog about people like John Hunter of Greenland, who wrote the Portsmouth Herald complaining that he sees no justice in his having to pay more income tax than his poorer neighbor, who, after all, breathes the same air, uses the same roads and benefits just a much (in his mind, at least)  from the government as he does. 
This is the old argument about the "fairness" of a progressive vs a regressive tax, and Professor Lepore explores this with great clarity.
As Mad Dog has insisted, and still insists, we ought not argue for the virtues of progressive taxation on the basis of "fairness."  Tax discussion bursts into flames when such emotional arguments are allowed. We should only say, it is most practical to place the burden on those who are least injured and who can carry the load most easily. 
Dr. Lepore cites the study of Thomas Hungerford, which showed raising tax rates on the richest top percentages did not inhibit economic growth, but cutting those rates on the rich does correlate with concentrating the wealth in smaller in smaller percentages at the top of the food chain.  This study raised howls of protest from Mitch McConnell and other Republicans in the pocket of the rich Republican masters, understandably.
It is reassuring to see this argument has been with us since the founding of the country. 
It was thus ever so, and will continue to be. 
We just have to be sure we win the argument by facing it head on.
Here In New Hampshire, Jackie Ciley attempted to win the Democratic nomination for governor, and she refused to take "The Pledge" to never sign into law an income tax. Mad Dog, on reflection, thinks she might have been more successful had she been more willing to explore this issue more head on. At virtual every venue she appeared, the first and last questions were about whether or not she was for an income tax. She said she thought the option ought to be there, if only to use a leverage in discussions with the Republicans, but her phrase was "all options should be on the table," which meant to the old codger who seemed to show up at all her appearances, "Then, what you are saying, is you're for an income tax."
Mad Dog would then stand up and shout, "I think we do not pay enough in total taxes in New Hampshire! All we do is pay property tax, which hurts the elderly, who have paid off their homes, and we whine about how we pay too many taxes and too much. Well, if we paid more, maybe we could build more roads, improve our schools and hospitals and emerge from the 19th century in this backward state!"
Mad Dog is the most un-electable citizen in the Granite State.
Mad Dog has often recounted how his own father paid his income tax bill every April 15th, with a smile on his face, saying, "I never dreamed I'd make enough money to get me into the top brackets. I'm a closet patriotic. I served in the Army  during WWII, and I vote every four years, but this is real patriotism. This hurts. Real patriotism always does."