Outliving this Day and Coming Safe Home

Tomorrow (or if you are reading this tomorrow 9/13/2011, today) at 10:00 am EDT, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a hearing on: H.R. 822, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011” (text linked here). Two law professors and the Philadelphia (Pa.) police commissioner are on the witness list.

I recommend that your read the bill for yourselves, but the general thrust is to require states that have a law whereby a person can obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun to permit residents of other states to carry concealed weapons while in the host state under the same conditions those states prescribe for their permit holders. Most states already have reciprocity, but there are a number of exceptions. One I am familiar with is that Ohio does not recognize Texas licenses – I have no idea why – although it has its own concealed carry licensing scheme. This bill is favored by all Second Amendment rights organizations and there has been a great deal of lobbying for it.

I have some concerns about this legislation. No one is a more staunch supporter of the right to keep and bear arms than I am. Of course, I am for restrictions on minors, persons adjudged mentally incompetent, drug addicts and other substance abusers, persons convicted of violent felonies, and those otherwise proven irresponsible citizens (Texas, for example, will not issue and will revoke concealed handgun licenses for those delinquent on child-support payments, student loan payments, and some other categories). However, I am very much a believer in federalism; that is, the right of the people of different states to use their own judgment as to what is the best way to safeguard and promote the health, safety, and good order of their citizens and guests. If New York wishes impose stricter conditions on those carrying arms than Texas, that should be up to the people there. Also, I believe the proposed legislation is more a feel-good measure than substantive. Persons can ascertain for themselves whether they can carry their arms in another state, and under what conditions, and choose to visit or not visit those places if it is that important to them. I also believe it is a bad precedent for Congress to add more and more words to the already voluminous federal statutes.

There is no question anymore that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right specifically recognized by the Constitution, and cannot be infringed any more than freedom of speech, religion, or trial by jury for those accused of crime can be (District of Columbia v. Heller; McDonald v. City of Chicago). Requiring uniformity among the states with regard to reasonable regulation on the exercise of those rights by statutes, however, is not a good idea. Neither is running to Congress whenever we disagree about what some states are doing.

I personally believe that the Texas concealed carry law should be changed to permit more places where a licensee can carry weapons, but I do not want the Congress to make that decision. That is up to us.

To those who believe I am a “states rights” fanatic, I reject that notion. There is no such thing as states rights, federal rights, or group rights. Rights belong to individual persons – period. Governments at all level have powers, duties, responsibilities, but not rights. If states – or the federal government – infringe on fundamental rights, the Constitutional mechanisms should be invoked to preserve those rights. Otherwise, stay out of the way.

Fast forward a century to 2001. The trials and tribulations of the 20^th Century were matched only by the continuation of the net material progress brought about by continued scientific and technological developments. Unlike the 19^th century, it was not peaceful by any standards. It was a time of cataclysmic conflict and terror. The war that started in 1914 arguably lasted, with a few interludes, until 1994 when the last Russian troops left Eastern Europe. The most violent phases, known as the two World Wars, were horrific in the destruction of life and property, and the Cold War phase was certainly psychologically devastating in its constant threat of total nuclear annihilation. And it was not without its costs in blood and treasure, and its setbacks. But in 1989-1991, all that ended. The Soviet Union and its clients capitulated, and the West won – without firing another shot.

The last decade of the 20^th Century was as calm on the surface as the first. In almost a blink of the eye, the totalitarian second world was gone except for a few insignificant tinhorns. Everything seemed to be coming up roses; peace and prosperity seem to be in the foreseeable future. But it was not to be without its troubles.

September 11, 2001, for all its immediate horror and loss, will not define the 21^st century like August 1914 did the 20^th. The decade following has seen two protracted wars and deepening international suspicion – not to mention shocks to the collective psyche of the United States, and, yes, the rest of the West. Currently, an economic downturn has many concerned, but that came seven years after the 9/11 attacks, and its relationship to them is tenuous at best. It will pass, just as the others did (although in my view, improvement in the economic and especially the employment picture will occur faster when the current occupant of the White House loses his job, along with those who rode in with him).

A quarter century ago a President observed that then it was Morning in America. But in a real sense, it always is morning in our nation. Morning brings a new day and new challenges, even when they first appear to be setbacks. Like those earlier mornings of December 7 and April 12, the challenge has been met. America has endured and prevailed. It has and will again.

Historian David Fromkin, titled his analysis of the beginning of the First World War Europe’s Last Summer (Alfred A. Knopf 2004). In that book, Fromkin describes the European summer of 1914 as unusually beautiful and pleasant. I recall that the summer of 2001 was also a nice summer, at least in my part of the country. Early September, especially the morning of the 11^th, had beautiful weather nationwide. Regardless of the destruction of our Proud Towers, it is all but certain that no future historian will write that the year 2001 was America’s last summer.

Washington Post opinion writer Ruth Marcus is concerned about political office becoming the only field in which lack of experience is considered a job qualification.  See Those Career Politicians.  She seems to think the “permanent political class” is a good thing.  Marcus even cites James Madison’s observation in Federalist #62 that good government, among other things, requires the “knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained”  — See here — for the proposition that a government composed entirely of Cincinnati – citizen legislators – would be dangerously ineffective. Of course, that is exactly what our arguably greatest founder was. George Washington only brought the military superpower of its day to its knees and won independence, demonstrated that it is indeed possible to herd cats in his service as president of the Constitutional Convention, and established a functioning government nearly out of whole cloth as first President. Ineffective? Hardly. There are other examples throughout our history who when in and out of public life. Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt were others.

The reason many criticize career politicians is not for their experience in the political arena, or lack thereof in private business, but that they tend to be in public office so long that they lose touch with the real world. They do not have to live in the economic and social climate resulting from the laws they enact or fail to enact. Many Representative and Senators, as well as their counterparts at the state level. try diligently to keep up with the plight of their constituents, but hearing about the problems a private business owner, consumer of goods and services, and ordinary citizen faces every day is not the same as directly experiencing them.  Members of Congress should go back to the private sector and to make a living there after a certain number of terms.

Longevity in office (or in private business) does not necessarily equate with great experience or increase competence.  There is a saying that one might have 20 years experience or one year experience repeated 20 times.  The value of longevity in government is more with learning and who has the pull, where the pressure points are, and how to influence peddle (or to be snarky, where the bodies are buried and which closets the skeletons are in).  And the lucre that lobbyists make tells us something. There is doubtless much subtle blackmail going on in Washington (and in every state capital) sued by the lobbyists to please their clients.

Haviland Smith, a retired CIA station chief who served in eastern and western Europe and the Middle East and as chief of the counterterrorism staff, writes an essay entitled “Ten Years Later” reminiscing the 9/11 al-Qaida attacks and the ensuing ten years. See link here.  He makes a number of interesting points, one of the most salient is the various intrusions on liberty taken in the name of security and safety. “In the aftermath of 9/11, Americans were clearly prepared to and ultimately did surrender their civil liberties and individual rights in the hope that doing so would add to their own physical security. We forgot Benjamin Franklin’s injunction that “they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Apropos to one of Mr. Smith’s points was an opinion peace in The Economist in early summer 2001 entitled “Free Jenna” referring to the then President Bush’s imbibing daughter. That author was filled with wonderment about why there was such an obsession in the U.S. with a 19 year old women wanting to have an alcoholic drink or two with her meal. He opined that in addition to a lingering Puritanism, Americans have “a pathological obsession with safety.” And “the only way to keep these dangers at bay is to regulate even the most trivial bits of behaviour (sic). Hence the need to replace standard playground equipment with “safer” alternatives, such as one-person see-saws and transparent tubes to crawl through. And where else would photocopier toner come in packets that warn you not to eat the contents? See link 6/7/2001 Of course, suing for an injury that could have been avoided with a modicum of care by the injured person has been an American pastime. Now, after 9/11, flying commercially is a monumental hassle. Color-coded alerts (which make about as much sense as the various “alerts” for missing children named after previous victims), and even making the Super Bowl stadium a virtual armed camp are commonplace. We cannot make a large cash transfer without the government knowing about it, nor can we even check out library books in privacy. Didn’t take long for the Economist essayist to be proven absolutely right.

The current social issue du jour is gay marriage.  It shouldn’t be.  Here is a discussion with John Stossel,
Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage and David Harsanyi, libertarian columnist at The Blaze. Link here:

Speech in the Mississippi House of Representatives 1950

Representative Noah S. “Soggy” Sweat:

“My friends,

“I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey.

“If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.

“But;

“If when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.

“This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.”

Source:  http://orig.clarionledger.com/news/0305/25/oorley.html

Cheers!

Bob Reagan

Time Magazine, re-inventing itself to compete in the 24/7 cable news and Internet environment, has come up with a number of Top Ten and Bottom Ten lists.  Lists, of course are fascinating for many people, and grab one’s attention. The lists apropos to this back-to-school time of year are, what majors to take in college. If pay is your criteria, here are those to seek and those to avoid.

Ten Best Paying Undergraduate Majors (and median income)

10. Mining and Mineral Engineering $80K
9. Metallurgical Engineering $80K
8. Mechanical Engineering $80K
7. Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering $82K
6. Electrical Engineering $85K
5. Chemical Engineering $86K
4. Aerospace Engineering $87K
3. Mathematics and Computer Sciences $98K
2. Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration $105K
1. Petroleum Engineering $120K

Ten Worst Paying Undergraduate Majors (and median income)

10. Health and Medical Preparatory Programs $40K
9. Visual and Performing Arts $40K
8. Communication-Disorders Sciences and Services $40K
7. Studio Arts $40K
6. Drama and Theater Arts $40K
5. Social Work $39K
4. Human Services and Community Organizations $38K
3. Theology and Religious Vocations $38K
2. Early-Childhood Education $36K
1. Counseling and Psychology $29K

These do not include professional majors which require graduate degrees.

Source: Time magazine. To read further link here.

Of the 10 highest paying, the two that do not include “engineering” in their name, might as well, because they are natural science applied disciplines. All include a lot of work and study in college. They are not as popular as many other majors for that reason.

With regard to the 10 worst paying, my first inclination is that theology and religious vocations should have been disregarded and not included, because hardly anybody expects to make much money in those fields (unless one becomes a televangelist or mega-church preacher, but talented swindlers to make a lot of money whether they go to college or not). Regarding the health and medical preparatory programs, most of these areas doubtless require further study and training before one is employable other than for cleaning hospital bedpans and similar tasks, so its inclusion may be misleading.

A minuscule minority of artists can make a lot of money, but, like professional athletes, they must become superstars in order to have a sustainable career. As far as “social work” outside of the government, who’s hiring? I know of no private employer who has any use for sociology majors in that discipline (which, perhaps, is an oxymoronic term), save those with government contract or grants for studies that analyze the pecking order in whorehouses (there really was such a government funded study) or other such useful stuff. Regarding counseling and psychology, that generally requires a graduate degree in order to perform any clinical practice. Most of these majors do not require extremely rigorous work and study, consequently, they are more popular then the natural science-based disciplines.

Bottom line: If one wants to make a good salary with a bachelors degree that is sustainable throughout a entire career, they must study engineering of some kind.

While I am not endorsing Rick Perry for President (I have no current favorite), thought I might share this piece from Wednesday, August 24, 2011 The Daily Beast.

Richard “Kinky” Friedman (of the late C&W band “The Texas Jewboys”) ran against Rick Perry for the Texas governorship in 2006. So would the singer and writer vote for him for president? “Hell, yes!” he says. The world’s most famous Jewish cowboy on why he wants to live in Rick Perry’s America. Here’s an excerpt.

“These days, of course, I would support Charlie Sheen over Obama. Obama has done for the economy what pantyhose did for foreplay. Obama has been perpetually behind the curve. If the issue of the day is jobs and the economy, Rick Perry is certainly the nuts-and-bolts kind of guy you want in there. Even though my pal and fellow Texan Paul Begala has pointed out that no self-respecting Mexican would sneak across the border for one of Rick Perry’s low-level jobs, the stats don’t entirely lie. Compared with the rest of the country, Texas is kicking major ass in terms of jobs and the economy, and Rick should get credit for that, just as Obama should get credit for saying “No comment” to the young people of the Iranian revolution.”

“As a Jewish cowboy (or “Juusshh,” as we say in Texas), I know Rick Perry to be a true friend of Israel, like Bill Clinton and George W. before him. There exists a visceral John Wayne kinship between Israelis and Texans, and Rick Perry gets it. That’s why he’s visited Israel on many more occasions than Obama, who’s been there exactly zero times as president. If I were Obama I wouldn’t go either. His favorability rating in Israel once clocked in at 4 percent. Say what you will about the Israelis, but they are not slow out of the chute. They know who their friends are.”

Read Kinky’s entire essay in The Daily Beast” here

The headline “Lack of Grocery Stores Creates Unhealthy Food Desert in Southern Dallas” that graced The Dallas Morning News’s http://www.dallasnews.com/news/ (in print, pp. 1 & 28) front-page story today (August 28, 2011) is argumentative and misleading. The logic that the lack of something could create something else boggles the mind. The result of the lack of grocery stores in a neighborhood or area may be inconvenience, but the real question is what caused the lack.

Quite simply, the lack of grocery stores, meaning big-box types is a result of those stores’ headquarters management determining they cannot make a profit on stores in that neighborhood. The story alleges that supermarket chains use two main criteria – population and income – when deciding whether to open a store. I suppose that is true, but there surely is more to it. Not being privy to the marketing secrets of the various chains, I cannot say for sure what they are, but there are clues.

One is the availability of fast food in low income neighborhoods. They have no trouble making a profit. Why? Quite simply because it sells. Even though it has been deemed generally unhealthy by dietitians, it is calorie-wise a good value, and, of overriding importance, it tastes good. With fast-food available, many residents do not want to take the trouble to drive to a supermarket out of the neighborhood, but would they patronize one if they only had to travel a few blocks? Some would, I am sure, but enough to make it profitable?

A condition that had retarded the large grocery store entry into Southern Dallas was that nearly all of the area was dry; that is, sale of alcoholic beverages was not permitted. The supermarkets chains depend upon the sale of beer and wine to bolster, and in marginal stores make, profits. But the local option character of whether the sale of alcoholic beverages would be permitted created an odd patchwork of wet and dry areas. Municipalities, justice-of-the peace precincts, and whole counties – the boundaries of which often overlap – can decide the beverage laws in their bailiwicks.

In 2010, the City of Dallas held a local option election on whether to permit beer and wine sales for off-premises consumption (retail stores of all kinds) and, separately, to permit sale for on-premises consumption for all kinds of alcoholic beverages. The drive for calling the elections was spearheaded by several supermarket chains. One of their arguments was that sale of beer and wine would make it possible to open profitable stores in the then dry areas. This was opposed, and after it passed, legally challenged by a coalition of church leaders from Southern Dallas. Their argument was that of the prohibitionists from time past, with the added twist that the stores were seeking to prey upon the weaknesses of the poor people that lived in their neighborhoods. (As if their neighbors had any trouble driving to a wet area to obtain their favorite beverages, even though it was too great an imposition for them to drive that far to obtain fresh fruit and vegetables.) The challenge was supported by several liquor store chains; their entirely rational argument was that they could not make a profit competing with grocery store selling only beer and wine, when their distribution and business plan was the marketing of hard liquor, with beer and wine only ancillary.

As mentioned, the local option passed, and the challenge in the courts (based upon hypertechnical alleged defects in the enabling petition to bring the election) is likely to fail.

It is a fact that many grocers are now moving into Southern Dallas. A companion story in the News (p.29-A) confirms this trend. I believe it is a direct result of the removal of restrictions on beer and wine, although the News gave that aspect short-shrift. Free enterprise means being able to give the customers what they want free of unreasonable restrictions, and it works. Whether the populace served will take home fresh meat, fruits and vegetables along with their beer and wine, remains to be seen.

This past week a monument to Martin Luther King, Jr. was unveiled on the Mall. On Friday, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson took the occasion to lament the continued lack of “economic justice” in this country. That term, along with the tiresome “social justice” shibboleth and others, have become ubiquitous among the left. There are even courses in major universities in the latter, as well as a degree offered by some. Well, such a degree may qualify one for a government job, but is about as useful as on in basket weaving to prepare a student for a productive career in any sector.

Any time you use an adjective with “justice” it becomes qualified and thus, diminished. There is no such thing as “social justice” or “economic justice” — only justice. It’s hard enough to come by as it is. Those who insist upon qualified justice make it impossible to obtain real, unqualified justice.

I posted the foregoing paragraph as a comment to Mr. Robinson’s essay, and received the following addition from another reader.

“My idea of economic justice is that stupid, lazy, undisciplined people are allowed to starve to death.

“My idea of social justice is that violent predatory thugs get the death penalty every time.”