On Bush Popularity

Pretty good column from Peggy Noonan on the recent rebound in popularity for George W Bush.  However, I think she misses the point.  In the final years of the W Bush presidency, there was a general feeling that things would be better if he was simply smarter and more competent, things would be better.  We went and elected someone who we were told was one of the smartest men to hold the office and man, its been at least as bad if not worse. 
He's failed to figure any way to fix the economy. 
He's failed to help pass good legislation.
He has failed to uphold simple policy promises, like closing Guantanamo. 
His foreign policy has been about as muddled and the world is definitely not safer than it was four plus years ago. 
There have been regular failures on basic governmental things, like passing budgets. 

Some of this reflects actual faults of Obama.  For instance, his inexperience with the way a Congress works combined with his inability to really try and work with people on the other side has been a tremendous obstacle.  A big part of it is that there are a lot of events that are beyond the control of the President.  And some of it is simply that the Presidency is a very hard job.  I think that plenty of independents (and even some liberals) would concede that they didn't take into account just how hard it is back in late '08. 
Noonan believes that we're about to get strongly into Obama fatigue.  I don't know if she's right but if so, I think we can confidently predict a ratings rebound right around April of '21. 

Better Gun Controllers

I'd been mentally writing something like this for weeks.  Mine wouldn't have been as good though.  Read the whole thing.  Point #2, especially.  If we could somehow promote the idea that legislatures should be competent on the issues that they work with, the country would be better off.

Heinlein the Fascist?

Ok, I mentioned this a while ago, now I'll go into some depth.  The 'nonsense' that I mentioned is here.  Please read it in full and then come back for my commentary. 
The author, Ian Sales, was certain that Heinlein was a crypto-fascist, in part because he knew that Starship Troopers (noted as ST from here on out) was a fascist book.  He had never read it though, so he thought out of fairness that he should.  I think that's an admirable approach.  Alas, this is probably the last kind thing that I'll say about him.
He complains that ST isn't even a story, but merely a series of lectures.  I'll readily agree that there are plenty of lectures in there but that doesn't somehow disqualify it as a story.  I'm rereading Hugo's wonderful 'Les Miserable' right now, which is filled with lectures.  He sums up the story this way:

The plot, such as it is: Johnny Rico graduates from high school, and follows a friend into Federal Service. He is assigned to the Mobile Infantry. Earth goes to war against the Bugs. Rico fights a number of battles and rises up the ranks.

Heinlein wrote many books where the frame of the story is the character development of the main character.  Most of his juvenile novels fit that form.  ST fits that mold.  Juan Rico makes a rash decision and joins the military.  Over time he learns that his experience has helped him grow.  This may not be your cup of tea, but I have no problem with this kind of story arc.
Sales then gives four examples of why ST represents crypto-fascism.
1) "Only veterans of the Federal Service of the Terran Federation have the vote. Heinlein apologists claim that Federal Service is not necessarily military, but this is not true."  Actually it is true.  Heinlein very clearly states (page 27 of my paperback) that 19 out of 20 people that volunteer for service will not be in the military.  Those 19 will instead do hard or dangerous work.  Every one has the right to sign up, so I'd have to assume that a conscientious objector would easily escape actual military service.  Sales quotes from right around these pages so his misreading here is kind of strange.
2) "According to Heinlein, spanking produces well-mannered moral children. After a page or two discussion on the best way to raise puppies – when they make mistakes, scold them, rub their noses in it, and spank them – Rico’s “History & Moral Philosophy” teacher, Mr DuBois, explains that the same methodology should be applied to children. Because not doing this led to the lawlessness of the Twentieth Century:"  I'm not sure what this has to do with fascism or any other totalitarian regime.  Corporal punishment has widely been practiced in most western countries.  In fact widely practiced right up to the 50's.  This example seems like a large non-sequitur.  (Note: now that I'm a parent, I'm not sure I agree with Heinlein here.)
3) "Heinlein directly references fascism. Once again, Rico – and thus the reader – is being lectured in “History & Moral Philosophy”. During this, the instructor explains the actual meaning of the vote:
“Force, if you will! – the franchise is force, naked and raw, the Power of the Rods and the Ax.” (pp 155) [page 145 of my book]
The Rods and the Axe, of course, is the fasces, the word from which Mussolini derived the term fascism." As if a reference to fascism is proof of fascist intent!  Heinlein is making an interesting point here but Sales is too caught up in his attempt to catch Nazis to actually understand it.  The point is this: every law that is passed is the governing body saying 'you will follow this rule or you will be punished'.  He is not saying that the force behind the vote should be wielded recklessly or maliciously.  In fact, he has tried to design a system that would discourage such a thing.
4) "Any society which is authoritarian, elitist, militarist and nationalist fits the characteristics of a fascist state. The Terran Federation as described in Starship Troopers certainly meets that description. As Mussolini himself said, “Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.” True, Rico is in the military and at war, and so his interests are firmly aligned – by training and indoctrination – along the lines demanded by the Terran Federation. But that continues to hold true should he leave the Mobile Infantry, because only someone who has served is part of the political process."  There is a huge amount of question begging going on here.  We don't know that the Terran Federation is 'authoritarian, elitist, militarist and nationalist', mostly because Heinlein doesn't show much of the society outside of the military experience.   We know that every school has a teacher who teaches the approved philosophy of the state, but we also know that students aren't required to respect it.  We know that non-citizens prosper in business.  We know that police presence is very small.  We know that the Federation is not nationalist as people from different nations mix quite easily.  We know that most citizens are far removed from military news.  This is far different than the militaristic and fascist societies in history.
It is, I'll grant, an elitist society.  Elitist in the sense that full citizenship must be earned by qualities that would make someone elite.  I imagine that this is the big problem, the idea that there is more to being a citizen than just, well, being.  That there is more to the vote than just showing up on election day.  Again, there is an interesting question being raised here, but not for Sales.  (I'll try to blog on this point sometime soon.)
Sales then concludes that Heinlein must have been a crypto-fascist, since the book is simply one long argument, it must be an argument that Heinlein agrees with.  I think Heinlein did agree with it, but there is simply no way to look at Heinlein's work and conclude that there is any fascism in there.  On the basis of this one blog post, I could conclude that Ian Sales is completely unable to read, but that would be an unfair comment until I'd read more his stuff.

I think what really gets me is the idea that Heinlein was some kind of authoritarian.  When people accuse Heinlein of inserting himself into stories, there are usually three different characters that they point to.

• Jubal Harshaw, from 'Stranger in a Strange Land'.  This is an elderly man who delights in taking on the planetary government because he likes a good fight.  He lectures one of his workers on toleration.  No one could possibly mistake him for an authoritarian.
• Prof Bernardo de la Paz, from 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'.  Another elderly man, this one is a political prisoner on the lunar colony.  This man rejects authority to the extent that he won't use coercion to evacuate people that are in possible danger.  He'll warn them and try to accommodate them, but they must decide to leave on their own.  By the way, the man is a libertarian hero.
• Lazarus Long, from many, but notably 'Time Enough for Love'.  Probably the most interesting of the lot.  He's a rogue and a scoundrel and has actual rules on when a planet becomes too rigid and and hidebound to live on.

Not a one of them would have been the last bit comfortable in a fascist society. 

Starship Troopers

Over at the Great Books blog, I recently read through the Iliad, Homer's account of the Trojan war.  One of the themes that intrigued me was how every man was encouraged to fight, even if it meant death.  After all, everyone is mortal and death will come at some time.  Don't run or you'll only get a spear in your back.
This idea makes complete sense in the very rough time period of ancient Greece where villages and towns could be attacked at any time.  Every man needed to be ready to fight and fight fiercely.  Today, at least in the United States, we're much luckier.  We need some warriors, but not the whole able population.
Still, the theme stuck in my head and I decided to reread Robert Heinlein's great book 'Starship Troopers', where he talks about why we must have fighting men and what the relationship is between the soldier and the civic body. 
Well, actually, there were a few different things. 

• 1) The point I mentioned above, about the importance of rough and ready men, willing to fight and die if need be.  But also:
• 2) I recently ran across some of the usual nonsense about how 'Starship Troopers' is a fascist book and how Heinlein is a fascist because of it.  
• 3) I've also been thinking a lot lately about debt and the future of the United States.  Heinlein has some pointed things to say about duty and I wanted to reread and rethink some of that too.  

 Well, when I get things stuck in my head, I sometimes toss and turn at night until they come out in some kind of written form.  This seems the best place for it.  I thought about parking some of it at the Great Books blog, but I don't want to force it in over the stuff that's on the list.  (Which means, I'll look for some excuse to do so later!)
Anyway, look for some posts to follow on these themes.

Districts or Gerrymandering?

A very interesting analysis on the 2012 House elections and what caused the disparity between the overall Dem voting percentage and the Republican majority.  I've been doing some number crunching of my own and hope to have some posts on this very subject soon.

Gun Thoughts

I haven't written about the terrible shooting in Newtown CT, mostly because I haven't know what to add.  Partly because I resent how quickly the discussion became political.  I know, that's how things work in a democracy.  People talk things out.  But so many people were there before I was even remotely ready that it felt wrong somehow. 
Anyway, I thought I'd put down some thoughts on guns in general.  I've read quite a bit in the last week so, while I'm not an expert, I'm at least informed.  I've numbered the points to make responses easier. 

1. Violent crime and gun crime in particular is not increasing.  We're not facing a growing epidemic.  In fact, it's declining.  They peaked back in the 70's and have been gradually lessening ever since.  Perhaps coincidentally, this is about when gun control laws started loosening. 
2. Mass killings (and mass deaths) have gone up and down since then but it's hard to figure out a trend.  Part of the reason why is that there are so few of them that they're hard to analyze that way.  In any case, they're both very rare.  Which doesn't mean we should ignore them, but we shouldn't act like they're an everyday part of every life either.
3. Schools are safe places and getting safer.  There are less than 100 deaths per year for students in schools.  The vast majority of those are accidental.  In the last week I've heard people say that we can't let our hearts be hardened by how common these killings are.  The exact opposite thing is happening.  They're becoming so rare that we naturally want to eliminate the rest of them.
4. I believe that having guns in the hands of free citizens is a net positive.  I believe that the crimes that are averted by law abiding gun owners off-set the sometimes horrible events that happen.  Obviously, people differ on this. 
5. It took the police 20 minutes to respond to the shootings in Newtown.  The police station is about a mile and a half away.  If you want to disarm people, then you're telling them that they may have to survive against a murderous criminal for up to 20 minutes on their own.  I think that's a hard argument to make.
6. Comparisons between other countries are difficult.  Japan has much less gun crime than the US.  But they're also much older on average and highly opposed to the kind of melting pot immigration that we have.  And yes, I think that both of those things have a big impact.  If we left gun laws alone but somehow became a grayer and more culturally monolithic society, our gun crime would drop as well.
7. The UK has virtually eliminated gun deaths.  But they also saw an increase in violent crime.  Violent crime per person is between 2 and 5 times higher than in the US (I've seen conflicting numbers).  So they've traded fewer gun deaths for more home invasion, mugging and rape.  I don't know that this is an improvement, though obviously mileage may vary.
8. Most of the gun deaths in the US are between criminals.  (I've seen this number as high as 80% but I don't know how reliable that is.)  Ordinary law abiding citizens are usually very safe.
9. I've heard people sneering at others for wanting guns to keep them safe.  I'll say this, if you've never had a violent/abusive ex, never had your house broken into or you live in a neighborhood where you can go for a late night walk without thinking twice, you have no business criticizing other people.  Every one is in a unique situation.
10. I sometimes get the impression from gun control folks that they want to somehow 'wish' all guns out of existence.  There are something like 300 million guns in the country.  The vast majority of them are legal.  The vast majority of them will never bring anyone heartbreak.  Their owners don't want them taken away and will fight to keep their rights.  If you aren't taking that into account, then your policy proposals need help.
11. We do have problems with how we deal with mental health in this country but that's in part because mental health is hard to handle.  There are thousands (tens of thousands?) of people in the US who fit the profile of the CT shooter.  If we try to lock them all away we will do a huge injustice to most of them.  The bleakest, most important fact about mass killers is that often we don't know that they're a problem until they're a huge problem. 
12. Which doesn't mean we don't try.  I've heard that the database used for background checks is very hit and miss in terms of warnings on mental health.  This seems like a good thing for the federal government to work on.  We should have standardized warnings available nationwide. 
13. Should we commit more people into institutions?  Maybe.  I know there are funding questions but those can be solved.  The thornier problem is that mental institutions are terrible places to live and committing someone is a huge step.  We had a mass exodus from the hospitals in the 70's and 80's because the courts freed lots of people.  I don't know where the right balance is but I suspect finding it will be hard.
14. Do we need guards or police at schools?  From what I understand, some of the schools in Hennepin county already have them.  My guess is that they make sense at schools where there is already gang issues but not elsewhere.  I'd let districts decide on a case by case basis.  I don't see any problem with a school allowing some teachers or administrators to be armed but again, let them figure it out.
15. The single biggest thing we can do to reduce gun violence in the US is to ramp down the war on drugs.  This would reduce gang violence and help out innocent bystanders.  Probably nudge dangerous schools into a safer place too.  This is another place where federal policy could make a big difference.
16. "Even once is too much" is fine as a moral statement but it fails as practical policy.  The 2011 killings in Norway happened in a country that has larger gun controls than the US is likely to have.  They happened because one man methodically planned on how to kill a lot of people.  There is no real defense for this.  In general, a person that is willing/wanting to die, is going to be able to kill lots of people before they go. 
17. The one idea that I have in reducing copy cat killers is to try and take away the identity and fame.  If news organizations referred to the killers as John Doe-1, John Doe-2 and so on, we could still try and discuss them without giving them long term fame and notoriety.  I don't know what effect this would have if any.  I'll admit that I have trouble putting myself into the mind of a serial killer. 

Why I Support Gay Marriage

This is intended for folks who oppose gay marriage and intend to vote Yes on the upcoming Minnesota amendment that would define marriage as just between one man and one woman.

I support gay marriage (as you can see in the title of the post here) but I stand apart from many gay marriage supporters.  I think that they're too quick to insult and belittle those who disagree with them, Chris Kluwe, being a prime example.  I think it's possible (very possible!) to simply explain why you support gay marriage.  Most people are reasonable and will at the very least give you a polite listen if you treat them with some basic respect.  Anyway, I decided that it was probably time to figure out what my five minute pitch would be.  Here goes.

Back in 2005, when I was thinking of proposing and during my short engagement, I thought about marriage quite a bit.  Well duh, right?  But I thought about why I wanted to get married instead of simply living together.  After all, I'd often been told that a marriage certificate is simply a piece of paper, right?
Well, I had my reasons and they seemed good enough to me.  I don't think I'll have to work too hard to convince anyone who is trying to protect the tradition of marriage that overall, being married is better than simply co-habitating.  Not too long into my thought process it dawned on me that every reason I had for marrying would also apply to every gay couple that wanted to get married.
I wanted to tie my fortune to another person that I loved.  So did they.
I wanted to stand up in front of family, community and the state and publicly make vows.  So did they.
I wanted to the world to treat me as part of a permanent couple.  So did they.
This was a real eye-opener for me and in some ways I feel very badly about that.  It's sometimes too easy to not recognize the deep desires of others, especially if it's an abstract group.  (It was for me!)  But the key to my supporting gay marriage was realizing that this was the ultimate goal for every gay and lesbian couple out there that is clamoring for marriage.  They want the same things.  Each of them has found the person that they want to be with (hopefully) for the rest of their life and they want to make that work they best way they can.
All the rest is extra.  Oh, I don't mean to say that things like visitation rights, custody rights for children and all the other things that we include in marriage aren't important.  They are, and the lack of those things is a clear injustice in some situations.  But at the heart of the issue are a small group of people who just want to stand up, proclaim their love and be bound by vows of marriage.  I think it's in societies best interest to let them.  Hell, we should stand up and encourage them!  This is especially true when there are children involved (which happens more often than you might think).
I guess I'd also like to ask a question.  Feel free to answer if you want, but more importantly think it through over the next few weeks.  If gay marriage were legal in MN what would the long term consequences be?  What bad things would happen in the next few years?  In the next twenty years?  The next hundred?  The benefits seem clear to me.  What is the down side?
And that's my pitch.  I don't know if it will change any minds but there it is.