Guns--May 25

 Reading "Lady Bird Johnson: Hiding in Plain Sight" which is good, better for anyone who didn't live through the Johnson administration and read her memoir.

Just reached June 4, 1968, when RFK was assassinated, following the killing of MLK in Memphis. The author quotes an excerpt from a speech by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the next day (who had campaigned for RFK) in which he said: "America is a land of violent people, with a violent history..."  Seems to fit today. 

I tweeted this today: "Is it strange that the NRA's good man with a gun guarding a school or church never requires an AR-15, but John Doe defending his home has an absolute right to an AR-15?"

Not sure that expresses my intent--in other words: shouldn't the good guys have weapons at least as good as possible assailants?  It's obvious to me that an AR-15 or similar weapon is not for self-defense. 

My Hypocrisy: Coal Versus Corn

There are reports that the Republican governor of WV is looking for government subsidies for coal production.  My gut reaction is to immediately oppose them.

However, what's my logical basis? Am I being a hypocrite?  I assume the idea is to keep coal mines going through a bad spell, perhaps a bad century, providing jobs for coal miners, at worse easing the transition to a non-coal future.  (Actually Gov. Justice has a "national security" rationale, perhaps somewhat like the old subsidies for wool and mohair.) Compare that with my rationale for some farm programs: keeping farms going to ease the transition to a future with fewer farmers.  (Full disclosure: that's one of two rationales I mostly buy, at least with respect to historical farm programs, the other rationale being the production adjustment one.)

So can I come up with a way to distinguish between farmers and coal miners as worthy recipients of government subsidies?

One difference is clear: farm subsidies go to farmers, coal subsidies would go to coal mining companies. Is that sufficient?

Double Standard

I'm seeing Althouse and Powerline blogs push back against the importance of the Donald Trump Jr. meeting with the Russians to get dirt on the Clinton campaign.  Back in the day of Clinton/Gore the right was outraged over the campaign accepting money from foreigners, and I remember Powerline being exercised in 2008 when the Obama campaign seemingly did not tightly screen donations to weed out foreign money.

So their standard is:  foreign money is bad, foreign info is good?

The Virtues of Hypocrisy

"Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue"  wrote La Rochefoucauld  (learned something from the bio, I had him pegged as late 18th century, wrong by 100+years).

As shown by its presence as a label, I've written fairly often on hypocrisy.  The political parties are liable to it, as their positions on some issues, particularly procedural and legal, flip-flop with the election results.

There's also hypocrisy in issues like global warming and the Paris Accord.  Both Trump and his critics pretend the accord is more powerful and more binding than it actually is. In a way they've a de facto agreement to misrepresent it.  By portraying it as very important, they can rally their backers to greater and greater efforts to defeat it/defend it as the case may be.

See this Keith Hennessey post for a somewhat similar perspective on Paris:

A surprising dynamic often surrounds QTIPS policy changes—the most passionate supporters and opponents have a common interest in arguing that this particular policy change is enormously important, while downplaying the reality that its direct impact is barely measurable. These mortal opponents have a shared goal of hyping the issue and the battle.

 The key point I'm getting at, and Hennessey also does, is the two sides agree on the same thing.  

Originalism on the Electoral College

Electoral college voting today.  Some, mostly Democrats, now believe in originalism as it pertains to the college--should be a set of independent judges exercising their judgment.  Others, notably Republicans, now believe the college should vote according to the norms and precedents in history, disregarding the original intent. 

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Human

Some more on Scalia:

• a Post piece by a liberal who clerked for him.  At least during the first 20 years, he usually had a liberal clerk.  I guess as a Catholic he believed in the devil's advocate (the post in sainthood proceedings).
• politicians are by nature hypocrites--a good way to persuade people is to make them believe you agree with them, and the only peaceful way to resolve conflicts is to persuade people.
• the fight over his replacement is occasion for a lot of hypocrisy on both sides.
• prognostications on the importance of the replacement process forget we have several senior justices, anyone of whom might kick the bucket at any moment, which would decidedly upset current calculations.

Once Rural, Always Rural

And, a press release a while back from Sen. Jerry Moran (R., Kan.) stated that, “Today, the U.S. Senate passed an amendment to S. 3240, the Farm Bill, offered by [Sen. Moran] that will make certain rural communities throughout Kansas remain eligible for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development loan and grant programs. In the absence of this amendment, nearly 1,000 rural communities across the country would have become ineligible for USDA funds due to small increases in population identified by the recent 2010 Census. USDA Rural Development programs help provide affordable single and multi-family housing, finance water and waste loans and grants, and support essential community facilities like hospitals and schools.”

My interpretation: once you're "rural", you're always "rural".  Increasing population would seem to say the RD programs are working, so when do you declare success and leave?  (Granted, the fact Sen. Moran is a conservative is one reason for me to ding him for hypocrisy.)

When Old Men Frown on Young Men Carousing

Sen. McCain is to be honored for his service, but....  From what I've read of his life, he was a world-class carouser when a midshipman at Annapolis and well into middle age, excepting the years when he was in the Hanoi Hilton.  So I can only smile at his outrage over the recent Secret Service/military hooha.  The men involved showed bad judgment and poor morals, but it's a bit sanctimonious for Sen. McCain to cast a stone.  If consorting with a prostitute is cause to lose one's federal job, Sen. Vitter should be sent back to Louisiana.

The Founding Flip-Flopper

Flip-flopping has a long, if not honored, history.  The blog Boston 1775 moves south to Philadelphia to take note of a Revolutionary era flip-flopper in three posts. New Year's Day 1777, New Year's Day 1778 and the justification from later in 1778, after the Brits had left Philadelphia. 

The last shows that the Reverend Witherspoon had a wicked sense of humor, and provides a justification which our modern day politicians could use as a pattern: "I was neither pro-[insert word of your choice, war, individual mandate, conservative, whatever] nor anti-[insert the opposite word], I was a politician.

Incidentally, I note that the verse from 1777 calls upon God, while the verse from 1778 calls upon the classical gods of Greece and Rome. Probably not significant.

On Hypocrisy and Bureaucrats

Most days I walk over to the community garden where we have a plot.  Watering and weeding are constant chores, chores not often mentioned in the glowing articles on organic and local food.  But that's a different post.

To reach the garden I have to cross Reston Parkway, which is 4 lanes plus turn lanes and is usually still busy from the tail end of rush hour when I'm walking.  So there's a red light for traffic heading north on Reston as I cross.  Some people, I suspect, hang a right from Reston onto Glade (the cross street) so they can try to barrel north on Colts Neck, a less-traveled 4 lane road, bypassing congestion on Reston.

When I'm crossing then, you will be amazed to know there's a small but finite danger that drivers making their right turn on red will not come to a stop.  Further, they may not be looking for a pedestrian walking in front of the stopped cars in the travel lanes because they're intent on making their turn and getting to work, like the good bureaucrats they are. 

Now a person close to me has the attitude with regards to cars that: "they have brakes, don't they."  Unfortunately I've become infected by that attitude, so I tend to walk across the intersection with my eyes fixed on the opposite corner and not overtly looking for someone making a right turn.  I figure they should be obeying the law, right?  They're bureaucrats after all and need to set a good example.

This morning I followed my usual pattern, only to be almost run down by an SUV which made the right turn at about 20 mph, not stopping at all.

Mad? Of course I was mad.  I was crossing with the light and the driver was absolutely in the wrong.  What was even more aggravating is I don't think he ever saw me, after all I was at least 4 feet from his lane.

I fumed as I walked on to the garden. I had the delicious feeling of self-righteousness to savor.  Then I remembered that the walk sign clearly said "Don't walk", so I was in the wrong too.  (I don't usually hit the button to get a "Walk" signal; I walk rapidly and it wastes people's time.)

All in all, a remember of the mote and the beam

Michael Kinsley and Budget Cuts

I agree with Michael Kinsley most of the time, but not on the issue of budget cuts. He says whenever budget cutting is in the air, there's a template for arguments--note, I like the template:

1. Expression of general support for deficit reduction. Reference to easy answers (there are none). Reference to burden (all must share).
2. Reference to babies and bathwater. Former should not be discarded with latter.
3. This program/agency/tax break is different. A bargain for the taxpayers. Pays for itself many times over. To eliminate or cut would be bad for children/our troops.
4. Cost is small (a) as percentage of total budget; (b) compared with budget of Pentagon; (c) compared with projected cost of health care.
5. Optional comparisons: to cost of just one jet fighter or 3.7 minutes of War on Terror
6. Names of famous people who support this program or tax cut, especially Colin Powell. Other good names: Madeleine Albright, Natalie Portman, George H.W. Bush (not W), Warren Buffett.
7. This is not about fair, responsible, across-the-board budget cutting. This is about the other side irresponsibly pursuing an ideological agenda, penalizing programs it doesn’t like.

(Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51256.html#ixzz1GnjahBut) 
So, if I like the template, which points out the dynamic of budget cutting fights, what do I have a problem with?  Kinsley says most domestic programs are incremental: the more money we spend, the more outcome we are likely to get, whether it be roads, dams, orchestras, whatever.  But the military, he says, is different.  Security is binary; we either spend enough to be secure or we don't.  That's where I have a big problem. The truth is often that we define our security interests by our capability, as in Libya.  If we had more military might available, we probably would define our security interests as requiring the overthrow of Qaddafi, even if it meant "no drive zones". Since might is tight right now, we're a lot more hesitant. 

Two Takes on TSA

In the Times:

• David Carr views the uproar over TSA's patdowns and body scans as a media-fueled tempest in a teapot. 
• Ross Douthat uses it as the hook to build a discussion of how partisanship alters one's view of reality, reviewing controversies over the last 15 years where Dems and Reps have switched positions.

I agree with them both.

Hypocrite of the Year?

A shoe-thrower in Turkey protesting globalization and the IMF may have tossed a Nike? From the NYTimes

Greg Craig and Guantanamo

The Post has a piece saying Mr. Craig is off the Guantanamo issue.  Craig says he thought there was a consensus to close Guantanamo, instead he's run into resistance from both sides of the aisle.  Understanding Government has a post on it. I differ with their conclusion by going back to Tip O'Neill's saying: "all politics is local"--in other words, not in my backyard. The whole country could agree on putting the detainees in the Yucca Mountain repository, except for Nevada (whoops, that's nuclear waste). I don't see any of the left demonstrating in the streets in favor of any particular prison.  Hypocrites, all.

NIMBY Among the LIberals

Treehugger reports that highspeed rail loses support when the tracks are in your backyard, depressing your housing values. (To show liberals aren't always and everywhere hypocrites, my Representative wrote an op-ed welcoming, albeit lukewarmly, terrorists to his district for trial (the Federal courthouse in Alexandria, VA. )

Being Unfair to the Right

Rep. Brad Miller has the audacity and poor taste to quote Cato and Stephen Moore from back when--on the Community Reinvestment Act and subprime loans.:

The conservative Cato Institute published an article in the fall of 2000 that said CRA should stand for Community Redundancy Act. The article argued that “progress predicated on technology, financial innovation and competition — not CRA — has broadened the U.S. financial marketplace,” including lending in neighborhoods that had once been redlined. If a lender discriminated against a low-income neighborhood, “the profit motive would lead another lender to move in and fill the void.”

Proof that increased lending in low-­income neighborhoods was not the result of requirements of the CRA, the Cato article said, was that much of the lending was by “institutions outside CRA’s jurisdiction.”

I appeared with Stephen Moore on CNBC on Oct. 25, 2007. Moore is a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board and founded the Club for Growth. Moore said that legislation I introduced to protect homeowners from predatory mortgage lending would have a “negative effect on homeownership.” “Ultimately,” Moore said, “for all the talk of how evil the subprime lenders are, let’s not forget, you know, 94 percent of these subprime loans are paid on time. And subprime lenders have actually increased the rate of homeownership in America.”

I wonder--the Internet makes it easier to catch people of all stripes in inconsistencies and flip-flops over time. Will that eventually make us more careful in forming and voicing opinions?

No, I didn't think so.

Those Bureaucratic Rules Snag TARP Oversight

Armit Paley in the Post reports that an instrument of good government reformer-types, the Paperwork Reduction Act, is slowing efforts to oversee the use of the TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) money. The good Senator Grassley attacks OMB for its "red tape".

(I'm assuming the reference is to the requirement that OMB approve all requests for data from 10 or more members of the public--that's the "OMB number" in the upper right corner of most forms the public will see. Usually takes a while for OMB to approve an agency's proposed request, because people like the good Senator Grassley attack bureaucrats who want needlessly to bother good hard working citizens with silly requests for information.)