The Second Amendment vs. the wordsmiths

In Sunday's NY Times there was an op-ed piece entitled, Clause and Effect (NYTimes, 12/16/2007), in which the writer was discussing the effect of punctuation on the way our Supreme Court interprets the Second Amendment about the right to own and bear arms. After reading it I was inspired to draft up a letter to the editor, offering a different approach to the problem. Unfortunately my letter quickly ran past the recommended 150-word limit for letters to the Times, so I decided to post it here instead.

Greetings -

Glad to see that the Supreme Court has decided to take a look at gun control and the second amendment again - this alone fills me with optimism. Being somewhat of a wordsmith and a sometime punctuation pedant myself, I understand well the allure of debate around the phrasing our forefathers used in laying down the second amendment. Unfortunately I believe much intellection has been spent uselessly on this debate since it is impossible for anyone to know what, in fact, was in the heads and hearts of the authors when these 27 words (and the attendant two - or was it three? - commas) were written.

For purposes of application to our current society, would it not make more sense to attempt to understand first what was going on in America in the 1790s? It seems to me that once we are armed with an agreed understanding of the prevailing winds of the day we could have much better insight into what the authors were trying to address with their work. It would also allow us to ascertain the degree to which such conditions were still present today, and in need of addressing.

Do we have an agreed understanding of what they meant by "militia," for instance? What was going on in the late 18th century that caused them to think about having one? And based on that, why did they think it was so important to preserve the right of "the people" to own and bear arms? And which "people" do we think they were referring to, anyway? The police? Farmers?

The Constitution has proved to be one of the most prescient documents ever drafted in the history of humankind. For the most part, its language has proved durable and resilient, in spite of technological and social progress and evolution far beyond the authors' ability to posit. One thing that has changed significantly since 1790 is our place on the world stage. We have evolved from being an upstart, defenseless nation of religious and political dissidents, to the world's lone "superpower." As a thought experiment, consider a fanciful case of society of mice that through some magical transformation grew up to become a society of lions. One could well imagine the society of mice declaring their right to own and bear arms, to protect themselves against their many oppressors both real and imagined. With the magical transformation into lions, however, would not their original fears be completely eliminated?

While this case is obviously fanciful, it does in fact represent what has occurred to our nation. And it is understandable that the people of the day would have had no way of predicting our nation's transformation into its current position at the top of the world. Who'd a thunk it?

Perhaps we should enlist the help of a playwright to draft a stage play about the relevant characters and their conversations on this subject. It would be a period piece, complete with powdered wigs and odd turns of phrase. Yes, I can see it - this is what we need to engage the people in a proper, informed dialogue about one of our nation's most divisive and least understood issues.

Generations in the workplace and the changing nature of of war

Vietnam was the last great war fought according to the military theory known as Superiority. Under this theory of war, numbers are the key to victory. When we talk of "air superiority" we are saying that we can field a greater number of and/or more sophisticated aircraft than our adversary can, and therefore in a war of attrition, we will ultimately win. Kills are carefully recorded and tracked, for they tell the tale in a war fought under Superiority theory - remember the body counts being carefully reported (and sometimes guarded) during Vietnam?

Superiority theory of war goes back to the beginning of war - Napoleon, the middle ages, the Romans, WW I - all were fought according to this theory, which informed strategy and tactics (which did evolve a lot under this theory).

Then came Gulf I, and things were different. The citizenry no longer had an appetite for wartime losses, to the point that any level of loss was viewed as politically unacceptable. That and a smaller military armed with weapons born of the high-tech, information-based era provided us, the US, with a unique and distinctive advantage, especially in the air but also on the battlefield. And thus was born a new theory of war: Dominance. Under dominance theory each battle is planned and executed with the expectation that the enemy will suffer heavy losses, while we will suffer none. The only way this theory can be realized is if we have a technological advantage that our enemy cannot replicate. For the most part, ever since Gulf I, this has been the case. Stealth aircraft, UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), laser-guided precision weapons, GPS, etc. plus the Joint Forces doctrine have all combined to give the US the ability to engage an enemy and, through the combination of maneuver and overwhelming force, completely dominate the battle theatre with a reasonable expectation of zero losses. This is Dominance theory.

So why am I prattling away on this? It occurred to me that in the workplace of today people may be bumping into generation-based issues. Understanding the shift in the theory of war that has taken place over the last 20-30 years may provide some insight into the dynamics that exist between the various generations. Vietnam was the last war that relied heavily on the strict hierarchy on the battlefield, and command and control from the rear. The book, Warfighting, talks about this shift in doctrine. Under the new doctrine (described in Warfighting), initiative needs to come from the front. Decision making needs to be turned over to the soldier with the rifle who is actively engaging the enemy. You combine that with Dominance theory and you have a very different mindset from the Vietnam era warfighter. And it spills over into the public arena, too. Especially the concept of zero-loss, and its heavy reliance on technology and information sharing and collaboration. This is a marked difference from the way combat operations were planned during Vietnam; and the way the general public thought about getting things done.

There is one last dimension of war in today's era that should be considered, and that is the notion of asymmetry. The 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center, the bombing of the USS Cole, and other similar acts against the US performed by terrorists are all examples of asymmetric warfare. The asymmetry refers to the size and scope of the enemy as well as the tactics they employ - the good old days of the US versus the Evil Empire seem to be over. There is no distinct, bounded enemy embodied by a nation state. Instead the enemy is diffuse, and uses tactics that our military was never designed to counter. As a result the terrorists are able to incur significant damage on us. A parallel phenomena is observable in business and is really the basis of the high tech industry: two college drop outs toiling away in a garage with no funding somehow unseat established tech sector goliaths in the marketplace. This is another manifestation of asymmetry.

So how do these new realities shape the way younger people think about work? Strategy? Authority? Hierarchy? Innovation? Information technology? Product life cycles?

By the way, the book, Warfighting, is a military document in the public domain. You can buy it as a book on Amazon, or you can download it as a pdf here: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/mcdp1.pdf . It is the same text in its entirety. Very good read (I bought and distributed at least a dozen of the books before I found the online version).

Nuclear power, and the lies the media wants us to believe

In an editorial published in today's Rochester (MN) Post Bulletin, op ed contributor Karl Grossman wrote about the dangers posed by nuclear energy. In response I submitted the following letter to the editor.

Sir - Mr. Grossman asserts that today's efforts to revive nuclear power are based on false premises. Unfortunately the premises he bases his argument on are themselves false. His first point is that building and operating nuclear power plants generates harmful greenhouse gases. He does not cite a source for his data, nor does he provide any indication of quantity. Would the quantity be more than, say, the amount of greenhouse gases generated by manufacturing, transporting, installing and maintaining an equivalent generation capacity in windfarms, for instance?

Secondly, referencing Chernobyl to support his assertion that nuclear power is inherently dangerous is nonsense that the popular media has used to mislead the public for long enough. For one thing modern reactor designs include passive safety features designed to shut down the reactor should things go wrong. More important, though, is the fact that the reactor at Chernobyl was housed in what amounts to a backyard polebarn, with no containment building at all. All the existing reactors in the US are housed in massive steel-reinforced concrete containment buildings, many of which are designed to withstand a direct impact from a jumbo jet. Had the Chernobyl reactor been built to the US standards in place at the time the loss of life would have been limited to those inside the plant (possibly none), and the subsequent radiation release would likely have been eliminated.

Mr. Grossman and much of the print media seem to be disinterested in reporting this factoid when referencing Chernobyl. Isn't about time the whole story was told?

regards,

2nd Amendment - so you can protect yourself from your government

At least, I think that's the gist of what Republican candidate Mike Huckabee bases his support for it on. He says this on his website:

"Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope."

Wow. That may have been a realistic approach to the problem of fending off oppression by the incumbent government of the day, what with muzzle loaders being what they were. By ensuring the populace was allowed to be armed as equally as the government's soldiers, the balance of power between the Fed's forces and the farmers was roughly equal.

Sometime over the last 200 years or so this parity has eroded a bit. Yeah, Mac-10s, M-16s and AK-47s converted to full auto can certainly raise hell in urban gangland ruckuses. But does anyone really believe that if our government decided to mobilize the US military against its own people in order to...what? Fend off a coup? Overturn an oppressive president? Well - nevermind that. Like I was saying - if for some odd reason the US populace decided it was necessary to wage a war against our own military, does anyone actually think the commoners would have a snowball's chance in hell of winning?

Just watch one of those military marvels tv shows one night and take a look at the toys our military has at their disposal. And the training they receive on applying those toys to maximum effect. Now with all due respect to rednecks, gangsters, law enforcement types, and anyone else who feels they are pretty handy with a 9mm or .30-06, you'd have to agree that if it came down to y'all and the US Marines, for instance, you really wouldn't have much of a chance.

Meanwhile another 30,000 or so people will die this year from guns, including a large number of children.

If you want to argue that you have a right to own a gun because you believe you might need it to fight your government some day, well, as of late I can't say I blame you. I think you'd lose, badly, but I feel your pain. Maybe things will get better after the Shrub is booted out of the whitehouse, and someone with some sense is in charge.

Citizenship: America's great 20th century failing

I'm not talking about citizenship, as in the latest partisan argument du jour about our nation's Southern border and migration policies. I'm talking about citizenship the way it was used and taught in our schools back in the first half of the previous century - that now-nearly-lost-forever amalgam of habits, rules, and social norms that all served to temper a person's natural self-interest, forging behavior that somehow seemed to nearly always support "the collective" (that would be what used to be known as a community).

In perusing today's New York Times I see articles about a range of seemingly disparate topics:

• In the wake of the collapse of an interstate highway bridge in Minneapolis/St. Paul, it turns out that thousands of bridges in the US are in a similar state of disrepair. Officials are citing lack of available funds as one reason for it, along with local governments choosing to shunt off responsibility for footing the bills to their successor administrations;
• the world of sports being undermined by steroids, unscrupulous officiating, and unsavory off-the-field behavior (such as breeding fighting dogs);
• young and even pre- teens, pushed by over-zealous parents to focus on and excel in a single sport, seeking the help of psychologists to help them overcome mental blocks;
• families living in Silicon Valley communities with net worths over a million dollars, some in the several millions, feeling they need to keep working to keep up (with what it is not always clear);
• an editorial writer reacting to last week's article about medical costs and the way high salaries paid to doctors are a big part of the problem. The writer wanted to ask whether anyone thought his or anyone else's kids, who were capable of getting into med school, would do so if the salary for doctors was limited to a paltry $120,000 per year, the way it is in Europe;
• a recap of the week's news, showing how members of the President's cabinet, when asked to testify against Gonzales, invoked executive privilege in refusing to testify.

See the trend? No? In each one of these items there is a common theme. In some ways it will come as no surprise. The theme is greed. This should not be news to anyone over the age of about six years old, who can understand the concept.

What may come as a surprise (to some, anyways) is that greed is not the relatively harmless pursuit many of the over-achieverers or the other self-absorbed think it is. The bridge that collapsed killing a dozen or so motorists was caused by greed. And I don't mean some abstract, governmental notion of greed - I'm talking about the only kind of greed that truly exists: the greed of individuals. Leaders. People who are more concerned about maximizing their own little patch in this country than they are about the safety and well-being of those they were elected (and entrusted) to serve. For if I'm a local official and know about the need to spend extra dollars, but driving for that spending will either upset voters, or otherwise compromise my ability to do things that would get me even more votes, then I won't do it - even though it's the right thing to do.

And if I'm a professional cyclist training for the Tour, and I believe that using banned chemicals is the only way to be successful - and earn fame and fortune - then I will do it, even though I know it's wrong.

And if I'm a member of the President's cabinet, and I think I can save my hide by lying, or otherwise corrupting the proceedings against me or my administration, I will do it, even though I know it's wrong.

And if I'm a bright, school-minded teenager looking at career options, and doctoring doesn't pay enough, then I'm going to Wall Street, even though I really care about medicine, and helping people.

What in the hell has happened to us? When did we, as a people, stop caring about each other completely, and turn our focus so single-mindedly on ourselves? We have lost much of our understanding of what it means to be part of a collective; to be citizens who are part of one nation. We have forgotten what it was like to settle untamed wilderness, establish communities that banded together to fight the elements, ensure enough food to endure hard winters, and help each other build whatever the community needed to survive. In other words, maybe we've lost any sense of needing to rely on each other.

This is sad. It is frustrating. For a growing number of people the inequity of it all is infuriating. Marx predicted rebellion of the masses would be the outcome of a society that becomes too lopsided. Are we headed that way? Would that be a good thing? Is the war in the Middle East a well-considered diversion, intended by the current administration to keep attention off of the growing inequity and societal collapse inside our own borders?

I hope we can rediscover what it means to be a citizen again. I hope we can remember how important it was to our survival to be a part of "the collective." One suggestion: re-introduce the teaching citizenship to our children. Make it mandatory. I don't think that's enough, though. A lot of this starts at home - with parents whose values are communicated to their offspring as sure as day follows night. Wake up, people! We are doing this to ourselves.

A Gen Joneser's rant against being called a Boomer

John-John Kennedy was only three or four years old when his father was killed. And the image of this young boy saluting at the side of his father's casket is the only memory I have of that historic time, because I was four years old, too. I am not a boomer. Boomers went to Woodstock, burned their draft cards, had free love, and were the first yuppies. I was playing with Tonka trucks, watching Johnnie Quest, worrying about herpes and then AIDS, and wondering why I bothered going to college because it sure didn't look like there were many jobs available in 1982 when I graduated.

I was born in 1959, and am part of a cohort born from 1955 to 1964 that has about as much to do with boomer mores and cultural icons as Jimi Hendrix has to do with disco (the latter, by the way, was the music my generation was listening to when we "came of age.").

So create labels if you must; but please, leave me out of the Boomer group. I am a Generation Joneser - as in, "jonesing" for all the promises that were made to us, only to find out they were gone or otherwise unavailable by the time it was our turn. Oh, and in case anyone's interested, there are more of us than there are of those born in the previous decade.

Hey Madison Avenue! Are you listening??

A response to Stanley Fish's article in the NYT

Stanley Fish's article entitled, The Three Atheists, appeared in today's NYTimes. In it he reviewed three recent books on the topic of the irrationality and danger of religious faith. After reading his opinion piece I was moved to write my own comment on the subject, which I've reproduced here. I've been wanting to say this for a long time. Fish's article was just the trigger I needed, I guess.

_____________________________________________________________

That man has evolved a faith-based system of beliefs is not surprising - so many things which effect his livelihood and survival have been mostly out of his control for so long, it’s perfectly understandable that as a rational species we would evolve a super-being to whom we could plea for assistance. Farmers and hunters have forever been at the mercy of nature’s systems, whose mechanisms even now are poorly understood.

Even atheists must surely find themselves “hoping” for something to happen in their favor once in a while. From there is it not a short step to fashion some sort of mysterious being who, if not omnipotent, can at least tune in to our brain’s broadcast frequency and receive its signal? And then “hopefully” act on our request? It’s this second part, especially, that requires some kind of faith - in a power greater than ourselves, and, more to the point, greater than our limited understanding of the workings of nature would allow.

And so there’s the rub. Centuries of momentum are carrying us and our blissful ignorance merrily along the war-torn road strewn with IEDs, even in the face of dramatic advances in scientific knowledge and the education systems for its dissemination. Is it not fair to say that a fifth grader (third grader?) is educated to a level that would have exceeded all but perhaps a handful of the most highly educated people available in the 18th century?

The good news is - somewhere along the line we discarded the pantheon of gods from our polytheistic days, and settled on just a single god (or three or four - if you consider each of the major religions having a different one) in a monotheistic belief system.

I remain hopeful (to no god in particular) that we are now short steps away from humanity finally coming to the realization that the notion of retaining one last god of their choice is no less fanciful, and no more rational, than the belief system of the ancient Romans and Greeks, with their Hera and Zeus atop Mount Olympus.

— Posted by tom short