Private Mars Rocket II

The Supreme Court seems to have become a right-wing vending machine, delivering two rulings recently that are purely ideological. I agree with the outcome of one and disagree with the other, but they are both wrongly-decided and will not bring credit to the court.

The first ruling came out yesterday and overturned New York State's concealed-carry law. In the opinion, Clarence Thomas made the argument that such laws are unconstitutional if they are not "consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” He then ignores the history of gun regulation in the US and pre-revolutionary England. We actually do have a long tradition of preventing people from carrying guns - the gunfight at the OK Corral was started when local law enforcement (the Earps) were attempting to enforce a local ordinance prohibiting carrying guns in town.

If he had truly been concerned about protecting the right of self-defense (which is not in the Constitution - it's a common law right we inherited from England) he could have done so by ruling that New York's law, which requires "some elevated need for self-defense" was too subjective. New York would then have to write some variant of "shall issue" law. ("Shall issue" = "do X, Y and Z and we shall issue a permit.")

The second ruling came out today, invalidating Roe and thus removing a Federal right to abortion. I don't agree with the outcome but this ruling is bad as well. Here, the argument Alito uses would also invalidate much of 20th-century civil rights. As Thomas points out in his concurrence, the same logic used by Thomas should invalidate the rights to birth control, non-missionary sex and gay marriage. Thomas, hypocritically, does not note that his own interracial marriage would be at issue under the logic of the ruling.

It's not clear how one would correctly overturn Roe, primarily because Roe recognized a right of women to make their own medical decisions. Arguing that we should only have rights that are "deeply rooted in history" is an express train to the 1860s. I don't think most Americans want that.

By these rulings, the Supreme Court has shredded their legitimacy. I think John Roberts, a man very much concerned about the Court as an institution, knows that. I predict this will not end well for the Supreme Court.

I have not been watching the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse with as much attention as I would like. This is largely due to the demands of Ye Olde Daye Jobbe and life in general. Back when the event happened, I expressed opinions on it. Here's where my opinions have evolved to. (Disclaimer - not a lawyer, not legal advice.)

A) Taken entirely in isolation, Rittenhouse has a case for self-defense. People did appear to attack him.

B) Taken as a whole, maybe not. One of the things you're taught in concealed carry classes is that you can't be the aggressor in a confrontation and then claim self-defense. In this case, Rittenhouse:
1) Traveled many miles to a place he knew was full of hostile people
2) Visibly armed himself
3) Decided to defend property not his and without even asking permission of the owners

To me, this suggests aggression, especially point #2. I could see somebody seeking to provide medical assistance bringing a concealed pistol in the event things went from bad to worse, but strapping a rifle on your chest - not so much.

C) As the prosecutor pointed out in the trial, "You're telling us that you felt like you were about to die, right? But when you point the gun at someone else, that's going to make them feel like they're about to die, right? That's what you wanted him to feel." In short, at least two of Rittenhouse's victims had valid self-defense cases of their own.

I don't know how this case will end up, but anybody who calls it anything but a disaster has a hidden agenda to advance.

Part of insisting facts matter, which I do, is changing you opinion about something based on facts. I have changed my opinion regarding the Rittenhouse shootings in Kenosha. Legally, they both appear to be self-defense. I do think we have a case of Sheepdog Failure Syndrome, which I'll elaborate on below. Here's why I changed my opinion. (Here's an interesting take on this sheepdog mentality.)

I watched this video which argues that both of the shootings were self-defense. The too long; didn't watch version is that Rittenhouse brought his rifle and first-aid kit to Kenosha. His plan was to "de-escalate" protests and "run into danger" to rescue injured people. Good intentions, but we know what the road to Hell is paved with.

In the first shooting, one of the rioters, Joseph Rosenbaum, chases Rittenhouse and tries to take away his gun. (Rosenbaum was white and we have video of him being a belligerent asshole earlier that night.) Rosenbaum's actions make the shooting self-defense for Rittenhouse. After the shooting, Rittenhouse runs away. The mob, not knowing why Rittenhouse shot or if he plans to continue shooting, run after him.

Here I take issue with the video. The lawyer in the video thinks the mob is chasing Rittenhouse because "he killed one of ours." I think the mob was chasing him because they were concerned that a mass shooting was breaking out. In either interpretation, from Rittenhouse's point of view, he was legally in a self-defense situation, especially once he fell on his ass.

Now, here's where we get all the gross errors of judgement on Rittenhouse's part that made this disaster happen:

1) Carrying a long rifle in a situation like this is problematic. It's very tempting for angry people to try and take it away from you. In this case, it made Rittenhouse a very visible target as well.

2) Rittenhouse did not appear to have the skills or physical stamina to be out in this situation. He's perpetually getting into binds and getting outrun. He uses terms like "overwatch" which suggest he knows what's going on but he clearly hasn't done any of this stuff before.

3) Rittenhouse has affiliated himself with a "militia" trying to protect businesses. This "militia" has no command structure or organization and appears to be just a bunch of Tactical Teds roaming the streets. Once the shooting starts, it's every man for himself, leaving Young Rittenhouse alone.

So, Rittenhouse does not appear to be a murderer. He does, however, appear to have made a number of very bad decisions that got two people killed and nearly got himself killed. IANAL, so I don't know if those bad decisions are legally actionable or not.

I had a quiet weekend and spent most of today out-of-pocket, so this will be a brief update. It will, in fact, consist of three Tweet-level thoughts.

Thought 1 - Assault Weapons

I am and remain a gun owner. Having said that, I agree with the tweet I saw (originally from Elizabeth Bear): "here are two reasons for a private citizen to want an assault rifle. 1) to kill a lot of people as conveniently as possible. 2) because it's a neat toy." To expound on that, neither reason is protected by the Constitution.

Thought 2 - March for our Lives

I am amazed (well, not really) at how badly the NRA and their associates are showing their asses regarding the organizers of last weekend's anti-gun marches. Calling them "crisis actors" (and WTF is a "crisis actor" in the first place) and all the other slights seem almost deliberately aimed at making the NRA look like a mustache-twirling villain in a grade-Z movie.

Thought #3 - Children of the Divide

Over the weekend I finished the third of Patrick S. Tomlinson's novels, Children of the Divide. In it, Tomlinson tuckerizes another writer of my acquaintance, Adam Rakunas, and tells an interesting story of two species living together on one planet. It appears that Tomlinson left himself room for more books in the series, which I don't see forthcoming. In any event, it's well worth a read, and since it's set 18 years after the other two books, should stand alone.

A few random thoughts on The Week That Was:

1) Well, now we've got an actual campaign operative, George Papadopoulos, confessing to actual collusion with Russia on the election. This is of course on top of the meeting that Trump's son took with the "Russian Crown Prosecutor" that we all knew about. Now, despite Trump mentioning Papadopoulos by name at a Washington Post editorial board meeting, we're in the "well Papadopoulos wasn't really that important" phase. Color me unamused.

2) The article entitled What J. D. Vance doesn't get about Appalachia is well worth the read. The gist is that the coal industry created a culture of dependency out of what had been independent small farmers.

3) Borrowed from Twitter:
Manhattan attack: 8 killed, 11 injured
Trumpsters: "Muslims are evil! Let's kick them out now!"

Las Vegas shooting: 58 killed, 546 injured
Trumpsters: "It's too soon to talk about this."

4) Speaking of Trump, we hear that Whitefish Energy, a two-man company, got a massive contract to get the lights back on in Puerto Rico. Needless to say, the lights aren't on. Also as pointed out on Twitter, the crooks and grifters in the Trump Administration are competent in one thing only - enriching themselves.

Here we go again - lone wolf white dude gets a collection of guns and decides to hose down a crowd. Given that he was shooting from 400 meters away (per here) any security measure that didn't involve counter-sniper teams at full alert would be useless.

We'll hear a lot about "thoughts and prayers" and how attacks like these are unavoidable, but "thoughts and prayers" aren't very helpful and attacks like these are in fact avoidable. The harder it is to get high-capacity semi-auto weapons, the harder these attacks are. And yes, I'm aware that this appears to have been done with a full-auto weapon. It's a lot easier to hide a full-auto weapon in a forest of cosmetically identical semi-autos.

Thought #1 - "A Troubled Loner"

It seems that any time a black or Muslim man shoots somebody he shouldn't, that's proof of terrorism and conspiracy. Yet when a white man with a history of waving Confederate flags at black people shots somebody, we're told that they are "a troubled loner." In the latest case, it would be more accurate to call them a habitual criminal and violent racist.

Thought #2 - Making Water

It's said that necessity is the mother of invention. Israel, the driest country in the world, needed fresh water. So they invented cheap desalinization. Of note in the article - the same drought that forced Israel to make water let to the collapse of Syrian agriculture and the creation of large slums on the outskirts of Syrian cities. These led to the current civil war. Note to libertarians - either government takes care of the poor or the poor take care of government, French-revolution style.

Thought #3 - the Ghost Fleet of WWI

On a lighter note, in World War I, the US started an emergency program to replace merchant ships lost due to U-boats. Like much of our efforts in that war, the fighting was done by the time the ships were built. They were also uneconomical to operate, so they were left to rot in Mallows Bay. The wooden ships have created fascinating ship-shaped islands.

Thought One - Annie Oakley

One of the things that gripes my ass are the Gun Store Experts who tell me that, had they been at the Shooting Of The Week, they would have dropped the Bad Dude. Maybe yes, maybe no...

Shots In The Dark, or, How I Became A Sharpshooter.

Thought Two - Thinking It Through

So, one of the things Trump and his supporters have been saying regarding Orlando is that we've been attacked and need to hit back. "It's an act of war!" So does that make the shooter a soldier? Who should we hit back at? I mean, our bombing of ISIS is what caused the shooter to go get a gun. If we're at war with Islam, then as this guy asks how exactly does a nation prosecute a war against a leaderless entity with multiple subgroups?

When one asks these questions of Trump and his supporters, one gets either an angry glare, vague platitudes or a repetition of the initial statement. One does not get actionable ideas.

In thinking of the events of Orlando, it seems we in America have two inter-related problems. The first problem is areas of our country have high rates of violence, which at the moment get expressed with guns. To be more clear, if you wave your magic wand and all the guns on the south side of Chicago stop working, the gangbangers will be banging each other with bats and knives by lunchtime. Removing guns may marginally reduce the body count, but it won't stop violence.

The second problem we have is crazies with guns. And yes, the Orlando shooter was crazy. Anybody who has to call 911 to pledge allegiance to ISIS is crazy. The FBI (per linked article) found no evidence he was linked to ISIS, other than a general desire to kill people. The shooter was born in America of Afghan parents, AKA "not Syrian" AKA "possibly not even the same branch of Islam as ISIS."

At any rate, we know exactly how to greatly reduce the "crazies with guns" problem, which is uniquely American. The answer is to reduce the number of guns available and make them generally harder to get. Of special interest is to reduce the number of high-capacity semiautomatic rifles and pistols. These weapons make it entirely too easy to go from a 4-person shooting to a 24-person shooting.

I'm personally and generally against banning these weapons, and any ban would have to involve a buy-back. Having said that, we have two choices - mass shootings or reductions in guns. I suspect that sooner or later a gun ban will happen. This is the nation that wrote a Constitutional amendment banning booze.

Trivial

I continue to have good luck with weather, having been able to get all my tasks done yesterday while avoiding driving in snow. I'm going to a New Year's Eve party tonight - it's a new to-me venue - so we'll see how successful it is.

Serious

I've stated before that I think the US has a violence problem, not a gun-control problem. I've also stated that this is due to income disparities. Well, Josh Marshall thinks it's a cultural problem.

To over-simplify, 17 of the top 20 countries in the world with high murder rates are in the Americas. Also, US murder rates vary wildly by region. Louisiana is radically higher than anywhere else in the US. Josh's theory is that forced labor created a culture in which one doesn't go to the police. This is because the police aren't very interested in solving problems; rather they are interested in keeping the forced labor situation in place.

In the USA and Caribbean, the forced labor system was slavery, followed in the US by Jim Crow. In South America, the system was encomienda, which was basically serf-driven feudalism. Either way, the police weren't there to help people, they were there to keep them in their place.

Presented as food for thought.