A trailer is not a gun show!

I grew up on a country road outside the small town of Leesville, LA. At the entrance to the road was a trailer where a friend of mine used to live. Some time after he moved away, the trailer became “Bunn & Sons Gun Shop,” with a red arrow painted to indicate the “gun show” around back. Why was a gun show in continuous operation behind a trailer on my road?

I didn’t know it at the time, but it turns out that the “gun show” was a response to the Brady Bill, enabling Bunn & Sons to use a loophole in the bill to sell handguns without a mandatory background check. Now, since this was the rural south, folks would always complain about how somebody was trying to take away their 2nd amendment rights. What is the actual text of the 2nd amendment?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. – Bill of Rights, Amendment II

Reading these words, and interpreting them literally, it seems that the second amendment protects the right of the people to bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. While the NRA would like to delete the first clause of the Amendment, it defines the right in the context of a militia, as noted in this summary at Thomson Findlaw.

The courts have clearly decided that the right to own a tank, rocket-propelled grenade launcher, or even a sawed-off shotgun is not necessarily protected under the 2nd Amendment. In the US v Miller, 1939, the Supreme Court Justice McReynolds wrote,

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

Federal firearms regulations also regulate the sale and transfer of firearms through the aforementioned Brady Bill and other legislation. Until recently, they also banned an entire class of semi-automatic weapons known as assault weapons.

Back to Bunn & Sons, and their “gun show”: all Bunn may have been trying to do was increase his business by removing the hurdle of an electronic background check from the sales process. In a larger context, the NRA has fought to keep the private-sale loophole available, in order to eliminate the background check process where possible. But why is the NRA so afraid of background checks? They argue that the overwhelming majority of American gun owners are law abiding citizens; then why not subject gun sales to the same level of scrutiny placed on prescription drug sales? For better or worse, guns are a part of American culture, and European-style gun restrictions will not and should not take place here. But with the advent of instant background checks, is it too much to ask that we control gun sales at least as much as we control sales of heart medication?

Posted on by praveenghanta 1

Global warming is real; should you care?

There is little scientific dispute at this point that global warming is occurring, and that humans are causing some part of it, as even the Competitive Enterprise Institute (a conservative free enterprise think tank) is now willing to admit. The remaining question: just how big a problem is global warming, and what are the consequences if we do nothing? An Inconvenient Truth makes it appear that Florida will be underwater sometime soon if we sit idly by. Reality, at least as scientists currently understand it, probably lies somewhere between Al Gore’s doom-saying and CEI’s laughable slogan, “CO2: We Call It Life.”

Of all the potential effects of global warming, rising sea levels are thought to have the most catastrophic consequences. If the Greenland ice sheet or a large part of Antarctica really do melt, the resulting 20 foot rise in sea levels would destroy the majority of the world’s great cities and displace billions of people. But how long will a rise of 20 feet, or even two feet, take at current rates of warming and ice melt? Realclimate.org summarizes recent research here, wherein the most aggressive estimates indicate that Greenland’s ice sheet melting is increasing sea levels by up to 0.57mm per year. But if Greenland continues melting at that rate, it will take one thousand years to raise sea levels one foot!

Even an order of magnitude increase in ice melting would only cause sea levels to rise a foot by 2100. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report’s most aggressive estimate calls for a three foot sea level rise by 2100; this estimate includes significant ice melt. While this scenario has significant implications for coastal cities, it is not apocalyptic, and it also represents an outlier prediction compared to most climate models. It seems then that we should care about global warming in the very long term, but it is unlikely to have a significant impact during our lifetime. There are dozens of environmental and social issues that deserve greater present concern, including the AIDS pandemic and infectious diseases like tuberculosis and malaria, which continue to kill tens of millions annually.

At the same time, it wouldn’t hurt to take some simple steps to curb CO2 emissions growth. The CEI and others complain that it is impossible to curb CO2 emissions growth without hurting the economy. On the contrary, prudent shifts in government policy can reduce emissions while increasing growth. If the United States were to fund all highway construction with gasoline taxes, for instance, this would pass the costs of car travel directly on to the end consumer – which increases economic efficiency while decreasing emissions. I’ve written previously about applying the gas guzzler tax fairly, so that consumers are not rewarded for buying large SUVs instead of large cars. Finally, ending the huge subsidies to the oil, gas, and coal industries would make alternative energy more competitive, while saving taxpayers billions.

Posted on by praveenghanta 0

What to do with North Korea

It’s official: North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test this morning, defying warnings from the UN, US, and its neighbors. North Korea’s tested weapon was small by nuclear weapons standards, and its missile systems are inaccurate, but the test confirms that the world’s most dangerous weapons technology is now in the hands of Kim Jong-Il.  So what can the US and the world do now to prevent tragedy at the hands of a madman? Let’s review the options:

  1. The US could launch a preemptive air strike against North Korea to destroy its nuclear devices. If successful, this would almost certainly result in conventional war with North Korea. If unsuccessful, North Korea could nuke South Korea or Japan, killing millions.
  2. The US could try to cut off all economic support for North Korea. While the US may now be able to convince South Korea and Japan to cut off aid, China fears the collapse of North Korea and the subsequent flood of refugees more than the regime itself, and may agree only to token steps. If North Korea is completely embargoed, Kim Jong-Il might lash out in desperation.
  3. The US could begin a slow and orderly draw down of its troops in South Korea beginning next year, until no meaningful forces remain. This would leave South Korea to defend itself, with the understanding that if North Korea ever chose the nuclear route, the US would retaliate in kind.

Why is the last option most appealing? American forces in South Korea are now short-range targets for a North Korean desperation attack. By withdrawing our forces we would remove them from danger, while the US military would still have the capability to defeat North Korea should the need arise. Removing US forces also denies Kim Jong-Il the bogeyman he needs to justify his evil regime, weakening internal support for his rule.

If the US withdraws from the Korean peninsula, Japan, South Korea, and China will finally have to devise their own strategy for dealing with their bad neighbor. North Korea’s economy is in a death spiral; if these neighbors withdraw life support, the state will likely collapse. As long as the US is responsible for regional security, they have no incentive to make these tough choices. If we withdraw, North Korea’s neighbors may make the tough decisions, and resolve the problem on their own. On the other hand, if the situation destabilizes, we will have removed our soldiers from harm’s way, while placing confidence in our military’s ability to win a war if that becomes inevitable.

Posted on by praveenghanta 0

Detaining terrorists, or any foreigner?

The United States Constitution and its common law judiciary protect the writ of habeas corpus, a means by which an unlawfully imprisoned individual can petition for release from detainment. Habeas corpus is considered among the most important protections against wrongful imprisonment, so important that it is part of the main body of the Constitution, predating even the Bill of Rights. Why then did Congress attempt to take this right away from individuals living in the United States in the recently-passed bill on detainee treatment?

According to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Senate bill S.3930 (House H.R. 6166), “No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”

Non-citizens of the United States, including permanent residents, could therefore be held indefinitely by the government without ever being provided any of the rights we cherish here in the US. No right to an attorney, no right to a trial, nor even the right to be taken before a judicial body of any sort. If the United States government mistakenly designates a non-citizen as a terrorist, they could theoretically be held until death without having ever seen any aspect of legal or even military justice!

How does such a provision increase the security of the United States? If the government has evidence against an individual, why not allow that evidence to be brought before a judge, or even a military court, to decide whether continued detainment is warranted? If there is a need to temporarily hold potential terrorists before bringing them before a court, then why not establish a 90-day holding period? This would surely be Constitutional, and would enable the state to fight terror while preserving individual rights.

The current form of the Military Commissions Act is repugnant and un-American in its current form, and it is probably also unconstitutional. It is far worse to take away an individual’s right to contest detainment than it is to practice mock executions, forced nudity, and other forms of interrogation banned in the same Act. After all, the latter may humiliate, but do limited permanent damage, while there are few punishments worse than a life imprisonment without a conviction.

Posted on by praveenghanta 0

The Earth is not 10,000 years old

The evolution versus creationism debate has resurfaced over the last few years in the US, primarily as a result of numerous local school boards’ decisions to modify biology curricula to include more creationism-oriented education. Gallup polls conducted in recent years indicate that as many as 45% of all Americans believe in the that God created the Earth and humans within the last 10,000 years. This belief is particularly interesting since the science underpinning the geological age of the Earth is the same science responsible for much of modern technology.

One of America’s foremost strengths is its respect for individual beliefs and belief systems. If 45% of America wants to believe that the world is flat or that babies come from storks, that’s perfectly acceptable. Unfortunately, since technological advancement is founded upon a scientific understanding of the universe, a belief in the soundness of basic science is almost a prerequisite to further study in science and engineering fields.

The principles of radioactive decay that are widely used in geological dating are part of the same physics used to create the atomic bomb and subsequent nuclear devices. Do those who believe the Earth is 10,000 years old refute the existence of nuclear weapons, or deny that 15% of US electrical power comes from nuclear power plants? Perhaps modern medicine is also not of much interest to the young-Earth crowd, as radioactive isotopes and related electromagnetic phenomena are used there as well.

If a plurality of America doesn’t believe in the underpinnings of modern technology, perhaps it’s understandable why the US is falling behind other nations in its education of scientists and engineers. America’s long term position as the center of innovation is further threatened when individual and personal beliefs invade the science classroom. American scientists, engineers, and educators have to do a better job at making clear that without science, modern technology’s comforts cannot be had.

Posted on by praveenghanta 0

When the Saints go marching in…

Today a regular season game will be played at the Louisiana Superdome, and we Saints fans will be watching with excitement since our team is 2-0. Amazingly, the New Orleans Saints have issued over a thousand press credentials, in a sign that tonight’s game is about much more than football. Over $185 million has been spent to renovate the Dome and to erase the memories of the weeks following August 29, 2005.

The Saints’ return to the their home field and the relatively quick turnaround of the Superdome stands in contrast to the condition of many surrounding neighborhoods. While reconstruction has begun, most observers have been appalled at the speed of progress and lack of a cohesive redevelopment plan. But in individual instances, where the political will coalesced, significant progress has been made: in politics, New Orleans’ archaic systems of seven real estate assessors and two clerks of court are being consolidated, while in business the Port of New Orleans is back near 100% of pre-Katrina shipping volume.

The progress with the Superdome and the accompanying media frenzy will be good for New Orleans, and give it a chance to put a more positive image in front of viewers nationwide. To be sure, the rebuilding has just begun, and New Orleans’ familiar plagues of crime and corruption seem to have returned faster than most residents. New Orleans will likely emerge a smaller city; as one of the smallest NFL markets, the Saints’ long term commitment to the area remains an open question. But for one night at least (and hopefully all season!), the Saints will bring excitement and positive energy back to the city – and who can blame us Saints fans for dropping everything else to get caught up in it?

Posted on by praveenghanta 1

I want to be a Farmer

The Census Bureau has reclassified farmers and ranchers as management, with only farm workers officially classified as being in the farming, fishing, or forestry occupations. And according to the USDA, farm households earned 10% more on average than non-farm households. Farming seems like a great business to be in! But if farmers are doing so well, why do we pay them $30 billion per year in subsidies?

Over two hundred dollars in taxes per working American were paid to American farmers last year. On top of that, we protect our farmers from foreign competition in many markets, leaving the American consumer to pay double or triple world prices for commodities like sugar. Meanwhile, the average wheat farm receives twenty grand a year in direct cash payments.

It seems that we American taxpayers have been forking over extra grocery money so that farm management can earn above-average incomes! Proponents claim that American farmers are the most competitive in the world; why not let them compete, saving us on taxes and at the grocery store to boot? Reducing farm subsidies will end a cherished way of life, subsidy-supporters respond. If farming is so cherished as a traditional American way of life, then why does the Census report that only 0.7% of the population is involved in it? Most farm workers are Hispanic immigrants – so exactly what kind of “traditional farming” do farm subsidies mean to protect?

In international negotiations, the Bush administration, like others before it, has always tied reduction in our subsidies to reduction in other nations’ subsidies. Even absent EU cooperation, the US should move forward to slash subsidies and open agriculture markets. Altruistic motives notwithstanding, we should do this simply to save our taxpayers and consumers money.

If America were able to cut subsidies and open agricultural markets, it might just find another problem going away: illegal immigrants wouldn’t want so desperately to come to the US if they could sell us their produce from their home countries.

Posted on by praveenghanta 1

Why won’t anyone buy an American car?

Ford and GM, the two remaining US-headquartered automakers, remain mired in seemingly endless losses, and point to union compensation and health care costs as the sources of their problems. Toyota and Honda are doing quite well, by contrast, and have remained as profitable as ever. Ford and GM complain about costs, but they don’t mention that their competitors manufacture their vehicles either in Japan, Germany, or right here in the US – all high wage locations. Japan and Germany generally require companies to provide more benefits to workers than the US, hardly giving their car companies a cost advantage.

Might the problem be that Americans don’t want to buy American cars? Ford and GM have been steadily losing market share for years, a trend briefly halted by the SUV craze, but which has now accelerated as consumers look to foreign makers for efficient vehicles. Outside of the truck segment, Ford and GM simply don’t seem to have any products that anyone wants.

How did that become the case? Toyota, Nissan, and other foreign automakers do a significant amount of vehicle design for the US market here in the US. Does this mean that Ford and GM are incapable of hiring good designers? Many “foreign” cars like the Toyota Camry are now made in the USA; how then can there be such a perceived reliability gap between domestic and foreign car models?

Using the same talent pool, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and others have run circles around the Detroit club. It’s gotten so bad that the governor of Michigan is openly recruiting investment by foreign automakers. It’s not that Americans don’t buy American cars; they buy plenty of cars made in America by companies with Japanese (or German) owners. Perhaps this is just the case of two companies with terrible management, bloated bureaucracy, and glacial efforts at restructuring.

Unless you’re loyal to their brands, don’t despair over troubles that Ford and GM brought on themselves. Hey, chances are you’re driving an Accord by now anyway.

Posted on by praveenghanta 0

If you’re a Confederate, you’re not an American

Moving back to the South after living in the Northeast for many years, I immediately began to notice the far-increased number of Rebel flags aflight. Growing up in rural Louisiana, I honestly can’t remember seeing them that often. Now they seem more popular than ever, from the standard version down to purple-and-gold and other college-color-themed versions. I think many of those who fly the flag conflate it with both American patriotism and Southern pride, and it is that delusion I wish to address.

Confederates, I have a news flash for you: the Confederacy was the greatest threat ever faced by the United States of America, and by flying that flag you signal your disloyalty to the country of your birth. Many of you claim that it is a symbol of Southern pride and values, and indeed, the United States permits you the right to fly it and proclaim whatever meaning for it you wish. But historically, the Confederate flag regained popularity during the Civil rights movement, when it was placed atop the South Carolina statehouse and elsewhere in obvious retaliations against the cultural change taking place.

The Confederate flag was, and is, the symbol of a nation. By supporting that nation, a nation created expressly to maintain the practice of slavery, you show your allegiances are not with the United States of America. So for those who fly the CSA flag: you’re not patriotic Americans, you’re Confederates living in the past.

Posted on by praveenghanta 5

Another Immigration Post

I just saw a presentation by George Borjas, a Harvard economist specializing in immigration issues. His research seems to support the common-sense opinion on the effects of large-scale illegal immigration: it has some positive economic benefits, but it also redistributes wealth somewhat from poorer Americans to richer Americans. Since illegal immigrants compete for jobs mainly at the bottom of the economic scale, their arrival tends to increase the wealth of those who use labor (business owners and the upper-middle class), while decreasing the wages of unskilled Americans.

This is perhaps not very surprising, and refines my previous article’s view as to why illegal immigration has continued for so long: it has some benefits, and those benefits accrue primarily to middle and upper class Americans, who tend to vote at a higher rate than the poor. Only recently has the cultural backlash against Latinization reached a level necessary to unbalance the old equation and force immigration reform.

Though most of Lou Dobbs’ rhetoric is of little value, he is right on this: America cannot begin to have a rational immigration policy until it can control who immigrates.

Posted on by praveenghanta 1