perfidy

International treaties that have been given the thumbs up by the senate have the force of law - they are not part of the constitution, any more than a regular statute is part of the constitution. A simple senate vote could pull us out of the Geneva convention (not that we should.) There is some debate on how treaties should be interpreted, and that is a matter for the supreme court - but there is no question that a treaty can not invalidate part of the constitution itself. The ICC treaty would violate the fourth, among others. No treaty could remove the right to bear arms. 

International laws of war, with the exception of the Geneva convention, are rather amorphous. And the Geneva convention deals largely with issues of POWs and the like. There are no treaties, just precedents, and arguments.

The general militia is not the first line of defense. The Constitution provides for an Army and a Navy. If some foreign power can fight their way through that, (hard to believe) *then they'd have to deal with the general population, half of whom own guns. Would you want to attempt to occupy a nation where half the people own guns and don't like you? Even in hellholes like Somalia and Afghanistan, gun ownership is not that prevalent. The general militia is the last line of defense, just as it was in colonial times. (Though more often called into action then.) It is the last line of defense against foriegn invasion, and against domestic tyranny. Of course, the first lines of defense are free press, free speech, elections, democratic institutions, the constitutional amendment process, and the general habits of living in a free soceity.

Doctors' orders-- no blogging for me until my wrist heals. Crud.

I will leave you for the short term with this: Buckethead, explain how a handgun ban would violate the 2nd Amendment's militia clause (clause? it's the whole thing), especially if such a ban explicitly excluded hunting rifles and shotguns. If I'm gonna defend my home, a nice boom-stick is the way to go. I understand I'm stirring the pot a bit (a bit??) here, but I've been doing some heavy thinking about this recently and I'd like to hear Buckethead's defense of the liberal interpretation of the second amendment.

In-teresting. Joshua Micah Marshall has discovered that the transcript of the Paul Wolfowitz interview linked to below by Buckethead is, well, less than complete. He has isolated at least one exchange that was left out of the Official Compleat Version. Huh. Without resorting to wild-eyed conspiracy-mongering, it does raise the question of whether other portions were left out. Fact check that ass, Joshua! Fact check that ass!

Insta-man notes that the Guardian has taken down from their website the story about Wolfie, and notes elsewhere that they were quoting from a translation from German of Wolfowitz' original English remarks. While not exactly a retraction (unlike the Powell/Straw meeting-that-wasn't), the Guardian no longer is posting the story as news.

Well, looks like I was wrong about what Wolfie said, or at least about the context and intent.

Buckethead-- yes, we do want our politicians to talk policy. However, we also want to have the cake too. As my crony Bridget pointed out, Wolfie has been acting recently like a diplomat speaking to diplomats in private, when he should probably be speaking like a politician.

I seem to have heard of this Harry Potter person. English, is he? Some sort of mystic?

Regarding Bush & co., I don't think he's much of a liar, which seems to be a common charge against him. (See what I did there? That was dry-witted understatement-- a clever writing device. I'm trying to use more of those. This digression is another one. Thank you, Mickey Kaus!) Bush has been remarkably consistent and on-message throughout his campaign and Presidency. The closest he comes to lying is handing down unfunded mandates (education, AIDS) for programs he talks up but doesn't really care about (I kind of have a problem with that. It's mealy-mouthed.). My big problem with Bush is that on the whole I don't agree with his outlook, most of his policies, or most of his leadership decisions not related to kicking Taliban ass.

Not coincidentally, I'm going to a meeting of Howard Dean supporters tonight.

...to jump to conclusions. I would be interested in seeing the complete transcript. The Guardian mentions that recently Wolfowitz was quoted as saying, "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction." The transcript shows that the actual quote was,

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." (emphasis mine.)

Wolfowitz continues,

"there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two."

Not quite what the Guardian, and others, have tried to make it out to be. I would not be surprised to find that something similar was happening here.

[Moreover] The administration has been very clear about aims, and reasons, throughout this whole thing. The only thing that they obscure is actual plans, which would be foolish and irresponsible to reveal.

You mean, it really was all about the oooooil?

Geez.... Wolfowitz is on a kick...

[moreover] Look. I don't give a damn whether the war was really about oil, Barbie Dolls, or what. A tyrant is gone, yippee-ki-ay. However, I do feel that the folks in charge weren't as forthright as they could have been about all this. This kind of thing is doing us huge damage in the international scene. And while not every nation needs to be our friend, we can't go it completely alone, either. They're about to string Tony Blair up over there, and he's our number one homie! If that's how Bush leaves his friends to be treated...

In the comments to Mike's post, Judson accuses me of being a clueless suburbanite. Yes, I now live in an almost crime free neighborhood. And no, I would not choose to move to Mike's neighborhood, or to Anacostia in DC. But I have lived in bad neighborhoods. When I lived in Columbus, there were gun fights in the alley behind my house. A sixteen year old was killed in a drive-by at the stop and rob on the corner half a block from my front door while I lived there. And when I lived there, I had a gun. I would have recommended that everyone in that neighborhood get a gun. But personal experience is not the only justification for having an opinion, or why bother to have a civilization?

Relaxing gun restrictions will not have any effect on how many guns are in the hands of criminals. Criminals, being criminals, do not care about gun laws. Law abiding citizens, being law abiding, do. When you relax the laws, you allow the good people to own guns. In Virginia, no one has ever had a Concealed Carry permit revoked for using their weapon inappropriately. In Florida, out of thousands of permits, I believe two have been revoked - and one was revoked because the permit holder committed a non-violent felony, and had his permit pulled. Law abiding citizens do not shoot people just because they have guns. If they did, we would all be dead, because half the households in this country have guns. 

American society is not one of the most violent in the world - we don't even make the top ten in the industrialized world. (Study by University of Leiden, in the Netherlands.) England, at the top of the list, has a violent crime rate that has skyrocketed over the last decade. Which, coincidentally, is how long they've had a total ban on gun ownership. Then, think of the third world - Sudan, Congo, Sierra Leone, and the like. We are completely non-violent in comparison. (Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Everyone there is legally required to own not just a gun, but assault rifles.) 

I do not approve of violence. I think it is a terrible thing, as any sane man would. Of course it is the last resort. But the purpose of putting guns in the hands of citizens is to deter violence from criminals with guns. Arming citizens would do nothing to increase violence - they have no desire to commit crimes. I have two guns, but I am not about to go out shooting someone because of the evil influence of my guns. Only if they came into my home, or threatened my family, would I even consider using them. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no requirement to protect people. Mostly, they clean up the mess after a crime has been committed. I don't want to wait for them. While a gun does not offer perfect safety, it certainly increases my chances. And it certainly increases the chances for Mrs. Buckethead. 

It is our responsibility, as citizens, to create a safe society. And if we aren't armed, the gangbangers and thugs aren't going to listen to the sweet voice of reason.

Can you imagine what the founding fathers would think of federal taxation now. The taxes they saw as tyrannical were chump change compared to what we get saddled with. If someone lets you know a good work on that subject, pass it on to me. 

I am a law abiding citizen. Married, kid, dog cat, house, the very model of the upstanding citizen. (Now.) I have nothing to fear from the police. Yet every time I see a cop, I get a twinge of fear in the small of my back. Go figure.
 

John Lott, who wrote the book "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press) has studied the linkage between gun ownership, particularly in areas with shall issue concealed carry laws, and reduced crime rates. The more restrictive the gun laws, the higher the violent crime rates. Cities tend to have the most restrictive gun ownership laws, but not all cities. On the bad side, look at DC - which has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, or what has happened to crime rates in England since the complete ban on weapon ownership. "The counter-argument might be that homicides won't disappear if guns are removed, and will still be accessible if they are banned. I say give it a try." It has been tried, and criminals still have guns, and citizens cannot protect themselves. This policy is a failure. If people in your neighborhood were armed, adnd were able to defend themselves, the criminals (who are not completely stupid) would change their behavior. Where gun restrictions are relaxed, this is what happens. 

And that is merely the pragmatic argument. Mike, I'm surprised at you - you would forfeit your right to defend yourself? You would meekly wait for the police to arrest the people who kill or rob you, long after it would do you any good? Guns allow you to defend yourself from the thugs in your neighborhood - even many of them. Despite your formidable infighting skills, only a gun would allow you to face down five or six drug addled violent teenagers. 

[Moreover] You can have my Kimber .45 Semi-Automatic when you pry it from my cold, dead, hand. 
 

I'm opposed to gun ownership in general. Two years ago, my city had the highest homicide rate in the United States, and the vast majority of those homicides were committed with firearms. Last Saturday at 4:30 in the afternoon, there was a shooting right in front of my building. Literally half a foot from the front door of my building. I hear shots fired in my neighborhood at least once a week, sometimes more. I'm getting a little tired of diving onto the floor, and that doesn't help me if the first shot fired is the one that comes through my window. 

The counter-argument might be that homicides won't disappear if guns are removed, and will still be accessible if they are banned. I say give it a try. Everything else hasn't worked. I'm getting tired of living on my floor, and I'm getting tired of turning on the local broadcast news to see that another little girl was shot with an automatic weapon while playing in front of her home. 

Of course, banning firearms would still be a band-aid. People here in the inner city don't have equality of opportunity even. Many of them are stuck without an education and without jobs, certainly decent jobs that they can make enough to live on. Hence they turn to crime and gangs. Even with banned firearms, people will still engage in criminal behavior unless society adjusts and makes an effort to accomodate them with work and education. One of the things I like about my city college is that any number of my students are getting higher education where they might otherwise not, and a chance to make a better way for themselves. The problem is that only the tip of the iceberg even makes it into a city college classroom.

I've always hated that name. It has a whiff of fascism. Lileks has some thoughts on the topic of Rudolph - noting that now he's Eric Robert Rudolph, so he must be guilty. Lot's of other good stuff in there, including the filthiest joke ever broadcast. 

In my more paranoid moments, I share that visceral distrust of government. When I'm on my meds, that feeling makes me conservative - if you distrust the government, you want less of it. One thing that has continually puzzled me about the left is their fascination with government conspiracy theories, side-by-side with an unwavering faith that if we gave the government all the power, things would magically transform into the socialist utopia.

And speaking of distrust of government, that is why the anti-federalists insisted on the inclusion of the second amendment. The federalists didn't demurr, because they distrusted government too, just not quite as much. The armed rebellion of the founding fathers would not have been possible had not large members of the populace had guns. They understood that ownership of guns bred the kind of moral capacity that they wanted in citizens - the self reliant yeoman farmer concept. If you are responsible for your own defense, and that of your family, you are not a dependent of the government. Your are not a subject, you are a free citizen. It breeds independence as a mindset. 

Perhaps in Eric Rudolph, it bred a little too much independence. But there's always going to be wackos. Out of a quarter plus billion people, we have generated a few home grown terrorists over the last couple decades. Out of vastly smaller population, the Palestinians generate several a month. If fundamentalism has something to do with terrorism, we don't really have it here. 

[btw: Mike, do you personally not want to own guns, or do you believe that I should not own a gun?]

Mike, I was just illustrating that if class were the dominant pattern in our society, it would overwhelm other arrangements. Voting patterns are one way of seeing what a group of people feel are their interests.

I don't follow. What's the connection between class and voting?

Investors 

So I guess you're an equality of opportunity guy, I'm more an equality of outcome guy. I'm willing to leave it at that on an agree to disagree. 

India 

I'm of the opinion that imperialism is never benign. It always involves subjugating another people and reducing them to a sub-human status. That one form of imperialism appears more benign than another, to draw an analogy, is like saying "Well I shot this guy in the face, but I only knee-capped this other guy." But beyond that, the Amritsar Massacre alone indicates that British conduct on the Indian subcontinent, despite attempts by the Viceroy's office to distance themselves from the event, carried negative consequences for the indigenous population. 

Americanism 

I'm not responding to Judson because he can sit and spin. I'm responding to Steve. I don't believe in the freedom to bear arms. Yet I do believe in the freedom to arm bears. What happens to my citizenship? 

Teacher's Unions 

Well we're kind of on different pages on this one, since I'm in post-secondary education. Things are probably a bit different there, as are the unions. My first concern is always my students. I will gladly continue to teach at sub-minimum wage levels without a raise. When I worked at a certain Jesuit University that shall remain nameless, I personally opposed a TA walkout to protest budget cuts because I didn't want to leave students hanging, even a little bit. I honestly don't know what's going on with secondary education teacher's unions. But here in the city colleges, they're just trying to get a few more dollars for adjuncts, if possible. If not, I won't strike, I won't quit, I'll continue to give my best possible effort as a professor. It's all I know how to do (aside from playing the fiddle, I'm nearly competent with it these days) and it's all I've ever wanted to do.

Well, that is a tough one. America is an ideal. Americans are those who hold those ideals. They include, but are not limited to, the these beliefs: that we each have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that we all should have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to bear arms; in the idea that government exists to benefit the people, not the other way around; independence and self-reliance; in rule of law and that we are all equal before the law; and a generalized hatred of the French. Well maybe not the last one.

But that is the core of it. People who do not agree with the things on that list are, at least in some sense, un-American. I freely cribbed these concepts from a couple of pages I found on the IN-TER-NET. Check 'em out.

Mike, your description of the "open stratification system" seems to make a distinction without a difference. The extreme fluidity of movement between "classes" seems to render this concept somewhat irrelevant. There are no lasting voting patterns based on class - other breakdowns tend to explain voting better. For example, black voters vote overwhelmingly democratic, no matter what their income.

Nat from I Must Not Think Bad Thoughts, is back from his self-imposed exile (some would call it "vacation") in the American Southwest. He has left in our comments this thought in response to our discussion on Reagan/Thatcher's role in toppling the Eastern Bloc and ending the Soviet Union.

Hey, John--this is related to a subject from further down on the page related to Reagan et al and the Cold War. 

The weaknesses of the Soviet bloc economies did not develop until the mid 1970s. The period of detente allowed the communists countries to attempt to solidify some bases of popular support by introducing some elements of consumer production. Furthermore, they attempted to engage in more legitimate finance in order to gain loans from international banks. Correspondingly, these countries lowered their investment in arms production. However, they were always limited in their economic performance. Reagan et al took advantage of these NEW CIRCUMSTANCES in order to bankrupt the communist economies. 

My point: the necessary conditions for "winning the Cold War" did not exist before Detente. No American leader could have done what Reagan had done because the consumerization of communist economies had not yet occurred. Even conservative stallwarts like Kissinger were prepared to compromise with the Soviet Union in order to assure US survival. 

(see Kaser, Economic History of Eastern Europe, 3 vols, 1986.)

Well, then. Good point. Still, I can't really envision Jimmy Carter, Jerry Brown, or Walt Mondale going down the same road with any aplomb. Reagan did come from show business and timing, as they say, is everything.