Darwin and the Anarchist Prince

About five years after Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species, a young Russian army officer, Prince Peter Kropotkin, became involved in geographic and biological research in Siberia and Manchuria.

Kropotkin resigned from the Army in 1867, continuing to work as a scientist and also as a revolutionary. Even after arrest and incarceration in St. Petersburg's Peter and Paul Fortress, Kropotkin continued writing important scientific papers.

Later exiled in Western Europe, Kropotkin became prominent as an anarchist, though not of the bomb-throwing kind.

In addition to his activities in anarchist circles, Kropotkin continued writing on scientific subjects.

In 1902, Kropotkin published the book, Mutual Aid: a Factor in Evolution, based on his scientific research of four decades earlier. The conclusion of his book took direct aim at Social Darwinism's claims:

"In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense – not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay."
– Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), Conclusion


In other words, Kropotkin suggests that altruism, so denigrated by Ayn Rand and her followers, plays an important role in the success of the human species.

Interestingly, recent scientific research lends weight to Kropotkin's views. A recent book, Supercooperators: Altruism, Evolution and Why We Need Each Other To Succeed , by Martin A. Nowak, examines the issues. Here is an interesting review of the book.

Even conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks has reported in a recent column about research substantiating the importance of collective achievement as opposed to individual efforts.

The Great Commoner

A couple of weeks ago, Turner Classic Movies showed "Inherit the Wind," a powerful drama with Spencer Tracy as a fictionalized Clarence Darrow-like character and Frederick March as a fictionalized version of William Jennings Bryan.

The setting was the 1925 "Scopes Monkey Trial" in Dayton, TN of a high school biology teacher who taught his students Darwin's theory of evolution.

The drama presents Bryan as a narrow-minded religious fanatic. Bryan was, in fact, a fundamentalist Presbyterian who objected to Darwin's theories as contrary to the Bible. The movie's unflattering and inaccurate caricature of Bryan misrepresented a major source of the man's emotional opposition to evolution.

In a 1905 speech, Bryan objected that "the Darwinian theory represents man reaching his present perfection by the operation of the law of hate, the merciless law by which the strong crowd out and kill off the weak. If this is the law of our development then, if there is any logic that can bind the human mind, we shall turn backward to the beast in proportion as we substitute the law of love. I choose to believe that love rather than hatred is the law of development."

In other words, what had aroused Bryan's ire was the Social Darwinism that had made such claims.

While on the one hand, Bryan was a fundamentalist, he was also a theological and social liberal. He dedicated himself to the Social Gospel, an important school of religious thought emphasizing the need for Christians to serve their fellow man, including giving their lives to public service.

In a word, he believed in altruism.

Altruism and Politics

"Altruism ( /ˈæltruːɪzəm/) is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious traditions, though the concept of 'others' toward whom concern should be directed can vary among religions. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness." - Wikipedia

Altruism is central to the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and central to early Christian practices as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of Paul. Altruism is also central to Judaism.

The wealthy and powerful have never believed in altruism. Historically, they claimed immunity due to some variation of divine will. But usually the wealthy and powerful have been big on altruism by ordinary people.

Then along came science.

In the second half of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, the wealthy welcomed Darwin's theory of natural selection as expounded by certain popularizers ("survival of the fittest"). Social Darwinism was seen as providing scientific justification for why it was meet and proper for wealthy "robber barons" to have accumulated so much wealth. The 1929 crash of Wall Street rather tarnished this claim.

Ayn Rand to the rescue.

Rand (born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum in Russia in 1905), was an atheist novelist, playwright and philosopher who immigrated to the United States in 1926. A 1924 graduate of Petrograd State University in Petrograd, Russia (later Leningrad and now St. Petersburg), she developed a following in this country for her ideas, expressed in two novels and a series of "philosophical" writings.

In short, Rand's philosophy inveighed against altruism and in favor of "rational egoism," i.e. selfishness. She has many followers, prominently including Congressman Ron Paul, Senator Rand Paul, former chairman of the Fed Alan Greenspan, and more recently most adherents of the Libertarian Party and the Tea Party movement. Her particular talent was in "her ability to turn upside down traditional hierarchies and recast the wealthy, the talented, and the powerful as the oppressed."

The wealthy and powerful responded by adopting her right-wing romantic fantasies as their own, and pursuing them as a political program. Here. in their admiring view, was an intellectual underpinning to replace Darwinism as a justification for their wealth.

Perfection

"If the world was perfect, it wouldn't be."

Yogi Berra

No Shutdown, But We Still Have a Problem

The good news is that we apparently won't have a government shutdown (at least as of 10:39 p.m. April 8, 2011).

The bad news is that the result is a reduction in government spending.

The worse news is that the deal is based on a lie - that the Great Recession and resulting unemployment resulted from budget deficits and national debt. The assurances that reducing spending will bring back prosperity is worse than a lie. It is a destructive lie.

Reduced spending has the potential to bring our very weak recovery to a screeching halt and initiate a new round of economic decline.

I don't like to sound pessimistic. Under normal circumstances, the budget wrangling would be very important, but not dangerous.

After all, the key issue of any political dispute is "who benefits" and "who pays?"

That is the heart of politics. And it affects everyone's welfare.

Where were the deficit hawks when Reagan and Bush I quadrupled the national debt? Where were they when Bill Clinton left behind a budget surplus and a plan to pay off that debt within a decade?

Were they not listening when Dick Cheney asserted that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

Actually, no Democrat believes that deficits don't matter. It is just that there is a time to cut expenditures and a time to spend more.

If we want jobs, now is the time to spend more.

When the economy recovers, we need to reduce both public and private debt.

Euro vs. the Dollar

My graduate professor of international economics, George N. Halm, used to illustrate the phenomenon of runaway inflation (hyperinflation) by telling what life was like when he was a teenager in Germany after World War I.

Professor Halm's mother, a widow, lived on a government pension. Each category of pension was paid on a different day of the week, with widows coming on Friday. By Friday, the value of the pension, which was set on Monday, had dropped out of sight. Even so, he hopped on his bicycle, collected his mother's pension at the pension office and raced around town buying as many household necessities as he could before the value of the money dropped too much farther. The operative principal was to spend the money before it disappeared.

How could shopkeepers know how much to charge? They created an informal price index system. For example, the price of a haircut was indexed to the price of breakfast rolls each morning.

Clearly it was impossible to live that way, and understandably Germans remain paranoid about inflation.

Still, they overdo it. A modest amount of inflation allows price adjustments without triggering deflation. Because of the way the Euro zone was established, the interest rate for the zone is set by the European Central Bank, which is essentially the German Central Bank. They are about to raise the interest rate in the Euro Zone to make sure there is zero inflation in Germany, despite the high probability that this will destroy economic activity in several smaller countries.

It will also place added pressure on the US economy by, among other things, driving up the international price of oil.

Shutdown?

As of today (April 7, 2011), it looks like we are bound to have a government shutdown.

According to the polls, most Americans recognize that it is the Republicans in the House of Representatives, many of whom have never served in public office before at any level of government, who are driving toward this train wreck.

My concern is not just the adverse effect of a shutdown on my personal situation (my US Navy retirement check is likely to be delayed, and possibly my Social Security check), but more importantly the damage it will do to the economy.

In fact, I am disappointed that no one is explaining that any reduction in government spending is likely to bring our weak recovery to a halt and might even start another downward spiral.

The reason is that we are in a liquidity trap. I have explained this phenomenon before.

If I were of a mind to believe in conspiracies rather than mere incompetence, I would suspect the Republicans in Congress intend to wreck the economy and blame the president.

Cheney: "Reagan Proved Deficits Don't Matter"

How soon we forget.

Seven years ago, conservative think tanks and Vice President Cheney were arguing that deficits have no adverse effects on the economy.

Their arguments are summarized here in a 2004 Washington Post article.

What has changed?

For one thing, the real estate bubble collapsed in 2007, nearly bringing the economy to its knees.

For another, we now have a Democrat in the White House for Republicans to blame.

Why the Government Must Increase Spending

Managing the Federal Budget is not like managing a household budget.

Managing a state, municipal or county budget is more like managing a household budget, but none of these entities has either the responsibility or the capability of controlling the national economy.

The bottom line: given our current state of the economy, reducing federal expenditures will reduce jobs and bring the present weak recovery to a screeching halt.

Why is this so?

The federal government has two principal means of managing the economy:
a. Monetary policy, which is the responsibility of the Federal Reserve System (the Fed) and;
b. Fiscal policy, which is the purview of the elected political leadership.

It is the Fed that controls the level of economic activity by managing the money supply, mostly through indirect controls of short term interest rates and open market operations. If they are concerned about inflation, they work to contract the money supply by increasing interest rates. If the economy is weak, they attempt to stimulate economic activity by decreasing short-term interest rates, which have the greatest influence on commercial activity.

It has been the case for some time that short term interest rates have been essentially zero. That means the Fed is out of ammunition. When the short-term interest rate is zero, it cannot be lowered. Further increases in the money supply will be ineffective in stimulating economic activity.

A possible way to stimulate economic activity is to increase exports. That would likely require a substantial depreciation in the value of the dollar against major trading currencies. The Fed's only tool to affect the exchange rate would be to lower the interest rate. With a zero interest rate, that won't work, either. The other factor inhibiting exports is that our major trading partners are in the same boat as we are.

That leaves monetary policy. In other words, federal expenditures. We have no choice, unless the object is to further wreck the American economy. The only thing that has kept the economy from falling into a death spiral leading to another Great Depression is the safety net put in place in the aftermath of that catastrophe.

Unemployment insurance, for example, is not just of benefit to the recently unemployed - it makes sure laid off workers can continue to purchase the necessities of life. It is a subsidy to WalMart, Food Lion, Sears, and countless property owners who continue to be paid rent.

Food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare and other "entitlements" fall in the same category.

We would have more options for dealing with the situation had we not quadrupled our national debt under Reagan and Bush I and further increased it under Bush II.

We can't put that toothpaste back in the tube, but we need to foresee the consequences of doing what the Congress seems hell-bent on doing.

There is a name for the situation we are in. Economists call it a "liquidity trap."

Liquidity traps are rare. The first one we encountered was during the Great Depression. Recently, in the 1990's, Japan experienced a liquidity trap.

Gauti Eggertsson, an economist with the New York Federal Reserve Bank, has written a recent research paper reviewing the modern understanding of a liquidity trap. The paper (here) is highly technical. It even uses calculus formulas to make several points.

Don't be put off by the calculus. It is still worth reading.

Spring Has Sprung

Spring has finally arrived. How do I know for sure? Last Friday I watched the opening day game between the Washington Nationals and the Atlanta Braves.

Opening Day of Major League Baseball is a better guide to Spring than the vernal equinox.

On Growing Older

Received from a friend:

"Growing Older is Mandatory; Growing Up is Optional."

Is It a War or a Squirmish?

The former half-term governor of Alaska has apparently blessed us with another coined word.

Just as a reminder: the first United States military action against Tripoli began in 1801 and continued for the entire first term of Thomas Jefferson. We did not declare war, though Tripoli did. The only military forces we deployed in this First Barbary War were the Navy and Marine Corps.

Was that a war or a squirmish? For that matter, what do we call our two-year long conflict (1798 - 1800) with France under our second president, John Adams? Historians frequently refer to it as our "quasi-war" with France. Is a quasi war something like a squirmish? Both words have a "qu" in them.

From the beginning of our republic in 1788 until after World War II, we have often dispatched the Navy/Marine Corps team abroad to deal with crises, many times for extensive, protracted engagements. We never declared war in any such case.

March 8, 1965, my ship's guns (I was Weapons Officer of USS Higbee (DD-806)) stood by at Danang, Viet Nam, to provide gunfire support (if needed) for 3,500 Marines who went ashore there. These were our first combat forces, later reinforced by another 20,000 Marines.

Had our intervention remained at that level, using the Navy and Marine Corps, we would probably have been better off.

Twenty years later, using the Navy/Marine Corps team was no longer an option. Not that they couldn't have handled Panama and Grenada just fine, but the policy of the day required that it be a "joint" operation, whether needed or not. So the Pentagon jumped through hoops to find something for the Army and the Air Force to do.

Let's not go down that path in Libya.

Inherently Safe Nuclear Reactors

A few days ago I mentioned that China is proceeding with an inherently safe nuclear reactor design called the "pebble bed" reactor.

Today's New York Times has an article with details and illustrations of the design here.

But China isn't putting all their energy pebbles in one basket. They are building more conventional reactor designs and moving ahead vigorously with other energy alternatives as well, including wind and solar.

A further benefit of the pebble bed reactor design is that it operates at much higher temperature than the boiling water reactors like the ones in Japan. The higher temperature is not only more efficient for generating electricity, it may also be used to produce vast quantities of hydrogen - sufficient for fueling automobiles. This could free the automobile from dependence on petroleum, while abolishing exhaust pollution. When you burn hydrogen, the only waste product is water.

Critics of each of the above approaches often complain that "[fill in the blank]" isn't the answer. China seems to say, "no problem - we'll just try them all."

Who do you suppose has the best chance of leading the way into the world's energy future?

Why Not Declare War?

Earlier today I watched talking heads debate whether President Obama exceeded his authority by committing US forces to military operations in Libya.

This is a continuation of what seems a perpetual argument over executive authority and the provision of the US Constitution granting Congress the authority to declare war.

The contention that the president must get a declaration of war before commencing military action is as bogus as the contention that the Second Amendment grants individuals the personal right to own firearms. In fact, there is a long-forgotten connection between the two provisions of the Constitution.

Since 1798, the United States has intervened with military forces in overseas conflicts or potential conflicts about 250 times. The US Navy History Center provides a partial list here. Of those conflicts, only in five instances did the United States issue a declaration of war.

Our first armed conflict overseas was our quasi-war with France from 1798 to 1800. The action was mostly at sea, but we landed naval and marine forces on some Caribbean islands of France.

Our second overseas military action was the First Barbary War (against Tripoli) from 1801 to 1805. ("From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli....")

So why was there no congressional declaration of war in either of these two conflicts, both undertaken under presidents who were founding fathers? The answer is so simple and obvious, you may think it can't possibly be true.

From the beginning of the American Republic, we had two military departments: the Department of the Navy (including the Marine Corps) and the War Department. If the military action required significant forces from the War Department, there was a declaration of war. If it could be handled by the Department of the Navy by itself, there was no declaration of war.

There was a logic to this. From our founding in 1789, Americans had a deep distrust of standing armies. We based our defense policy on state militias consisting of "the people" trained to bear arms - or at least all white males aged 18 to 45 years. All members of the militia were required by federal law to provide uniforms, weapons and powder at their own expense. Procedures were first spelled out in the Militia Act of 1792.

One of the purposes of the first federal census of 1790 was to determine, state by state, how many citizens there were of military age.

With a small standing army, the only way to mobilize for an expeditionary force was to call up forces from the state militias. A formal declaration of war laid the foundation for such a call up.

This was done for the War of 1812, the War with Mexico, the Spanish American War, World War I and World War II.

Now we have a large standing army and a national guard integrated with that standing army into the "total force concept." The struggle against a large standing army, reflected in the Second Amendment, has been lost. Is it time to rethink our constitutional arrangements for defense?

Radiation is Scary - But It's All Around Us

Like most folks, I've been watching the TV reports of the disaster in Japan. I'm in awe of the courage and persistence of the nuclear plant workers. They didn't give up, despite the hazards, and they seem to be gaining the upper hand. And the populace hasn't panicked.

What about those face masks so many Japanese are wearing? They won't do any good against gamma rays, but they can be very effective against alpha particles. You don't want alpha particles to get inside your body.

Does all this mean we must abandon nuclear power?

No.

How hazardous is nuclear power?

Today's Dot Earth blog on the New York Times site addresses the issue of "Dread to Risk." The article is worth reading. The most interesting link is to a chart comparing radiation dosage in various circumstances. It shows, for example, that eating a single banana exposes one to more radiation than living for a year in the vicinity of a nuclear generation plant. Living near a coal powered generation plant exposes you to three times as much radiation as living near a nuclear plant. Take a look at the table.

The risk is low. But clearly not zero in case of a major disaster such as an earthquake and tsunami.

The present disaster in Japan is a result of the 40-year old design, which requires a very complex cooling system with backups.

What this suggests is that we should investigate other types of nuclear reactors. The most dangerous kind of reactor is the graphite moderated reactor of the Chernobyl variety. Next most dangerous are the boiling water reactors like Three Mile Island and like those used in Japan. A better reactor type is the pressure water reactors like many of our newer reactors.

All of these reactors require intact and functional cooling systems to insure safety.

China is moving ahead with an ambitious plan to mass produce an inherently safe reactor design, known as a pebble bed reactor. There are other candidate designs that will not overheat and explode if cooling fails.

It is past time to invest in safer designs.

One thing to remember: there is no risk-free way of producing and using the large amounts of energy needed for modern civilization.

Each year, about 2500 Americans die in residential fires. Many of these happen in winter and result from use of kerosene heaters.

Let's put our hazards in perspective.

Japanese Serenity

It has been 45 years since I lived in Japan.

Much has changed, but much remains the same.

Forty-five years ago, it was not clear that Japanese would accept nuclear power.

What was clear even then was the ability of Japanese society to pull together.

American newspapers write of panic in Japan. As I watch the coverage, I see no signs of panic. Everyone is going about their business with purpose, and the purpose is to help each other.

It reminds me of Reinhold Neibuhr's Serenity Prayer:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

On, Wisconsin?

My high school fight song was sung to the tune of "On, Wisconsin!"

That was probably appropriate, since many if not most of my teachers and many students were from Wisconsin. Probably because of the climate, since my High School was in Anchorage, Territory of Alaska.

It was sixty years ago in Anchorage that I discovered The Progressive, founded by Wisconsin Senator Robert M. LaFollette in 1909. When I encountered the magazine, I was impressed that it pulled no punches in attacking the controversial issues of the day. I was also impressed at the magazine's dedication to democracy and free speech. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin was a frequent target.

I don't remember ever subscribing, but I would pick up the latest copy whenever I saw it at a news stand. The articles were always thoughtful, probing and perhaps a bit edgy.

It hasn't changed a lot.

To get a flavor of it, check it out here.

Maybe it's time I subscribed.

Brains, Education and Jobs

My favorite economist, Paul Krugman, has just begun to address computerization and its effects on employment. Today's column addresses the "hollowing out" of the distribution of jobs. He includes an interesting graph comparing job distribution by skill level in the 80's the 90's and the first decade of the current century.

In a nutshell, mid skill level jobs are disappearing. In the past decade, so are jobs at the higher skill level. In another post, he shows how the ratio of pay for college graduates compared to high school graduates stabilized more than a decade ago.

If your children and grandchildren want an occupation with a reliable future, they need to find something that isn't easily replaced by computers and can't be readily outsourced offshore. Crafts such as plumbing, cabinet making and welding might be good candidates.

Computers and Lawyers

About three weeks ago I called attention to the effect of computerization on jobs in my post at:
http://mile181.blogspot.com/2011/02/robotics-and-economics.html

Today the New York Times reports on the ability of computer software to replace entire platoons of lawyers with software in complex litigation cases. The article here explains how new advances in software allow firms to screen vast volumes of computer files for relevant documents responding to discovery requests. The impact is substantial. In some cases provided as an example, five hundred attorneys can be replaced with a single attorney.

Experts familiar with the developments suggest that the effect will be that in the future there will be fewer legal jobs, not more. Similar effects are being felt among loan and mortgage officers and tax accountants.

Ironically, computers are also replacing computer engineers who once worked designing computer chips. In fact, unemployment in information technology leads the list of fields tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in unemployment.

The bottom line: the United States economy is being “hollowed out.” New jobs are coming at the bottom of the economic pyramid, jobs in the middle are being lost to automation and outsourcing, and now job growth at the top is slowing.

The only thing left to do seems to be to replace the financial manipulators at the top of the pyramid with software.

Let them look for a job.

Census and Elections

The Census Bureau has just released additional data for local jurisdictions in North Carolina. The data for municipalities is posted on the North Carolina League of Municipalities web site. Below are population figures for municipalities in Pamlico County, along with voter registration numbers for each municipality (from Pamlico County Board of Elections):

	2010 census	Voter Reg
Alliance	776	469
Arapahoe	556	330
Bayboro	1,263	519
Grantsboro	688	459
Mesic	220	154
Minesott Beach	440	408
Oriental	900	870
Stonewall	281	187
Vandemere	254	200

The Country Is Broke?

Are we really broke? Some of my recent posts on the economy make reference to "starve the beast" and other efforts that have been pursued over a sustained period. The obvious goal was to increase the power and wealth of the powerful and wealthy. It seems to be working, to the detriment of everyone else.

Today's New York Times has a different (and clearer) take on the same process here. It is worth reading.

What's the Hurry?

A local media outlet described the pending amendment to Oriental's Growth Management Ordinance as including "a provision to grant automatic rezoning approvals."

This is not completely accurate. In fact, the draft amendment to GMO Article XV would apply to any amendment to any provision of our zoning regulations, not only amendments to the growth management map. It would apply to changes in setbacks, for example, to height limitations, to density provisions or any other zoning rule. The proposal would provide automatic granting of any application for any amendment if the Board of Commissioners fails to take final action on the application within 95 days of their first meeting to consider the application.

What's the hurry?

The good news is that the Board of Commissioners has returned the draft to the Planning Board.

Zoning - On Getting It Right

Oriental's March 1 meeting of the Board of Commissioners decided to send the present draft amendment to the Town's Growth Management Ordinance back to the Planning Board for further work.

This is one of those times it seems best to make the effort and take as much time as necessary to do it right. The issue under consideration is how to proceed with amendments to the Town's zoning ordinance.

There seem to be no urgent projects on the horizon at present. The Board has apparently decided it is more important to get it right than to rush forward.

Good decision.

Zoning in Oriental

And now for some local news.

Last Tuesday evening, at the request of the Oriental Town Board of Commissioners, the town Planning Board recommended some changes to the Growth Management Ordinance, Article XV, Sections 230 - 237 (Amendments).

Some of their recommendations, if adopted, will fix things that need to be fixed.

Some won't. Accordingly, I oppose the present draft.

The proposed draft is on line at the Town of Oriental web site. The agenda packet can be found here. Click on "proposed amendments."

The impetus for amending the GMO was last year's application by developer Sylvan Friedman to change the zoning of a residential (R-3) parcel he owns on Midyette Street to MU. The public hearing (required by law) and action by the Town Board were delayed three times (twice at the request of the applicant). The application was opposed by neighbors during the public hearing. The neighbors submitted a formal petition opposing the measure, thus establishing a requirement for an affirmative vote by three fourths of the Board.

Because of the delays, the Board failed to act within the 65 days required by the GMO, thus effectively denying the Friedmans' request. Some Board members expressed the view that the failure to act should be deemed an approval.

The planning Board recommends extending the period to 95 days from first consideration of the request and changing the rule to stipulate that failure of the Board to act constitutes approval.

There are some who believe the applicant deserves a timely response from the Board. This misses the main point. It's about the public, not the applicant. As the GMO explains: "The Town Commissioners shall not regard the advantages or disadvantages to the individual requesting the change, but shall consider the impact of the proposed change on the public at large."

Other than requiring a public hearing before any amendment is adopted and requiring a three-fourths vote in event of a valid petition opposing an amendment, North Carolina General Statutes do not require the town to act in accordance with the opinions of the public voiced at the hearing. This is a political process - a legislative process, not a quasi-judicial proceding. That means it is not only proper but strongly advisable for Town Commissioners to seek the advice of residents before making a decision.

The public should expect Commissioners to take their views seriously. Accordingly, I believe any action deadline should be tied to the public hearing. For example, it makes sense to require that the Commissioners act within thirty-five days following the required public hearing. That way, the views of the public will be fresh in the minds of the commissioners.

Should the Commissioners be unable or disinclined to act within a deadline, the default position should be to maintain the status quo.

The public should not be penalized for inaction by a Town Board.

A One-Armed Economist

President Truman once complained about his economic advisers.

"They come in," he said, "and tell me 'on the one hand, this,' and 'on the other hand, that.'"

"What I need," he lamented, "are some one-armed economists."

Starving the Beast

So why did President Reagan and both Bushes follow a "borrow and spend" fiscal policy instead of making sure the national expenditures were paid for, as they could easily have done?

Because they didn't want to balance the budget. They wanted to follow the policy of "starving the beast."

Don't take my word for it - read the analysis by Bruce Bartlett, writing for Forbes.com.

Here is how economist Paul Krugman describes the scheme in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette.

Although the Republican Party has complained about deficit spending ever since the Great Depression, this was never previously a big deal with the GOP, with their predecessors the Whig Party, or with their original predecessors, the Federalist Party. In fact, President Washington, on advice of his Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, began his administration with an enormous deficit.

This came about when the Federal Government under the new constitution purchased at face value revolutionary war bonds issued by the states. This represented an enormous windfall for speculators who had purchased the bonds from original investors at pennies on the dollar.

The rule: millions to subsidize financial speculators, but not one cent for ordinary people.

This continues to be the policy of the GOP.

What offended Republicans about the New Deal was not the deficit financing, but to whose benefit the money was spent.

Democrats, on the other hand, have from the time of the Anti-Federalists and especially from the Andrew Jackson administration, opposed deficit financing. The reasons:
1. Government borrowing drives up the cost of credit for ordinary people;
2. Paying off government debt takes money from the pockets of the poor and transfers it to the rich;
3. Driving up the cost of money increases the cost of American products and reduces exports;
4. Government borrowing from foreign lenders makes us vulnerable to foreign interests;
5. Etc.

Only in truly extraordinary circumstances do Democrats support extensive deficit financing: the Great Depression and World War II are the clearest examples.

Six years ago, Paul Krugman exposed the whole Starve the Beast bait and switch scam.

Now they have extended the scam from the Federal level to the State level by making it impossible for Washington to provide enough stimulus money to counteract the reduction in state expenditures resulting from state constitution requirements to balance the budget. Earlier, Krugman described the dilemma facing the states and the implications for the national economy in his article Fifty Herbert Hoovers. The article is worth reading again.

They Hired the Money, Didn't They?

Commenting in 1925 on a proposal to restructure European war debt, President Calvin Coolidge said, "they hired the money, didn't they?"

The same might be said of New Jersey and, indeed, of other states, who negotiated labor agreements without setting aside sufficient funds to meet their obligations.

The details set forth in today's New York Times article, "How Chris Christie Did His Homework," makes it clear that for seventeen years, New Jersey did not set aside enough funds to meet the pension obligations to which the state had agreed. In the case of health care obligations, they set aside no funds at all.

This is hardly the fault of the unions.

In many cases, pension and health care agreements were negotiated in lieu of salary increases. In other words, the state said "you provide work for us now in return for future compensation" and signed on the dotted line.

They hired the money.

Did the state negotiate in good faith? If so, the failure to set aside sufficient funds reveals sustained incompetence. If not, what do we call it? A confidence game?

If You Lived Here, You'd be Home by now

Years ago, when we lived in the big city, downtown developers tried to lure home buyers with signs for commuters that said, "If You Lived Here, You'd Already Be Home."

I think of that every time some pundit talks about how urgent it is to reduce the deficit. The last President to successfully reduce the deficit was Bill Clinton.

In fact, according to CBO projections, if G.W. Bush had continued the Clinton policies, we would have not only reduced the deficit, we would have paid off our national debt by now.

The last previous presidents who reduced the deficit were Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson.

Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt during his tenure. By the end of George Herbert Walker Bush's administration, the debt was four times as great as at the beginning of Reagan's term. At the end of Bush I's term, the debt equaled 66% of the Gross Domestic Product. By the end of Clinton's term, it was down to 56% of GDP.

How would you like for the country to have zero debt right now? We'd have much better fiscal options, wouldn't we?

Instead, by the end of George W. Bush's term, our debt had risen to 83% of GDP, and we were in the midst of the greatest recession since the Great Depression. In fact, had it not been for the safety nets put in place after the Great Depression, we could easily have had an even greater depression.

But let's get one thing straight - the national debt didn't cause unemployment. Nor did it cause the great recession - mishandling of private debt and financial misfeasance did that. And so far, the national debt hasn't caused any inflation.

Now is absolutely the wrong time to balance the federal budget, thus reducing aggregate demand and stifling what little recovery we have going.

Once we get back to near full employment, though, we need to pay down the public debt and drastically reduce private debt. We won't be able to do that without getting back to making things instead of just making deals.

To get there, we need to reward the thing makers and take away special rewards for financial manipulators.

Why Rush to Reduce Deficits?

A good article in Slate Magazine calls for politicians to do a better job of explaining why deficit reduction is so important.

The author, John Dickerson, repeatedly points out that the public is more interested in jobs. He says neither party has explained how reducing the deficit will get them jobs.

There's a really good reason for that.

It won't.

In fact, reducing the deficit, which is a good idea in the long run, will kill jobs in the short run.

If so, John Boehner said today, "so be it."

Let them eat cake.

A Well Regulated Militia - the Regulations

In case you wondered what a "well-regulated militia" looked like, here is the governing law and regulation, passed by the Congress May 2, 1792 and amended in 1795.

The Militia Act of 1792 required all white males of the age of 18 to the age of 45 years to serve in their respective state militias. Detailed regulations passed May 8, 1792 stipulated the organizational and rank structure and spelled out what equipment was to be provided by each member of the militia at his own expense.

It makes interesting reading.

Those of you anxious to exercise your Second Amendment rights - this is what it was about.

Robotics and Economics

Ninety years ago, the Czech journalist and author Karel Capek introduced the word "Robot" to the world in his play, "R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots)." Isaac Asimov expanded the concept in his I, Robot books.

A staple of science fiction of the forties and fifties was the question of how society might cope with the circumstance created if robots with a wide range of capabilities were to replace humans in routine or even challenging jobs (as did HAL in "2001, Space Odyssey").

We are now there. We get our money from robots (ATM's), we send robots in to fight fires where no human could survive, we use robots to do surgery, dispatch software robots to search the internet, and even use robots to fight our wars.

This is just the beginning.

This Wednesday, IBM will pit its artificial intelligence system named Watson against two of the world's best Jeopardy players. Experts expect that Watson will win the contest. If so, it would be a demonstration of the amazing progress in artificial intelligence. To succeed, Watson will have to deal with puns, homonyms, and contextual ambiguities. (Update as of Tuesday morning: The first round of Jeopardy ended with Watson in a tie for the lead. Stay tuned.)

A different but also successful approach to use of computers to assist human intelligence is known as Intelligence Augmentation (IA). Google searches are a successful implementation of IA.

Economists have always held that increased automation creates as many new jobs as it destroys. That may no longer be the case (if ever it was). For the past few recessions, we seem to have had a "jobless recovery."

The usual suspect for loss of jobs is offshore outsourcing. It may be that another factor is increasing use of computers to perform tasks formerly done by humans. An additional influence is that high speed broad band internet makes it possible to transmit any information that can be digitized to offshore sites for processing. This is already done for widely diverse fields including accounting, law and radiology. Combining offshore outsourcing, robotics and high speed internet could be creating a perfect storm of economic restructuring.

The volume of such outsourcing is said to be small compared to the economy as a whole, but it probably already influences salaries by establishing marginal salaries above which companies will seek offshore solutions, thus keeping labor rates down.

Possible consequences include the fact that twenty-six percent of recent college graduates not going on to postgraduate education are unemployed. For that matter, many of those pursuing graduate degrees may be doing so because they couldn't find a job.

Fork in the Road

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
-Attributed to Yogi Berra

We at the height are ready to decline.
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
-Brutus speaking in Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (IV.ii.269–276)

Today's New York Times reports that the Obama administration had an internal struggle over how to respond to events in Egypt. Should they emphasize the need for an orderly transition (thus appearing to prop up an increasingly reviled dictator), openly push Mubarak out the door, or support the demonstrators by emphasizing the need for democratic reforms and for Egyptians to find their own solutions.

As always, the cautious old foreign policy hands emphasize stability. Don't rock the boat. Give him time. Orderly transition. Democracy is hard.

The problem is, the tide was already running. We were at the fork in the road. We had to "take the current when it serves" the cause of democracy.

There are always risks in international affairs. But when the tide is running, we have to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis. Jumping overboard is not an option. Even if the rudder is smaller than we wish and the wind is fickle.

Twenty-one years ago, a series of events similar to the past three weeks led to the dismantling of the Berlin Wall. Old hands (I was one) worried that German reunification might be bad for the rest of Europe and NATO. It could destabilize Europe. Despite decades of lip service to German reunification, the dirty secret is that none of NATO's member states wanted it to actually happen. But it soon became apparent it was impossible to prevent. Best get on with it.

In a similar vein, in the long run we're better off with Mubarak gone.

Do we believe in democracy or not? If we do, then let's support it wholeheartedly.

Be not afraid.

Egyptians: Not Subjects, but Sovereign

Today Egyptians took control of their own country.

This is as big as the day the Berlin Wall fell. A day to celebrate!

Tomorrow the work begins.

The Price of Civilization

An anonymous reader commented on my report on Pamlico County Economic Development as follows: "Just remember that government grants are other peoples taxes and they represent the forced redistribution of wealth."

I do.

I also remember Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s comment that "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization."

Contrary to popular opinion, wealth is not just an individual creation. It is also a creation of society. Those who would create wealth need social goods such as: roads, harbors, monetary system, collective defense, police, educated employees, banking, transportation, communications, protection for intellectual property, standard measurements, a level playing field (law and regulation), assistance in navigating through legal and regulatory requirements, and on and on. In short, they need the activities of government. These activities are funded through taxes. Tax collection is always coercive.

Our Revolutionary War forebears decried taxation without representation, not taxes in general. In fact, they had been governing themselves and collecting taxes for their own government activities for a century and a half before the Revolution.

There are those who believe the only proper functions of government are defense and public safety. The rest can be handled by the magic of the marketplace. Alexander Hamilton and George Washington (among others) knew better.

In the present case, the issue facing Pamlico County is whether modest support for a project to meet an important national military requirement, expand economic activity in the county and employ up to 1,000 of our citizens is a proper public purpose.

It is.

Egypt - the Abyss?

This afternoon we saw and listened to President Mubarak of Egypt talking down to the demonstrators as though they were children.

This is clearly not the case. Whatever happens in Egypt in the short run, Mubarak has the look of being on his last legs.

The times aren't favorable to dictators. The crowds gathering in the square in Cairo were reminiscent of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Velvet Revolution in Prague, the Rose Revolution in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia, the Solidarity uprisings in Poland, the Serbian ouster of Milosevich, the Green Revolution in Iran and countless other democratic movements of recent years, both successful and unsuccessful.

Winston Churchill once observed, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947) Mubarak has demonstrated to all and sundry the inherent weakness of authoritarian governments: there is no mechanism for making orderly adjustments to changed circumstances.

Egypt has changed greatly in the past thirty years. The government hasn't.

Whether they win this time or not, the demonstrators are right.

Pamlico County Economic Development

Last night the Pamlico County Board of Commissioners approved by a narrow 4-3 vote a request by the county's Economic Developer, Jayne Robb, to apply for a flex grant in the amount of $13,900. The grant would not cost the County a dime. The purpose is to fund a feasibility study to determine the suitability of certain land in the county for an algae-based biofuels production facility. The land in question is not suitable for other uses. The proposed project is envisioned to produce up to 80,000 gallons per day of diesel and jet fuel, and to provide employment for up to 1,000 persons.

The first public hint of the project was provided last month in the report to the commissioners of current activities of the Military Growth Task Force. Not explained in detail at either session was why the Military Growth Task Force would be interested.

In October of 2009, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus committed the Department of the Navy (which includes the Marine Corps) to energy reform. A major goal is to aggressively reduce the Navy Department's reliance on fossil fuels. Marines deployed to Afghanistan are already using alternate energy sources, including solar. Here is the Secretary's strategic approach to energy:
http://www.onr.navy.mil/naval-energy-forum/~/media /5EFD428CFEB0412391CC321DCAF67138.ashx

One of the first measures the Secretary of the Navy took to put the policy in effect was to conclude a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of Agriculture:
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=50710

The use of algae to produce fuel has the following advantages:
a. It can use land not suitable for agriculture;
b. Does not affect fresh water resources;
c. Can be produced using ocean or brackish water or wastewater (BRMSD take note);
d. Algae are biodegradable and relatively harmless if spilled;
e. Can yield 10 to 100 times more energy per unit area than other biofuels;
f. USDOE estimates enough algal fuel to replace all petroleum fuel can be generated using less than 1/7 of the area currently planted in corn;
g. No net generation of carbon dioxide.

Here is a Scientific American article explaining some of the issues and possibilities:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=algae-biofuel-of-future

Why Pamlico County? One measure the Navy and Marine Corps are taking is to identify as many local sources as possible for everything they need, including fuel. This not only reduces transportation cost in general, it reduces the use of fossil fuels. Using a local source of algal fuel for jets would therefore kill two birds with one stone.

The projected output is modest compared to petroleum refineries. It would take about 25 similar algal oil production facilities to equal the fuel output of a small refinery. Even so, the facility would provide enough fuel every day to support 80 sorties of fully-loaded combat fighters. That would make a big dent in Cherry Point's fossil fuel usage.

This is a project that deserves our support.

Remember the Soviet Union?

In the past few days there have been a number of comments criticizing our intelligence community for not predicting the events in Tunisia and Egypt.

The criticism is unfair. As Yogi Berra once said, "it's difficult to make predictions, especially about the future."

More to the point, we have excellent technical means to collect some kinds of intelligence, but we lack a mind reading capability. Even if we had a machine to read minds, it would be of doubtful use against people who have not yet decided what to do.

There is also a fundamental, unresolved conflict between the intelligence community and decision makers. The conflict: who gets to evaluate the intelligence?

The arrangement: policymakers get to evaluate intelligence. They are the consumers. They get to tell intelligence professionals what to look for (collection requirements). The professionals are producers. Because there is so much raw information, professionals have a role in selecting and editing what they present to decision-makers, but evaluation is in the final analysis done by those responsible for plans and policy.

This became a problem in December, 1941, when the Navy's Director of Plans and Policy, RADM Richmond Kelly Turner, overruled the Director of Naval Intelligence over what information to provide to the Fleet Commander at Pearl Harbor, RADM Husband E. Kimmel.

After the attack, Kimmel was fired and Turner was promoted.

The world isn't always fair.

Since then, the list of "intelligence failures" is a long one. One of the largest was the failure to anticipate the demise of the Soviet Union.

No heads rolled.

On Bearing Arms

Yesterday's New York Times entry in its "Disunion" series looking at events 150 years ago leading to the Civil War is based on diary entries by a Virginia slave owning farmer, Daniel W. Cobb.

Cobb, a barely literate secessionist, seems to have had misgivings about what was to come. Though he supported secession, one of his main concerns was personal: “I am with in a fiew months of 50 Years of age, they cant make me Bare [sic] armes.”

In 1861, this barely literate Virginia farmer clearly understood what present day elected officials and Supreme Court justices have forgotten: soldiers bear arms, not civilians.

Voter ID

The new Republican legislature in Raleigh seems anxious to implement photo ID for voters. Since Pamlico County has had only one case in the past five years of attempted fraudulent voting (an unsuccessful attempt by a journalist seeking a story), I put this in the category of a solution in search of a problem.

We may have a few challenges with voting procedures, but fraudulent voting isn't one of them.

This proposed solution to a nonexistent problem will also be costly to implement. And with the best intentions, such a system will inevitably discourage some eligible voters to participate.

I want to share the below article by Kris Kromm of the Institute for Southern Studies:

SPECIAL REPORT - Voter ID laws carry hefty price tag for cash-strapped states

By Chris Kromm

In 2010, Republicans campaigned on the issues of jobs, taxes and the economy -- and with states still reeling from scarce jobs and tight budgets, GOP leaders have pledged to keep that focus.

In North Carolina, incoming House Speaker Rep. Thom Tillis (R) opened the 2011 session this week by putting wrist-bands on the desks of every house member that said "Think Jobs" -- the same ones he gave to GOP candidates last fall, with instructions to snap them if they ever wandered off-message.

But as state legislatures have opened for business over the last week, GOP lawmakers have begun not by pushing bills focused on jobs, but for measures that would require citizens to show photo identification while voting -- laws which, among other controversial features, will end up costing states tens of millions of dollars to implement.

GOP leaders have introduced voter ID bills or plan to in Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin. In Texas -- which faces a budget shortfall of over $10 billion -- Gov. Rick Perry (R) went so far as to declare voter ID a legislative "emergency" to fast-track the bill.

All the bills have sparked controversy. For one, there's scant evidence that voter impersonation at the polls -- the one kind of fraud that ID laws address -- is a big problem. The bills are also viewed by Democrats and voting rights advocates as deeply partisan, given studies that show the elderly, African-Americans, Hispanics/Latinos and other constituencies are most likely to not have the needed ID cards.

But at a time when states face staggering budget shortfalls, the biggest problem facing voter ID bills may be that states simply can't afford them.

An effective, full-scale voter ID program can easily end up costing state taxpayers $20 million or more -- the three-year price tag officials estimated in 2010 for a program in Missouri. For most states, such a costly program would be a suspect luxury in ordinary times; it's nearly impossible to justify in in today's economic crisis.

Among the costs that cash-strapped states face from voter ID laws:

* VOTER EDUCATION: State officials agree that voter ID laws require major publicity and education efforts to avoid voter confusion and make sure legitimate voters aren't turned away at the polls. In 2010, Missouri estimated it would cost $16.9 million [pdf] for TV, radio and newspaper announcements and other outreach to the state's 4 million voters.

* WHO PAYS FOR I.D.? Studies show that up to 11% of citizens don't have a photo ID. Forcing voters to buy cards has made states the target of lawsuits claiming such costs amount to a modern-day poll tax. To solve the problem, many states now issue free ID cards, but it's expensive: In 2009, Wisconsin (3.5 million voters) projected a total $2.4 million cost [pdf]; Missouri estimated $3.4 million [pdf].

* IMPLEMENTING VOTER ID: Voter ID laws generate dozens of new costs for state and local officials: accommodating longer lines at DMV offices, updating forms and websites, hiring and training staff to handle provisional ballots for those who don't have ID on Election Day. In 2009, Maryland estimated it would cost one county over $95,000 a year [pdf] just to hire and train precinct judges to examine IDs of voters. With local governments already cutting programs and staff to the bone, states will likely need to appropriate millions of dollars each year to help cover these new expenses.

While high, these figures may not even fully capture the full costs of a voter ID program. For years, state leaders have been hiding or low-balling the budget impacts of voter ID measures, presumably to help get them passed amidst bitter partisan controversy.

A Facing South analysis of the fiscal notes, or cost estimates lawmakers are required to submit with proposed bills, in five states* finds that lawmakers routinely failed to budget for essential elements of carrying out a voter ID law, including informing voters, administrative costs, hiring and training staff and other necessary expenses.

In other cases, state budget estimates have noted the expenses, but blithely said they would be "absorbed" by existing state and local agencies. When Georgia signed its amended ID bill into law in 2006, lawmakers infamously didn't even include a fiscal note [pdf] with the bill, even though the state admitted counties would need at least $1 million for equipment alone. In 2009, Texas officials similarly tried to side-step the costs, making the astonishing claim that their program would have "no significant fiscal implication to the State."

Such budgetary sleights-of-hand may have worked in the past, but they're unlikely to be accepted by officials today as they are asked to slash budgets and lay off core staff at every level of government.

In short, the more honest state officials are about what's needed to implement a voter ID program -- and the less they try to push those costs off onto already-struggling agencies -- the higher the price tag.

Given the much bigger problems facing states today, is the GOP's voter ID crusade really something they can afford?

* Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas and Wisconsin

State of the Union

During the President's State of the Union address last night, I was struck by the following passage:

"Thirty years ago, we couldn't know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution."

Actually, Al Gore did.

Here is how Wikipedia summarizes Al Gore's efforts in support of modern technology:

"Gore was one of the Atari Democrats who were given this name due to their "passion for technological issues, from biomedical research and genetic engineering to the environmental impact of the "greenhouse effect." On March 19, 1979 he became the first member of Congress to appear on C-SPAN. During this time, Gore co-chaired the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future with Newt Gingrich. In addition, he has been described as having been a "genuine nerd, with a geek reputation running back to his days as a futurist Atari Democrat in the House. Before computers were comprehensible, let alone sexy, the poker-faced Gore struggled to explain artificial intelligence and fiber-optic networks to sleepy colleagues." Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn noted that, "as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication.

24 Jun 1986: Albert Gore introduce S 2594 Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986.^[51] As another example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises."

As a Senator, Gore began to craft the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill") after hearing the 1988 report Toward a National Research Network submitted to Congress by a group chaired by UCLA professor of computer science, Leonard Kleinrock, one of the central creators of the ARPANET (the ARPANET, first deployed by Kleinrock and others in 1969, is the predecessor of the Internet). The bill was passed on December 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII) which Gore referred to as the "information superhighway."

The truth is, without Al Gore's efforts, it is possible that the Arpanet, the Defense Department Project that became the Internet, would never have been opened to commercial use.

Second Amendment: What Was It Really About?

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance).

The legend is that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution granted individuals the right to own firearms. In fact: that wasn't the issue at all; the right was a collective one, not an individual one, and it is best understood as the "Anti Redcoat Amendment," though no one called it that. It is worth remembering that the Constitution was drafted a mere dozen years after British Army regulars marched on Lexington and Concord to take custody of or destroy the powder, cannon and other military supplies of the well-organized and trained New England militia.

For the past weeks, the nation has been enthralled by the dramatic events in Tucson - the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords, the killing of bystanders, including a federal judge and a nine-year old girl, and the question of what to do to prevent future incidents.

The almost universal observation by commentators is that we can't regulate guns because of the Second Amendment. Politicians compete to express the strongest support for "our Second Amendment rights."

In two recent 5-4 Supreme Court decisions, the Court determined that the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" is a personal right.

So what was the "original intent" of the Second Amendment?

A good place to look might be the North Carolina ratification resolution. A North Carolina convention met from July 21st to August 4th 1788 and adjourned without either ratifying or rejecting the proposed Constitution. After ten other states ratified, the convention reconvened November 21st, 1789 and ratified. The convention appended to the resolution of ratification twenty declarations of rights and twenty-six proposed amendments. Several paragraphs of the declaration of rights as well as proposed amendments addressed issues later incorporated in the Second Amendment. These paragraphs make the original intent perfectly clear:

"DECLARATION OF RIGHTS....

"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to Liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

[This passage, drafted by delegates opposed to the draft Constitution, makes it perfectly clear that the passage on bearing arms reflects opposition to and suspicion of a standing army.]

18th. That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the Laws direct.

19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

[This curious declaration makes it clear that "bearing arms" is something soldiers do. Otherwise, why call attention to those "religiously scrupulous" of bearing arms and make provision for such persons to pay for others to "bear arms" in their stead?]

"AMENDMENTS

"IX. That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the members present in both houses.

[Another clear indication of opposition to standing armies in time of peace, unless the need was so obvious that it was supported by a super majority of both houses of Congress.]

X. That no soldier shall be enlisted for any longer term than four years, except in time of war, and then for no longer term than the continuance of the war.

[Another provision intended to limit the ability to form standing armies except in wartime.]

"XI. That each state, respectively, shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining its own militia whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service in time of war, invasion or rebellion: And when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties, and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own state.

[Intended to limit federal power over state militias.]

"XII. That Congress shall not declare any state to be in rebellion without the consent of at least two-thirds of all the members present of both houses. "

[Now we get to the point of all the provisions concerning the bearing of arms: give "the people" the right and powers to rebel against a repressive federal power. Presumably a rebellion supported by at least a third of of the members of both houses of Congress would thereby become legitimate.]

It is very instructive to read the North Carolina debates over ratification of the Constitution.

The most vehement opponent of ratification was Delegate Lenoir. He voiced his darkest suspicions that the proposed government might become oppressive, emphasizing opposition to a standing army in time of peace and postulating the need for a militia to defend the people against a repressive government.

Federalists countered, arguing in favor of a standing army, asserting "We must [either] trust our friends or trust our enemies."

Delegate Lenoir:

"A constitution ought to be understood by every one. The most humble and trifling characters in the country have a right to know what foundation they stand upon. I confess I do not see the end of the powers here proposed, nor the reasons for granting them. The principal end of a constitution is to set forth what must be given up for the community at large, and to secure those rights which ought never to be infringed. The proposed plan secures no right; or, if it does, it is in so vague and undeterminate a manner, that we do not understand it.

"My constituents instructed me to oppose the adoption of this Constitution. The principal reasons are as follow: The right of representation is not fairly and explicitly preserved to the people, it being easy to evade that privilege as provided in this system, and the terms of election being too long. If our General Assembly be corrupt, at the end of the year we can make new men of them by sending others in their stead. It is not so here. If there be any reason to think that human nature is corrupt, and that there is a disposition in men to aspire to power, they may embrace an opportunity, during their long continuance in office, by means of their powers, to take away the rights of the people. The senators are chosen for six years, and two thirds of them, with the President, have most extensive powers. They may enter into a dangerous combination. And they may be continually reëlected. The President may be as good a man as any in existence, but he is but a man. He may be corrupt. He has an opportunity of forming plans dangerous to the community at large.

"I shall not enter into the minutiæ of this system, but I conceive, whatever may have, been the intention of its framers, that it leads to a most dangerous aristocracy. It appears to me that, instead of securing the sovereignty of the states, it is calculated to melt them down into one solid empire. If the citizens of this state like a consolidated government, I hope they will have virtue enough to secure their rights.

"I am sorry to make use of the expression, but it appears to me to be a scheme to reduce this government to an aristocracy. It guaranties a republican form of government to the states; when all these powers are in Congress, it will only be a form. It will be past recovery, when Congress has the power of the purse and the sword. The power of the sword is in explicit terms given to it.

"The power of direct taxation gives the purse. They may prohibit the trial by jury, which is a most sacred and valuable right. There is nothing contained in this Constitution to bar them from it. The federal courts have also appellate cognizance of law and fact; the sole cause of which is to deprive the people of that trial, which it is optional in them to grant or not. We find no provision against infringement on the rights of conscience. Ecclesiastical courts may be established which will be destructive to our citizens. They may make any establishment they think proper. They have also an exclusive legislation in their ten miles square, to which may be added their power over the militia, who may be carried thither and kept there for life. Should any one grumble at their acts, he would be deemed a traitor, and perhaps taken up and carried to the exclusive legislation, and there tried without a jury. We are told there is no cause to fear. When we consider the great powers of Congress, there is great cause of alarm. They can disarm the militia. If they were armed, they would be a resource against great oppressions. The laws of a great empire are difficult to be executed. If the laws of the Union were oppressive, they could not carry them into effect, if the people were possessed of proper means of defence."

Ratification Temporarily Blocked

Delegate Lenoir and his fellow Anti Federalists succeeded in blocking ratification by North Carolina in 1788. By 1789, however, ten other states had ratified. North Carolina reconvened the Constitutional Convention for a short session and passed the following resolution:

"IN CONVENTION

Whereas The General Convention which met in Philadelphia in Pursuance of a recommendation of Congress, did recommend to the Citizens of the United States a Constitution or form of Government in the following words Vizt.

Resolved, that this Convention in behalf of the freemen, citizens and inhabitants of the State of North Carolina, do adopt and ratify the said Constitution and form of Government. Done in Convention this 21 day of November 1789.

SAM JOHNSTON, President of the Convention

J HUNT Secretaries

JAMES TAYLOR"

FDR's Children

I had the good fortune to be born into FDR's America.

It was a time of depression - the year I was born was the beginning of the second dip - but it was also a time that working people pulled together. If a family had a roof over their heads, that roof was available to anyone else in the family, and also friends. "Just make me a pallett on the floor" was more than just a line from a song. It was the way people lived.

If someone had a plot of land, he shared the produce with others. We helped each other at harvest time. If your field caught fire, all the neighbors came with wet gunny sacks to beat it out. If the school gym needed a new floor, we all worked together to install it.

People who needed a ride just stuck out a thumb. Often as not, a complete stranger offered a ride.

It isn't that we were naive. We knew the world was a dangerous place. But we didn't let ourselves be intimidated.

At Sunday School and in church, ministers and leaders of all kinds emphasized a Christianity dedicated to helping others. Even the "hard shell Baptist" church in my rural Oklahoma community focused on the parable of the prodigal son, the Sermon on the Mount, the sayings of Jesus calling for the abandonment rather than the pursuit of wealth. Such passages were often quoted, and incorporated into the religious and public morality usually referred to as the "social gospel."

In the past half-century, though, something has happened both to religious and public morality. The acrimony in political and other public discourse has taken a vicious turn. Can't we just get along?

Maybe not.

At least we need to have a clear understanding of what the struggle is about and what is at stake. In today's New York Times, columnist Paul Krugman attributes the acrimony to the struggle between two moralities.

If Krugman is right, we are not faced just with a lack of politeness. This isn't just a "family squabble." It is a struggle over who we are.

Those of us who remember FDR were born into a world where adults worked together to alleviate suffering, to defeat fascism, and to build a prosperous future free of fear and want. Those of us born during FDR's twelve years in office never had a war of our own. WWII and Korea belonged to our fathers and older brothers. Vietnam belonged to our younger brothers. We imagined a world at peace, or at least free of major wars.

We need to recapture that vision.

The Undead Past

"The past is never dead. It isn't even past." William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun.

I recalled Faulkner's words as I listened to commentators observing that "never before" have we had such a level of vitriol in our public discourse. Not exactly.

When H. Rap Brown observed that "violence is as American as cherry pie," he was telling the truth. The list of violent political acts is long. And there is ample evidence that vitriolic public discourse sometimes motivates individuals to violent acts.

Blogger Nate Silver in his New York Times blog "Five Thirty Eight" asserts that political assassinations are rare in this country. He arrives at his conclusion by using what I view as a very restrictive definition of assassination. His calculations are based on killings or attempted killings of elected officials.

A more complete picture should recognize that there are many targeted killings that are political in nature, though the victims were not elected officials. Can there be any doubt that James Earl Ray's killing of the Rev. Martin Luther King was an assassination and that it had a political purpose? Similarly, the 1964 murder of civil Rights workers Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney by sworn law officers in Philadelphia, Mississippi, had a political purpose.

In both cases, I don't see how the acts of the individuals who committed these crimes can be separated from the vitriolic public discourse over integration.

There are many other examples from that era.

The perpetrators of many of these murders plainly believed that they had the support of fellow citizens of their states. They understood and acted on coded messages they were receiving from public officials, political candidates and prominent citizens.

The problem of balancing protection of free speech with protection of public safety has been with us since the beginning of our republic. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. attempted to strike the right balance when he observed that the First Amendment doesn't protect the right of a person to falsely shout "fire!" in a crowded theater with the intent of inducing panic. There has been a lot of such shouting, intended to arouse fear on the part of the public, in recent years. Harold Meyerson's column in today's Washington Post provides a useful summary.

Earlier this week, The New York Times published a worthwhile discussion of related issues. Here's another thoughtful comment.

We don't know if the Tucson killer was aware of what was being said in the public arena about political controversies or whether such utterances influenced him in any way. But we know that such influences have existed in the past.

Political discourse arouses passions. The issues are often very important to individuals, groups and society as a whole. Passion is often a good thing. But we also need rational, dispassionate discourse about problems that need to be solved.

We should all avoid personal invective and demonization of our opponents.

The Constitution

Fifty-seven years ago, I raised my right hand and swore to "defend the Constitution of the United States....against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

I was seventeen years old. I had actually read the Constitution before I took that oath. Not only that, when I asked my high school civics teacher, Mr. Mowery, about the Federalist Papers, he lent me his copy and I read that as well. So I already knew of many flaws in the original Constitution. I knew that the Bill of Rights, intended to correct some of the flaws, had been opposed by the Federalists.

By the time I took the oath again almost four years later, I had studied Constitutional Law and learned that it isn't enough to read the Constitution and marvel at the eloquent language. One must pore through nearly two centuries worth of opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States. What the Constitution means in a particular case may not be immediately obvious to the casual observer. Nor, often, do the justices completely agree.

The idea that our elected representatives in the U.S. Congress might be so unschooled in our Constitution that they need to have it read to them, struck me as ludicrous. Possibly harmless, but still absurd. Shouldn't they have read it before taking their oath?

I have now taken that oath, or some variation of it, nine times. I have also read more widely in American History and reflected more deeply on the strengths of the Constitution.

It seems apparent that our founding fathers were deeply divided along regional cultural lines. New England Puritans, Pennsylvania Quakers, Cavaliers of Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas and Scotch Irish of the uplands despised each other.

The Constitution was negotiated to establish rules of engagement by which to manage the inevitable conflicts of interest and attitude that the colonists had brought with them from the old country as well as some new conflicts developed here.

Key to these rules of conflict management has been the use of the ballot rather than bullets to determine policy.

It hasn't always worked that way, but it is our job to do our best to resolve conflicts peaceably, not violently.

That's what the Constitution is about.

Captain Honors

What could Captain Honors have been thinking when he produced the now notorious sex video and broadcast it to the crew of USS Enterprise during his assignment as Executive Officer of the ship?

What could the Navy have been thinking to select him subsequently as commanding officer of Enterprise?

A ship's commanding officer, executive officer and department heads are expected to provide adult supervision. This requires a certain degree of dignity and decorum, especially in public. Captain Honors fell far short of that standard. The whole episode is reminiscent of "Tail Hook."

Admiral John C. Harvey, Jr., Commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command, brought adult supervision to the situation by relieving Captain Honors of his command. It shouldn't have been necessary. Admiral Harvey is trained in nuclear propulsion and served on USS Enterprise as a young officer in the Rickover (no-nonsense) tradition. He also is an expert in personnel assignment policy, a former Chief of Naval Personnel, and a surface warfare officer (another no-nonsense career field).

Captain Honors crossed horns with the wrong admiral.

Disunion

The New York Times is carrying a marvelous series of articles providing a day-by-day account of the events of 150 years ago leading up to the Civil War. They plan to carry us through the entire conflict.

I recommend everyone read the series as it appears. A way to make sure you get every episode, is to sign up through Facebook. Here is an internet link to the series.

One thing comes through loud and clear: the Civil War was about slavery.

In case you were wondering - my direct ancestors who bore arms during that conflict fought for the Confederacy. Some of their relatives fought for the Union.