The Founding Fathers didn't have pistols or assault rifles

I grew up in the South, bird hunting and all that stuff. Yeah, it's a part of the culture - in that many rural homes will have a shotgun or two and maybe a single shot hunting rifle.

Any gun that you can conceal on your person or get more than three shots off without reloading is a person-killing device. I'll say it - I don't think handguns should be available to the general public, let alone assault rifles. If you think having a mass-murder machine is part of your regional or national heritage then you're wrong. In the 1780's you could get off a shot every 15 seconds if you were a fast reloader.

P.S. - If you're worried about the federal government dominating you then demand more transparency in its operations and accountability from its officials. You're not going to beat it militarily, not even with a well regulated militia. 

Kim Davis

Since around 1995 - maybe before (I know, I know 1861) - the current unholy, unconservative, unrepublican coalition on our country's right political wing has rejected the legitimacy of government whenever government processes - elections, laws, judicial rulings - don't go their way. Government shutdowns, Clinton impeachment, Obama birth certificate fiasco, and then this nonsense: I can't imagine someone being dumb enough to cite the First Amendment in defense of failing to execute their duties as an elected official but now I don't have to.

Kim Davis clearly didn't feel that the Rowan County Clerk's office was, to quote Kennedy's 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a "great office that must" not "be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group."

If I remember correctly, those Houston Protestant Preachers were worried about Kennedy carrying the Pope's water. What's strange about today's brand of pan-Protestant-evangelicals is that they don't know whose water they're carrying. In lieu of a Pope they heed a miasmic echo chamber of politico-religious hucksters, nuts and verses whose incoherence is a model for its adherents. The Vatican knew it all along: If you let Kim Davis interpret the Bible it'll mean whatever the hell she wants it to.

What should a Good American value?

I saw a picture of a friend displaying markers of Orthodox Jewish piety. It made me think: he has notions of what it means to be a good Jew. I have other Jewish friends who have largely different notions of what it means to be a good Jew. But there is some overlap. And they are serious about being what they define as a good Jew and not letting Jewishness fade away. 

What quality might define a good American? What part of our national fabric - of Americanness - should we not let fade away? 

I think that a Good American must value freedom of expression. Even when it makes us uncomfortable or even feel unsafe. 

Because, for one, this value makes Americans different. Jews have ancient traditions and heritage that defines them. Americans don't have that. We are a new people, a new type of people even - a people lacking a genetic or geographic heritage. (In my experience, Europeans find it strange when Americans say "I'm Italian" or "I'm Scottish." But, unlike many Europeans, Americans have genetic/geographic origins that are independent of their state of citizenship.) 

If Americans continue to let people say what they will and believe what they will as a fundamental value, we will continue to be different. Because allowing that to happen is so unnatural and unprecedented. It goes against the grain of human tendency. It is natural for society to suppress unpopular ideas and voices.

Regarding freedom of expression as the fundamental, cornerstone value has a unique protective effect for a good society. It is a dogma that protects against dogmatism as the basis for oppression. It disallows regime-sponsored punishment of heretics, a common feature of every oppressive regime I can imagine.

A cultural shift is underway in this country in which freedom of speech is slipping as a keystone value. A walk through a college campus might illustrate this. Speech and speakers are being suppressed on the grounds that it makes certain people feel uncomfortable or unsafe. 

The students on these campuses, and everyone else, must realize that the free circulation of ideas is essential for a healthy academy, just as the free circulation of blood is necessary for a healthy body and the free circulation of money is necessary for a healthy economy. 

Valuing freedom of speech as an American is not just the continuation of a tradition. It is partial maintenance of the Enlightenment-era spirt underlying this country's creation, Constitution and political identity. If we wish for our oft-invoked Founders' beliefs to remain relevant to our national character, we should maintain freedom of expression as a paramount value. As someone once said, it's the First Amendment for a reason. 

Hobby Lobby

This ruling is not a disaster but rather the extension of one: Citizen's United and its establishment of corporate personhood under the Constitution. This case, supported by the same five justices as in Citizens United, will not have great precedential power. I hope and expect that Citizens United and corporate personhood will be discarded by the Supreme Court in my lifetime.  

Balls and strikes?

"I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat."

- From John Roberts's opening statement in his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 2005

“Essentially,” [Justice Stevens] wrote, “five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.” Roberts, as a fifth vote (let alone the Chief Justice), had the power to keep the ruling of Citizens United narrow if he so chose. He chose otherwise: to dismantle the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act while overruling a 2003 case upholding the law and a 1990 case underlying this.

Citizens United says a lot about Chief Justice Roberts as a jurist, but it says more about him as a man.

A problem with school

I was speaking to someone who succeeded financially by inventing an interesting product. I mentioned my decidedly mixed feelings about my educational experience and he noted with conviction that "grades in school reflect obedience as much as they reflect knowledge." I don't know if obedience is the right word but I basically agree. In addition to not disrupting class, there's a more fundamental ability to not just perceive the points that the instructor is trying to make but to adopt their mindset in some way. This ability to perceive and adopt a mindset when necessary is a way to succeed but it is also a trait that facilitates and disposes towards bullshitting as described by Harry Frankfurt. Such bullshit has poisoned our discourse, turning statements into markers for being in a group rather than building blocks for ideas that can be advocated or defended. 

From the phone to the revolving door

Gail Collins illustrating the process behind much of our current political dysfunction:

Once politicians get to Congress, they become acquainted with people who are truly rich. That’s pretty much a necessity because re-election is something else you cannot generally buy for a million dollars. Suddenly, they’re hanging out with folks who have private jets and four houses.

Eventually, many lawmakers begin to feel as though they are making an enormous sacrifice by holding public office for $174,000 a year. And then they’re off to a D.C. law firm or lobbying job, which will pay them huge salaries for knowing the people they know. It will never occur to them that if voters had not given them that stint of public service, they would be processing divorce cases back home in East Cupcake.

My take: