New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, No. 20-843 (Supreme Court)

 (also general comments on gun control)

This decision deals with Second Amendment rights.  I have never owned a gun of any type, although I had a rifle assigned to me while in the military.  I shot that rifle several times at training sites, but never in combat.  Furthermore, I have never been a member of the National Rifle Association or any other group (other than the military) related to weapons of any type, nor am I a weapon collector. 

The above statement indicates that any support I provide to gun rights does not serve personal interests other than my general interests as a citizen of the USA.  However, in fairness, I note that I have been tempted to secure a gun because my worst nightmare is seeing one or more other people accosted and not being able to help defend them.  Such risks are increasing in our society and seem likely to continue to increase, with or without gun control laws.  I am not expert in these issues, but I am concerned.

This case builds on the outstanding 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision.

Our country has been, at least in some respects, increasingly unable to protect our citizens and in some cases has intentionally failed to protect citizens (e.g., during riots and afterward).  Yet some politicians have wanted to preclude citizens from protecting themselves.

It is relatively easy for people who live in gated communities or other safe places to preach disallowing guns, but people who live, work in, or travel through more violent neighborhoods can suffer serious consequences from such laws.  People intent on doing harm may find access to guns on the black market, by 3-D printing, etc.  They may attack in numbers and perhaps armed with non-gun weapons.  How can people defend themselves?

·        What about the single mother living in a drug-infested neighborhood (who has had the courage to call police about drug-pushers)?

·        What about the small business owner or manager with a cash register and inventory?

·        What about someone transferring cash to a bank?

·        What about a person who has been threatened?

·        What about a private security guard?

·        What about a vulnerable retiree or handicapped person?

·        Etc.

Some gun laws have been clearly too restrictive.  In Heller, the District of Columbia wanted to turn gun control into a total ban on guns or at least a nearly total ban on guns.  At least some of the above profiles reflect people who were forbidden to have a gun in DC.  When states create too high a bar for someone to justify bearing a gun, those same problems occur as with a ban.

Heller rejected the DC law.  As a result, it allowed people to retain guns in their home for self-defense.  In NY State Rifle & Pistol, the Supreme Court extends that right to concealed carry outside the home, permitting the state to restrict gun ownership in reasonable ways.  The Supreme Court said that the state could not require that a citizen provide adequate justification to get a permit; rather, the state had to demonstrate why a permit should not be granted or create reasonable boundaries, etc.

I’d certainly want to bar states from arbitrarily denying such licenses.  Requiring applicants to explain their need does not seem unreasonable to me, but clearly it has led to arbitrary denials.  The Court’s interpretation of the constitution seems clear and reasonable.

Justice Breyer’s dissent opined that the majority did not provide enough clarity as to permissible restrictions.  I would certainly have given careful attention to his comments in that regard.  So, I can’t be sure how I would have voted, had I been a justice on the Court.

Before reaching a conclusion on this case, I’d want to read the arguments as to whether the State has a compelling reason to abrogate a Constitutional right.

Semi-automatic weapons can be created through 3-D printing and that technique can also create high-capacity magazines that could circumvent limits on assault weapons, sears that could weaken control on fully-automatic firearms, and pistol braces that undermine limits on short-barreled rifles.

So, clearly, no matter what we do, we won’t end all gun violence.  Justice Alioto asked rhetorically “Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home?”  He also asked “And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.”  (We don’t know how many gun deaths would be avoided.  Unfortunately, a limited time trial won’t give us good information because the effectiveness of a gun law should increase over time.  A limited locale restriction may also produce weaker results than would be the case with a broader area of gun control.  What did NY do relative to people bringing guns across state lines?)

However, reducing gun violence is a worthy goal and gun control seems likely to help.  We must also consider other steps.

Proponents of gun control cite that we have a lot more gun murders than comparable countries with fewer guns.  That’s persuasive, but we could also make that same comparison two or three decades ago.  Did the excessive number of guns in the USA at those times result in similarly higher gun mortality in the USA?  I think a lot of cultural change issues have also contributed to the increase in gun murders, some of which politicians have contributed to.  (Politicians rarely question their own behavior.)  Again, the point is that some gun control laws are both reasonable and legal, but we should also seek other ways to reduce violence. 

This Supreme Court decision permits gun laws such as limiting ammunition and capacity; limiting licenses due to age or “for cause” reasons.  It allows requiring waiting periods, finger printing, background checks, training in gun management and laws, etc.  So, there is a lot that can be done.

Hunting and recreational gun use does not require rapid-fire automatic weapons.

I suppose there could perhaps be different standards relative to concealed carry vs non-concealed carry.  I’m not prepared to address that.  Concealed carry may be safer.

The more we limit places where guns can be brought, the more we’ll need secure gunports outside such locations, so people can disarm before entering.  I remember seeing such storage facilities commonly outside banks in European countries decades ago.

I worry about unlikely occurrences that would have major detrimental impact, particularly changes that would be difficult to reverse.  Throughout my life, others usually tell me that those societal, governmental, economic, etc. situations “could never happen here”. I retort that believing they could never happen here encourages us not to be vigilant, which ends up making them more likely.  It is a whole lot easier to lose freedoms than to regain them once lost.

Thus, I’m concerned that an autocratic government could subjugate our freedom.  Both the extreme left and the extreme right are threats in that regard.  Strict gun laws could make it easier for government (or organized crime) to impinge our freedoms. 

Jack van der Geest was a member of the Dutch underground during WW II (and he did much more; I STRONGLY recommend his book “Was God on Vacation?”).  One thing I learned from his book is that Queen Wilhelmina introduced gun registration in the late 1930s, explaining how safe it would make the Netherlands.  Shortly thereafter, the Germans rolled into the Netherlands, secured the list of registrations and went house-to-house knowing exactly what weapons to demand.  As a result, the Dutch resistance to the Nazis had no guns.  Of course, that reinforces my under-lying fear.  In fairness, I acknowledge that the Dutch have maintained strong gun control despite that history, and it has worked well for them since then.

I also acknowledge that even without gun control, it could be hard to defend ourselves for a variety of reasons.  Separation of Powers is a MUCH better defense.

As I am more comfortable with gun control when separation of powers is enforced, the current Supreme Court makes me more comfortable with gun control.  However, efforts to centralize power make me less comfortable with gun control laws.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/us/supreme-court-ny-open-carry-gun-law.html

https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-acts-scotus-ruling-invalidating-new-yorks-concealed-carry-law#:~:text=The%20New%20York%20State%20Senate%20passed%20legislation%20in%20response%20to,concealed%20carrying%20of%20a%20firearms.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

10 (Obvious?) Lessons to Learn from Russia’s attack on Ukraine

2025-03-30 update: The Trump administration continually sacrifices Ukraine's position prior to detailed negotiations with Putin.  If Putin appears to have "won", Putin and Xi and other aggressors will be emboldened.  Trump has rattled international confidence in the USA with his lies and by endorsing brute force to settle issues.  This will have detrimental long-term impact.  (It may be acceptable to allow Putin to "save face" internally, but President Trump's administration's wording has gone far beyond that.)

It is important to remember that the USA, as well as Russia and Ukraine signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14, 1994 in which Ukraine committed to full nuclear disarmament in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia.

2022-07-10 update (but not new thoughts).  2023-10-15: one new item regarding how Biden caused Putin to think he could attack Ukraine with impunity.  

We have not (at least not publicly) supported Ukraine in controlling its airspace or shipping routes nor in being able to strike points in Russia.  Perhaps surreptitiously, we have done so, which would be a good way to do it. 

I don’t think I have to explain the importance of air space and shipping routes.

If the Ukraine can't hit targets in Russia, the Ukraine can defend itself only by destroying its country and putting its citizens at risk.  Furthermore, there is little deterrence for Russia if their sites are safe.  And Russian citizens are less likely to understand what is going on if Ukraine can't hit Russian targets. 

The Ukrainians are not only defending themselves, they are defending many European countries.  We and Europe should help them win the war, rather than hamstringing them with likely increased Ukrainian casualties and compromised territorial integrity at the end.

Earlier I updated 4i, 10b and 10f.

Here are 10 lessons to learn from Russia’s wanton attack on Ukraine.  Unfortunately, we need to learn these lessons over-and-over again, which suggests that our education system, media and politicians need to improve significantly in this regard.

1. We believe what we want to believe; we must get out of our echo chambers.
2. “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  (Lord Acton, paraphrasing earlier statements by others.)
3. Nuclear proliferation must be resisted more forcefully.
4. To secure peace, it is important to project strength.
5. Short-term destruction of the coal, oil and gas industries is not a good idea.
6. Spending on guns vs. butter must be balanced.
7. CNN and media attention impact history while reporting it.
8. Democracies must band together to protect each other.
9. The USA is a good country, albeit with flaws that can be addressed.
10. Too little, too late is insufficient.

1.      We believe what we want to believe; we must get out of our echo chambers.

a.      This problem seems to be increasingly widespread and endemic.  We must seek alternate ideas and consider them respectfully. 

b.      Many Presidents and many media commentators misread Putin despite ample evidence (Chechnya; Georgia; Crimea I and II and continual statements about his intent to re-build the Russian empire).  They believed what they wanted to believe then.  Now they don’t want to believe/admit they were wrong, so they claim Putin has changed.

c.      Kudos to Madeline Albright for being an exception, admitting she was wrong to mock Mitt Romney in 2012 when he said “Russia is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe.”  Certainly, you could disagree as to #1, but President Obama, VP Biden and Secretary of State Albright skewered him for what appeared to me to be political reasons but may have been due to amazing, serious naïvete. 

d.      A friend suggested, prior to the invasion, that an agreement should be reached giving Russia the then-contested Ukrainian provinces.  When I objected that such an action would whet Putin’s appetite for further aggression, he dismissed my comment, saying the domino theory had been disproven in Viet Nam.  His comment makes no sense but was comfortable for him because it supported what he wanted to believe.  Saying that Viet Nam disproved the “domino theory” is like saying if a basketball player misses a shot, she will never make a shot.  Furthermore, the Viet Nam domino theory related to guerilla communist movements; I was talking about the actions of a bully.

e.      The “Speak Your Truth” movement started admirably, encouraging people to have the courage to speak up.  Alas, it morphed into encouraging people to tenaciously cling to distorted views, as whatever idea you might come up with was blessed as your “truth”.

f.       Throughout my life, I’ve heard people say “all human lives have equal value”.  But the overwhelming majority clearly don’t practice what they preach.  They are virtue-signaling, perhaps mostly to themselves.  I’ve asked people if their neighbor’s life is as important as their family’s life; if the life of someone across town is as important as their neighbor’s life; if the life of a person living in a far-away USA state is as important as the life of someone living across town; and if the life of someone in another country is as important as the life of a USA citizen.  Clearly almost everyone puts a higher value on some lives than others.  The Ukraine situation highlights that inconsistency:

                                          i.     Most people consider Ukrainian lives expendable to keep the rest of us from being exposed to the risk of WW III.

                                         ii.     The lives of Russian soldiers and the losses their families will grieve rate even less concern.

2.      “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  (Lord Acton, paraphrasing earlier statements by others.)

a.      See my earlier blog about the importance of Separation of Powers.  Sadly, too many of us support centralized power because they think it is more efficient and/or more fair or because they believe that centralized power will produce desirable political outcomes.

b.      As a young person, I strongly subscribed to the “more efficient and more fair” perspective, but I’ve learned that I was naïve in that regard.  Benjamin Disraeli said “A man who is not a liberal at 16 has no heart.  A man who is not a conservative at 60 has no head.” (Anselme Batbie is the first person documented to have made such an observation; George Clemenceau is another.)  I certainly have observed that the idealism of my youth, while admirable, did not lead to conclusions that would most benefit mankind.

c.      Term limits is an attempt to reduce this impact.  Although I appreciate the intent, I have a preferred approach.

d.      The idea of packing the Supreme Court is a cardinal example of undermining Separation of Powers.  It is one of many “slippery slopes.”

3.      Nuclear proliferation must be resisted more forcefully

a.      Please see my earlier blog in which I explained how our governments have encouraged countries to develop nuclear weapons.  If a country develops nuclear weapons, we offer huge enticements to discontinue.  The return on investment is attractive.  Meanwhile their military strength is recognized by other countries and their leaders can strut in local politics.

b.      Now, we’ve spotlighted that countries should never agree to surrender their nuclear weapons.  In 1994, the USA, UK and Russia convinced Ukraine to surrender their nuclear weapons in return for guarantees that they would not threaten Ukraine sovereignty.  Russia has now flagrantly broken that treaty.  The USA and UK position is that they have not violated the treaty and did not promise, in the treaty, to provide defense if a party violated the treaty.  The USA and UK position is consistent with the treaty wording, but why should a country surrender nukes in the future?

c.      Nuclear war is clearly an existential threat.  World leadership should dramatically alter its approach, as per my blog on the topic.

4.      To secure peace, it is important to project strength.

a.      Putin invaded Ukraine because he had a reasonable expectation that he would get away with it.  Excuse me for addressing this at length below.  It seems important because some people with whom I’ve discussed this issue have clearly significantly misunderstood the image that the world has had of the USA.

b.      The US government, led by President Biden, and the West, in general, projected weakness.  We led Putin to believe he could invade Ukraine at little cost.  Shame on us.

c.      To be fair, Biden was handicapped coming into office by President Obama and his involvement in that administration, by President Trump (cuts both ways; in some ways an advantage) and by some of his own past actions.

d.      Campaigning for President the first time, then-Senator Obama urged mediation when Putin invaded Georgia while Senator McCain took consistently stronger stances against Russia.  At the time, Obama’s position did not stand out as particularly weak, but with his subsequent actions, the pattern became clear.

e.      The “Obama administration deferred to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s concern that lethal-arms assistance to Ukraine would only prolong a war that that country was bound to lose, and it refused to provide such support.”

f.       President Obama reacted mildly to Russia’s incursion into Crimea.

g.      He declared a “red line” in Syria, then decided he did not want to enforce it (he pretended to change his mind as to his authority, so he could blame Congress for not enforcing it).  Under his watch, USA influence in Syria dropped and Russian influence grew dramatically.

h.      The above comments d-g should not generate much disagreement from readers.  However, some people might disagree with my belief that President Obama showed weakness relative to Iran, Cuba and by undermining Israel, etc. and that candidate Biden indicated that he would resume some of those positions.  [Disclosure: I voted for Barack Obama the first time he ran for President, but not the second time.  I voted for Biden in 2020.]

i.       President Trump handicapped Biden and encouraged Putin by disrupting NATO politically and with harmful tariffs.  He espoused what sounded like an isolationist policy.  (Trump’s actual behavior was more volatile, not consistently isolationist, which I think Putin recognized.  Trump fired missiles at Russians twice in Syria, once in combination with the French and British.)  However, Trump’s behavior made Biden’s election very well-received.  NATO welcomed a President who would bring them together.  Trump’s demand that NATO countries honor their commitment to spend 2% of their budget on defense made it easier for Biden to re-build relations but to insist on the 2% (Biden abandoned the 2% as far as I know, but I may be wrong).  Biden was harmed in that even if he proved to be a strong ally for NATO members, Trump caused NATO members to fear that a future president might shy away from NATO again.

j.       Note: Biden has done a good job of bringing NATO back together, but Putin seems to have stimulated the NATO rapprochement more than Biden did. When Biden abandoned Afghanistan, he did not coordinate with NATO allies who were supporting our efforts.  He also has kept damaging tariffs in place.

k.      Biden may have been hurt by his past, but I am not expert in that regard.  Gates said that Biden was wrong on foreign policy a remarkable percentage of the time.  Even if that were accurate, “wrong” does not necessarily mean “weak”.  Biden has been criticized for not wanting to attack Osama bin Laden’s compound.  Not having been involved in the discussion, I can’t criticize that position, but it may have contributed to Putin thinking Biden is weak.  (Even sound decisions may be (mis)-interpreted to be weakness.)

l.       Biden’s precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan certainly encouraged Putin.  Biden’s repeated statements that he took full responsibility (while blaming the Afghans, Trump, and his own staff) exposed a very weak leader.  When the Bay of Pigs invasion failed, President Kennedy took responsibility.  He did not try to shift it to the victims or his staff.  Although the Bay of Pigs plan was developed in the Eisenhower administration, JFK was silent about that, taking responsibility.  President Biden said Trump’s agreement with the Taliban bound his hands, but the agreement was dependent on conditions the Taliban did not meet.  It was Biden, not Trump, who decided to waive those requirements.  Furthermore, Biden actually did change the agreement, delaying its date, despite later saying that he couldn’t change it.  [Disclosure: I did not support Trump’s agreement with the Taliban; excluding the Afghan government from the discussions seemed to me to be a bad idea.]

m.    Biden promoted a budget overwhelmingly tilted toward “butter”, not “guns”.  The European democracies have done that for a long time, increasingly relying upon protection from the USA.  The USA has underfunded the military for a while.

n.      Demands to de-fund the police and the presumption that police were guilty when incidents occurred were significant to foreign observers.  We were unwilling to defend our cities from lawless looting.  If the USA lets lawless people take over Seattle, why would Putin think the USA would defend Kiev?

o.      Biden focused his administration on climate change and choosing leadership based on identity not just capability.  Climate change is a real issue and I applaud some of Biden’s steps, such as procuring environmental vehicles for the government.  Asking the military to assess and consider climate change is a good idea, but should be done quietly to avoid the impression that Biden was taking his eye off security.  For political reasons, Biden preferred to spotlight it, which I thought was not a good idea.  If he wanted to spotlight it, he should have at least kept a public focus on security as well, but he did not.  People like to say that perception is reality.  I don’t agree.  The perception that Biden was focusing the military on climate change may not have been reality.  But perception impacts reality!

p.      Clearly, we have many people of minority races, religions, sexual preferences, etc. who are outstanding.  Because their talents have not been recognized in the past, it makes sense that they would comprise a higher percentage of appointments than their percentage of the population (this could be partially offset by their lack of experience if they have been held back by prejudice).  Here, again, President Biden’s approach may not have reflected reduced concern about competency, but it added to an impression that the USA is weak.

q.      Strongly favoring the left wing of his party, Biden strengthened Putin’s hand by his positions related to coal, oil and gas.  He reversed the USA’s opposition to Nord Stream 2 and lifted sanctions against one of the construction companies, thereby undermining Ukraine as well as helping Putin make Europe more dependent on Russian gas.  He declared that he wanted to put the coal industry out of business and also warred with the USA oil and gas industry.  He then begged other countries to boost production of energy that he was trying to quell in the USA.  Why did it make sense to shift energy production (and jobs) to other countries whose industries pollute more than ours?  Why did it make sense to undermine our security and ability to wean Europe off Russian oil?  Clearly, President Biden put domestic politics (catering to the left wing of his party) above sound practices.  Of course, that’s going to encourage Vladimir Putin to attack Ukraine!

He publicly contradicted President Zelensky's claim that NATO was ready to accept Ukrainian membership.  (Inserted on 15Oct23; quoting from Walter Russell Mead in the Wall Street Journal of October 10, 2023.

r.       As mentioned in my blog about voting rights, President Biden’s rhetoric has continually divided us rather than bringing us together.  I recognize that most other people who voted for President Biden will not agree, but I think that gets back to point #1.

s.      When Putin amassed his forces, President Biden immediately encouraged him by emphasizing that the USA would not defend Ukraine.  Does anyone really think that President Biden’s declarations that the USA would not get involved somehow discouraged Putin from attacking Ukraine?

t.       President Biden even made the horrendous mistake of indicating that Russia might make a “slight incursion” that might warrant a softer reaction.

u.      President Biden and the West have done an excellent job of creating tough sanctions, but only after the fact.  Likely, President Biden would not have been able to convince NATO allies to take a strong stance sooner.  Likely, he did not want to do so himself either.  What possibly could Putin have expected?  Any intelligent person other than an extremely cautious person would have expected that the threatened sanctions would be weak.

v.      President Biden did a very good job of exposing what Putin was preparing to do, but his wording was injudicious.  He kept saying "Putin is going to attack” rather than saying that “Putin has marshalled his forces in a way that would support an attack”.  His choice of wording would have made Putin look weak if he backed down.  Putin is not someone who wants to be viewed as backing down.

5.      Short-term destruction of the coal, oil and gas industries is not a good idea.

a.      I’ve explained this above in 4p, so I won’t re-hash it.  But it is an important strategic position hence deserves to be highlighted.

b.      It is worth understanding that I have been an environmentalist for at least 60 years and have lived my life, done advocacy and invested consistently with those principles.  I’d love to see renewables replace coal, oil and gas and have worked to help that to occur.  So, when I argue against the left’s vendetta on conventional energy, it is not an attack on environmentalism.  It is simply a call for sanity.

c.      I have always feared radioactive nuclear waste.  However, I’ve grew to recognize that nuclear might be a good transitional source of energy.  And nuclear fusion avoids the risk of radioactive waste or at least hugely reduces it. 

6.      Spending on guns vs. butter must be balanced

a.      As noted above, President Biden over-emphasized (in my opinion) butter over guns.  It is clearly a tough issue.

b.      Note: I have mixed feelings about gun control.  Hunters don’t need Uzis and it makes sense to restrict gun rights for stalkers.  Other restrictions may also make sense.  But I am haunted by the Dutch, who put in gun control immediately before WWII.  When the Germans rolled into the Netherlands, they found a government list of the guns that were owned, allowing them to go door-to-door to confiscate those guns.  What if Ukrainian citizens were not allowed to have guns now or if Russia got their hands on a list?  People often tell me “that could never happen here" (on issues other than guns as well as related to guns) but such attitudes increase our risk.

7.      CNN and media attention can impact history as well as reporting it

a.      I remember CNN reporting from Tiananmen Square in 1989. It was an incredibly revolutionary moment (please excuse the pun).  For people around the world to see what was going on in real time was incredible.

b.      When CNN showed Boris Yeltsin getting on that tank, I realized that CNN’s presence not only is educational, it actually changes history.  Yeltsin’s efforts might have ended differently without CNN.

c.      Now in Ukraine, CNN’s efforts have made the world more aware and more united in opposition to Russia’s efforts.  CNN has undermined Russia’s disinformation campaign.  The question now is “How long will the world’s resolve last?”

8.      Democracies must band together to protect each other

a.      Martin Niemoller said it more effectively than I can: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Socialist.  Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Trade Unionist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew.  Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

b.      I made this point in my January email to my Congresswoman, Sharice Davids (see my January 22nd blog).

c.   Ukrainian President Zelensky has argued effectively that Ukrainians are fighting to protect democracy everywhere.

9.      The USA is a good country, albeit with flaws that can be addressed

a.      I’ve never been an “America, love it or leave it” person.  Patriotism includes helping the USA live up to its ideals.

b.      Clearly, it is important for us to understand our history and our weaknesses.  A person or country who does not acknowledge its weaknesses handicaps its ability to improve and a person or country which does not acknowledge its past mistakes is likely to repeat them.

c.      Nonetheless, we have reason to be proud of our country.  Our constitution and principles totally changed the world, putting people in charge of the government and, as I’ve explained, elevating the most critical principle: separation of powers.  While we are flawed, we’ve improved significantly.

d.      I believe we can improve further.  It is healthier for us to identify as USA citizens and work for our common interest rather than to band according to various subcategories, focus on real and imagined victimhood and fighting on behalf of those subcategories.

e.      My local newspaper (the KC Star) published an editorial calling upon those who oppose pandemic restrictions to calm their "tyranny" rhetoric, recognizing the difference between the USA and Russian or Chinese tyranny.  I agree, but it was unfortunately characteristic that the KC Star would observe such lack of appreciation of our country only on the right and would ignore it on the left.  To achieve their goal of bringing us together, they should have been non-partisan.

f.      It is clear to me that I should have done more to help the USA improve but I sadly seem to have a better track record in this regard than most people.  (I say “sadly” because it would be much better if most people had made efforts greater than mine.)  My point here is not to brag but simply to make clear that I am not an apologist for improper behavior.

10.   Too little, too late is insufficient. 

a.      I fear that the support we are providing to the Ukrainians is “too little; too late”.  As President Zelensky said, strong sanctions on Russia for gobbling up the Ukraine do not help the Ukraine, as it will have already been sacrificed.

b.      I recognize the counterargument that supporting the Ukraine more strongly could have enflamed Russia’s fears or at least have enabled a Russian disinformation campaign.  But what friend tells you that you aren't going to be admitted into NATO because doing so would encourage Russia to attack you, then says they won't defend you if Russia attacks you anyway?

c.      Such issues need to be discussed more fully in our government circles and by non-government citizens (see #1). 

d.      Defensive weaponry may have been a good solution.

e.      A non-aggression pact may have helped.

f.       Will the Western resolve hold up?  Once the shooting stops, many people and countries are likely to want to end sanctions.  Some will want to end sanctions to benefit their economies.  Others will say the sanctions have no purpose at that time.  Still others will argue that we need to end the sanctions so that we have the threat of re-applying them if Putin attacks another country.  These arguments miss the point: The sanctions were widely and appropriately characterized as a "punishment"; they were not intended to protect Ukraine; they were intended to dissuade future attacks.  If they turn-out to be short-term sanctions, their deterrent value will be reduced.  I agree that they should not be permanent, but a strong case could be made that they will continue until Ukraine is again free.  Practically speaking, that seems very unlikely.  So what is the proper sentence for such aggression and killing?   Ten years does not sound unreasonable and could be a strong deterrent.  However, I fear our weak-kneed Western "leadership" will abandon peace efforts again by eliminating the sanctions relatively quickly.

g.      I know I don’t have all the answers.

Calling out the NY Times for calling a "no fly" zone tantamount to a declaration of war

 In its March 11 editorial, “The Price of Putin’s Belligerence”, the NY Times wrote “to enforce a no-fly zone above Ukraine … would be tantamount to a declaration of war”.  Calling a peace-keeping mission a “declaration of war” is Orwellian.  The New York Times has shockingly provided documentation to support Putin’s, or any aggressor’s, future claim that a no-fly zone is a declaration of war, thereby carelessly undermining future world peace.  You may oppose establishing a “no-fly zone” because you feel it increases the risk of a confrontation with Russia, but that does not justify labeling a peace-keeping mission “a declaration of war”.  With the NY Times’ logic, had Russia sent tanks into Ukraine without firing and the Ukraine had defended itself by attacking a tank, the Ukrainians would have been the side that started the war.

 

Ukraine needs our support

Message sent to our Democratic Congresswoman

United we stand; divided we fall!  Democracies must stand together. 

I voted for President Biden partly because he pledged to restore our relationships with our allies and lead the consortium of countries effectively.

Yet he continually signals to world that he will not commit US troops.  He may send weapons to Ukraine, but if so, it will be too little/too late, which will result in our enemies getting our weapons again.*

NATO and the USA must stand together strong in the defense of Ukraine.

President Biden admires FDR.  Had FDR acted like President Biden, Hitler would have succeeded.

*  Obviously I may be wrong, but I get the impression that the threat of sending weapons to Ukraine may be intended to allow himself to claim domestically that he took action, rather than with any realistic expectation that the threat will deter Putin.  If he thought the weapons would make a strong difference, he should have sent them long ago.

Why Do Idealistic People Sometimes Act Unethically?

 I often tell people that, for purposes of the discussion I’ll agree to presume, whether true or not, that regulators, academics, and non-profit people are generally more ethical than businesspeople.  (I am inclined to believe that it is true that idealistic ethical young adults are more likely to choose regulator, academic and non-profit careers than young adults who are less idealistic and ethical.)

Nonetheless, regulators, academics, and non-profit people often perform unethically in ways that businesspeople might not do (examples below).  Why is that?

Most businesspeople govern their behavior, questioning themselves to assure that they are acting ethically.  They do so because:

1. They are aware of their potential conflicts of interest.
2. They are fundamentally ethical as are most people.
3. They want to avoid legal, regulatory, etc. problems.
4. They want to avoid customer backlash.

Unfortunately, it is less common for regulators, academics, and non-profit people to apply such governors to their behavior.  They view themselves as “the good guys” who are trying only to help people.  People with that mindset are less likely to question their actions, as they “know” they’re acting ethically.

Furthermore, most people in our society are quick to justify actions based on “the ends justify the means”.  If my end is “to help people”, then how can it matter what steps I take to achieve my goal?

Lord Acton is typically credited with the following quote, which I have found to be predictive: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  I believe that a benevolent dictatorship can be the most effective government in the short-term.  For example, in a crisis (e.g., on the battlefield), someone must take charge and others must cooperate to avoid disaster, if there is not enough time to discuss alternatives.  The problem is that the longer a benevolent dictatorship lasts, the more likely it is to get corrupted (due to his/her corruption or to the corruption of her/his associates and certainly after the benevolent dictator is gone).

It is important to stress that I am not maligning regulators, academics and non-profit people.  Au contraire, I’m crediting them with being more ethical than the typical person.  I’m simply saying that even idealistic, well-meaning people are human.

When the government runs a program, we lose oversight.  Regulators in charge of a program want the program to succeed.  That’s generally their job description and certainly is beneficial for their career.  Consider state long-term care insurance programs.  The impetus is to help people plan effectively for LTC needs in their family.  If they can do a better job with private LTCi, that should be fine.  However, if people use private LTCi, the public program gets smaller.  Focusing on the success of the public program, rather than on how best to achieve the broad goal, can reduce success in achieving the broad goal. 

I believe “checks and balances” (separation of powers) is the primary reason for the historic success of the USA.  It is important for government to create rules and to monitor performance, in order to maintain a fair market; that is, to provide such a check and balance.  When the government runs the program, we lose the independent check and balance.

 

Examples

Note: In examples #2 and #4, I use quotation marks to make it easier to read.  The commentary does not exactly quote the participants but conveys my understanding of the conversation faithfully.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) included a long-term care insurance (LTCi) program: the CLASS Act.

Example #1: Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius declared repeatedly that the CLASS Act was fundamentally sound despite her staff (as well as industry experts) telling her that it was not feasible.  I defended Sebelius at the time, saying that it was her responsibility to state her belief, even if it differs from her staff’s advice.  However, I was shocked when, about a week after the ACA passed, Sebelius matter-of-factly stated that it wouldn’t work.  I concluded that she had been deceiving the public, legislators and other regulators, in order to help get the ACA passed.

Example #2: At an industry conference, I participated in a private meeting with about a dozen people in the LTCi industry and two federal employees working on implementing the Class Act.  It is important to stress that I admire both of these people who worked on implementing the Class Act.  I’ve known them for decades and they are bright people with integrity.  However, they kept defining the law in ways that were absolutely contrary to what the law said.  Getting annoyed, I asked an admittedly rude question: “I’ve read the law multiple times and have been able to understand every paragraph based on my assumption that it was written in English.  But you’re describing provisions that are incompatible with English interpretation of the law.  It seems to be the most amazing document ever written!  Its entire long text is intelligible based on the assumption that it is written in English, but you seem to be telling me it is actually written in a different language which results in significantly different meaning.  Is that right?  How can you do that?”

The actuary responded first.  He said: “You’re right, but I’m comfortable doing it because we’re making it better.”  (Those are common regulator attitudes: “We know best” and “the ends justify the means”.)

The long-term public servant then said “You’re right.  We might not get away with it.”

“Group think” is a problem in all arenas, not just in government.  That’s another reason why we need broad involvement and checks and balances.

Other examples:

Example #3: I can provide a separate document in which I’ve identified some of the myriad inaccurate communications by proponents (mostly regulators and legislators) of the State of Washington’s “WA Cares Fund”, which is a state-run LTCi program.  It is mind-boggling.

Example #4: The #2 person in the California Partnership for Long-Term Care was trying to convince me to use their marketing materials (I was running an insurer’s LTCi program at the time).  Although that would have saved my company significant time and expense, I explained I could not do so because California’s materials did not satisfy my compliance standards.

He asked for an example, so I noted that their materials said that the Partnership policy would cover your LTC need for the rest of your life.

·        He: “What’s wrong with that?”

·        Me: “The longest benefit period is 5 years.”

·        He: “So what?  After that you can go on Medi-Cal.”  (Medi-Cal is California’s version of Medicaid.)

·        I was stunned that he would represent that going on Medi-Cal would mean that the Partnership policy provided benefits for the rest of your life.  I’ve never heard anybody in private industry make such a claim and we’d be rightfully called on the carpet by the state if we did so.  However, I chose not to question that unethical explanation.

·        Me: “But what if you have countable assets and the Partnership asset disregard does not cover all of them?  You could have to spend down hundreds of thousands of dollars after your 5-year benefit period expires and before you could qualify for Medi-Cal.”

·        He: “That does not matter.”  (This quote is exactly what he said.  According to him, it did not matter that the statement is blatantly false!)

Capable regulatory oversight blocks misleading private industry materials, but nothing blocked the California Partnership from distributing misleading materials.

Of course, some regulators are quite careful with the materials they develop.  Later, Sandra Pierce Miller became the #1 person in the California Partnership.  Very shortly after she assumed that position, we met at a conference.  She asked me what I thought of their marketing materials.  When I said I do not use them because they don’t meet my compliance standards, she was greatly concerned and interested.  Ms. Miller made appropriate changes to the materials.

This happens with elected politicians as well.  Consider all the “mandates” they conjure up that they’ve been given by voters in close elections.

I sometimes select Hillary Clinton as an example.  Most people seem to either adore her or hate her.  My position is different.  I respect Hillary because she is smart, hard-working and I believe means well.  However, over the years she seems, in my opinion, to have developed the viewpoint that she and her close friends can solve all our problems and that if she is not in control, we’ll all suffer.  Therefore, she believes that anything that helps her accomplish her goals is necessarily good for the country.  I think if Hillary and I had known each other in college, we could have been close friends and in great agreement.  But over time, I’ve become disenchanted with central control and Hillary has conflated her success and what’s good for the country.

The Metaverse's Potential Impact on Mental Health

 In its “Future of Everything” series, the WSJ explored the-metaverse’s-effects-on-mental-health.

For the following reasons, put me down squarely on the side of those who are greatly concerned.

1.      Our world changes so quickly and is so complicated that even our brightest people have trouble keeping up and understanding how things work.  This speed of change leads to mental disease (admittedly, likely only temporary or sporadic in many cases).

2.      These changes pressure relationships.  The percentage of strong lifelong relationships has decreased, even though technology allows us to “stay in touch”.

3.      Technology makes it increasingly difficult to identify the truth.  We can create images of people showing them saying the exact opposite of what they said.

4.      Complexity leads to increased specialization, making it harder for people to understand and control the overall picture.

5.      Virtual reality (VR) provides an escape from reality.  I think we need to learn to cope with reality, not to escape it.

6.      What happens where VR is hacked?

7.      VR provides a scary opportunity for government control.

8.      Imagine Mao Tse-tung’s “Cultural Revolution”, China’s current treatment of Uighurs, the holocaust or slavery, etc., with the ability to “re-educate” people using VR.

9.      VR can also be used to control people by providing or withdrawing pleasurable experiences or applying stressful experiences

10.   Eventually, a baby could be fit with contact lens at birth, allowing the government to “teach” it what it wants the human to think, to know if he/she (“it” perhaps is more relevant) is having impermissible thoughts and to know exactly where the person is.

Certainly, I can imagine some benefits in individual circumstances.  However, from my perspective, those advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages.  Many of those advantages have the form of others doing things to us/for us, which reduces personal responsibility.  On the other hand, allowing us to dial the frequency, duration and type of VR we experience can easily lead to addiction.

Many people believe that freedom will inevitably triumph because the subjected masses will revolt.  Did the holocaust end in such fashion?  No, it was the strength of the Allies that won the day.  Did slavery end in such fashion?  No.  Enabling increasing government intrusion into our lives does not bode well for freedom.

Comments, as always, are welcome.  Please, persuade me otherwise, as my concerns are not good for my mental health!