Let's make of the SCOTUS Bruen ruling what it is not what it isn't

In the case of the Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which ruled that New York’s gun licensing law was unconstitutional, let’s make of that ruling what it is, not what it isn’t.  

For a quick primer, for decades New York has required gun owners to get a license to own and carry firearms.  That in itself isn’t the problem.  The problem is that the law required the applicant to prove “proper cause exists” in order to get a license to “have and carry” a firearm outside the home.  Even then, if the applicant successfully proved proper cause then the state “may issue” a permit.  This was the crux of the issue, as this infringes on the 14th Amendment protections on due process.  

Twice before the Court has ruled that “may issue” firearms permit laws are unconstitutional.  In District of Columbia v. Heller, and in McDonald v. Chicago, the Court found that the 14th Amendment presumptively protects an individual’s enumerated right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.  

The bottom line in this case is that such laws must be written on a “shall issue” basis.  That is, if the State cannot prove that an applicant’s personal conduct precludes that individual from possessing and carrying a firearm then the state shall issue a firearms license, and shall do so in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost.  

New York’s law requiring an individual to prove “proper cause”, and even then stating the state “may issue” the requested license was blatantly unconstitutional, as it placed the burden of proof on the applicant to show the ability to keep and bear arms rather than on the state to prove otherwise, and put the final decision in the hands of bureaucrats.  

The ruling still permits New York to require a license to have and carry a firearm, but requires the state to issue those licenses on a “shall issue” basis rather than a “may issue” basis.  That’s it.  Period.  The ruling will not allow people to carry whatever they wish whenever they wish wherever they wish.  The law will not “flood the streets with guns”.  Allowing law abiding citizens to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms will not cause the streets to run red with blood.  In the past, every time detractors of gun legislation, on both sides of the issue, have claimed that proposed changes to gun laws will “cause the streets to run red with blood” they have been wrong, and they’re wrong in this case as well.  

The ruling in Bruen does not mean that states cannot regulate firearms.  The ruling in Bruen, and likewise in Heller, and in McDonald, means that when states regulate firearms they must do so in accordance with 14th Amendment protections on due process.  The state can still require licenses to have and carry firearms.  The state can still prohibit the carry of firearms in certain areas, such as court houses, government offices, schools, and mass transit.  Property owners can still prohibit the carry of firearms on their premises, and the state can still make violating those prohibitions a crime.  

But these rulings mean more than that.  These rulings have broader applications than just gun rights.  The rulings in McDonald, Heller, and Bruen are precedents that regulations on any enumerated right shall comply with the protections on due process in the 5th and 14th Amendments.  Whether you like the decision or not, it protects your rights to due process.  That’s what the Bruen decision is. 

My Campaign Speech

 For sometime now I have been registered as a Republican.  I registered myself this way because Florida is a gerrymandered Republican safe zone, and has been for 22 years, so voting in the Republican primary is the only real way I can have a say in my state government.  Lately that Republican registration has felt something like swimming in a cesspool.  If I was going to run as a Republican candidate then this would be my campaign speech.  

My fellow Republicans.  

We must return our party to its roots.  For quite some time now our party has drifted away from those roots.  In the past few years our party has been taken over by an extremist wing who do not represent the fundamentals of the Republican Party, or the best interests of the American People. 

Historically, the roots of the Republican Party do not include the unquestioned rule of one man.  The officials we elect to legislative office are intended to provide a check and balance on the power of the executive, not to mindlessly rubber-stamp his every desire.  That is one of the roots to which we must return.  

But there is much more to the historical Republican Party roots.  

-Reasonable taxation.  We must not bankrupt the people who drive our economy, either through taxing the rich to death or by shifting the burden of taxation to the middle class and the poor, but at the same time we must generate enough revenue to support essential government services.  

-Fiscal responsibility.  We should not spend more than we bring in, unless that spending is absolutely needed and well planned to benefit the American People.  At the same time, when spending money would bring more benefit than pinching pennies then money should be spent to the best advantage of The People.

-Local rule.  The best government is that which is closest to The People, so the ability of cities, counties, and states to rule themselves as they best see fit should be paramount, except where higher government preemption is absolutely necessary. 

-Personal autonomy.  Freedom from government interference in The People's management of their own affairs is protected in the Constitution, and should not be interfered with unless absolutely necessary. This extends to People's freedom in reproductive matters, as well as what drugs People choose to take. 

-Balanced immigration policy: "Kick them all out" is not practical, nor is "let them all in".  We must take a balanced approach which will best benefit the United States, and which will at the same time uphold both the values of the United States and the Republican Party.  We are a nation of immigrants and children of immigrants, and we should keep that firmly in mind. 

-Reasonable gun control: Banning outright certain classes of firearms is not reasonable, nor is completely unrestricted gun rights.  We must strike a balance which both protects the constitutional right to keep and bear arms and at the same time keeps arms out of the hands of those who should not have them.  Gun control policy should be data driven, not based on the emotions of either side of the issue.  

-Healthcare for everyone: Having a large number of sick, desperate poor people is not good for America.  We must provide for the healthcare coverage of the poor people in America without inconveniencing those fortunate enough to afford healthcare insurance.  

-Conservation of our environment and our wild lands: We must never forget that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were signed into law by a Republican president, after passing through congress with bipartisan support.   The majority of our National Parks were signed into law by Republican presidents, starting with Abraham Lincoln, and continued to great effect by Theodore Roosevelt, among many others.  Conservation is a conservative principle! 

-Above all, my fellow Republicans, we must take back our party from our most extreme wing, who would have us tip over into Fascism in the name of "law and order", and give us over to the autocratic rule of a charismatic, narcisistic firebrand.  That kind of extremism is anti-Republican, anti-democratic, anti-conservative, and anti-American.  

There are many things we must do in order to take our party back, and to bring our country back.  We must start by rejecting the politicians who call on us to abandon the foundations of our party and our country.  

God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. 

Rabot 1745 Chocolate

 

The chocolate shop Rabot 1745, in the London Borough Market, is worth the trip to London all by itself. The chocolate here is amazing.  They have their own plantation, and import their own cacao beans. When they roast the beans the heady aroma reaches out of the shop and draws in chocolate lovers with an irresistible pull. After conching for 50 hours, the resulting chocolate liquor goes into a chocolate fountain, and is kept in an emulsion with just a little sugar. When you order, the barista draws a cup directly from the fountain, steams up fresh hot milk, and then serves it in a warm ceramic beaker with a sprinkle of chocolate shavings on top. The aroma from the cup is pure chocolate heaven. When you take that first sip you get some of the liquor and some of the melted shavings with it. Hold it in your mouth for a second, and let the aromas of the cacao waft up through your sinuses, and give you the retronasal olfaction which gives you flavors you never knew chocolate could possess. Notes of apricot, hazelnuts, a little caramel, and a fleeting whiff of coffee present themselves. American chocolate is almost always rot-your-teeth sweet, but not this. It has just enough sweetness to support the chocolate flavor. The silky texture just makes you want more of it. Let it roll off the back of your tongue and down your throat, and the sweetness on the front is balanced by a subtle note of bitterness on the finish. Linger over the cup. Take your time. This is worth savoring.

DeSantis' Diabolical Plan For Reedy Creek

 Florida Governor Ron DeSantis may have more plans for the Reedy Creek Improvement Area other than just owning the libs.  And they are, predictably, evil.  

Here's the plan, as I see it.  It's only my opinion, and I have no doubt whatsoever that DeSantis will deny it.  

DeSantis dissolved the Reedy Creek Improvement Area, forcing Orange and Oscola Counties to pick up at least $163M/year to pay for services that are currently being provided by Reedy Creek.  Orange and Osceola Counties are heavily Democratic, so they aren't DeSantis' "people", so he thinks he can get away with screwing them over.  

- Orange and Osceola Counties have to increase property taxes by at least 25% to cover the shortfall.  This triggers people who live there to pack up and leave.  Property owners will feel the pinch badly enough, but renters will go elsewhere because those property taxes will be passed on to them, and they'll have no choice but flee.  So then those heavily Democratic residents will be displaced elsewhere, reducing or eliminating the Democratic stronghold in the area.  

- No longer able to meet their obligations, Orange and Osceola Counties file for bankruptcy.  DeSantis appoints Receivers for them, and the Republican Party effectively takes control of two heavily Democratic counties in a coup rather than an election. 

- With so many people leaving the Reedy Creek area, Disney will lose so many workers that they will have to curtail park hours, or close some days, costing them billions.  

But the plan also has some risks.  

- Screwing over Disney, the largest employer in the state, may start a downward spiral, which would cause the loss of the parks.  As the tourism surrounding Disney currently provides something like 20% of Florida's total economy, this would be disastrous.  Counting all of their theme parks and resorts, Disney employs roughly 80,000 people in the Reedy Creek area.  They affect tens of thousands more in non-Disney properties and services in the area.  Losing all of that is something Florida voters won't soon forget.  

- While Orange and Osceola Counties are heavily Democratic, they do have a lot of Republicans as well, who might not appreciate DeSantis causing their taxes to skyrocket.  DeSantis only won the election by a little over 30,000 votes.  If he makes life unpleasant for enough Republicans in Orange and Osceola Counties then in the 2022 election they might vote for someone else, or just sit out the election.  This would likely affect the presidential election in 2024 as well. 

Either way the message is clear: DeSantis has a vindictive streak a mile wide, and if you cross him he will break you.  No one with that sort of personality should hold the reins of power in a democratic country. 

Your Florida Has Already Been New-Yorked

 Whenever changes to the way we plan our cities in Florida are discussed, whether it's changes to land use zoning, streets and highways, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, or especially mass transit, there is invariably some mook who pops up and comments "Don't New York my Florida."  Well, I hate to break this to you, but your Florida has already been New-Yorked, and it happened decades ago, in some cases up to a century. 

If you like Florida cities that are sprawled out because land use zoning completely separates out areas for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental purposes then you like a Florida that has been New-Yorked.  The first land use zoning laws in the country were enacted in New York in 1916.  In urban planning circles those laws are known as "Euclidian" zoning, because Euclid, Ohio enacted similar laws, which were tested in court in 1924, and found to be constitutional.  So if you like that kind of zoning regulations then you like a Florida that has been New-Yorked.  

The idea that interstate highways and expressways should drive right through the heart of urban areas came from the tormented mind of Robert Moses, who was the urban planner for New York City for 40 years.  So if you like Florida cities that have interstate highway driven through their cores then you like a Florida that has been New-Yorked.  

If you like urban areas that are completely car dependent, and devoid of functional mass transit then you like a Florida that has been New-Yorked.  Robert Moses hated mass transit, and did everything he could to destroy it in New York.  (Fortunately, he failed, but NYC is paying the price for his folly to this day.)  Prior to the end of WWII, Florida cities were relatively rich in mass transit, from rail lines to tram lines to buses.  After the end of WWII, during the GI Bill land boom, Florida cities adopted the design methods of Robert Moses, and did everything they could to make sure they were completely car dependent, and mass transit, if it existed at all, only competed with walking and never with driving.  The Federal Aid Highways Act of 1953, which created the System of Interstate and Defense Highways, compounded this by enabling and encouraging cities to drive interstate highways right through their urban cores, ala New York City under Robert Moses.  Most often displacing communities of color, and poor communities in the process.  So if you like car dependent cities devoid of functional mass transit then your Florida has already been New-Yorked.  

If you don't mind all of these things, and you think they're the way Florida cities should be, despite coming from New York, then maybe your problem isn't with New York after all, but with the idea of doing things differently from the way we have done them over the past 80 years.  In which case you need to get out more. 

Guidelines for commenting in a field not your own

Quite a lot in online discussions I see otherwise highly intelligent people demonstrate a seemingly utter lack of ability to hold a civil argument.  I have been guilty of this myself.  So I thought about it for a while and came up with some guidelines for a civil discourse.

1. Don’t be arrogant.  Keep firmly in mind that maybe, just possibly, there’s a teensy-weensy chance that you aren’t the smartest person in the room.  This is especially so if you are an expert in one field commenting on an area that is not your field.  People with PhDs seem to have a particular problem with this.  Being an arrogant know-it-all will shut down the conversation and get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

2. Don’t shoot from the lip.  Keep firmly in mind that someone somewhere at some time for some reason thought the idea you’re commenting on was a good one.  If you start the discussion with words to the effect “That idea is insane and you’re stupid,” then that shuts down the conversation before it starts.  Approaching the subject with a little humility will yield far better results.  
First, instead of going on the attack, start by asking a question: “What leads you to believe this is a good idea?”  
Or lead an explanation.  “This idea doesn’t make sense to me, please explain it in more detail.”  
Or just ask questions, in a non-insulting manner, that make the people you’re disagreeing with justify their position.  
Instead of going on the attack turn the comment on yourself.  Instead of “you’re wrong” start with “I disagree”.  Then construct your argument accordingly.
You could construct your argument along these lines:
“As a [$CREDENTIAL] I think your idea is mistaken because [$FACTS], [$REASONING], [$CONCLUSIONS].  
Making a well reasoned argument will get you listened to.  Starting with insulting both ideas and people will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

3. If you are commenting outside your field, and you think your field may add perspective to the conversation then say so.  Keep firmly in mind, however, that you are commenting outside your field.  When in doubt, see Guideline 1.  

4. Get the facts of the subject you’re commenting on before you comment.  Keep in mind that people in whatever forum you’re using may have facts you don’t, especially if they’ve been involved for a long time in a project that you’ve just stumbled across.  Get the facts before you comment, especially if you think an idea is a bad one.  If there are publicly available documents then get them, read them, and make sure you understand them before constructing your argument.  Spouting off before you have the facts, or refusing to learn them, will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

5. Learn the language of the field in which you are commenting, especially if it is not your own, even if it is closely related to your own.  Every field has its own language.  Never assume the language is the same as your own field.   Even closely related fields may have significant differences in their nomenclature, terminology, concepts, and sources.  Learn them before you try to impose your will on a forum that is not in your field.  Failure to learn the language, and a refusal to do so, will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

6. Learn something about the widely respected sources in the field in which you are commenting, especially if it is not your own field.  Most especially if you disagree with those sources.  Preferably before you insult them.  If you come out of the gate by insulting people’s mentors then the only thing you’re going to get is pushback, and dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

7. Keep in mind that unlettered people aren’t stupid.  An unlettered autodidact who spends a lot of time studying a subject of interest may, in fact, have knowledge that you don’t.  Insulting those people, their sources, their reasoning, their opinions, and their intelligence is not a good way to win friends or influence people, and will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

8. When you’re an expert in one field who dabbles in another field as a hobby, and you find yourself in an argument with people who are credentialed working professionals in that field, then your best course of action is to listen to them before you disagree with them.  You, as a hobbyist, trying to dictate policy to working professionals in the field will not go over well.  As a hobbyist in a discussion with working professionals in a field, trying to explain their jobs to them, and refusing to listen to them, will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

In conclusion, I think you get the idea by now.  Keeping a discussion civil is much more likely to get you listened to.  Even if you at first disagree strongly with an idea, make sure you wrap your mind around it fully before diving headfirst into disagreement.  Make sure you understand the facts, language, reasoning, and sources behind the idea before you vociferously disagree with it.  Just don’t be an arrogant crank and you won’t get dismissed as an arrogant crank. 

Is Astra pulling a scam, or is Kerrisdale Capital?

 Or is Kerrisdale Capital just too stupid to understand space startups?  Or is Kerrisdale Capital a short seller trying to drive the stock price down through the power of bullshit so they can make money from it? 

Let's get this straight: Investing in space launch startups is gambling.  There's an old joke about this: "How do you make a small fortune in the aerospace industry?  You start with a large one."  It's gambling.  If you don't know that investing in space launch startups is gambling then maybe you shouldn't be investing in space startups. 

Kerrisdale Capital claims that Astra mis-stated their post merger cash on hand, and rather than having enough cash to run through 2025 they only have enough to run through 2023.  Big deal.  Is it an intentional violation of securities law, or did someone just underestimate their burn rate?  Or is Kerrisdale inflating their burn rate?  Again: It's gambling, and if you don't know it's gambling then maybe you shouldn't be investing in space launch startups.  

Kerrisdale claims that "the seemingly mundane issue of finding somewhere to launch is a risk to Astra's long-term vision because contrary to management's oft repeated claim -- Astra can't launch from anywhere."  This is nonsense.  Astra already has a place to launch: Kodiak Island Spaceport.  Astra designed their launch infrastructure to be portable, and it all fits into, IIRC, 6 shipping containers.  They fly the whole mess to Kodiak for their test launches.  They could launch from Kwajalien Island for equatorial launches.  They are negotiating a lease at Wallops Island.  They're negotiating a lease at Cape Canaveral.  Heck, they could launch from a good size parking lot if they could get the permissions.  Any problems they might have in finding places to launch aren't physical, but legal.  If Kerrisdale can't figure this out then maybe they shouldn't be investing in space startups.  

This is one of the problems with the financialization of tech startups in general, and space startups in particular: Bean counters demand guaranteed returns, and space startups often run into technical issues that prevent them from delivering those guaranteed returns.  If you can't figure this out then maybe you shouldn't be investing in space startups. It's gambling, pure and simple. 

Disclaimer: I have a position in Astra Space.  I am not a professional investment adviser, and if you need one then you should hire one.  I am not an expert in spaceflight, I'm just a guy with an opinion and a big mouth. 

Update: Unfortunately, this did not age well.  Astra is going bankrupt because of criminal mismanagement.  They've failed to get payloads to orbit enough that all of their potential customers bailed out.  Now they're going into the business of building parts for other businesses.  Criminal mismanagement.