Perspective

Let us put things into it...

If you do not understand the agenda behind all the recent flap over the Confederate flag, please continue to read, for a little perspective. Unless you've been living in the wilderness (and if so, I envy you), you have seen the media and political frenzy proclaiming the inherent racist symbolism of that piece of colored fabric. 

There are a lot of people being duped, once again, by a manufactured crisis. Those provoking the brouhaha were well aware of the impending response - they, in fact, were counting on it - once again driving a wedge between those who need, now more than ever, to stand together. Proof of this tactic can also be recognized in the rainbow lighting of the White House. Any sane person would have known how the opponents of same sex marriage would react. Both sides of each of these non-issues are unwitting accomplices to a shameful political game. How many Confederate flags did you see being flown before the senseless and horrific murders of the nine people in South Carolina? How about since the first mention of the murderer having it displayed on his car?

Can you roughly estimate the number of times you've seen a Facebook post or news piece on the Confederate flag, today? How about over the last week? Now, during the same time periods, how many times have you seen or heard outrage by the media and political elite over the number of black youth victimized each year? I mean real victimization, as in violent, criminal attacks, not the perceived victimization of walking past a flag or monument - which is what the elite propose you should "feel."

According to a 2007 government report, 8,000 black people were the victims of homicide in 2005. That number has since steadily risen. It is noteworthy, although apparently not newsworthy, over 90% of those were intra-racial assaults. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

It is estimated that, over the past 35 years in the U.S., over 300,000 have lost their lives to black-on-black violence. The numbers of intra-racial, non-fatal violence is utterly astounding, at about 805,000 in 2005. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf

Here's the perspective part - During the 350+ years of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, 12.5 million Africans were ripped from their lands and around 20% died tragically enroute to the New World. Do you know how many were actually shipped directly to North America? According to Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (yes, the same Henry Gates at the center of the 2009 Cambridge arrest fuss that culminated in the Beer Summit), only about 388,000. Don't get your feathers ruffled over the use of the word "only"; it was his word and I strongly believe even one was too many. It is simply putting things into perspective. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/how-many-slaves-landed-in-the-us/

Now, when we extrapolate from these numbers, we can see that, in only 35 years, nearly as many U.S. black people have lost their lives to intra-racial violence, as were enslaved on the continent in ten times the number of years. Combined with the victims of non-fatal violence during the same time frame, the number approaches 77% of those who survived the trip to become slaves in North America, South America, and the Caribbean.

If the media and political elite had any concern for the plight of any of us, wouldn't you think that would be a higher priority than a piece of colored fabric or whether or not two people can be married? 

Although Piers Morgan lost his job at CNN, and justifiably so, there are some who will continue to give him a microphone and allow him to satisfy his self-important attempt to be relevant. Unfortunately, most often, those who permit him the opportunity fawn over his every word. This is another of those times and I simply could not let it pass without rebuttal. The first 40 seconds is a caller berating Morgan, with some colorful language that some might wish to skip over.

So, let's, once again, pick apart Piers Morgan's weak approach to criticizing that which he does not understand. 

". . . nuclear scientist who thinks it's a good idea to take a loaded gun into Walmart and let her two-year old son pull it out and use it."

This is simply a plea to emotion, absent any factual basis. The key words here are "good idea," "let," and "use it." It's blatantly obvious NO sane person would ever think it a "good idea."  NO sane person would "let" (as in condone) a 2-year old do that. NO 2-year old is capable "using" a firearm. If one does access a firearm, it results in misuse. Incidents like these are rare, regardless of what Morgan would like you to believe. As a percentage of all U.S. deaths, accidental discharge of a firearm comprises 0.03%, at 851 total. The leading cause of accidental death, automobile accidents, comprises 1.38%, at 34,677. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

"To me, there's no hunter in all of America who needs a magazine of more than 10 bullets to shoot a deer, for example."

The 2nd Amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting and never did. The right to defend one's life and property is natural to man's existence. It preexists any government and any constitution. The 2nd merely reaffirms to government that it must recognize this and keep its hands off. Invoking hunting in any fashion is a straw man.

Morgan recites a list of things which are prohibited in the U.S.; Kinder Surprise chocolate eggs, 6 packets of Sudafed, most of the French cheeses. He's correct. Those things should not be prohibited and neither should magazine capacities. However, if he wants to rely on the Constitution to protect his 1st Amendment rights (also natural rights), then he cannot ignore the words "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd. Doing so is disingenuous, an affliction common to Piers Morgan and other anti-gun progressives. For example, did you notice Bloomberg's recent call for minorities to be denied gun ownership? Gun control has its roots in Jim Crow laws, with many states implementing laws designed to prevent blacks from obtaining guns. Eugenics is also a progressive philosophy and what better way to reduce the numbers of "inferior" black people than to deny them the ability to defend themselves?

Notice that Morgan completely shut down and ignored the caller's argument that a person is more likely to be shot in states with stricter gun laws. Instead, he presented his straw man about where criminals get their guns, that fails to address the facts. To his straw man, all the guns originating in states with less strict gun laws are not leaving the state, to those with stricter laws. So, by his logic, the states with less strict laws should still have an exponentially higher firearm crime rate. They do not. 

The drunk driving fatalities justification:

1. The per se blood/alcohol count is at its lowest point ever (.08), yet since the mid 90's there has been a net increase in alcohol-related traffic fatalities.

2. Morgan's use of DWI fatality statistics erroneously equates correlation with causation. It fails to recognize that the trend in reduced DWI-related fatalities closely correlates to the reduction in all traffic fatalities; a fact most likely attributable to increases in vehicle safety equipment. 

The top chart depicts the numbers of DWI-related fatalities per 100 million miles. The lower chart, all traffic-related fatalities.

Sure, to the ill-informed and gullible, Morgan's "points" appear valid, but just a small amount of logic, topical education, and research invalidates them all.

A libertarian on abortion

            I wrote some of this, in response to a young lady's comment to a recent Facebook post on abortion, in which she said, "The government needs to stay out of our vaginas.”

            First of all, I believe the proper phrase is, “Keep the government out of our uteruses,” since that’s from where the fetus is in danger of being aborted. However, in my reply, I went along with her terminology just to avoid confusion. Secondly, those who rely solely on religion to counter their “pro-choice” or pro-abortion opponents will never win over a significant segment of them. It’s just a simple fact that not everyone shares the same religious views and almost everyone becomes offended by any attempt to challenge those already ingrained. Once offended, almost everyone will block out any opposing view or opinion, regardless of logic or veracity. It’s just human nature. I believe the most cogent argument against abortion is a non-religious one. Now, I’m not a religious person, so this is my standard debate position, anyway.

            While all of the other replies were from the religious angle, I suggested she consider the issue in a little more depth, from the perspective of the argument she used. What about the "vaginas" of the unborn girls, who are killed through abortions? Do those possessors of "vaginas" not have rights, as well?

            Individuals have rights, along with the responsibility to not infringe on the rights of others. Once another person is conceived in the womb, he/she consequently gains the natural right to life, just as the woman carrying that child.

            Consider this scenario. A pregnant woman is driving, after having left her doctor's office, where she'd had a sonogram of her healthy baby. A drunk driver runs through an intersection, causing the death of the baby. First, in order for there to be a death, there must first be a life. Second, would you agree the drunk driver should be held criminally responsible for that death?

            Now, what if that pregnant woman was driving to an abortion clinic, to terminate the pregnancy, when the same collision occurs? Should the drunk driver still be held criminally responsible? Or, because the woman does not want the child, did "it" cease to be a life, at the moment of her decision?

                As another example, what if a person traveled all 50 states, randomly seeking out pregnant women who, once found, he forcefully struck in the abdomen, intentionally causing the deaths of the fetuses? There are myriad statutes defining the terms of gestation, during which abortions are permitted. A common phrase, in making such definitions is "point of viability." Prior to that "point," life is not considered to exist. Consequently, our fictitious serial killer should not be prosecuted for murder. Again, because a death necessarily acknowledges a preexisting life.

            There was an interesting case unfolding in Colorado, recently. Reportedly, a hospital error resulted in the death of an unborn child. The father sued the hospital, for wrongful death and negligence. However, the hospital argued for the dismissal of the case, based on Colorado's statutes regarding the time frame of a pregnancy, when abortion was permissible. Basically, if the state did not recognize the presence of life, for the purpose of abortion, it could not then hold that a life exists, during the same time frame, in this case. So, necessarily, the hospital could not be held liable for causing the death, if there was no life to begin with.

            Another of the young lady’s comments contained the argument that “it’s human nature to want to have sex.” Of course, being the opinionated person that I am, I couldn’t let that one go unanswered either.

            Practically every action a person undertakes carries with it inherent responsibilities. Voluntarily engaging in an activity, which has the possibility of producing what they perceive as a negative outcome, should be conducted with the expectation of having to live with that outcome.

            If a person gets behind the wheel of a car, while intoxicated, there is the possibility of causing harm to another. If a person behaves foolishly with a loaded firearm, ditto. If a person breaks into the home of another, who is armed to protect himself/herself or their family. . . well, you get the picture. If a person isn't willing to accept the possible consequences, they should abstain from that behavior.

            The primary purpose of sex, among all mammals, is procreation and it is always a possible outcome. The same applies to unprotected sex, which carries with it the possibility of contracting an STD. If a person is not willing to accept the consequences of either, then he/she has the personal responsibility of doing whatever is necessary to prevent that consequence, up to and including temporary abstinence.

            Regardless of whether or not "it's human nature to want to have sex", it is not a life sustaining activity, like eating, drinking, or breathing, so that argument is a straw man. People may want to do a lot of things; many of which have potentially negative outcomes or unintended consequences. The question is, is the risk worth the reward?

            The entire issue of abortion comes down to one thing. Absent all the spin, rhetoric, hyperbole, straw men, and ad hominems, the question is simply “What constitutes life?”

            How often have we seen or heard headlines such as, “Have scientists discovered life on another planet?” And, when the possible “evidence” is exposed, it is never more than the mere existence of water or what may be a fossilized microbe. But, people are always eager to accept that as sufficient proof of life. Meanwhile, a woman on this planet, with two independent heartbeats, is not considered to be two autonomous lives. Yes, I used that word knowing the small life inside the womb is wholly dependent; just as dependent as the one day old child, the severely handicapped, the disabled, and the elderly. But, those factors do not diminish one’s right to life, nor the protection of that right. The law then rightly protects them.

            Yet somehow, although the horrendous institution of slavery was abolished nearly 200 years ago, it has become acceptable to many, including the courts, for a woman to claim ownership of the second heartbeat, along with the power to dispense with that life, with impunity. Further, it is expected of government to not just permit the arbitrary quenching of life, but to also enable it, even at the expense of those who wish to not participate.

            I wholeheartedly support keeping government out of women’s uteruses. But, once she’s voluntarily engaged in an activity, which resulted in the formation of another life, it’s no longer just about her. Then, that life has become, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and it is incumbent upon the “Government instituted among men” to “provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty” of that life.

            How is it possible for a woman to consciously invoke a right to her own life and uterus, without also acknowledging the same for the life growing within her? After all, she did voluntarily participate in its creation.

Whatever Happened to Constitutional Amendments

            Since the signing of the Constitution, 17 September 1787, there have been twenty-seven amendments, providing additional instructions to government, amending previous instructions, or abolishing previous instructions. Of course, most People recognize the first 10 as The Bill of Rights.

            Interestingly, yet unrelated to the topic at hand, the last was submitted for ratification in 1789, with the first state doing so that year. Although, the 38^th state, required to attain the 3/4 threshold, did not ratify until 1992. By the way, that amendment established congressional pay raises, passed into law by congress, are not effective until after the next congressional elections are held.

            The amendment process has been used to resolve such pivotal and highly contentious issues as the abolition of slavery. The 14^th was very momentous in that it nullified the Supreme Court’s decision prohibiting citizenship for African-Americans. Additionally, and also related to the issue of slavery, the 14^th prohibited the states from infringing on the “privileges and immunities” afforded citizens of the United States and extended to them the due process and equal protection clauses.

            Four of them (15, 19, 24 and 26) concerned the right to vote, extending it to persons of all races, women, and those at least 18 years of age, as well as prohibiting a poll tax.

            The 18^th enacted the prohibition of alcohol, which, partially due to the prevalence of alcohol available through underground channels and the high public demand for it, was repealed only 11 years later. Although, one could argue the decision was most likely a matter of states’ economics, rather than public demand.

            Historically, the government has deferred to the amendment process in matters, which many would consider trivial, such as establishing the number of electors for the District of Columbia. The 20^th included a section changing the date for Congress to convene, even though Article I Sec. 4 clearly allowed for that to be done simply by passing a law.

            Then there is everyone’s favorite… the 16^th, which graciously bestowed upon us, or rather cemented, the federal income tax.

            All of this was not intended as a history lesson, but rather as a prelude to this question. Whatever happened to Constitutional Amendments? They have been proven to be possible, even in the most controversial of circumstances. They have been used in seemingly trivial matters. So, why does the modern government avoid that process in approaching such highly volatile issues as gun control?

            It has become common practice to merely proclaim the support of “the majority of Americans” and enact legislation, or more alarmingly, by edict of executive order. It’s not exclusive to one party, either. President Bush issued 290 executive orders, in his 8 years, while President Obama has amassed 145 in 4 years, exactly proportionate to his predecessor. Previous presidents, from both parties, have reached similar numbers, regardless of the fact the executive order lacks specific constitutional authority.

            Even though two sections of the Constitution ensure Americans “due process of law” and “equal protection”, both Lincoln and G. W. Bush (Patriot Act) signed legislation suspending habeas corpus, while Obama has signed equally controversial legislation, in the form of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). If “the American People” supported each of those actions, why evade the constitutionally authorized amendment process?

            And, here we are again. Gun control. If those seeking to enact legislation or encouraging the use of executive orders, to restrict the private ownership and/or transfer of any types of firearms, accessories or ammunition, truly believe “the majority of Americans” support such extensive gun control measures, why not propose an amendment to the Constitution? Why not subject those measures to the test of attaining the approval of 2/3 of the Senate and House of Representatives? Why not then put it to the test of attaining the approval of 3/4 of the states?

            These questions I leave to you, the reader.

Yeah, It's Gun Control... Again

            In a press briefing, five days after the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School, President Obama said of the ongoing debate on gun violence and gun control, “But this time, the words need to lead to action.” He went on to say, “A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons.  A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips.  A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all.”

            First of all, isn’t it always interesting to hear both Republicans and Democrats, while debating a particular issue, claim to know that “the majority of Americans” want a certain thing? How is it possible for “the majority of Americans” to simultaneously support opposite sides of an issue?

            It’s not and the fact is, neither Democrats nor Republicans can lay claim to having that knowledge, much less any sort of mandate from The People. In the 2012 presidential election, 72% of eligible voters did not vote for Barack Obama and 73% did not vote for Mitt Romney, which means 45% didn’t vote for either. That’s correct, the president was selected by only 23% of eligible voters; not even close to “the majority of Americans”.

            The president used the phrase “words need to lead to action”. More appropriately, “words” need to be parsed and actions need to be justified by facts, not rhetoric. So, what are the facts?

            One progressive website cites 29 “mass” murders, as evidence in support of the types of gun control measures being offered up by Obama, Biden, Feinstein and others. The author included murders of 2 or more in the list, dating back to the massacre at Columbine High School in 1999. Five of them, including Columbine, occurred in the midst of the previous “assault weapons ban”.

            When those 29 events are broken down, so-called “assault weapons” were used in only 6 and in one of those the killing continued, although the semi-auto rifle failed to function and was abandoned. In another, an AK47 style semi-auto rifle was in the murderer’s vehicle, but had not been used. At Columbine, which is often used as the standard for gun control, autopsies indicate a shotgun was used to kill most of the victims. Two were used; one double-barreled and one pump action. So, “assault weapons” were used in only 20% of these events, yet are the prime target of the gun control movement.

            Included in the president’s list above, is what is referred to as the “gun show loophole”. The phrase actually refers to an individual selling a personally owned firearm, to another individual. So, “closing the loophole” will necessarily require the registration of all privately owned firearms and their transfers, which will in no way affect those who steal guns to commit crimes.

            Another important set of data in this debate is the numbers of violent crimes in the U.S. According to FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the rate of violent crime between 1994 and 2004 averaged 561.9 per 100,000, annually. Remember, this was the term of the previous “assault weapons ban”. Unfortunately for the gun control advocates, the rate of violent crime has actually decreased since the expiration of the ban, to 443.1 per 100,000.

            Of course, all of that is trivial, when you consider there are some who are advocating actually repealing the 2^nd Amendment and others passing local bans of certain types of firearms. In order to successfully debate that issue, one should be careful with how they refer to the 2^nd Amendment. Too often, People argue it is the 2^nd, which gives them the right to private ownership of firearms. The problem with doing so is that by authorizing government to give you a “right”, you also give it the authority to take it away. Actually, the Constitution doesn’t permit the People to do anything. But, it does tell government what it must and must not do. Your right to defend yourself, by whatever means necessary including firearms, preexists the Constitution. It preexists any government. It is, in fact, one of the unalienable rights, natural to each and every human. Unalienable meaning it cannot be taken from you, nor given away by you.

            The founders of this country recognized this and acknowledged it within the Declaration of Independence. Words are important and one should read those carefully. It says that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” As to the right of self-defense, how else can a man enjoy his life, liberty and property, without the ability to protect it? Notice also, the authors used the specific words, “among these”. It means to not limit the rights of the individual in any way and to affirm individual rights are not derived from governments. They wanted to ensure whatever form of government was established, honored the natural rights of the People and its predominant purpose was to protect them. This was subsequently added to the Constitution, as the 9^th Amendment. I will not provide that text here, because I think it is important for everyone to reread our founding documents and a great place to do so is www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/. 

Actual School Security, Not Emotional Reactions

            When I was given the opportunity to produce a column for the Bulletin, I decided to mostly spin off of Wednesdays’ “Capital Highlights” column, addressing how those items might impact our area. Sadly, this week’s leading topic was prompted by the heinous criminal act of a deranged individual in Newtown, Connecticut.

            The reactions to the taking of those young, innocent lives and the teachers of Sandy Hook Elementary School have been as varied as is humanly possibly. Everywhere, there are speculations as to where blame should be placed; guns, video games, violent movies, bullying, inadequate security, failings of the mental health system… Emotions have been high and understandably so, however, acting solely on those emotions seldom results in beneficial change.

            Wednesday’s edition of “Highlights” quoted Gov. Perry asking all Texas schools to reevaluate their security measures and cited a 2005 law requiring Texas schools “adopt and implement a multi-hazard emergency operations plan”. Fortunately, the state recognized one plan is not suitable to every school district, leaving our local administrators to determine the most effective and efficient measures, in association with local law enforcement. To this end, the law mandates a periodic audit and report to the local board of trustees and to the Texas School Safety Center. Which brings me now to the topic of this column.

            Whenever an incident occurs, like that on December 14^th, many begin to question whether or not their children are safe at school and it only takes a spark to send emotions soaring. Case in point, Granbury ISD. Apparently, on Friday, rumors began to spread of threats to students. Over the weekend, hundreds of comments were posted to the school’s Facebook page, perpetuating the rumors and questioning the perceived failures of the administration in informing parents of “the facts”. The Facebook activity, which often contained third hand or further removed information, produced an increasing panic, which no amount of facts would quell.

            According to statements released by the Granbury Police Department and the school on Monday, rumors of a gun found at the school were false, as was the supposed presence of newly written graffiti threats and practically everything else that had been discussed in the social media forum. However, a significant amount of damage had already been done and some parents withheld students from school, on Monday.

            I do not mean to judge them for that, as I’m sure they did what they believed to be in the best interest of their children. But, there are a few things parents should consider, before being drawn in to hysteria, unnecessarily. To begin, school administrations are not going to, and shouldn’t be expected to, comment on every bit of information they receive. That only provides more fuel to already rampant rumors and will likely impede their and law enforcement’s investigations. Additionally, it takes time to sort through the massive amounts of information that comes forth in these events and time is extremely important.

            Next, our schools’ administrations are not going to provide details on all of their security measures and operational plans, in public forums. Understand that doing so would undermine the whole purpose of developing the plan. Often, the most vital and most effective security measures are unseen, by design. Respect that and they will remain effective for a long time.

            The last thing I urge all parents to consider is perhaps the most compelling reason to avoid spreading rumors and publicly doubting the efforts of your school’s administration. Stop to think how many teachers, administrators and support staff have children of their own in their schools. Isn’t it likely they have the same desire to protect their children as the rest of us? Isn’t it likely these teachers would address security concerns with the administration and call them to task, if the response was inadequate?

            The superintendents of Brownwood and Early ISDs have posted statements on their respective district’s websites, extending invitations for questions. I just ask that you keep the preceding suggestions in mind, when formulating your questions and acceptable replies. Specifically, I spoke to Dr. Reece Blincoe on Tuesday, who said “We have been visiting with each of the principles, asking that they seek input from the teachers on their campuses.” Dr. Blincoe said the results of those discussions will be presented in an administrative meeting, before the students return from the Christmas break. He wished to assure parents the Brownwood schools “always put safety first”.

            The murders of the children at Sandy Hook Elementary is a chilling reminder that it is impossible for any of us to guarantee the safety of our own, apart from locking them away from the rest of the world. There are certain risks, which must be accepted if our lives are to have any meaning at all. The most we can do is minimize them through awareness and not allow emotions to dictate our responses.