Violence In America

to Members of Congress

and all those pledged to protect me

I am an American. You represent me, and you control the powerful agencies paid to protect me. Yet I’m terrified. I’m terrified by the epidemic of violence infecting our country, and the knowledge that much of it was ignored by an informed FBI prior to its occurrence. It seems that the Bureau was too involved in other matters, often political, to protect our citizens from the "honest" members of society. And you are a co-conspirator. Rushing to collect political points, you turned a blind eye to your constituents.

I don’t mean to minimize the hazards of international and internal conspiracies, but though they dominate the headlines, they ignore the concerns of most Americans.

For this reason I want to present several steps you can take that might improve our security. Some will argue that they violate the principles of our Constitution, but I suspect you can find a way to circumvent this issue. The original document was written at the end of the eighteenth century by men sensitive to the concerns of the society of the time. But times change. and some interpretation of the Constitution short of amendment, a long and tedious process, can probably be found to deal with the concerns of a twenty-first century society. Our Legislative and Judiciary branches cannot be limited by eighteenth century sensibilities. (Indeed, I’m not even convinced that the Founding Fathers, in those years long ago, meant the Second Amendment to cover "sport" and hunting use of weapons by a "well armed militia.") And it is worth revisiting previously discussed issues. even if prior discussions have failed. So I suggest

1.     Formation of a committee consisting of NRA members and other citizens to determine maximum needs for valid uses of arms. I suggest a deadline (perhaps two weeks) after which, lacking agreement, a "civilian" should impose a non-appealable decision. There should always be civilian dominance over the military (in this case the NRA).

2.     With the same deadline, the courts should decide what the Second Amendment covers.

3.     A Public Prosecutor should investigate the functions and procedures of the FBI.

4.     There should be widespread publication of who gives to the NRA and who benefits from it -- especially to and from public servants and their families, candidates for office, and any political organization that supports either. There will be protests from the NRA relative to privacy and other constitutional rights, but in an age of "transparency" some means must be found to overcome them.

5.     Mental health proposals and appropriations should be publicized, and spending undertaken immediately -- especially as it relates to the possibility of violence.

6.     Other necessary measures should be undertaken that are not appealable later.

　

I hope that public sentiment will be taken into account in future legislation and with rapid prosecution of alleged perpetrators. There should be similar regard in all judicial decisions. Excessive concerns about the accused’s origin, illnesses, and "rights" should be avoided.

                           Son of Publius

The Context Of Charlottesville

Today I sent the following letter to The Wall Street Journal. I doubt that it will be published, but it has a message that I believe to be valid.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

August 16, 2017

Dear Editor:

While I assume that the president was correct in his attribution of responsibility for the violence in Charlottesville, there is no excuse for murder, and the blame rests solely with one individual, not “both sides.” Saying what the president did was poor PR and bad politics, irrespective of the facts. But there is no moral equivalence between the speech of those who consider themselves aggrieved, and murder.

Unfortunately, however, the media view the incident without context. In fact it is part of a big picture which is threatening to trigger a second Civil War. There are daily protest marches, and vicious statements around the country by people for whom “he is not my president” – often organized and promoted in social media by ideologues whose aim is to provoke reaction and publicity. And when that reaction occurs they can express their righteous indignation. (Several CEOs, several days after the incident, resigned from government panels after seeing the polls and, presumably, deciding that it would be bad for business not to demonstrate their virtue.)

But, as Jason Reilly points out (Trump follows Obama's Example …) there have been other examples of violence which were directed against police (representatives of the government) and they did not provoke the same angry reaction and protests by those who see evil in anyone they oppose. Indeed, they drew statements from then President Obama which condemned and justified the crimes at the same time. It shouldn't have happened but it was the victims' fault and it was understandable. In his view, there may be moral equivalence between the speech of those who consider themselves aggrieved, and murder.

And when some incidents occur they blame the police for using force against unstable individuals with weapons. They minimize the threat from the sick. Such people get a pass. Surely the driver in Charlottesville was disturbed but, contrary to American ideals, even before trial he is judged guilty. No defense by him is acceptable.

We face a society seeking confrontation. Both sides. And we wring our hands when we get it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If you are unaware of the incident, it began with hate-mongers of the KKK, and neo-Nazis, as well as other hate filled white supremacists, holding a rally denouncing the removal of Confederate Civil War Monuments, and those protesting the rally and its participants. An unstable young supremacist drove a car into a crowd of those opposing the rally, killing one person. There is no question about the heinous nature of his act, but the major reaction, what prompted the primary complaints, was that the denunciation of the events made by the president was insufficiently condemnatory and specific. Perhaps that is true, but the president has been under attack by the same people since his election, and it is difficult to separate this particular verbal attack from those that preceded it. The fact that an unsatisfactory statement was made by a president under attack does not justify any deficiency it may have had, but it is background that cannot be ignored.

The righteous indignation displayed by protesters might be more believable if they displayed similar concern when an individual drove a car or truck into a crowd in Paris or Jerusalem; their outrage at what the KKK has to say and the need to silence it might be better understood if they protested the words of those who defame our country; their indignation at the murder might carry more weight if they had protested the assassination of police; their anger at President Trump's “moral ambiguity” if they had condemned that of his predecessor. Selective indignation is hypocrisy. It is a political pretext which ignores context, because by doing so it can be used to sell a message.

There is no justification for murder, but there is also no justification for protests whose purpose is to incite. And for the protesters there is another message, one illustrated by “The boy who cried 'wolf.'” It tells everyone that constant meritless complaints will lead to deafness to those that are justified.

August 16. 2017

Blaming The Victim

Many more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed in the ongoing war. But they picked the fight. Shouldn't we blame them?

Civilian casualties? If they cheer for the deaths of Israelis and they allow themselves to be used as shields, those civilians must know that they're likely to be targets, even if the terrorists who hid among them have already run away leaving them to receive the punishment.

Israel has better weapons and a better defense system? Hamas knew that before beginning the engagement. The victim ought not be blamed for defeating the aggressor. What Hamas seems to have wanted were graphic pictures of the death of its people, and the grief of the Palestinians, that it could “sell” to an eagerly awaiting press to illustrate the suffering of the “oppressed.” And those who claim to represent the Palestinian people will use the numbers of dead as ammunition in their effort to convince the UN to condemn Israel. But just as might doesn't make right, neither does weakness, though this is the argument of weak instigators. They attempt to attract sympathy by pretending to be a David wronged by a Goliath. And the hope is that the sympathy can be parlayed eventually into a victory by David – victory from the jaws of defeat.

There is no justification for the murder of a Palestinian, but neither was there any justification for the abduction and murder of three Israeli teen-agers for which it was unwarranted revenge. And attacks on Gaza are retaliation for rocket attacks from there on Israel. If the reaction is more effective than the original attacks, and if more civilians are killed, it still remains the appropriate response to the war being waged against Israel. And it is nothing less than war. According to the UN Charter, there is an “inherent right” of self-defense against armed attack. Those who view Israel's actions as “disproportionate” haven't been able to prescribe a more reasonable answer to Hamas's aggression, and to its declared determination to eliminate Israel.

Taking the side of the Palestinians out of concern for those flaunting their weakness is simply the bias of a party more concerned about the appearance of right than about right itself. (And by extension it raises questions about the objectivity of other opinions from the same source. I have in mind The New York Times.)

Additionally, the following AP report was on my was on Home Page this morning:

In the first indication that cease-fire efforts were underway, the office of Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi said he held "extensive contacts with all active and concerned parties" to end the fighting. It said the two sides discussed the "critical conditions and the need to stop all military action, and to stop the slide" toward more violence. It called on Israel to protect Palestinian civilians.

It apparently never occurred to him to call upon Hamas to stop using civilians as shields when their troops were sending rockets against Israel.

Sadly, this has been the pattern of coverage for many years. And it has been the default strategy of the Arab world as well. There has never been a willingness to accept a Jewish State by the countries of the Middle East. Indeed, many of those countries were created by western powers and they question the borders set for themselves as well. Although the inclination is to blame Israel for all of the unrest in the region – and elsewhere, it is difficult to connect Israel with the problems in Syria or Iraq or in other countries. To a great degree, the invective against the Jewish State serves the purpose of distracting the citizens of a nation ruled by tyrants. And the “meek” will join together to conquer the strong, and to “inherit” the world – which they will do until they begin fighting among themselves.

It's hard to see an end to the situation. The amount of distrust between the countries in the area, and the repetition of the accusations and lies and incitements to new generations makes any solution unlikely. The only hope is that the world will finally understand that the acceptance of wrong because it sounds good, and comes from those who control the fossil fuels they need, will never lead to peace. And when the media, and the world that they inform, recognize that the only path is one in which tyrants are discouraged from inciting violence, we'll have a chance.

But until then we'll blame those who refuse to give in, and there will be invective, war, and casualties. It sells newspapers.