Buffalo And Uvalde - What To Do? My Take, Part III

So, what would I do?  First, as discussed in "My Take, Part I," I would enhance school security.  The Israelis are a good role model.  Is it going to be expensive?  Yes.  But as I said, we spend trillions of dollars annually.  Let's spend some on securing our schools.  And, I suspect there are current or retired law enforcement officers willing to volunteer their time.  The same for ex-military.  I am talking about men and women already trained in the use of firearms.

Also as discussed in Part I, I agree with the Rebbe's concern about declining religious involvement and the need for a non-denominational school prayer.  But this is a societal and family problem.  As the Wall Street Journal opined in their 5/26/22 editorial:  "The modern welfare state is adept at writing checks, but not much else.  Today's young killers aren't motivated by material deprivation.  They are typically from middle-class families with access to smartphones and X-boxes.  Their deficit is social and spiritual.  The rise of family dysfunction and the decline of mediating institutions such as churches and social clubs have consequences."  To my thinking, the societal, family and religious issues are far more significant than the issue of guns.

In March, 2018, and following the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, then Governor Rick Scott signed into law some new legislation regarding guns.  The age at which someone could buy a rifle was raised to 21.  I agree with this, and here's why.  I am well aware that 18 year old's serve in our military.  But they are trained and disciplined in the use of firearms.  I am also aware that in many states people under age 18 grow up with firearms, and are taught the proper and safe use of such weapons at an early age.  But I also know that many 18 year old's are emotionally immature.  And shooters often dwell on perceived slights that they experienced in high school.  My hope is that being away from school and out in the real world for a few years, will lessen whatever emotional impact they experienced in school. 

The Florida law also put in place red flag laws, which the legislation called "risk protection orders."  I am in favor.  I discussed in Part I the difficulty in banning gun ownership based on a diagnosable psychological condition.  The law in Florida has given judges the ability to at least temporarily ban purchasing a gun by people who have been reported to the authorities to have made threats.  Is there a risk of abuse, say by an abusive spouse against the other spouse, making the victim of the abuse defenseless?  Yes.  Is there is a risk of abuse by liberal judges who too readily issue such orders?  Yes.  But I also read quite a few instances online where such risk protection orders were not only appropriate, but likely highly effective in preventing shootings.  I understand that no law is perfect.

The Florida law also allowed school staff trained in the use of firearms to carry a weapon.  I have mixed feelings about this, but I come down in favor.  I would want it to be a concealed carry.  And, I am in favor because of the risk of a shooter getting past the armed guard at the entrance.

I am sure that those on the left will be disappointed by my not advocating for greater gun control, if not outright banning of the private ownership of guns.  And I suspect some on the right will disapprove of my support for red flag laws and raising the age to purchase a rifle to 21.  I welcome all (respectful) comments.

Buffalo And Uvalde - What To Do? My Take, Part II

A look at some facts.  Jason Riley reported in the 6/1/22 Wall Street Journal, that 54% of the gun related deaths in 2020 were suicides, while less than 1% of gun deaths were a result of mass shootings.  That does not mean that all those deaths were not tragic.  Of course they were.  Riley also notes that gun ownership is more common in rural areas than in cities, yet it is the cities that tend to have more gun violence.  And, while whites have a higher degree of gun ownership than blacks and Hispanics, gun violence is a more common problem among those two minority groups.  

Obviously, the disparity in gun violence of whites vs minorities, and rural vs city, suggests that guns are not the problem.  For those who argue that guns are the major problem, you need to address these factual issues.  

I would like to add another issue:  the mainstream media.  How and what the media reports determines viewpoints.  The perceptions disseminated by the media become reality for many people.  An example.  The media never fails to report when a white cop kills a black person.  Therefore, many people can readily name at least some blacks who have been killed by the police.  When I have asked people to name a single white person shot and killed by the police, they are unable to do so.  Yet, far more whites are killed by the police than are blacks.  But, as perception becomes reality, to some, being unable to name a single white person killed by police must mean it does not happen.  Or, at least not very often.  And being able to name several blacks killed by the police must mean it is an epidemic. 

President Biden gave his "do something" speech to the nation about guns on 6/2/22.  There are some suggestions with which I agree, and those I will discuss in the next post.  But here are those items with which I disagree.  I would not ban so-called assault rifles, by which people mean the AR-15 (Armalite 15) rifles.  I have spoken with people far more knowledgeable than I am about this.  I would not repeal the gun manufacturers' liability shield, as I see that as a backdoor approach to put gun manufacturers out of business through countless lawsuits.

Prior to his speech, Biden had suggested a ban on the production of 9mm handguns, the most common gun in America.  I certainly do not agree with that.  People should have a right to protect themselves.  In the recently passed House legislation, the "Protecting Our Kids Act," the law suggested criminal penalties for anyone violating the new requirements for the safe firearm storage on residential premises.  I do not agree with that.  People who are irresponsible can already be held accountable at the state level.  

Not surprisingly, Biden argued in his speech that voters should make the issue of guns "central" to their vote in November.  I doubt that will happen.  Not with the highest rate of inflation in over 40 years.  Not with ongoing supply chain issues.  Not with out of control crime and homelessness across the country.  And not with a wide open border, allowing a large volume of fentanyl to illegally be brought into the country, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths.  As more people die from fentanyl than from guns, I suggest that people make Biden's open border policy "central" to their vote in November.

But here is a recommendation I do have for the President.  Tone down the rhetoric!  I heard Jen Psaki, from the White House podium, state that it was an appropriate exercise of free speech to demonstrate in front of the homes of Supreme Court Justices.  No, it's not.  There is even a federal law prohibiting it.  And while that law might run afoul of the First Amendment, it still does not make it right.  I asked in an earlier post if judges should decide cases based upon who makes the loudest noise?  Based on the mob?  Did Biden criticize Schumer for threatening Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?  Because now we just had a man from Simi Valley, California, travel to Washington with the intent of assassinating Justice Kavanaugh.  

Toning down the rhetoric starts from the top.  And you, President Biden, are in a unique position to initiate a more civil political tone.  You ran as a "uniter."  The main theme of your inaugural address was that you were going to unify the country.  Prove it.  

Buffalo And Uvalde - What To Do? My Take, Part I

 (Note.  I have written various posts dealing the subject of guns.  A detailed discussion was done in the 1/12/13 post.  There was additional discussion in the 12/5/15 post, the 3/4/18 post and the recent post of 4/10/22.  All are still up on the blog.)

When I heard about the racist, antisemitic bastard shooting and killing black people who were just out shopping in the supermarket, I was furious.  I knew little about the shooter, but I wanted to see a public execution.  Then, we learned about an evil shooter killing children in an elementary school in Uvalde.  How anyone could shoot ten year old's was simply incomprehensible.  I alternated between extreme anger and sadness/tears.  But, unlike others (commentators and people telling me to write about guns), my anger was directed at the perpetrators, not at guns.  

I suggested that the issue was far more complicated than "guns."  After all, I thought there were issues of school safety and security, social media, violent video games and realistically violent movies and TV shows, dysfunctional families, fatherless families, young alienated loner males, mental health, and a weakening of religious upbringing and involvement in churches and synagogues.  But the mainstream media, and some readers, told me the only real issue was guns. 

A word about the Second Amendment.  I will not debate the meaning of the Second Amendment here.  However, I do acknowledge that no right in the Constitution is absolute.  Not even the First Amendment right to speech.  Also, it would be impossible for me to cover each of the issues set forth in the above paragraph, in this post.  So I will touch on a few, before getting to guns.

Mental health.  There was an interesting article on NBC online on 5/28/22.  They quoted the Harvard Review of Psychiatry as follows:  "The assumption that mass shootings are driven solely or even primarily by diagnosable psychopathology stretches the limits of mental health expertise."  They also state that many of these shooters do share symptoms with others who never become shooters.  Symptoms such as "depression, isolation from family and classmates, narcissism, paranoia and suspicion...(and) feeling easily threatened or insulted by others."  That does not instill confidence in being able to screen for mental illness.

Social media.  On 5/28/22, CNN reported that the "Uvalde gunman threatened rapes and school shootings on social media app Yubo in (the) weeks leading up to the massacre, users say."  The problem is, 99% of the estimated 60 million users of Yubo are age 25 and under.  None of them took the threats with sufficient seriousness to make a report.  CNN indicates that Yubo began in 2015 and is based in Paris.  So it would appear that both users of the site, and the site itself, failed to alert authorities about the threat from the Uvalde gunman.  

School safety and security.  The Western Journal (5/30/22) had an interesting piece about school security in Israel.  The Israelis are famous for being leaders in security, given the threats that they face on a daily basis.  According to the Journal, Israel has a "complex, multi-layered approach" to school security.  It includes behavioral profiling, monitoring people's social media profiles, having metal detectors going into schools and having to sign in, and having one entrance and one exit.  The head of security knows everyone coming in and leaving.  And they have a "spotter" 50 meters out from the school patrolling the area.  They have security fencing and numerous cameras, and there are barricades that prevent cars from driving onto the campus.  Does all that cost a lot?  I am sure that it does.  But we are spending multiple trillions of dollars a year at the federal level already.  Can't we spend some of that for school safety?  

Declining religious involvement.  Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson (the Rebbe) is widely regarded as being the most influential Rabbi in the 20th century.  Rabbi Schneerson was the head of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement.  (Disclosure.  I have attended religious services at Chabad for years.)  The Rebbe was a big believer in school prayer.  However, he was well aware that many of his fellow Jews feared that Christian prayers would dominate the schools.  Therefore, he advocated for a non-denominational prayer that would acknowledge the existence of G-d.  He said that all people needed to know that "the world in which they live is not a jungle, where brute force, cunning, and unbridled passion rule supreme, but that it has a (Supreme Being) Who...takes a 'personal interest' in the affairs of each and every individual, and to Him everyone is accountable for (his or her) daily conduct."  Are we, as a society, better off without school prayer?  I certainly don't thinks so.  

And the Rebbe made this very astute observation:  "If in a previous generation there were people who doubted the need of Divine authority for common morality and ethics, (and who believed instead) that human reason is sufficient authority for morality and ethics, our present generation has, unfortunately, in a most devastating and tragic way, refuted this mistaken notion.  For it is precisely the nation which had excelled itself in the exact sciences, the humanities, and even in philosophy and ethics, that turned out to be the most depraved nation in the world..."  The Rebbe was referring, of course, to Nazi Germany.

Buffalo And Uvalde - What To Do? A Few Comments By My Readers

(Note.  Following the shooting in Buffalo, and especially after the shooting of 10 year old's in Uvalde, I have heard from people with various opinions.  Emotions were quite raw.  I found myself with tears multiple times after these shootings.  This post is to allow readers who have contacted me to express their opinions, without comment by me.  As a conservative, and sharing some of the values of classical liberalism, I believe that all voices should be heard.)

"Don't call me to discuss.  I'm too emotional.  A rage.  But, I urge you to immediately write your thoughts and positions on guns, community and school shootings.  Sandy Hook, Parkland, Sylmar, Orlando, Arvada, Buffalo, Columbine, Borderline Bar, San Bernardino, Uvalde, and on and on.  I think that I hate the word 'gun' more than just any other word.  Worst invention ever.  I believe the second amendment should be overturned.  I know you disagree with me and the views of many others on this subject.  But, I think now is the time for you, again, to address these issues.  I had to get this off my chest.  Don't try to rationalize the second amendment or guns to me.  Just write your blog.  Hopefully, tonight."  (Sent 5/24/22)

"Look at the background of all of the shooters.  All loners/lonely.  All angry.  All leaving social media posts of intent.  No one reporting warning signs.  All with poor or no parenting - even the two engineers in NY.  All suffering from mental illness.  When will Mental Health professionals open their eyes and deal with violent behavior?  I am for background checks to pacify the left.  But show me a case where it would have made any difference.  All the guns were legally obtained, even from the stupid parents in Michigan!"   

"It seems like you'll look for every reason NOT to regulate guns.  It certainly can't be the Second Amendment which does not prohibit all regulation of guns.  Your prior blog about guns, which I thought was your worst, has not aged well.  Yes, there are other things we can and should do.  But gun regulation should be an EASY beginning.  There's the lead for your blog.  To acknowledge that evil exists gets us nowhere." 

To paraphrase a retired police officer friend who spoke to me:  I am furious at those cowards who stood outside and did not go in.  I refuse to call them fellow cops - they are cowards!  If you don't ever want to face danger, then don't put on the badge and don't carry a gun.  But if you put on a badge and carry a gun, do your damn job!  I've been in firefights.  I've been shot.  It's the risk we take by doing the job.

"Move the eligible age for purchasing a firearm up to 21?  What if someone gets married at 18 - do they need to wait three years to be able to defend their person, loved ones and home?  Should they move the age for marriage?  Up or down?  Age for driving?  Age for drinking?  Age for smoking marijuana?  Age for a non-emergency abortion?  Age for receiving 'transexual-ed' in school?"

"The vast number of shootings and murders are the result of gang violence.  No 'assault weapons' are involved.  Stop gang violence and the murder rate will plummet.  Knives kill many more than AR rifles.  Drug overdoses killed 108,000 kids last year, supplied by Mexican Cartels and the CCP.  This is all just a political game to shore (up) democrat polling losses.  We have a mental health crisis, a failure of faith and family cohesion, with politicians and the media sowing division within socioeconomic segments of American culture."  

"The most common form of death by firearm is suicide.  But a close second is related to drug warfare.  Like the alcohol-fueled wars in the days of Prohibition, the huge amount of money involved in the drug trade leads to continued armed skirmishes in both our cities and our rural areas.  In addition to the gun violence the drug trade creates, it has single-handedly created thousands and thousands of opioid overdose deaths.  Drug-fueled gang warfare in Central America is the main impetus to illegal immigration from South and Central America...Gang-related deaths, the opioid crisis, illegal immigration, corruption of law enforcement - does any other problem in our country create a comparable list of crises?  What is the solution?  GET THE MONEY OUT OF DRUGS!!  If it wasn't for US drug users paying them, these drug gangs and armies would no longer be funded...Decriminalizing drugs and provision of supervised free use and treatment centers, would cut the heart out of the economic fuel for drug deaths - whether by gun or by overdose."  

Elsewhere in the News

Donny Deutsch has been a television commentator and advertising executive.  This is what he said on MSNBC after the mass shooting in Buffalo:  "Brand every Republican"...as the party of "racist, violent replacement theory."  Just despicable.  How about we brand every Democrat as a liar, willing to say anything, and engage in any demagoguery, in order to make a political point.

Although, I wonder if our President is that far from siding with Deutsch.  Here is Biden:  "This MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that's existed in recent American history."  Hmm.  Occupy Wall Street.  Black Lives Matter.  Antifa.  

In Kiel, Wisconsin, some Middle School kids (age 13 years) are being accused of Title IX sexual harassment.  No, not rape, not improper touching, not even calling the "victim" a nasty word.  Their offense?  Not using the desired pronoun.  The "victim" wished to be referred to as "they" and "them."  I do not know if the offenders mocked the individual in question, or repeatedly bullied the other child in some way.  I do know that these school administrators are prone to act too hastily in dealing with these situations, when perhaps a sit down with the involved parties might solve the matter.  But calm reflection and counseling seems to be the road less traveled.   

Robin Abcarian is a columnist at the LA Times.  In today's paper was an Op-Ed by her decrying the overturning of a 2018 California Law mandating that publicly held corporations have a certain number of female directors on their boards.  An LA County Superior Court Judge declared the law to be an unconstitutional denial of the equal protection clause under the state constitution.  Some of you may wonder why it's the government's business to dictate a corporate board's makeup.  So do I.  Are women always to be victims, unable to accomplish on their own?

I am proud to say that one of my daughters works for an organization called "Chief."  Chief bills itself as a women's empowerment group.  Here are a few lines from their website.  "Chief is the only private membership network focused on connecting and supporting women executive leaders."  "Chief drives women to the top and keeps them there."  "Chief is changing the face of leadership."  How about that?  Changing the face of leadership without government involvement.  

I recently had an email exchange with a fellow Jewish colleague who happens to be on the left.  He assured me that any anti-Israel sentiment in the Democrat Party is on the fringe only.  Let's see.  Recently, President Biden appointed Karine Jean-Pierre to replace Jen Psaki as the White House press secretary.  Jean-Pierre has criticized AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group) as having "severely racist, Islamophobic rhetoric."  She also accused AIPAC of using "anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric."  (Full disclosure.  I have donated to AIPAC, as well as to ZOA, the Zionist Organization of America.)  

First, I do not think anyone who has the position of White House press secretary can be said to be on the fringe.  Unless, we also agree that the President being served by that press secretary is also on the fringe.  Second, it is well known that AIPAC is nonpartisan.  It supports both Republican and Democratic candidates for congress.  AIPAC has only one goal - support for the continued existence of the State of Israel.  Democratic leaders and elected officials regularly attended the yearly AIPAC conventions in the past.  It has only been since the party has become increasingly anti-Israel that attendance by Democratic officials has declined.  

Recently, the CUNY (City University of New York) School of Law faculty voted to support a student resolution supporting the anti-Israel BDS movement.  (BDS stands for Boycott, Divest and Sanction.)  The resolution accused Israel of war crimes; and said that the exchange programs with Haifa University and Tel Aviv University were a "form of propaganda," meant to "normalize settler colonial and apartheid rule."  The purpose of this post is not to prove the absurd lies behind those allegations.

However, if anyone thinks CUNY is on the "fringe," think about this.  CUNY consists of 25 colleges, with campuses in all five boroughs of NYC.  A whopping 275,000 students are enrolled.  If an institution of this size and magnitude, in the largest city in the country, is considered "fringe," then I am at a loss to understand the definition of the word "fringe."

Abortion Revisited - What Others Have To Say (A Critical Look)

(This is a follow up to the two 5/15/22 posts on abortion, which followed the leaked Supreme Court opinion in the Dobbs case.)

Here is Jackie Calmes (columnist and author) in the 5/4/22 Los Angeles Times:  "Congress' Republican leaders likewise (along with Chief Justice John Roberts) decried the leak, not the trashing of a longtime constitutional right...The court's integrity has been undermined, all right, but not by the leaker."  This is rather typical of leftist thinking.  It is only the outcome that matters.  If decisions go their way, that is all that the left cares about.  Not the process.  Not the violation of professional obligations.

But here is Professor Jonathan Turley in the 5/4/22 USA Today:  "It was an inviolate rule that members and clerks do not leak either the deliberations or decisions of the court...This was clearly a politically calculated act by someone who was willing to abandon every ethical and professional principle for a political cause."  But when the ends justify the means, as for so many on the left, this violation is completely irrelevant.

An article in the 5/12/22 USA Today discusses the failure of the Senate to pass proposed legislation that they say "would have made Roe v. Wade the law of the land."  But Democratic Senator Joe Manchin was opposed, saying the bill was not a "codification" of Roe, but rather an "expansion."  Yet the authors of the article seemed intent on blaming the 60 vote filibuster rule, when, without Manchin's support, the measure failed by a 49-51 vote.  After acknowledging that the measure did not get even a simple majority, later in the article they still asserted that "...Democrats lacked the 60 votes necessary to overcome the filibuster."  Always better to blame the Republicans and the filibuster.

A 5/9/22 editorial in the Wall Street Journal made this interesting point:  "The notable feature of abortion in Europe is that each country has tailored its laws to local mores after political debate."  Political debate is exactly what the leaked draft decision had in mind - a political debate within each of the 50 states.  "European voters by and large have chosen to permit it (abortion) in a way that would disappoint American pro-lifers.  But even liberal and largely secular Europeans impose the sort of limitations on abortion that America's pro-choice left claims to find intolerable."  And the editorial makes this assertion:  "Keeping abortion politics in the democratic sphere rather than the courts has prevented it from becoming a destructive front in the culture war."

Here is Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank:  "Roe's impending reversal is a 9/11 attack on America's social fabric."  The left seems to revel in making comparisons to truly horrific events when things do not go their way.  Often, it is a reference to the Holocaust.  This was a highly inappropriate reference to 9/11.  Shame on Milbank.

As readers of the blog know, I often read letters to the editor in various papers.  Here are excerpts from a few, without commentary by me, for your consideration.  These are from the 5/5/22 New York Times.  

"I am a proud pro-life Democrat who has long supported overturning Roe v. Wade...A child is a blessing and life is precious.  Ours is a civilized society, and we should be protecting life, not wantonly stamping it out on demand."

"They can make any law they want to make, but they can't make any woman have a baby she doesn't want to have," wrote an 80 year old mother and grandmother, who had an abortion at age 20.  The abortion was performed by a veterinarian, but after hemorrhaging she ended up in the ER.  "I was lucky.  I survived."

And a 22 year old wrote this:  "As I watch the world around me change and convulse in the face of climate change, Trumpism, a global pandemic and everything else that seems to be going downhill, I need to be able to control my body.  I can't imagine choosing to bring a child into this world, and am appalled by the idea of being forced to carry and raise a child that I didn't plan for and have no idea how to raise.  I am scared."

   

 

Abortion Revisited - My Take (Justice Alito's Draft Decision)

(The preliminary decision that was leaked dealt with the case of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization.  See the December 8, 2021 post for a further discussion of the oral arguments, and my incorrect prediction.) 

In Dobbs, the issue was the 15 week limit put on the right to get an abortion by the State of Mississippi.  That was the limited issue before the Supreme Court.  Of course, the Supreme Court is not limited to a review of the technical issue before them.  And if Justice Alito's decision becomes final, the Court will have reversed the 1973, 7 to 2 decision, in Roe vs. Wade.  

In listening to the oral arguments, it was clear to me that Justice Roberts saw the push to overturn Roe.  He kept trying to focus everyone's attention on the 15 week rule.  As I wrote in December, had Roberts been in the majority, I believe he would have assigned the writing of the opinion to himself.  I believe he would have held that the 15 week limit was not an "undue burden" per Casey, but would have also maintained the Constitutional right to an abortion under Roe.  The three liberal justices would have gone gone along in order to avoid an overturning of Roe, but likely would have written their own concurring opinions objecting to any restrictions on Roe.

I would have sided with Roberts.  Here is why.  First, Roe is nearly a 50 year old precedent.  I cannot help but wonder if any of the five Justices signing on to the preliminary draft decision, did not see any benefit to a gradual change in the law regarding abortion.  Yes, abortion has been one of the most contentious issues in our country since Roe was decided.  But did none of those Justices see a benefit to judicial economy?  In deciding cases based on the facts before them - in Dobbs it was the 15 week rule.

The other reason that I would have sided with Roberts is my disagreement with some of the state laws that have recently been passed.  I would allow abortion to protect the life of the mother.  I would allow abortion to protect the health of the mother.  I would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest.  And there are simply too many instances of situations where, at least within the first 15 weeks proscribed by Dobbs, the government should stay out of it.