Flashback – Rights

Here are some ideas about our constitutional rights from an entry four years ago. The same problematic behaviors have been even more evident since then. 

[Thinking about how people behave toward the rights of others lately can become very confusing.

About six weeks ago leading up to the [2016] election, there was quite a bit of talk about exercising your right to vote. Public service ads appeared on TV about how important it was to vote and how your vote made a difference. As is usually the case around election time, some volunteers worked with car pools and vans to make sure all voters were able to get to the polls. Some continued to subscribe to the argument that requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls was a burden and discriminatory. In short, many people came together in an effort to make it as easy as possible for everyone interested to exercise their right to vote.

We also have a right to bear arms, yet I have seen no efforts to make it as easy as possible to buy a gun. In fact the opposite is true. Exercising this right is burdened by several requirements: background check, waiting period, etc. Where are the people who will drive me to the gun show or the firing range if I have trouble getting there on my own? – The idea of this seems silly. There aren’t television ads encouraging people to exercise this right, and most comments are to the contrary. Two rights receive opposite reactions.

We also have a right to trial by jury and to be considered innocent until proven guilty. This seems to be a right everyone is in favor of for themselves, but objects to for others. If law enforcement or courts do not do what citizens think they should have done, based on knowledge of the case picked up from the news or social media, the protesters begin demanding “justice.” Sometimes they even ignore the crime victim’s or their family’s pleas for calm and patience as the process plays out.  

We also have a right to free speech. Supposedly you can say what you want to without repercussions, particularly from the government. But students at various universities protest against the appearance of outside speakers because what they say may be offensive or not correspond with their worldview. Students are supposedly in college to learn. Sometimes their ideas are wrong, and sometimes it’s just educational to understand another’s point of view. Instead, they protest demanding a cancellation of the event, or they attend to heckle the speaker already having made up their minds that the person is evil or offensive. When confronted with the idea of freedom of speech, they smugly argue that the First Amendment only applies to government interference.

It has gotten to the point where a few universities have adopted the Chicago Principle, originated at the University of Chicago. It holds that if the speech or written statement is legal and not threatening, harassing, defamatory, or a substantial invasion of privacy, it must be considered, discussed and debated regardless of whether it may be thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. This action tries to move the focus from some vague notion of offense or anticipated offense to one of learning.

And it’s not just students. Society bans the use of certain words by certain people, and they can only refer to them by their initials, even when discussing the word itself. Many people feel they must consider their word choice very carefully for fear of committing an inadvertent offense or micro-aggression. If you refer to America as a melting pot, you are demeaning someone’s heritage and traditions. If you refer to our Forefathers, you are subjugating half the population. And on it goes. Political rallies have become scenes of name-calling and accusations rather than of debate and the post-rally walk to the car features fighting in the streets. 

Critical thinking leads to the conclusion that we don’t treat rights the same. Some are encouraged, some defended, some ignored, some opposed and some applied selectively. Isn’t that worth considering?]

Flashback - Terrifying Children

[This entry comes from not too long ago, August of this year, and was originally titled How to Shade the Truth. As I pointed out, shading the truth to attract viewers or make a political point is both common and cold-hearted.]

Here is a point of view I might want to push: Although there has not been a lot of news lately about school shootings, they are still a major problem. Parents and students alike should still worry about the safety of schools and demand something be done about gun violence.

If I am CNN, I run a headline on July 26, 2019 saying, “There have been 22 school shootings in the US so far this year.” Wow, that is almost one every 10 days!

They define a school shooting as one where someone was hurt or killed and that happened on school property. It includes incidents of accidental discharge and those where the weapon was a BB gun, because they are “potentially lethal.”

Seeing only the headline would cause many to assume that the shootings involved a K-12 student during regular school time. The examples in detail tell a different story.

They are listed in reverse chronological order. The first three happened in school parking lots or playgrounds during summer break. One of the people shot was 36 years old, riding his bike though a high school parking lot. 

The next two victims were a teen shot in the parking lot after a fight broke out, and a 25-year-old man playing basketball at a Chicago elementary school playground.

Four of the incidents happened at Universities, none of them inside buildings. Likewise, of the remaining thirteen incidents, only six actually happened inside a school. One involved a 16-year-old student “trying to buy marijuana from a 17-year-old student.”

The single incident of note was the well-publicized one death and eight injuries at the STEM School in Highlands Ranch, Colorado. “Two male students were charged with murder and attempted murder; one of them told police he sought to target classmates who had bullied him.”

Of course school shootings are bad: one is too many. But let’s be honest about it. There were not 22 since the beginning of the year as most people would understand them. A 46-year-old man shot multiple times by his neighbor in a high school parking lot “amid an ongoing argument over a parking spot” is not really a school shooting in any sense of the term. 

This is the kind of shading and spinning that the media often do to achieve the shock factor desired to retain readership and viewership. It pays to read the rest of the article; it pays to question headlines; it pays to use critical thinking. It especially pays when you know they have a hidden agenda or an incentive to get you all upset – which is always.

[These are not only common but cruel. The 22 in the headline became 6 inside a K-12 school during school hours and only one that fits a commonly held understanding of a school shooting. With over 100,000 public schools in the US, these incidents are exceedingly rare - an impression the news media tries to cover up. What are not rare are headlines like this one: “There are kids who simply are scared to go to school.” How is this practice not a form of child abuse?]

Is This Still A Free Country?

A brief review of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, brings up several interesting thoughts, realizations and questions. (Read the Bill of Rights in full here.) 

The first is about freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the press. It should mean that people are allowed to say and write what they want within broad limits. Others can raise reasonable objections and counter arguments, or at least accept apologies. But today we find that  speakers are banned from campuses or shouted down by those who believe words are the same as weapons. We have large, powerful social media corporations expected to censor comments and pictures posted by private citizens based on arbitrary standards. We have Ellen DeGeneres scorned for attending a football game in the company of George W. Bush. Say the wrong thing, even in the form of a question and risk personal attack, silencing, losing a job or boycotts of your product.

The Second is about the right to bear arms. That really means the right to carry them not even to own them. Today arms means guns and the nation is split. Clearly the right to carry has been infringed at various levels in various places.

Some states have passed a Red Flag Law, Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), with strong approval of the electorate. If a person is considered a danger to himself or others, authorities can show up and confiscate weapons for one week, no questions asked. A judge can extend this for up to six months where there is “good cause.” At that point the accused can finally respond at a hearing, but has no legal right to representation. In Maryland, for example, the initial complaint can come not only from law enforcement, physicians, and mental health workers, but also from family members, housemates or dating partners. The list in other states is more inclusive, and the gun owners have no recourse in cases of false accusations.

The Third is about housing soldiers without consent – no problem there.

The fourth prohibits unlawful search and seizure. This is about privacy; but with the social media-driven desire to be famous, Americans are becoming more casual about their own privacy and take for granted the idea of being constantly under surveillance. Compound that lax attitude with new technology: facial recognition software and proliferating security cameras; possible leaks through computer cameras and microphones; personal assistants listening in on conversation; ISPs and grocery stores tracking our on-line activity and purchases; and other examples – privacy is ebbing away. (For an interesting description of possible future threats, see the book, Eyes in the Sky.) 

The Fifth Amendment is well known for protection against self-incrimination and the right to due process, but the public tends to decide guilt or innocence based on news reports and political affiliation. “No comment” is often assumed to be an admission of guilt. 

Consider also the current practice of Civil Asset Forfeiture where authorities can confiscate personal property on the basis of accusation, not conviction. There are many horror stories of abuse where innocent people must fight the system to reclaim seized property.

The first part of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy trial. Many of the convictions on the local news are for crimes committed in years past. The right to “be confronted with the witnesses against him” seems to fly in the face of the idea of being attacked from a distance as rumors spread on social media. Transgressors of cultural values don't even get a trial, no less a speedy one.

The Seventh, the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases seems OK, but the complexity of modern cases and the lack of economic understanding continues to result in unreasonably high awards or settlements driven by the threat of litigation in front of a "compassionate" jury. 

The Eighth prohibits excess bail, which has been a matter of some discussion lately. Excessive is not the same for everyone. Poor people who are not a flight risk can spend months behind bars waiting for a trial, a handy tool to coerce them into pleading guilty. Like Civil Asset Forfeiture, this practice is a boon to the authorities at the expense of the innocent.

Nine and Ten are instructive. The Tenth addresses the idea of “Undelegated Powers [being] Kept by the States and the People.” The word delegated implies that the states and people are in a superior position to the Federal Government. They hand down powers to them! That certainly isn’t the way it works today!

One problem with these rights is that they apply to the government not depriving people of them. That’s the excuse used when one citizen or group tries to shut up or railroad those they disagree with. That punitive attitude is true to the letter, but contrary to the spirit.

Another problem is that they are so easy to take for granted or ignore. These are not obsolete ideas; they must be respected. Freedom is always linked to responsibility.

How To Shade the Truth

Here is the story I want to tell: Although there has not been a lot of news lately about school shooting, they are still a major problem. Parents and students alike should still worry about the safety of schools and demand something be done about gun violence.

If I am CNN, I run a headline on July 26, 2019 saying, “There have been 22 school shootings in the US so far this year.” Wow, that is almost one every 10 days!

They define a school shooting as one where someone was hurt or killed and that happened on school property. It includes incidents of accidental discharge and those where the weapon was a BB gun, because they are “potentially lethal.”

Seeing a headline like that many would assume that the shootings involved a K-12 student during regular school time. Looking at the examples in detail tells a slightly different story.

They are listed in reverse chronological order. The first three happened in school parking lots or playgrounds during summer break. One of the people shot was 36 years old, riding his bike though a high school parking lot. 

The next two victims were a teen shot in the parking lot after a fight broke out and a 25-year-old man playing basketball at a Chicago elementary school playground.

Four of the incidents happened at Universities, none of them inside buildings. Likewise, of the remaining thirteen incidents, only six actually happened inside a school. One involved a 16-year-old student “trying to buy marijuana from a 17-year-old student.”

The single incident of note was the well-publicized one death and eight injuries at the STEM School in Highlands Ranch, Colorado. “Two male students were charged with murder and attempted murder; one of them told police he sought to target classmates who had bullied him.”

Of course school shootings are bad: one is too many. But let’s be honest about it. There were not 22 since the beginning of the year as most people would understand them. A 46-year-old man shot multiple times by his neighbor in a high school parking lot “amid an ongoing argument over a parking spot” is not really a school shooting in any sense of the term. 

This is the kind of shading and spinning that the media often do to achieve the kind of shock factor desired to retain readership and viewership. It pays to read the rest of the article; it pays to question headlines; it pays to use critical thinking. It especially pays when you know they have a hidden agenda or an incentive to get you all upset – which is always.

Food For Thought

Considering consistency by the news media: CBS This Morning has a regular series, "What’s Working," which investigates innovations in America that seem to be paying off. On one particular episode a few weeks ago they went to the University of Vermont to highlight a program to discourage the use of drugs and alcohol and move students toward more healthy activities.

Near the end of the piece the professor who designed the program explained that the brains of college students are not yet fully developed. "You couldn't come up with a worse age to send someone to college than when they're 18.” The reporter feeds back the notion, “The brains are not done developing at 18?” He responds, “Not even close.” 

This was not the only report emphasizing the immaturity of college students, and is not confined to CBS, with some saying the brain is not done developing until the early twenties. Some sources put the age of a fully developed frontal cortex closer to 25. Such statements have been fairly common when discussing various crimes and indiscreet tweets. Then why were these same reporters so excited just ten months ago about the apparent wisdom of a group of high school students lecturing the country on gun policy?

Considering income inequality: If we didn’t have rich people, there would be no designer goods. Nobody would be able to show off for their friends by buying the cheap knock-offs.

Considering trusting medical information based only on endorsements: Bloodletting was a common practice among doctors for thousands of years up to about one hundred years ago. Today bloodletting has been shown to be ineffective and mostly harmful. (A controlled variation is used today only in the treatment of a few very rare diseases.)

Since there would have been no opportunity for controlled experiments, the only way it could have continued to be practiced for so long would be through endorsements and by doctors hyping their own successes. “Marie-Antoinette, for instance, seemed to benefit from a healthy dose of bloodletting while giving birth to her first child, Marie-Thérèse, in 1778” – an endorsement from the Queen! 

Doesn’t this same practice of celebrity and friends’ endorsements and doctors hyping their own successes sound like anything we might see on TV or read on the Internet today for any number of miracle cures?

Considering the cancer conspiracy: Did you know that doctors, Big Pharma and the FDA are working together to suppress cancer research for fear that discovery of a cure will put them out of business? They also try to undermine real cures provided by alternative medicine. Many Americans do believe this conspiracy theory. Wired reported on a video that came out last July on the Internet about a miracle cancer cure derived from moss and available online. It “quickly racked up millions of views.” The video used the usual lure of “what the pharmaceutical companies don’t want you to know.”

The problem was the video was intentionally faked for the purpose of education, “teaching people to be skeptical of videos exactly like this one.” Do the same people who endorse this cancer-conspiracy myth also believe that firefighters want more fires and do not promote the use of smoke alarms and the practice of fire safety? Do they think dentists don’t want you to brush and floss? All this is equally hard to believe.

It doesn’t take much research (and critical thinking) to find obvious distortions and contradictions in the news and social media. As always the bad information flies around the world at lightning speed, while the truth struggles to catch up (often just in time to be slapped down by committed advocates or enterprising charlatans).

Economic Connections

Last time I checked into a hotel or motel, it was quite simple. I parked temporarily in front, walked in and told the desk clerk my name and handed over my credit card. In short order I got my credit card back along with my room key and was politely given directions to the room along with other information, such as breakfast or pool hours. I parked my car or drove it to the most convenient doorway. It was easy and pleasant.

The last time I boarded an airplane was a different story. If someone dropped me off, parking was limited and patrolled – and don’t leave the car unattended. I had to show an ID to get my boarding pass and check luggage, which was presumably inspected after the airline took control. I then took my carry-on bag to the security area where everyone lined up, showed an ID again, showed a boarding pass, took off shoes, emptied pockets, separated electronic devices, walked through a scanner, and sometimes had to be rescanned or even searched. I then picked up my belongings, refilled my pockets, put on my belt and shoes and walked to the gate.

It used to be much simpler. Relatives could even meet you at the gate when you arrived, but not any more. Now there is security everywhere, and for good reason. We don’t want terrorists or crazy people to be able to use the airports or airplanes for murder.

This came to mind when I read about  MGM "suing" the victims and survivors of the shooting massacre in Las Vegas where a lone gunman used the MGM-owned Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino as his base of operations to slaughter 58 concertgoers and wound many others. 

Suing these innocent people sounds heartless, but the word is not being used in the familiar sense. There will be no trial, no testimony, no demand for payment. MGM filed for a declaratory judgment, where a judge decides whether they can be held liable for damages. “Here, MGM is asking a federal court to pre-emptively determine whether a particular federal law prohibits a lawsuit by the victims against MGM, instead forcing them to sue only the vendor that provided security.” As people line up to sue someone, MGM wants a judge to move them out of the line of fire.

Of course there are lawyers already jumping into the fray looking for victims to represent and for deep pockets to exploit. In addition, because people either don’t understand the intent of the lawsuit and jump to the conclusion of heartless behavior or believe that the victims deserve as much compensation as possible regardless of real fault, boycotts are being encouraged.

Now I have no interest at all in MGM, but I can predict the ramifications of such a battle. Lawyers will argue that the hotel, and by extension MGM, did not do everything possible to avoid the situation – that’s the usual argument, “everything possible.” Everyone else in the hospitality industry will be put on notice. Their insurance will increase, and they will begin to take steps to do everything possible – which, by the way, is impossible when you can’t predict what threat(s) to anticipate.

As a result, all travelers will be affected in at least a couple of ways. First, things will cost more. Economic understanding tells us that when costs like insurance and precautions go up across an entire industry, there is no competitive incentive to absorb the costs. They are easily passed on to all customers.

Second, could checking into a motel become more like taking the plane, with some combination of heavily monitored parking, baggage inspections, metal detectors, photo IDs, take off your shoes and empty your pockets – with the same for all visitors and meeting attendees? 

The second outcome is not guaranteed, but it is possible. This lawsuit by the owner of a Vegas hotel may seem unfair and distant, but our world is connected in many unexpected ways.

Enough Already!

I found the juxtaposition of two items on television one day quite ironic.  First a local station ran a public service announcement advising parents to be patient with their teens.  They explained how young brains don’t become fully developed until around the age of 25, particularly the frontal cortex, the executive region that controls rational decision-making.

Soon afterward came a series of national news stories featuring high school students taking an active role in pushing for a change in gun policy, praising them for their involvement and, in some cases, endorsing their position.  Because of the trauma they suffered, the news media implied that these teens had somehow gained the wisdom to solve a complex issue that has stymied legislators, law enforcement officers and psychologists for years.

As the weeks wore on and I saw continued coverage of the issue and the media celebration of the marches and demonstrations, I grew increasingly uncomfortable.  Finally I understood what was bothering me.  I was concerned for the upset and angry children being abused to promote a political agenda.  They may have felt encouraged rather than abused, but for over a month instead of helping them start a much-needed healing process, advocates and the media worked together to keep them stirred up, anxious and excited.  This carried over to needless anxiety among thousands of other children.

I was also embarrassed for the other participants in these marches for getting suckered in, not being able to see what’s really happening, for leading with their hearts instead of examining evidence and looking for reasonable solutions.

In particular I was frightened about the implications of the overall situation, not because I own a gun – I don’t.  The problem runs deeper than any single issue.

Is America becoming a country where public policy will now be dictated by emotion rather than logic and evidence?  Will truth and justice be defined by whoever can chant the loudest or tell the most heartbreaking stories?  Will we ignore rationality and certain realities about human nature to fall into the trap of equating good intentions with good outcomes every time?  If so, it does not bode well for the future of the democracy.

Thinking about Guns and Abortion

An unexpected similarity between the prochoice crowd and the right-to-bear-arms crowd struck me the other day when I heard a news story out of Indiana.   A judge ordered that the implementation of a law banning abortions sought due to fetal genetic abnormalities be temporarily delayed.  The state chose not to appeal.  The report also mentioned, “North Dakota is the only other state that prohibits abortions because of genetic abnormalities such as Down syndrome or because of the race, gender or ancestry of a fetus.”

The first thing that struck me as odd about the law was how it could be enforced.  How do you prove that the parents’ actions were based on not wanting a baby in one of these categories rather than just not wanting a baby (or another baby) at this particular time?  The state would have to prove many assumptions about the inner thoughts of those making the decision.  Even if they made the decision after getting news of possible abnormalities, people do change their minds.

The next puzzle arose from the understanding that those who are prochoice are generally in favor of protecting the rights of everyone, with a special emphasis on considerations of race, gender or disability.  They will often circulate petitions, write to legislators, march in protest and vote for candidates based on the need to ensure that no one in these categories faces discrimination.  Yet the right of a woman to discriminate against an unborn child for the same reasons wins out over the right of the disabled unborn.  Is there a contradiction here or at the very least, an inconsistency?  I did a mental double-take and tried to resolve it.

My interpretation of this apparent contradiction comes, believe it or not, from parallel behavior among defenders of the Second Amendment.  When faced with reasonable arguments about automatic weapons and so-called assault rifles, they balk.  These weapons are not used for hunting and seem like unnecessary firepower even for self-defense.  How many rounds per second do you need to fire through the door to neutralize an intruder?  You can’t very well fit one of these into a purse with your concealed-carry permit.  Those who favor increased gun control scratch their heads in wonderment at the intractability of their political opponents.

But the same principle applies in both cases:  give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.  Any compromise moves one step closer to selling out on the basic position.  Whether it be a stance on right to choose or a stance on guns, any compromise weakens your negotiating position in future discussions, arguments, and legal battles.

How many other areas face the same quandary?  We look to Washington to compromise, to reach across the aisle, but in everyday beliefs ordinary Americans refuse to act in that way.  Each party holds fast to its principles.  Then we scratch our heads and ask why nothing gets done.

People may differ philosophically, but their behavior is often surprisingly similar.  Remember only a month ago when a big fear was that a Trump loss would lead to protests in the street?

Let's Think About It

A major problem in America is that the decisions facing us are so difficult to research and when the results come in, people only want to believe what they already believe.  At the end of the day we are back where we started, shouting bumper-sticker slogans at each other.  A couple of examples came up in the past week.  One is a pair of studies on the relationship between gun ownership and crime.  The other is about the effectiveness of Medicaid.

First is a 2007 article published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which has been recently resurrected by those favoring fewer gun laws and labeled as an “overlooked” study.  It compared data from countries in Europe and the US and concluded that the more guns a nation has in private ownership, the less criminal activity.  One website calls this “astonishing” and prints the conclusions in five pages of detail adding that the Harvard article “cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation.  (However, citing an organization does not in any way imply endorsement by that organization.)  Readers sign on below and make comments in favor or against it.

The original article (45 pages of heavy reading with 150 footnotes) contains a warning in the conclusion:  “Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences.”  So as they say in many other studies, more research is needed.

A second, more recent study comes from a closely related source, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.  It shows the opposite effect and is cheered by those favoring stricter gun laws.  One site gleefully announces that this study “obliterates every single NRA lie about guns.”  The study also comes with a warning:  “The results do need to be interpreted with caution — this study method proves that more guns are linked to more gun crime and overall homicide, but not that access to guns directly causes this criminal uptick.”  Nonetheless, readers sign on below and make comments in favor or against it.

The other example comes from Oregon on the subject of Medicaid published by Forbes.  It seems Oregon had more people eligible for Medicaid than money for the program.  “In 2008, Oregon initiated a limited expansion of its Medicaid program for low-income adults through a lottery drawing of approximately 30,000 names from a waiting list of almost 90,000 persons.”  A random drawing resulted in two groups, one with coverage and one without.  It was an excellent set up for investigation.  After one year of data the authors of a study found that having Medicaid was better than being uninsured, but two years later with additional data found that Medicaid “generated no significant improvement in measured physical health outcomes” while those covered by Medicaid spent more on medical services!

These examples are not to favor or discourage gun ownership or to discredit Medicaid.  They merely show that some objective analysis is possible on a range of subjects, and is especially important on big, potentially very expensive issues.  The problems arise when these studies hit the media in a piecemeal fashion and as each result comes out the opposing viewpoints reply either with “I told you so” or with an attack on the methodology or motives of the authors.  No one ever pulls all the information together, perhaps for fear that the final result will not be what they wanted it to be.

This kind of disorganization and emotional knee-jerk reaction will never solve any of our big societal problems.  We will continue to follow the path of popularity vs. finding cost effective and practical solutions.  Politicians will never be motivated to initiate objective investigations unless the public begins to look more like critical thinkers and demand makes-sense instead of feels-good policies.