Do unto others

Nearly seven decades ago, in rural northwestern Pennsylvania, the incidence of African-Americans was rare. Then one day a black family moved into town and several new students appeared in our school. Them being a bit different, and us being a bit confused, we asked our mother about it. Reaching into her Presbyterian grab-bag, she sweetly told us to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Later, after joining the Marine Corps, I encountered a series of black non-coms and officers who demanded and deserved nothing but respect. Staff Sergeant Tolbert, our assistant DI, pummeled black and white recruits equally into the final product: United States Marines. Later, Master Sergeant Sims, a bulky, black, former professional wrestler, with a wonderful sense of humor but a deep knowledge of what was right, kept us in line.

All this in the late 1960s, not long after the Civil Rights movement began. We were taught that there were no black Marines, no white Marines, only green Marines. The Marine Corps was light years ahead.

And back in the civilian world, in later years, there were many black friends, and colleagues, and neighbors. Trusted and respected.

No, not everyone’s experience was like that. There still remain pockets of vicious racism, particularly evident in anonymous comments posted on the internet. (Anonymous posters are oh-so-courageous).

But indeed things are changing.  African Americans are increasingly successful in a wide range of endeavors. It is not at all unusual to see successful black CEOs, politicians, scientists, doctors, astronauts, and entrepreneurs. And generals and airline pilots, and famous actors and entertainers, and sports heroes and judges. We are no longer surprised to see blacks serving in any of society’s roles.

Another important sign – mixed marriages have become common. More importantly, the acceptance of such marriages has skyrocketed. Dr. Elwood Watson, a professor of African-American studies, describes a Gallup poll from 2014. While in 1958 only 4% of white Americans supported interracial marriage, that has now risen to “overwhelmingly supportive at 84 percent.” And for younger folks 18-29 years old, the support is nearly unanimous at 96%.

So with all this good news, what explains the ongoing national uproar concerning blacks and the police?

Are blacks targeted by police? Are they more likely to be shot and killed than whites?

A surprising study by Roland G. Fryer, a black economist at Harvard, finds an unlikely answer. According to the New York Times:

“A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.”

To anyone who has been paying attention these last few years, that is a shocker.  As Dr. Fryer said, “It is the most surprising result of my career.”

We are left with a problem here. The study finds no bias in shootings, but it does find different treatment in less lethal contact. How to square this circle – why are the officers treating blacks differently? Is it purely racism or is there something else at work?

One possible explanation might be found in the FBI crime statistics as reported by the Washington Post. In the years 2004-2013, 930 police officers were killed by black offenders and 1,180 by whites.  While that seems to offer roughly equal odds for a police officer to meet death at the hands of any offender, it must be adjusted for population. After doing so, we find that the officer is nearly 4 times more likely to be killed by an individual black assailant than a white one.

Further, FBI arrest statistics reveal that blacks are arrested for serious felonies at a rate 2.6 times that of whites. While some of those arrests may result from bias, it is indicative of a very serious crime problem in the black community. (We need only read the weekly body count from Chicago to get a sense of that).

A fair reading of the numbers reveals that officers have more to fear from interacting with black subjects, and a much higher opportunity for such interactions. This is an untenable situation.

We as a society have let down our black brothers and sisters horribly. By not addressing the serious crime issue in black urban communities, we have sentenced them to lives of victimhood, stress, fear, and economic deprivation. And, of course, elevated police scrutiny.

Only by understanding root causes can we effect change. And it is a moral imperative to do so.

Occupy Brain Cells

Legislating in the streets

It is a complex world in which we live. We’re sure we know what we want, our grand vision. Social activists protest, lobby, and press. The President wields his pen and his phone. Legislators legislate. Bureaucrats regulate. The politically correct cudgel us into their approved mindsets. Humiliation is used as a weapon to ensure lock-step thinking. Yes, we are a happy people, all happy together, thinking our approved, happy thoughts.

But sometimes this man-made nirvana falls short. Here are a few examples.

The Cecil Effect

You may recall Walter Palmer, the dentist who shot Cecil the lion. The outcry was enormous, Palmer thoroughly villainized, and trophy hunting put into the shame locker. All as it should be, you might observe.

Except that it’s not.

On February 23, the Los Angeles Daily News published a piece entitled “Why the Cecil effect is bad news.” Apparently trophy hunting has dropped sharply in Africa. The Bubye Valley Conservancy, a huge wildlife reserve in Zimbabwe, is reporting a sharp overpopulation of lions.

According to the article, “Bubye Valley Conservancy has more than 500 lions, and they may have to cull 200 in order to reach a level that is sustainable.” (To those not in the know, a cull is a selective slaughter).

The other animals in the conservancy are suffering as a result. Hungry lions are “eating up way too many antelope, giraffe, cheetah, leopards and wild dogs.”

It is also reported that villagers who had relied on the hunters’ trade are sinking deeper into poverty.

This is a perfect example of an unintended consequence. Activists and lobbyists and shamers were quick to jump on Dr. Palmer in particular and trophy hunting in general with no thought of the predictable outcome.

That’s a good start… here’s another one closer to home.

Legalized Marijuana and Heroin Deaths

There has been a sea change in how marijuana is viewed in our nation.  According to Governing Magazine, “Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia currently have laws legalizing marijuana in some form.”

One of those states is Massachusetts, where medical marijuana has been legalized and personal use decriminalized. This is the right thing to do from a classic libertarian point of view. But perhaps not without consequences.

While the pot smokers are happy, there has been a disturbing, and very deadly, increase in deaths from opioid overdoses. (This includes heroin and painkillers).

For Massachusetts, according to Masslive, “the number of confirmed cases of unintentional opioid overdose deaths for 2014 was 1,089 – a 63 percent increase from the 668 deaths in 2012, and a 20 percent increase over the 911 cases in 2013.”

It’s not just a local issue. The Boston Globe tells us that “nationally, 125 people a day die from overdosing on heroin and painkillers.” That’s over 45,000 deaths per year, about the same as automobile deaths and gun homicides combined. Where is this plague coming from?

The Washington Post has a clue. In a January 11^th article, they tell us “Mexican traffickers are sending a flood of cheap heroin and methamphetamine across the U.S. border, the latest drug seizure statistics show, in a new sign that America’s marijuana decriminalization trend is upending the North American narcotics trade.”

We shouldn’t have been surprised by the outcome of legalizing weed. It was perfectly predictable, and could have been accompanied by mitigating actions with only a little foresight. (For instance, the Swiss drug policy model, which offers free, safe opioid substitutes to addicts).

Alright, time for just one more.

Shootings double in Chicago

The Chicago Tribune reported just a few weeks ago that the homicide rate in Chicago has doubled compared to a year ago.

In Chicago, “The city has recorded at least 95 homicides since the first of the year, compared to 47 last year, according to data kept by the Tribune. The city has also more than doubled the amount of people shot - about 420 this year compared to 193 last year.”

What is happening?

One theory is this – police are pulling back. They have reportedly seized far fewer illegal guns so far this year as compared to last. “Evidence of a pullback starts with an 80 percent decrease in the number of street stops that the officers have made since the first of the year.”

Again, it is not entirely a surprise that if we vilify our police, they may feel less anxious to put their lives and careers on the line for us.

We have now seen several instances of social or public policy which seem to have backfired. What is the common theme here? One is the preeminence of emotion over logic. Public policy should be carefully based on reason and fact, not on feelings and sentiments. We are far too often tempted by emotion – but should always pause and calculate.

Better public policy is possible. Perhaps, one day, when the computers are in charge…

The Tale of a Gun

Edward Archer and his attack on Officer Jesse Hartnett

The gun was a semiautomatic nine millimeter pistol, with at least a 10-round magazine, most likely a Glock 17. It had been issued to an unnamed Philadelphia police officer.

Then, in  October, 2013, the gun was stolen from the police officer’s home.

There followed a shadowy interlude of just over two years during which the gun changed hands who knows how many times, participating in who knows how much mischief. Eventually, it ended up in the possession of one Edward Archer, 30, a self-professed Islamic radical.

Archer had already shown himself to be susceptible to the siren call of a gun. In 2012, he was arrested following a domestic dispute in which Archer “pulled a small black and silver semiautomatic handgun from his waist and pointed it towards the complainant's stomach while grabbing the complainant's shirt." Arrested and charged with assault and carrying a gun without a license, the courts sentenced him to nine to 23 months, but immediately paroled him, releasing him to the streets.

In the current event, on January 7^th, Archer, dressed in a traditional white Muslim robe, attempted to assassinate Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett. Charging Harnett’s cruiser at point blank range, Archer fired his stolen Glock from 11 to 13 times (as various sources report). Hartnett took three shots to his left arm, was critically wounded, but heroically exited his car and gave chase, shooting and wounding Archer in the buttocks before radioing for assistance. Archer's attack was captured on video by a security camera and has been widely viewed.

Backup units sped to the scene and Archer was quickly apprehended, his smoking gun still in hand. But the question of motivation remained.

According to CNN, the suspect told investigators: "I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic State and that's why I did what I did."

Philadelphia police commissioner, Richard Ross, expounded. "According to him, he believed that the police defend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran."

Archer had traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2011 and Egypt in 2012. His mother, Valerie Holliday, stated that her son was a devout Muslim. Asim Abdur Rashid, the imam of Masjid Mujahideen mosque, said that Archer “was a frequent member of the masjid.”

The draw of Islamic radicalism is one theory. But Jim Kenney, the mayor of Philadelphia, assured us that this was all a ruse. “In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen,” said Mayor Kenney.

“That is abhorrent. It’s just terrible and it does not represent this religion [Islam] in any way shape or form or any of its teachings,” he added. “This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.”

Doubling down, Kenney blamed the stolen police weapon. "There are too many guns on our streets, and I think our national government needs to do something about that."

Then the White House weighed in. Josh Earnest, the President’s press secretary, said ”Certainly one thing we can do is to keep guns out of the hands of people like him. Whether it’s somebody who planned to carry out a terrorist act or somebody who has significant mental problems shouldn’t be so easily able to get their hands on a gun.”

(Earnest, lobbying for greater background checks, apparently forgot that the weapon had originally been stolen from a police officer).

There is also the theory that Archer was mentally unstable. According the Archer’s mother, he had been hearing voices in his head. While Archer’s brother, Shane, denied that Edward was “mental,” the possibility certainly remains.

From this confusing diaspora of events and statements, we are left with three theories to explain Archer’s actions:

1. That Archer was radicalized and performed the shooting in the name of Islam
2. That Archer was mentally unstable and committed the act out of insanity.
3. That the gun somehow animated Archer’s action and was the root cause of “gun violence.”

It seems that the White House and media are going with door number three. By focusing on “gun violence,” they are positing that removing guns will eliminate violence. And that “expanded background checks” will reduce the carnage.

While anything is possible, it seems that violent people will always find a way. The Murrah building, destroyed by explosives, 168 killed. A knife attack in a Chinese train station, 29 dead. For evil people, it seems that their goal is more important than their means. By focusing on “gun violence” alone, we are shortsightedly ignoring the broader evil in the human heart.

Violence is violence. Let’s concentrate on that, and the means to control it.

Grandma and her gun

Police officer Melvin Santiago executed by street thug

The horrible tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook in December of 2012 prompted a number of states to tighten regulations on guns. Massachusetts is the latest of these.

Without exception, gun control activists are upset with perceived deficient regulation and are clamoring for more. Advocates are equally perturbed with what they see as infringements on their rights.  In this emotionally laden debate, the media are of little help. From which perspective can we better understand the divide?

First, it is not a coincidence that Democrats and Republicans line up on different sides. Democrats tend to be collectivists and Republicans, individualists, which explains strongly held beliefs on a wide range of topics. Collectivists believe that human happiness can be best attained by conformity – they put the whole first. Individualists take an opposite tack and elevate the individual, believing that social well-being will follow.

Second, we must perceive guns for what they really are. Forget the images of the semi-automatic “assault” rifles and black handguns glorified by Hollywood. These are machines, evolved over many hundreds of years, designed to multiply the force that a human being can bring to bear.  Muscle mass is removed from consideration; a ninety-eight pound grandmother becomes the complete equal of a muscle-bound attacker.

And finally, we must address the issue of violence, which arises from multiple sources. First and foremost is criminal activity perpetrated by that subset of individuals who lack empathy and communal values. To them, a mugging, robbery, or assault is just a day at the office. According to a recent Swedish study, 63% of all violent crimes are committed by 1% of the population. If applied to the US, we would estimate that well over 3 million individuals are in this category.

Next are extreme sociopaths and the criminally insane, those who commit violent acts to fulfill some need in their fantastical worlds. These are few but spectacular: Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Columbine.

Lastly we must take special note of the thuggery in our inner cities. Detroit, New Orleans, Baltimore, and Saint Louis top the list, with homicide rates from 34 to 47 per 100,000, on par with many third world countries. Daily we read news accounts of coldblooded killings prompted by territory disputes or minor slights or a desire to be famous. On a recent Sunday, a thug with such a wish executed a rookie police officer. Subsequently killed by police, his shrine is bigger than the slain officer's.

With all this as a stage, how can we understand where we might go? What would satisfy the polar opponents in this question?

Gun control advocates would, in their dreams, completely vaporize guns from the planet. At the very least, they would have us follow the Australian model by confiscating and tightly restricting the private ownership of weapons.

Gun rights supporters, on the other hand, would have each and every citizen (who is not a criminal or insane), freely own and carry a weapon if they so desire.

These two worlds are completely different.

Let’s say, on the first hand, that we could vaporize all guns. This is a mindset that the 98-pound grandmother’s self-defense must be sacrificed to the common good. That by making her vulnerable, occasional losses are, while perhaps regrettable, justifiable.

Those on the other side would say that, in a society made of free citizens, Grandma’s right to self defense is inviolable. And that by her having that right, occasional losses due to mistake or misadventure are, while perhaps regrettable, justifiable.

Who is right?

Antis, who have conflated the words “gun” and “violence,” think that if guns are eliminated, so too will be the violence.  The evidence points elsewhere. Spectacular knife attacks have become common in China and increasingly so in the US. Suicides would continue apace, via hanging or overdose or high dives. The criminally insane would remain so, and would evolve more devious, evil plots, such as propane explosions or mass poisonings.

Supporters, who believe in the goodness of free citizens, would be disappointed. Humans are imperfect. We suffer losses, desire revenge, some become gradually insane. Murders would continue, lover’s quarrels or jealous rages ending in gunfire. Crimes would continue in spite of the shopkeeper’s shotgun.

Neither side is right to demand perfection; it is an impossible dream. But here is something that we could do: directly address the issues. Quit arguing about prison population and leniency. There are plenty of laws on the books – use them, enforce them, and imprison those who demonstrate a lack of empathy, values, or self control. Thuggery must be abhorred rather than glorified (read the lyrics to “When I feel like it” by Fabolous as a homework assignment). The criminally insane must be treated compassionately; it is time to again fund institutions for their housing and treatment.

These actions, rather than their desired prescriptions, would make neither side happy.
 
Which means that it’s probably the right thing to do.

Baseball and a Sunday afternoon tragedy

Lewiston Daily Sun, Lewiston Maine. May 25, 1896

It was May 24th, 1896, 116 years ago, and the Puritan spirit still ran strong in Attleborough.  The town had not yet become a city nor dropped the “ugh”, and North Attleborough had just recently seceded. Local blue laws outlawed the selling of beer and, surprisingly, the playing of baseball on Sundays. And the prosecution of these crimes was relentless. 

On that beautiful Sunday afternoon, a group numbering fifty, mostly Irish members and friends from the East Side sporting club of Pawtucket, gathered at Robinson’s farm in South Attleboro.  It was the charter of the club to provide relaxation and leisure activities for the membership on Sundays, and they customarily visited bucolic spots outside of the city to achieve that end.

On the agenda that day were a clam bake and baseball game, the perfect antidotes for a long, hard, work week.   As the day progressed and the baseball game was well underway, someone snitched.  The Attleborough police somehow obtained information that a game of baseball was being played on the Sabbath and that the devil’s brew was being consumed. Soon after a squad of five policemen in civilian dress approached Robinson’s farm.

The Pawtucket sportsmen spied the strangers coming over the hill and suspected that their ball game was to be suspended.  Michael Connors, representing the club, approached the men and asked them their business.  Officer John Nerney, after first engaging in conversation regarding the baseball game, then asked if there was beer on the premises.  To this point the officers had not yet identified themselves as police, so Connors suggested they could stay if they paid a $1 assessment, otherwise they should move on.  Nerney reportedly exclaimed that Connors was “putting up a bluff,” at which point Nerney was ordered to leave.

Now, things quickly went awry.  Nerney pulled his .38 revolver and threatened to shoot unless Connors assumed a more docile attitude.  Connor, unfortunately, took several steps forward and tried to disarm Nerney, at which point a shot was fired and Connors was hit in the side.  Badly hurt, Connors struggled with Nerney and called out to his companions for help.  The other officers, drawn by the shooting and general clamor, gathered swiftly and tried to quell the fight.  One reportedly struck Connors with a blackjack.

Nerney, in a high state of excitement, pointed his revolver at Connors head and fired.  Connors dropped heavily, dead in his tracks.

Daniel Mountain, one of Connors' companions, was nearby and attempted to catch him as he fell.  Mountain apparently made some remarks to Nerney and soon after another shot rang out – Mountain fell, mortally wounded.  Edward Morse, another Pawtucket sportsman, demanded to know why the two men had been shot.  Nerney ordered him off under threat of being shot himself.  Morse wisely retreated.

Once they realized what Nerney had done, the other officers devoted themselves to the victims.  But Connors was already gone, and Mountain expired within a half hour.

The county Sheriff was notified of the events and within an hour, Officer Nerney himself was under arrest.  Nerney, when questioned, said that he did not know what happened, that he had lost all control of himself. 

To the utter shock of the friends, family, and children of the deceased, Nerney was ultimately and inexplicably exonerated. The news of this episode and its outcome was shocking and enthralling, and appeared in eastern newspapers from New Jersey to Maine.

Quite a sad tale, this, and leaves us with a few observations.

First, note that a modern, professional police force would never show up in civilian dress and fail to identify themselves.  And their use of force would be far more judiciously governed.  The potential for a repeat of this tragedy is vanishingly slim.

But, also, remember this – government is force.  If you disagree, try not paying your taxes on some principle, ignore the warnings, and wait until the U.S. Marshals show up in full SWAT regalia.  Government is force. Which is great cause for us to give thanks for the strength of our Constitution and its guaranteed freedoms.  It took many years for the grip of Puritanism to ease.  We don’t ever again want government to tell us that we can’t play baseball on Sunday.

Dear President Obama...

There have been multiple times since Mr. Obama became president that my hackles have raised, particularly in response to multiple apologies to the world for the sins of America. (America, the great bastion of democracy who freed the world from tyranny, but who have become somehow irredeemably evil). I have till now managed to smooth my own ruffled feathers. No more. I have finally submitted a comment to the White House via their website:

Dear President Obama:

Your recent statement that the Cambridge Massachusetts police "acted stupidly" made me angry. You admit that you are prejudiced (in the classic English sense) in favor of your friend, Prof. Gates, and that you don't know the facts of the matter.

In my opinion, your comment was ill considered and reflects poor judgment and immaturity -- not qualities that speak well of our chief executive.

I believe that you owe a sincere apology to Sergeant Crowley and all the police of our nation.

Now I must admit to my own prejudices -- I am a former Marine Corps sergeant and a former police (auxiliary) sergeant. So perhaps I tend to support sergeants. Doesn't matter to me what skin tone they have.