The Myth of the Line: The Dog Whistle in the Immigration Debate

by with No Comment CultureFeaturedPolitics

Why do we believe what we believe – and how do we know we believe it?  This may sound overly simplistic, and I certainly do not intend for this to cause offense, but merely wish to state clearly that which is on my mind.  In short, there are things which are both complex and complicated. These things require knowledge to form a position, or to verify that the positions we have already identified in ourselves are valid ones.  And to that purpose, in steps a philosopher.

Epistemology is a philosophical process. It is the investigation of the foundations of our beliefs to determine if they are justified ones, or rather just opinions we have elevated to moral certainties.  Epistemology comes from two Greek words “episteme” (knowledge) and “logos” (reason). There exist a plethora of matters where your answer is instinctively known to you. To explain to others how or why you came to your answer; however, that is the rub.  That is also the step where we are most known to fudge a little because while it is most certainly hard to be honest with other people, it is often hardest to be honest with ourselves. To be honest with ourselves we have to decide whether the pool of knowledge upon which we have based our opinions is a valid foundation. If we are to do that honestly, we have to answer these questions about our knowledge: what does it truly mean to know anything, how much can any human being know, and what does the sum of human knowledge look like?  

There are different kinds of knowledge.  When a philosopher uses the word knowledge he or she strictly means that you know something is factually true.  This is called factive knowledge. You know the Earth is round – or you should anyway.  You can factively know how to perform or accomplish a task, such as how to bake biscuits (procedural knowledge).  Or, you can factively know a human being, such as knowing your cousin James. You can factively know all kinds of things that are of no concern to a serious philosopher.

What an Epistemologist wants to know, study, and express, is called propositional knowledge. Propositional knowledge is something that describes, or purports to describe, what is in a declarative manner.  For example, George W. Bush is a Republican; the Earth is round; it is immoral to value one human life more than another; it is unethical to separate children from their parents.

What kind of knowledge is required for ethical decisions?  If you are a person of faith and are asked if you believe in God, your answer is easily come by: yes.  If asked why or to otherwise discuss the intricacies of your faith, you would gladly concede that it is a complex matter. You would struggle in a discussion with the non-believer to prove that you have a justified basis for your belief system. Whether you love your spouse, whether you are for or against the death penalty, how you believe we should treat the homeless, whether or not you’re a capitalist these are things you know, and they are expressions of your value system.  The expression of this kind of knowledge is most valuable to politicians too, because they use it to seek to align themselves with your value expressions.

Epistemologists need to know whether the truth about a particular issue can or cannot be known by any human, or you, or all humans.  Then they would need to know if, were it possible to know a truth, we do know that truth. Philosophers also need to know if knowledge can be obtained without experience, using only reason (a priori knowledge), or if one must experience a thing to know it (empirical knowledge). Epistemologists make this determination by looking at three conditions: Belief, Truth; and Justification.  This is how they examine and know whether you or I know something.

This is not meant to be an overly technical philosophical examination of the basis of ethical decision-making, but merely intended to reframe how we view the various debates we engage in when we are in a socio-political sphere.  There is, of course, a branch of Epistemology that asks how a group can know something and how it acquires knowledge. But, for today’s purposes, we will just look at the conditions for knowledge: Belief, Truth, and Justification.  

The first condition notes that knowledge is a form of belief.  If we do not think about something, we do not believe anything about it.  If we do not believe anything about it, we do not possess any knowledge about it.  I do not think about how men’s pants fit because I do not wear them. I have no opinions about the issue, I have not considered the issue, neither am I currently thinking about nor entertaining a position on the matter, and I have never done so.  I know nothing about the fit of men’s pants because I believe nothing about men’s pants.  

Taken to its logical conclusion we could assume that most people do not know anything about 90% of the public policy issues which make up the debates we watch our politicians undertake when they run for office.  Most people do not go throughout their daily lives thinking about trade deficits or food stamp policy. But you know what they say about making assumptions. 

You see, these beliefs you have in your head that you are actively working through or thinking about, those are only one kind of beliefs: occurrent beliefs.  But most of our beliefs are non-occurrent beliefs.  These are beliefs which exist somewhere in the static, bred through thousands of years of evolution and nurture.  We as human beings are inherently tribal. For thousands of years, we existed and survived in groups as against other tribal groups.  This American ideal of the melting pot where we can fight against our impulses to pit “us” v. “them,” is relatively new when measured against the sum total of human history.  In our most secret hearts, we still make far too many of our decisions based on tribal instincts. Our tribe tells us what the answer is, how the other side is wrong – and we are all too happy to repeat that answer.  Thinking critically can separate you from your social circle and it can thin you out from the herd. That is inherently dangerous. As part of this self-feeding cycle, we do not always reward critical and independent thought. Simultaneously, we do not value or provide people with, the two things they most need to think critically: time and knowledge.  Instead, our background non-occurrent beliefs continue unchecked.  That is where truth comes in.  

You have to believe something to satisfy an Epistemologist’s first condition for knowledge, but that not enough on its own since you can believe something that is not true – lots of people do.  The goal of any moral person is to try to amass a set of true beliefs, and discard those which are false.  If you cannot satisfy the second condition of knowledge – Truth – you cannot know that thing.  If you believe the Earth is flat you are incorrect. We can and do know that such a belief is not so.  You cannot actually know the Earth is flat because to know such a thing is not possible in this sense.  And if truth is subjective then no one can know anything.  

But what if you believe something, and it is true, but you had no rational basis for it – can you really be said to know that thing?  According to the third condition of Epistemology – Justification – you cannot. After all, of what good is that “knowledge” if you could not repeat the process to form knowledge again?  For a belief you hold to be knowledge, it must be both true and rationally based. The most famous example of this is called the Gettier Problem. If the clock on my desk stopped working at 2:00 am last night, and I did not notice when I came into work, I might later in the day decide to look at it to determine what time I ought to leave for my 2:30 pm appointment.  If I were, by pure chance, to look at the clock at 2:00 pm and see the clock flashing 2:00, I would presume it is time to leave and correctly, grab my stuff and walk out the door. But I did not have a rational basis for my true belief that it was 2:00 pm. If I had not looked up then, but instead looked up at 1:15 pm I would have seen the same thing and left early. If I had in the alternative looked up at 3:15 pm, I would have seen the same thing, left, and been very late.  All three of these conditions: Belief, Truth, and Justification, must exist for there to be knowledge.

Unless you are a politician.

If you are a politician, you are not really concerned with why we believe what we believe, or if those beliefs are true – you are only interested in how those beliefs might be used to your benefit.  There is no benefit in telling the electorate of today that those carefully considered beliefs they hold are untrue, that they; therefore, do not know anything.  There is much value; however, in knowing what the electorate believes and believes they know.  If you know their beliefs, it is easy to invoke and design reaction.  When both sides participate in this unconsidered approach to knowledge, our public discourse devolves from that of an honest and well-intended marketplace of ideas, to a free-for-all that takes place in 180-character punches intended to anger and fear-monger.  When our untrue beliefs are reinforced by those in power, it can make them feel true.  And if they feel true, and we are told our tribe is reasonable, then they also feel justified, whether they are or not.  Now our untrue beliefs have become two things: faux knowledge, and a campaign slogan.  

Were a person interested in examples of such things, he or she might take a gander at Texas, where the Governor says he will no longer allow refugees to settle, and the political right does not even bat an eye.  They know this is ethical and moral because they believe those people do not belong here, and they know it is true.  This is obviously perfectly reasonable and consistent with their group position on legal vs. illegal immigration.  Amongst themselves, their tribe’s motives no longer need to be questioned – it is clear from the “record” that they are right, well-meaning, and promoting The American Way™.

But how can that be? One of the most common refrains in the immigration debate that we hear from the far right is that they as a group are (and we as a society should also be) “ok” with immigrants, but only when they are legal.  “We want legal immigrants,” they say, and, “We just cannot support any policy action that would incentivize people to keep coming here illegally!” They expect that all these great and unwashed masses should “Get In Line!™” Ah – but refugees already have – they are legal immigrants. Somehow, the political right knows that refugees do not belong in Texas, but also believe that legal immigrants belong, and that both such beliefs are true.  But they cannot both be true.  It would seem then, from the vantage point of intellectual consistency, this action and reaction alike expose the right’s long-held position on immigration reform as one based in racial enmity disguised as a concern for the Rule of Law.  I’m not sure it will matter though, if no one cares about knowing, and only about believing.

Over the next few weeks we will cover different aspects of the immigration system, and whether we can know that something is, or is not, the “right thing to do.”  No side will be completely blameless in this discussion.  Diatribes ring hollow from those who are also complicit in inaction.  Most of the harshest accusations of immorality, after all, will come from career politicians from the left who have, over decades of woke compassionate public service, done nothing to better the plight of those they claim to care about.  But from all I’ve seen growing up on the border, and later practicing immigration law for 10 years, so many desperate people are being taken advantage of. Their plight gets worse and more desperate and we do not have a plan to fix it.  What is more, we do not appear care if we have one. We almost do not even want a plan. Because if we had a plan, if we fixed it, how will we raise money for the election? How can we scare people? How can we prove we are morally superior if we have to first admit our beliefs must be true to know the answer?  

If you are the one being talked about, not doing the talking (or the voting), there is little moral difference between Trump and Obama’s Congresses if neither one has helped you. The refugee crisis is not new, and it is not over.  Racism against Hispanics and Latinos is a serious problem, but it did not start with the shooting in El Paso, or with Trump, or Obama. We have a compassion problem, and a love of money problem too. Which is worse you might ask – to openly declare racial enmity for a group of people, or to vow to help that group, and then refuse to do so in order that one might have the opportunity to campaign again in 2 years on something solid? The ticket to re-election, after all, is not owning the solution, but owning the promise.  That I think, for the unaccompanied minors and families destroyed from excessive and pointless deportations, is a question of degree, not of culpability in general. 

Plans are complicated – a lot more complicated than making money off the backs of society’s most vulnerable by running for-profit prisons camps masquerading as shelters.  We are importing and exporting misery, and using it as a marketing tool. In the process, we have created a new form of slavery and slave trading. These illegal immigrants we banter about and judge live in our shadows – they have no rights, no recourse, and we get rich off their labor.  In the meantime, no one has made the line shorter, or made more lines. We sure do love $4.00 a pound organic strawberries though. No one on either primary stage has made you one iota safer, and no one has helped these poor people – these “least of these.” No one has even bothered to try.  Immigration reform is one of those things which is neither complex nor easy. But how we treat immigrants has an easy answer: we treat them as our neighbor, as we would want to be treated. Why? Because they are us. That is a belief, it is true, it is knowable, and can be justified rationally.

We have another belief we know to be true, that we like to say we arrived at after careful rational thought: that we all have God-given rights and that these rights do not come from government nor from our Constitution.  Rather these are our natural rights, and our Constitution merely enshrines them. America, we know, is great because it recognizes that concept.  There seems to be a new caveat however: non-Americans have fewer rights than we do. All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.

These beliefs cannot be opposite each other and represent knowledge, because they cannot both be true, and cannot both be justified.  If you believe both of those things, you do not know anything at all about who belongs here.  Insofar as Texas has a governor who claims to be a Christian, but blocks refugee settlement – the settlement of LEGAL immigrants, we also can no longer pretend that we were ever really upset that they did not “Get In Line™ .”  We do not have to pretend we were only against illegal immigration, because it can no longer be said to be a true belief.  It is a dog whistle.  It always was. It was always a way to make some animals more equal than others, and we are not fooling anyone anymore. Except maybe, ourselves. 

The Conservative Argument AGAINST Trump’s Border Wall

by with 5 Comments FeaturedPolitics

One of the biggest stories of 2019… 

There is no political topic that captures the imagination of today’s voter like Trump’s proposed border wall.  This issue encapsulates national security, humanitarian, economic concerns, and it exploits the hyperpolarization of the rank and file members of both political parties. This issue is THE reason for the longest government shutdown in US history, and at the time of this writing, there is no compromise in sight. In this political stalemate, the only way to move the needle is to look deeper into the issue to see what the actual issue is, and if the taken positions are consistent with the fundamental principles of their ideology and party affiliation. As a lifelong Republican with an engineering background, after crunching the numbers and taking into perspective the number of diversions from bedrock conservative ideals, this border wall and the process it includes is the antithesis of sound conservative policy. The proposed wall is not fiscally responsible, infringes on private property rights through eminent domain, and does not significantly improve national security.

Using my professional background, and my background in engineering costs, I identified these significant expenses: 1. Property value of acquired land… 2. Legal fees for obtaining land through eminent domain… 3. Material costs for a 25 ft steel wall… 4. 2 ft foundation… 5. Labor costs… 6. Permitting fees… 7… Installation of service road for construction, maintenance, and transportation of border patrol vehicles and equipment… 8. Engineering fees, and… 9. Miscellaneous fees and expenses. While there are other expenses like water rights for farmers along the Rio Grande River, and potential litigation issues from a treaty with Mexico regarding these water rights, I am keeping my focus on these items because the process time and costs are significant.

  1. Property Values: Most land along the border is private property. I will assume 75% of the land is private property, a cost of $3,000 per acre (value is likely higher, but once land is condemned for seizure, the value drops significantly), and a 150 ft-wide right-of-way to hold the wall, service road, and any other facilities. Roadway right-of-way varies on size of the road. Typically, it is in the 60-80’ range (300+ for interstates and major highways), but since there will be utility and drainage installations in this right-of-way in lieu of additional easements, I am combining it into one. Total Cost = $75 billion. Total Time to Acquire = 12-18 months to notify property owner & 3-10 years to resolve through federal courts.
  2. Legal fees: This is roughly a third of the total property value based on other federal eminent domain cases. Total Cost = $25 billion. Time to Resolve = 3-10 years.
  3. Material Costs for 25 ft steel wall: Trump has signaled he is willing to compromise from concrete to steel. Assuming the wall height is 25 feet and a unit cost of $7/SF, the Total Cost = $2 billion. Time to Build = 125 miles/year or 14 years.
  4. Foundation Costs for a 2 ft foundation: Assuming a foundation height of 2 ft (typical for a structure of this height) and a unit cost of $10/SF, the Total Cost = $170 million. 
  5. Labor Costs: Labor costs tend to be 40-60% of total expense when combined with materials. Total Cost = $2 billion. 
  6. Permitting Fees: Permitting expenses tend to be 2-3% of total construction costs, depending on location. Permit fees within city limits could be significantly higher because fees are likely based on the total value of the property’s or structure’s value, but for this exercise, we will keep it to materials and labor costs. Total Cost = $100 million. 
  7. Service Road Installation: Service roadways will need to be installed to transport contractors and materials to install the wall. These roadways will be used by maintenance crews as well as transportation means for border patrol agents on duty. Typical costs for 2 lane roads is $3 million per mile. Total cost = $5 billion.
  8. Engineering Fees: typical 2.5-3% of total costs, including property acquisitions. Total cost = $3 billion. 
  9. Miscellaneous fees: On most engineering cost estimates, there is a 10% contingency item that covers additional engineering fees, change order requests, and any other expenses that are anticipated, but the final cost is not known. Total Cost = $10 billion.

When you include a 10% contingency fee to account for miscellaneous or unforeseen expenses, which is custom in most engineering cost estimates, the total cost for this wall, assuming a best-case scenario, is in the $120-125 billion range with a likely completion date in 2029. Trump’s request for $5.7 billion is a small down payment on a costly construction project.

The most expensive part of this endeavor will be the seizure of privately-owned lands through eminent domain. Will Hurd, a former CIA security officer and Congressman of the district with the longest stretch of border in the country, stated there are approximately 1,000 private property owners with land along the border in Texas alone. These properties have been owned by families for multiple generations that will be forcibly taken from them by the federal government at a rate the government arbitrarily sets against their wishes. Historically, eminent domain, particularly the excessive use of it, has been a galvanizing issue for Conservatives. Taking one’s property against their will, particularly after the 2005 Kelo vs City of New London Supreme Court Case, prompted state legislatures in red states to pass legislation to reign in or outright prohibit the use of eminent domain in all or rare cases. The number of potential court cases that will occur could effectively shut down federal courts in District 5 (Texas), 9 (Arizona and California) and 10 (New Mexico).

The central argument made for the wall is the impact it will have on national security. This structure is supposed to make significant reductions in the number of illegal immigrants in our country. This week, the Center for Migration Studies released a study analyzing the numbers reported by the federal government and found that 62% of illegal immigrants are people who came here legally and overstayed their temporary or student visas. This has been the trend for the past seven years. Most illegal crossings occur at busy checkpoints or ports, not in isolated locations because there are not means of transportation available. Cartels have perfected the art of smuggling through these checkpoints and have made them a focus of their operations. They have also built numerous tunnels under the border that a wall would not impede. This means the people our national security departments are most concerned about will not be impacted by this wall. Creating the illusion of security is not the same as actual security.

This wall requires supporters to embrace a fiscally irresponsible purchase and revoke their bedrock defense of private property rights for a physical structure that has negligible benefit for national security. Wall supporters might have other, some might say sinister, reasons for supporting this issue, but it is not a conservative one.

This article was originally published on 22 January 2019.

Similar Read: The Delicate Art of Compromise

 

(Pros in Area Codes) Outside of DC and Houston, Did the World Series Matter?

by with No Comment FeaturedSports

I’m dating myself, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who remembers the Ludacris hit “Area Codes” featuring the late Nate Dogg. Ludacris raps about having women in different cities shouting them out not by their name or city, but by area code. 

The song was an instant hit, but the part that was special for each listener is when Ludacris dropped your area code or area codes you actually knew. (Remember, this song was released in 2001 before incoming phone calls displayed the area code of the caller’s city.)  

It’s been a long time since the single Area Codes was on the billboard charts, similar to another major hit from back in the day that hasn’t seen much love recently. 

And that hit… is literally about hitting… Baseball. 

Yes… in case you live in Washington, DC or Houston, Texas (202 and 713 respectfully) you probably didn’t care much about the classic 7 game World Series that took place between the Washington Nationals… excuse me… the WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS Washington Nationals (yes I’m still a DC sports fan while living in Texas) and the Houston Astros. 

That’s because like Luda’s Area Codes only being special for area codes you know… the once number #1 sport in America has now been reduced to a regional game. Meaning you’re likely only watching baseball if your team is playing, but not much else. 

Which is a shame, because baseball was still very popular around the time “Area Codes” was on the radio. The likes of Derek Jeter and Barry Bonds were household names equal to their NBA and NFL counterparts.

Not anymore. 

Spotify ain’t checking for Ludacris anymore and people aren’t checking for baseball either. 

Baseball for the foreseeable future will continue to distance itself from specifically younger non-white viewers. A trend that says more about the increasing cultural divide between generations and demographics. 

In victorious Washington D.C., viewership was the highest for any MLB telecast since 1998. However, the Game 7 World Series clincher marked the lowest-rated and least-watched Game 7 of the Fall Classic on record. The previous marks were the Giants-Royals in 2014. 

Outside the big markets/teams (Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers), MLB will continue to be the greatest example of an American pro sports league with exciting game 7’s… that somehow find themselves competing with meaningless NBA scuffles… in November. 

If MLB wants to improve their viewership and ratings, maybe they should try to appeal to younger generations and more demographics. If they don’t want to, then I guess they’ll continue to do what they’re doing. 

Similar Read: Candy Corn Sports… What Happened to Baseball?

California Passes Act That Will Allow College Athletes to Get Paid, What Will Other States Do?

by with One Comment FeaturedSports

A couple of weeks ago, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed The Fair Pay to Play Act, which will allow college athletes in California to be paid for the use of their name, image and likeness. California schools will not pay athletes under the new bill, but athletes will be allowed to hire agents and seek out business deals. 

This is huge! 

Even if you’re not a fan of college sports… I’m sure you’re well aware that everyone from Bo Jackson to Zion Williamson has never received a dime (aka compensation) for their work and talent as a college athlete. Meanwhile, the NCAA has made billions of dollars over the years in profit based solely off their talents. 

Until now. 

And it matters that this act took place in California because it’s the largest state in the country in terms of both population and economic power. And… California has several powerhouse collegiate programs to draw top-ranked athletes, such as UCLA, Cal, and Stanford, all of which are worthy of 5-star athletes who might consider them over other programs like the University of Texas solely due to their personal income potential.

Unless… Texas (the second-largest state in terms of population and economic power) passes their own version. And to not be outdone by the lone star state… Florida… with its own large population with economic might not want students going to Texas A&M over Florida State. Not a coincidence, both Florida and Texas are hotbeds for college football recruiting. With everything else they have to compete with, are they really going to stand by and let their top athletes leave the state because of failing to compete legislative wise? 

That brings us to a crossroads, which eventually will lead to either one of two things… the NCAA steps in and fixes its serfdom-like ways with college athletes, OR… literally every state or the federal government as a whole will enact a federal “fair play to pay” act. 

This will inevitably open the grounds for student-athletes to finally get some form of compensation, stipend, allowance, or outright paycheck for the use of their name, image or likeness.

Call me crazy, but I think we’re long overdue for such a a common-sense correction.

What do you think?

Guyger Found Guilty, and We’re Shocked

by with No Comment CultureFeatured

“It was unreasonable — she should’ve known she was in the wrong apartment … that is garbage.” – Assistant District Attorney’s comments about Amber Guyger’s testimony 

Amber Guyger, the former Dallas police officer, who shot and killed Botham Jean after entering his apartment, was convicted of murder. And people are shocked. Not because she didn’t deserve to be convicted, but because so often when the victim is black or brown, and the murderer deserves to be convicted, they’re often acquitted and allowed to return to their normal everyday lives. People are so used to seeing people literally get away with murder, that when the person is convicted they have to pause and reflect on how good justice feels. When you’re conditioned for a certain result or outcome, you’re taken aback when that result is different, especially when the expected result is negative.

When the verdict was announced, we heard stories of people taking a moment from work to cry, to call their close friends, and just rejoice that for once justice was reached when in similar cases it’s usually not. And that’s unfortunate, yet that’s the reality and culture of the criminal justice system in America. Acquittals are expected when the defendant suggests they were in “fear of their life.” That seems to be the go-to line for all murderers, especially when the victim is black, brown, and unarmed. Can’t blame them, because it works. No matter the evidence or who escalated it… even when it’s egregious like George Zimmerman playing neighborhood cop and following Trayvon Martin despite the dispatcher telling him not to. Entering someone’s apartment and then crying wolf after you murder them falls along the same lines of bizarre and extremely odd, but unlike Zimmerman, Guyger was found guilty. 

Botham Jean is never coming back, and that’s a tragedy. But at least this time his family and community can find solace in the fact that justice was served in the form of a conviction.

Similar Read: Antwon Rose 

What a Fall From Grace

by with One Comment CultureFeaturedGen ZGun Debate

While I’ve been in college only for four and a half years, it feels as if I’ve been there twice as long because so much has changed from the time I enrolled and to now.

I entered college under Barack Obama and will be graduating under Donald Trump. I’ve watched Trump gradually tear down what little Obama was able to build, branding it as ineffective, but was unable to come up with anything better.

In my junior year, I interned with The Japan Times when I studied abroad in Japan. Every day without fail, Trump would be on the front page with new or recurring shenanigans. Through a different cultural lens, I was able to look at my president, at my country and see how we are continuing to plummet from grace.

The mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL happened while I was abroad. When I returned home, there were many more mass shootings. There were many more shootings in general, which claimed the lives of innocent people for unjustifiable reasons.

If we put forth legislation to regulate the gun market, people will claim that it’s an infringement on their second amendment rights, and/or use under-the-table methods to obtain a gun. It turns out that the more you tell someone to do something, the more likely it is for them to do the opposite.

This holds true in terms of immigration as well. Everyone’s circumstances for emigrating from their home countries are different, though more often than not, it is a better option to take a chance on America versus staying home. Under this anti-immigration presidency, immigrants have been treated worse than I’ve ever seen in my life. Separating children from their adult relatives, housing these children and adults in separate detainment camps without the barest of essentials, and making these children stand trials without translators or juries are just a few of the inhumane efforts to deport these immigrants.

America was built on immigration and continues to thrive today because of immigration. Yet, xenophobia has a vice grip on some Americans. The fear of foreignness coupled with the misconception that immigrants are taking over our economy result sometimes in fatal events like the mass shooting in El Paso, TX.

I continue to watch as our “magnificent” country further deteriorate because that’s all I can do when I don’t know what to do or what can be done. 

Similar Read: Fascism 101

Fantasy Firearms… Could a Black Panthers Movement Save the Nation?

by with No Comment CultureFeaturedGun Debate

Roughly two weeks ago, on August 31st, 2019, another mass shooting took place in the cities of Midland and Odessa Texas. It was the second incident in Texas for the month of August 2019, and at the time of this writing, the week of September 8th, 2019, there have been 289 mass shootings in the United States thus far. For those who wonder what defines a mass shooting… the Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as “a single incident in which four or more people, not including the shooter, are “shot and/or killed” at “the same general time and location.”

289… think about that. We as a nation have experienced MORE mass shootings (289) in the calendar year of 2019 so far than actual days (September 8th is the 251st day of the calendar year).

After each shooting; there are a couple of days of “gun control” “banning assault weapons” “mental health issues” blah blah… then a few days later back to whatever we were talking about before. Right now, the Texas shootings are long gone from the headlines, and now it’s back to Antonio Brown’s NFL saga, Hurricane Dorian (the Hurricane Trump thought it was heading for Alabama), and fantasy football… which is fitting… because it’s a fantasy for anyone who truly cares about gun violence in this nation to think anything will actually change.

So, what could cause a reaction from policymakers so dreadful they would immediately apply true prudent measures to gun ownership? 

To paraphrase comedian Dave Chappelle on his on Netflix special Sticks & Stones… there’s only one way to change gun laws and it’s for Black and Brown people to sign up in mass for gun licenses and ownership.

Let me explain via US history with two incidents in the 1960s…

August 1965 – Los Angeles

“Watts Riot” – Took place from August 11th to 16th, due to a police brutality incident against a pregnant woman. Immediately afterwards, the Los Angeles Police Department created “SWAT” or “Special Weapons and Tactics” designed to handle urban unrest, rioting, or widespread violence. In other words, a military level response to unruly and armed Black people.

1967 – California

The Mulford Act was enacted to repeal a California law that allowed the public carrying of loaded firearms. The bill was introduced by Republican Don Mulford, from Oakland, who wrote the bill as a response to seeing armed Black Panther members conducting patrols in Oakland.

The aforementioned acts in California would be duplicated on many municipal, state, and federal levels. The common trend… a response to armed and angry Black people.

So, what does that mean?

It means that if the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook, in which dozens of White kids were killed, didn’t cause anyone to blink an eye about our gun violence issues… then nothing else would… except the usual US history protection of White fear against a perceived Black threat. Yes, it was a joke made by Dave Chappelle, but the thought of legally armed Black people, immigrants or Muslims, or all three… OH MY!!! It would be the ultimate reason and motivation, again, to draft laws to vet gun ownership and curb gun production and sales.

Similar Read: MLK: Bankrupt Justice 

Bulletproof Backpacks, a 2019 Back-to-School Essential?

by with 2 Comments FeaturedGen Z

New anxieties emerge with the return of the school year in the wake of multiple mass shootings. 

I had never seen someone look so brave holding up a broom as a weapon. As all my peers and I hid against the wall, many crying softly, my teacher stood by the door barricaded with desks and held the plastic pole ready for whatever might emerge. No amount of active shooter drills prepares a child – or anyone – for the fear of a lockdown. That was in the sixth grade, and now as a college student, that same experience feels like it could repeat itself at any moment.  

After the mass shooting incidents in El Paso and Ohio, it does not come as much of a surprise that some parents are opting out of purchasing their children Barbie and Star Wars backpacks for bulletproof bags. On Aug. 5 2019, when I received an email from Temple University’s President addressing recent safety concerns, I thought maybe it wasn’t so ridiculous after all. According to CBS Philly, Patrick Buhler, a Bucks County man was arrested and charged with terroristic threats and harassment. Buhler bought several boxes of ammunition, as well as knives and propane bottles from Walmart locations. While he was purchasing five boxes of ammo, he asked a customer about Temple University’s security and its campus police. 

Democratic presidential candidates, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Senator Cory Booker, and Julián Castro have called on Walmart to stop selling guns. The company is one of the leading sellers of guns and ammunition in the country. ABC News reported Walmart is pulling violent displays, but will continue to sell firearms. An internal company memo obtained by the Associated Press instructed Walmart employees to unplug Xbox and PlayStation consoles that show violent video games and shut off hunting videos in the vicinity of where guns are sold. The truth is though, no amount of active shooter drills, bulletproof backpacks, or removal of violent displays will save us from the gun culture that has become normalized in the United States.

According to USA Today, the mass shootings in Texas and Ohio may also prompt the Supreme Court to delay hearing cases that could expand Second Amendment rights. Proponents of gun rights say the violence should not hinder the Supreme Court Justices from pushing their agenda. To this, I agree. Change can not purely be catalyzed in the face of tragedy. The lives lost in Dayton and El Paso, is only one story in a string of devastation. The Atlantic reported the United States has witnessed nearly 2,200 mass shootings since the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive. 

This new anxiety from mass shootings is not only present in people with loved ones returning to school, but in many Americans when entering public spaces. People recently took to Twitter to share their respective fears. Geraldine DeRuiter posted her sentiment in a tweet that instantly went viral: “whenever I’m in a public space, I think about what would happen if a mass shooting broke out. It’s a constant, low-level anxiety that follows me everywhere. I wonder if it’s just me. I don’t think it is.” Buzzfeed News said DeRuiter received a slew of responses from individuals scared to be in classrooms, movie theaters, churches, etc. This concern recently became even more tangible to me when my cousin declined an invitation to go to a street festival because she was anxious about walking in a highly-populated open space.

The recent attacks highlight issues that go beyond gun violence, namely the El Paso shooting and the animosity it carries towards people of color. According to the New York Times, the suspect, Patrick W. Crusius, 21, who is a White male, told police that he had targeted Mexicans. Crusius wrote a four-page manifesto that said he was carrying out the attack in “response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.” Hate crimes like this become even more incomprehensible when public figures like Fox News host Tucker Carlson declares on-air that White supremacy is a “hoax.”

This summer I worked as an English language teacher for high school students from Spain. It was heartbreaking to me that a majority of the students were eager to get answers about the presence of guns during our presentation on campus safety from Drexel University Police. It was sad that neither I nor the police officer had a substantial answer, but it was also a reality check. America, we need to do better. 

Similar Read: Guns Are Here To Stay 

Pointing Fingers

by with No Comment CultureFeaturedGen Z

There is a monster within our midst. This monster was born and bred in the Land of the Free, fed from the bosom of bigotry, and taught how to survive by means of trigger happy fingers. Now that the monster is running amok, we are quick to point fingers at each other. Did you know that when you’re pointing the blame at someone or something else, there are three fingers pointed back at yourself? 

This monster has been taking the form of mass shootings, which have unfortunately become endemic in the United States. From theaters to parks to schools to nightclubs to Walmarts to downtown night scenes, gun violence has become increasingly more pervasive and its reach keeps extending. It continues to take over any and all remaining safe spaces, if people even feel safe here anymore. 

On the first Sunday of August, many lives were threatened and many lives were claimed. 

Patrick Crusius, a 21-year-old White man, traveled 600 miles from his hometown of Allen, TX to El Paso, to this Walmart. It is inarguable that he was a man on a mission to “get as many [Mexicans] as he [could]”. Given that El Paso is comprised of roughly 80% Mexican and Latinx, it is accurate to deem this as a hate crime. Crusius allegedly posted a “manifesto” on a dark website, 8chan, which includes strong anti-immigrant sentiments. 

Authorities reported that Crusius unabashedly confessed to this crime, saying “I’m the shooter”. Crusius is being charged with capital murder, but it is still uncertain whether he will be charged for this mass shooting as a hate crime. According to The NY Times, authorities are still looking for a definitive link between the manifesto on 8chan and Crusius. If they are to find it, then they may prosecute him for the shooting being either an act of domestic terrorism or being a hate crime. Personally, I don’t understand how it can’t be both. 

There are people who claim that this rhetoric sounds like President Trump’s election and re-election campaign, which both contain antagonistic views of immigrants, legal and illegal. This is finger-pointing. We are looking for someone to blame for this and Trump fits the mold, close enough. 

In Dayton, OH, Connor Betts finally got to enact his desire of becoming a mass shooter. Betts had expressed his desire to be a mass shooter since he was in high school. According to his old classmates, all he talked about was guns, extreme violence, and his “hit list.” This list was divided into two sections: a kill list for guys and a rape list for girls. With someone as vocal as he was about his intents, it begs to question why there was no further action taken against him. Betts had been a ticking time bomb since he was a high school student so I want to know how we could have given him the chance to explode. 

Something’s got to give. 

On Monday, August 5th, President Trump addressed these tragic events. While his sincerity could be called into question, if we focused on what he said, there is still a bone to pick with it. He blames violent video games and the internet for corrupting the minds of youths like Crusius and Betts. He also blames these violent acts on mental illness. Trump wants to start putting Red Flag Laws into effect through a bipartisan effort so that we can prevent arming “mentally ill monsters” in the future. Mental illness, video games, and the internet can be factors in decisions and intents such as these, but they are not the blame for them. 

Trump is pointing fingers at other reasons for these tragedies, but his remaining three fingers point at how he seems undecided about whether he’ll protect the people or the second amendment rights, how he feels there’s an influx of immigrants that are ruining our “great” country and making America lose its identity, and how his words and actions can be construed as misogynistic and racist. During his presidency, racist and sexist agendas have become more forthright. If our president can do and say these things, why can’t we the people do the same? 

One thing that stuck with me from Trump’s address is how mass shootings have steadily increased since Columbine twenty years ago. This increasing frequency needs to be stopped so innocent lives won’t be taken. This needs to stop now, but what would the solution look like? 

I like the idea of running background checks on individuals who are looking to purchase a firearm. It is certainly tedious work, similar to getting clearances for a new job, but this extra work can ensure that individuals like Crusius and Betts do not get their trigger happy fingers on them. This can be invasive, and it surely wouldn’t be infallible, but it would be a move in the right direction.  

The second amendment grants us the right to bear arms, and by placing the gun market under stricter supervision, it can be seen as an infringement of this right. I don’t see how we can more strictly regulate the sale and resale of firearms in America whilst remaining completely faithful to our second amendment right. However, as the saying goes, you can’t make everyone happy. 

I also like the idea of raising the age from 18 to 21; however, it is ridiculous to enforce because we are allowed to enlist in the army at the age of 18. We’ll be handling guns at 18, home and overseas, but will not be able to purchase them upon our return if we enforce a policy like this. 

Change is a ripple effect and it doesn’t happen immediately. Decisions have to be made in order for change of some sort to occur. We won’t know if it’s a bad decision or a good one if we don’t put forth the effort. President Trump is pushing for us to put our political differences aside because we need to stand together to make change. We need to relinquish ourselves of this monster we’ve created in the hopes of being and feeling safe within our own country. 

Similar Read: Gun Control: Could It Be That Easy?

My Fellow Republicans, We Need to (Finally) Have This Talk

by with 4 Comments CultureFeatured

Dear Fellow Republicans,

This is not something I want to do. I’ve hinted about this for years, but my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. This is not something pleasant to discuss, but it is long overdue. I am not doing this because I feel pressure to please ‘the other side’, it is because my faith has convicted me to speak out, and when you feel the Holy Spirit leading you, this message will reach the people it needs to reach.

For too long, we have allowed a darkness to linger in our party. During the early Bush (43) years, we ignored it. In fact, most of our party leaders tacitly confronted it. Fueled by a growing evangelical movement that was less partisan and more racially diverse, there was a movement in the Republican Party to build upon the gains made in previous elections with minority communities, especially the Latino community. George W Bush rode this momentum to two terms by capturing Hispanic-heavy states like Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida, and Nevada. Then something changed, and it opened the door to something that spread like wildfire and has a chokehold on us at this hour. 

It started with several protests that lead to the defeat of Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform. Anxiety about border security was stoked daily by national talk radio hosts and personalities like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. A so-called conservative uprising, fueled by resentment to millions of people who were here illegally, seized control of the party and set the table for something far, far worse. Opportunistic political candidates leaped at the chance to further stoke this anger for electoral success.

Dan Patrick was a provocative state Senator from the Houston area. He owned a talk radio station, and he had a talk show on the channel. Perhaps the most infamous event his show is remembered for is getting a vasectomy on his live show. In 2014, he challenged the sitting Lieutenant Governor, David Dewhurst, and two other statewide elected officials in the GOP primary. His candidacy, fueled by Tea Party-affiliated groups like Empower Texas, was built upon one slogan, “Stop the Invasion!” He ran ads of people with darker skin climbing over a fence to further stoke the smoldering embers, and by the time the TXGOP convention came around, he was received like a rock star, completely overshadowing every other speaker. 

One year later, another media personality with his own show used the same template and rode it to the GOP nomination and the White House. He took the foundation that Dan Patrick and others had laid and built a national campaign that convinced rural people in midwestern states that illegal immigrants were crossing the border to rape and destroy our country. Now, most Americans believe we need competent border security. In the post-9/11 world, our national security is not negotiable. This does not mean we need to scapegoat groups of people. 

Originally, the consensus argument was, “We support legal immigration, not illegal immigration.” Never mind the intermixing of the terms ‘illegal immigration’ with ‘immigration’, this was the party line used to deflect claims of xenophobia or racism. Then over time, there was a backlash against legal immigration as well. When deciding on what kinds of immigrants we should prioritize (skilled, unskilled, college-educated, etc.), the same people oppose any changes or increases because immigrants would drive down wages. Basically, we are ok with people coming here legally, but we are going to put up every roadblock to prevent you from coming here. Last October, the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) released a survey that measured American attitudes towards immigration. Some of their findings are startling, though not surprising.  They found that “74 percent of Republicans think immigrants are a burden, while only 35 percent of Democrats do.” The generational divide on this point is also significant, with 62 percent of seniors believing immigrants are a burden, but only 32 percent of young Americans. As the Republican party sheds young professionals and college-educated voters to market to older White working-class voters, these attitudes are solidified in the party’s structure. 

In the last 15 years, I’ve had a front-row seat watching the progression (or regression) of the party from a suburban, middle-class party with an interest in Hispanic voters to an older rural, working-class party who openly questions if the person speaking Spanish at the booth in the coffee shop in town is here legally. The reality is the racial and xenophobic anxieties were always there. Party leaders like the Bush family, John McCain, and many others did a good job at diffusing these impulses, or at worse, muzzling them. With the rising influence of social media, these anxieties have been fed by talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and Lou Dobbs. When you combine it with daily Twitter diatribes from the President, you have a nearly unbreakable support system.

Now I realize that many of you have stopped reading out of anger, and some have created new profanities, and most believe I am a gutless RINO sellout. I also owe you an apology. When I saw these cancerous symptoms a decade ago, I did not actively confront it. I would mention it bothered me on a Facebook post, but at political events, I normally walked away instead of pushing back. I let my political ambitions trump what I knew was wrong. I would defend the party against outsider attacks because while my team has its faults, it is still MY TEAM. I knew one day this intervention would have to happen, and the tragedy that took place at the Walmart in El Paso was the final straw.

The terrorist responsible is a 21-year-old man from a middle-class Dallas-Fort Worth suburb that is best known for having the most expensive high school football stadium in the country, and it is the home of Kyler Murray, the 1st pick in the NFL Draft this year. This person drove 600 miles to a majority-Hispanic city because he wanted to ‘Stop the Invasion’. From what has been discovered from his social media activity, he was inspired by the terrorist that executed 9 people at the church in South Carolina, and he was a passionate believer in the anti-immigration rhetoric used by our president. No, I do not believe the President is liable for the shooting, but it needs to be a wakeup call. A mentally disturbed racist using identical language of one of the most powerful political figures in the state, killed fellow Americans because he was blinded by hateful rhetoric that is used interchangeably by many political activists and elected officials. 

In the youth group room at my childhood church, there are walls painted by students as an expression of what it means to be a Christian. On the wall behind where my youth pastor would preach is a school of fish pointing one direction, with one fish facing the other way. Sometimes, you must buck peer pressure because your peers want you to go along with something you know is wrong. Right now, this could be that moment, and I accept that.  

I will leave you with this. Ask yourself this one question. Is an illegal immigrant a human being? I am not asking what you think needs to be done to solve this complex issue. This is a simple yes or no question. If you asked this question on your social media account, will your friends and allies be able to answer this simple, basic question? If your answer is ‘yes, but…’ or anything other than a simple ‘yes’, you have successfully dehumanized a group of people. If you call yourself a person of faith and fail this simple test, you need to ask yourself what idol you are actually worshipping. The world and this country needs a vibrant, healthy Republican Party. We cannot treat or ignore the symptoms any longer. We must treat the disease instead. I am under no illusion that the treatment will be tough, and the immediate side effects will not be pleasant, but we can choose to take our medicine and start the recovery or let the disease kill us. The choice is yours.

 

Your loyal friend,

 

Luke