Who Was That Masked Man?

Those of you old enough to remember the old TV series "The Lone Ranger" may remember the stereotyped ending of many episodes, in which the hero rode off into the sunset while the grateful townsfolk look wonderingly at the silver bullet he left behind and asked, "Who was that masked man?"

There's a tradition in literature of the hero who wears a disguise - usually a mask - to keep their identity secret. The Scarlet Pimpernel, The Lone Ranger, Batman, Zorro, and The Copperhead are just a few of the masked heroes who stepped up to uphold the law and defend the oppressed*.

Times have changed, though.

Nowadays, the masked avenger who once worked to save the oppressed is a federal agent, heavily armed and armored, who refuses to identify himself or his agency or confirm his authority by presenting a warrant while rounding up suspected illegal immigrants in Home Depot and 7-Eleven parking lots and the hallways of federal courts.

There may be good reasons for specific individual police officers to conceal their identity. Service as undercover agents is the reason most often cited, but I hardly think that the relatively few officers serving in valuable undercover roles would be exposed to identification in an effort to round up migrants. Fear of malicious doxing is also given as a reason for masking officers, and it's a concern, but considering that every ordinary police officer wears a badge and identifies themselves to document their identity and authority, I think it's a weak reason.

Masked Singer, yes. Masked law enforcement, no.

Have a good day. Insist that those who exercise power over you identify themselves and document their authority. You don't live in a police state.

Yet.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Okay, The Scarlet Pimpernel rescued French aristocrats from the mob and the guillotine, but just work with me on this.

Talismanic Incantations, Updated

Just shy of eight years ago, in July of 2017, I wrote a post called "Talismanic Incantations." The theme of the post was that there are certain words and phrases that, when used in legal and political discussions, were the equivalent of the magic words we used to believe in when we were children. The title of the post came from a marvelous line in the 9th Circuit Court's decision in the case "State of Hawaii v. Donald Trump, John Kelly, and Rex Tillerson," which struck down Der Furor's proposed ban on travel to the US from six majority Muslim nations:

"National Security is not a 'talismanic incantation' that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power under §1182(f)."

Sadly, National Security has, in fact, become a talismanic incantation, as it invokes protection and deflects accountability for government agencies which exceed their lawful authority on the most tenuous of grounds. And it led me to suggest a number of talismanic incantations useful to justify all manner of otherwise objectionable actions, among them:

Freedom - the quintessential American incantation, generally combined with the type of freedom desired;

 

Religious Freedom - invoked only when one's own religion is inconvenienced;

 

Choice - applies only to the option desired by the person delivering the incantation; its use does not imply that others should enjoy the same equality of choice;

 

Fake News - casts doubt on spells invoked by others with which one does not agree;

 

Keep and Bear Arms - invokes the mystical power of guns, but must be accompanied by the frenzied waving of a firearm;

 

Job-Killing - counters economic spells one cannot counter with statistics or logic;

 

Government Overreach - counters spells which invoke powers not aligned with one's political philosophy;

 

Obstructionist - damages an opponent's image by characterizing them as unable to cast spells of their own, able only to interfere with spells cast by others; and,

 

Racist and Sexist - employed when no other spell works, they have no particular power other than to cast aspersions on spells cast by one's opponents.

 That was in 2017. In 2025, several new talismanic incantations have entered the language:

National Emergency - this is probably the most powerful incantation after National Security, because its use allows the invocation of all sorts of other incantations of legally and constitutionally questionable authority;

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse - a very powerful incantation which invokes the ability, without the need for specific evidence, to make large sections of government vanish; 

 

Anti-Semitic - similar to the previous list's Racist and Sexist, equates criticism of the government of Israel to hatred of the Jewish people as a whole, thereby deflecting legitimate criticism of legally and morally questionable actions*; 

 

Open Borders - shifts blame for Congress's failure for decades to legislatively address the full range of immigration reform issues to illegal immigrants**; and,

 

DEI - a catchall incantation useful for stifling debate in situations where no other incantation works. 

A DOGE employee demonstrates the proper invocation

of the "Fraud, Waste, and Abuse" incantation.

There are also a few talismanic incantations that ordinary citizens can use without special training, among them:

Vote - an incantation, either written or verbal, which can, when cast in sufficient numbers, make undesirable officeholders disappear; 

Call - a verbal incantation used to impart knowledge of one's concerns to an elected official or a member of their staff and inform them of the likelihood of losing one's support if those concerns are ignored; 

Write - an incantation delivered in written form to impart knowledge of one's concerns to an elected official and, like Call, inform them of the likelihood of losing one's support if those concerns are ignored; and, 

Demonstrate - an incantation usually delivered by groups of individuals to remind elected officials of their duty or to call their attention to some undesirable condition.

The last four cost little and help to make your voice heard. And you don't need a magic wand ... only a telephone and writing materials.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* I know I'll take heat for this one from those who will claim (wrongly) that I am equating the actions of Israel to those of Hamas. Both sides claim the absolute right of vengeance for the misdeeds of the other. All I can do is remind them of the old adage that taking an eye for an eye only leaves everyone blind.

** Useful scapegoats who, after all, can't vote.

The Monopoly of Violence

The German historian and sociologist Max Weber, in his 1918 lecture “Politics as a Vocation,” defined the state as a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Political scientists in general tend to accept the fact that one of the defining characteristics of an independent state is the control of armed forces and/or police who alone are authorized to use violence in the state's name.

The importance of the "monopoly of force" or "monopoly of violence" to the state was of great interest as we watched events in Russia unfold last week, when mercenary forces of the Wagner Group under the leadership of Yevgeny Prigozhin marched on Moscow in what appeared to be an abortive coup ... whether against the leadership of the military (as Prigozhin claimed) or against Vladimir Putin himself remains unclear. 

Regardless of the final target, Mr Putin learned a valuable lesson about allowing a private army to operate outside the control of his government.

But Mr Putin wasn't the only one who should have learned a lesson.

Here in the United States, we have a proliferation of armed groups and amateur militias who believe in their right to use violence to implement their interpretation of the Constitution and the law ... the "Proud Boys," the "Oathkeepers," the "Three-Percenters" and others demonstrated their willingness on January 6th, 2021, to use force to overturn an election that didn't produce the results they wanted. These are not the "well-regulated militias" envisioned by the Founders in the Holy Second Amendment (let me hear you say, "halleluja!"), but groups who would impose their vision on you by force. 

What's worrisome about the home-grown militias is that they're not all a bunch of pudgy, bearded, military cosplay Gravy Seals pretending to be heroic figures ... some of them are serious, heavily-armed people with military training who absolutely believe that their freedoms (however they define them, and regardless of yours) are being trampled upon by a tyrannical government, and that they are justified in doing whatever it takes to get the government and the freedoms they want.

A "well-regulated militia" protects the nation and respects the rule of law. The home-grown equivalent of a Wagner Group does not.

Think about that when you cast your votes. 

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Choosing the Laws to Obey

Because obedience to the law is optional in Der Furor's America (at least if you are white, wealthy, well-connected, on the far political right, or all of these), each of us must answer an important question: "which laws do I want to obey?"

Here are a few of the laws I'm going to stop obeying now that it's optional:

1. Tax Laws. The rich and the big corporations can legally avoid paying taxes, why should I keep being a chump?

2. Stop Signs and Speed Limits. They unconstitutionally limit my freedom of movement.

3. Subpoenas. Members of Der Furor's administration are allowed to ignore them; I should be, too.

4. Gun Laws. I'm buying the biggest howitzer I can get. Der Furor says that I'm not safe anywhere in the country, and no bad guy will be deterred by a gun that doesn't look really intimidating while I'm doing my grocery shopping or waiting in line at Starbucks or "defending property." In any case, what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

5. Bank Robbery. I'm a retiree and I'm nearly 70 years old. When the GOP finally succeeds in eliminating Social Security and getting rid of the Affordable Care Act, I'll need to supplement my income somehow.

That's a start; I'm sure I'll come up with a lot more.

Aside from the fundamental issue of fairness, not having to obey the laws is also good for the economy. People will have a lot more money to spend if they can just steal what they need without worrying about pesky things like fines, court costs, and lawyers fees. And think of the money we'll save by not having to pay for police departments and courts!

Of course, there are more than 300 million people in this country, and if all of us just obey the laws we want to obey, there may be a bit of social awkwardness, but that's the price of freedom without responsibility, isn't it?

Which laws will you no longer obey, Dear Reader? Leave a comment and let me know so we can coordinate our lawlessness.

Support selective law and order! It's the American Way, 2020.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

LAW AND ORDER! Or Not.

We're living in strange times here in the United States.

We have a sitting president who thunders daily in CAPITAL LETTERS on Twitter and in loud and emphatic shouts in his rambling speeches about the suffering nation's desperate need for LAW AND ORDER. He sends federal agents in unmarked, military-style uniforms to "assist" state and local governments with containing violent unrest ... which is arguably aggravated by his policies and divisive rhetoric.

But it seems that LAW AND ORDER is a flexible concept in this administration. Laws are enforced only when it's convenient, or when doing so furthers a political agenda.

The most recent example of this is the willful violation by numerous administration officials, from Der Furor on down, of what's known as "The Hatch Act." This law (officially known as 5 USC §§7321-7326), which dates from 1939 and was most recently amended in 2012, generally prohibits any government employee (with the exception of the president and vice president*) from engaging in overt political activity, or from using their positions to coerce other government employees in subordinate positions to take specific actions motivated by partisan political concerns.

The Hatch Act has often been cited in response to the actions of numerous officials of the present administration, who have not only ignored it, but openly flaunted it. During an interview this past May, for instance, White House presidential counsellor Kellyanne Conway, questioned about her evident violations of the law, said

“If you’re trying to silence me through the Hatch Act, it’s not going to work. Let me know when the jail sentence starts.”

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, questioned about the propriety of GOP convention activities being conducted at the White House and other federal properties, said

“Nobody outside of the Beltway really cares (about the Hatch Act). They expect that Donald Trump is going to promote Republican values and they would expect that Barack Obama, when he was in office, that he would do the same for Democrats.”

As it happens, I live outside the Beltway, and I do care. I care a lot.

If one is going to invoke the need for LAW AND ORDER! as holy writ, it behooves one to actually obey the law. And that can lead to some difficulties ...

Now, I'm a linguist. I love language and communication in all its forms. But the language of the law has problems all its own. As my hero, Will Rogers, once said, “The minute you read something that you can't understand, you can almost be sure that it was drawn up by a lawyer.”

A lawyer friend once told me that the tortured complexity of legal language was the result of each word having been endlessly litigated over the years to the point where there was absolutely no legal doubt about what it meant. This is what's known colloquially as bullshit. The complexity of legal language is clearly designed to make the law easy to circumvent because nobody but a thousand-dollar-an-hour lawyer can understand it. For the average person, it's like reading Old Church Slavonic encrypted on an Enigma machine and printed in cuneiform.

As an example, read the section of the Hatch Act titled "Political activity authorized; prohibitions" (5 USC §7323) and tell me what you think is prohibited, and to whom. Is it any wonder that people's eyes glaze over and hypocritical politicians seldom feel the need to obey laws so complex that no one but the lawyers can figure out what they say?

The Ten Commandments contain a total of 79 words (depending on which version of the bible you reference). The US Code has 54 "titles," which contain an estimated 22 million words. Quite literally, nobody knows what all the laws are and what they say. The image below graphically depicts the size of the US Code. Note the size of the actual language of the law (in red) as compared to the size of the explanatory notes and references (in blue).

And that leads us to the problem with Der Furor and his sycophants, allies, and enablers: they depend on you not knowing what the law (and all those explanatory notes) really says. They count on you not caring about laws that don't directly apply to you. They know that you worry about speed limits and the requirement to get your car inspected and pay your taxes and have a license for your dog, but they also know you don't care too much about the intricacies of what they can and can't do in your name.

So, here's my bottom line: the law matters. Each and every law may not matter to you personally, but each one was enacted to meet a specific perceived need**. If we can pick and choose the laws we'll obey, or if police departments can pick and choose the laws they'll enforce or the groups they'll enforce them on, we are no better than the most corrupt and venal banana republic. If the President of the United States and his counsellors, advisors, and Cabinet members can openly flaunt and - indeed - ridicule the law, what example does it set for ordinary citizens who are demanded to submit to LAW AND ORDER?

What have we allowed ourselves to become?

The law matters. Make sure your elected representatives know that it matters to you.

Have a good day. Legally. But if necessary, get into good trouble about it.

More thoughts tomorrow, when we heap dishonor upon the Left-Cheek Ass Clown for August. See you then.

Bilbo

* And why are they excepted? I've heard various explanations, but none that are particularly compelling. I suspect the original rationale may lie in the fact that in our system of government, the head of state and head of government are the same person ... in countries where they are different, the head of state (king, president, grand poobah, etc) generally floats above the political fray to provide apolitical leadership, while the head of government (prime minister, chancellor, etc) pursues the political agenda of the ruling party or coalition. Any other thoughts?

** Some laws should, of course, be viewed suspiciously, particularly when they were enacted for the specific benefit or profitability of individuals, groups, or businesses.

The Letter and the Spirit of the Law

Here's a timely chicken-and-egg question for you: which is more important, the letter of the law or its spirit?

This is no trivial question, especially during these times when an increasingly law-and-order focused administration* applies a no-tolerance policy emphasizing enforcement of the strict letter of the law, particularly in immigration-related cases.

What do we mean by letter vs spirit?

Traffic laws provide the simplest example. The most common highway speed limit in the United States is 55mph (roughly 88kph, for those of you in more advanced countries). If we follow the letter of the law, every car traveling 56mph or faster should be ticketed ... which is clearly impossible. In such cases, it's the spirit of the law that's important - an appropriate maximum speed has been decided upon** for most situations on a given stretch of road, but police officers have broad discretion as to which speeders they pull over. My personal experience is that if you are moving with the flow of traffic (neither significantly faster or slower), not driving recklessly (tailgating or weaving in and out of traffic), and not dangerously far above the limit (say, more than 20mph over), you will not be ticketed even though the letter of the law says you should ... the police generally apply the spirit of the law (maintenance of traffic safety) rather than its letter in order to keep traffic moving safely.

Emphasizing the letter of the law rather than its spirit can lead to significant abuses of authority, as when police use abusive speed traps to raise funds, or use obscure transgressions as a pretext for other actions that might otherwise be illegal (using a broken taillight as an excuse to search a car for drugs or weapons, for instance).

This is what we see happening today in the application of immigration laws on the southern border.

The spirit of immigration laws is a worthy one: to protect the nation from unregulated immigration and - indirectly - to protect would-be immigrants from exploitation by the unscrupulous. But enforcing the letter of the laws by criminalizing every illegal border crossing and by separating children from their parents has the opposite effect: it diminishes our moral standing in the world, unnecessarily overburdens our courts and social services, and distracts law enforcement personnel from addressing the more serious threats of drug smugglers, terrorists, and human traffickers.

Writing laws is both easy and hard. It's easy for Congress to dash out a new law quickly in an attempt to be seen to be doing something about a problem, but it's hard to come up with an effective law that will satisfy every person and group with a stake in the issue. A law needs to be specific enough to be enforceable, yet flexible enough to allow some discretion in its application ... thou shalt not kill is pretty specific and enforceable, and yet we have laws providing differing penalties for first, second, and third degree murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, justifiable homicide, etc, which allow for some discretion in how the illegal deprivation of life is prosecuted.

So, is the letter of the law or the spirit of the law more important?

Because it is all but impossible to write a law that covers every specific combination of circumstances, I suggest that it's the spirit of the law which is more important - what is the goal the law is meant to achieve, and will a particular verdict advance that goal?

What's your view? Leave a comment and share your thoughts.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

P.S. - I'm reminded of the old joke about lawyers: If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. And if both the law and the facts are against you, go on television and yell like crazy.

B.

* The focus on strict law enforcement does not apply, oddly enough, to transgressions committed by members of the administration itself. And Donald Trump has just nominated to the Supreme Court a man who seems to have the view that the president is above the law. Go figure.

** Here's a pretty good explanation of how speed limits are determined.

Talismanic Incantations

One of the concepts with which most of us are acquainted in the age of Game of Thrones and Harry Potter is that of the magic spell, a set of words imbued with mystical powers. A good example from the Harry Potter realm is the "Stunning Spell," which renders its target temporarily unconscious ... it is cast by pointing a wand at the victim and shouting stupefy!*.

Other magical incantations are familiar to all of us from books, movies, and cartoons ... terms like abracadabra**, hocus pocus***, and shazam.

I thought about magic spells and incantations the other day when I read the text of the 9th Circuit Court's decision in the case "State of Hawaii v. Donald Trump, John Kelly, and Rex Tillerson," which struck down the Trump administration's proposed ban on travel to the US from six majority Muslim nations. The decision contained this memorable line:

National Security is not a "talismanic incantation" that, once invoked, can support any and all exercise of executive power under §1182(f)^†.

Upon reading that line, it occurred to me that much of our political and social discourse today consists of shouting talismanic incantations at each other as if their deployment will magically cause our opponents to come to their senses and recognize the unarguable superiority of our viewpoint. Here's a partial list of the magic spells and incantations most frequently invoked in America today:

National Security! Contrary to the 9th Circuit Court's opinion, this is a very powerful incantation often used to justify actions that would otherwise be considered unwise, illegal, or downright un-American.

Freedom! This is the quintessential American magic word, and is similar in meaning to the longer incantation Don't Tread on Me!. Note: it must not be used in conjunction with other, lesser used and nearly archaic magical expressions which might dilute its power, such as Responsibility and Empathy.

Choice! This is a shorter, quicker-to-employ version of the traditional American incantation Don't Tell Me What to Do!. Note: it applies only to the choice option desired by the person delivering the incantation; its use does not imply that others should enjoy the same equality of choice.

Fake News! This incantation is used to cast doubt on spells the wizard does not like.

Religious Freedom! Note: this incantation may be used in the United States only by American Christian wizards; its use is forbidden to adherents of all other religions. Conversely, when used in places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, it implies only the freedom to practice Islam.

Keep and Bear Arms! Note: this incantation works only when accompanied by the frenzied waving of a firearm; a traditional magic wand is not effective.

Job-Killing! This incantation is used to counter economic spells the magician does not support and cannot fight in any other way (i.e., with statistics or logic).

Government Overreach! Similar in general intent to Job-Killing!, this incantation is used to counter other spells which invoke government powers the magician does not like because they are not to his advantage. It is often invoked in combination with Freedom! and Choice! to increase its perceived power.

Obstructionist! This spell is used to damage the image of an opponent by characterizing him as a wizard unable to cast spells of his own, able only to interfere with spells cast by others.

Racist! and Sexist! These are often employed when no other spell works. They have no particular value other than to deflect attention away from spells other wizards may try to cast.

Those are just a few of the modern American talismanic incantations I can think of ... which other ones do you recognize? Leave a comment.

Have a good day. And as my mother would have reminded us, please, thank you, and excuse me are very good magic words at any time.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* I was under the mistaken impression that this was a spell that made the victim stupid, and had been maliciously directed at Congress. My bad.

** It appears in the Harry Potter stories as one of the three "unforgivable curses" - "avada kedavra," the "killing curse."

*** "Hocus Pocus" is linguistically interesting, being apparently derived from the Latin words "hoc est corpus" ("this is the body (of Christ)" in a parody of the rite of transubstantiation in the Christian mass).

† This is the applicable text of that paragraph of the law: "(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President. Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Why Are We Still Arguing About Immigration Policy?

I can't believe we are still arguing about immigration enforcement and reform after all these years. No, wait ... yes, I can ... because every discussion ends up with people on all sides shouting past each other, and immigrants - both legal and illegal - caught in the middle. The election of Donald Trump and the legitimization (by his ignorant rhetoric) of anti-immigrant feelings has led to a fresh round of anti-immigrant sentiment and a new tidal wave of raids designed to arrest and deport illegal immigrants.

I am, as are all Americans (including those we call Native Americans), the descendent of immigrants*. My paternal ancestors came to the US (legally) from Hungary, and my maternal line goes back to ancestors who immigrated (legally) from Germany. I am married to a fully-legal, green-card holding German who has worked and paid taxes in the United States since 1983. I have no problem whatsoever with legal immigration, because our country was built on it. I do, however, have a problem with those who - for whatever reason - choose to ignore the law and come here illegally. While their intentions may be good, their willingness to ignore the law is not.

I know from experience that navigating the legal immigration system is a pain in the neck. When I married my wife, it took months to maneuver through the system, with numerous trips to the American consulate for round after round of interviews and various hospitals for various tests. I had to arrange for the translation of hundreds of pages of documents written in convoluted legal German**, and at one point I commented - only half-jokingly - that the rule seemed to be that when the weight of the paperwork exceeded the weight of the bride, we'd get the visa. This is why I have no sympathy for those who choose to ignore the established process and enter the country illegally.

But while I have no sympathy for those who ignore the law, I have even greater disdain for those who rant and thunder about the horrors of illegal immigration, but offer no suggestions for solving the problem beyond such stupid placebos as "build a wall" or "deport them all." Those of you who have been long-time readers of this blog know that I have already floated (several times, with incremental adjustments) my recommended plan for immigration reform. I won't repeat it again ... if you're new to this blog, you can go back and read the most current version of my plan here. I'll be the first to admit that there may be some weak spots or difficult legal issues to overcome, but I think it's one of the first - and perhaps the only - serious, comprehensive, and realistic plans to fix our broken immigration system.

Many complain that illegal immigrants come here to steal jobs from decent, hard-working, taxpaying American citizens. This is patently stupid. Large numbers of immigrants do, in fact, come to America in search of work, but the jobs they take are largely those that Americans don't want to do for the wages and conditions offered. I haven't seen long lines of jobless Americans signing up to pick crops in the hot sun, or to do the miserable and bloody scut work needed by our industrial meat industry. Nor are they lining up to be maids, janitors, dishwashers, busboys, taxi drivers, trash collectors, and landscape workers. If they were, there wouldn't be a market for immigrants - legal and illegal - willing to take those jobs.

And consider this: the price you pay for your produce is kept relatively low because the people who pick it - largely illegal immigrants - are paid extremely low wages. Deport all those migrant farm workers, replace them with American citizens (if you can find any willing to work that hard), and watch your grocery prices skyrocket as they receive the pay and benefits legal American workers demand. If you're willing to pay more for your food in order to get rid of the people who keep your prices down, good for you.

At the upper end of the immigrant spectrum, the law allows firms who need the skills they aren't finding in American workers to sponsor visas for appropriately-skilled immigrants. Perhaps if we encouraged more Americans to become scientists, engineers, and doctors, there would be less demand for qualified immigrants. Hmmm ...

Bottom line: let's enforce our immigration laws, but smartly. Let's get serious about understanding the scope of the problem and coming up with real, workable solutions that are both legal and representative of our character as a nation that welcomes legal immigrants and the skills and cultural gifts they bring.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Yes, even the people we call "Native Americans" came here originally from someplace else ... many across the land bridge that used to connect Siberia with Alaska. Of course, you can still see Siberia from Sarah Palin's porch.

** Think American legalese is bad? You have NO idea ...

"Hate Crimes"

One of the things I've always found interesting is that the Bible contains ten commandments (or "Ten Commandments," to put in the capitalization) which lay out the essential rules for righteous behavior. Since there are only ten of them, they can be printed on less than half of one side of a standard 8x10-inch page.

In contrast, Title 18 of the US Code of Laws ("Crimes and Criminal Procedure"), Part 1 ("Crimes") has 123 chapters which contain 2725 sections. And that's just the Federal level ... multiply that my many hundreds to account for state and local criminal laws.

So, if The Almighty only needed ten commandments, why do we need tens of thousands of laws? At what point did we decide that "Thou shalt not kill" needed to be nuanced into "Homicide," "Murder in the First/Second Degree," "Felony Murder," and "Voluntary/Involuntary Manslaughter?" Murder is the taking of a human life ... how much more do you need to parse it?

And to get to today's point, why do we need a new subset (or overlay) of laws that specify some already-defined crimes as "hate crimes?"

The FBI defines a hate crime this way on its website:

"A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime."

It seems to me that any vicious crime - particularly murder and rape - is by definition a crime based on hatred, and that describing it as a hate crime doesn't necessarily make it any worse or more despicable. All it does is provide an avenue by which to generate statistics.

Let's tell it like it is. It's murder or rape or assault or arson or whatever. There's no need to call it a hate crime to prosecute it.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Why Bother With Laws?

It's very difficult to have a rational discussion about the gun culture in America, and so today I'll limit myself to a general philosophical question based on one of the points always raised by pro-Second Amendment partisans: that laws which restrict the purchase and ownership of firearms place an unfair and unjust burden on responsible gun owners because criminals will always ignore those laws.

Now, let's follow that argument to its logical conclusion. If we can say,

"Laws which restrict the purchase and ownership of firearms place an unfair and unjust burden on responsible gun owners because criminals will always ignore the law"

Then it follows that,

"Laws place an unfair and unjust burden on responsible citizens because criminals will always ignore the law*."

"Whoa there, big guy!" you say. "That's not the same at all!"

But why isn't it? Gun enthusiasts maintain that laws restricting gun ownership are unfair because the "bad guys" will ignore them and the "good guys," being upstanding and law-abiding citizens, will observe the laws and thereby place themselves and their families in danger. If that's so, then what's the point of laws at all? Will not most people (the "good guys") always obey them and a relatively small minority (the "bad guys") ignore them?

Laws are important because they establish the boundaries for civil behavior within which society can function. If everyone was gentle, honest, and respectful toward one another, we wouldn't need laws ... but unfortunately, we're not like that, and haven't been for a long time. God Almighty, after all, had to provide Ten Commandments** to remind people how to behave.

So, Dear Readers, please don't insult my intelligence by using the argument that laws don't work because criminals won't obey them. Of course they won't ... that's why they're criminals. The law doesn't magically make them good citizens ... it allows the good citizens to punish them for their actions.

That's all.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Or, as my father was fond of saying, if you lock your doors and windows, all the honest people will stay out.

** Compare that to the US Code, which has 54 "titles" (general subject areas) and constitutes hundreds of thousands of pages of text.

With Justice for Some

If you’ve been following the events in Baltimore over the last few weeks, you know that things are still tense. There has been a tremendous groundswell of calls demanding justice for Freddie Gray, the black man whose death while in police custody touched off an orgy of violence, looting, and arson.

The death of anyone, of any color, is a tragedy, and if that death was caused intentionally, or by ineptitude or malfeasance on the part of the police, those responsible need to be brought to justice.

But what seems to me to be lost in this whole thing is that Freddie Gray isn’t the only person who deserves justice.

Who is demanding justice for the police officers who were injured by rioters?

Who is demanding justice for the merchants whose stores were looted and burned?

Who is demanding justice for the persons whose cars were torched?

And who is looking out for justice for the six Baltimore police officers who have been charged in Mr Gray’s death?

It appears that what many people in Baltimore want is not justice, but vengeance. The six police officers who have been charged in Mr Gray's death will not, and cannot get a fair trial. They have already been tried, convicted, and sentenced in the media and the court of public opinion. It’s pretty clear from listening to the superheated rhetoric coming from Baltimore that if any of them are acquitted or perceived to receive an insufficiently severe punishment, the riots will start again and will likely be worse.

This is not justice. This is extortion by mob rule. It is irresponsible rhetoric spouted by ignorant people and political grandstanders uninterested in justice ... only in individual aggrandizement and the pursuit of personal agendas.

Justice has left the building.

Have a good day. Consider this definition of justice: "the use of power as appointed by law, honor or standards to support fair treatment and due reward*."

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* http://www.yourdictionary.com/justice

Where There's a Will, There's a ... Disagreement

Most of you are probably familiar with conservative commentator George Will. Say what you will about him (and I often have), he's a man who knows his mind and isn't afraid to speak it. I sometimes agree with him*; other times, I think he's in a class with other odious buffoons like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and the rest of the wingnuts, just with a little more intellectual polish.

This past Sunday, he published an opinion piece in the Washington Post titled Questions for Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch. He described Ms Lynch as "... a talented lawyer and seasoned U.S. attorney, (who) should be confirmed as attorney general."** He went on to state that "Her (confirmation) hearing ... should not be perfunctory," and suggested a number of questions that he believed should be put to her, presumably to smoke out any hints that she might be overly supportive of the positions and philosophies of the administration that nominated her for the job.

I think all of his questions are reasonable, although some are couched in unnecessarily inflammatory terms (for instance, "Do you agree that this practice (civil forfeiture) often is indistinguishable from robbery?"***). And most are, in my humble opinion, not properly thought through or asked of the right person****. Here are my major quibbles:

One question deals with the issue of voter identification. Mr Will writes, "Many progressives say that the 34 states that have passed laws requiring voters to have a government-issued photo ID are practicing 'vote suppression.' Does requiring a photo ID at airports constitute 'travel suppression'? Visitors to the Justice Department are required to present photo IDs. Will you — we will be watching with a fine-toothed comb — plan to end this 'visit suppression'? Positive voter identification and the belief that there is rampant vote fraud (always on the part of the liberal left) are key conservative themes. But comparing the political requirement for a photo ID for voters to the security requirement for a photo ID for air travelers and visitors to government facilities is an apples-to-oranges issue. I firmly believe that a voter should be required to properly identify him or her self at the polls; the onus is, however, on the government to make sure that the requirements for identification are clearly spelled out, reasonable, and able to be met by the voting public. Identification requirements in and of themselves do not constitute "vote suppression" ... but identification requirements that voters cannot meet do. What have Democratic and Republican legislators at the federal, state, and local levels done to come up with a standardized identification requirement that all voters can meet?

Mr Will writes that "The number of drug offenders in federal prisons is 20 times the number in 1980 and accounts for more than half of our federal mass incarceration. The 'war on drugs' is horrendously expensive (in money and shattered lives) and hardly effective (drug prices fall as quality rises). Is it time to consider decriminalizing some controlled substances?" The issue of decriminalizing some substances (such as marijuana) has long been part of the liberal agenda, fiercely opposed by social and political conservatives. Does Mr Will believe that such a move will be supported by the conservative right if proposed by a liberal administration? If he does, I think he may be using the very substances he's talking about.

Mr Will also addresses the issue of incarceration rates in this country, noting that "The U.S. incarceration rate is nearly five times Wales and England’s, nine times Germany’s, 14 times Japan’s. In 2010, more than 200,000 inmates - approximately the nation’s total number of prisoners in 1970 - were over the age of 50. How can this be necessary?" The rates of incarceration in this country are, indeed, scandalous. They are, however, a result of the enforcement of laws passed by the federal, state, and local governments ... particularly the so-called "three strikes and you're out" laws passed by some states (and mentioned in another of Mr Will's questions for Ms Lynch). Conservatives tend to strongly support strict law enforcement, which - oddly enough - tends to result in the incarceration of people convicted of crimes under existing laws. What laws and penalties do Mr Will and his conservative allies support rescinding or relaxing in order to bring down the incarceration rate?⁺

I could go on, but these few examples should do for now. There's nothing wrong with asking tough questions, as long as we're asking them of the right people. I believe that many of the issues Mr Will recommends asking the Attorney General nominee about are more properly addressed to Congress, state legislatures, and local governments ... and the responsibility for many of the issues he is upset about is shared by the right and the left.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Believe it or not!

** Believe it or not!

*** For the record, I think in many cases it isn't.

**** See my post from January 5th titled "So, What are You Going to Do?" for another look at this issue.

⁺ You may recall that House Speaker John Boehner wants to sue the President for not enforcing the law. It seems that someone is doing a lot of law enforcing to generate these incarceration rates!

So, What are YOU Going to Do?

There was an interesting, if disheartening article in the Washington Post on December 30th: "Spate of Gun Violence Continues in District." According to the article, more than 15 people had been shot on Washington, DC streets — eight of them fatally — since December 23rd, including four killed on Christmas Eve. The total did not include a man who was killed by police after, they said, he shot at them.

The story was bad enough, particularly during the season of peace on earth, goodwill toward men, but there was another aspect to the story that deserves some thought.

The article reported that DC mayor-elect Muriel Bowser had visited the crime scenes and spoken with residents upset over the violence that plagues their streets. One man "demanded to know the city’s strategy for dealing with the violence, some plan beyond telling residents to be vigilant." He was quoted in the article as saying to the mayor:

"For people actually living 24/7 in the neighborhood, things have gotten objectively worse. That is a fact. Please outline a concrete strategy for dealing with the situation and show us concrete action. That’s all we ask."

He went on to urge the mayor to spell out "what you are doing to actually make it safe to walk around at night,” and "urged her to put more officers out on foot so they can connect with residents."

I appreciate the gentleman's concern. I'd like to be able to walk the streets of the nation's capitol without fear of being shot, too. But I think he's not asking the right questions to the right person. Consider these questions one might reasonably ask:

1. Where did the guns used in these shootings come from? What positive, concrete actions have the NRA and other gun rights organizations taken to help prevent these guns from falling into the wrong hands, or to help identify the sources of guns used in crimes, or to impose harsh sentences on persons that use guns in the commission of a crime?

2. What have the people in the affected neighborhoods done to help the police catch these criminals? It's easy to shout at the police for not catching the bad guys, but when the people in the area - for whatever reason - refuse to cooperate with the police or help identify the criminals, it's that much harder for the police to do their jobs.

3. How many of the people shouting for more police protection in their neighborhoods have spent the last few weeks participating in demonstrations in which the police are demonized and accused of shooting people - particularly blacks - at will?

4. How many of the people shouting for more police protection in their neighborhoods object to paying the taxes that pay for ... among other things ... police protection in their neighborhoods?

Violent crime is a terrible problem in our cities, and we depend upon our police to keep us safe*. But the sad fact is that the police can't - and shouldn't - do it alone. The residents of our cities have to do their part ... not just be vigilant, but cooperate with the police and help them do their jobs. And the people who vociferously defend gun rights need to do their part as well ... to recognize that not everyone who carries a gun is a fine, upstanding, well-trained, and law-abiding citizen exercising his or her sacred Second Amendment rights**, and not everyone who argues in favor of common sense controls on the availability of deadly weapons is a commiepinkoliberalratbastard desperate to shred the Constitution.

And so I might ask again: what are you going to do?

Have a good day. Be safe, and do your part. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Unlike gun rights advocates, I do not feel any safer knowing that anyone I meet on the street might be packing heat ... ostensibly to protect themselves or others from other people packing heat.

** Lemme hear you say, "Hallelujah!!"

SWATification

A few days ago my e-mail from the WordSpy website delivered a new and timely neologism: SWATification, defined as "the increase in the use and militarization of police SWAT teams." It's a word that is particularly timely given the sad events in the Missouri town of Ferguson, where the shooting last week of a young black man by a white policeman led to days of protests that often turned violent enough to call for a very large and very heavily armed police response.

Which leads to an ugly question for those of us who love this country: when did Sheriff Andy Taylor turn into Robocop, and Mayberry turn into Ferguson?

Police departments are paramilitary organizations charged with keeping the peace, and police officers in this country - going back to the days of the frontier marshals of the Old West - have always been armed. In a country where the ownership of deadly weapons is a right guaranteed by the Constitution* and criminals are as likely as not to be armed (and even once had nicknames like "Machine Gun Kelly"), it only makes sense for the forces of law and order to provide for their own defense. But when did we decide that our police needed to look like front-line combat soldiers? At what point did even the smallest of towns decide that it needed armored cars or SWAT teams equipped with military grade automatic weapons?

There's been a great deal of handwringing in the op-ed pages in the last week about the militarization of our local police forces that has taken place since 9/11. Vast amounts of money have been lavished on police and other security agencies, often without the least consideration of what their needs actually are relative to the threats they face, and that money has not - in most cases - made us any safer.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a firm believer in law and order, and in ensuring that criminals of any kind who prey on honest citizens feel the full weight of the law land on their heads. But I'm afraid that we have created a new situation in which the transformation of our local police into something resembling an army has driven a wedge between us as average citizens and the people we trust to protect us. I for one feel less safe when the weight of armament on the streets is so large on all sides.

Maybe that's just me.

I know that some of my friends who are police officers read this blog, and I'd be interested to know what their opinions are. And yours, too, Dear Readers. How do you feel about the militarization of our police? Does it make you feel safer?

Have a good day. Be safe out there. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Although common sense is not.