Author: admin

Magic?

Ballou High in Washington, DC had a first in 2017 – the school had a 100% graduation and college acceptance rate. This transformation, however, may not be the achievement it appears. In 2016, only 3 percent of Ballou students tested met city-wide reading standards, and virtually none met corresponding math standards. Such a significant transformation borders on the magical – or was it something else?

An interesting article on NPR casts a shadow on this achievement of Ballou High School.  It also raises an important question: Are we really helping disadvantaged youth by allowing them to graduate from high school when they have not actually earned the diploma? When students of color (in 2013, Ballou was reported to be 99% African-American) are presented to the world as competent by virtue of their successful graduation, but upon closer examination are found to be clearly not competent, how do you think this will impact the view society has of these students? What are the odds that these views will be extended to characteristics of race (intentionally or otherwise)?

While lowering the bar may help graduation rates, it is a disservice to the students and will only provide fodder for racists. Let’s raise the bar instead, and give students the real tools they need to succeed in today’s world.

Scorched earth tactics at the CFPB

OK, so the outgoing director of the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) Richard Cordray, who holds a position appointed by the President of the United States,  has decided that he has the authority to appoint his own successor. Really?

Here’s how it works: On his last day in office Cordray appointed his Chief of Staff, Leandra English, as deputy director of the agency. English is now claiming that the Dodd-Frank Act has a provision that requires the deputy director to become acting director if the director position is vacant.

I’m not a lawyer, but I’m still going to call bullshit (big time) on this absurd claim. Here’s the relevant text from the Dodd-Frank Act:

(5) DEPUTY DIRECTOR.—There is established the position of Deputy Director, who shall—

(A) be appointed by the Director; and

(B) serve as acting Director in the absence or unavailability of the Director.

Note that the text of the Act does not appoint the deputy director as the director; it simply allows the deputy to act on behalf of the director if the director is unavailable. It does nothing to stop the appointment of a new director – interim or otherwise – by the President of the United States. Once the new director is appointed they effectively relieve the “acting” director of their temporary director functions.

The willingness to make such absurd arguments in an attempt to disrupt the operation of our government shows the disdain that these people and their brethren have for our fragile democracy. Their actions undermine the stability of our country and erode the legitimacy of our government, and should be recognized as the acts of a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum when they do not get their way. Their actions should be remembered as such at election time.

Gun (pronounced “people”) Control

That didn’t take long.

Gun control pundits, in the aftermath of the Rancho Tehama shooting, are already calling for more gun laws (here and here, for example). They seem not to notice that the shooter resided in California, a state with some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. In addition, the shooter was alleged to have been indicted for assaulting his neighbors and was under a restraining order – both conditions for which California generally precludes the possession of firearms by the accused. What additional gun law do they expect to pass that would have prevented this tragedy?

The truth is that gun control advocates want a complete ban on firearms and their nation-wide confiscation. That is their ultimate goal. However, this will also remove a significant protection afforded the people against an overbearing and tyrannical government – a protection that makes possible every other freedom we enjoy. Only when the people have the means to resist their government does the power truly reside with the people. Only then are their freedoms secure.

It’s not the guns, stupid

The bodies not even cold, already some (examples here and here) are attempting to leverage the memory of the 20+ killed in Texas today to push for more gun control. Not only is this in poor taste, it is not productive.

Devin Kelly, the alleged shooter, was court-martialed and discharged from the military for assaulting his wife and child. Gun control laws already make a domestic violence conviction (battery on a spouse, family member or significant other) a disqualifying offense. It is possible that the military records are not part of the background check system, or that the charge against him was not properly identified as domestic violence, but on the surface it appears that he was not eligible to own a firearm. If so, additional laws will not help; instead, a push for proper enforcement of existing laws would be a better course of action.

However, I doubt that people like Wil Wheaton or Chelsea Handler are concerned with enforcing exiting gun laws.  Instead, based on their posts regarding firearms, I would wager that they are in favor of an outright ban on all firearms. Their position is likely that a complete ban would have prevented this catastrophe. I disagree with such a position, and offer the following to support my case:

1)  People like this shooter want to kill; how is irrelevant. They could have just as easily run these defenseless people over in the parking lot with a rented truck or left a fertilizer and diesel bomb parked outside and leveled the church in its entirety.  It’s hard to stop crazy; they have options other than just firearms. Even a complete ban on guns will not stop people so motivated.

2)  Firearms provide many useful services to the general public, including the ability to defend oneself against attackers who are larger, more numerous, or armed. For example, note that this shooter was engaged as he left the church by an armed citizen; this resulted in the loss of the shooter’s assault rifle as he fled the scene. The actions of this armed civilian likely stopped the attack and prevented additional deaths, and underscores the importance of civilians having the means to defend themselves from such determined and crazed individuals.

3)  Criminals are unlikely to be deterred from such acts by more laws restricting a small subset of their available weapons. If you’re a killer going out to kill people, are you really going to be concerned about the illegal posession of your weapon of choice? Doesn’t murder outweigh a weapons charge?

4)  You simply cannot stop crazy; the best you can do is defend yourself when they arrive. More restrictive gun laws, which will likely be followed by law abiding citizens who are of no risk to anyone, will simply leave the honest citizen unable to defend themselves against the dishonest. What kind of effect do you think this will have on person-to-person violent crimes, such as robbery, rape, carjacking, or home invasions? With a disarmed populace to attack and without fear of reprisal by their victims, I would expect criminals to have a field-day cleaning out the valuables of those who do not have the physical means to defend themselves against a few or more local hoodlums.

Try as you might to denigrate the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens, they do provide a useful service to society. The founders knew this to be true, and it’s why the 2nd Amendment exists in our constitution. Don’t be so quick to judge the 2nd amendment before you consider the positive aspects of having the ability to defend yourself, your family, and your country.

And for gods sake, please stop politicizing these tragic events.

The attack on free speech

Free speech is so important to the existence of a free society that the founders of this country enshrined the right to free speech as our constitution’s 1st amendment. The 1st amendment. Need I say more…?

Unfortunately, there are some in this country who are opposed to free speech. Their opposition to free speech may be rooted in the desire/need to control the thoughts of the general public (or more likely the typical voter) for their own ends. Or perhaps their desire is to see the world work in a way that they sincerely believe is best for all. However, attempts to limit speech in the past have led to suppression of the “opposition”, with dire results. Think not? Ask any WWII survivor who witnessed the suppression of opposition speech by Hitler’s stormtroopers and brown-shirts.

There are those who would argue something different; that in fact what is allowed to be said – rather than that not said at all – is what drives negative results. I would argue otherwise, and make the claim that if other voices are heard (rather than suppressed), in the end saner voices will prevail. In any event, the dilemma in attempting the suppression of “wrong” speech (over allowing competing viewpoints to be heard) is this: who exactly gets to decide what speech is allowed?

This is the dilemma faced by the founders. In their wisdom they decided that it was better for all voices to be heard rather than to trust a government to wield such an enormous power responsibly. I wholeheartedly agree with their assessment.

This has not stopped those who wish to control speech. Realizing that the government cannot limit speech (that pesky 1st amendment again…) they have instead taken to demand (under threat of regulation) that those who hold the means to speak (i.e.: the social media providers) limit the ability to disseminate speech that “they” deem hate speech, or simply speech that is divisive (it’s not like free speech is supposed to air opposing viewpoints or anything). Don’t be fooled; it is simply an end-run around the constitution and poses the same problem as noted before: who decides what speech is allowed?

The framers of our constitution were wise but imperfect people operating in a time very different from our own. However, they made a great effort to lay down a solid foundation upon which to build a modern, successful society. This foundation is enumerated in our constitution and its amendments, and we should be very leery of any attempt by our government to circumvent the same. Don’t fall for the demands to limit some speech via threat of regulation –  it’s just an attempt to gain control over all speech.

And remember – when speech is limited, someone has to decide what is allowed. What do you think will happen when your opposition holds that power?

Yeah – that’s what I think, too.