An Aid To Memory

A blessed Independence Day to all my American readers. While our country is not perfect by any means, we have basic rights enshrined in our Constitution - freedom of speech, religion, and the right to bear arms among many others. I thank God for the rights that we have.

Lord God Almighty,
in whose Name the founders of this country
won liberty for themselves and for us,
and lit the torch of freedom for nations then unborn:
Grant we beseech thee,
that we and all the people of this land may have grace
to maintain our liberties in righteousness and peace;
through Jesus Christ our Lord,
who liveth and reigneth with
thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

President Bush has commuted Scooter Libby’s sentence, yet he won’t use his power to free Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, two border patrol agents now in jail for simply doing their job. Of course, president Bush has continually bowed to business interests, and protecting our border isn’t necessarily in the interest of big business (who like to pay illegal immigrants who work for less than minimum wage). Many conservatives long for a chance for real conservatives, rather than blue-blooded country club types, to run the country. I have to say I have become more conservative politically in the last few years, and I think president Bush and his fellow neo-conservatives continue to put a bad face on conservatism.

Why is it everyone seems so entitled? How do you have a society that works when everybody thinks he or she is an exception to the rule? Where does this start? Likely at home, where many parents these days prefer being buddies to their kids instead of parents. My mom teaches first grade and you would be surprised (unless you too are entitled, and then it may not seem surprising at all) how many parents will spend a huge amount of time and effort to make sure their children get out of punishment, and actually blame the teacher for enforcing the rules!!

Last year I was a yearbook adviser and substitute teacher in a public school. The yearbook classroom teacher and I disciplined a student for making fun of a kid with Down’s Syndrome. He got a detention. Big deal right? Well…his mom came in, tense and angry, mad at us for suggesting her child did something wrong. The kid’s dad suggested the problem was not that his son behaved improperly, but that a Down-Syndrome child was even allowed to attend a public school to begin with. Eventually the parents cooled down when their child, more mature than them it seems, admitted he did the wrong thing.

Well now, in a continuation of the long saga of American entitlement, Paris Hilton gets to leave jail early for “medical reasons.” Personally I think she should have served the sentence just like anybody else would have. Am I way off? Does being rich and/or famous, and feeling emotionally distraught about being in jail, mean she should get off the hook? Personally, I think jail is effective because it DOES cause emotional distress. Perhaps she will now alter her reckless behavior in the future…or maybe she has been taught she can always get off the hook!

I covered the Arthur Buford / Damon Wells controversy in Cleveland, so I thought I would update everyone about it. Cleveland is still buzzing from the shooting, and it seems like it has become a chance for Cleveland (and other major urban areas) to deal with the crisis of unsafe neighborhoods. Just today, Arthur Buford’s accomplice is being charged with murder because his criminal actions helped result in Buford’s death. It seems as if Clevelanders are sick and tired of living in neighborhoods controlled by thugs, and many are also tired of the things that lead to this sort of behavior.

Regina Brett wrote an article, Silence of Pain, Harsh, Deafening, that looks at the effect this incident has had on the local community, with some friends of Buford defending him, and others sick and tired of living in fear because of punk-kids just like Buford. What this case does highlight is the failure of Buford’s parents (drug-addicts), and community, to raise him and protect him. And let’s not just blame the “inner city” environment here, because suburban youth are suffering from similar broken homes, and turning to drugs, crime, and suicide. I definitely support Wells’ right to defend himself, and agree with those who want to see “thug culture” die a quick death. I think it is high time communities stand up against the criminal elements that are destroying once beautiful neighborhoods, just as Damon Wells did. However, I think this issue is not just about whether a man has the right to defend himself, but about whole communities and generations destroyed by broken homes, drugs, and the glorification of drug/gang culture that results.

Rich, white academics may have pioneered the sexual and cultural revolution that told us we don’t need two-parent families, that dad’s don’t matter, or that all is relative, but it is the poor and middle-class that bear the brunt of this hastily-proclaimed revolution. I think it is time for us to examine ourselves and look at why a generation of “liberated” persons relies so heavily on anti-depressants and feels such anger toward their own communities and families.

Kevin O’Brien of the Plain-Dealer asks similar questions in his article, How shall we answer Arthur? How is it that a boy of 15 can get to the point of practically “raising himself,” living in an abandoned house? O’Brien writes:

Too many minority neighborhoods are thugocracies. And the thugs aren’t old. They are, in many cases, the neighborhood children, recruited young and initiated into crime while they’re at their most impressionable.

Now before we cry “racism” here, I think many white neighborhoods end up this way as well. How in the world have we gotten to a point where neighborhoods can be run by teens with illegal guns? I think the social policies and assumptions that came about in the 60s and 70s have failed. Perhaps, as O’Brien suggests, we need to return to the most basic solution: strengthening the family. Again, the rich have weathered the sexual revolution pretty well, with the money and resources to treat, cover-up, and medicate the damage done by unstable families, but the poor and middle-class have not been so fortunate.

No, I am not a big fan of cities, and anybody who knows me can tell you this. I am probably a rarity these days, but I prefer small town (<40,000 people) life to big city life any day. You can make fun of me for living in a non-diverse area with little "culture," and while I lament the lack of these things in my smaller town, I still will stick to just visiting the city, thank you. Crime, inflated prices, corruption, smog, high taxes, and so forth, are all reasons why the urban life is not for me. I remember when I was getting ready to live in Atlanta looking for housing. The prices were very high, even in bad neighborhoods. A friend of mine was paying 900+ dollars a month for an apartment in an unsafe neighborhood. They moved after someone was robbed at gunpoint in the laundry area of their apartment. They moved to the suburbs, paying even more for rent.

Today though, I want to focus on crime, and the "blame the victim" mentality we often see. Crime is rising in many cities, and many people live in fear. Yesterday, I was reading a news article about a man who defended himself in Cleveland, a city I visit, but one where I would never live. I admit that reading the stories about this case has gotten me a little hot under the collar, so excuse this rant. What happened: An African-American man named Damon Wells shot a teen, Arthur "Ace Boogie" Buford, who trespassed on his property. The fifteen year old, on probation for armed robbery, and an accomplice, approached Wells, pointing a gun at him. Now, tragically, a teen is dead. The prosecutors are not going to charge Wells.

I agree this is a tragedy all around, and that Jesus' adage is still true, that if you live by the sword, you die by the sword, but the media doesn't seem to get it, nor do many of those in Wells' neighborhood. The first article from the Plain Dealer about this mentioned this will cause debate about guns and concealed carry permits. Actually, this man was on his own property, so legally he didn't need a permit, but secondly, where is the debate exactly? Concealed Carry was legalized for reasons just like this. Either way, there doesn’t seem to be much “debate” on the comments thread at the Plain Dealer. Around 95% of commenters agree that they are sick and tired of punks terrorizing certain neighborhoods, hindering peaceful citizens from living freely and safely.

What gets me upset about this is how so many, including some media elites, are now blaming the victim. Damon Wells, with no criminal record, was minding his own business, and was terrorized by a couple punks with criminal records. It is easy for us to sit in judgment while pontificating from our good neighborhoods, but when you live in a neighborhood where you can’t walk out during most times of the day for fear of your life, reality is a little different. Perhaps the academics, reporters, and politicians might be a little more realistic about all issues if they had to live outside their good neighborhoods with quick police response time for even a day. We don’t know how we would react in this situation, with a gun pointed at us, possibly leading to our own death or that of our family. Many elites would simply let their armed bodyguards take care of it, a luxury most of us lack.

Now we are seeing vigils on behalf of the late Arthur Buford spring up, and a community is angry that Wells got off without charges. Buford’s cousin is upset and blames Wells. Ace Boogie’s friends believe he did nothing wrong. Notes left at a makeshift memorial say, “God gave me a new angel man . . . Why Da Good Die Young . . . I’ll see you in eternity . . . You are with the Lord and we happy for that.” In good thug fashion, Damon Wells is being harassed, and his house has been vandalized. Goodness…where to begin with this! I have no problem having a vigil for Buford. It is a work of mercy to bury the dead. He was a human being, a precious life with basic dignity, but his actions in life show that he did not behave virtuously, or responsibly. However, instead of defending Buford’s actions, why not have a vigil in his name as a way to make sure that children do not turn into the next Arthur Buford? Why not use this death to look at the cultural and social problems that turn an innocent child into an armed robber by age 15? The family should be outraged, not at Wells, but at themselves, their neighborhood, and primarily at their departed relative. They should be outraged that a freshman could get to the point where he was on probation for armed robbery, and that he was illegally carrying a weapon, and harassing neighbors, apparently unsupervised. If I were Buford’s relative, I would meet with Wells and apologize for the actions of Buford, and then work with Wells to reduce crime in the neighborhood. Why not make it so when people think of Arthur Buford they think of a new future for America’s teens rather than using his name to glorify wrong behavior?

I do not think killing another person in self-defense is ever good, but if done unintentionally (i.e. you intended to defend, but not kill), from a Catholic perspective it is not a mortal sin. If you or your family are in mortal danger, it may be the lesser of two evils to shoot your attacker. Regardless, crime is out of control in many cities, and blaming the victim is not going to remedy the problem. Let’s let something positive come out of this, including allowing children to see how stupid being a thug actually is.

For a good piece on this tragedy, see No Sympathy for Thug Culture, written by Regina Brett of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Below is a summary of Ron Paul’s record. He is running for president in 2008.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He is a little to the right of me, not too mention a little too libertarian for my tastes, but I like his integrity. I definitely like this guy. Being a southerner, I wonder if, like another major presidential contender, he fakes a northern accent when he is around different crowds ;)?

Read this excellent piece, Theology, Not Politics, that Ron Paul wrote after the passing of John Paul II. He calls out both sides of the political spectrum for getting angry at John Paul II when he didn’t support their politics.

Here is an excerpt from a Simpsons episode I watched today. This is from the episode when Homer is accused (falsely) of sexual harassment. These lines are cut out of syndication, so you either have to own the DVD or have seen the episode when it aired originally. A Sally Jesse Raphael figure is interviewing a crying female who obviously has no connection to the accusations against Homer, and here is the dialogue:

Woman: [weeping] I don’t know Homer Simpson, I — I never met Homer Simpson or had any contact with him, but — [cries uncontrollably] — I’m sorry, I can’t go on.

Sally: That’s OK: your tears say more than real evidence ever could.

I find today that many people, especially younger people, base most of their decisions on emotion. A sad and gripping testimony, or being “made to feel bad” is often more solid evidence than the facts. I have been asked, “how can the Church say two people who love each other so much can’t get married?” or “how can the Church hurt somebody’s feelings like that?” While I too am moved to sadness by strong, emotional, testimony, I also feel it is important for us to consider that one person’s emotional experience doesn’t necessarily negate reality, or in the case of religion, Church Teaching. It is difficult to live in a society where hurting someone’s feelings = being in the wrong.

When a few batches of the amino acid L-Tryptophan were contaminated in the early 1990s, one woman was paralyzed from the contamination. She gave an emotional testimony of why supplements should be regulated like drugs before Congress. Many in Congress were moved by her testimony. While it is sad that she got a hold of a contaminated version of this amino acid, and the Japanese manufacturer involved should have been held liable, did the 99% of people who have had no safety issues with supplements deserve to lose the right to their health promoting pills? Does one emotional testimony mean that suddenly the proven safety record of supplements becomes called into question? I find the same often happens with gun control or other “controls.” For instance, a strong emotional testimony of a mother (who foolishly left a loaded gun near a child) crying about losing her child to a gun accident is likely to make us think twice about gun ownership. “Think of the children!!” we always hear. However, the fact that gun accidents among children are extremely rare (much more rare than drowning even) and that millions defend themselves with guns (most simply by brandishing it) aren’t negated by one event, no matter how awfully tragic.

Perhaps all of this is the result of relativism (there is no right or wrong, so “feelings” become the new standard of the the rightness or wrongness of an act), or perhaps the self-esteem movement (I am ok, you’re ok, we’re all ok!), but nonetheless, those words “I feel” have great power of persuasion these days. Even worse, hurting someone’s feelings is seen as heartless, and even morally wrong. Now don’t get me wrong, I show up as an “F,” a feeler, in the personality tests, meaning a person’s emotional reaction IS important to me, and I often do make decisions based on how others will feel. I also believe that Christians are called to consider the feelings of others, who are humans with dignity, when we make decisions. However, emotional appeal cannot trump reality. If a student doesn’t do the work, makes no effort to try, and just can’t comprehend the class concepts, no matter how much I may wish otherwise, he deserves an “F.” Descartes said “I think, therefore I am,” but the new objectivity seems to be “feelings,” so in modern society perhaps the new phrase is “my feelings are strong, therefore I am.”

What has come of our society, when mass murder is the “solution” to finding out your girlfriend may have cheated on you? A pathetic and cowardly gunman at Virginia Tech killed himself and 32 others. According to the most recent news, the shooter was Cho Seung-Hui, 23, a Korean and a permanent resident of the U.S. We should pray for all those involved, including the souls of the departed.

Here are my initial thoughts. First, I am surprised a permanent resident could get a handgun. I wonder how he could pass the background check if he has not been here very long. Just to show my biases: I definitely believe in the right to bear arms, and support concealed carry laws, but I also support registering guns, background checks, and having waiting periods. Second, I am curious as to how this guy was able to move around freely and shoot so many people. I know he had a gun, but it seems he moved all around campus over a long time span!

I know I am outside of the situation, but after the school shootings in the late 1990s, I have often thought how I would react if someone went on a shooting rampage. I am sure the terror of the moment would change even the most well-thought out plans. The first thing I would do is get the hell out of there and find a secure location, which many of the students did. Then I would look for some kind of weapon, any weapon that I could feasibly use if the guy got close, which may even include a legally concealed weapon (Of course, at Virginia Tech, non-criminals can’t legally carry concealed weapons, even if they have the permit…maybe if a few lawful citizens could have fired back, this would have ended sooner…). Third, if I knew the dude had just killed others, I wouldn’t assume he is going to let me live if he sees me and pursues or aims. I would not willingly line up to be executed, especially if I knew he had already shot others. Perhaps rallying those around to gang tackle the guy would work, although this would not be without loss of life (a la the folks on United Flight 93). I would drop a TV down the stairs, throw books at him or ANYTHING to reduce the accuracy of his aim and his mobility. Even police are often inaccurate with handguns at even fairly short distances, so some college kid isn’t likely a dead shot. Anything to distract or reduce his aim would at least give me a fighting chance. I would then find something thick, a book or something metal to place over my heart, at least to slow down the bullet a little. I have seen ballistics tests with different types of calibers, and while it would take a Catholic Bible to stop a 9mm bullet, at least I would be doing something. I remember my Greek prof once saying that if there is another school shooting, students just need to attack the gunmen and go for the eyes. Crude, but probably more effective than running or cowering.

This is a sad situation that makes Don Imus’ dumb comments, and Anna Nicole Smith’s baby’s paternity, seem pretty trivial. Kyrie Eleison

Free Border Agents Ramos and Compean

Visit this link to help free two border agents who have gone to jail for wounding an illegal-alien drug dealer. The government granted the drug-dealer immunity and medical treatment to testify against the two border agents, who both have distinguished records. Now evidence is coming out that those who testified against the pair of agents lied. President Bush so far refuses to intervene.

It is common knowledge that our gun-toting, vigilante, society has a much higher crime rate than England, right?

Well….

I found this article, Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome, from Reason Magazine, fascinating.

Here are excerpts from the article, written in 2002:

Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America’s has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was “in startling free-fall.” We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.

and

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London’s Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was “rocketing.” In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

In fact, England is now facing a rash of stabbings! While we definitely have our share of problems, at least in the US, we get a chance to fight back against criminal culture. Plus, the people who “have all the answers” about crime are typically politicians or academics who live in the best areas of town, not exactly people who have a grasp on the problem.

Why am I writing about this? Well, I have gotten a little more interested in politics again. I think the Democrats being in control of Congress has pushed me to think about about a variety of issues. One issue of politics that interests me is crime. Why is crime so high in many areas? Why isn’t it considered a national crisis that in so many neighborhoods people can’t even walk the streets in daylight? The high rate of crime in major cities is a problem that I believe we need to tackle, but unfortunately band-aid solutions and increased regulation seem just to punish law-abiding citizens, while criminals still do their thing.