Lawrence Wright Rebuttal

Today we can’t visit family at the gate in airports, or go through security without taking off our shoes.  Lock downs of schools are becoming routine. Lawrence Wright is correct to see that there is a problem with our society, as he did in the article ‘Taking Cover in Texas,’ but the problem is not that we are more vulnerable to violence, it is that we demand absolute safety.  Indeed, there is less violent crime and terrorism than ever before.

In the 1960’s there were pipe bombings in Greenwich Village every other week, in Montreal the FLQ set of a bomb about every 10 days, in the South the KKK were firebombing churches, intimidating black families and committing a murder or two as part of ‘campaigns of terror,’ and in northern cities police were targeted by black snipers during riots. Even in those darker days, the threat of violent crime was low.

The world has become much safer. Both gun violence and terrorism have been less of a threat than they were. There is very little evidence that the liberalization of gun law reduced crime, but there is absolutely no evidence that gun control has prevented violent crime. Increased security is not evidence of a less safe world, only a less free one.  

The world can not be made free of risk. none of the recent gun control proposals would have stopped the latest mass shootings, but most of us.  Mass shootings are an easy thing to do if someone wants too -- BUT BUT BUT! very few people want to. The vast majority of people are appalled by such a horrific act. That is why the risk of a mass shooting on a school campus is once every 6000 years. It is unclear how effective armed citizens are at reducing crime, but there will always be more responsible armed citizens than crazies, because there are so few crazies.

Forcing kids to go through metal detectors, mass shooting drills, or forcing tourists to kneel down, and arresting a child because of a trinket are abuse. It is authorities abusing children and governments abusing citizens. This is not the time to lament over the potential danger, of mass killers, but to be angry with over zealous security. When an Arab man carries a pressure cooker onto a train and is arrested, we should be concerned about the threat that anyone could be arrested.  

Wright says he felt a shared spirit with the victims of Sandy Hook, we all feel this when we watch a tragedy unfold on live TV. This feeling of being right there makes such things remember able.  When mass murders peaked in 1929, it took three days for the news to spread across the country. It was easier to think that of such places as far away.  With 24 hour news and the internet, such event seem to be happening all the time   

It’s important to consider that Wright is not afraid of a mass shooting, but a hypothetical shooting.  There have been lots of moral panics over the years too often we have given up freedom for a danger that hasn't materialized.  but we can’t count the few rare events that happen in places that feel nearby and conclude this is happening all the time, or even enough to predict and try to stop.  

The only way terrorists are successful is if they terrorize.  The only way mass killers are successful is if they become famous.  We need security. But, we can’t become paranoid and give up freedom because someone is able to show we are not 100% safe every moment of every day. Policies like gun control and anti terrorism need to be based on real dangers not panics and they need to not come at the cost of our freedom.

Open letter to the New Yorker

This is an open letter in response to the article 'Guns and My Mother.'

Last week Arkadi Gerney wrote how he became an anti gun advocate after his stepfather was murdered in 1986. The problem is that Mr. Gerney is not promoting reasonable policy, but using the law to invoke his vengeance on society for the crimes of one person, and encouraging others to do the same. If we the gun debate is going to be about sob stories, there are plenty of stories of people using guns to save lives, of victims who have opposed gun laws, and of people abused by police using gun laws. Statistics are important to balance the many stories and find out what is actually going on.

Gerney claims that the last uprising that required guns was 230 years ago, actually Americans used guns to protect the nation at home 148 years ago in the bloodiest war in American history, but guns are not just used to protect life and liberty in times of war. If we go back in time to the ratification of the 14th amendment, one reason for it’s ratification was violence against black people and opponents of slavery in the reconstruction south.

Gerney’s claim that freedom is an emotional appeal doesn’t make sense. It’s logical that equality means people have an equal right to exist and an equal right to defend themselves. This right can not be taken to give the police a monopoly on the use of force. Guns are also used by citizens when the police aren't there. Often this displaying or firing into the air is enough to scare off an attacker. Take Tom G Palmer, who in the early 1980s used a gun to scare off a group of men planning to attack him and uttering death threats, and ‘no one will find the body’  because he was openly gay. When Palmer displayed a handgun the crowd fled. Stories like this are very common, but since no one is harmed they are rarely reported.

Background checks violate the fourth amendment rights of people trying to exercise their right of self defense. People have to provide history of their mental health, marriage status, criminal records, and drug records. By asking persons to provide personal information the government is conducting an unreasonable search and when they take guns or prevent someone from acquiring a gun the government violates both the fourth amendment by taking property and the fifth amendment by taking liberty without trial. The right to keep and bear arms legally has been denied to 2 million people, many for non violent crimes like minor drug possession or white collar crimes, or for being prescribed medication for depression. In some states licensing is up to the judgment of a sheriff or other official, and subjective factors like race play a role.

The only moral justifiable way to determine people are too dangerous to carry a gun is trial by jury. People only forfeit their rights when they violate the rights by others, and the punishment must fit the crime. Otherwise you risk what happened David Pyles in Oregon,a longtime collector of firearms,who was surrounded by SWAT teams, tackled, handcuffed and taken for a mental evaluation, because he purchased several guns shortly after being placed on administrative leave due to a conflict with his employer. You also end up with stop and frisk, where police can search any person to look for weapons, but often target blacks and hispanics to fill quotas with petty drug charges. The vast majority of people who own guns are not criminals and should not be treated like criminals for buying or owning a gun.

When the facts are considered, the case for gun control is nowhere as clear as Gerney makes it. Both sides can and have turned to stories of people hurt by guns and gun laws, this is why it is important to have restrictions against rash actions, and actions that are symbolic or done out of grief but have no effect except to violate the rights of law abiding people. I don’t blame Mr. Gerney for telling his story and demanding action, but I do think editors are far enough from his sorrow, and they have a special responsibility to look at the facts.

Marriage and Free Association

The current debate over gay marriage brought on by United States v. Windsor is an important one, but it is important to look at how the government treats people who are married compared to those who aren't, and the role of marriage in society.

I could argue that gay marriage is  not a priority, compared to laws that discriminate based on marriage.  The current tax system and immigration system do more to violate rights than anything.  Under the current tax code in the US, Canada, and most industrialized nations, a person is taxed differently based on their marital status. Not only does this  discriminate against single people, and families with two working adults, it violates the right to be secure from unreasonable search, since it requires taxpayers to report their marital status, and those who report their status inaccurately can face jail time.

If we look at United States vs. Windsor we see that the tax code discriminates against people who are not legally married for any reason.  As such the Supreme Court should rule that the United States violated due process by simply asking Edith Windsor her marital status. Her 4th and 5th rights were also violated by the IRS and DOMA since they put her in a position of committing fraud based on how she reported her marital status.

David Brooks supports gay marriage because he believes it will place gays in such an arrangement.  There has been a long effort since Stonewall to turn what was a crime in all 50 states and a mental illness, into something that is considered normal.  This is a tremendous victory for liberty, still it is not fair to extend freedom only to those things that are considered normal.

Brooks seems to think a minor deviance is acceptable, but that everyone must follow the same path.  Gays were not acceptable so long as they were associated with bathhouses and nightclubs, does that mean that strait people who look for love in nightclubs are as acceptable compared to those who have met someone to share their life with (or a portion of their life).

Marriage as it exists now is always exclusive, and lifelong; marriage is seen as an equal relationship, but the laws around alimony. and taxation presume a dependent partner.  This does not reflect the reality of homes with two working parents, or of .  The presumption that marriage is lifelong means any marriage that ends in divorce is a failure.  If two people marry raise a family then separate after their children grow up, it isn't fair to call them a failure.  A person isn't a failure if they leave a spouse who is abusive or cheats.  It isn't a failure when two people who married breakup after being together for less time than many couples who did not get married.

Certainly gay marriage does not restrict the freedom of those who wish to not marry gay or otherwise, and a person should not oppose recognizing the right of gays to due process because they oppose to the licencing of marriages.Recognizing gay marriage equally would at least give one group of people freedom they haven't enjoyed before.  Tax law would still discriminate based on marital status, but would no longer consider same sex marriages illegitimate, at least for gays who live in states that recognize same sex marriage. The debate over gay marriage does offer an opportunity to reevaluate the nature of marriage in our society and it would be a mistake to leave to view the debate over gay marriage as simply being over extending marriage as it currently stands to gays.

Is Jim Carey Against the Civil Rights Movement?

There has been a lot of hubbub about Jim Carey in the last week.  While he is famous for talking out his ass and green vaccines (the same thing), lately he joined the chorus of Hollywood liberals speaking out against gun control. In his video Carrey goes after the late actor and former NRA president Charlton Heston, suggesting that gun owners are compensating for a small penis at the risk of children.

In the early 1960's Charlton Heston risked his career by supporting the Civil Rights Movement.  In 1961 he picketed a restaurant in Oklahoma, angering his employer Allie Artists.  In 1963 participating in a televised round-table on civil rights.  This was a brave act, most of Hollywood was not actively involved in the Civil Rights Movement and people in Hollywood were still in fear from the black lists a decade earlier.

Jim Carrey did not exhibit such courage, by sticking to the established liberal position that all guns are bad and the way to end gun violence is to ban all guns.

This is important, because the modern gun rights movement arose out of the Civil Rights Movement.  In Louisiana, the Deacons for Defense and Justice carried firearms when confronted by the police departments which used violence to disrupt protests against Jim Crow. By displaying firearms, the deacons created the threat of violent confrontation becoming deadly to police.  This meant that the police were required to allow protests to remain peaceful.

In 1966 Huey Newton responded to what he saw as a combination of inaction and harassment by Oakland police, by forming the Black Panthers Party, which among other things encouraged self policing by blacks.  In turn California passed laws prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms.  This was so offensive that fellow Black Panther Bobby Seale lead a protest where loaded rifles and shotguns were carried into the viewing gallery of the state legislature.

Although Dr. Martin Luther King opposed the black power movement in favor of non-violent protest, he did apply for a gun permit and when denied armed black neighbors defended his home.

Gun politics have always been about power.  It is over whether people have a right to defend themselves, or if that right belongs only to a certain class.  It is about whether one group of p

The 14th amendment was intended to provide important civil liberties to Americans like the freedom to run a business of their choosing or to defend themselves.  It arose out of stories of murders, like that of Robert Church who offended whites in his community by simply being a black man who owned a tavern.  Many states began to enact black codes, that limited the rights of blacks.  When the 14th amendment's "privileges and immunities" clause was written out of the constitution, was it possible to have Jim Crow.

The Supreme Court decisions Heller and McDonald, both deal with urban gun use by people needing to defend themselves.  The issue was not rural rifle owners but people who lived in inner cities and faced gun violence.  bought an apartment in neighborhood she thought was gentrifying.  When she found gangs to be causing crime and unrest, she responded by organizing the community for which she was threatened by gangs and wanted a handgun after her home was broke into.    

Another supporter of Heller was Tom G, Palmer, a gay man who in 1981 was confronted by a group of young men who threatened to kill him.  Palmer believes that the only reason he was not killed, was that he displayed a handgun.  Indeed the Pink Pistols has long viewed the private carrying of firearms to be a gay rights issue, because it allows gays the means to defend themselves from those who would use violence against them based on their sexual orientation.

Carrey claims that we should look to guns instead of guns.  He is right about one thing, America has too much gang violence because of gangs, but these gangs exist because of the 40 year war on drugs. Banning guns simply makes the problem worse by creating a new black market for gangs to control.  If Jim Carrey wants to end gun violence he should speak up on the real issues causing gun violence.

Jim Carey should read the history and philosophy of issues instead of talking out his ass and making fun of dead people.

Jian Ghomeshi Rebuttal

Jian Ghomeshi, yesterday you gave an essay on the problem of a new code of ethics by Archives and Library Canada having a chilling effect on the librarians and archivists employed there.

You begin by saying "It's not a black and white world out there, there are infinite shades in between."  I'll go further, not only are there infinite shades but it isn't clear that black is bad and white is good.  Because of this you are right to say that the government should not influence what archivists and librarians say, but that is not possible so long as the Library and Archives Canada remains a public institution.

When Roger Williams fled Salem, he learned that the Church needed to be kept separate from the state, not to protect the state but to protect the church from becoming a tool of the state.  If the church was a state sanctioned institution, then the government could determine what is moral.  With that they impose their moral view on society at the expense of all others and worse twist that view to justify the state; state leaders could use the church to justify their authority in the state. It isn't just religion,but also secular beliefs like Fascism that are used in this way.  We need the separation of culture and state.

As with religion, all forms of culture require protection from state influence.   Science, art, entertainment, news, and history can enlighten us, or they can be used to show us only what the state wants us to know, and the lies the state want us to believe.

Lately conservatives have been in a fit because they believe that Canadian historians only apologize for Canada's past.  This is not true, because even when they aren't celebrating war or police action enough, they are celebrating Medicare or the welfare state.  Yet these conservatives have reason to complain when archivists say something they don't believe  since we all own the archives.  That's not true, if we truly owned it we could sell our share.  If I truly owned it I could sell it for something I find to me of greater value, or refuse to pay if I found their work offensive. A public servant is a public servant, so if it is important that archivists have free speech, then we have to consider if they can effectively do their job as civil servants.

We are very fortunate in this country to have a diverse media.  In Europe where news has long been subsidized  the media is unwilling to offend the government that feeds them.  We have the CBC, (which has also never been free of bias) as a state broadcaster, but it does not have a monopoly in telecom, nor does and it never had a monopoly compared to the print media.  There is everything from Sun Media, to the Rabble.ca, and the viewer is free to decide who is telling the truth.

There is no reason why government is needed to run archives.  Indeed universities, or other institutions might be better suited to the task.  In the US, the National Endowment for the Humanities spent $22 million to digitize 5 million pages of newspapers, by contrast, retired engineer Tom Tryniski has been able to upload 22 million pages from his home, and his site receives twice the traffic of the national archive.  Companies like Google and Wikimedia have been saving books and documents.  If Canadian Association of University Teachers values the archive they could run it, or universities could run their own archives and share information.

It is not fair to call on the government to run an archive, or fund science and the media and then expect that government will not try to use it's power.  By separating culture from the state, the diversity and creativity that makes up our common culture is protected from outside influence.  That is why the government should privatize Archives and Library Canada.

Get Away From 'The Path'

The other day I read an article by Wendy McElroy which included a story of a young woman in Texas arrested for committing truancy while her parents were going through a divorce.  The ten year effort to criminalize truancy in a growing number of states, is another way of forcing young people to follow ‘the path.’

Do well in middle school, work hard in high school and add extra curricular so you have an attractive application to university, work hard at university and get a degree, so that there will be jobs waiting for you when you finish.  This path is promoted by the President of the United States in his State of the Union Address to popular culture.  

There are however many exceptions to this rule. I know because I am one. As a youth I benefited from correspondence in getting my high school degree.  I was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome in the 7th grade, and while I received strong support from my family, I was not accepted in the public school environment.  When I asked my principal for a letter of recommendation to a camp, I was devastated to find that he had described Asperger’s not a simple condition, but as a severe mental handicap, as though he were amazed I came to school dressed every day.

I was able to escape a failing public school because, by having the choice of attending The Saskatchewan Government Correspondence School.  Because the correspondence path proved more difficult it took me to the age of 22 to get a degree. I took a break from learning and entered school at 24.  I am currently taking advantage of a distance program offered by Queen’s University in Kingston, ON while I work as a farmer in Saskatchewan.  I am able to get the same BA as I would get going to school while working to build my business.

 As such I am terribly distressed that when it comes to high school, it is no longer about making education free, or promoting education, but actually coercing descent. This use of force is far too often aimed at youth who have difficulty with the standard school system. This can be because of a mental condition, family problems like a divorce, or economic hardship. In many cases the students are on track to graduate. But, even if they aren't is it in anyone's best interest to ruin their lives with prison, or to treat their failure to attend school as a simple act of laziness. (Fuentes)

It may be good for young people to take a break from education, to find themselves through work, or hobby, to explore other options. I remember at summer camp when I was 17 a girl who had grown tired of high school and took a semester off.  After spending six months at A & W she decided that she did not want to spend the rest of her life selling burgers and so decided to finish her degree. It is good for young people to both take a break from the world of high school, and to see what the real world is actually like.

Many people are successful without finishing college or even high school, and there are more options in adult education than ever before. My uncle was the principal of an Indian school in Browning, MT, during the 1970’s.  He had a student who was frequently truant, as it turned out, this young man had been spending his time breaking horses, and competing in rodeos.  So my uncle sat this kid down and told him “you need an education, the days of making a living on a horse are past.” As it turned out my uncle was wrong, this man who later became his brother in law, had become a stunt rider for the movie industry, he traveled the world and organized stunts like a stampede of 500 horses from a coral.  Now I’m not saying that everyone can make a living on a horse but history is full of people who followed there interests and turned a passion or a hobby into something they could capitalize on.  

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are also excellent examples of people who followed their dreams instead of the path set out for them. They both began university, but realized it wouldn't help them with what they want to do. That doesn't mean education is not important, but often a person needs to know their goals so before they can know what education they need to achieve those goals.

Fortunately there are more options for Since Jones International offered the first accredited online courses in 1999, increasing number of schools are making use of the internet to make higher education available.  Not just for profits like the University of Phoenix, but higher end schools like Harvard Extension School, which is affiliated with Harvard University, and Queen's University as well as a growing number of state schools, are making use of the internet, to make classes available to more students.  Lets create a culture of education diversity.  

Equality does not mean everyone has the same access to an education, it means people are free to run their lives as they see fit without being bothered by planners.

Welcome to my new blog Steampunk Cornmaze.  I hope to analyze the disorienting world of big government in North America, along with my incite on modern culture and my personal beliefs on a variety of subjects.

I will look at Canadian and American politics.  Everything from the mess that is healthcare in Saskatchewan and Canada, to America and NATO's ever expanding foreign policy.

I will also provide my insight to conformity, diversity in our culture and to the ever more diverse world of digital media.

Kudos to Lena Dunham who coined the term Steampunk Cornmaze when describing the American election system (although it can be applied to anything government does).  I'd feel bad stealing it, even if she's a successful TV writer.  I'd offer any money from my blog, but I don't think there will be any money from my blog.