Grey Matters

On a chat list to which I subscribe, I was asked: “So you support whites being allowed to discriminate against blacks in their businesses? So you support Muslims refusing to do business with Christians? So you support Christians refusing to do business with Muslims? Or Hindus? Or Buddhists?”

I support freedom and, in a free country, all the above would be permissible. It’s called freedom of association. If you subscribed to such freedom, then you would be free to associate with whom you please and not forced to associate with whom you do not wish to associate.

In a free country, some whites will choose to discriminate against blacks in their businesses, some Muslims would choose to refuse service to Christians, etc. That’s what freedom permits. In a free country, some people are going to make choices you do not like. I know, it’s icky.

Left to itself, racial discrimination would all but disappear. It is largely a learned behavior. Racial tensions can only increase in a country like the U.S. where “Affirmative Action” (AA) is the law, creating more victims than it helps and damaging race relations, perpetuating racial stereotypes.

In a free country, there might be a NBA team that refused to hire black players. That would (and should be) their choice. But how competitive would they be? How much of an audience might they attract? Many potential fans would stay away because they would see the lack of black players on that team as wrong. More would likely stay away because the team would likely not be very good. Many of the players themselves would not want to associate with the team. Really, this is a problem that would solve itself in a free country.

How competitive might a business be if it didn’t hire blacks? Or women? Who would patronize it? Self-solving, in a free country.

Why shouldn’t a Chinese businesswoman be able to hire only Chinese if she preferred. (Or are you against choice?)

But we are not in a free country. In the U.S., the family with a room to let can turn me away for being blond or of Norwegian decent, but not if I’m a homosexual or black or Muslim. These are protected classes with special status that protects them from discrimination that is legal to use against me. In the name of “equality”, we have laws that legalize inequality, unequal treatment.

I spent the better part of three decades working at a plant on the Navajo reservation where Navajos had preference in hiring and promotion over everyone else. When hiring outside help, the contractors employed were required to hire Navajos unless one could not be found with the necessary skills. If a non-Navajo were hired, the contractor had to hire, in addition to the non-Navajo, a Navajo to be trained to do the job. If Navajos can insist on Navajo employees having preference, why can’t whites, Chinese or blacks do the same? It’s because Navajos are in a protected class, with the ability to do things that I, as a white man, cannot. I don’t live in a free country.

Ironically, in its help wanted adds my employer featured both “Equal Opportunity Employer” and “Affirmative Action Employer” along with “Navajo Preference”.

Some years before I retired, my employer had a RIF (Reduction In Force) and offered severance packages to all comers. Older people were given a higher percentage of their salary to calculate their severance amount than were younger employees with the same number of service years. When I inquired whether this amounted to age discrimination, the legal department informed me that only discrimination against older people was illegal; discrimination in their favor (against younger people) is perfectly legal. Once again, in the name of “equality”, the laws legalize inequality.

Earlier I opined that Affirmative action does more harm than good. I’ll expand on that and save you the trouble of asking how this can possibly be. Yes, I know you’ll probably still call me a bigot for being against AA. I’ll live with it.

Let’s say we have a job opening and ten applicants; six whites, three blacks and an Indian/Hispanic/Pacific Islander – whatever. Let’s say that a black gets the job. Bingo – we have created six victims that believe that the black got the job due to AA. They believe they didn’t get the job because they are white. Suppose that only half the whites think AA was a factor. We’ve still created three victims of AA while helping only one black, assuming AA was a factor. If AA was not a factor, we’ve created three victims and helped no one.  How can AA not create resentment?

And what about the successful applicant? S/he will likely be viewed with suspicion as a probable AA hire or promotion. Is s/he any good at all? People will have their doubts owing to the very existence of AA.

When people visit the hospital and see a physician of color, might they wonder if s/he got into and through medical school assisted by AA? Do you want to put your life in the hands of someone who may not be all that good? Was “race norming” a factor in his/her grades in school? AA creates such doubts.

Why, after two generations of AA, do we still have this law? It perpetuates the stereotype that blacks cannot make it on their own and must be given preference.

From: Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly
Date: November 21, 2013 11:46:48 AM MST
To: Warren Michelsen
Subject: Guns that can bypass metal detectors

Warren –

If you or your family have ever visited an airport, courthouse, or even some hospitals and schools, you know that a metal detector can be the last line of defense between your loved ones and a criminal with a gun.

So in the event of a “criminal with a gun”, run to the nearest airport, courthouse, hospital or school, because they have metal detectors? Yeah, like no one has ever shot up an airport, courthouse, hospital or school. Those are safe havens because of the “last line of defense” metal detectors.

Hey, I’ve an idea. Why not bolster the first line of defense, the armed non-criminal? Why not support legislation that makes it easier, not harder for the Good Guys to defend themselves and others? You waste your time trying to make us safe through disarmament.

But on December 9th, a relatively obscure but important law that prohibits the sale or shipment of firearms not detectable by a walk-through metal detector is set to expire.

You’d think an important law would be anything but “obscure”. The subject of your message is: “Guns that can bypass metal detectors”, which is pretty much any gun at all since “bypass” means to go around. No walk-through metal detector can detect guns that “bypass” it. But you’re not really talking about guns that bypass metal detectors, despite the Subject line.

It’s called the Undetectable Firearms Act and in the age of 3D printers that can produce a gun made almost entirely of plastic, it’s imperative that Congress move to reauthorize the legislation.

So in an age of 3D printers when anyone can make their own Undetectable Firearm, we need a law prohibiting the sale and shipment of Undetectable Firearms? I don’t follow. If I can print my own Undetectable Firearm, I don’t need to buy one or have one shipped to me. Have you thought this through?

With three weeks to go, time is running out. It’s important that you sign our petition urging the House and Senate leadership to bring the Act to a vote before it expires. Add your name here:

Why is it important to sign your petition? Why is this law important, really? How is a law against selling and shipping Undetectable Firearms going to make us safer? Malum prohibitum laws like this do not make us safer. They do little to deter crime. What they do is give prosecutors things with which they can pile on charges when we break a malum in se law.

Criminals who intend to do harm are not going to be dissuaded by laws. It’s illegal to shoot people in the head, but it happens. Adding more useless laws is not a responsible solution. It only serves to give people a false sense of security while failing to address the real problem, the cultural problem that leads people to think that aggression is the solution to their problems.

In the past Republicans and Democrats have come together to renew the law by simple voice votes. Even the NRA has agreed not to oppose the bill.

Silly Republicans and Democrats! And who cares what the NRA has to say? They’ve been selling out to gun banners for decades.

We’re counting on Congress to reauthorize this responsible solution to reduce gun violence. If you make your voice heard, we’re sure they will.

So this “responsible solution” had reduced gun violence? Really? Gosh, I’d love to see the stats on this. How many lives has this law saved? How many Undetectable Firearms have not been sold or shipped? If this is a good law, show us the numbers to back it up. Or is the importance of this law all supposition on your part? Wishful thinking?

All the best,

No, Gabby, if you really wished us all the best, you’d be working to reduce violence of all kinds, not just “gun violence”. You’d be going after the root causes, not trying to treat the symptoms of a deeper problem.

Gabby and Mark

Hoping you get better,

Warren

During the partial shutdown of the federal government, the local weekly newspaper published a photo of protesters, one of whom had a sign saying that national parks are essential. Living where I do, within a day’s drive of the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Zion, Monument Valley and so on, there is a large National Park Service contingent. It was some of these who were apparently furloughed during the shutdown and killed time by protesting the shutdown, and made a sign asserting that the national parks are essential, and should not have been shut down.

National parks, essential? Nonsense. national parks are not even constitutional.

The Constitution authorizes FedGov to own land for a “seat of government” (the District of Columbia), and for “Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” This would include “Post Offices and post Roads”. That’s it; the sum-total of the lands the Constitution empowers FedGov to own.

The Constitution does not authorize FedGov to own vast areas of land for wilderness, national forests, national parks, national recreation areas or for any purpose not listed above.

Like it or not, national parks, recreation areas and forests are all unconstitutional.

Thomas Jefferson, when contemplating the Louisiana Purchase, believed it was necessary to rush through a constitutional amendment to authorize FedGov to make the purchase. He feared, however, that the French would change their minds if he didn’t act quickly and so, at the urging of advisors, never brought up the amendment. He urged the legislature to authorize the purchase quickly and no one protested that the legislature is not authorized by the Constitution to make such a purchase.

It was clear. even to President Jefferson, that FedGov was not empowered by the Constitution to make the purchase. But because he felt it was urgent, and it was immensely popular, he didn’t bother with seeking legitimate power to make the purchase by proposing a constitutional amendment. In making the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson knew he was violating the Constitution.

And so it goes. In the long history of the United States, FedGov has exercised powers not granted to it with increasing frequency to the point where, when then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was asked by a reporter where in the Constitution Congress is empowered to force Americans to buy health insurance, she responded, “Are you serious? Are you serious?!?”

Speaker Pelosi was incredulous. How could anyone doubt the power of Congress to do whatever it likes? A spokesman for the Speaker later explained that this was not a “serious question” deserving of a response.

Thus, so much of what FedGov does is believed not only constitutional, but essential, though it is in fact neither.

It is time for the States to Take Back The Powers usurped by FedGov.

I am reading the iTunes ePub version (a gift from my wife) of “Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power”. It is longish and thoroughly footnoted and cited. Jefferson and others of the day wrote a great many letters. It was like picking up the phone was to later generations. If you had (or wanted) news, you wrote to someone. In Jefferson’s years in politics, he wrote 10-12 letters a day. Likely received a great many as well.

Having not studied American History since high school, I had little appreciation for just how tumultuous and precarious those early days of the republic were. The Federalists, it seemed, longed for monarchy and thought the republic under the Constitution just a stepping stone on the way to a British-like system of government with hereditary power. The republic, they said, could not last with elected leaders. Only power passed from father to son could ensure a smooth transition of power. Under the Constitutional system, the republic would soon be in chaos, they believed. Republics tended to fall to military dictatorships. The Federalists were monarchists and wanted to cast off the republican form of government.

In the Washington administration, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Vice President John Adams were both Federalists. Jefferson a Republican and secretary of state, was constantly at odds with both, fearing a return to hereditary power both in the first magistrate (president) and the senate or that senate appointments would be for life.

The Federalists (also known as the Anti-Republicans), though few in number, consisted of British merchants, American merchants with strong business ties to Britain, speculators and bankers (whom Hamilton was in a position to favor), many officers of the Federal government and office seekers willing to set aside principle to attain office. They were concentrated in the cities where it was relatively easy for them to meet with like-minded persons and had influence over newspapers far in excess of their numbers.

The Republicans, those favoring elected, not hereditary government, were farmers, laborers, small businessmen and land owners and were widely dispersed. It was much harder for the Republicans to organize.

And so it goes… The Anti-Republicans are still concentrated in the cities and hold sway over news media while the rest of us, scattered throughout “flyover country” are just trying to ensure the form of government created by the Constitution.

One thing that has changed: In the first contested presidential election (Washington had run unopposed), the candidates (including Jefferson) did not campaign, it being unseemly to demonstrate a lust for high office. Rather, candidates let it be known that they would be available to serve, if called. Campaigning was done by supporters and electors in the various states.

The president is not a sovereign and cannot change laws on a whim. Yet he has been doing this routinely. To “faithfully execute the laws” is his job description (and part of the oath he took). It is time to impeach the president for violating his oath of office.

We The People are long overdue for some serious talk about the rightful purpose of government and the actual powers of FedGov (as opposed to the powers it has unconstitutionally assumed). Impeaching Obama would stimulate pubic discourse on these very important matters.

It has been suggested to me by a correspondent that if the president is breaking the law, I should sue him in Federal Court.

My initial impression was that suing is ineffective. When POTUS can just wave his magic “Executive Privilege” wand and defy Congress, what chance have I?

Upon further reflection (I’m famous for over-thinking), a lawsuit is not only ineffective, it is not the proper remedy. If I break a law, I am arrested tried and put in jail; they do not sue me.

When POTUS breaks the highest law in the land, the only proper remedy is to charge him with that crime and try him — impeachment. This is the remedy provided by the Constitution. (The Constitution provides impeachment as a remedy for misbehaving public officials some six times, if I remember correctly.)

The only way to save the USA is to get back to basics. We did fine for over a century by (mostly) following the Constitution. But then, FDR started expanding government’s powers vastly (and unconstitutionally). His administration marked the Beginning of the End. The further we have strayed from the Constitution, the worse things have gotten. We are now approaching the End of the End. Only getting back to basics can save us.

The Constitution has been turned on its head. The Judiciary was intended to be the weakest of the three branches. It is, instead, the strongest, and it is largely unaccountable. It tells both the Executive and Legislative branches what they can and cannot do. This is not something the Constitution empowered the Judiciary to do; it is a power assumed unconstitutionally.

The Executive branch routinely legislates, as the Obama administration has repeatedly done. The president is supposed to “faithfully execute” the laws. Instead, POTUS selectively enforces laws, based on his political predilections and sometimes turns laws on their heads, enforcing them contrary to the way they are written.

Obama is not the only culprit here. I think that each president of the US starts believing it when the press refers to him as “the most powerful man in the world”. While POTUS arguably holds the highest office in the land, he is still supposed to be accountable. As president, he heads the Executive branch, which is not even the most powerful branch of Fedgov. The Legislature can override a presidential veto, which would seem to make the Executive branch the least powerful of the three branches of our currently employed FedGov. But when POTUS can execute the laws contrary to the way the legislature has written them, then the legislature is the weakest branch of FedGov.

So, the president violates the Constitution by not “faithfully executing” the laws as passed by Congress and we cower and tuck our tails rather than hold him accountable. We adopt a “you can’t fight city hall” attitude. Shame on us for not holding public officials accountable.

The Legislature was intended to be the most powerful branch and, not coincidentally, this puts most of the power in the hands of the people (the House of Representatives) and the states (the Senate — the states having since delegated their power to the people via the 17th amendment, leaving no effective representation in Congress for the state governments).

The Executive was to have been the second most powerful branch of FedGov with the Judiciary being the weakest.

Summarizing…

Intended ranking of FedGov branches’ relative powers, from most to least powerful:

1. Legislative
2. Executive
3. Judicial

As practiced:

1. Judicial
2. Executive
3. Legislative

It strikes me as most strange that, in a government “of the people, by the people and for the people”, as Lincoln described it, the most powerful branch of government is not accountable to the people — or anyone else!

The “American experiment” has been hugely successful, but is now coming to an end. This oldest nation on Earth [1] will soon come to an end. It need not; it can continue, but only if we get back to basics, back to the actual Constitution, not the Constitution as interpreted by a federal government whose three branches all believe there is nothing FedGov is not empowered to do.

[1]
There are few other nations that have lasted as long as the United States of America, formed by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Pick a country, any country, and it has likely changed its form of government more recently than the USA. The Constitution was a brilliant piece of work. It has stood the test of time and would have continued to do so, had we hewn to it. Instead, in our collective hubris we believe that we know better than a bunch of old, dead, white guys.

“Brother, you asked for it!” — Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastión d’Anconia