Remove the Confederate Flag… Why?

The Sensible Conservative is not a southerner and, from an early age, has identified with the Northern victors in the American Civil War that ended one hundred and fifty years ago.  I have never owned a Confederate flag, and I had thought that those who displayed one were somewhat odd in the sense that they defiantly refused to accept that the South lost.

Yet, I think I understand the attachment many feel and therefore disapprove of widespread efforts to take down the Stars and Bars.

Of course, the campaign was ignited by the gunning-down of nine black worshippers in South Carolina.  A Facebook posting showed the shooter with a Confederate flag in his hand.  But why should that mass murderer’s identification with that symbol irreparably brand it as unfit for display by others?

Of course, the flag was the emblem of the Confederate States of America which tried to secede, certainly in large part, to preserve slavery.  (Historians still argue whether other factors such as decades of economic friction between the more powerful industrial North and agrarian South also played important roles in the attempted separation.)

It’s easy to understand why blacks, in particular, would be offended.  But how about the views of white southerners who may view the flag as meaning – to them – something other than racial hostility?

Or are the seventy percent of white South Carolinians who supported the flag’s display in a pre-Charleston massacre poll just racists?    Does that include the twenty-three percent black residents who were in favor, as well?

Far more likely today is that the Confederate flag does not represent a mourning for yesterday and what might have been.  Rather, this symbol represents not the Confederacy and its dedication to racial oppression but, instead, reflects pride in the South as a part of, yet distinct from, other sections of America.  Certainly there is myth in that view, but as anyone who has traveled in the South can attest, there is a lot of truth in it, too. 

So isn’t it understandable that Southerners who live in harmony and without hostility toward other races would be offended by attacks on what they perceive to be a symbol of the South of which today they are very proud?

The assault is undoubtedly taken very personally.

Who dares to stand up for them?  Or should we distinguish between those who take offense and those whose legitimate concerns we, as a broader society, choose to ignore?

What Is the “Meaning” of the Charleston Church Shooting?

Probably nothing at all.  That’s a frustrating and unsatisfactory answer for many, and that is understandable.  Faced with horrific acts, we want to know why – in the hope that “it” can be stopped from happening again.  But the hope is almost always forlorn.  

Evil exists.  Hate exists.  As does murderous intent.  Always has, always will.  These are blunt facts of life. 

Yet it seems that heinous acts, for many, must be “explained”, rather than accepted for what they are, the dark side of human nature.  Some blame our culture or America’s past.  Some are sincere, others have political motives.

But the Charleston shooting was not a reminder of the racial scars still plaguing America for its history of slavery nor a reason for gun control measures. 

The twenty-one year old killer is simply one of life’s losers – a 9^th grade high school drop-out with a drug habit and a criminal record – the sort who blames the world (in this case, blacks) for his failures.  His conduct is no more reflective of the state of race relations in South Carolina, or elsewhere, than does the fact that an evil black person from Baltimore assassinated two police officers in New York City a few months ago.

Out of the tragedy come several bright notes which contradict the pessimistic narratives being promulgated by the usual media culprits.

 

Seemingly the entire Charleston community – of all colors – has joined in mourning the black victims.  And the person responsible for the white killer’s apprehension is a middle-aged white woman who’s accent marks her as a native of the deep south. 

It’s nice to see this reaffirmation of the good side of human nature.

The Media Fixation on the Phrase Unarmed Black Man

It’s becoming increasingly hard to avoid the conclusion that there is rampant anti-police bias among many in the media.  “Unarmed black man”:  reflect on its usage in the reports on the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, or in Cleveland where a man and his female companion were shot repeatedly in their car after a high speed chase.

In Ferguson, a thorough investigation established that the “unarmed” Michael Brown posed a genuine threat to the officer’s safety.

In Cleveland, many pursuing police officers were convinced that the vehicle’s occupants were firing at them.

Implicit in the subject phrase is the assumption that the police shootings were unjustified – the victims shot were defenseless and posed no threat.  They were, in fact, targeted because they were black.

Of course, such has been perpetrated by some police office in the past and may very well still occur today.  But is that the rule, rather than the exception?  Recent events strongly suggest not.  Yet some in the media (CNN among others) apparently favor the term “unarmed black man” rather than a more neutral description that a law enforcement officer shot a suspect. 

Is the inflammatory expression used to generate viewership interest?  Is it simply a shorthand expression to avoid serious thought?  Or is it employed as a product of the user’s bias?  Probably all factors are at play.

Regardless, it is – without proof - irresponsible journalism that contributes to racial tension in our country.

What Is An Unreasonable Search And Seizure?

Recently, GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul stalled Senate action on the Patriot Act renewal by claiming that the anti-terrorist law was unconstitutional.  He said it violated the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

The focus of Senator Paul’s ire was that the government, through the National Security Agency, had been collecting all phone calls (“metadata”) made in the United States.  Apparently, the NSA’s interest has been in the source and reception of calls, not their content – although that has been captured, too.

Some liberals were supportive of the Kentucky Republican’s efforts (the usual MSNBC crowd, primarily).  But also supportive were some conservatives, with prominent voices including Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Fox News legal commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano. 

In the end, a modified version of the Patriot Act was okayed by the House and Senate alike, with most conservatives and liberals backing the measure.

But that result didn’t make Fourth Amendment concerns go away.  Despite the claims of Rand Paul and others, determining whether a law violates that section is rarely an easy task.

The explicit language of the Fourth Amendment is simply not definitive.  “The right of the people to be secure… against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”

What is “unreasonable”?  It depends.  In reality – and in Supreme Court rulings – the answer is found by applying a balancing test, a weighing of means versus ends.

In the case of NSA phone record collections, the plain objective (“end”) is to thwart terrorist activities.  Proponents argue that the collection (“means”) is reasonable because message content is not sought unless there is good reason – probable cause – and the means serve the end.

Opponents have responded that the means are not justified because the NSA records have not been useful in the fight against terrorism.

Whether that is the case is, to be sure, disputed.  Yet those Patriot Act opponents who take that approach are certainly engaged in appropriate analysis.  Not all foes are, however.

Fox’s Judge Napolitano, for instance, proclaimed that Patrick Henry’s famous 1775 oration, “give me liberty or give me death”, settled the matter.  And since the data collection threatens liberty, it violated the Fourth Amendment.

 

That’s silly.

 

As mentioned above, any Fourth Amendment proscription is dependent upon particular circumstances.  What is reasonable is not self-defining.

Consider some scenarios: 

The police, searching for a mass murderer known to be in a particular area, stop and search all vehicles on the one road out of town.

Or, how about the same fact pattern with the subject criminal suspect involved only in the theft of a gallon of milk from a local convenience store.

The means chosen to apprehend the wrong-doer is the same in both cases.  But why do we (most of us, anyway) react differently?  Because capturing a mass murderer as an end, justifies – makes reasonable – a roadblock whereas the limitation on the general public freedom of travel would not be warranted to catch a petty thief.

In other words, whether the end justifies the means, depends on the nature of the end.  In a Constitutional sense, more important ends authorize more restrictive means.