Some Perspective on School Shootings

The horror of the Florida high school shooting which cost seventeen lives cannot be overstated.  And the alarm about the massacre and the need of so many to do something is understandable.  The desire to vent anger by marching in the streets of America makes sense in that regard.

Fortunately, school shootings – despite overflowing publicity – are rare events.  So policy should not be made under the supposition that the threat is substantial and widespread.

Since 1982 (thirty-six years ago), 150 secondary level students and younger have lost their lives in school shootings.   (Today’s school population is over fifty-five million.)

Contrast these national numbers with Chicago’s murder statistics.  In the five year period ending in 2016, 169 youngsters were shot and killed. 

Where is the similar outrage?  And, of course, there is the well-known irony for gun control advocates that Chicago has some of the nation’s toughest anti-gun laws.

Solution for school shootings – horrible but extremely unlikely events for any particular school - would seem best focused on school security as a deterrent (screenings, armed guards and teachers).

As for Chicago’s youth slayings – a far greater risk for that city’s young people – where are the marches?  Does the city need more police, national guardsmen on every corner, a mobilization of the community to stop such violence?  Where are the national demands for action?

Doesn’t the mainstream media care?

Is the “Cold War” Resuming?

It seems so.  Last week, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders declined to term Russia as "friend or foe".  The reluctance to label it seemed odd in light of recent provocations by the Kremlin.

Perhaps the White House, reflecting the President’s desire to work with Vladimir Putin, did not wish to respond with the truth:  Russia is a foe evolving into an enemy (again).

The conclusion is inescapable when one notes Russian activities of recent times –

         -      Poisoning of an ex-Russian spy living in England

         -       Attacking U.S. Forces in Syria

-      Buzzing American planes flying in international airspace

-      Invasion of eastern Ukraine

-      Etc.

What should the U.S. do?  The first version of the Cold War lasted from post WWII to the early 1990s when the military deterrence of U.S. and NATO forces finally wore down the Soviet Union’s ability to “keep-up” and resulted in its disintegration.

Will the same prescription work for the apparent second “go-around”?

Thus far, the extent of the American response has been limited to strong worlds (Nikki Haley, our U.N. Ambassador, in particular) and financial sanctions focused on Putin’s inner circle.

Will that be enough to deter future aggression?   Unlikely.

The U.S. Defense Budget tightened during the Obama Administration due to Congressionally-imposed sequestration policies (a military spending increase was controlled by requirements that it not exceed domestic expenditure hikes) as well as the general antipathy of Democrats toward the military.

That approach is no longer in favor, of course.  So the obvious hostility of Russia (and more foreboding, from a long-term perspective, China) mandates a significant increase in defense spending to return the U.S. to an appropriate “Cold War” footing. 

Reality leaves America no choice.

What is Conservatism?

The Republican Party is the Conservative party, and I am a conservative.

What does that mean?  Conservatism is not an ideology as such but an approach to society and government based on certain principles.

Safeguarding the individual, protecting his rights as a human being, is the primary focus of government.  Those rights flow from his individuality – not his sex, race or ethnicity.

The individual thrives best in a family, in a community which inculcates into each member a sense of responsibility to the community and fellow humans in the exercise of his rights.  Without that, the society withers and so does the individual’s rights.

Human nature needs to be channeled by positive social forces including religion, tradition and the mores of the broader community.

Humans, by nature, strive to control and dominate.  The survival of a free society requires that limits be imposed on the reach of government.  “Power tends to corrupt,” said British statesman Lord Acton,  “and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Respect for tradition does not require a refusal to change but it should serve as a caution.  Tradition exists for reasons that may, or may not, still be valued.

Human nature resists change – revolutionary in particular.  When change is deemed necessary, a “slow goes it” approach is far more likely to succeed than prompt implementation of drastic change.

Human nature prevents the perfection of man.   Utopian schemes, therefore, are always doomed to failure.

 

 

 

Why Does the Liberal Media Use Euphemisms For “Illegal Immigrants”?

Several years ago, the term “undocumented immigrants” gained currency among the Left and their friends in the media (who routinely follow their lead) as a substitution for saying “illegal”.

On one hand, it’s a silly expression.  It’s as if the “document” was lost or left at home.  Maybe the driver who misplaced his license is supposed to tell the police officer who stops him for speeding that, alas, at the moment, he’s “undocumented”.

But from a more serious perspective, the expression is no joking matter.  Consider the distinction we draw between two words:  legal and illegal.  They are diametrically opposed.  But “documented” vs. “undocumented”?  The terms are bureaucratic and emotionally vague.  Who cares?

Is that the point?  Certainly that’s a consequence of the term “undocumented immigrant”?  The focus is on the world “immigrant”  not that person’s status.  Historically, to be an immigrant is a positive.  As the cliché goes, America is a land of immigrants.

But if a person is termed an “illegal immigrant” the focus shifts to the adjective.  And “illegal” is not a positive.

Thus, the implicit message (whether or not intended) of labeling immigrants as “undocumented” is that  the distinction from “documented” is not important.  They – immigrants - with or without papers are all the same, and all have a right to be here.

What’s next, calls for open borders?

Postscript:  I’ll agree that some of those employing the term are simply adopting the Left’s preference from sparing the feelings of those who have done wrong – violating the nation’s immigration laws, for instance.  Why, after all, should people be made to feel responsible for their own conduct?  Aren’t a person’s misdeeds always someone else’s fault such as society’s  or the capitalist economic system