Archive for the ‘opinion’ Category

h1

The Folly of Arming Teachers

February 26, 2018

The idea of arming teachers to prevent mass shootings in American schools springs more from romanticized fancy than reality. The John Wayne/Rambo fantasy of stopping the bad guys with gun blazing is still alive and well in the American psyche. However, I find it hard to believe that armed teachers with minimal training at random locations in a school building during a high stress active shooter scenario would be an effective measure to solve the problem.

Though I have no doubt that there are some teachers in some schools who would be willing to carry guns on the job, that does not mean that they would be able to successfully intervene in school shootings. Take a look at statistics concerning firearm use by trained police both on the target range and on duty.

In a study published in the International Journal of Police Science & Management (2015, Vol. 17(2) 117 – 127), shooting accuracy was compared between expert (completed law enforcement firearms course), intermediate (recreational experience), and novice (minimal experience) level shooters. The accuracy percent overall from a variety of distances was 48.73% for the experts and intermediates, and 39.91% for the novices. However, at a distance of 18 to 45 feet which more realistically reflects an active school shooter situation, the accuracy percent falls to 39.4% for experts and intermediates and only 27.6% for novices. Remember that this is in a target range situation, not a real life one in which the research shows that an officer’s performance is greatly affected.

John C. Cerar, a retired commander of the New York Police Department’s firearms training section, aptly put it this way: “You take Olympic shooters, and they practice all the time, and they can hit a fly off a cow’s nose from 100 yards. But if you put a gun in that cow’s hand, you will get a different reaction from the Olympic shooter.”

This reaction is readily seen in the 2008 RAND Corporation study which evaluated the New York City Police Department. Examination of statistics from the years 1998 through 2006 shows that in cases of shootings when the suspect did not return fire, officers had a 30% accuracy rate. When fire was returned, the accuracy rate dropped to just 18%. Just how well could we expect teachers whose main job is not law enforcement to fare?

Another aspect not given enough consideration is an unfortunate byproduct of gunfire — the shooting of innocent bystanders — something even well-trained police officers fear. In real-life situations filled with movement and chaos — especially in a school filled with children — the chances of this are dangerously increased.

As appealing as it might sound to some, it is simplistic to think that merely arming members of a school staff would provide an adequate resolution to the dilemma. The idea is fraught with complications.  Exactly how much and what kind of training could be given to teachers who are already burdened with myriad responsibilities? How many teachers would actually agree to be armed? Some schools may have a large number of willing participants but others few or none.  Schools are generally organized by grade level. How then can those who volunteer to bear arms be placed in the building to provide feasible security? How would carrying a gun affect the students’ relationships with their teachers? How would it affect the teacher psychologically and emotionally?

Furthermore, armed teachers would most likely not serve as a deterrent. Those who have been responsible for these shootings have not been mentally stable people. The shootings are fueled by irrational emotion to which the logic of deterrence doesn’t adhere.

Schools are only one of many vulnerable sites in our society. Exactly where would the arming of “soft targets” stop? Ministers packing heat to protect their parishioners? Secretaries and managers with Glocks to safeguard offices? Ushers with pieces to secure movie theaters? No, the answer is not to turn the country into an armed camp. Rather, what we need to do is eliminate as best we can the problem at its source. Put teeth in the mandatory background checks for gun ownership including the presently exempt gun shows. Have an adequate waiting period so that a thorough check can be done. Connect law enforcement and mental health agencies so that swift and accurate communication between them is possible. Pass and enforce a ban on those weapons that can fire many shots in a short period of time, notably the current mass murder weapon of choice, the AR 15 (which, despite being “only” semi automatic, can fire 90 rounds in a minute). If there must be an armed presence, provide funds for well-trained armed security outside the school to prevent any potential shooter from entering. But to think that arming teachers is a solution to this terrible problem is a foolhardy idea.

 

Advertisements
h1

In Fourteen Hundred Ninety-Two

October 9, 2017

As school kids, the chant “In fourteen hundred ninety-two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue” rang out in classrooms all across the land each October. One of the first encountered among the pantheon of heroes we celebrated, we learned how Christopher Columbus bravely sailed across the Atlantic to discover the New World in spite of the fear that anyone who tried would fall off the edge of the Earth. We colored pictures of the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria. Some of us even got the day off from school.

Thus Columbus was installed as an icon of American lore. Unfortunately, as is too often the case, the mythology overshadowed the reality, and the superficial treatment given to students at a young age had never been rectified as they moved on through the grades. Though largely undeserved, this grandiose image carried forth into the adult American psyche. We are now seeing the manifestation of this on the part of some in the current issue concerning the public honoring of Columbus.

It should boil down to a question of worthiness, for here is a historical figure who, at closer examination, didn’t really do what he is given credit for having done. Of even greater concern is what he did do, which was to inflict abominably cruel mistreatment on the indigenous people he found in the Caribbean islands that he accidentally stumbled upon.

The first problem is with the very idea of “discovery,” the foundation for his tribute. How is it a discovery if there were people who had already been living there for centuries? When Columbus made landfall, he erroneously thought he’d circumnavigated the earth and reached the Indies by sailing westward, his mistake becoming forever manifest in the name he gave to the people he found who would be henceforth called “Indians.” His goal of finding the westward passage in actuality resulted in failure. The prevalent concept of this being a triumphant achievement is due to the colonial mentality inherent in the traditional Western historical perspective. Additionally, falling off the edge of a flat Earth was not even a consideration. At the time Columbus sailed, the knowledge that the world was indeed round was widespread, something known since the time of the ancient Greeks and long recognized by observant sailors.

As a matter of fact, the Columbus expedition was not even the first to accomplish a cross-Atlantic journey. That honor goes to Leif Ericson who accomplished the feat over 400 years earlier, though in actuality, neither arrived at mainland America. Ericson’s Viking exploration in the 11th century brought him across the North Atlantic to Greenland and Newfoundland thus making him the first European in the “New World.”

Once Columbus had arrived in the islands of the Caribbean, his quest focused on gold and other resources that would result in his and his backers’ enrichment. In trying to accomplish this end, abysmally cruel treatment of the native people transpired, the record about which is clear based on well-documented firsthand accounts of the atrocities. The senseless brutality perpetrated upon the native people — rape, enslavement, dismemberment, beheading, and mass murder of men, women, and children — is indefensible, especially in view of his Catholic faith which he had been mandated to spread.

Today Columbus Day is misguidedly billed as a “celebration of Italian culture.” Many Italian-Americans rail at the suggestion of removing statues of Columbus, viewing it as defamation of an Italian hero. This overlooks several salient facts, not the least of which is that his actions were far from heroic. Columbus hailed from the Republic of Genoa (Italy did not even exist as a country until 1861) and he sailed under the flag of Spain, so calling him an “Italian” hero is a stretch. Celebrating the Italian culture (or any other, for that matter) in America should not revolve around any one man — particularly not this one. Italian-Americans already have so much about which to be proud as key constituents in the building of our nation. The hollow honor bestowed upon Columbus isn’t needed to justify this pride. The reality of what he did is far from the image created after the fact, and it is hardly something worthy of acclaim.

 

h1

Erasing Symbols, Not History

August 19, 2017

Statues and flags are not history. Only history is history. History exists in many forms and in many places: books, videos, museums, exhibits. Though history goes far beyond the physical manifestations which represent it, some artifacts can be invaluable for the study of past civilizations and cultures. Statues erected after the fact, however, are not the true artifacts of history but merely symbols created with one purpose: to aggrandize.


When Saddam Hussein’s statue came down, it did not erase the history of his reign, not for those he oppressed, not for those who were his cronies. That history remains. However, the statue which honored that leader became a symbol for the defeated regime that had oppressed a significant portion of Iraq’s population, and the reason to publicly honor it or him no longer existed.


This is the flag that signifies the fascist regime of Adolph Hitler. It is no longer flown because that regime has thankfully perished. It too is part of history, one which can be seen in books, videos, museums, and exhibits. Though it no longer has any actual function, it remains a symbol of supposed race superiority and the horrendous application of that despicable philosophy which resulted in the denigration and mistreatment of an entire group of people. It is not a flag that should be displayed publicly for that very reason. The sight of it in that context triggers intense feelings of outrage to all people who recognize what it now represents.

This is the flag that signifies the Confederate States of America that existed during the Civil War. It is no longer flown because that regime has thankfully perished. It too is part of history, one which can be seen in books, videos, museums, and exhibits. Though it no longer has any actual function, it remains a symbol of supposed race superiority and the horrendous application of that despicable philosophy which resulted in the denigration and mistreatment of an entire group of people. It is not a flag that should be displayed publicly for that very reason. The sight of it in that context triggers intense feelings of outrage to all people who recognize what it now represents.

The astute reader will notice that these preceding paragraphs are the same. The parallel is not accidental.

The fact that these two banners are currently used by those hate groups that still cling to the shameful idea of race superiority is an indication of why they should not be part of a public presence. Though statues are not as blatant of a symbol, they still represent ideals that are repugnant to the standards of the nation. Their images belong in books, videos, museums, and exhibits. They do not belong in places of public honor.

I just got back from a trip to the South. One of my stops was at Petersburg, Virginia, site of one of the critical battles of the Civil War. It is now designated as a National Battlefield Park. There are various sculptures and memorials located throughout this park, and that is as it should be, for these are the sites where the events happened, and they should be commemorated in this place. There are memorials to the soldiers and their leaders on both sides. Here, it is fitting and proper.

I also visited Richmond, former capital of the Confederacy, which has a long boulevard called Monument Avenue. Statues of Confederate icons such as Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, and Robert E. Lee can be found here. They serve as a reminder of the old South, one that no longer exists (other than in the minds of a hard-core fringe). Let us not forget that regardless of any other accomplishments, they were the leaders of the fight to perpetuate the abominable institution of slavery, and for that reason should forfeit any public honor.

Removing any remaining public vestiges of the era of slavery should not be an issue any more than removing swastikas and Hitler statues should have been. The only real question is why they were allowed to stand for as long as they did.

h1

An Unfortunate Step Backwards

June 5, 2017

On this World Environment Day we are left to ponder the latest chapter in human irresponsibility, the decision by Mr. Trump to have the United States, the second greatest polluter in the world, withdraw from the Paris climate accord.

This decision manifests the President’s unacceptable lack of understanding of reality. After hearing his comments and speech, one is left to wonder if he actually read the agreement. Trump’s assessment of the Paris accord and its supposed effect on our nation once again displays his “willful ignorance and disinterest” and “failure of intellectual virtue” as columnist David Brooks (a Republican, no less) aptly phrases it.

This is an agreement involving a non-binding timetable for the reduction of carbon emissions. No country is imposing restrictions on any other country, contrary to Mr. Trump’s assertions. Under the agreement, we already have the freedom to make adjustments as dictated by our circumstances without penalty.

Trump claims that the accord “would effectively decapitate our coal industry.” For those who pay attention, the coal industry was in decline long before the accord because of the availability of cleaner and cheaper energy sources. As a matter of fact, even the Kentucky Coal Mining Museum in Benham, Kentucky, switched to solar power in order to save money.

He said in his speech that he “was elected to represent the people of Pittsburg, not Paris”. It is of some interest to note that the people of Pittsburg voted overwhelmingly in favor of Hillary Clinton and is a green city of its own volition.

Economically, there is widespread agreement that any short-term gains made by the fossil fuel industry will be greatly offset by our inability to capitalize on the inevitable world-wide shift to renewable energy. By leaving the Paris agreement, we jeopardize our potential to be at the vanguard of clean technology and the economic gains that come with it, a vacuum sure to be filled by other industrial nations, notably China.

This withdrawal seems to be more about sending a misguided “nationalist” message to the world (courtesy of the unelected Steve Bannon) than about global warming. It is the product of the bunker mentality of a man who sees not facts or points of view but instead a pantheon of enemies composed of any person or group who disagrees with him.

Mr. Trump has chosen to put us in the company of only Nicaragua (who voted against the accord because it wasn’t tough enough) and Syria in the world community. He has basically abdicated the leadership role the United States had formerly embraced in this critical issue. Instead of forging ahead in the field of sustainable energy, he has chosen to go backwards in spite of the opposition of a large number major corporations (including, amazingly enough, Exxon), 211 mayors representing 54 million Americans, and his own Secretary of State.

By now there should be no question about climate change being affected by carbon emissions caused by mankind (though some in the current administration still have their heads in the sand on this one) and no question that an immediate concerted effort is needed to curtail the damage being done before it is too late. Any negative impact this may have on our economy (and that is indeed disputable) is far outweighed by the positive impact we could and should make concerning the future health of this planet and the future generations that will inhabit it.

The Paris accord is by no means perfect, but at the very least it takes a step forward in uniting the nations of this planet in a common cause, one that is critical to us all. To abandon it is an act of self-absorbed fantasy which only serves to accelerate the advance towards an incomprehensible cataclysm. The reality is that we are all in this together. It is a time for America to step up, not take this unfortunate step backwards.

h1

The Hundred Day Hustle

May 2, 2017

“My fellow Americans, I truly believe that the first 100 days of my Administration has been just about the most successful in our country’s history.”

Just about the most successful in our country’s history!? Talk about hyperbole!

Donald Trump hustled a large portion of the American voters with his sales pitch during the election campaign, and now one hundred days into his administration, he is still at it.

He has resorted to his histrionic campaign-style speeches as of late, full of inflated and often inaccurate assessments of accomplishments, patriotic platitudes, and attacks on anyone who disagrees with him, particularly the press. But on closer examination of the facts — something foreign to the normal Trump modus operandi — one gets a far less rosy picture.

For example, let us examine Trump’s 28 bills signed, something he points out with quite a bit of puffery as being second only to Harry Truman’s 55. Closer scrutiny, though, reveals that most of these are not of great significance.

Three of the bills appoint individuals to the board at the Smithsonian Institute, two of them give names to buildings, and one designates a location for a National Memorial.

Thirteen of the bills are reversals of Obama regulations rather than ones breaking any new legislative ground. Though these reversals affect important issues, they are the product of the mechanism of the Congressional Review Act that requires such reversals to get through Congress in the first hundred days.

Conspicuous by their absence are the ten pieces of legislation that Trump promised during the first hundred days in his much-ballyhooed “Contract with the American Voter,” such as a repeal and/or replacement of the Affordable Care Act (the only one of the bunch to actually make an appearance and which couldn’t make it through a Republican-controlled Congress), tax reform (in spite of the rushed presentation of a one page outline proposal lacking any salient clarifying details), infrastructure investment, school choice, military spending, and affordable childcare and eldercare, to name a few.

On the economic front, there are many instances of taking credit where credit is not due. The incorrect claim of 500,000 plus jobs created by the Trump administration included the final months of the Obama presidency; the actual number was 317,000. For one who claimed to be the Great Job Creator, Trump’s average for the two months of his reign thus far is 158,500 compared to Obama’s average for 2016 of 187,00 per month. The much-touted Keystone pipeline is expected to employ only 35 people permanently; the estimated 42,000 other jobs would be temporary (3,900 of them in construction) lasting only while it is being built. Additionally, the investment and job creation in the auto industry is not in actuality Trump’s doing. The Ford decision of canceling its new plant in Mexico in favor of Arizona was made in 2011, and the billion dollar investment plans that General Motors and Fiat Chrysler announced had been years in the making.

An extremely problematic though less talked about issue of this new administration concerns the vacancies yet unfilled by Trump that are critical to the day-to-day functioning of government — the deputy secretaries and undersecretaries, chief financial officers, ambassadors, general counsels, and heads of smaller agencies — which are causing anxiety and frustration for his Cabinet secretaries. The Senate has given confirmation to 26 Trump picks in these first hundred days, but there are 530 senior-level jobs that have remained vacant, and Trump has advanced only 37 nominees for those. The turmoil within the Trump team certainly has not helped to expedite this critical task.

Another supposed feather in Trump’s cap, the Tomahawk missile attack on an airbase in Syria as retaliation for a sarin gas attack by Assad on his own people, turned out to be more spectacle than substance. With no real strategy formulated to deal with the Syrian situation, it was a one-and-done operation, and the airbase was up and running the following day.

Even the centerpiece of Trump’s “success,” the confirmation of a conservative to the Supreme Court, is not so much the accomplishment of Trump as it is the result of the ethically indefensible obstructionist tactics used by the Republicans in Congress to block the Obama appointment of the eminently qualified Merrick Garland.

Clearly the first one hundred days of any endeavor is at best an arbitrary yardstick by which to measure success. However, Trump apparently wants it both ways. To proclaim his “tremendous accomplishments” during that time period while at the same time downplaying the importance of that benchmark is ingenuous and hypocritical. But then again, what else should we expect from the master of the hustle.

h1

The Myth of “The Mess”

March 1, 2017

There was something different about Donald Trump’s address to Congress Tuesday night. He seemed presidential, something that is notable only because it is an aberration from what has been the case throughout his campaign and his first month in office. But there was unfortunately something that was the same: his unnecessary diminution of the previous administration. He made a point of cherry-picking “facts” which would portray the supposedly dire circumstances he inherited (from which he, of course, will now grandly extricate us). He had referred to this previously as the “mess” he was left.

Yes, indeed. What a mess Donald Trump was left. Let’s take a look at it.

When Barak Obama took office (when there was a real mess), the Dow was at 6,626. When he left, it was at 19,875. The country had 82 straight months of private sector job growth — the longest streak in the history of the United States — and 11.3 million new jobs had been created. Unemployment went down from 10% to 4.7% (the intentionally misleading 94 million “out of the labor force” statistic used by Trump includes high school and college students, people with disabilities, stay-at-home parents, and retirees — the actual number of unemployed according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics is about 7.6 million). Consumer confidence had gone from 37.7 to 98.1 The U.S. auto industry was saved — the number of American cars sold at the beginning of his term was 10.4 million and upon his exit 17.5 million. Corporate profits were up by 144%. U.S. exports were up 28%.

Additionally, homelessness among U.S. veterans has dropped by half and billions of dollars were added to mental health care for veterans. Reliance on foreign oil is at a 40 year low. Solar and wind power are at an all time high. Abortion is down. Violent crime is down. High school graduation rates hit 83%, an all time high.

Are things perfect? No, they’re not, nor have they ever been. Are there problems that need to be addressed? Absolutely, as there always are.

Are things a “mess?” Sorry, that’s just not the case.

It is good that Mr. Trump laid out his vision and gave us his plans (though a few specifics would have been nice) and most importantly acted like a president (hopefully something that will become a daily occurrence). However, it is too bad that he chose to spend time pointing a finger of blame at the “mess” he was left. Taking shots, particularly undeserved ones, at the previous administration in this address — purportedly one in a spirit of unification —  is beneath the office Mr. Trump now occupies.

h1

Protecting America

February 28, 2017

Donald Trump often proclaims that one of his primary goals is protecting America. This is the reason he has given for his travel restrictions directed at seven majority Muslim nations, the fear of terrorist attacks being the driving force behind it. It behooves us to look at the justification for this deservedly controversial measure.

Let us examine these facts.

The countries falling under the restrictions are Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen. The total number of terrorists from these countries who have perpetrated acts of violence in America is zero. The countries from which terrorists staging attacks in America have come are Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, and Chechnya. Not one of those countries is included in the ban. Furthermore, intelligence analysts in the Department of Homeland Security concluded in an internal report that the “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.”

Over the past decade, a total of 24 Americans have been killed on our soil by foreign-born terrorists. In contrast, over just the past five years, the U.S. has averaged 11,564 gun homicides a year. That is an average of 32 per day. This puts the gun homicide rate in our country over 25 times higher than that of other developed countries.

How then, in light of this information, does Trump’s proposal protect America? Clearly the facts indicate that whatever we are now doing is working well on the terrorism front in spite of the public fear mongering on the part of some. The facts also indicate that the area that is in dire need of addressing is protection from homicides involving guns.

The fact of the matter is that the average American is 4,818 times more likely to be shot to death by another American than he or she is to be killed by a terrorist from a Muslim nation.

Why then is this not the primary focus of protecting America? Is it perhaps because the gun lobby has so much undue influence in the halls of our government? Or maybe the knee-jerk reaction is simply greater when it comes to Muslim terrorists?

It is time to take a hard look at what the real danger is and take suitable action to deal with it. The travel restriction makes for flashy headlines and patriotic posturing, but it does not address the real problem. Mr. Trump, if protecting America is truly the goal, then do something about the proliferation of guns in this country and the deadly violence it engenders.

american-guns-560