Killings At The Riots

Well now the inevitable shootings and killings are accompanying the riots in the big cities. If they are allowed to continue it will get worse. Here's what I think is common sense about the issues.

 

In order to avoid general violence, we defer the use of force to the police whose functions are law enforcement and maintenance of peace and order in the community. They must use this force only in specific circumstances such as the protection of their lives or those of others. If a citizen is harmed by an officer's use of force the circumstances are reviewed and if it is concluded that he has used force in a way contrary to the law he is charged by a prosecutor with criminal behavior. Then there is a trial. At the trial both the prosecutor and the defense present their evidence and a jury, selected in accordance with predefined legal procedures, decides the outcome.

 

There are some that think that handling these issues in a case by case manner is not sufficient. They contend that police in general are guilty of systemic racism such that they use excessive force preferentially in their dealings with minorities, most specifically young, black men. There is much disagreement as to whether this is an accurate assessment, but if it is, it seems fair to ask the question that, since systemic racism in the police would presumably be a longstanding phenomenon, why something hasn't been done about it previously by those civic leaders who are in charge of the police and generally seem to be sympathetic to the complaint.

 

Assuming for the sake of argument that it is true, those who are upset about the matter can assemble with others who are similarly concerned, organize and protest. They have full right to do this under our constitution and laws. In order for their protest to be effective they should clearly state their demands as to what they feel should specifically be done about the problem and, assuming there is general agreement by the local public, their desires should be carried out by the local political leaders, most especially since these leaders have expressed sympathy with the protestor's complaints.

 

The aggrieved people do not have the right to riot about the matter and to destroy the property and livelihoods of innocent bystanders or of public property. We are a nation of laws, devised by our elected representatives, written down beforehand and enforced in specific manners. If instead we riot to obtain our wishes evil consequences will result as we are seeing.

 

Some civic leaders are condoning the riots and allowing them to continue. They argue that they are not as bad as they look, that they are limited to relatively small areas and that they are somewhat justifiable considering the severity of the grievances. They appear willing to disregard their oath to uphold the law, and to accept the destruction of property and lives as long as it is in keeping with their political benefit.

 

Mr. Trump has strongly expressed his unhappiness with the situation, but has constitutional constraints limiting what he is allowed to do about it. He has said publicly that he considers the local leaders in these areas to be fools. Mr. Trump is open and direct. Our recent Presidents, Mr. Obama, Bush and Clinton would express such things in private but would speak in public more diplomatically to disguise and make their real opinions more generally acceptable.

 

As I said, these statements appear to me to be common sense. Alternatively we can just say that it's all Trump's fault and be done with it.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

The Real History of the Black African Slave Trade. The U.S. Didn't Do It.

Two nights ago, Melania Trump mentioned in her Convention speech how much she was emotionally affected by her previous visit to Africa, which included Ghana on the west coast, an area where much of the slave trade occurred. One of the commentators on ABC, which we had been watching, pointed out the irony of her statement considering the present-day racial unrest. Let's review the bidding on the slave trade.

In the early 15th century, 70 years before Columbus, Portuguese seafarers started venturing into the Atlantic Ocean and found and occupied Madeira and Cape Verde islands off the west coast of Africa. They did not venture onto the continent itself, which had already been occupied by Muslim traders who had come down from North Africa. But eventually they did come into contact with these Muslims, some of whom were black Africans themselves who had adopted the Muslim religion and practices.

These Muslim traders introduced the Portuguese to black African slaves whom they purchased and put to work in their island colonies and even brought back to Europe. At the end of the 15th century, following up on Columbus's discovery, the Portuguese, and right behind them the Spaniards as well as the Dutch, went south and east across the Atlantic in massive numbers and occupied large areas of the Caribbean and South America, bringing more black African slaves with them, particularly for the very lucrative sugar cane business. Far more of the black slaves were brought to these areas than were ever transported to North America almost a century and a half later.

But how did this travesty of black African slavery come to be in the first place? How did the Muslim traders along the African coast obtain their captives? The fact is that they were captured, transported and sold by black Africans themselves who had a longstanding practice of enslaving captured enemies or even their own tribesmen who owed debts. Because of the new Portuguese market, they had found a lucrative business. To be sure, later the Portuguese themselves ventured from their coastal islands to the continent itself and participated in the capture of slaves, but the massive numbers to which the trade had evolved involved the full cooperation of the black Africans themselves.

The story is a lot more complex, but that's the essence of it. My point is that it's hypocritical for those who wish to castigate present day America because of its historical moral errors without their considering the complete history of the African slavery story. The whole episode would never have occurred except for the ancestors of our present-day Blacks and Hispanics. Those of us, who like myself, had early 20th century immigrant ancestors had not the slightest involvement. In fact, slavery, which was prevalent in the ancient world of Greece and Rome, was eventually declared to be an evil and put to an end by the early Catholic Church, only to reemerge centuries later as described above. History is important. It must be preserved and investigated and used as a guide. But the present is not the past and children must not be blamed for the sins of their fathers.

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Nancy Pelosi's Urgent Call: The Proper Role of Congress

Nancy Pelosi has made an urgent call for congress to return from vacation. Did she do this because, although the epidemic seems to be slowly receding and the economic activity is improving, there are still many small businesses and their employees who need help and the matter is a pressing one. No, ladies and gentlemen, the emergency is the national postal service, which for the past few decades has been in the middle of a seismic shift in its mission due to digitalization, to which it has been trying to adapt with limited success, and for which the President has appointed as leader a highly accomplished shipping and logistics expert to help the process. The Dems proclaim that the President is trying to interfere with mail-in voting, which is total nonsense, although the President admittedly doesn't help the matter by his occasional commentary. The pieces of mail that would involve is a minute fragment of the amount the post office handles with regularity. Any problem would come from the state's ability to handle the job.

And so, Mrs. Pelosi makes a furor about a non-problem at the same time as she twiddles her thumbs about a real one because she wants to ride the issue to the election. But lest you think I'm too partial I do not excuse the Republicans who in their turn railed against Obamacare for years without any consideration for a suitable alternative when they had the opportunity or for the impeachment of Bill Clinton which was almost as hopelessly impossible to succeed as that of Mr. Trump.

It seems that each side is in the business of obtaining power by hook or by crook rather than finding solutions to real problems by finding points of general agreement and compromise. And why is this? I think it's because "congressman" has now become a lifetime occupation, the main focus of which is maintenance of the position rather than attending to serious legislation which by necessity requires compromise. Its non-functional status has gradually transferred more and more power over the actual management of the country to the executive branch and to the federal bureaucracy.

The executive is the one branch which is restricted by term limits, and given the weakness of congress in actually acting as a compromising legislative body and the excessive strength of the executive, the fight over this position every four years has tended to divide our citizenry into two opposing camps of bitter enemies. It's the best argument I can think for congressional term limits. But, you say, wouldn't that further reduce the power of Congress vis a vis the President? My thought is that this change would dilute the pervasive effect of incumbency and so increase the interest of the public in congressional contests and also would tend to select candidates who were more focused on problem solving rather than maintaining their position for life. The function of a U.S. congressman is to assess the needs of the public in which it makes sense to involve the federal government and to make laws that address those needs, and it is not grandstanding in televised hearings to improve his or her visibility. And the function of the executive is to carry out the laws as appropriate and not to run the country in the absence of a functioning congress. Furthermore, shouldn't the federal government's activities be limited to those things which it makes sense to centralize and leave the rest to the states and localities, just as it says in our 10th amendment.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10