According to the President in this interview, Americans are killing each other faster than terrorists kill people. It is an interesting statement. The President chose his words here very carefully. They are: "We know that the number of deaths from gun related incidents dwarfs those from terrorist incidents around the world" (I think I quoted that right but you can listen to it yourself).
Okay, in this extremely and carefully worded statement, he is absolutely correct. He is also, and I believe knowingly, completely misleading. He equates all gun deaths in the United States to terrorist gun deaths. That's suicides, accidental shootings, etc. That doesn't pass the BS meter for me. All terrorist gun deaths are murder. Every single one of them. So, if we are going to compare apples to apples, then we can only compare gun deaths in the United States that are murder.
It is true that the oft stated average of 32,000 gun related deaths per year would outstrip terrorism related deaths. However, that is not the apples to apples comparison that is needed. As I stated, an apples to apples comparison would be deaths due to homicide. When that is factored in, the President's statement in this interview, while entirely true, falls apart.
Terrorism related homicides from 2006 to 2014 totaled 161,834, averaging 17,982. This number is well below that 32,000 total I mentioned. It is even low enough that one could use the very descriptive word of dwarfs. However, gun related homicides in the U.S. from 2006 to 2013 totaled 94,071, or an average of 11,759. The recently released 2014 number by the CDC has a number around 11,200, so that is consistent with the average. This clearly shows that the apples to apples comparison of deaths due to homicide, or intentionally killing someone with a gun does not dwarf homicidal rates of terrorist actions, it isn't even larger.
That doesn't mean there are a tragically large number of firearms related homicides and even tragically larger number of firearms related deaths. To me, this post is about perception and this President is all about how he can make something look (my opinion). I am certain the President, or at least those who write his talking points are smart enough to understand the distinction between a homicide and something else, but they clearly don't think most Americans are smart enough to pick up on that difference. If we want to discuss guns and gun violence, so be it, but we should at least be honest in our characterizations of the facts. This is NOT an honest way of dealing with the facts. It is intentionally designed to "inform" Americans of something we supposedly don't know, that we kill more people with guns than terrorists kill people. Well, it isn't true and the President knows it. This is why he has specifically worded the statement he makes. This kind of "specificity of language" is used all the times by politicians to lie by telling the truth. There are lies, damn lies, and statstics. Isn't that the quote? Nonetheless, if we don't call the politicians and policy makers out on their BS, then we choose to allow them to pull the wool over the eyes of the people they claim to represent.
Friday, August 28, 2015
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Abortion debate is shifting?
An
interesting day politically speaking. Between Rand Paul and Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, the debate on abortion is being reframed.
Essentially, as chair of the DNC, Schultz came out and said there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, after Paul asked reporters to ask her if she supported aborting a 7 lb. baby still in the womb.
He responded back that we need to determine when life begins and it can't simply be at birth, as the DNC chair clearly has decided. Because, essentially, that means that the only difference between a 1-2 lb. baby in the neonatal unit who has been born and the 7-9 lb. baby who is days or weeks from being born is the actual birth. The one who is born has the "right" to life, but the one is is unborn does not.
Whether I agree with Rand Paul is irrelevant. He makes an excellent point. The only true role of government, imo, is to set up rules to determine outcomes when rights collide. When rights don't collide, there is no issue, so government ONLY needs to inject itself when rights are at odds with each other. In the case of an abortion, it isn't simply a woman's right to control her body that is in play, but also the right to life of the child inside that is in play. Therefore, since two unalienable rights are in play, this is EXACTLY where government should place itself. The problem lies in that society can't agree. From the Catholic Church who says life starts at conception to the DNC chair who says life starts at birth. That's a 40 week difference of opinion.
The Declaration of Independence recognized early the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The Constitution clearly grants its protection to those "born and naturalized". However, the Constitution isn't the final arbiter of rights, according to the Declaration. Rather, something else determines whether a right is unalienable because these supposed rights predate the Constitution and are not determined by government, but exist regardless of government. Whatever you believe that something else to be (God, nature, whatever), almost everyone has agreed that the right to life is one of those unalienable rights.
Therefore, when life begins is the struggle. It isn't for many people of faith because they believe it isn't their choice to determine that and so they often stick with conception. It isn't for those who simply feel life starts when something is born and not before. I do find this an interesting opinion because it is inconsistently applied when the same people supporting this position also support criminal charges against criminals who harmed or killed a fetus. This suggests life isn't the point for that group, but rather whether or not a child is wanted is the point. If it is wanted, well, it deserves protection, even in the womb, but if it isn't wanted or it is inconvenient, well, there's no protection there unless it manages to get born. Welcome to ancient Sparta if that is the case, because that mindset is essentially the same as the Spartan practice.
I don't have the answer. I've never supported abortion of perfectly healthy fetuses, or abortion as a form of birth control. However, I've recognized the possibility of exceptions. Deformity, rape, incest, severe defect. An argument can be made (in terms of rights, not religion) that there is a balance to be had between the two positions. At any rate, I have seen the location of what constitutes acceptable debate on this issue shift today, and if nothing else happens with his candidacy, I commend Rand Paul for that.
Essentially, as chair of the DNC, Schultz came out and said there should be no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, after Paul asked reporters to ask her if she supported aborting a 7 lb. baby still in the womb.
He responded back that we need to determine when life begins and it can't simply be at birth, as the DNC chair clearly has decided. Because, essentially, that means that the only difference between a 1-2 lb. baby in the neonatal unit who has been born and the 7-9 lb. baby who is days or weeks from being born is the actual birth. The one who is born has the "right" to life, but the one is is unborn does not.
Whether I agree with Rand Paul is irrelevant. He makes an excellent point. The only true role of government, imo, is to set up rules to determine outcomes when rights collide. When rights don't collide, there is no issue, so government ONLY needs to inject itself when rights are at odds with each other. In the case of an abortion, it isn't simply a woman's right to control her body that is in play, but also the right to life of the child inside that is in play. Therefore, since two unalienable rights are in play, this is EXACTLY where government should place itself. The problem lies in that society can't agree. From the Catholic Church who says life starts at conception to the DNC chair who says life starts at birth. That's a 40 week difference of opinion.
The Declaration of Independence recognized early the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". The Constitution clearly grants its protection to those "born and naturalized". However, the Constitution isn't the final arbiter of rights, according to the Declaration. Rather, something else determines whether a right is unalienable because these supposed rights predate the Constitution and are not determined by government, but exist regardless of government. Whatever you believe that something else to be (God, nature, whatever), almost everyone has agreed that the right to life is one of those unalienable rights.
Therefore, when life begins is the struggle. It isn't for many people of faith because they believe it isn't their choice to determine that and so they often stick with conception. It isn't for those who simply feel life starts when something is born and not before. I do find this an interesting opinion because it is inconsistently applied when the same people supporting this position also support criminal charges against criminals who harmed or killed a fetus. This suggests life isn't the point for that group, but rather whether or not a child is wanted is the point. If it is wanted, well, it deserves protection, even in the womb, but if it isn't wanted or it is inconvenient, well, there's no protection there unless it manages to get born. Welcome to ancient Sparta if that is the case, because that mindset is essentially the same as the Spartan practice.
I don't have the answer. I've never supported abortion of perfectly healthy fetuses, or abortion as a form of birth control. However, I've recognized the possibility of exceptions. Deformity, rape, incest, severe defect. An argument can be made (in terms of rights, not religion) that there is a balance to be had between the two positions. At any rate, I have seen the location of what constitutes acceptable debate on this issue shift today, and if nothing else happens with his candidacy, I commend Rand Paul for that.
Friday, April 3, 2015
The Price of Doing Business?
So, the question on everyone's mind is...does a religious business owner have the right to refuse to participate in an activity that violates their religious principles???
Do they? I have to wonder. I have avoided this topic for two reasons. One, I don't have the answer, and two, people's responses to this have largely been driven by emotion and hatred for their oppoents (on both sides) rather than logic and well thought out arguments. Generally, today, if someone wants to sell a particular product, they are happy to sell it to anybody who is willing to pay for it. Can someone refuse service to another because they are of a different race, creed, religion, or ethnicity? Um...no. So, the immediate question is whether or not refusing service is discriminatory. Ever been to a restaurant on a beach and seen a sign that reads "no shoes, no shirt, no service". Are they allowed to make that choice? Isn't it discriminatory of them to single out the beach crowd that way?
Obviously, anytime someone refuses to serve another, the opportunists in the media and in politics will take that opportunity to declare that refusal as racist, sexist, or discriminatory in some way. Does it actually make that refusal discriminatory? Maybe, but maybe not. Regardless, screaming discrimination so often has simply cheapened what it really means to be discriminated against, in my opinion. This is particularly true when people get upset about a law that may or may not allow for discrimination, but where no actual discrimination due to that law has yet been documented.
Let's consider the question as I see it. Can a business refuse service...EVER! Obviously they can. If this is the case; therefore, under what circumstances are they allowed to refuse service and it not be considered discriminatory? One might argue that they can refuse service in a way that can be equally applied to everybody, regardless race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or sexual preference. So, in that case, the no shirt, no shoes rule would be equally applied no matter who walked in. I could easily accept this definition, as I'm sure could most people. However, there is a finer distinction at play in the argument going on right now. Does a person of religious faith, be it Christian, Muslim, or alien worshiper...whatever faith, have the right to refuse service to someone because that service would require that person of faith to participate in an activity that violates their religious principles?
To answer this, I have to consider the question more broadly than simply the Christian shop owner not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding. After all, the real question is much broader than that.
So, we, as a society (at least amongst the political elite and the media) seem to be declaring that a person of faith can't refuse service to any person simply because the service would require that they participate in an activity that would violate their beliefs and/or conscience. So, can any business refuse service for any reason based on the activity they would be supporting violating their beliefs or principles or conscience? I don't know! I would argue they can't choose not to provide service because of the nature of the person who walked in the door. However, what about refusing service because of the nature of the event the person is requesting the service for? This is why we must have an honest discussion, not rooted in disdain for one's opponent about this topic.
Here's my questions for consideration. If the above is true and no business has the right to refuse service because they disagree with the activity being carried out, then what about these cases?
Can a Christian shop owner who believes marriage is between two people refuse wedding services to a fundamentalist Mormon who is participating in a multiple marriage?
Can a Jewish shop owner refuse service because the requested service might result in unkosher activity?
Can an African American shop owner refuse service to a member of the KKK because of the detestable nature of the activity that service will support?
Can a gay shop owner refuse service to Westboro Baptist Church because they want that shop owner to make something that expresses their detestable beliefs about gays?
The above examples are the exact same thing that is being argued about now. They are examples of people who may choose to refuse service because of the nature of the event or activity in question, not because of the nature of the person making the request. At what point can a business legitimately say an activity violates their beliefs and/or conscience and they have the right as a business owner not to participate? Ever? If the answer is never, then we are essentially saying that to own a business, or run a shop, or provide service of any kind means that you must check your religion and/or conscience at the door the day you open up shop. If that is what we are declaring as a society, so be it. But can we have that conversation without the unmitigated gall, on both sides, of assuming we are right and the other side is wrong and therefore having the "conversation" consist of name calling and little else?
Do they? I have to wonder. I have avoided this topic for two reasons. One, I don't have the answer, and two, people's responses to this have largely been driven by emotion and hatred for their oppoents (on both sides) rather than logic and well thought out arguments. Generally, today, if someone wants to sell a particular product, they are happy to sell it to anybody who is willing to pay for it. Can someone refuse service to another because they are of a different race, creed, religion, or ethnicity? Um...no. So, the immediate question is whether or not refusing service is discriminatory. Ever been to a restaurant on a beach and seen a sign that reads "no shoes, no shirt, no service". Are they allowed to make that choice? Isn't it discriminatory of them to single out the beach crowd that way?
Obviously, anytime someone refuses to serve another, the opportunists in the media and in politics will take that opportunity to declare that refusal as racist, sexist, or discriminatory in some way. Does it actually make that refusal discriminatory? Maybe, but maybe not. Regardless, screaming discrimination so often has simply cheapened what it really means to be discriminated against, in my opinion. This is particularly true when people get upset about a law that may or may not allow for discrimination, but where no actual discrimination due to that law has yet been documented.
Let's consider the question as I see it. Can a business refuse service...EVER! Obviously they can. If this is the case; therefore, under what circumstances are they allowed to refuse service and it not be considered discriminatory? One might argue that they can refuse service in a way that can be equally applied to everybody, regardless race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or sexual preference. So, in that case, the no shirt, no shoes rule would be equally applied no matter who walked in. I could easily accept this definition, as I'm sure could most people. However, there is a finer distinction at play in the argument going on right now. Does a person of religious faith, be it Christian, Muslim, or alien worshiper...whatever faith, have the right to refuse service to someone because that service would require that person of faith to participate in an activity that violates their religious principles?
To answer this, I have to consider the question more broadly than simply the Christian shop owner not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding. After all, the real question is much broader than that.
So, we, as a society (at least amongst the political elite and the media) seem to be declaring that a person of faith can't refuse service to any person simply because the service would require that they participate in an activity that would violate their beliefs and/or conscience. So, can any business refuse service for any reason based on the activity they would be supporting violating their beliefs or principles or conscience? I don't know! I would argue they can't choose not to provide service because of the nature of the person who walked in the door. However, what about refusing service because of the nature of the event the person is requesting the service for? This is why we must have an honest discussion, not rooted in disdain for one's opponent about this topic.
Here's my questions for consideration. If the above is true and no business has the right to refuse service because they disagree with the activity being carried out, then what about these cases?
Can a Christian shop owner who believes marriage is between two people refuse wedding services to a fundamentalist Mormon who is participating in a multiple marriage?
Can a Jewish shop owner refuse service because the requested service might result in unkosher activity?
Can an African American shop owner refuse service to a member of the KKK because of the detestable nature of the activity that service will support?
Can a gay shop owner refuse service to Westboro Baptist Church because they want that shop owner to make something that expresses their detestable beliefs about gays?
The above examples are the exact same thing that is being argued about now. They are examples of people who may choose to refuse service because of the nature of the event or activity in question, not because of the nature of the person making the request. At what point can a business legitimately say an activity violates their beliefs and/or conscience and they have the right as a business owner not to participate? Ever? If the answer is never, then we are essentially saying that to own a business, or run a shop, or provide service of any kind means that you must check your religion and/or conscience at the door the day you open up shop. If that is what we are declaring as a society, so be it. But can we have that conversation without the unmitigated gall, on both sides, of assuming we are right and the other side is wrong and therefore having the "conversation" consist of name calling and little else?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)