Category Archives: Op-Eds

Op-Eds

Why We Must “Politicize” Guns

Leave a comment

Gun photo from RGBStock

 

Every time there’s a mass shooting, or even a particularly well-publicized single homicide, all of America’s political factions go directly to battle stations on the question of whether or not the violence can be reduced or eliminated with “gun control” legislation. As the debate rages on, the calls begin to ring out from different corners that whatever else we do, we must avoid “politicizing” the issue.

Have you ever noticed that the “let’s not get political” talk always seems to emanate from the side that perceives itself as on the losing end of the argument at the moment?

Right after the incident that opens the latest “gun violence” news cycle, Michael Bloomberg, the Brady Campaign, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, and other openly and unabashedly political actors roll around in the blood, jump on top of the caskets and start doing the funky chicken for “gun control.”

While that’s happening, pro-gun and pro-civil-rights organizations issue somber condolences to the families of the dead and argue against “politicizing” things.

Later, as the tide turns against the idea that a bunch of new laws will reduce the body count, the anti-gun groups shower off the blood, don mourning black,  and urge us to stop being so darn political about the lives they’re trying to save, while the pro-gun/pro-rights groups jump on the political stage and start making practical suggestions (permitless open and concealed carry, armed teachers, etc.) to actually save those lives.

Why bother pretending that this issue is ever beyond, or apart from, politics? Does anyone really buy that?

Politics is, according to the most applicable definition from the 1913 edition of Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, “the conduct and contests of parties with reference to political measures or the administration of public affairs.”

Support for or opposition to “gun control” legislation is by definition political. It can’t be anything else. We’re not sitting around the dining room table talking about the weather, baseball, or little Bobby’s upcoming piano recital. We’re in each others’ faces over proposed or opposed use of force by government.

There’s certainly a right side and a wrong side here.

One side continues to back legislation that is clearly unconstitutional, that inherently violates human rights, and that as a practical matter increases homicide rates everywhere and every time it’s tried (including but not limited to the Gun-Free School Zones Act).

The other side — unfortunately not always consistently — points out that the right to keep and bear arms is not just a basic human right that is clearly and unambiguously protected by the US Constitution, but that it has consistently proven to be the best way of reducing violent death among the innocent.

But both sides are hypocritical when they retreat to a “don’t politicize this” position. And not just hypocritical, but careless. If we stop discussing political issues, all that’s left is to start shooting each other over those issues. And as Winston Churchill once said, “to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

No Huawei! US Spy Chiefs Reverse Course on Phone Spying

Leave a comment

RGBStock.com WWW

If it seems like only a year ago that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was telling us how dangerous it is for Americans to have encrypted smart phones that make it hard for the FBI to poke around in our data, that’s because yes, it really was only a year ago.

In early 2017, James Comey took Apple to court, demanding that the company help the FBI hack into the iPhone used by San Bernardino terrorist/murderer Syed Farook. Other officials have kept up a steady whine against strong encryption ever since.

But now, CNN reports, the FBI and other US intelligence agencies are suddenly and ever so deeply concerned with preserving your smart phone privacy.

Testifying before the US Senate Intelligence Committee, officials from the FBI, CIA, NSA, et al. warned Americans against using phones made by Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE.

Why? Because, Christopher Wray (Comey’s successor at the FBI) explains, the Chinese government might equip, or find and exploit weaknesses in, such phones to “maliciously modify or steal information” and “conduct undetected espionage.”

I feel Wray’s pain. The US spy community has presumably been playing catch-up with China and everyone else since last March, when WikiLeaks released its “Vault 7” series of documents exposing the CIA’s tools and methods for compromising your electronic privacy. Wikileaks then went to work helping American tech firms harden their gear against those tools and methods. Wray and friends must really hate the idea of being in second place behind Beijing when it comes to eavesdropping on, and rifling through the files of, Americans.

Who would you rather have crawling around inside your cell phone: The FBI or China’s Ministry of State Security? It’s not a tough call for me.

We’re separated from China by an ocean, and their government probably doesn’t give a hoot about the three felonies author Harvey Silverglate says the average American commits every day. Unless I’ve got the  military’s nuclear launch codes or pictures of Donald Trump and someone else naked together on my phone (eww!), the Chinese probably aren’t interested.

The FBI, on the other hand, seems to spend a lot of its time charging people with crimes that shouldn’t even BE crimes. Like, for example, lying to the FBI.

If I didn’t already own a Samsung, I’d be temped to tell the FBI to shut up and get the heck out of my Huawei.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Purpose versus Excuse: Why Congress Might Buy Trump’s Food Stamp Reform Plan

Leave a comment
English: Logo of the .
English: Logo of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Politico reports that the Trump administration wants to partially replace “food stamps” with “a box of government-picked, nonperishable foods every month.” Under the plan, recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, which these days are delivered as debit card balances rather than as physical coupons — “stamps” — would receive about half as much money to buy food with. The other half would be replaced by the “America’s Harvest Box,” stuffed with “100 percent U.S. grown and produced food” such as shelf-stable milk and canned goods.

From the initial response, one might expect this plan to go nowhere. Its cost-cutting benefits are debatable (the US Department of Agriculture says it would save $129 billion over ten years, but they’re not including the cost of actually delivering the food). Grocers oppose it for the obvious reason that it would reduce the amount of money flowing through their cash registers. Smaller-government types point out that it would entail a bigger USDA and that families are better judges of their own food needs than some box-packing bureaucrats.

But it still might pass. Why? Because the purpose of “food stamps” is not what most people think it is.

What is that purpose?

No, it’s not to feed the poor. That’s a happy side effect and a convenient excuse.

The real purpose of the program is to justify welfare checks to Big Agriculture.

That’s where the program came from, starting during the New Deal, when US Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace proposed it as a bridge across “a gorge, with farm surpluses on one cliff and under-nourished city folks with outstretched hands on the other.”

That’s why low-income households received “government cheese” in the 1980s when the federal government got caught warehousing enormous quantities of dairy products it bought for the purpose of propping up milk prices.

And that’s why SNAP remains the largest appropriation line in the “Farm Bill” that Congress passes every five years (the 2014 Farm Bill dedicated $756 billion to “food stamps and nutrition”).

Good arguments against Trump’s proposal notwithstanding, the “America’s Harvest Box” would serve the program’s true purpose well in one particular respect:

It would let government direct money to specific farm welfare queens in a way that can’t happen if SNAP recipients can buy whatever they want to eat using the debit card.

If the dairy industry is the squeaky wheel this week, more milk and cheese goes into the box. Next week maybe it’s more cereal because the grain farmers hired a sharper lobbyist. And the week after that, more canned beef stew or ham after those industries make smartly targeted campaign contributions.

Yes, the whole thing has to be sold pursuant to the excuse, and it will be. The box will deliver more balanced nutrition than people are inclined to buy for themselves, and more food at less cost to the taxpayers. And so on.

All of which may be true, but the decision, as always, will be made in favor of special interest groups with more clout than the hungry.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY