I cannot just agree to disagree

 WARNING: Political/social commentary
I saw this survey today (below). 

Recently(post-election) I have seen several comments from people who just want the nation to be healed and WISH that people could just agree to disagree.
I GET that, and I also want the nation to be healed, but...I'm going to take another view.

 
This presidential election (2024) was different than ANY previous election in the U.S.. There were several distinguishing differences, to wit:
One candidate was not selected for the ballot through the normal primary process.
Both parties advanced candidates with a track record after having held the highest, or second-highest office in the land.
There were four years worth of metrics by which to quantify the previous performance of each candidate and the differences were more starkly contrasted than between any two presidential candidates ever in our history.
Each candidate, and the parties they represented, offered a very clear path towards achieving their party's agenda.
Neither candidate was considered a 'prime pick' by most of the voters in America.
Each party's agenda could be clearly judged as to its consistency with national history, tradition, and the U.S. Constitution.
Every voter cast their vote as a reflection of THEIR values, traditions, and their understanding of and support of the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme law of the land.

Given all of that, at the end of the day, the voters picked the ground upon which they staked their future. I believe that most voted their conscience, selecting the candidate which best reflected their values.

This is quite clarifying for me. And, also quite troubling.

As illustrated in the graph below, based upon a survey, there are people (mostly young, as this survey was done by college students) who are so committed to their beliefs and values, that they cannot, or will not seek, or try to maintain a relationship with anyone who has a strongly divergent view.

I'm OK with that. Actually, I LIKE that, in some sense, because any meaningful relationship is rooted in shared values, beliefs, goals, and experiences. In this present example, those all point the future of our country: either further away from our constitutional foundations and moral values, or returning back to those roots. Personally, I do not want to invest the emotional energy or resources to have a relationship with any person who so despises those fundamental values. This is much too important.

While I can appreciate the spirit of "let's just agree to disagree", I cannot join myself to someone I consider to be an enemy of my most sacred values and beliefs. This is not merely a disagreement about some superficial issue, or some tertiary sentiment. This division of America is central to our fundamental values. It is the core of our system of laws and governance. It is the heartbeat of our national unity-what makes us the UNITED States of America.

People who cannot support the U.S. Constitution, or America's founding principles, are not going to be part of healing America. There can be no peaceful coexistence with someone whose fundamental values are hostile to our healthy, sustainable, regeneration as a beacon of hope for the world.

I am a man of peace. I choose to try to live in peace, as much as possible with my fellow man. I am tolerant of superficial differences. But there is a line between good and evil that none of us should be willing to compromise. I am willing to fight for 'truth, justice, and the American way'.

It is my opinion that this will be the point of the spear that produces, not only civil war in America, but ultimately, World War III.

And this, my friends, is why no one invites me to parties.
JAS 2024

 

A Liberal Comments on Conspiracy Theorists

 

 I recently (11/2024) read an article on Yahoo news about dealing with friends who become 'conspiracy theorists". It was written by a liberal. He makes some good points that pertain to relationships in general, but he makes some unwarranted assumptions, I think.

The Article was written by Sean Kernan, a Yahoo creator.  He says, “I acknowledge that much of my criticism in this piece is aimed at conservative leaning folks. I’d caution my fellow liberals against being sanctimonious and condescending during these discussions, as that is how we are sometimes perceived.”

Kernan told of a friend who was a pretty smart guy but who recently got very concerned about the Covid vaccines. The friend brought up “weird” questions and Kernan said that he was bringing up “ off-the-wall ideas I’d never even heard of.” The friend was quoting as a source, a podcast by someone whom Kernan described as “extreme political ideologue”. Kernan continues, “It wasn’t even a subject that I had strong opinions on, nor that I was particularly interested in.” And yet, he concludes in advance that the friend's ideas were 'off-the-wall' and further, that he'd never even heard these ideas advanced before.

See, that is part of the problem. People hold a ‘point of view’ that is most likely not well developed, nor personally researched, and may not even be a ‘hot topic’ for them but when they hear an opposing point-of-view, it grates mightily on their perceptions of reality and they are ill-prepared to defend what they actually believe. It is easier to dismiss the other person as a conspiracy nut. And Kernan wonders he and his liberals friends sometimes perveived as 'sanctimonious'.  Go figure.

Kernan goes on with his story: “I saw him again a few months later. He mentioned the election being stolen from Trump, and that’s when I started squirming…. It didn’t seem like he was inspecting the stories behind them, doing real research or, candidly, using basic logic.”

I agree with Kernan when he makes this comment: “The gulf between us was wide.” Most people, liberals and conservatives, do not do their own research. But ‘basic logic’ applied to twisted facts will lead to twisted conclusions. If we are serious about knowing truth, we must have confidence that our sources are people of integrity; honest, diligent, and critical of their own potential bias. This is true for all of us.  Logic, applied to actual facts, MAY lead to truth, if we have enough of the facts, and if those facts are relevant and timely, and any contrary facts are not intentionally ignored (i.e. ‘cherry picking’). Even then, one might still apply logic and yet be able to defend an alternative conclusion.
  
The definition of evidence is this: “Any fact which tends to prove the truth of the matter asserted”. The starting point for our analysis is that the facts themselves must be objectively accurate and verifiable.  Then, armed with actual facts, the analyst (truth seeker) must interpret those facts objectively. If the analysis contains bias, then the interpretation becomes subjective and the conclusions probably not accurate (not truthful).
If the analyst (truth seeker) already has bias towards a certain outcome, that will lend emotional energy to the analysis process, and that will likely lead to error. It is true that while passion may follow reason, reason will not follow passion. In other words, Passion will seldom lead a seeker to truth, but reason will, and when the mind is firmly resolved (objective truth; reliable), then the heart will follow. But if someone is being led by emotion, they will lose objectivity, and their conclusions will subjective (unreliable) truth. The Bible says (Jeremiah 17:9) "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

Kernan goes on about his friend, who is becoming a conservative before his very eyes.; “It was weird to feel so confident that I was on the right side of this issue. It was also discombobulating to have someone I cared about espousing views that were borderline offensive.”  I noted that Kernan never says that he has personally researched the issues, yet he seems quite comfortable accusing his friend of not so either and yet he (Kernan) nevertheless ‘feels quite confident’ that he is right.   Doesn’t that seem like the pot calling the kettle black? Sounds like incredible hypocrisy to me. Kernan (and most liberals, it seems) are offended when their liberal (subjective) feelings are challenged by actual (objective) facts.  What is the point of trying to maintain a relationship with anyone who is terrified of the truth?

After reading the article, I would like to have had a good discussion with Sean Kernan to perhaps get some clarification and to better understand his position. I would like to have engaged with him, word-for-word, and subjected his narrative to strict critical analysis.

In closing, I remind you not to be dismayed when you find that most people are so emotionally connected to their subjective point-of view that they cannot even see their hypocrisy.  It’s nice to have ‘thinking’ friends, with whom you can carry on intelligent, objective, logical conversation. Those are few, and far between.
John Sterling

Us vs Them

 

Us vs Them

The battle lines have been drawn. America is divided along ideological lines, each with historical roots that extend back to antiquity. There is a belief system (ideology) that holds certain core tenets: God is, and He is the rewarder of them diligently seek Him. He created us in His image and has a plan for mankind. He has delegated certain limited authority to us, and we, in turn, create government to protect the rights of man. It is this group and this doctrine that forms the philosophical basis for American law and government. This group, with which I identify, is “us”.

The other group holds that man is the highest authority and that government is a mechanism whereby the best and brightest will govern the affairs of everyone else. Government is the tool that allows the small group of elitists to control the masses (everyone else, in their view).  This is the ideology that is the basis for globalism and ultimately, a one-world government. These two ideologies are competing for the soul of America (and the world). This group is “them”

In order for a one-world government to operate, all traces of nationalism must be erased. Any notions of individual rights (as against government) must be quashed. The elites that have been chosen to lead must be obeyed if (according to this ideology) we are to “ascend” (or evolve) to higher social consciousness.  The operational plan requires that the foundations of self-governance (rooted in self-determination’ self-reliance, and personal accountability) must be destroyed. Any idea, or conduct, that is justified by the belief that it reflects the character and nature of God, must be tightly controlled or restricted altogether. ONLY the wisdom of the elites must be acknowledged as the guiding light for social conduct.

Laws, rules, regulations, mandates, executive orders, government departmental edicts are to be granted unquestioning moral authority. Assertions of personal liberty must never be permitted to trump “the greater good” or else the great global objectives (climate change, world peace, environmental balance, etc.) cannot be realized. Rebellion against these ideas must be suppressed by any and all means necessary.

We the people (“us” in this narrative)  however are committed to the founding principles. Conservatives (in this context) still believe that human rights are endowments from God, and that the primary purpose of any government is to protect those basic human rights (as defined and explained by God through His Word) by the authority of the governed.  WE (the people- “us”) hold that the only POWER that government may use against us is that which is derived from the AUTHORITY that WE (the people- “us”) have delegated to government in the first place.

It should be crystal clear to the reader at this point there can be no compromise as to these to competing ideologies, for they are diametrically opposed. They are mutually exclusive- one cannot exist in the presence of the other.

The heart and soul of America is up for grabs. Each person will decide which master they will obey but you cannot serve both. A failure to choose IS a choice.

Dr. John Sterling, MA, JD                                               November, 2021

Comments on the George Floyd Trial

 

April 21, 2021

I have some questions, and some observations about the end of the George Floyd Trial (4/20/21)

The jury concluded that Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin was responsible in part for the death of George Floyd.

Under Minnesota law, applicable to the Floyd case, Second degree murder is charged when someone "...causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense...". The requisite felonious act of which Chauvin is accused is "committing or attempting to commit felony third-degree assault" which in Minnesota is defined as the "intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm."

Third Degree murder is "perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life."

Second-degree manslaughter charge alleged Chauvin caused Floyd's death by "culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm."

Central to all of the charges is the element of causation, or that Chauvin was a substantial causal factor in Floyd's death.

The question is this: By what legal theory, or principle, does the state stack all those charges, which are (in my opinion) minor variations of a single action by a single perpetrator, against a single victim, at a single point in time and place.

In my experience, (admittedly limited) the judge instructs the jury at the end of the trial that if the prosecution's case in chief is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, the jury may still find the defendant guilty of one or more lesser charges.

I've never seen this happen before.

A felony is required for the conviction of 2nd degree murder. The requisite felonious act of which Chauvin is accused is "committing or attempting to commit felony third-degree assault" which in Minnesota is defined as the "intentional infliction of substantial bodily harm."

BUT... if the placement of a knee on the upper back/ shoulder (Chauvin's knee was NOT on Floyd's neck in any of the footage I have seen) is an approved method of restraint in most police departments, then what is the likelihood that it represents an ascertainable risk of "substantial bodily harm"? Said another way, if it was known that such a move would place a suspect at risk of substantial bodily harm, IT WOULD NOT BE APPROVED as a restraint method. Since that is an essential element of the 2nd Degree Murder charge, that count should have failed on those grounds.

A similar argument could be made for the Third Degree murder, which in Minnesota is when one is "perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life." IF the form of restraint use by Chauvin is approved by a significant number of police agencies, then by the same logic, then how can it be supported that Chauvin's conduct was "imminently dangerous"? There IS a case to be made that it was not the METHOD per se, that Chauvin used, but rather the length of time which he deployed that method. A "good" (approved) method might be justified for two, three, or even four minutes, but at some point that method might become unacceptable. A baton might be used to strike a knife-wielding assailant but the same baton used repeatedly after the assailant is disarmed, would be an excessive use of force. A strong case can be made (I think) that this was such an example.

That only leaves standing the final charge; 2nd degree manslaughter. Even then, the question is not the method, but the duration. The standard would have to be what the "reasonable, trained, police officer" would deem reasonable. In this case, other cops testified that Chauvin's use of this technique was excessive. That's pretty damning testimony which would lead a reasonable "non-cop" to find Chauvin guilty of the 2nd degree manslaughter charge.

Here's something that probably needs to change. There is a persistent notion that if you can talk, then are NOT having "too much" difficulty breathing. If you can talk, you can breathe.

Reliable, expert testimony in the Floyd trial instructs us that that particular piece of "common knowledge may, in fact NOT be true.

On 25 May 2020, during the actual arrest, George Floyd pleaded at least 16 times, “I can't breathe.” One officer in attendance nonetheless told bystanders, “He's talking. He's fine”.   (source: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4186 )

Police have long been taught that if/when a person in custody is complaining of not being able to breathe, they may be telling the truth. (I say MAY be, because people in custody will say anything to try to escape custody).

Possibly, the myth that the act of speaking indicates the ability to breath may come from standard first aid training for victims of choking. But the point here is, that it is NOT "common knowledge" so it is not therefore "common sense" to let somebody up from the position of control on the ground- something that accusers of Derek Chauvin (and other officer's similarly accused) have bandied about. (i.e. the nine-year girl to whom is attributed great wisdom and insight when she told Chauvin to "Get off of him".) If common sense is a counterpart to common knowledge, then it might be reasonable for officers to doubt Floyd's claims. He was, after a felon on drugs, resisting arrest. (A very large felon, at that).

But given the publicity of this trial and the outcome for Derek Chauvin, police departments and police training academies all over the world will be altering their training with respect to any restraint methods that involve the detainee's respiratory functions. This is a GOOD thing.

I think the defense team may have missed the boat however by not making the point that prior to this, we (police) may not have had all the information we needed, and moreover, MAY have received improper training based on incomplete understanding human physiology. What, if any, impact could/should that have on Chauvin's conviction?

Another important lesson that needs reinforced is that politicians must exercise self-discipline and refrain from commenting on cases that are being investigated or cases that are in the trial process. Rep. Maxine Waters on Saturday night (4/17/21) called for protesters to "stay on the street" and "get more confrontational" if former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is acquitted in the killing of George Floyd. "We've got to stay in the street and demand justice," Waters said to reporters, according to video posted on social media. (Source: https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/maxine-waters-derek-chauvin-trial/index.html)
Shaun King, the opinion writer and Black Lives Matter activist, agrees. Under the headline “America will riot if Derek Chauvin isn’t convicted for killing George Floyd,” King wrote: “Yes, Dr. (Martin Luther) King said that riots ‘are the language of the unheard,’ but hear me now – if Derek Chauvin is not convicted of some degree – first, second or third – of murder, if he is not held accountable in the court of law, a reckoning is going to befall this country one way or another. And it should.”  (Source: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/greg-moore/2021/04/03/if-derek-chauvin-acquitted-or-guilty-will-there-riots/4823203001/)

Justice is never served when procedures are not followed, or relevant evidence is ignored, or juries are unduly influenced, as is certainly the case with the Floyd trial. Emotions must be checked and reason must rule the day. Any time a trial becomes a media circus, or the innocence or guilt of the accused is the fodder of media elites, the rule of law becomes trashed and none of us are safe.  The Criminal justice system will not, and CANNOT work effectively if it must give way to careless, inflammatory, performances by politicians and media folks. This represents, in my opinion, the collapse of our republic.

Are Mandatory Vaccinations Constitutional?

Coronavirus and Smallpox do not warrant the same intervention.

Could mandatory vaccinations for Covid-19 be a constitutionally permissible exercise of state authority?

Americans are responding differently to the government response to the Covid-19 pandemic.  Generally, the recommended (or required, in some cases)  mandate from government at local, state, and federal levels, includes at least 6’ social distancing, and mask-wearing. Rarely are these requirements issued as a result of geographically -specific, case-driven, studies. Usually, they have been pronouncements made because of media and political pressure without regard to actual corona-virus impacts in the immediate area.  Some Americans are happy to follow those mandates because they either believe in the prophylactic effect of those measures, or the effort is small compared to the inconvenience or the risk of negative social pressure. Other Americans are reluctant to comply without more science, or more of a causal connection related to actual threat statistics.  Some people refuse to comply with government mandates just because it seems like excessive intervention in violation of individual personal rights (liberties).

Depending on the willingness of those people above mentioned to do their own research, and to base their positions on science and law, they might incorporate one of two US Supreme Court cases from 1905; Lochner v New York, and Jacobson v. Massachusetts.   A searcher of truth will rely on the best science available, and be particularly respectful of conflicting data and opposing conclusions drawn from the same research. (Sadly, I KNOW this is often not true). In a more perfect world, laws and policies would always consider the best science available, and consistent with jurisprudence, would never be tolerant of government intervention that was more than the minimum absolutely necessary. Probably, every person reading this will be aware of many examples where government has not been faithful to  this rule.   

Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Lochner v. New York are both 1905 Supreme Court cases.  Both cases deal with private (individual) rights in tension with public duties and the rights of the public.  Both are context-specific, so understanding and applying  the legal principles cannot be accomplished without the context of the case fact patterns and narrative. The two cases "say" opposite things if one does not understand (and apply) the context.

In 1902, A Massachusetts statute granted city boards of health the authority to require vaccination “when necessary for public health or safety.” When smallpox surged in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the city’s board of health issued an order pursuant to this authority that required all adults to be vaccinated to halt the disease. The statutory penalty for refusing vaccination was a monetary fine of $5 (about $100 today). There was no provision for actually forcing vaccination on any person. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/ )

Henning Jacobson refused vaccination, claiming that he and his son had had bad reactions to earlier vaccinations. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found it unnecessary to worry about any possible harm from vaccination, because no one could actually be forced to be vaccinated: “If a person should deem it important that vaccination should not be performed in his case, and the authorities should think otherwise, it is not in their power to vaccinate him by force, and the worst that could happen to him under the statute would be the payment of $5.” (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/)

In Jacobson, The Supreme Court had no difficulty upholding the state’s power to grant the board of health authority to order a general vaccination program during an epidemic. No one disputed, and the Constitution confirmed, that states retained all the sovereign authority they had not ceded to the national government in the Constitution. (See: 10^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) Jacobson was the rare case in which a state’s jurisdiction was not questioned—because no one claimed that the federal government should control a local smallpox epidemic. Instead, the question was whether the state had overstepped its own authority and whether the sphere of personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment38 included the right to refuse vaccination. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/)

Jacobson must be understood in the context of the smallpox epidemic.  Smallpox was a devastating disease. On average, about 30% of people who got it died. Those who survived were usually left with scars, which were sometimes severe. Smallpox was equally severe across age, sex, and economic conditions.  Smallpox was a genuine public health threat. Covid-19, on the other hand has a mortality rate of less than 1% (probably less than a half of one percent). It is most dangerous to people with compromised immune systems and people over 60 years of age.  It is NOT the same threat, and does NOT require the same counter-measures.

The Court (in Jacobson) mentioned 2 justifications for the Massachusetts law. First, it found that the state may be justified in restricting individual liberty “under the pressure of great dangers” to “the safety of the general public.” The statute, by its terms, encroached on liberty only when “necessary for the public health or safety.” The smallpox epidemic proved the danger to the public. Second, by using the language of earlier decisions, the Court said that laws should not be arbitrary or oppressive. It also suggested that the state should use means that have a “real or substantial relation” to their goal. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/)

Lochner is a case about the right of people to enter into contracts, to earn an honest living, and the limitations on government authority to interfere with that process. In America, the right to labor and earn an honest living is considered a God-given (inalienable) right which government is obligated to protect.  BOTH cases articulate important legal principles that relate to the current pandemic.

[below is excerpted and edited from Constitutioncenter.org]

The story of the Court’s 1905 opinion in Lochner v. New York begins in 1895, when New York State passed the Bakeshop Act, one of the state’s earliest labor laws, in an effort to regulate sanitary and working conditions in New York bakeries. At the time, Joseph Lochner was a Bavarian immigrant who owned Lochner’s Home Bakery in Utica. In 1899, Lochner was charged with violating the Bakeshop Act, as he had allowed an employee to work for more than sixty hours in one week. For this, Lochner was fined the requisite $25. Two years later, in 1901, Lochner was charged and convicted for a second offense of the Bakeshop Act’s 60-hour provision, this time paying a $50 fine.

Lochner’s attorney, Henry Weismann, argued on behalf of Lochner that the Bakeshop Act violated the Constitution’s protection of the “liberty of contract,” or an employer’s right to make a contract with his employee free from governmental interference.

The Court said that, in order to approve of a state’s use of its police powers to regulate contracts, the question was whether the legislation was:

    “a fair, reasonable and appropriate exercise of the police power of the State, or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty or to enter into those contracts in relation to labor which may seem to him appropriate or necessary for the support of himself and his family?”

Therefore, because the Court found that the baking industry was no more or less healthful than other common professions, and that the law was not related to the health of the employees, it was an invalid exercise of the state’s police powers.

Lochner, though not the first case to do so, found that the due process rights of the 14th Amendment were not just “procedural,” but were also “substantive.” While “procedural” due process rights limit the means by which the state may deprive a person of their life, liberty, or property, “substantive” due process rights limit the types of activities and rights that the government may regulate by deeming them to be fundamental. (SOURCE: Constitutioncenter.org)

A lot can change in 100 years.  While the states’ sovereign power to make laws of all kinds has not changed much during the past century, what HAS changed is the US Supreme Court’s recognition of the limited authority of government and the mission of protection of that individual liberty.

Smallpox was a devastating disease. On average, about 30% of people who got it died. Those who survived were usually left with ugly scars. Smallpox is caused by the variola virus, a DNA virus of the genus Orthopoxvirus. Humans are the only known reservoir for this virus. It is transmitted from person to person, and natural infection occurs by inhalation of respiratory droplets or contact with infected material on mucous membranes.

Similarly, Covid-19 (SARS Covid-2) is spread by inhalation or contact, but non-human animals may also host this virus. Persons with incompetent immune systems are at risk of complications following vaccinations.

During the second half of the 20th century, the US Supreme Court recognized that the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment included most of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.43 Individuals were protected from an abuse of state and federal power. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/)

In light of both Jacobson and Lochner, and consistent with U.S. Constitutional principles, The federal government does not have national authority to required vaccinations. This is ONLY a power held by state governments, and then ONLY when there is compelling evidence that such intervention is the least restrictive means to achieve legitimate state interests.

Author’s conclusion: It is not hard to imagine a situation where the danger to the public is so great as to warrant a government “solution” that would overcome objections about personal liberty. But the Covid-19 vaccine is not it.   Not by a longshot.
JAS
Dec 2020