Not free speech

The First Amendment enshrines the right to freely assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances by prohibiting the Congress from establishing a law that would abridge those rights. That is, the Amendment recognizes that the People have those rights.

But what if a group of citizens uses force to prevent other citizens from exercising those same rights? That is exactly what Democrats who are upset over the loss of their candidate in a free election are attempting. In thier own words:

 “We’re exercising our freedom of speech and really want to set a tone for the next few years that there’s a massive body of people … who are very concerned about the dangerous direction Donald Trump is taking our country in. [We hope to] turn the inauguration into as big of a clusterf— as possible.”

Note that the stated goal is NOT to speak their own minds, but to disrupt and prevent other citizens from exercising their own rights to assemble and be heard. They are using force to deny people their rights.

Others have advocated using the Military to delay the inauguration. While this will not happen, it shows that Democrats are not the anti-war pacifists that they profess to be: they have no problem with using violence to achieve their own ends.

The days of civil discourse are over. We are one the verge of another civil war.

Basketball

In the 2016 NBA finals, the Championship was wrongly awarded to Cleveland because they won 4 games of the 7 game series. If you look at the scores for those seven games, the Golden State Warriors scored 699 points, with Cleveland scoring only 629 points. Since the goal of basketball is to score points, the team scoring the most points should win the championship. I demand that the NBA take the Championship title from Cleveland and declare the Golden State Warriors to be the winner!

Ridiculous, right? Both teams knew the rules, and the majority of games won in the series determines the winner. To demand that the rules be changed after the winner is determined is disingenuous. After all, if the rule were such that the winner was determined by points instead of games won, the teams would have pursued different strategies and the outcomes would have been different.

This absurd argument is the exact same one being made by the people who claim that Trump lost the popular vote, and therefore shouldn’t be President.

Violence in school

Several months ago, I was attacked in my classroom by a student. It all began when I was visited in my classroom by the Principal, who was there for an unannounced visit to evaluate the effectiveness of my teaching style as a part of my annual evaluation. During that observation, she noted that there were several students who were engaged with their cellular phones out of my sight. I lost points on my evaluation for not noticing and preventing students who were using their phones.

So, the next day I announced to all of my classes that I would be strictly enforcing the “no cell phones in class” rule that the school had in place. One student in my fourth period class continued to use his phone. I told him that if he continued to use that phone, I would take it to the front office, and he could explain why he was using it to the Principal, who would administer punishment in the process. The student replied: “I would like to see you try to take it.”

As per school policy, we cannot write a discipline referral without first contacting the parent, so that afternoon, I sent an email to the student’s mother. I never got a reply.

The next day in that class, students again were using their phones. I told them to put them away. It took two announcements, but all finally put them away, except the one student. I saw him there, typing a text message. I took his phone, and he said “Why are you being such a jerk?” I told him that he would have to get it back from the office. I wrote the incident up, and sent it to the Vice Principal.

When class was over, it was time for lunch and the student hung back a bit. He approached me and asked for the phone. I again told him he could get it from the office. At that point, he tackled me. A short struggle ensued, and we wound up in the hallway, with me lying on top of him, holding him down.

While legally a child, this student was large. Larger than I am. A defensive back on the football team, the seventeen year old junior is over six feet tall and weighs more than 170 pounds. He bench presses 205 and can dead lift 375 pounds. This is a child in name only.

There were no witnesses, since the other students had left the class. The evidence seemed to all be on my side: the email to the mother, the referral, the fact that he stayed behind to confront me. The police investigated. I was reassigned to temporary duties that did not involve student contact while the investigation was carried out. I hired a lawyer. She told me that even if the school cleared me, it was likely that I would be fired, because I was now a liability.

His friends on Facebook post pictures and videos of themselves with handguns. I am disarmed while at work, and while driving to and from work, because I cannot have a weapon in my car. They are not similarly encumbered. 

I decided that even if I were to return to the classroom, I would not be safe. I would have to watch my back every day. A month and a half later, I was still not back in the classroom. I no longer felt safe ir supported, so I resigned.

The student? All he got was a week of out of school suspension- for “fighting” – not for attacking a teacher.

2015 Homicide numbers

Four years ago, I posted that 28% of the residents of the USA were responsible for 53% of the homicides in 2011. I want to revisit this using the Uniform Crime Report for 2015, so I can compare it to 2016, when those numbers come available.

According to the 2015 Uniform Crime Report from the FBI, there were a total of 14,856 homicides.

Looking at Table 16, we see that there were 5,990 homicides in cities with a population of 250,000 or more. There were 1934 homicides in cities with a population of 100,000 to 249,999. Meaning that in cities with a population of 100,000 or more, there were 7,924 homicides. That represents 53.34% of all homicides in the nation.

There are a total of 93,613,802 people who live in US cities with a population of 100,000 or more. That represents 29.13% of the population.

So 29.13% of the population of the US is responsible for 53.34% of the homicides. The homicide rate in this group is 8.46 per 100,000. The homicide rate in the remainder of the nation is 3.04 per 100,000 – nearly 1/3 as many homicides per capita as the cities.

Get over it

Let’s say that I am a basketball fan, and my favorite team loses the big game with a score of 102 points, to your favorite team’s score of 108. Your favorite team won, because under the rules of the game, you scored more points.

But wait, I claim that my team SHOULD be the winner, because they scored more times. You see, your team won because 14 of their baskets were shot from beyond the 3 point line, and 27 of them were worth 2 points, while the remaining 12 were foul shots and worth a single point. This means that your team scored 53 times. My team on the other hand scored 15 single point free throws, 31 standard two point baskets, and only 8 three point shots, meaning that my team scored 54 times.

I demand that the basketball league declare that my team is the winner. I declare that we should get rid of the 3 point shot, and use only the number of baskets to decide the winner. Of course, had that been the rule going into the game, your team’s entire strategy would have been different and the game would have played out differently. Changing the rules after the game has been played so that you use hindsight to get the result I want is what I am advocating.

Ridiculous? Sure is, but that is exactly what the Democrats were pushing for with respect to the election, and in demanding that the electoral college be eliminated because you happen to not like the outcome of the election is using hindsight to change the rules after the game has been played.

The election is over, the electoral college has spoken. Hillary lost. Get over it.

Something to hide

We often hear the following quote:

If a man is hiding something, it’s because he’s got something to hide.

That is silly. Of course people have things to hide. We all do. Things to hide range from financial information like credit card numbers, Social Security numbers, and the balance in my bank account, all the way to personal or potentially embarrassing information like my sexual preferences, or the fact that I like to watch romantic comedies.

The point is this:
Just because I am hiding something doesn’t mean that what I am hiding is illegal, immoral, or any of anyone else’s business. That is why the founders felt that this right was important enough that it needed the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment to secure it.