Progeny of Liberty

Guest Blog 15 Jul

Today’s post is from Steven Lieberman, an attorney, firearms training expert, and co-owner of Artemis Defense Institute in Lake Forest. (Artemis)

The Progeny of Liberty

One of the more interesting aspects of being a weapons trainer is listening to clients talk about the Second Amendment. Contrary to what many people may think there is not really a flat out consensus on what it means….even among gun owners. 

Like religion there are fundamentalists … and others that see nuances and a need for limitations. I suspect most of the deviation in opinion surrounds itself around what exactly the

Second Amendment exists for in the first place.

Some of our clients see it as a means of protecting us from the Government. Others see it as a backfill for the military in case of foreign attack. Some see it as a codification of a right to self-defense. Others as a recognition of our ancestral hunting heritage. I tend to see it a little bit more broadly:

To oppose tyranny 

The Second Amendment exists to allow us to protect ourselves against tyranny. Tyranny comes in many forms. A foreign army forcing themselves upon us. A corrupt federal government that seeks to expand through force unjust laws beyond their chartered responsibilities. Tyrannical local authorities that have violated their responsibilities to their citizens. Criminals, that seek to use force or intimidation to profit from their victims.

Yes…Tyranny is not relegated exclusively to government misbehavior. Tyranny is the use of force rather than persuasion to compel an individual to surrender their status as a sovereign being to the will of another.

The robber, rapist, arsonist, abusive spouse, sexual predator….they are all first and foremost tyrants. They may have underlying issues that make them who they are…and that is potentially interesting…but from the immediacy of the victim… largely irrelevant.

Tyrant prophylaxis

Our Framers way back in 1787 recognized this…and they recognized a right, to protect ourselves against tyrants…regardless of where they manifested.

To ensure that that tyrants for the most part remained in the shadows they recognized a right for the people to keep and bear arms. This right…this responsibility…created a deterrent to would be tyrants, and continues to this day.

If all were angels 

If all of our brothers and sisters were angels there would be no need for a Second Amendment. Actually…there would be no need for a Constitution at all. But not all of those we encounter are in fact angels. We as a species exist on a continuum of human behavior, and even within our own existence we rise and fall on times and circumstances. 

Reliance on the assumption that those that seek to control us…regardless of their motivations … will always result in a benign result is folly. Just as we see the dynamics in our own social encounters we must assume that the same spectrum exists among those that potentially could do us harm.

Our defense against this is the realization among those same individuals that tyranny will be met with fierce resistance. That as a nation of sovereign individuals we WILL fight back against tyranny.

 

Our Framers recognized this…and gave us the tools to fight tyranny back in the 18th century…and God willing…through the centuries that lie ahead.

Guest post: Old School Cop

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Bribes and fracking

Everybody else is dishonest -- really

An ad in Discover magazine reminded us of commentary about a different subject in the Daily Pilot. The ad advised; “Imagine a Pain Free life.” It hawked sneakers designed to reduce back pain from foot impact. Buying shoes to find nirvana is much like finding avarice wherever you look. Mentally (and emotionally) competent adults do neither.

Criticised vote

A letter in the Pilot chastised Assemblyman Mansoor for voting against a bill to stop fracking. (Pilot letter) Fracking involves injecting water deep into the ground to make petroleum extraction more efficient. (fracking post) An EPA study of gas leakage in a specific area of Wyoming was the major (supposedly) factual criticism of fracking but it’s been redacted: it was untrue.

One would think that the letter would prompt intelligent discussion about the relevant studies of fracking, or the economic potential of harvesting the new oil fields it makes usable. But one would be wrong: most of the comments diverted to Mansoor’s vote being bought, one even offering that he taught Costa Mesa Councilmen how to take bribes. Others criticized the independence of Costa Mesa Councilmen and one opined that a Mesa Water executive would sell the city desalinized water.

Why the irrelevant diatribe?

We should consider why everyone (else) is on the take – to these few constant critics. Remember that projection involves attributing one’s own weaknesses to others. (Projection post) So either everybody they don't like is actually dishonest and manipulative, or else . . .

The OC Grand Jury would relish a good bribery case if the commenters’ remarks were based upon facts, or even defensible suspicion. But of course that’s not true – remember the yet-unincorporated CM4OE (Costa Mesans for Opposing Everything). (CM4OE post) They're still out producing heat and smoke – but no light.

One commenter linked a data source for support. Donations from some groups to Mansoor’s campaign totaled $20K. These groups were found to (probably) oppose the bill he voted against. (That’s in the context of over a quarter of a million dollars to fund his campaign.) The commenter just cherry picked his facts.

Irrelevant flailing

The critics brought in irrelevant (and erroneous) labeling (“…considers hunting for ‘sport’ recreational . . . the same kind of ‘environmentalist’ Mensinger is.”). It appears that the commenter wasn't capable of finding facts or developing logic, so she tried to appeal to emotion on an unrelated subject. And, she tossed in a jab at a City Councilman who wasn't mentioned in the letter. Her comments bring to mind the toy sold many years ago; a “whirling dervish” that flailed about randomly at everything.

So, Mansoor’s vote was criticized by folks who loudly claim that he, Costa Mesa Councilmen and their appointees accept bribes for their votes. And Mansoor and Mensinger were broad-brush attacked for their fact-based environmental stands which had nothing to do with the subject of the letter.

Evidence of thinking was limited

Only two commenters dealt with fact and reality. They addressed the economic and environmental advantages of fracking and geological science.

Rational discourse was limited, irrational flailing abundant in the comments.

Employees pay or city pays?

Paying their own portion

We've seen blogs, newspaper comments and media interviews that praise Costa Mesa’s employees for “picking up all of their retirement costs.” What does that actually mean?

They're supposed to pay

California's pension systems require public employees to pay 8 to 10 percent of their gross pay toward their pensions. Law enforcement officers may pay more because they are able to collect full pensions earlier in their careers and receive more generous benefits than other workers.

"People may think the employees are paying 8 percent. Well, it turns out (some) are not," said Joe Nation, a public policy professor at Stanford University. Some unions (associations) have negotiated special deals that require the city to pay both the employer’s and the employee’s portions of the retirement assessment.

 

This benefit has become so egregious that state lawmakers banned the practice for anyone hired after Jan. 1, 2013. The state retirement system for teachers has never allowed it.

Paying all of their retirement costs?

So, are the employees in Costa Mesa paying all of their retirement costs? Kind of.  The employees are actually paying, in most cases now, their own portion of their retirement investments.

Compare to private sector

If that sounds like what the private sector does, it should. However, in the private sector, the investments become effectively a trust fund for the individual’s retirement. If poor investments were made, there will be less cash available. And, the money decreases over time as savings are depleted.

The retired City employee is guaranteed their income, with increases every year for inflation – at least for the rest of their life. That is, their income goes up, not down. And, the guarantee is based upon their earnings in the last year of work, including accumulated vacation, overtime (much overtime is accumulated during the last year!) and various special pays.

They're now paying their mandated share

So, what the bloggers, commenters and union president are saying is, the City no longer pays the employees’ portion of a very lucrative retirement program. That’s different from, “now paying all of their retirement costs.”

Are the employees evil for enjoying lucrative pensions? Of course not, they, like entrepreneurs, seek the best return for their time and efforts. Are their unions evil? Again, no. The unions (associations) are businesses that seek maximum income by increasing membership and increasing fees or dues. The fees may be difficult to increase without garnering attention (perhaps by blocking and chest-bumping visitors at a City Council meeting). Negotiating sweetheart deals works even better.

Who did it? 

Who’s responsible, then? Much like our Congress when Obamacare was proposed, our elected representatives accepted what others, including the union, told them instead of doing due diligence. That was then.

Now, under Costa Mesa’s COIN ordinance, the final responsibility falls on the citizens of Costa Mesa. 

If the Council agrees to “sweetheart deals” in the future, we'll know. We can use the referendum process to block the giveaways.

And then we’ll be responsible to “throw the rascals out.”

Guns=safe, Meds=deadly -- sometimes

If guns make us safe and drugs kill . . .

A recent study commissioned by the “anti-gun” U.S.  administration concluded that defensive uses of guns to thwart crime are at least as common as offensive uses of guns by criminals. And, on the next page the report noted that there were consistently lower injury rates among crime victims who resisted with guns. (Study)

Dem evil guns, or cars, or . . .

This conflicts with “demonization” of tools; “guns are bad/dangerous/evil.” One pundit noted tongue in cheek that he has had a firearm under constant video surveillance for over a year and it hasn't harmed or even tried to harm anyone.

Whether we're talking about the dangers of cars or guns or chainsaws, it’s the people, stupid! Or, in the case of inadvertent firearms discharges (there’s no such thing as a firearms accident in this blogger’s opinion), it’s the stupid people.

Demonstrates stupid behavior

That brings to mind videos of Sen. Feinstein, an irascible firearms opponent from Northern California. In demonstrating firearms she puts her finger on the trigger and directs the muzzles about the room and over her visitors.

A grade-schooler could list each of the four universal firearms safety rules she was violating minute by minute. However, the Senator only mentions features that supposedly make weapons “dangerous,” such as a pistol grip (at a right angle to the barrel) and a bayonet stud. She doesn't mention that her carelessness was far more dangerous than an AK47 in the hands of a trained 10 year old.

What causes violence, then?

If we accept the premise that people, not guns are responsible for firearms violence, we can ask “why?”

 

One answer suggested by a psychologist and authority is violent video games. It’s not so much the games; it’s the amount of exposure to competitive killing with psychological rewards. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book, On Killing, discusses the idea in some depth.

Daren Savage wrote about another, well-supported reason for firearms violence; psychotropic medicines. He outlined the drug regimens of each of the mass killers, demonstrating that each was taking medication that had known side effects that include loss of touch with reality, a propensity to violence, and/or an inclination toward suicide. (Daren's)

An authority in the field, albeit one with some skin in the game (he conducts defensive firearms training) agrees. Dr. Ignatius Piazza also writes about the universal association of psychotropic meds with violence. (Google "Front Sight.")

You-Tube clips feature interviews with a lot of therapists who emphasize the dangers. (Interviews) Even Michael Moore, the darling of the “Limousine Liberals” has placed the blame for Columbine – and other violence, on medications. (Moore)

Are we fighting windmills instead of dragons?

So, if we can show that firearms violence tends to be closely associated with psychotropic meds, and that the cities with the harshest anti-gun laws experience the most violence toward non-criminals, and that citizens using firearms to protect themselves from crime face less injury, why the push to “outlaw guns?”

They tell us to remember that sometimes people really are after the paranoids. Perhaps we should also remember that sometimes conspiracy theorists are right, too.

 The lion isn't afraid of the sheep -- especially when they're disarmed.

Fuzzy thinking is here

Fuzzy thinking; it’s here in Costa Mesa, too.

The U.S. Constitution, under the provisions of the Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the states’ ability to forbid medical procedures, specifically, abortion. (Roe vs. Wade, 1973) 

This exemption from state regulation, for the patient and especially for the practitioner, confirms that the Privacy right under the Constitution is superior to the right of the state to regulate medical procedures. (Ginsberg said)

Do they understand the questions?

Recently Hoag Hospital was denounced for “denying women’s constitutional right to abortion.”(Letter) Hoag didn't write a state law about abortion. Limits to state law were what were decided in Roe; beware of fuzzy thinking.

While Al Gore was championing his version of “global warming” he was questioned about some of his estates that left all the outside lighting on every night. Wasn't that extensive all-night lighting contrary to conserving resources?

He replied that he had purchased “Carbon Credits” to offset the use of the lights. There were no Carbon Credit exchanges at the time, but Gore was reported to be part owner of companies planning to trade in carbon credits (imagined to be much like stock exchanges). Perhaps he had purchased the credits from himself. 

However, that begs the question “Is it OK to waste resources if you pay someone else not to waste them (through ‘carbon credits’)?”

That was some more fuzzy thinking in the “global warming” foolishness.

Closer to home 

In Costa Mesa a citizen advised the City Council to contract with his company to do a “needs assessment” to determine if there is a need for a Charter. Why put a lot of time and effort into writing a charter if we don't need one?

That, too, is fuzzy thinking. A charter establishes the rights of a (city in this case) to govern its own affairs. It sets up the rules that guide and constrain city laws (ordinances) about matters that concern only Costa Mesa. It’s very difficult to legitimately quantify the effects of something that hasn't yet been written.

That citizen is now suggesting a “needs assessment” to the Charter Committee through his position on the committee.

Tea Party without a needs assessment

What would have been the “needs assessment” of a British colony that was experiencing onerous controls and taxes from the home country without any viable way to affect its governance? Perhaps the assessment would have shown too much risk and advised more petitioning. But a bunch of folks got frustrated, and without any needs assessment whatsoever, threw a boatload of tea into Boston Harbor.

Which led to our recently-celebrated Independence Day.

What's in the future for Costa Mesa?

Will the Charter Committee be derailed into looking for detailed “needs”? And will it then follow with a hasty charter developed through further fuzzy thinking? Will it succumb to pressures from organized labor and its front organizations?

Or will the members think clearly about consequences, ramifications, and the best way to grab our independence back from State Government?

Time will tell. We can hope.

Independence Day

Independence Day: it means we must summon our courage

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

George Orwell

A few brave, politically-involved men risked their lives and everything they owned to earn freedom and independence for all of us.

A few brave soldiers and cops – and involved citizens – still do. With freedom comes responsibility, including the responsibility to defend the freedom and independence won for us at such great cost, by so few.

The responsibility doesn't end with soldiers and cops; it obligates every citizen who enjoys the independence that we celebrate today. Even if we are afraid. Especially if we are afraid.

This is an internal debate, not something that comes from outside. When we look for rejection and reasons to hold back, that’s exactly what we will find. On the other hand, if we seek the opportunity to serve, we'll find it. 

Everyone is, at some level, scared. Everyone has the instinct to hold back. Those who overcome it aren't born brave. They are people who, as John Wayne said, “saddle up and get on anyway.”

They confront their innate fear instead of hiding from it. 

Happy Independence Day. It’s not about fireworks, parties, or long weekends. Maxine tells us:

Continued ignorance -- or just hate?

Ignorance in the face of reality

One of the local haters has erupted again. An irrational and chronic-hater (of Righeimer and Mensinger) recently blogged some biased diatribe for our entertainment. He’s always hateful and usually wrong; and has been since about 2005. (Hate blogging history)

He said, “We used to have THE BEST municipal law enforcement helicopter program in the country until our Mayor got peeved at the CMPD because they opposed his candidacy for office, so he spear-headed the movement to close down the A.B.L.E. program.”

Reality that intrudes

Remember that we had flying police who were available part of each day (A.B.L.E.) to support our street cops. That essentially part time air support cost a great deal of money. Devoted officers, certainly, but they were expensive. 

The City Council disbanded A.B.L.E. to forestall financial disasters. They contracted for on-call, around the clock aerial support for our police at less cost.

And further: “Righeimer crows about saving money by shuttering the A.B.L.E. program, yet spends that money on parties to distract the residents from what is really happening in our city.”

Uh, he can't do that, actually

The Mayor can’t spend City money. The City Council directs City staff to accomplish something, whether it’s to continue the Holiday “Snoopy” program or to develop a self-supporting celebration of our City’s 60^th anniversary. The Council approves the plans that efficiently accomplish their goal and then funds the implementation.

Apparently the blogger believes he has omniscience: he knows the inner motivations of what he perceives as an all-powerful figure able to shut down programs and spend money as he wants. Rubbish!

And, “We should be putting more public safety boots on the ground instead of throwing feel good events every few months. . . I've never seen a man so willing to demonstrate such a combination of arrogance and ignorance before!” Really?

Projects own weaknesses

He criticizes the Mayor for pretending to know about police work when Righeimer’s actually meeting his responsibilities for balancing income, infrastructure and services. 

But the blogger’s own “combination of arrogance and ignorance” ignores the science. Studies and experiments suggest that “boots on the ground” beyond a minimal staffing level have little effect on crime. (Crime Science) 

That is, he knows more than the scientists who have demonstrated that community concern thwarts crime, but additional cops don’t. (Full disclosure: "no tolerance" policing has also been shown useful, and it might require overtime expense or even additional officers in unique circumstances.)

Commenter won't play

One of his anonymous (some call it cowardly) commenters noted: “I have not volunteered, nor will, nor plan to even attend this event because of what it is really about, and I know I am not alone” about the Kickoff to the 60^th celebration. 

He or she, then, won’t get involved in what they perceive is the Mayor’s sneaky plan to manipulate them.  This one provides us the entertainment of his/her omniscience (or naïve acceptance of the blogger’s omniscience), hubris (effect of his/her not supporting our City), persecution delusions and lack of the Community Concern that thwarts crime.

Silly is as silly does

Irrational commentary, when it’s silly enough, can be entertaining.

But don’t be fooled by foolishness. Facts matter, but opinions stated as if they were facts are – opinions. 

And, some opinions have been in error since 2005.*

* See comment below

Magical or stupid

Magical or stupid

“If you borrow money to make money, you've done something magical. On the other hand, if you go into debt to pay your bills or buy something you want but don't need, you've done something stupid.”

Seth Godin

Mr. Godin was talking to business owners and private individuals. His wisdom can be applied to cities, school districts and all public agencies with a little rewording:

“If you borrow money to build the city (or district or school) you’ve done something magical.” The second phrase applies without change.

It’s magical because borrowed money becomes improvement in infrastructure that attracts more (productive) people and grows the city. Borrowed money builds computer labs and provides funds for materials that help students learn and excel, which makes their parents proud. People move in because they want their children to learn and excel.

Stupid

Borrowing to pay off operational debt or to buy beautiful new District Offices is stupid. Borrowing when the payback is fifteen times the amount borrowed is really stupid.

Buying things that may be nice is stupid. Buying things with public money to help the current decision-makers get re-elected is immoral as well as stupid.

And silly 

There’s a kerfuffle in the paper about the results of an in-depth investigation into Mesa Water. The gist of it is, some of the directors ordered salmon when they should have had hamburgers. Beyond that, some expenses on the district credit cards may have been excessive to the need. About a third of a percent of the total expenditures by the district was questioned.

As a Board, they made good decisions concerning millions of dollars. They achieved an independent water supply for Costa Mesa. Their financial decisions make us highly bond worthy (for pipe repair and to cover emergencies). There may be waste in the expenses that total less than one percent of the overall expenditures. If that’s the case, hand slapping and better oversight are in order.

A billion to make him feel good

Self-serving decisions about spending other peoples’ money is endemic. One estimate of the cost so far for our President’s and his family’s personal entertainment and relaxation exceeds a billion dollars.

If the opportunities of public office include stealing (legally, for the most part) from constituents, we have a problem. If we let it pass, or worse, condone it, or worst of all, try to join in at the feeding trough, we get the representation we deserve.

Boot 'em or watch TV and go to bed? 

In Costa Mesa, it’s up to us. We have to decide, do we want people who borrow money at outrageous rates in office? Will we re-elect politicians who spend our money buying our votes?

Monitoring politicians, writing letters, and attending meetings are all time consuming. We have to watch for overpriced bonds and vote-getting eye candy. Or we can gossip over the fence about some schmuck who probably overspent on dinners, and go back to watching TV. And accept the stupidity.

We get what we are willing to work for – and what we deserve. 

Including stupidity.

What do you think?

Snide remarks hide lack of understanding

A few commenters posted about a perceived conflict they saw in interviews with the Mayor and the Chief of Police. They want to see one as “right” and the other “wrong.”

Review of the use of statistics is in order. Two models:

Two Paradigms

First, a new grad is offered two jobs, one in Detroit and one in Austin. She notes the demographics of a younger population in Austin and anticipates a great nightlife and lots of single, active people like her. The demographics for Detroit suggest an older population, high unemployment, and a very high violent crime rate.

Would she be in more danger in Detroit? Probably, but that’s not proven. (For example, if she’s lived in Detroit she knows where not to go, what not to say, and how to reduce her risks.) The relative danger posed by Detroit is a reasonable assumption, although it may not be factual.

A young man also received two job offers, one from a firm in Palo Alto, and one from a firm in Long Beach. As he follows up with each he asks for a career projection; “where will I be in three years? What HR programs do you have to guide my career?”

So the woman used assumptions based upon demographic information to make a choice. The young man analyzed policies and statistics to get an accurate appraisal of the odds he faced in his “upward mobility.” They had different information needs for their decisions.

Mayor and Chief need different info

Similarly, the Mayor observed that, as both the early release of prisoners (through new sentencing guidelines and plea bargaining) (Release) and more-dangerous prisoners released from local jails paralleled  increased crime complaints in Costa Mesa. His responsibility as an executive is to anticipate needs for resources. He’s satisfied that the parallel increases, although not proof, indicate that increased resource needs are likely.

The Chief of Police needs specific data with clearly-demonstrated causes to plan solutions.  Declaring a “diagnosis” of the cause and developing the “plan of care” to address it would be premature if the cause is not proven. (Medical Problem solving)

For example, if the cause of a crime uptick turned out to be more homeless people in the City, task forces monitoring and addressing the early-release prisoners would be futile and a waste of resources. Or, if he discovered that increased violence resulted from timid officer contacts he could institute training to change officer image and behavior. He needs specific causes to formulate specific plans.

Getting the data

As more parolees are checked for compliance, more problem motels are inspected and more criminals are identified and arrested, he can analyze how many police contacts and arrests involved the locally-released dangerous criminals. He needs specific information to make specific plans.

Different needs, with Mayor Righeimer and Chief Gazsi both collecting and

using information appropriately for their needs.

Insults and snide remarks do nothing but define the commenter.(Insults define insulter)