Murfreesboro C.A.P.E to the Murfreesboro Post

In response to the recent Murfreesboro Post article by Jonathan Fagan.

Your recent article concerning the City’s red light camera system was not exactly accurate and more than a little biased.

Here are the facts:

According to the Chief of Police’s report, the total number of crashes (of all types) between 2008 and 2012 has declined 11% per year on average. However, the number of crashes seen at camera enforced intersections has only fallen 1.1% per year on average.  This clearly shows that the camera enforcement system is not working as expected.

Furthermore, side-angle crashes at enforced intersections have decline 32% since 2008, while the decline at all intersections has dropped 42%. The overall trend is a decline in intersection crashes unrelated to the camera system.  In fact, between 2011-12 side angle crashes at camera enforced intersections rose 37.15% compared to a decline of 42.1% at all intersections.

TCA 55-8-198 (and related sections) makes it plain that a violator who does not pay their fine will not have their failure to pay noted on either their driver’s license record or their credit report. Councilman Smotherman’s point was simple – the law, as written, lacks teeth and in reality any driver may simply ignore their citations and the City is without recourse to force them to pay.  Additionally, the system sets up two different punishments for the same crime, a potential violation of the Equal Protection clause.

Consider this:  An individual runs a red light and is caught by the camera system.  They are issued a citation and refuse to pay it (as 70% of those cited do). The violation does not appear on their record and even the collection agency is prohibited from listing a payment failure on their credit report.

Another individual runs a red light and is caught by a physical police officer, they are cited and any failure to pay can result in arrest. The citation itself is also noted on their driving record.

American Traffic Solutions receives 50% of the citation fee which, since 2008, amounts to $1.87 million which has left our community and gone to an out-of-state company. On top of this, the City budget lists that the operation of the red light camera system costs the taxpayers $740,000/yr or $2.2 million since 2010. And while Mayor Bragg has insisted that safety is their main concern, ATS specifically states that their systems are geared toward providing a revenue source for municipalities. 

The videos shown of intersection accidents are a prime example of why the red light camera system fails to offer safety. The offending drivers were not simply running a red light; they were driving incredibly recklessly, were drunk and showed no regard for the safety of others. The threat of being caught on camera is hardly a sufficient deterrence. If there was a police officer watching the intersection, in person, they could have apprehended the driver then and there and prevented any further accidents down the road. As the system stands, the drunk driver could continue on for miles before a police officer catches up to them. 

ATS, a private company, is doing the work of the police and yet is free from any oversight. No one knows how long they keep the day-to-day video they capture, nor do we know if they sell the information they receive or if their systems are protected from computer attacks. Seven states have banned the use of these camera systems and numerous cities have removed them from their streets. On top of that, courts in California and Missouri have ruled against these systems, citing for one thing - a major conflict of interest. We at Murfreesboro C.A.P.E are committed to having these cameras taken down and to return the running of our city, and its agencies, back to the citizens of Murfreesboro. 

-- Jacob Bogle

Murfreesboro C.A.P.E (Citizens Against Photo Enforcement) 

https://www.facebook.com/MurfreesboroCAPE

Thoughts on the Public Debt & Expenditures of the City of Murfreesboro

Background

The City of Murfreesboro is located at the geographic center of the State of Tennessee. It has a certified population of 109,031 (July 2012 census). The City’s population growth has exceeded 42% per decade on average.

Revenues

Despite a population increase of 4.2%/year, revenues have only increased an average of 2.5% per year. _{[1-pg 11]} Additionally, revenues from property taxes (the largest single revenue source) have remained comparatively flat since 2009. _{[1-pg 12]} For fiscal year 2013, the City of Murfreesboro has budgeted $112,050,683 in revenues for the General Fund and plans to expend $117,311,137 for the year; a difference of $5,260,454. _{[1-pg 14]}

Expenditures

Construction of Phase IV of the Stones River Greenway is expected to cost $4,750,000. While most of this will come from federal grants, 20% of it ($950,000) will come directly from borrowed funds. _{[1-pg 36]}

The City plans to spend $15.2 million for Parks & Recreation and Golf courses which is a 67% increase over the 2009-10 year. Recreation in general (parks, greenways, golf course etc) ranks as the 3^rd largest single expenditure for the City which nearly ties the amount spent on the Fire Dept; the Debt Service Fund comes in at number one with $26.1 million budgeted. More is spent on “recreation” than city schools, the drug fund, senior citizens, the street department, and transportation combined. _{[1-pg s 41 & 63]}

The City also boasts about having the highest rate of pay increases for any city in the state of Tennessee. The pay increases amount to $1.3 million per year and in terms of pay increase percentages, is 3 times higher than that of Chattanooga (whose revenue for 2013 is $97 million more than Murfreesboro’s). _{[1-pgs 20-21] [2-pg 6]} 

City Budget Departments (Personnel)

Note: Personnel counts include full and part-time employees. The averages are based solely on the number of employees. All budgets are limited to “personnel costs” only which includes salaries, overtime, medical, retirement (401a), insurance, Social Security, pensions and worker’s compensation. 

The General & Administrative Dept of the city (Mayor, administration, etc) consists of 32 employees with a personnel budget of $1,827,291 or $57,102 per person. _{[1-pgs 71-72]}

Information Technology Dept: 11 employees and a personnel budget of $752,026 -- $68,366/person.  _{[1-pgs 77-78]}

The Communications Dept has 8 employees and personnel costs of $496,000 which averages $62,000 per person_{. [1-pg 84]}

Legal: 7 employees, $715,732 budget -- $102,247/person. _{[1-pgs 88-89]}

Human Resources: 9 employees, $648,608 budget -- $72,067/person. _{[1-pgs 93-94]}

Judicial: 6 employees, $362,743 budget -- $60,457/person. _{[1-pgs 97-98]}

Police: 316 employees (including officers and support persons), $20,114,644 budget -- $63,653/person. Without insurance, retirement etc, the total net salary is $43,711/person. _{[1-pgs 106-107]}

     --The operation of the City’s red light cameras are costing $740,000/yr. _{[1-pg 108]}

Fire & Rescue: 189 employees, $13,793,603 budget -- $72,982/person. _{[1-pgs 114-115]}

     -- For 2012 Fire & Rescue responded to 11,566 calls. For their 2012 budget this equals to $1,077 per call. _{[1-pg 113]}

Building and Codes: 22 employees, $1,574,278 budget -- $71,558/person. _{[1-pgs 120-212]}

Planning and Engineering: 18 employees, $1,476,815 budget -- $82,045/person. _{[1-pgs 129-31]}

Transportation: 25 employees, $1,203,928 budget -- $48,157/person. It is important to note here that 9 employees are part-time. _{[1-pgs 136-38]}

     -- The city will spend $185,000 on traffic signals. _{[1-pg 138]}

Street: 29 employees, $1,677,543 budget -- $57,846/person. _{[1-pg 144-45]}

     -- The Street Dept estimates it will resurface 56 miles of roadways for 2013. When averaged against the department’s operating budget (minus personnel & capital expenses) this equals $43,216/per mile. _{[1-pg 143]}

-- The State Street Aid Fund is managed by the Street Dept. It has no employees of its own but does contain a budget with $2,830,000 in funding and $2,830,750 in expenditures. This fund comes from the State Fuel Tax Allocation to the City and is used to help maintain sidewalks, drainage, and streets within the City limits. _{[1-pgs 209-212]}

Urban Environment: 15 employees, $798,672 budget -- $53,244/person. The personnel budget amounts to 77% of the entire budget for this department which is $1,030,820. _{[1-pgs 151-52]}

     -- The operations & maintenance, supplies and materials budget for 2013 is only 14.6% of the total allocated. _{[1-pg 152]}

Civic Plaza: 1 employee, $47,485 personnel budget. The total budget for this department (which only includes the plaza) is $109, 909 with only $17,000 going to operations and maintenance. _{[1-pgs 154-55]}

Parks and Recreation: 324 employees (254 are part-time), $5,729,787 budget -- $17,684/person. However, full-time wages are $4,073,077 (full personnel budget minus part-time wages) or $58,186/person. _{[1-pgs 165-66]}

     -- Additionally, $11,565 has been budgeted for trophies and $2,500 for “educational animals.” _{[1-pg 166]} As well as, $6,000 for 10 trashcans (yet only $1,090 for 10 picnic tables), 7 computers, a 32” TV, an iPad, 2 video cameras, and a TV with DVD player. _{[1-pg 167-69]}

Senior Citizens: 19 employees (10 part-time), $617,505 budget -- $32,500/person. _{[1-pg 174]}

Public Golf Course: 52 employees (38 part-time), $1,267,943 budget -- $24,383/person. _{[1-pgs 181-83]}

     -- The total combined budget for the Old Fort Golf Course and the VA course is $2,023,404 which makes personnel costs 62.6% of the budget. _{[1-pg 184]}

     -- Based on the budgets given, revenues from the golf courses only constitute $1,920,974 which means the courses run at a deficit to taxpayers. The deficits are: 2010 -$45,653, 2011 -$302,605, 2012 -$271,067, 2013 -$102,430. This is a combined loss of $721,755. _{[1-pgs 41 & 184]}

Solid Waste: 45 employees, $2,517,342 budget -- $55,940/person. _{[1-pgs 188-89]}

Airport Fund: 7 employees (6 part-time), $194,953 budget -- $27,850/person. _{[1-pgs 217-18]}

Community Development Fund: 3 employees, $131,229 budget -- $43,743/person. _{[1-pgs 226-27]}

Risk Management Fund: 3 employees, $275,787 budget -- $91,929/person. _{[1-pgs 243-44]}

Fleet Services: 13 employees, $910,652 budget -- $70,050/person. _{[1-pgs 247-48]}

Interestingly, the Parking Garage department has an $116,975 budget with no employees. 89% of the budget is for the electric bill. _{[1-pgs 157-58]}

In all, the City lists 787 employees. _{[1-pg 288]} If we divide the number of employees by the amount allocated for personnel ($57,134,566), the average City employee makes $72,598. Of course most employees make a good deal less than this (as little as $21,000) and others, such as the City Manager, can earn as much as $163,856. For a full list of pay grades please see pages 283-287 of the City’s budget.

Debt

The City’s credit rating is AA- (Stands & Poor) and Aa2 (Moody’s). _{[1-pg 202]}

The City has incurred deficits for 3 out of the past 5 years. Although the budget authors assure us that the City is on track to pay off its debts in 10 years, between 2012 and 2013 the City issued $44 million in new loans. _{[1-pg 236]} The budget also does not include the estimated $104 million in unfinanced expansions to the City’s greenway system. _[3] As of 2013, the City has $227,015,053 in long-term debt with a debt limit of $421,978,966. _{[1-pg 207]} The 2013 amount budgeted for debt interest payments is $6.7 million _{[1-pg 42]} which, if it were its own department, would be the 4^th largest in the entire budget (3^rd largest if we take out the Debt Service Fund)  and is the largest single line-item expense. _{[1-pg 63]} The Debt Service Fund accounts for over ¼ of the entire City budget and is the largest item in the budget, eclipsing the Police Department by over $1 million. _{[1-pg 63] The debt service costs every citizen $61.45/yr in taxes which doesn't sound like much, however the interest payment amount has risen 246% since 2009-2010. [1-pg 42]}

The debt per person in Murfreesboro is $2,082. The debt-per-person of the city, state and finally the nation looks like this:

Murfreesboro - $2,082

Tennessee - $937 (the State is $6 billion in debt) _[4]

National - $53,300 (using $16.8 trillion) _[5]

All of this means that each and every man, woman, and child in this city is burdened with $56,319 worth of public debt.

 -- Jacob Bogle

5/5/2013

Sources:

1. 2013 Murfreesboro City budget - http://www.murfreesborotn.gov/uploadedFiles/government/Finance/BudgetFY2013.pdf

2. 2013 Chattanooga operating budget - http://www.chattanooga.gov/images/citymedia/finance/2013_Final_Budget_all.pdf

3. The Murfreesboro Greenway Situation - http://www.jacobboglewrites.com/2013/03/the-murfreesboro-greenway-situation.html

4. 2012 State of Tennessee Indebtedness Report -http://www.comptroller.tn.gov/repository/sl/NewsAndUpdates/12312012StateIndebtednessReportfinal.pdf

5. US Debt Clock – www.usdebtclock.org

North Korea, the Nuclear Question

Kim Il-sung, North Korea's founder, had seen the devastation wrought by the bombs dropped on Japan in WWII and witnessed the obliteration of the Korean Peninsula by Allied forces in the Korean War. Almost from the start Kim Il-sung desired to develop his own nuclear weapons program. But, his desires were placed on hold as more pressing issues were on the table at the end of the Korean War, namely, rebuilding the country and completing his restructuring of the entire economy, military and culture.

With the Soviets as allies, North Korea felt relatively safe from American "imperial aggression" and so they went about more basic national concerns. However, they engaged in lower level nuclear activities with the USSR. In 1956 their scientists were given basic knowledge on how to begin a nuclear program and in 1959 the DPRK and USSR signed a "nuclear cooperation" agreement.

The collapse of the USSR marked the beginning of many changes in North Korea. It precipitated the famine, helped to wreck their economy, and a few years later they restarted their nuclear program after losing their primary defensive shield - the Cold War threat of all out nuclear war with the ruin of the US. Their nuclear program had been on hold since 1994 but in 1998 they tested a ballistic missile and restarted processing nuclear fuel.

Today, North Korea lacks any ability to sustain a long-term, full-scale war. Most of their tanks and other weapon systems are around 25-30 years old and many sit idle or broken because North Korea lacks sufficient fuel, replacement parts and even bullets. But we should not let that lull us into a false sense of security. The North Korean soldier is one who is strongly motivated, loyal to the point of religious zealotry, and is constantly reminded that all of their problems are directly caused by the US.

For us, the Korean War ended in 1953. For the North Koreans, it's still happening. The country's leadership knows full well that without Soviet and Chinese support during the War the North Koreans would have been wiped off the face of the earth...and they very nearly were. And so today, they see South Korea flourishing, they see thousands of US troops stationed in the South and they realize they probably can't count on Russia or China in the event of a new war. At the same time they also remember that prior to the early 1980's they had a stronger economy and better infrastructure than their southern cousins. So what is a tiny country with a schizophrenic superiority/inferiority complex to do?

Their insistence on developing a serious nuclear defense program is one we find difficult to understand. After all, the money they've spent pursuing this goal could have fed the entire population for several years. We have to realize that what the national leadership does is for its own survival alone and not necessarily the well-being of ordinary citizens.

For decades, North Korea has promoted itself to its people as a strong nuclear power and fully capable of sending satellites into space; at the forefront of any and all technologies. The reality is that they're bumbling about with little to go on except what they learned via the Soviets and their interactions with Iran, Syria and Iraq. Their brightest scientists are decades behind the modern world. And so, in an effort to ensure their legitimacy in the eyes of the people, and to reap the benefits of aid monies and arms deals, they have become hellbent on developing nuclear weapons and all the ancillary technologies that goes along with it.

The military is the lifeblood of North Korea. The official policy of North Korea is "Songun" (military-first) which means, in essence, the entire purpose of the nation, its economy, agriculture, technology, everything is to serve and enhance the military. And while the Kim family seems like they have had an iron-fisted grip on the county's affairs the reality is that they (more precisely, he; Kim Jong-un) must maintain an uneasy alliance between himself and the military leadership. It would go a long way toward cementing his rule if the military was well taken care of, which would include a nuclear arsenal.

This leaves us with a few questions:
What about sanctions?
What is the real threat?
Where does all this leave us today?

The first question deals with sanctions. The US and UN has levied multiple rounds of sanctions against North Korea since 2004. The problem with this is sanctions more often than not hurt the people of a country more than the leadership. Sanctions have attempted to squeeze the ruling elite into submission, in reality they have played right into their hands. The sanctions have drastically limited the amount of fuel oil and other necessities flowing into the country thus exacerbating their economic problems and hampering the ability of everyday Koreans to thrive. Exceptions have been made in the realm of food aid but this too has had a negative effect. By their very nature any aid that goes to North Korea must first go through government bureaucracies and the military is usually the one who ends up with the aid. Then soldiers take truck loads of food and sell it on the black market fueling the corrupt and the terminal kleptocratic state of the country.

The international community has also failed to realize that what constitutes "luxury goods" to the West is not what people in North Korea consider luxury. A simple TV is a luxury good in the North, not necessarily a gold-plated toilet. And the elite have had little problem getting their "luxury" goods since the UN doesn't provide a strict list of what exactly luxury means, rather they let each member country determine what is or isn't.

Sanctions, normally US led, also fits the propaganda. By engaging in sanctions and severely harming their domestic economy the North can easily blame all their woes on the US and can use them as an excuse to use their sovereign imperative for self-defense by citing a "need" for a nuclear deterrence. So while sanctions may make the West feel good about "stopping a rouge regime", the North is busy working their starving people into a frenzy of anti-American sentiment, ready to wage war at the drop of a hat. Not to mention that despite sanctions the North has recently tested two nuclear devices and multiple long-range rockets. Sanctions are clearly not working.

Furthermore, North Korea is not as dependent on outside help as one might expect. Their successful "satellite" launch in 2012 was a prime example. Based on the examination of rocket parts found in the ocean the world was shocked to discover that much of the rocket was domestically made. North Korea also has a fair amount of natural uranium deposits (32,000 TONS of pure uranium to be exact). Uranium enrichment is a rather straightforward process and the technical skills needed to produce a uranium-based nuclear device is much less than needed to produce a plutonium bomb. All of this tells us that while sanctions may make things difficult for the North, they are not preventing them from moving forward with their programs...obviously.

The next questions is a rather simple one, what is the real threat?

North Korea, more a socialist nightmare than utopia. A broken economy and starving people with an obsolete military. What could they possibly do? Well, obviously they can build nuclear weapons and place objects into orbit and we dismiss or poke-fun of North Korea at our own risk.
There is no way the North could launch a nuclear missile (or any missile) at the US mainland and even dream of hitting it. Theoretically, they could however send a bomb over in a shipping container. The North has been able to maintain an arms, drug and information trade with multiple nations the world over so it is conceivable that they could blow up the Port of Los Angeles by sneaking something on board one of the 8 million shipping containers (using another country as a 3rd-party mediator) that flow through the port. After all, ports are a notorious weak spot.

More realistically, I think we should focus on South Korea and the mood within the North. When Kim Jong-un came to power as a young, European educated man, the world hoped for real reforms. Unfortunately, it seems that the young Kim suffers from youth induced arrogance and a desire to prove himself to his people (undoubtedly egged on by seasoned and hawkish military advisers). The North has also been "gearing-up" for war since 1953 and I imagine that the citizenry is growing tired of constant war propaganda without ever releasing the tension.

Historically, North Korea has engaged in small hit & run tactics such as the sinking of the ROKS Cheonan and the bombing of Yeonpyeong Island or limited incursions. In fact, the North has technically violated the terms of the 1953 Armistice 221 times. So there is little question that the North is capable of hits, the question is, are they ready to engage in a full blown war? Politically speaking, the time is ripe for an escalated conflict. We've seen the North take provocative actions but now South Korea has also stepped up its rhetoric. The nearly elected ROK (Republic of Korea) president has made it clear he is willing to be much more aggressive in the face of any threat from North Korea and this willingness on both parts will make it very easy for an otherwise small event to blow up into war.

North Korea maintains a secretive and elite rapid strike force of about 180,000 men. These troops are well trained in asymmetric tactics and have a network of tunnels beneath the DMZ which, in the event of war, means that the South could be taken off guard as 180,000 enemy soldiers surround their forward defensive lines. Additionally, Seoul is within reach of thousands of field guns and rocket launchers which could inflict massive damage. North Korea could use its 500-forward deployed, long-rang guns to rain down 500,000 shells an hour for several hours. All of this would result in up to 1 million South Korean casualties within the first few days of war. Not to mention the rest of the North Korean military which in terms of raw numbers dwarfs the South's. And while the North lacks any real ability to engage in a sustained invasion the goal may not be to "win." Like the Taliban, the goal could be to bleed the US dry. We would be forced (by treaty) to send large amounts of aid and soldiers to back up the 28,500 US soldiers already stationed in the South and to help the South Korean military. The disruption in trade between the US and South, as well as the disruption of South Korea's overall $560 billion in global exports, could cause very real economic problems for the "enemies" of North Korea.

In the end, North Korea would be turned into a pile of ashes, as was the case during the Korean War but, not without costing the US and its allies a great deal first.

What do we do now?

I doubt North Korea genuinely wants an all out war. The end game of war would be bad for everyone involved. It is more likely that the North is simply wanting some breathing room. If it weren't for their nuclear program it's doubtful the world would even give the North the time of day. But there can be a positive outcome. Although sanctions haven't worked to stop their weapons programs they have succeeded in making life very hard for them and rumors of assassinations and internal power struggles surface from time to time.

I think it's time we re-evaluate our position with North Korea. The North is like a spoiled child and our approach to keep him from doing bad things is by starving him to death. To me, this doesn't sound very wise -or moral. It is obvious that all of their bellicose language has been in an attempt to gain attention and aid. It is equally obvious that the international community lacks the ability to stop the North from doing as they please since they have a fair amount of domestic capability (even if it's at the expense of other sectors). At the height of the Cold War, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, both sides understood that any escalation would result in both sides losing. There is no doubt that while we would technically win the war we would also lose it. Sanctions against the USSR did little to stop their activities and in the end the USSR collapsed from internal forces and a never ending asymmetric war in the Middle East.

Today, the US trades with many of our mortal enemies, Russia, China, Germany, Japan, Vietnam etc. Russia and China maintain militaries that could easily take our military to task if pushed to. Russian and Chinese human rights abuses are well known and their systems of government and economics are not the same as America's. That being said, the lives of modern Russians and Chinese are better now than at any point in history and at the same time the Chinese Communist Party has never been stronger. I am not saying that their horrid human rights record, or the deaths of millions caused directly by their governments should be ignored. I am saying that there are ways of opening up societies, of making lives better, without bombing the hell out of them or holding such threat above their heads. As is evident by Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, you cannot bomb "freedom" into a culture unable or unwilling to accept it. Sometimes change must be gradual.

The US and China have been at odds over rare-earth metals and there is a grave threat to the world economy if China decided to play bully. North Korea, surprisingly enough, has up to $6 trillion (yes, trillion) in rare-earth metals. Would it not make more sense to extend an olive branch to the North Koreans, to not demand the end of their ruling elite, and instead allow them to implement gradual economic reforms while we reap the benefit of another source of needed materials? Economic freedom breeds personal freedom. The only way for North Korea to really benefit from their natural resources is to change their economic model and in doing so the yoke of serfdom which pervades North Korean society will naturally lessen.

As long as we threaten them directly or indirectly they will never relent. Morally, North Korea does have every sovereign right to defend itself and to develop nuclear technologies, and we have no moral (or Constitutional) right to stop them. We do have the moral and legal right to trade with them and if they launched an actual attack against us then fine, we'll erase them from the universe. I would rather have a country of full bellies which still has a Kim leading it than further continue a nation where 1/3 of those under 5 have stunted growth as a result of malnourishment with a Kim leading it.

I think we owe it to the millions of starving North Koreans, to our South Korean friends, and to ourselves to try a new path. Instead of holding on to Cold War fears and maintaining policies which clearly do not work, let us engage.

-- Jacob Bogle, 3/20/13
Facebook.com/JacobBogle
Twitter.com/JacobBogle

Additional Reading:
Timeline of North Korea's nuclear program, Wikipedia
Study on nuclear terrorism against US trade, Abt Associates (PDF)
North Korea's nuclear program, International Institute for Strategic Studies

(Originally posted at:  http://mynorthkorea.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-nuclear-question.html)

Thoughts on Life in the Universe

---Disclaimer: This is a departure from the things I normally post about and is more a train of thought/ philosophical discussion rather than a true position on a topic. ---

There are a number of theories on the nature of the universe, the existence of life outside Earth and the abundance of such life. My own philosophical leaning is that life is an expression of the will of God (or as Carl Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself") and that humans are the ultimate expression of such will (until we find other intelligent aliens out there). Of course this is just my own leanings and much of this post will deal with theory and belief more than rock-solid science.

The generally accepted theory of the creation of the universe involves a big bang and a period of inflation, which is then followed by a period of matter dominating the universe, which is finally followed by a period in which dark energy dominates. We currently live in the dark energy dominated period and it looks as though the known universe will one day die a slow, cold, dark and empty death many trillions of years from now. However, within this model (the inflationary universe theory) there lies an interesting feature. Some areas within the whole universe (we live in the whole universe but can only study the observable universe which may just a tiny part of the whole) may have undergone a period of rapid and eternal inflation which would create "pocket universes." When you look at the math it seems likely that these pocket universes far outnumber the regions where inflation slowed to allow matter to form.

Generally speaking, our little corner of the universe may be the only place life could ever possibly exist. So in a universe which is, to us, infinite, our observable universe (some 93 billion light years in diameter) is all we have to go on. It is possible that other universes exist, but as far as we know there will never, ever, be a way for one life form in our universe to communicate with life in another universe or pocket universe no matter how fast they travel or for how long. For ease of thought, let us assume that our universe is all there is.

If we agree that evolution is the process which gives rise to life (ignoring the possibility of some one or some thing causing evolution to occur), then it would seem logical that life exists throughout the universe. I think I need to list some points to help you see where I'm coming from.

--In the past we thought that it was probable that the only planets that existed were the ones around our sun. Today, we know of hundreds of planets orbiting other stars and there are literally thousands of other potential planetary candidates. Doing some quick math one could arrive at hundreds of billions of planets just within the Milky Way galaxy.

--In the past we thought life only existed on Earth. Today, while there is no evidence of life on other worlds we have found the building blocks of life, amino acids, in asteroids, interstellar gas clouds, and practically everywhere you could look.

--On Earth there are many millions of species. Life takes the form of plants, fish, land animals, birds, bacteria, fungi, and a myriad of other forms.

Now, depending on the assumptions used, with Drake's Equation:

You can come to one of three general conclusions; 1) we are completely alone in the universe, 2) life exists but is far and few between, or 3) life is practically everywhere.

The Fermi Paradox plays into my thoughts for today and I consider it a stronger idea now than when it was first discussed in the 1950's. Given that we know of a vast number of planets, that many of them lie within habitable zones, that the building blocks of life are found in every corner of the universe in some form and given that life on Earth exists in so many forms - including within rock itself and free from the need of sunlight, why haven't we found any?

One might expect that some type of life (or evidence of a metabolic process) evolved on Mars or perhaps in the deep oceans of distant Jovian moons. The simple fact is, we have no evidence. There is no doubt that Mars once had a magnetic field, liquid oceans and a thicker atmosphere. There is little doubt that life on Earth began within a few hundred millions years of the planet's formation, so, would it not stand to reason that life should have evolved on Mars as well? There are many features (like stromatolite formations and oil) which are made up of the compressed bodies of trillions of tiny critters and plants. Shouldn't a similar thing have occurred elsewhere?

We have found life on Earth almost everywhere we have looked. Life above, on, and within the Earth's crust and seas; even miles above Mt. Everest and thousands of feet within solid rock. Every time (to my knowledge) that we thought Earth was unique or special in some way we have found out that we are as common as sand on a beach, albeit pretty sand. The only area without even circumstantial evidence is in the arena of life.

Everything I have discussed brings me to this question, what if life really is unique to Earth? Would it be a stretch to assume we alone (life on Earth) might actually have been created for a purpose (again, ignoring any single faith and even the concept of a god as commonly understood, but simply, the ultimate expression of will) or are we indeed the result of the most random of random fluctuations? Either way, it gives me pause.

If we exist simply because we are here and, as Stephen Hawking has said, the only purpose or meaning in life is what we give it, then shouldn't we take the opportunity to achieve all we can achieve in our short life spans? If there is no heaven or hell then the only things we will ever learn or experience will happen while we're alive. I think that regardless of how we came to be (via chance or God) we owe it to ourselves to stop acting so incredibly childish and really seize the moment. Mankind figured out the Earth orbited the Sun 2,300 years ago (although it was forgotten) and we have truly wasted hundreds of millions of lives in conflict. Can you imagine where we would be if we had not been afraid of logic and reason, if we had not been so bent on destruction? Do you really think our purpose (either from God or the purpose we give ourselves) should be to waste the only existence we will ever have? To waste the only intelligent life that possibly has ever, will ever, arise in the universe?

--Jacob Bogle, 3/19/2013
www.JacobBogle.com
Facebook.com/JacobBogle
Twitter.com/JacobBogle

The Murfreesboro Greenway Situation

Tonight, the Murfreesboro, TN City Council approved a 25 year plan to add an additional 150 miles or so of new greenways and bike paths to the Murfreesboro Greenway System by a vote of 4-3. This plan had a minimum cost of $104 million - with no current financial security. Tonight's vote was the final step of a process that began several years ago.[1]

I and many others made our views very clear and at times they were impassioned pleas but in the end the Council ruled, in all their wisdom, that this was something worth doing. There is little chance of stopping the ordnance now, at least until the next election, and I wish I had made my little speech with greater force but all I can do is make my case here in hopes that it can be used in future discussions.

I will start by repeating what I told the Council as my opening remark.

"When governments use money for something, be they the federal government or local, they are by definition taking money from someone else." 

At first glance the idea of greenways and bike trails sounds really nice. Currently Murfreesboro has 12 miles of riverside greenways and they are used fairly often. Murfreesboro is also a fast growing city and so the expansion of the system sounds like a logical step to improve the over-all quality of life for the city's inhabitants. 

The problem is that whenever government decides it needs additional land to expand something it almost always comes from private citizens. The City's vice mayor, Ron Washington, assured us all that this was simply a "plan for the future" and that nothing was set in stone; no ones land was being taken. And yet, two landowners rose and testified that they had been approached by city agents discussing the acquisition of their land for the Greenway expansion project including a man who turned a rundown property 27 years ago into his own paradise.[2] Another had his land appraised by the city at $1,000. $1,000 for 1.6 acres of well maintained land, with 300 feet of river front and a re-enforced concrete private bridge spanning the river. 

Several spoke out in favor of the project and a few even asked that the city go above and beyond the current plan. A supporter said (paraphrasing) "When you break it down you're only spending $4 million a year, well worth it." Of course that ignores the simple fact that what they're asking for is the local government to seize private property for the benefit of the few. Vice Mayor Washington added that land seizure is "unfortunate" and "the cost of doing business." I doubt he would feel the same if it were his land being taken. 

Proponents also discussed the positive environmental impact of such greenways. They claimed that the greenways connect small parcels of natural spaces and help wildlife move about. I find that somewhat illogical; in order to protect the natural environment they want to clear cut an area some 45 feet wide and extend that along hundreds of miles; something another opposition speaker mentioned. Then they want to pave a 15 foot wide section of it for all those miles. 

From an environmental standpoint, the first few feet of soil (depth) and the plants that grow above are instrumental in filtering out pollution and keeping soil erosion at bay. Clear cutting and paving over miles of territory will negate this natural action. The cleared land will remove the trees and bushes, along with their roots, and replace them with a single species of grass - so much for biodiversity. The paved portions then become a strip of open run-off with no ability to protect the rivers and creeks from surface pollution. One needs only look at the Greenway section which goes along Lytle Creek and beneath Broad Street. Lytle Creek is incredibly polluted at that point. In fact, much of street runoff city wide goes directly into the very waterways they're professing a desire to protect.

Not only does the paving of natural areas to protect natural areas strain the rules of logic you must ask yourself, why are there so few green areas today? The answer is rather simple. The government has continued to approve new constructions, new annexation of properties, and helped to direct the course of environmental destruction. So now, we're asking government to solve a problem it had a hand in creating.  

Then there is the economic factor. In a time when every working citizen has had to adjust their budgets to reflect the 2% increase in their taxes and everyone has had to factor in higher gas prices it boggles the mind that our leaders would think such a plan is a good idea. You can't drive to the local mall without seeing homeless people begging for money or a job, but this is a worthwhile expenditure of resources? Supporters have brought up the fact that some of it would be paid for via federal grant money, however, this is a 25 year plan and it is completely foolhardy to expect that the federal government will continue to dole out funds as they rapidly approach insolvency.

The plan also did not take into account the cost of paying "fair market" value for the confiscated land nor the costs for continual maintenance. The plan would cost approximately $700,000 a MILE just to build. Then the City will be on the hook for the additional employees they will need to hire to mow the grass, trim the trees, repave the paths, replace damaged signage, and the additional man-hour costs for security which I will discuss in a moment. All of this is at a time when the City is $396 million in long-term debt, more than double that of 2004.[3] Yes, our debt is slowly being paid off, however there is still no mechanism in place to pay for this program. 

A number of supporters talked about the fact that so many families use the system and how they feel safe and love going there. For them, this may be the case. Yet for others, not so much. Even one of the Council members expressed the fact that he did not feel safe on the Greenway and others talked about their cars being broken into.[4] There are many examples of crime on the system which are not limited to adult victims.[5] I also told them that one need only step off the cleared path to find any number of less than enjoyable problems. For example, the Greenway in and around Old Fort Park (a very popular park, especially among children) has illegal encampments of homeless people, used condoms and drug paraphernalia can be easily found. I showed the Council a picture of 4 hypodermic needles which were within 100 feet of the Greenway path right in the middle of the park grounds. 

(The image I showed)

If the City can not adequately protect the 12 miles of paths we have now, how do they hope to protect the additional 150 miles of paths? Most of the paths lead away from the city's core into areas that tend to have a smaller police presence. A good many people, including myself, have stopped using the system for this very reason. To me, this is a very real a grave concern; one the Council decided to ignore. 

In the end, we have a city in debt who wishes to go further into debt for the sake of recreation. There are multiple parks, recreational facilities and the current Greenway system is popular. That being said, no one is complaining about the crowding, no one has to endure "people-jams" on the Greenway and many citizens flat out do not use it. No one suggested that we destroy the Greenway we have, we just don't think that robbing people of their land to build a massive expansion or financing it with debt or money likewise stolen in the form of taxes is the best way to go. If we need new paths let's build them as we grow. It is a sad state of affairs when we can not finance our own programs without begging for federal money, money that never comes without strings or moral hazard.

As I said, the vote happened and for now there's little we can do about the situation. However, I think this issue should be kept in our minds and remembered during the upcoming election. We may have to wait but there is no reason why we can't reverse this action if we have leaders who will actually defend the rights of citizens and not try to be "progressive" (as some members suggested we expect of them). Rather, we should be a city which places a great importance on private property rights and does not plunge itself into greater financial troubles for recreation.

The 3 brave council members who voted no were:

Toby Gilley, Madelyn Scales Harris and Eddie Smotherman

The 4 who voted for this $104 million "plan" with no means to finance it were:

Mayor Tommy Bragg, Vice Mayor Ron Washington, Shane McFarland, and Doug Young

Jacob Bogle, 3-8-13

Sources:

1. Concerns & Enthusiasm over Greenway Expansion, WGNS Radio

2. Landowners Fear Eminent Domain, News Channel 5

3. Election 2012, Murfreesboro Post

4. Thieves target cars, Murfreesboro Post

5. Man Sexually Assaults Teenager, News Channel 5 

Additional reading:
25 Year Master Plan, 217 pages (PDF)

City Council members Feel free to message Gilley, Harris & Smotherman to voice your thanks, or to message the others and let them know you won't forget this.

Four Years Under Obama, a Graphic View

In 2008 Obama was elected president by a 10 million vote margin. He came into office promising to not only stop the economic collapse but reverse it, end the wars, lower taxes and energy prices, protect the environment and generally save our nations future. Then, despite having a negative approval rating as well as the vast majority of the people thinking the country was on the wrong track he was re-elected again in 2012 by only 51.1%, with a winning vote margin of less than half that of 2008.

When I looked at every economic metric prior to the 2012 election it looked as though Obama would easily lose, after all in terms of real numbers the country was no better off and in some cases was worse off than in 2008. But, he was elected. I'd like you take a look at these charts which cover everything from gas prices to deficits to military spending to gold prices.

The last 4 years have not been good and there is no reason to expect the next 4 will be better as a result of his policies. If things do recover it will be in spite of his actions, not because of them.

This first chart comes from Real Clear Politics and shows that American's have thought the country was on the wrong track in 2009 and continues to be on the wrong track.

(click images to view larger)

Next, let us look at the U6 unemployment rate. This shows that the U6 rate is 0.2% higher today than it was when Obama took office. Effectively, the unemployment rate hasn't budged and in terms of real numbers the Obama administration has been flat out lying.

Each month hundreds of thousands of people enter the work-force for the first time so even if Obama "saved or added" 4 million "new" jobs in 3 years the unemployment rate would not move and may even rise simply because the level of job creation doesn't even meet population growth.

This next graph comes straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It shows the labor participation rate which is defined as the percentage of eligible workers aged 16 and above who are currently employed. As you can see the percentage of people working has dropped continually.

The next series of graphs will focus on government spending.

Here we have the amount of revenue the government has received each year in the form of income taxes, social security taxes, tariffs, fees and so forth. You'll notice a marked increase between 2010-11 and a continual rise expected through 2017. If you look at the projections you'll see that revenue jumps from $2.4 trillion in 2012 to nearly $4 trillion in 2017. That is among the fastest jump in history over a 5 year period outside of wartime and is based on new taxes from Obama's policies. This comes from the Tax Policy Center. 

This shows the deficit year-over-year. While the amount of deficit each year tends to fall we have still spent between $800 billion to over $1 trillion each and every year more than the government brings in.

It's a well known fact that ALL of the supposed cuts proposed by both parties are not real cuts but rather, cuts in proposed spending increases. When ever Obama talks about cutting spending or saving money he's talking about using a slight-of-hand "fuzzy math" trick. You see, each year the government gets an automatic spending increase based on a number of factors and when people talk about cutting or saving they're talking about having a smaller increase, not a real cut to a spending level lower than the previous year.

The more government spends the less the private sector has and thus the less you have. Taking money from you to spend on failed billion dollar solar programs, trillion dollar wars and even the estimated $1 billion spent solely on Secret Service protection will not save the economy, it hurts it. All of the rhetoric coming from Obama such as "if we cut spending you'll put people out of jobs" is nothing but fear mongering. Yes, some in government or in companies propped up by government (which mean they'll always be a drain) might lose their jobs but businesses will have more money to spend to expand and hire and those government employees will be able to find a private job where they actually do something. When WWII ended people screamed and worried that if the government cut spending millions of people who had been employed for the war would go without work, food or shelter. When the government finally cut spending, all of those government employees found private work and our economy took off faster than in any other time.

Here is a graph showing the amount spent on defense. Obama promised an end to constant warfare and to use that "saved" money to fix the economy and put it back into the hands of everyday people. Obviously, he forgot to keep that promise.

Next we have the debt. Everyone knows we're in debt and the debt is rising. Unfortunately few in Congress want to actually fix it. In 2008 Obama promised to cut the debt by trillions, instead he now claims that even cutting government spending by $85 billion this year (less than 3%) would be devastating.

Once again, you can see the rate of increase is much faster than in the past and between 2008-2013 increases by nearly 80%.

Just as anyone with a credit card must pay interest on their debt so must the government pay interest on the debt.

Each year we spend at least $200 billion on interest payments. That is more than twice the amount the government spends on education each year. If Obama really cared about education he would cut our debt so we could use the savings in interest payments on education. Not that spending more on education increases the actual education or testing scores of children (as I pointed out in a previous post) but it does show you where Obama's priorities are.

The final government related graph comes from the Heritage Foundation and it shows the tax rate as a percentage of GDP from 1975 to 2055. If you look at the mid point of the graph you'll see a huge increase in the tax rate. That time period corresponds to the Obama administration.

I guess Obama wasn't serious when he said he'd cut the overall tax rate, make the tax code simpler and not raise taxes on average Americans. Let's not forget the $80 a month or more you're probably missing each month from taxes you didn't have to pay this time last year.

Now I'd like to focus on general economic factors like the dollar index, precious metal prices and gas prices.

 The US Dollar Index is a way to measure the strength and stability of the dollar. When it drops, the dollar is weaker and when it rises the dollar is stronger. The entire purpose of the Federal Reserve is to provide a stable dollar and stable prices and Obama won the election by promising the strengthen our economy.

Does that look stable to you? Not only is the dollar unstable the Index is actually lower today than in 2009.

Of course there are other factors that lead to higher prices but there's no getting around the simple fact that a weak dollar means higher prices.

Here is a graph showing the national average price of gas. From GasBuddy.com

In Feb. 2009 the price of gas was about $1.90/gal, today it's pushing $4/gal.

This shows the price of silver from 2000 to today.

You can easily see the jump in prices since Obama has been in office. This might be good news to those who invest in precious metals but it's a bad sign for the overall economy.

And finally, the price of gold.

By any measure the last 4 years have not been good. We may be stuck with Obama for the next 4 years but we do have a chance to grab a hold of the Senate and place more people in the House who truly understand that more government is not the answer. This post has been focused on Obama but the truth is these problems have roots in both the Democrat and Republican parties.

Let us make sure that 4 years from now we're not looking back on a country that completely fell off the cliff when we knew beyond any doubt that the only answer is smaller government, free markets and a more constitutional approach to all things domestic and international.

--Jacob Bogle

Gun Control

(Originally published on Dec. 19, 2012. Updated on Oct. 3, 2015 with new information)

On Dec. 14, 2012, a young gunman went to a school and killed 26 people, mostly children under the age of 8. And on Oct. 1, 2015, a man entered a community college and shot 19. Since 1776 there have been over 200 school shootings (including individual suicides at school); in 2013 there were 26, in 2014 there were 43, and by October 2015 there had been 19. Since 2013, 44% of those shootings involved more than one person. There have also been mass shootings at businesses, clubs, and elsewhere.

In times of crisis, people often look to government to fix the problem. They assume there was a failure in the law or that perhaps we have too much freedom and for our own sake we should pass further legislation to protect us from ourselves.

There is no doubt that evil and unhinged people exist in the world and that guns, particularly modern guns, allow those people to harm and kill greater numbers of innocent people than ever possible before. The anti-gun/pro-gun control lobbies point to countries with strict gun-control laws and even total bans on arms outright and then compares their crime rates with those in the United States as “proof” that gun-control is the only answer.


Guns, simply defined as a barrel that uses gunpowder to propel a projectile, have existed for over 1,000 years and like so many other inventions of man, have become a part of everyday life, at least until recently. A gun can be used for hunting, self-defense, war, target practice, to commit crimes, as collector items, and at times as the last defense of a people against a tyrannical government; a final guarantee of freedom.

Many say that guns generally have no place in modern society and that, for the West at least, the notion of needing them to fend off an evil government is…quaint, if not insane. Of course modern world history is replete with examples of a population needing arms to ward off and overthrow a repressive regime (Germany, Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia, etc.) Clearly, the issue is complicated and emotionally charged.

For a moment, let us set aside the argument for guns as a last defense and focus on gun crimes as they relate to gun control.

It is true that strict gun control or bans, can limit the number of gun related crimes. However, if you look at the logic of criminality you will find that the law in and of itself means very little to criminals, after all, to commit a crime is by definition to ignore the law.

The UK has passed a number of laws, beginning in 1903, which have led to the near extinction of the modern firearm in the country, the main exceptions being antiques and incredibly strict hunting licenses. However, the people of the UK still maintain over 4 million firearms. In 2009 the number of gun deaths was 138. The number of homicides (by any method) was 724. So it’s easy to see that having a gun alone does not make for a violent populace and that non-gun related homicides far outweigh those committed with a gun. If we look at the broader trend in the UK, particularly in cities, gun crime is on the rise. In 2010 gun crimes in London were up 48%. And while the total number of gun crimes is down compared to when gun ownership was less restricted, it is evident that laws and restrictions largely apply to law abiding citizens --to those who wouldn't have committed any crime to begin with.

Criminals will always find ways around the law, they will find ways to commit their crimes and will fuel a black market. And unlike the US, the United Kingdom lacks a central constitution and there are no inherent rights to begin with, only things which, through law, have been deemed “not illegal.” Remember, the UK comes form a history of authoritarian monarchy, whose genocidal policies against the Scots and Irish still impact the region to this day.

Let’s take a look at another European country, Switzerland, which has the 3rd highest rate of gun ownership on the planet. In Switzerland they rely on a trained militia rather than a standing army to defend their borders and civilian gun ownership stands at 45.7%, which translates into 3.4 million guns. In 2010 there were 40 gun related homicides and 53 homicides in total, which is down approx. 40% since 1998. How is it that so many guns can exist and yet have so few gun related crimes? In fact, Switzerland has one of the lowest crimes rates in the world, all the while having the 3rd highest gun ownership rate and a relaxed drug policy.

The cry for greater government control is always greatest when there has been a tragedy. It is very unfortunate that people choose times of heartbreak to push for less liberty and ignore incredibly important factors: personal responsibility and morality, mental health, and broken communities.

I’d like to give you a comparison. Cars and roads are among the more highly regulated and controlled aspects of our society and yet more people die from car accidents than from guns. In fact, since 1980, there have been over 1.3 million deaths on government regulated roads, in government regulated cars, all operated by government regulated drivers. Where is the outcry in this? Where are the calls to ban mass murdering automobiles which can speedily careen into crowded places? As silly as that may sound, the analogy stands. For bit more context, more people die from poisoning each year (48,545) or drug overdoses (43,785) than they do from gun related deaths (of all sorts), which according to the CDC was 10.6 people per 100,000.

From the Pew Research Center, "Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak"

And while the overall trend since 1981 has been fewer homicides as a result of gun violence, even after President Clinton signed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 there were still dozens of school shootings resulting in 122 deaths and many other injuries before the law expired in 2004.

You see, gun ownership is not the problem, it never has been. The problem lies with a population disarmed, a population so afraid they would rather give up all control to a government then take the necessary steps to learn self-defense, and the problem lies with a country that has an appalling track record when it comes to helping those citizens with mental illness (those with diagnosed mental illnesses rarely go out killing people, but killing out of hatred or because the shooter feels discarded by society does intersect with mental health and the need for intervention is real).

There is an interesting meme on-line that states “Why are women taught how to prevent a rape instead of men being taught not to rape?” The same concept can be applied to guns and crimes in general. We live in a culture that glorifies death and violence. It is codified by our government with the killing of literally thousands of innocent civilians overseas, all as a matter of "foreign policy." It is blessed by popular media. It is encouraged by parents allowing 12 and 13 year olds to play games and watch movies filled with it. It is often over-looked and poorly punished. We see time and time again people convicted of killing and other horrible crimes getting only a handful of years in prison (or less).

Why not force government to end the double standard in their own actions? Why not force the courts to offer up severe and lasting punishment to those engaging in violent crimes? Why not recognize that many citizens suffer from mental illness and not be afraid to reach out and help them, instead of ignoring them until one out of a million explodes?

There is no single cause or reason among the perpetrators and no panacea to solve it all, but the major cause of it continuing is society's and our government's failure to understand that it's usually a combination of factors and that we must take a comprehensive look at it in order to help solve it. Jumping onto guns is nothing but a cop-out, an emotional reaction that does little to address the situation.

Looking at the legal issue

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

One segment of the gun-control lobby asserts that the 2nd Amendment applies only to militias (the military) and that private gun ownership is not covered. Even if we ignore the context in which the 2nd was written, there have been multiple court cases which emphatically refute that claim.
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Supreme Court ruled:

(A)The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(B)The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
(C) The response [of writing the 2nd] was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
And further, (D) does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes.

The term “militia” means “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.” This comes from the Supreme Court case Presser v. Illinois (1886).

Another argument is that the Founders could never have conceived of an automatic assault rifle and that the 2nd only applies to “muskets”, in other words, very basic, single shot weapons. One must then extend the logic to all parts of the Constitution, to wit, the First Amendment only applies to verbal speech and press using a printing press, the Fourth only protects from searches of a person’s physical home (making the NSA domestic spying program totally acceptable), and so on. That notion is, in a word, absurd. There is no doubt people use guns to commit crimes, however, if we look at all the numbers, around 50% of all gun deaths in the US are suicides (which is a crime). Outlawing suicide has had little effect it seems.

Gun ownership is not only an “ancient right” but also the final protection of an individual and of the general population against all crimes, be they a robber or a tyrannical government. War is perhaps the most visible but oft ignored crime. It is estimated that wars have led to the deaths of upwards of 1 billion people over the course of human history. Wars are approved, funded and usually sought by governments. That is the great tragedy. Self-defense against crime is also often overlooked. In 1994 a Dept. of Justice study found that guns are involved in 1.5 million cases of self-defense each year. That is 1.5 million thefts, rapes, murders and other crimes prevented as a result of gun ownership.

We all look for answers and closure, but, when it comes to wanton violence the answer is, there are no satisfactory answers. And we should not be so quick to abandon or wish to curtail one of our most important and fundamental rights. Government has always used tragedy to grab power, it has used fear to usurp the Constitution, and all too often we have let them in the vain search for security. Let us look to ourselves and our culture first.

The peoples of industrialized Germany, Russia, Poland, and France, just to name a few, never thought that one day they would endure the full brunt of Nazi oppression. They never thought there would be the deaths of 40 million people, the loss of religious freedom, or the loss of all freedoms, at the hands of their own governments. They trusted their government for things which government is not meant to do. They handed up responsibility that they were imbued with from God - rights by the very nature of their existence - and in the end they paid dearly. The right to bear arms is the only reason why America exists, without which we would still be a colony.

I don’t have all the answers and I don’t pretend to think that we could have a perfect world if everyone owned a gun, but I do think we would be better prepared to handle these situations. Mass shootings often happen in gun-free zones where even the “security” guards are unarmed. And while I don’t have all the answers, I know the answer is not more control simply from looking at places like Detroit and Chicago which have tight gun regulations and also have an enormous amount of gun violence. Our ancestors took for themselves their inherent rights, which include the responsibilities that go with them, and our Founders wrote them into law, a law that can only be changed via new amendments.

Just like the Jews of Germany and the whole population of North Korea never thought they would endure what has transpired, we didn’t think the ultimate assault on our freedoms would ever occur. Government rarely grasps for total power in a single sweep, it happens (usually as a result of public outcry and a revocation of personal responsibility) bit by bit. In the past 12 years alone we have seen the near erasure of the 14th Amendment via the PATRIOT Act, military drones prowling the skies over America, attempts to control and censor the Internet with things like SOPA and CISPA, allowing the indefinite detention of citizens via the NDAA 2012, provide for the permanent and warrantless surveillance of every citizen through regulations involving the National Counterterrorism Center and much more.

Perhaps not today, maybe 20 or 30 years from now, we could easily be sitting and watching our government turn into something absolutely horrible. Why give them a willing public? Why be those silent dissenters of 1933? At first they asked for control of the press, then guns, then the mentally handicapped, then the disabled, then gays, then Jews and before it was over 60 million died as a result of Germany and Japan with over 40 million European refugees. How can we trust them with the power to regulate, so strongly, one of our most basic rights when the federal government has consistently shown itself to be untrustworthy, corrupt and power hungry? The folks in Washington DC are no more equipped, or wise, to govern us than any other citizen. If you yourself haven’t the wisdom to control the nation, then why give it to them?

This isn't an argument against any and all gun laws. Clearly those with violent criminal histories or documented severe mental disturbances should not have the ability to purchase or legally carry a gun. This is simply an attempt to show that when it comes to these types of tragedies, more control isn't an answer. Demanding that a class filled with children be left undefended or that thousands of university students shouldn't be allowed to exercise their inherent rights, this only results in millions being even more vulnerable to mass shootings. At the Oct. 1, 2015 shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, where thousands of students attend, there was only one security guard who was unarmed.

When we allow a government or some committee (federal, state, local) to make choices for all of us, if that choice is a bad one we all suffer. In this case the choice is literally between life and death. I trust myself to defend my rights and life far more than I trust a bloated and inept government. Why should I, why should we, allow them to force us into a position of relying on them for our own safety?

--Jacob Bogle, Originally published on Dec. 19, 2012. Updated on Oct. 3, 2015 and June 13, 2016.
www.JacobBogle.com
Facebook.com/jacobbogle
Twitter.com/jacobbogle

(I feel this is a very important issue and would like to add to the conversation. If you agree with this article please feel free to share it with others. Re-post, re-blog, send it to websites or friends, post it on Facebook etc. Just include a link back to this page.)