The Trayvon Martin Shooting: Who Will Be Superhuman First?

     In the face of tragedy, humans have a basic need to make sense out of randomness. For some reason we all desire to understand why evil exists or why bad things happen to good people. It is no different in the case of the heartbreaking death that occurred in Sanford, Florida on February 26^th.  17 year-old Trayvon Martin, who is black, was shot and killed by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, who is being profiled in the media as being white. (Zimmerman’s mother is Hispanic). The explanation for this killing has been the bitter charge of racism. While the police are still gathering evidence and a grand jury is scheduled to convene on April 10^th, the court of national opinion appears to have already arrived at a verdict:  White man George Zimmerman is a racist who killed Trayvon Martin because he was black.

     While it may be true the Sanford police didn't do enough to investigate Martin's death, the charge that Zimmerman is a racist seems a little difficult to make. Zimmerman’s background and associations cut across racial lines, and even his own racial identity isn’t easy to determine.  Based on the evidence I have seen thus far, I don’t believe George Zimmerman is a racist; however, I will let a jury decide whether or not he is a murderer or a man slaughterer.  What concerns me most about this case is the black community’s rush to assume Zimmerman to be a racist and the mainstream media’s willingness to feed that assumption.  Such charges, if proven unfounded (like the Tawana Brawley and  Duke lacrosse team allegations) will certainly erode the credibility of the black community in the eyes of whites who respect fairness and the rule of law.  

     It is difficult to tell from the mainstream media if a majority of black Americans are truly interested in interracial respect and trust. Let’s assume for the sake of this article that they are. If the Seminole County grand jury determines there is not enough evidence for a criminal trial, what will be the black community’s response? Will they take to the streets to destroy private property and attack innocent whites, or will they seek reconciliation and healing like Reginald Denny? If interracial trust and reconciliation are the goal, I hope the black community selects the latter and rejects  the former.

    It is possible Trayvon’s death could have been avoided if Sanford, Florida had different self-defense laws or more restrictive gun ordinances; however, I am not sure life in Sanford would be better or even safer. Commissioned police officers shoot innocent people more often than we can easily accept. While George Zimmerman’s history suggests a bent towards zealous law and order and vigilante justice, his neighbors appeared appreciative of Zimmerman’s interest and willingness to patrol their neighborhood.  In counties that have adopted less restrictive gun laws, there seems to be a correlation between an increase in concealed gun permits and a decrease in confrontational crimes. Activist groups in favor of more restrictive gun laws are latching on to the Martin case as they see it as an “I told you so” opportunity. Even though citizens have a self evident natural right to defend themselves, it’s possible Florida may succumb to the intense pressure and re-think their self-protection laws.   

       In the absence of criminal charges and a conviction, the only way Sanford, Florida (and America) will heal from this tragedy is for someone to blink first and lead with grace.  While I don’t know if I would ever be strong enough to do so personally, it would be superhuman for George Zimmerman to take personal (not necessarily criminal) responsibility for his part in the wrongful death of young Trayvon. Equally inspiring would be if Trayvon’s parents forgave George Zimmerman for his role in the same. Grace, not vengeance will calm the exposed nerves of this nation. Without forgiveness offered and responsibility taken, I am afraid the flames of American racial tension will only burn hotter.

Obamacare’s Birth Control Mandate and its Fallacious Defenses

     It has been a couple of generations since logic has been taught in public schools. Since then, the voting age has been reduced to 18 from 21, and the number of people claiming their primary news source is Saturday Night Live or Comedy Central has exploded. With Facebook and Twitter becoming important sources of political communication, many voters are being persuaded by fallacious (bad) arguments.  When it comes to politics, it has been my experience that the greater the number of fallacies required to persuade voters to support a particular policy, the greater the odds that policy will cause more harm than good. For the sake of demonstrating how fallacious arguments are often employed to persuade social media adopters to support governmental policies, I will use as an example the Obama Administration’s recent mandate that requires religious institutions, against their religious and moral convictions, to provide birth control and abortion inducing drugs to its employees.

    Whenever we participate in a policy debate, it is important to first determine the main issue and its supporting arguments. In the case of the Obamacare birth control mandate, the main issue is whether or not the federal government can constitutionally use its powers of coercion to force citizens against their religious or moral convictions to pay for the birth control of their neighbors.  The arguments against using federal powers of coercion are primarily found in the U.S. Constitution. In Article I Section (8), the Constitution lists the powers of the federal government, and forcing citizens to buy goods or services against their will is not one of the listed powers. The 1st Amendment further states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In other words, the federal government can’t force people to practice or violate their religious beliefs. Now that we have looked at the arguments against the birth control mandate, let’s take a look at the arguments currently being used in its support.

     The first argument supporters of the Obamacare birth control mandate use is: “Obamacare doesn’t actually force religious institutions to provide birth control and abortion inducing drugs; it forces insurance companies to provide them.” This argument commits the “distinction without a difference” fallacy.  Similar to the statement, “I didn’t steal your car; I just took it without your permission intending never to return it,” the mandate’s outcome isn’t altered by changing the words used to explain it.  By (1) forcing all religious institutions to offer health insurance, and (2) forcing health insurance companies to provide birth control and abortion drugs, religious institutions are still being forced against their will to offer birth control and abortion inducing drugs to their employees , and  the 1st Amendment violation still exists. Unfortunately, many citizens untrained in critical thinking have been persuaded by this fallacious defense put up by the Obama Administration.

     A second fallacious argument supporting Obamacare’s birth control mandate is: “Because many insurance companies provide Viagra prescriptions for men, the government should force them to provide birth control prescriptions for women also.”  This statement commits the “false analogy” fallacy because the two cases aren’t similar enough to be analogous. The purpose of insurance is to transfer risk, not responsibility. The risk of erectile dysfunction treatment is considered in insurance theory to be uncertain and insurable; however, birth control is not. As such, insurance companies can actuarially price the risk of erectile dysfunction expenses in such a way as to not lose money; whereas providing birth control merely transfers the cost from some policyholders to all of them. Secondly, Obamacare doesn’t force insurance companies to provide erectile dysfunction treatment like the Obamacare mandate forces them to provide birth control. This is an important distinction when the main issue is about the constitutional use of government force.  In the Obama birth control mandate, there is no risk transferred, only expenses. Because erectile dysfunction treatment is seen as an insurable risk and birth control is not, the analogy between Viagra coverage and birth control breaks down, and the argument becomes fallacious.   

     The third fallacious argument proponents of the Obamacare mandate use is: “Most Catholics practice some form of birth control, so the Catholic church’s rejection of Obamacare’s birth control mandate smacks of hypocrisy.”  The Latin term for this type of bad argument is the “tu quoque,” or “you too” fallacy, but I will just call it the “hypocrisy” fallacy. The hypocrisy fallacy is not a rational argument because it attacks the source of the message as being faulty instead of the message itself. Here is an example:

Overweight health teacher: “It is important to eat portion controlled meals that include generous helpings of vegetables and avoid fatty or processed junk food.”

Cynical student: “Hey, Mr. Smith, your trash can is full of Twinkie wrappers and you are at least 50 pounds overweight; therefore, it must be a good idea for us to eat whatever we want.” 

     While it is more persuasive when a health teacher looks like a triathlete, his instruction on good nutrition isn’t less true just because the teacher is chubby. In the same vein, it would certainly be more persuasive if Catholics practicing birth control abstinence outnumbered those who professed it, but it doesn’t follow that the government has constitutional authority to force Catholics, in violation of their 1st Amendment rights, to pay for their neighbor’s birth control, just because a majority of Catholics use some form of birth control.

     Finally, I want to address the most logically deficient argument I have seen recently on Facebook to defend the Obamacare birth control mandate: the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke controversy. On February 29, 2012,  mega-popular radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh made boorish comments  about 30 year-old Georgetown University law student (and political activist) Sandra Fluke, airing that statements in her speech at an unofficial Democrat Congressional event in support of free mandated contraceptives at Georgetown University made her a "slut" or "prostitute". This fallacious counter argument is known as a “red herring,” because it distracts or misleads citizens from the main issue in much the same way that a rotten fish can be used to lead bloodhounds off the hot trail of an escaped convict.  Let’s look at how this bad argument was played out in the media:

 

Main issue: “Can the federal government constitutionally use its powers of coercion to force citizens against their religious or moral convictions to pay for the birth control of their neighbors?”

Premise of counter-argument: “61-year old multi-millionaire Rush Limbaugh, using his powerful access to the mainstream media, verbally assaulted a young college girl, calling her a “slut” and “prostitute” when she courageously stood up for her heartfelt beliefs.” Rush Limbaugh is an obnoxious, mean-spirited butt-head;" therefore,
Conclusion of counter-argument: "The federal government has the constitutional authority to force citizens, against their religious or moral convictions, to pay for the birth control of their neighbors.”

     While the irrationality of the red herring fallacy is obvious after we labor to identify the main issue and the supporting arguments, such faulty reasoning is extremely persuasive when the majority of Americans aren’t critical thinkers.

     Social media is here to stay, and political operatives will only increase their use of it to garner voter support.  As long as American voters remain void of the necessary tools for critical thinking, many will be persuaded not by truth, but by bad arguments and questionable promises. Unless we make a concerted effort to train our minds to think critically and vote rationally, we run the risk of losing our republic to the rhetorical skill of power seeking demagogues. 

Socialism and Crony Capitalism

     In my political science classes in college, I learned that a socialist system is characterized by a strong central government that commands and controls the economy. For an economy to be considered socialist, the means of production only needs to be controlled, not necessarily owned, by a government. In a socialist economy bureaucrats set wages, control prices, create quotas, and regulate distribution. Buying and selling behavior is manipulated by central planners using tax preferences and disincentives.  

     Socialism is different than “free market” capitalism. In a truly free market economy citizens, not government bureaucrats, make the majority of economic decisions. Individuals rather than the  government determine prices, wages, levels of production, and distribution methods.  Free market economies rely on prices to be analog signals to indicate the accurate supply and demand for specific goods and services. When supplies are low, demand pushes prices up and producers are motivated to produce more, which pushes down demand, which lowers prices, etc..  What differentiates a socialist economy from a free market economy is centralized command and control or the absence of it.  

    When politics get involved, the proper definitions of economic terms can get confusing. While Democrats appear to prefer a centrally planned socialist system, and Republicans appear to prefer a free market capitalist system, history has shown both parties prefer the economic system known as “crony capitalism.”

     Crony capitalism is an economic system where individuals, acting through corporate entities, partner with a strong centralized government in order to enjoy the safety and profitability of a monopoly. Crony capitalism is NOT free market capitalism, but instead is more closely aligned with socialism.  Unlike free market capitalism, crony capitalism doesn’t mind bureaucracy, government regulation, or high taxes because the crony corporations are usually exempt by government decree. By picking and choosing winners and losers, strong central governments ensure their crony corporate partners have no real competition. Whereas the theoretical purpose of government involvement in a socialist economy is to ensure the fair and equal distribution of goods and services, crony capitalism uses government power to keep out competition and increase profits for the crony corporations.

     All name calling aside, it is difficult for me to align with either the Democrat or Republican Party. I prefer a free market economy with minimal government involvement in the marketplace; however, both parties continue to press for more government intervention.  While not perfect, free markets are responsible for the incredible prosperity we have enjoyed. Any political movement towards greater centralized government control will  diminish our chances for future economic flourishing.