The Parable of the Sheep

Not long ago in a pasture uncomfortably close to where you live, a flock of sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the master, but despite his best efforts from time to time wolves would prey upon the flock.

 

One day a group of sheep, more bold than the rest, met to discuss their dilemma. “Our dog is good and vigilant, but he is only one dog and the wolves are many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and for reasons we can’t understand, the master judges and releases many to prey upon us again.”

 

That day the boldest sheep spoke up, saying “Our dog has teeth and claws like the wolf. It is the wolf’s nature to prey upon us, but if we had teeth and claws we could fight back, and stop this savagery.” The other sheep clamored in agreement, and they went together to a corner of the pasture where the dead wolves were kept as a warning. They gathered fangs and claws and made them into weapons.

 

That night, when the wolves came the newly armed sheep sprang up with their weapons and struck at them, and cried “Be gone! We are not food!” They drove off the wolves who were astonished, saying to one another “When did sheep become so bold and so dangerous? When did they grow teeth and claws? This seems unthinkable!”

 

The next day, flush with victory, the brave sheep waved their weapons as they approached the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock huddled together and cried out “Baaaaaaaadddd! You have Baaaaaddd things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!”

 

The brave sheep stopped, amazed. “But we are just like you!” they cried, “We are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws are just tools that can protect us. They are not bad things; they have saved all of us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves; they protect and keep us safe from their viciousness!”

 

“Baaaaaaaddd!” cried the flock, “The things that you have are bad and will pervert you, and we fear them. You cannot bring them near us. They scare us!” So the armed sheep, which had no desire to panic the flock and wished to remain in the fold, resolved to conceal their weapons. But they were resolved never to again be subjected to those nights of terror.

 

In time, the wolves which had no stomach for fighting equals, attacked less often and sought easier prey. Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid; from which more than one wolf did not return.

All was well until one day as the flock was grazing beside the stream, one sheep’s weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece. In unison the flock reacted in horror, crying out “Baaaaaaddddd! Those things that you possess are evil and they have perverted you, we fear them and you cannot bring them near us. We must ban you from our presence!”

 

And so the fearful sheep formed a court and a council, and encouraged by the words of the dishonest leaders and misguided advisors, they placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture forbidding the presence of hidden weapons. The brave sheep protested before the council, saying “It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed you! Have we not protected you from the wolves that prey upon us? We are still sheep, but we are not food!” Still the flock would not listen, and drowned out their protestations with cries of “Baaaaaaddd! We will not listen to your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!”

 

Somehow they had forgotten that even they possessed teeth, if used only to graze the grasses of the pasture. It was only those who preyed upon the innocent, like the wolves and jackals, who turned their teeth to evil ends. The brave sheep found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing their words, would roll back their eyes and flee as they cried “Baaaaddd! You and your things are evil!”

 

Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such tools, but meeting with little success.

 

It didn’t take long for the wolves to happen upon the sheep’s totems and signs. They said to one another, “They have told us they have no teeth. Brothers, we are once again safe to feed upon these fools!” They set upon the flock and horrible was the carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often seemed to be in two places at once, but not even he could halt the slaughter.

It was only when the armed sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves fled, vowing to each other to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time they could attack; for if the sheep were this foolish once they would be so again. This they did, and still do today.

 

The next morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, “See? If the wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!” Some of the flock wondered aloud at this revelation but most were unconvinced and cried out in terror, although more feebly for their voices were fewer, “Baaaaaaaadddd! These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us! Baaaaaaaddd!”

 

The brave sheep could only hang their heads and sigh. The flock had truly forgotten that even they possessed teeth, and that it was the wolves and jackals who were evil, not their tools. If you pulled their own fangs those beasts would take another’s teeth and claws, or perhaps just the broad flat teeth of a murdered sheep, and turn them to evil purposes.

 

The brave sheep knew their tools were not evil: The fangs and claws they possessed had not changed them. They still grazed like the other sheep, and they raised their lambs in the spring, and greeted their friend the dog as he walked among them. But they could not quell the terror of the flock, which arose in them like some ancient dark smoky spirit: It could not be damped by reason, nor dispelled by the light of day.

 

So they resolved to remain armed and vigil and to retain their weapons, but conceal them from the flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren if the need arose. One day, they hoped, the flock would learn to understand that as long as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to remain safe.

Towers

In the name of security?

  

 

 

September 11, 2001

On September 11 2001, four passenger airliners were hijacked and flown into buildings in a suicide attack which resulted in almost 3,000 deaths, including the 227 civilians and 19 hijackers aboard the four planes. It also was the deadliest incident for firefighters in the history of the United States. These four coordinated terrorist attacks launched upon the United States by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda changed our world forever.

 

Many countries, including the United States, strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Congress rushed to pass legislation to strengthen security controls and the President signed the USA PATRIOT act into law. The stated purpose of the Patriot Act was "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". Its intent was to "deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes".

 

From the very beginning opponents of the law criticized the authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; the permission given law enforcement officers to search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s consent or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records.

 

Several legal challenges have been brought against the act and the Federal courts have ruled a number of the provisions as unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the reauthorization bill, criticized by both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns, kept most of the act's original language intact and was signed into law on March 9 and 10, 2006.

 

As it exists today this act and others violates due process for all Americans. All the government has to do is call a citizen an "enemy combatant" and the person's due process rights disappear. The US Government says that US citizens can be detained and then tried in secret trials, even in absentia, using secret evidence that the accused cannot see or challenge. Even evidence obtained by coercion or torture is allowed as a basis for conviction.

 

The Patriot Act and the other acts that followed have turned American freedoms into a worldwide mockery with the federal governments unchecked spying on ordinary Americans. As part of a broad pattern the executive branch is using "national security" and / or "suspected terrorism” as an excuse for encroaching on the privacy and free speech rights of Americans without adequate oversight. It eliminates many protections against unlawful imprisonment and many rights in the legal system are absent.

 

By erasing 300 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence, this country continues down a dark path.

Consider

Response to a news article

An article was published in our local weekly paper written by Sally Lieber, a former state Assembly member, hoping to influence our local city decision makers. I submitted a response the next day, but it was eventually rejected by one of the editors.

 

I was told that to be considered for publication, my opinion must be more than 950 words, be in response to a recent article, and focus on a local issue. I submitted this expanded response shortly thereafter, but it wasn't published and I haven't heard anything more from the Palo Alto Weekly.

 

Understanding Violence

 

On June 27 2014, the Palo Alto Weekly published a Guest Opinion written by Sally Lieber, a former state Assembly member, titled Stemming the Tide of Gun Violence. In this article she suggests that our community should not acquiesce to the gun industry, and she encourages the City of Palo Alto to take action, suggesting that “strong, common-sense measures to deter gun violence can — and must — be advanced in every local community”.

 

She acknowledges that Palo Alto currently has regulations in place regarding the sale of guns, but she is using the fear of violence to motivate residents in Palo Alto to focus on gun violence, and she wants the City to add additional measures to further regulate gun and ammunition dealers.

 

I am a long time resident of Palo Alto, and I appreciate it as a city with both insight and foresight because of its educated and informed population. I too hope that our community can reduce gun violence and create a safe and sane future, but I would hope that we continue to carefully consider the issue of violence without allowing emotion to overwhelm our understanding.

 

We often hear that statistics are like lamp posts, they’re used more for support than for illumination. Palo Alto should be considering policy based on fact rather than fiction. To do that we must stop paying attention to reports promoting specific agenda(s) and start paying attention to un-biased reports from neutral parties. For instance: Recent reports from the Center for Decease Control, law enforcement organizations, and even Congress acknowledge that gun violence has been declining for the last 20 years.

 

I agree that the one injured or killed by violence is not the only victim of the crime, and that it naturally inspires in us the desire to do what is possible to prevent any kind of violence. To do that we need to understand the cause of violence, and we need to recognize that guns are not the problem. The recent knife attack in China and the bombing at the marathon should suggest to the most casual observer that violence is not a gun issue. Violence comes from the heart, not the barrel of a gun; guns are just the tool.

 

I also agree that the right to safety is inalienable, but like the Bill of Right’s protections for the freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion, the people have a constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms. Unfortunately, like the First and Fourth Amendments the Second Amendment is under attack by those who would prefer control to freedom.

 

Before you ask me what I’m afraid of, let me say that what I fear most are people who are willing to give up their rights and take away the rights of others, because they have been convinced by someone else that it’s for the greater good. Unlike the suggestions promoted in the Guest Opinion by Sally Lieber, I do not believe that her solutions regarding gun violence will be affective.

 

Restricting the rights of citizens, in Palo Alto and across the nation, will not reduce gun violence and I believe it will increase crime. How successful has the Government been at keeping drugs off the street? How successful has the Government been at stopping human trafficking? What makes anyone think that the Government can take guns out of the hands of criminals?

 

Steven Pinkers and Chris Uggen write that, “A narrow focus on stopping mass shootings is less likely to produce beneficial changes than a broader-based effort to reduce homicide and other violence. These rare and terrible crimes are like rare and terrible diseases, and a strategy to address them is best considered within the context of more common and deadlier threats to population health.”

 

They continue, “We are compelled to pay attention to extreme events and we estimate risk with these vivid examples, but as much as we should try to prevent these horrific events from taking place we should not use them as the sole basis for making inferences that determine policy. The outliers are a tragic part of the overall story, but we must pay attention to the rest of the distribution.” Their conclusion is that whatever the cause of violence is, that is where the focus needs to be: Focusing on the tool is still not the answer.

 

Sally Lieber’s suggestion that Palo Alto should “build on its existing ordinances by requiring additional physical security measures for gun businesses” does not address the problem of violence. Asking the city to “make gun and ammunition dealing a conditional use”, or “requiring a zoning permit” is not going to make the city a safer place to live.

 

While I encourage the community to get involved in the public decision process, I would ask that we approach the issue with understanding and not acquiesce to the fear mongering of anti-gun groups. Like so many others who do not understand the cause of violence, Sally Lieber is focusing on the tools of violence. The focus should be on why bad people are doing bad things; not on their tool of choice.

 

When a drunk driver kills people we blame the driver. When a mad bomber kills people we blame the bomber. When a deranged shooter kills people we blame the gun. It doesn’t make sense. Like cars, bombs, and knives, guns are just a tool. Punishing law abiding citizens because of the criminal behavior of a few is not going to make our streets and neighborhoods safer.

 

In fact, if we as community in an enlightened city are so concerned about the safety of our children why don’t we focus on the biggest problem first. Thousands of children lose their lives every day through the violent act of abortion: Where’s the outrage?

Had Enough Yet?

Lock Down is not the Answer

What's the Government Afraid of: Why the Founding Fathers would be shocked. Part 5 of 5

 

A friend of mine once asked me “what I was afraid of” to which I wanted to reply, “Nothing”. Others have also asked this question, but he was suggesting that my interest in guns must be motivated by some great [unfounded] fear. My initial response to this line of questioning was there are plenty of things that scare me. I’ll admit that I’ve continued to think about this and recently came to an interesting realization.

 

What I fear the most is people who are willing to give up their own rights, and take away the rights of others, because someone has convinced them that it is “for the greater good”. Some call these people “sheeple” which admittedly is a bit derogatory, but they fit the profile of sheep that are exceptionally passive, easily controlled, and unwilling to argue with the sheepdog.

 

I’ll admit that I would feel worse about killing a stupid kid who thought breaking and entering was cool than about killing someone who deserved it, but I would feel bad about either for the rest of my life. It’s also important to note that I would never shoot someone who is not a serious threat, because I don’t intend to hunt them even in my own home. I will remain in my safe zone armed and prepared, call 911 to establish a timeline, and await the police. In fact I have no intention to take any action unless they present themselves and try to harm me or anyone with me. If however, another family member is present and threatened somewhere else in the house I will have to leave my safe zone; and that’s where things get tricky.

 

So I hold the following to be evident: When an intruder psychologically prepared to kill innocent people enters my home, or my work place, or my grandchild’s school building, lock down is not going to prevent the loss of life. Relying on 911 as an affective first line of defense is not going to work because by the time help arrives it will be too late. Cowering in the corner of a bed room is not my preferred position of defense because it will not protect my family. In these situations, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. I pray that this never happens!