Facts don’t always match perception

Originally published in the BatesvilleDaily Guard

On Tuesday, Feb. 7, during a round table with county sheriffs from across the U.S., President Trump made the following comment:

“I’d say that in a speech and everybody was surprised because the press doesn’t like to tell it like it is,” Trump claimed. “It wasn’t to their advantage to say that. The murder rate is the highest it’s been in I guess 45-47 years.”

Sounds like the streets are no longer safe and we’d better stay out of the cities.

But, the thing is, it’s not true.

And as a journalist, facts are important to me.

We actually have one of the lowest murder rates in the last half century.

In 2015, the murder rate was 4.9 per 100,000 people.

At this point 50 years ago, in 1957, the murder rate was 4 murders per 100,000 residents. Over the next decade and a half, that rate rose steadily to a high of 10.2 in 1980, when the U.S. was much whiter and had 100 million less people.

Then it began to drop, hitting 7.4 in 1996, 6.1 in 2006 and 4.4 in 2014. It 2015 it went up to 4.9. A significant increase, but not even half of what the rate was in 1980 and still well below 1996.

But that is less than half the murder rate of 1980. The raw number of homicides in America has actually declined from 19,645 in 1996 to 15,696 in 2015, even while the population has risen from 265 million in 1996 to 321 million in 2015.

Murder is just one of the crimes categorized as “violent” by the FBI when it takes crime data. Violent crime includes murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. The peak for violent crimes was 1991, where it was at 758 per 100,000. Now it has declined to 372.6 in 2015, less than half the peak.

Being close to 40, I am old enough to remember the “good old days” of the mid-’80s to mid-’90s when people were actually terrified of going into larger cities because of the potential to get lost in the wrong neighborhood. There was hysteria about wearing certain colors, with people being suspicious of “gangsters.” Our state capital, Little Rock, became particularly infamous at this time, largely due to an HBO documentary called “Gang War: Bangin’ in Little Rock.”

But it wasn’t just the cities that experienced elevated violence during that time. There were also several high profile events involving white nationalists too, one of which happened in Arkansas in 1985 when a member of Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord, a white supremacist, killed an Arkansas police officer, resulting in a standoff in Mountain Home. Another police killer, Gordon Kahl, was killed in neighboring Lawrence County during a shootout in Smithville in 1983. Harrison still has a reputation for this kind of activity, being dubbed “the most racist town in America” in November 2016 by the U.K. newspaper The Daily Mirror.

Even before the 1980s, the U.S. could be a nasty place. Large cities were dominated by crime syndicates operated by mobsters. Blacks in the countryside lived in fear of being lynched. Women everywhere were ignored when it came to their own spouses visiting violence upon them.

Nowadays, people actually walk on the sidewalks of downtown Little Rock, much like America’s other large cities. It’s still one of America’s most dangerous cities statistically speaking, but the perception has changed from one where people think that random strangers will be targeted for violence into one that they see the majority of violence there as being between people who know each other. Blacks can make stops in small rural towns without having to worry about “being out by sundown” as the old saying went.

All changes for the better, which leads us back where we started.

Did Trump make the claim, knowing it wasn’t true? Did he just believe what he said because he wasn’t familiar with the facts? Does he just say whatever strikes him at the moment as true?

Heck, I don’t know, I’m not a mind reader.

The only thing that really matters is that what he said is demonstratively false when one looks at statistics and evidence.

But, why does it matter?

Because facts and evidence is what our leaders are supposed to make their judgements based upon, not beliefs. If we believe that people are dying left and right, we’re going to demand that our leaders act accordingly, which leads to what is essentially taking a sledgehammer to swat a fly. On the flip-side, when we believe something is “not a big deal” we act accordingly to that too, like using spitballs to fight off bombers.

The ripple effects of that means spending too much on something, or too little. Making too few rules or too many. Who is friend and who is foe.

Without facts, we can’t find the best spot to draw the line. If we go by belief, we can essentially draw the line where ever we want.

Follow Joseph on Facebook or Twitter

Tariff on Mexico will turn back the clock

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

Well, it looks like there’s a plan to build “the wall.”

By “the wall” I mean the one proposed by President Trump to run the length of the border with Mexico.

Trump promised to make Mexico pay for it. Mexico, of course, responded by saying “as if!”

That threw a ratchet into the gears of the plan, though I’m not sure who expected the Mexican government to say “OK, we’ll do it!”

Up until a week ago, a lot of people believed the whole deal with the wall was going to be dropped. After all, it would be very expensive, $15-$25 billion and up to $16 million for each mile, and Mexico wasn’t going to pay for it. Most American also don’t favor it, with both Pew and Gallup finding that support from Americans as a whole was below 40 percent.

So, realistically, the wall could’ve been dropped with little repercussion to Trump. It might have actually been a chance for him to gain some ground in public opinion, which has so far shown him to be rather unpopular.

But he persisted and now he’s come forward with a plan. A plan to tax all imports from Mexico by 20 percent. Despite his claims though, Mexico still won’t be paying for the wall.

Instead, American importers will. That, in turn, means American consumers, also known as you and me.

Now, I hear some people saying “Well, we can just stop buying stuff from Mexico.”

And I’ll say, “No, you can’t.”

Mexico is our third-largest trading partner. While you many not see as many “Made in Mexico” labels as you do “Made in China” we do import billions and billions of dollars worth of goods from Mexico that we can’t avoid.

In 2015, the U.S. imported $74 billion in vehicles, $63 billion in electrical machinery, $49 billion in machinery, $21 billion in agricultural products, $14 billion in mineral fuels (especially oil) and $12 billion in optical and medical instruments. That’s only the biggest, there is lots, lots more. You know, what you’d expect from a neighbor who happens to be your third-biggest trading partner. 

So, enjoy your avocados while you can before they double in price.

Realistically, those jobs won’t “come back” (many of them weren’t here in the first place) to the U.S. Instead, they’ll just move to other countries where even a 20-35 percent tariff won’t make the imports more expensive than American goods. Americans will just keep paying more.

Plus, it would actually cost many Americans their jobs. If stores like Walmart and Costco have to pay more on imports, then they will make up the cost by cutting jobs or lowering salaries. The consumers will just wind up paying more, meaning that other parts of the economy will be hurt.

Also, trying to make Mexico fund the wall will likely result in more people trying to cross the border illegally. From 2007 to 2014, the number of undocumented people, not all of them Mexican of course, has fallen by more than a million people. Mexicans are leaving the U.S. for Mexico.

Why? Because wrecking a country’s economy can do that. 

What our president and many of his supporters don’t seem to realize is that immigration of Mexican people has actually reversed over the last few years. 

Why would they go back to Mexico, a place the president has painted as slightly more Mad Max than he has the U.S.?

Well, two reasons: The Great Recession of 2008 and the growth of the economy in Mexico. Thanks to Mexico’s growth, many Mexicans are living at a similar standing as their American counterparts across the border. 

This isn’t to say we don’t have an issue with illegal border crossings. Thousands of people make their way through Mexico from Central America (particularly Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala) every year. Some are seeking opportunity but many are fleeing crime and violence. It’s been an issue we’ve been working with Mexico on in regards to the issue because it means that they have an undocumented immigrant problem there too. This adds up to “Mexico stops working with us, both American and Mexican law enforcement lose cross-border assets and crime goes up.”

If we continue down this road, what will be the result? We’re not only going to have to pay for a wall, but we’re going to also have to expand our border patrol too because if Mexico stops working with us, we will have to pick up the slack. 

At the end of the day, though, and like the now much-circulated meme says “Problem: A $25 billion wall. Solution: $36 ladder.”

So, is it really worth it?

Note: On Thursday Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the 20 percent tariff was just an “option.” — JP

Follow Joseph on Facebook

The punch heard around the world

Originally printed in the Batesville Daily Guard

Richard Spencer: White nationalist, coiner of "alt-right" 

If you didn’t catch it, there was a new president sworn in last week.

It was followed by protests, claims by the president it was the “biggest” attendance for an inauguration ever and the entry of “alternative facts” into our lexicon.

A much-memed but less discussed event happened on the streets of D.C. though, one that could have far-reaching repercussions — the punching of Richard Spencer.

It is an incident that not only highlights the two extremes of those who call themselves “right and left” but might have also been the snowball that kicks off an avalanche.

If you don’t know who Spencer is, then all you need to know is that he’s a white nationalist who coined the term “alt-right” and likes to lead people in Nazi salutes. He’s active on social media and like most people who enjoy tormenting others, he doesn’t ever shut up. He’s the president of the National Policy Institute, a Virginia-based white nationalist “think tank.”

Spencer’s predecessor, Louis R. Andrews, said “There’s no such thing as post-racial. There’s conflict, conflict and continued conflict.”

Black Bloc tactics

Andrews also said he voted for Obama because he wanted to see the Republican Party destroyed, so it could be reborn as a “party representing the interest of white people.”

Spencer has continued the provocatory approach of Andrews. He has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing” and has called for a sort of “white Zionism” to create a “white homeland.”

Anyway, while giving an interview after the inauguration on Friday, a person clad in black with their face hidden ran out of the street and punched him in the face, disappearing as quickly as he appeared.

A lot of people cheered because Spencer is who he is. It has even become a meme of sorts.

Taking joy in Spencer getting punched is a natural reaction. Spencer is, after all, the proponent of an ideology that reflects a dark past and ought to be shoved back into it where it belongs.

But those cheering may not be thinking of the repercussions of the action.

In a way, that punch is the best thing that could have happened to Spencer. Now he can say “we’re under attack!” That single punch may have opened the door for others to attack those who they disagree with on the street, no matter what their political leaning.

Of course, the person who attacked Spencer was an anarchist, a group that sees no legitimacy in a central government (or really any government at all), whether it be Democrat or Republican — and really, they consider both to be enemies considering their behavior during both parties’ conventions in the past.

Where ever there are large demonstrations, anarchists show up, using black bloc tactics to disguise their identities and engage in actions like property damage and now violence. They are extremists who don’t care whether or not they harm the cause the actual demonstrations are supporting. The anarchists only seem to care about fighting some ambiguous enemy via smashing windows and setting things on fire, often throwing rocks and firecrackers at law enforcement. The actions of the anarchists often distract from the message of the peaceful demonstrators, who are pretty much always the majority when it comes to protests.

No matter how much someone points out to the anarchists that they’re harming the cause they’re allegedly supporting, you’ll usually get similar responses such as rioting being a form of expression against exploitation by business or destroying the system. The general reaction when such is pointed out is usually dismissiveness or outright tirades against “useless” nonviolent protesters.

Now it seems that both sides have gotten what they wanted. Spencer’s white nationalists can now claim there’s a war against them and the anarchists can claim they took “direct action.”

I for one hope that the punch of Spencer isn’t a sign of some sort of escalation. But with the current state of American political dialogue, that’s very, very unclear. We aren’t living in some sort of dystopian society, yet. But it seems that we now have movements that want to force society to fit a certain vision. There’s no telling where a single punch could lead to.

Like Joseph on Facebook

Changes – Politics move like a see-saw

Originally published in the Batesville Daily Guard

We are going to see a lot of changes in 2017 — changes that are going to make some people very happy, some very unhappy and others just frustrated with the process in general.

Over the last few decades, our government has become a see-saw of sorts as the two big parties, Democrats and Republicans, move away from the middle and embrace more narrow ideals of what is considered “liberal” and “conservative.” The election of 2016 drove that home with two huge personalities, President-elect Donald Trump and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, essentially becoming the human embodiments of the bases, or at least the most enthusiastic, of their respective parties.

People who live and breathe politics, particularly those who think in terms of “right vs. left” don’t have a problem with this. For them, it’s more a battle of good vs. evil and shaping the government to fit a vision instead of filling the potholes and making sure the trains run on time. It’s sort of like the “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” cliché, except instead of throwing the baby out, the argument is to either give the kid a bath in a frozen lake or a boiling kettle.

That sounds a little extreme, but we seem to be in pretty extreme times, at least politically. It seems we are rapidly approaching a chaotic time when we are going to see things built up in one election thrown out in the next and then the things built during that government are thrown out with the next. That’s not what anyone would call stability. It’s just a mess.

There’s always the talk about the need of people to support a third party, but the minor parties of the U.S. tend to have even more extreme philosophies. Americans constantly poll that they do want a third party, but none that exist really seem to offer what they want.

What do they want?

Probably some sort of calming influence, a balance of sorts.

In most democracies, there are two major parties like ours, usually center-left and center-right and a lot of fringe parties. But there are also often third parties who may not be the same size as the big two, but not as small as the fringe, that take more moderate positions and make themselves necessary for the larger parties to form a governing coalition. In a way, acting as sort of a middle weight that slides slightly to balance the board and keep it from becoming a seesaw of back and forth policies — stability you could say.

Right now, it would seem an opportune time for such a thing. The 2016 election saw the lowest voter turnout since 1996. In 1996, only 53.5 percent of voter-age Americans turned out for the election. In 2016 that number was 55 percent, much lower than 64 percent of voter-age Americans who cast ballots in 2008. Those numbers say people are either indifferent or just turned off by the current offerings.

And really, who can blame them? With people on both sides of the political aisle more interested in making pronouncements or condemnations, those who want to be outside of partisan fights are either ignored or attacked. That does not get them interested in turning out for the polls.

Of course, a viable third-party probably won’t happen anytime soon. In the U.S., third parties have a habit of not going for modest goals — like running for local, state and congressional offices — but instead seem to center around capturing the presidency.

Sure, capturing the presidency is probably the ultimate goal of any political party, but sometimes four or five people in Congress can make as big of a difference when it comes to things that affect people’s lives as well as balancing partisan ideology.

It may only be a pipe dream, but I do hope to one day see a government where there are some adults in the room.

Follow Joseph on Facebook.