The Confederate Flag Conundrum

Recently a young man who'd previously posed with a confederate flag carried out a vicious shooting attack on African American members of a Charleston area church. As a result, many politicians, companies, and citizens decided to ban the confederate flag; citing the flag as a divisive symbol of racism.

I carry no love for the notion of the confederacy, or its flag. In fact, I was surprised to learn it is/was flown at many state capitals/monuments across the south. I'm also vigorously opposed to the notion of discrimination or racism, on any level. Hate is a terrible thing. However, the flag controversy is a very slippery slope. 

1) The first amendment makes it unconstitutional for any state actor to ban or inhibit speech based solely on its content. Hate speech is even protected, for the most part. While the first amendment clearly doesn't apply, due to the outcry being from individuals, I think the values of free speech should still apply. 

Its dangerous social precedent to ban speech/symbol, based solely on content. Maybe this time, you're on the popular side of the issue. But what happens when you're not? What happens when society wants to silence you, based on what you're saying? Because this starts a slippery slope. Whats next to be banned because people don't approve? Our society thrives on the concept of free flowing ideas. Not only the ones we agree with. 

2) History is history. The good, the bad, and the ugly. The flag was a symbol of seceding states (which, frankly, I'm surprised doesn't offend people) and used by racists only in the past few decades. Even though its often seen as a symbol of hate, its still history.

Our nation's history definitely has its warts. From the awful acts of slavery, to the trail of tears, to the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. We cant afford to forget history just because its bad. In fact, one might argue this type of history is MOST important. 

George Santayana correctly stated the famous line: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Yes its awful. Yes people get emotional, upset, angry, etc; and I understand why. But by learning about the ugly parts of history, we can be better situated to not repeat these mistakes. This is even more true for the monuments, and historic sites; which politicians are now clamoring to ban.

If you're fighting for this flag because it represents your racist view fueled by hate, then you're the problem. Even so, I think its a dangerous precedent and a very slippery slope when we begin censoring people and editing history; just because we don't like what they say.

Eastern Kentucky: Modern Day Parable.

Over the past week, life in Kentucky, and most specifically Eastern Kentucky, has been especially difficult. Massive snow, impassable roads (some still impassable, even a week later), water outages, power outages, grocery shortages, floods, ice, etc. It made me recall an article published in June of 2014 by the New York Times which labeled Clay County, Kentucky as the toughest place to live in the US (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/upshot/where-are-the-hardest-places-to-live-in-the-us.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0). I still disagree with the article, but it feels awfully accurate at the given moment.

Of course the weather is beyond anyone's control. Yet the secondary effects (ie the water, power, and roads) are within a reasonable amount of control by federal/state/local leaders. The amount of water outages that go on across the region are inexcusable. The 10 years I had my practice in Hazard, seemingly one in every ten days the city was under a "boil water advisory". Not long ago residents of Hindman, Kentucky went an extended period of time without water. Even worse? Parts of Eastern Kentucky still await public water/sewage. It's 2015. This just is not acceptable. 

What can be done? Who can help? Enter: SOAR (Shaping Our Appalachian Region). SOAR is a political creation that burst onto the scene just following the economic collapse of the coal industry in Eastern Kentucky; and was a welcome sign of hope. For reasons described above, one would naturally assume infrastructure would be the primary, and immediate goal. Wrong. Their first announced target was high speed internet, in an attempt to draw companies to the area.

This prompted memories of Sunday school class, and the parable of the wise and foolish builders. Essentially one built on a foundation of rock, so his structure was sturdy. The other built on a foundation of sand, so everything he built thereafter was weak. The gist: one must build on a solid foundation. While some readers may reject biblical concepts, surely this lesson is one we can all accept as logically sound.

Another application is Occam's Razor. A shortened explanation of Occam's Razor states "the simplest answer is often correct". It was conceived sometime between 1287-1347 AD. Both the parable and the Razor are as true today as they were 1000+ years ago.

Then why address internet before infrastructure? So residents of Eastern Kentucky can read online about places with dependable water and electricity?  How can one access the internet during the all too frequent power outages? Sure, companies may be interested in high speed internet. But companies won't relocate to an area lacking dependable water, sewage, and electricity. Furthermore, these infrastructure issues MUST be dealt with soon, especially some of the aging water lines, before they completely collapse. So why not now while grant money flows in? It defies logic.

No need to ignore concepts proven true over the course of 1000+ years. Take the simple answer - re-build the foundation of the region. It isn't as catchy as high speed internet; but its a much bigger need. Otherwise, everything else you build on the current shaky foundation will just come tumbling down.