Shameful failure to investigate by Lexington police
I am saddened but not surprised to learn that Lexington police failed to interview witnesses to the beating and abduction of Alex Johnson.
My son was involved in a hit- and-run car accident. It took the police two hours to respond to his call and, even though he got the license number of the car that hit him, it took the police more than two weeks and many persistent phone calls from me to finally even halfheartedly investigate. Ultimately, since the perpetrator of the hit-and-run was given wide latitude and plenty of time to cover the crime, we were told by the police that "there is nothing we can do."
It was obvious they didn't care and weren't even going to bother to investigate except for my persistence. Thankfully, all we got was a banged up car. In the case of Alex Johnson, the result ended in his tragic murder.
My heart goes out to his family and friends.
To the Lexington police department, I say: Shame on you. Do your jobs.
To Mayor Jim Gray I say: Take some of that money set aside to renovate Rupp Arena and use it to beef up and educate our police force so that the citizens of Fayette County aren't left vulnerable and unprotected.
Try a little empathy
In reading Happiness by Matthieu Ricard, I came across this: "An ethic built exclusively on intellectual ideas and that is not buttressed at every point by virtue, genuine wisdom, and compassion has no solid foundation."
This reminded me of an observation I had made long ago about many conservative principles. They appear to largely not be based on compassion or empathy but on intellectual ideas.
For example, I have never heard a conservative argue against gay marriage from a standpoint of concern for the welfare of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Never. They argue from intellectual ideas like the sanctity of marriage or God's will but never acknowledging the very human need many GLBT people share with the rest of us for a committed loving marriage relationship.
Likewise, I have never heard a conservative discuss immigration from a standpoint of loving concern for immigrant families. Never. They argue about border sanctity and U.S. jobs lost but express no concern for immigrants who are making great sacrifices to improve the lot of their families.
I realize these are complex issues. It just seems to me that in discussions about laws concerning the GLBT and immigrant communities both sides ought to acknowledge that those most affected are not abstract principles but real human beings.
Perhaps liberals and conservatives can agree on one principle: It's easier to feel love and compassion for those most like us. For those who are different, we have to maybe try a little harder.
There's no gay gene
The political left would have us believe that same-sex behavior is inherent in human genetics. Not so. A same-sex gene mutation may arise on occasion in humans, but it cannot be reproduced in the human gene pool because a trait can only be reproduced in the gene pool through procreation. No same-sex union can produce offspring. Same sex activity is a biological dead-end.
It is more accurate to view same-sex behavior as a social distortion of the human drive for sexual satisfaction. This explains why homosexual behavior is more common in some societies than in others, and also explains why homosexual practices occur with increasing or decreasing frequency within the same gene pool as the society and social norms of the people in the gene pool change over time.
This perspective also helps explain why same-sex activists are so intent on achieving not just acceptance but exaltation in today's society. Lesbians and gays know that they cannot reproduce themselves biologically — they can only reproduce themselves socially by making the rest of us think and act more like them.
Same sex behavior is behavior, not biology. The issue is whether our society is going to enable and encourage same-sex behavior or is going to discourage same sex behavior.
This nation has historically aspired to heterosexual monogamous relationships. If we choose to endorse same-sex behavior as normal, equally valid behavior, we are making a conscious choice for the gay lifestyle — not accommodating a biological reality.
The election later this year is an off-year election.
As such voter apathy will be prevalent, and it is possible that 26 percent of registered Kentucky voters will elect a grandstanding ideologue to represent Kentucky in front of the world like we did in 2010. This is the way our system works.
Be that as it may, I have noticed a particular campaign tactic practiced almost exclusively by the Tea Party that reveals the fallacy of their mindset.
Tea Partiers seem to believe freedom is absolutely definitive instead of ambiguously nebulous. And when they latch onto a simple-minded interpretation of some point in the United States Constitution it becomes their way or the highway.
But speaking of highways, we are talking about public property that belongs to everyone. This means that campaign signs posted on public right-of-way are not freedom of speech — they are litter. Litter is not legal in Kentucky.
Everyone must accept the outcome of legally sanctioned elections, including the Tea Party. But we should not have to endure election propaganda littered in our public space.
Protect the states
The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, came into effect in 1791 through adoption by Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
It was added to the Constitution to protect the rights of states and individuals by limiting the authority of the federal government.
Over time, equal protection of the laws, a principle affirmed by the 14th Amendment in response to slavery, came to be used more elastically as justification for various federal interventions in what had been prerogatives of the states. In 1897, the courts began to practice incorporation — applying restrictions on the federal government contained in the Bill of Rights to the states.
Today, federal judges often support and defend what other recent judges have ruled rather than uphold that meaning which the Constitution, considered in light of its framers' intentions, can straightforwardly be seen to bear. Judges' own biases, often reflecting opinions popular within the larger academic culture, come into play, and opinions frequently contain glib citations of the vague, stretchable concept of equal protection while ignoring the original purpose of the Bill of Rights. Therefore, states lose power while the federal government grows.
This lamentable development threatens to hold hostage the convictions of ordinary Americans, expressed through leaders at the state and local levels, to a set of ideals and goals which a distant national elite would impose.